POPULARITY
開盤前30分鐘，08:30 - 09:00 讓我們一起解讀財經時事 。 參加財經皓角總經訂閱： 新友會員 https://jackalopelin.com 老友會員 https://yutinghao.finance 我的粉絲專頁 https://reurl.cc/n563rd 網站參加會員手冊 https://reurl.cc/rvvqAr 如有疑問，歡迎來信 jackieyutw@gmail.com """"" ♥️ 打賞網址 ：https://p.ecpay.com.tw/B83478D """"" (不提供退款服務) 書名：商業爭霸 作者： 班．瓦格爾, 史蒂芬．布魯克斯 原文作者： Ben A. Vagle , Stephen G. Brooks 譯者： 簡瑋君 出版社：今周刊 出版日期：2025/08/28 https://reurl.cc/nYp742 《早晨財經速解讀》是游庭皓的個人知識節目，針對財經時事做最新解讀，開播於2019年7月15日，每日開盤前半小時準時直播。議題從總體經濟、產業動態到投資哲學，信息量飽滿，為你顛覆直覺，清理投資誤區，用更寬廣的角度帶你一窺投資的奧秘。 免責聲明：《游庭皓的財經皓角》頻道為學習型頻道，僅用於教育與娛樂目的，無任何證券之買賣建議。任何形式的投資皆涉及風險，投資者需進行自己的研究，持盈保泰。
Command of Commerce: America's Enduring Economic Power Advantage over China (Oxford UP, 2025) provides a systematic reevaluation of the balance of economic power between the U.S. and China. The conventional wisdom is that China's economic power is very close to America's and that Washington cannot undertake a broad economic cutoff of China without hurting itself as much or more. This book demonstrates the conventional wisdom is wrong on both fronts. In peacetime, America's lead in economic power over China is more dramatic than commonly appreciated because the vast majority of the firms that drive global commerce, particularly in high-technology sectors, are based in the U.S. and its allies. China's economic capacity has also been overestimated because Beijing manipulates its economic data and because comparing China's uniquely structured economy with other leading economies is challenging. These facts are necessary to understand why Washington has been able to target and undermine individual Chinese companies and even entire sectors in recent years while facing so little retaliation from Beijing. America's advantage in economic power over China would be even more marked in wartime. Our analysis indicates Washington could impose massive, disproportionate harm on Beijing if it were to impose a broad economic cutoff of China in cooperation with its allies or via a distant naval blockade. Across six scenarios, China's short-term economic losses from a broad cutoff range from being 5 to 11 times higher than America's. And in the long run, America and almost all its allies would return to previous economic growth levels; in contrast, China's growth would be permanently degraded Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies
Command of Commerce: America's Enduring Economic Power Advantage over China (Oxford UP, 2025) provides a systematic reevaluation of the balance of economic power between the U.S. and China. The conventional wisdom is that China's economic power is very close to America's and that Washington cannot undertake a broad economic cutoff of China without hurting itself as much or more. This book demonstrates the conventional wisdom is wrong on both fronts. In peacetime, America's lead in economic power over China is more dramatic than commonly appreciated because the vast majority of the firms that drive global commerce, particularly in high-technology sectors, are based in the U.S. and its allies. China's economic capacity has also been overestimated because Beijing manipulates its economic data and because comparing China's uniquely structured economy with other leading economies is challenging. These facts are necessary to understand why Washington has been able to target and undermine individual Chinese companies and even entire sectors in recent years while facing so little retaliation from Beijing. America's advantage in economic power over China would be even more marked in wartime. Our analysis indicates Washington could impose massive, disproportionate harm on Beijing if it were to impose a broad economic cutoff of China in cooperation with its allies or via a distant naval blockade. Across six scenarios, China's short-term economic losses from a broad cutoff range from being 5 to 11 times higher than America's. And in the long run, America and almost all its allies would return to previous economic growth levels; in contrast, China's growth would be permanently degraded Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network
Command of Commerce: America's Enduring Economic Power Advantage over China (Oxford UP, 2025) provides a systematic reevaluation of the balance of economic power between the U.S. and China. The conventional wisdom is that China's economic power is very close to America's and that Washington cannot undertake a broad economic cutoff of China without hurting itself as much or more. This book demonstrates the conventional wisdom is wrong on both fronts. In peacetime, America's lead in economic power over China is more dramatic than commonly appreciated because the vast majority of the firms that drive global commerce, particularly in high-technology sectors, are based in the U.S. and its allies. China's economic capacity has also been overestimated because Beijing manipulates its economic data and because comparing China's uniquely structured economy with other leading economies is challenging. These facts are necessary to understand why Washington has been able to target and undermine individual Chinese companies and even entire sectors in recent years while facing so little retaliation from Beijing. America's advantage in economic power over China would be even more marked in wartime. Our analysis indicates Washington could impose massive, disproportionate harm on Beijing if it were to impose a broad economic cutoff of China in cooperation with its allies or via a distant naval blockade. Across six scenarios, China's short-term economic losses from a broad cutoff range from being 5 to 11 times higher than America's. And in the long run, America and almost all its allies would return to previous economic growth levels; in contrast, China's growth would be permanently degraded Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs
