This is brilliant. You’ve encapsulated where the world is going very effectively. But I was taken aback by your US republicans being unsupportive of Ukraine comment at the end. I’d really like you to explore that more. It’s the US involvement in Ukraine that I think is the problem. It’s the US empire not getting it the way Britain did. We need to get out of unnecessary wars that don’t really impact us. Russia is powerful but Germany alone has 4x the economy and the EU has 4x the population. Putin can barely take the Donbas much less Poland. The US wasting time and effort in a war that basically has zero to do with US interests is the problem in my mind. All we’ve done is lost a potential ally against Xi in Russia and diverted our resources unnecessarily. Have you digested any of John Meirsheimer’s ideas on this?
"Zero to do with US interests"? Are you being facetious? Russia, China, and Iran are directly opposed to the US-led global order. India, Venezuela, and other countries are also smelling blood in the water due to mismanagement and hubris on the part of US leadership.
Look into the concepts of "seigniorage" and "Cantillon effect" and you'll understand geopolitics a lot better.
Russell, you are one of the shrewdest thinkers in capital markets, with just a one misjudgment - you think the will of the plebs decides the policy, which is especially not the case in the US. it is the so called "deep state" that pulls the shots and PT is a long time important memeber of it - so you can't really say if he was promoting his own ideas (which benefit his companies by the way) or just emitting info he got from his buddies (in not to obvious way) or both...
Politicians follow voters…. Antiglobalisation ideas have been around for ages - but they were vote losers for ages… but now they are vote winners, and the political world is changing accordingly. In the UK, Tories will likely merge with Reform, and look like US Republican Party. France has already bifurcated in to extreme left and extreme right. At some point voters will get disillusioned, and float back to the middle
globalisaton was enforced as long as it worked the best for the US. when China started emerging as a serious competitor in many areas, we are suddenly getting protectionism etc fast
Not sure that Theil has the answers he was a very poor hedge fund manager. Peak Oil was his big thesis which was totally wrong. He is a great VC investor however. History reveals constants episodes of War . The West has lived in peace for some 80 hears exporting war abroad but you are correct to recognize that the drums are beating louder.
Why is it evil? I don’t think you’d say that if the Chinese had something as good. Then your safe seat in whatever US protected country you live in would be in jeopardy.
What happened to the right-leaning idea of small government? A failure to collect adequate taxes to cover government spending can also be resolved by reducing the public sector’s role in the economy. Milton would be aghast of where we’ve ended up.
Well both state that it’s the USA that is driving the world to war. However back in 2007 USA could win it. Now it is very much in doubt. Which leaves some room for optimism.
noone - can really win here.. The more important question is that what conflict will do to US policies and asset markets. My best guess is more of the same we have seen last 8 years
There's 2 less trodden areas of the right wing to bookend your research - the anti-war/anti-government side (rothbard/hoppe) and the managerialism contingent. For the latter, lookup James Burnham's "The Machiavellians". The works there influence recent books like "Populist Delusion" and "The Total State". Elsewise, very good piece and thought provoking!
It was a mistake at the time because Europe was the center of the world and had two powers in Germany and the Soviets that could compete globally. None of that is true any more. Asia is where it’s at and where the US needs to focus. We can’t maintain protection for everyone and extending protection to peripheral parts of Europe is certainly not a good strategy. We could have cut a deal to let Russia keep Crimea and guaranteed no NATO and we threw it out. For what? To get a bunch of Ukrainians killed and then stop paying attention when something more important comes up. The US needs to stop thinking of itself as the only world power and focus our efforts where there are real consequences for the US.
interesting conclusions here. I agree that the risk of a global conflict have increased dramatically, and we are likely just seeing the initial stages via Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Gaza, and the ongoing mischief in the South China Sea. while I also agree that the current US setup is not prepared for war, history has shown that no nation is more capable of quickly becoming ready and able to achieve victory
Yes - I think the point of Straussian moment - and looking at history, is that democratic states tend to overcome totalitarian regimes as they people have the will to fight. This was certainly the lesson of the French revolution, and has been borne out in many wars since
I take a more realist view. The US is really most concerned about China and countering it. With the Middle East we just want a balance of power between Iran and Saudi. Venezuela is a tragedy but doesn’t matter much. India is a key ally against China so the conflict with Russia is a net negative for that relationship. We can’t fight everywhere and in fact need to conserve most of our power to deter China.
Good perspective from a Singaporean diplomat. As a small state stuck in between I often find they have a clearer view of the world. His take is competition is inevitable but he doesn’t think there’ll be direct war: https://youtu.be/g_T5VcSVZys?si=apS_9j_hTrv44PHr
This is brilliant. You’ve encapsulated where the world is going very effectively. But I was taken aback by your US republicans being unsupportive of Ukraine comment at the end. I’d really like you to explore that more. It’s the US involvement in Ukraine that I think is the problem. It’s the US empire not getting it the way Britain did. We need to get out of unnecessary wars that don’t really impact us. Russia is powerful but Germany alone has 4x the economy and the EU has 4x the population. Putin can barely take the Donbas much less Poland. The US wasting time and effort in a war that basically has zero to do with US interests is the problem in my mind. All we’ve done is lost a potential ally against Xi in Russia and diverted our resources unnecessarily. Have you digested any of John Meirsheimer’s ideas on this?
You understand geopolitics, dude!
"Zero to do with US interests"? Are you being facetious? Russia, China, and Iran are directly opposed to the US-led global order. India, Venezuela, and other countries are also smelling blood in the water due to mismanagement and hubris on the part of US leadership.
Look into the concepts of "seigniorage" and "Cantillon effect" and you'll understand geopolitics a lot better.
