Wednesday, July 02, 2008

Economic Policy is Foreign Policy

Further to yesterday's post, some of the other topics brought up in the post-panel discussion ...

Is there a national security incentive to restore America's manufacturing base, and if so, what role for the government to play?

Washington may not want or welcome sovereign wealth funds, but Wall Street will want to have a piece of the action, especially to manage and direct investment.

If the United States is not going to be supplying manufactures to the energy producers--in other words we aren't getting orders for development and infrastructure projects, are we moving to a system where the U.S. is essentially the paid security contractor? That the incentive to maintain the dollar and support our current account deficit is so that the U.S. will deploy its security assets in the service of the security of other states? In this view, it is not the U.S. as "Globocop" but as the world's condottiere?

The preferred choice of the US foreign policy elite is to use our bloated armed forces to secure control of the world's energy supplies. thus, we could supply ourselves and our allies a prices we like, while having the ability to cut off supplies to those we don't like.

Except that hasn't worked out as planned in Iraq.

Hence, the concerns of the US foreign policy elite expressed in your previous post.
Actually, in a geopolitical sense, we have been providing security for decades in return for help with our various deficits and for keeping the price of oil in dollars. But how much longer we can or will do this is less clear.
Leverett's comment at your forum was hilarious--if Iraq was a war for oil, then it was a pretty inept one ...
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?