5 ms·

Larry Summers Warns of US Losing Influence as Other Powers Band Together

18 points by jacooper 4y ago

GravitasFailure 4y ago
https://archive.is/HxmzB https://archive.is/HxmzB
decremental 4y ago
> “We are on the right side of history — with our commitment to democracy, with our resistance to aggression in Russia,” he said. “But it’s looking a bit lonely on the right side of history, as those who seem much less on the right side of history are increasingly banding together in a whole range of structures.” The key bit that seems to be missed here is that fewer and fewer people see us as being on the right side of history and it's not "our commitment to democracy" driving them away. It's painful to read someone say something so obtuse.
- KRAKRISMOTT 4y ago
  It doesn't matter. No other power is willing to lend out their military power to project influence overseas. Until that changes, the bread and circus of the media are just that, navelgazing. Popular opinion only goes so far when it comes to foreign policy and the Great Game cares only for the side that wins, not for having the right or wrong ideology. Take a random middle east/African country, if a civil war breaks out tomorrow, how many countries do you think are willing to singlehandedly commit troops to turn the tide for their favored party? Aside from the French and the Russians, most other countries are happy to send only supplies, not actual boots on the ground. No amount of free infrastructure and bribes can replace actual hard power. The Brics countries are nominally non-aligned and none of the global south is willing to stick their necks out for each other when things get hot. Alternate supply routes and logistics/currencies are only useful if they can be defended. There is no replacement for the US military as an instrument of global force projection. The allegedly great militaries of China and India spend all their time at home and the only border "conflicts" they participate in involves literal sticks and stones in the Himalayans. Those two make up more than a quarter of the human civilization and their military activity in terms of foreign adventure is terribly underwhelming. You are not a superpower if your hard power is only on paper.
  - tough 4y ago
    Civil war breaking in sudan as we speak
  - nubinetwork 4y ago
    > Take a random middle east/African country, if a civil war breaks out tomorrow, how many countries do you think are willing to singlehandedly commit troops to turn the tide for their favored party? I believe Canada just sent some people to Haiti.
  - jacooper 4y ago
    > There is no replacement for the US military as an instrument of global force projection. Not by choice but by force. The U.S. will absolutely not allow any foreign military bases or an other country to protect its own supply routes.
- adhesive_wombat 4y ago
  Summers the guy who permitted 2008 to happen though deregulation of and then deliberately turning a blind eye to the teetering pile of debt-amplifying derivatives despite being repeatedly warned. Then he parlayed being pivotal to causing a financial crisis into Harvard presidency and millions in hedge fund consultancy. If he wasn't so obtuse, he'd have face up to the moral consequences rather then shoving fistfuls of cash into his pockets. I couldn't imagine showing my face in public after that, let alone pontificate about how terrible it is that other countries might not be all-in on American financial hegemony.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  > it's not "our commitment to democracy" driving them away Some of it is. If the US didn't support democracy in HK and Taiwan, then the sentiment inside China would be less anti-US and more pro-US.
- hakfoo 4y ago