Russell, you are one of the shrewdest thinkers in capital markets, with just a one misjudgment - you think the will of the plebs decides the policy, which is especially not the case in the US. it is the so called "deep state" that pulls the shots and PT is a long time important memeber of it - so you can't really say if he was promoting his own ideas (which benefit his companies by the way) or just emitting info he got from his buddies (in not to obvious way) or both...
Politicians follow voters…. Antiglobalisation ideas have been around for ages - but they were vote losers for ages… but now they are vote winners, and the political world is changing accordingly. In the UK, Tories will likely merge with Reform, and look like US Republican Party. France has already bifurcated in to extreme left and extreme right. At some point voters will get disillusioned, and float back to the middle
globalisaton was enforced as long as it worked the best for the US. when China started emerging as a serious competitor in many areas, we are suddenly getting protectionism etc fast
This was exactly happened in the British Empire when Japan emerged as a competitor
That has to be an immediate jump, not a float.
Not sure that Theil has the answers he was a very poor hedge fund manager. Peak Oil was his big thesis which was totally wrong. He is a great VC investor however. History reveals constants episodes of War . The West has lived in peace for some 80 hears exporting war abroad but you are correct to recognize that the drums are beating louder.
Does he not have start up Palantir? Is this not a winner from War?
13F showed 3.4B stake, but subsequent filings show he’s cut it by ~2/3 over Q2
Not to mention Anduril. I think probably a bigger winner.
Palantir is evil.
Why is it evil? I don’t think you’d say that if the Chinese had something as good. Then your safe seat in whatever US protected country you live in would be in jeopardy.
Simple. Thiel is completely insane.
Insanity and genius are close relations
You can‘t convince me with cheap arguments. When you mix perversion into genius / insanity it is evil with no shred of one doubt.
What happened to the right-leaning idea of small government? A failure to collect adequate taxes to cover government spending can also be resolved by reducing the public sector’s role in the economy. Milton would be aghast of where we’ve ended up.
War - and the role of the state in the economy tend to go hand in hand
Milton is a liar.
I think politicians see what will get votes - and then find an economist or economic theory to back it up… see Modern Monetary Theory for example
Magic Money Tree!
Well both state that it’s the USA that is driving the world to war. However back in 2007 USA could win it. Now it is very much in doubt. Which leaves some room for optimism.
noone - can really win here.. The more important question is that what conflict will do to US policies and asset markets. My best guess is more of the same we have seen last 8 years
Well last 8 years we had a boom :)
I suspect boom continues until we get a spike in oil and commodity prices…. But if China is struggling, how likely is that?
had...
There's 2 less trodden areas of the right wing to bookend your research - the anti-war/anti-government side (rothbard/hoppe) and the managerialism contingent. For the latter, lookup James Burnham's "The Machiavellians". The works there influence recent books like "Populist Delusion" and "The Total State". Elsewise, very good piece and thought provoking!
Read the Straussian message in this from the key Senator he backed: https://www.vance.senate.gov/press-releases/senator-vance-the-math-on-ukraine-doesnt-add-up/
Well the US was happy to sit on the sidelines in World War II until Pearl Harbour happened….
It was a mistake at the time because Europe was the center of the world and had two powers in Germany and the Soviets that could compete globally. None of that is true any more. Asia is where it’s at and where the US needs to focus. We can’t maintain protection for everyone and extending protection to peripheral parts of Europe is certainly not a good strategy. We could have cut a deal to let Russia keep Crimea and guaranteed no NATO and we threw it out. For what? To get a bunch of Ukrainians killed and then stop paying attention when something more important comes up. The US needs to stop thinking of itself as the only world power and focus our efforts where there are real consequences for the US.
It is all less complicated.
One negotiation table:
. Xi
. Putin
. Biden
. Un
. Modi
. Prince Charles
interesting conclusions here. I agree that the risk of a global conflict have increased dramatically, and we are likely just seeing the initial stages via Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Gaza, and the ongoing mischief in the South China Sea. while I also agree that the current US setup is not prepared for war, history has shown that no nation is more capable of quickly becoming ready and able to achieve victory
Yes - I think the point of Straussian moment - and looking at history, is that democratic states tend to overcome totalitarian regimes as they people have the will to fight. This was certainly the lesson of the French revolution, and has been borne out in many wars since
Nothing to overcome. Just two different solutions to opposing cultures.
It is all less complicated. One negotiation table:
Xi, Un, Biden, Putin
😱
Hell yeah!
Victory over what? Seriously.
those nations who seek to destroy the US
Nah, nope. Double nope. Abuse the petrodollar long enough to wage war and some large names cross every single boundary.
All is that is certain is a return to a globalisation policy is very unlikely…. Hence inflation is very likely….
Inflation kills the Fed. Neo–liberalism is history.
I take a more realist view. The US is really most concerned about China and countering it. With the Middle East we just want a balance of power between Iran and Saudi. Venezuela is a tragedy but doesn’t matter much. India is a key ally against China so the conflict with Russia is a net negative for that relationship. We can’t fight everywhere and in fact need to conserve most of our power to deter China.
amazing to see how as the US pulls back, conflict is breaking out everywhere. I guess you never miss something until its gone...
Good perspective from a Singaporean diplomat. As a small state stuck in between I often find they have a clearer view of the world. His take is competition is inevitable but he doesn’t think there’ll be direct war: https://youtu.be/g_T5VcSVZys?si=apS_9j_hTrv44PHr
It’s too risky for the Chinese.
did you purpposely misspell his name to make a point?
Whoops.... spell check said it was wrong... will correct
I thought maybe it was a Straussian way of hiding your meaning in plain sight and that I just didn't quite get it
I wish I was that clever….