  The problem is that "the commitment to democracy" has long had huge disclaimers and asterisks next to it. If your democracy starts to get a bit frisky about nationalizing assets, suddenly it's going to become an "illegitimate regime" backed by "sham elections". The US isn't a reliable supporter of anything but direct US interests, particularly in regards to private property. This means that it will always have a hard time having solid long-term relationships with peers of equal power, or maintaining respectful "we'll do X, you do Y" disagreements. We've gotten along with Europe and the English-speaking world because none of them really pose a significant challenge to the dance America calls. But we could barely make it through the length of WWII before deciding we couldn't coexist with the USSR.
junofan 4y ago
> “what we get from China is an airport. What we get from the United States is a lecture.” Uncompetitive. Current admin needs to change course.
- peteradio 4y ago
  Doesn't China gouge pretty deeply on a lot of these investments ultimately taking ownership? Does America want to compete here?
ilaksh 4y ago
What would be the consequences if the US loses influence? Is there a mitigation plan? Is it WWIII? A plan for reducing reliance on imports? Aren't all these countries afraid they might lose access to GPT-4? (kidding. mostly).
BMc2020 4y ago
China is astoundingly good at making enemies out of its neighbors. I wouldn't worry about it.
- jacooper 4y ago
  Its not only China
southernplaces7 4y ago
I really doubt this. The central, southern and western European powers absolutely depend on the U.S. for fundamental aspects of their defense against potential threats, and for many other types of economic and even social support. They won't get that from anyone else any time soon, and neither from each other without some major political changes down the road. As for many Asian countries, faced with handling an often hostile China on their own and supporting U.S. policy as tacit allies, the choice is obvious and they definitely won't be jumping off the bandwagon. This definitely applies to South Korea and Japan, but it also applies to many other regional states that either hate or mistrust the Chinese. Among these, The Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam. Even India, a major power on its own, is leery of its neighbor and much more likely to side with the west. As for much of Africa and parts of the Middle East, as another comment here said very well, they know where international force projection and boots on the ground can come from to support or hinder their own internal policies, and this makes them very leery of suddenly switching sides to China (Russia even less so, barely worth considering with very few exceptions). Overall, the western system of international influence is still firmly in place and spearheaded by the U.S.. This comes with many flaws, no doubt, bit if I had to choose between a world with U.S.dominance and the same power level being held by any other of the really major powers, particularly China, the choice is obvious.
- soganess 4y ago
  Honest question, how long would it take for an EU to militarize to the point where it would be a serious threat to everyone save say the US and China? A decade? I've heard people say US is the world police / places depend on the US for defense, but that doesn't have to be a forever truth, right? Especially with the situation in Ukraine, it seems like someone must be considering / forecasting this. The US isn't attaching Europe any time soon, the same holds for China. All the EU really needs is a strong enough force to handle all other players, and with that they are no longer dependent on the US. I get that costs a fair amount of money and the US is providing its services for "free". However, if the EU was motivated enough, this doesn't seem outlandish. I guess what I'm saying is that the EU doesn't seem dependent on the US, it just doesn't want to spend the money and time. With the right motivation, they might change their minds. This is different than the situation in, for example, Armenia. They could not muster a military force strong enough if they tried, so they dependent on Russia.

18 points by jacooper 4y ago

https://archive.is/HxmzB https://archive.is/HxmzB

> “We are on the right side of history — with our commitment to democracy, with our resistance to aggression in Russia,” he said. “But it’s looking a bit lonely on the right side of history, as those who seem much less on the right side of history are increasingly banding together in a whole range of structures.” The key bit that seems to be missed here is that fewer and fewer people see us as being on the right side of history and it's not "our commitment to democracy" driving them away. It's painful to read someone say something so obtuse.

KRAKRISMOTT 4y ago
It doesn't matter. No other power is willing to lend out their military power to project influence overseas. Until that changes, the bread and circus of the media are just that, navelgazing. Popular opinion only goes so far when it comes to foreign policy and the Great Game cares only for the side that wins, not for having the right or wrong ideology. Take a random middle east/African country, if a civil war breaks out tomorrow, how many countries do you think are willing to singlehandedly commit troops to turn the tide for their favored party? Aside from the French and the Russians, most other countries are happy to send only supplies, not actual boots on the ground. No amount of free infrastructure and bribes can replace actual hard power. The Brics countries are nominally non-aligned and none of the global south is willing to stick their necks out for each other when things get hot. Alternate supply routes and logistics/currencies are only useful if they can be defended. There is no replacement for the US military as an instrument of global force projection. The allegedly great militaries of China and India spend all their time at home and the only border "conflicts" they participate in involves literal sticks and stones in the Himalayans. Those two make up more than a quarter of the human civilization and their military activity in terms of foreign adventure is terribly underwhelming. You are not a superpower if your hard power is only on paper.
- tough 4y ago
  Civil war breaking in sudan as we speak
- nubinetwork 4y ago
  > Take a random middle east/African country, if a civil war breaks out tomorrow, how many countries do you think are willing to singlehandedly commit troops to turn the tide for their favored party? I believe Canada just sent some people to Haiti.
- jacooper 4y ago
  > There is no replacement for the US military as an instrument of global force projection. Not by choice but by force. The U.S. will absolutely not allow any foreign military bases or an other country to protect its own supply routes.
adhesive_wombat 4y ago
Summers the guy who permitted 2008 to happen though deregulation of and then deliberately turning a blind eye to the teetering pile of debt-amplifying derivatives despite being repeatedly warned. Then he parlayed being pivotal to causing a financial crisis into Harvard presidency and millions in hedge fund consultancy. If he wasn't so obtuse, he'd have face up to the moral consequences rather then shoving fistfuls of cash into his pockets. I couldn't imagine showing my face in public after that, let alone pontificate about how terrible it is that other countries might not be all-in on American financial hegemony.
hackerlight 4y ago
> it's not "our commitment to democracy" driving them away Some of it is. If the US didn't support democracy in HK and Taiwan, then the sentiment inside China would be less anti-US and more pro-US.
hakfoo 4y ago
The problem is that "the commitment to democracy" has long had huge disclaimers and asterisks next to it. If your democracy starts to get a bit frisky about nationalizing assets, suddenly it's going to become an "illegitimate regime" backed by "sham elections". The US isn't a reliable supporter of anything but direct US interests, particularly in regards to private property. This means that it will always have a hard time having solid long-term relationships with peers of equal power, or maintaining respectful "we'll do X, you do Y" disagreements. We've gotten along with Europe and the English-speaking world because none of them really pose a significant challenge to the dance America calls. But we could barely make it through the length of WWII before deciding we couldn't coexist with the USSR.

junofan 4y ago

> “what we get from China is an airport. What we get from the United States is a lecture.” Uncompetitive. Current admin needs to change course.

peteradio 4y ago
Doesn't China gouge pretty deeply on a lot of these investments ultimately taking ownership? Does America want to compete here?

ilaksh 4y ago

What would be the consequences if the US loses influence? Is there a mitigation plan? Is it WWIII? A plan for reducing reliance on imports? Aren't all these countries afraid they might lose access to GPT-4? (kidding. mostly).

BMc2020 4y ago

China is astoundingly good at making enemies out of its neighbors. I wouldn't worry about it.

jacooper 4y ago
Its not only China

southernplaces7 4y ago

I really doubt this. The central, southern and western European powers absolutely depend on the U.S. for fundamental aspects of their defense against potential threats, and for many other types of economic and even social support. They won't get that from anyone else any time soon, and neither from each other without some major political changes down the road. As for many Asian countries, faced with handling an often hostile China on their own and supporting U.S. policy as tacit allies, the choice is obvious and they definitely won't be jumping off the bandwagon. This definitely applies to South Korea and Japan, but it also applies to many other regional states that either hate or mistrust the Chinese. Among these, The Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam. Even India, a major power on its own, is leery of its neighbor and much more likely to side with the west. As for much of Africa and parts of the Middle East, as another comment here said very well, they know where international force projection and boots on the ground can come from to support or hinder their own internal policies, and this makes them very leery of suddenly switching sides to China (Russia even less so, barely worth considering with very few exceptions). Overall, the western system of international influence is still firmly in place and spearheaded by the U.S.. This comes with many flaws, no doubt, bit if I had to choose between a world with U.S.dominance and the same power level being held by any other of the really major powers, particularly China, the choice is obvious.

soganess 4y ago
Honest question, how long would it take for an EU to militarize to the point where it would be a serious threat to everyone save say the US and China? A decade? I've heard people say US is the world police / places depend on the US for defense, but that doesn't have to be a forever truth, right? Especially with the situation in Ukraine, it seems like someone must be considering / forecasting this. The US isn't attaching Europe any time soon, the same holds for China. All the EU really needs is a strong enough force to handle all other players, and with that they are no longer dependent on the US. I get that costs a fair amount of money and the US is providing its services for "free". However, if the EU was motivated enough, this doesn't seem outlandish. I guess what I'm saying is that the EU doesn't seem dependent on the US, it just doesn't want to spend the money and time. With the right motivation, they might change their minds. This is different than the situation in, for example, Armenia. They could not muster a military force strong enough if they tried, so they dependent on Russia.