Command of Commerce: America's Enduring Economic Power Advantage over China (Oxford UP, 2025) provides a systematic reevaluation of the balance of economic power between the U.S. and China. The conventional wisdom is that China's economic power is very close to America's and that Washington cannot undertake a broad economic cutoff of China without hurting itself as much or more. This book demonstrates the conventional wisdom is wrong on both fronts. In peacetime, America's lead in economic power over China is more dramatic than commonly appreciated because the vast majority of the firms that drive global commerce, particularly in high-technology sectors, are based in the U.S. and its allies. China's economic capacity has also been overestimated because Beijing manipulates its economic data and because comparing China's uniquely structured economy with other leading economies is challenging. These facts are necessary to understand why Washington has been able to target and undermine individual Chinese companies and even entire sectors in recent years while facing so little retaliation from Beijing. America's advantage in economic power over China would be even more marked in wartime. Our analysis indicates Washington could impose massive, disproportionate harm on Beijing if it were to impose a broad economic cutoff of China in cooperation with its allies or via a distant naval blockade. Across six scenarios, China's short-term economic losses from a broad cutoff range from being 5 to 11 times higher than America's. And in the long run, America and almost all its allies would return to previous economic growth levels; in contrast, China's growth would be permanently degraded Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/chinese-studies
Command of Commerce: America's Enduring Economic Power Advantage over China (Oxford UP, 2025) provides a systematic reevaluation of the balance of economic power between the U.S. and China. The conventional wisdom is that China's economic power is very close to America's and that Washington cannot undertake a broad economic cutoff of China without hurting itself as much or more. This book demonstrates the conventional wisdom is wrong on both fronts. In peacetime, America's lead in economic power over China is more dramatic than commonly appreciated because the vast majority of the firms that drive global commerce, particularly in high-technology sectors, are based in the U.S. and its allies. China's economic capacity has also been overestimated because Beijing manipulates its economic data and because comparing China's uniquely structured economy with other leading economies is challenging. These facts are necessary to understand why Washington has been able to target and undermine individual Chinese companies and even entire sectors in recent years while facing so little retaliation from Beijing. America's advantage in economic power over China would be even more marked in wartime. Our analysis indicates Washington could impose massive, disproportionate harm on Beijing if it were to impose a broad economic cutoff of China in cooperation with its allies or via a distant naval blockade. Across six scenarios, China's short-term economic losses from a broad cutoff range from being 5 to 11 times higher than America's. And in the long run, America and almost all its allies would return to previous economic growth levels; in contrast, China's growth would be permanently degraded Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/economics
Command of Commerce: America's Enduring Economic Power Advantage over China (Oxford UP, 2025) provides a systematic reevaluation of the balance of economic power between the U.S. and China. The conventional wisdom is that China's economic power is very close to America's and that Washington cannot undertake a broad economic cutoff of China without hurting itself as much or more. This book demonstrates the conventional wisdom is wrong on both fronts. In peacetime, America's lead in economic power over China is more dramatic than commonly appreciated because the vast majority of the firms that drive global commerce, particularly in high-technology sectors, are based in the U.S. and its allies. China's economic capacity has also been overestimated because Beijing manipulates its economic data and because comparing China's uniquely structured economy with other leading economies is challenging. These facts are necessary to understand why Washington has been able to target and undermine individual Chinese companies and even entire sectors in recent years while facing so little retaliation from Beijing. America's advantage in economic power over China would be even more marked in wartime. Our analysis indicates Washington could impose massive, disproportionate harm on Beijing if it were to impose a broad economic cutoff of China in cooperation with its allies or via a distant naval blockade. Across six scenarios, China's short-term economic losses from a broad cutoff range from being 5 to 11 times higher than America's. And in the long run, America and almost all its allies would return to previous economic growth levels; in contrast, China's growth would be permanently degraded
In 2016 the United States was stunned by evidence of Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election. But it shouldn't have been. Subversion—domestic interference to undermine or manipulate a rival—is as old as statecraft itself. In A Measure Short of War: A Brief History of Great Power Subversion (Oxford UP, 2025) Jill Kastner and William C. Wohlforth provide a compelling ride through the history of subversion. They examine subversion's allure, its operational possibilities, and argue that, in our high stakes, changing technological landscape, a clear-eyed understanding of the history and parameters of subversion can help polities defend against it. Jill Kastner is a scholar in the Department of War Studies at Kings College London. She has a doctorate in History from Harvard University. She specializes in Cold War crises in Berlin and the Middle East. Her work has appeared in The Nation and Foreign Affairs. William C Wohlforth is the Daniel Webster Professor of Government at Dartmouth College in Hanover, NH. His most recent books are America Abroad: The United States' Global Role in the 21st Century (2018), Written with Stephen G Brooks, and The History of International Relations and Russian Foreign Policy in the 20th century (2020), co edited with Anatoly V. Torkunov and Boris F Martynov. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network
In 2016 the United States was stunned by evidence of Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election. But it shouldn't have been. Subversion—domestic interference to undermine or manipulate a rival—is as old as statecraft itself. In A Measure Short of War: A Brief History of Great Power Subversion (Oxford UP, 2025) Jill Kastner and William C. Wohlforth provide a compelling ride through the history of subversion. They examine subversion's allure, its operational possibilities, and argue that, in our high stakes, changing technological landscape, a clear-eyed understanding of the history and parameters of subversion can help polities defend against it. Jill Kastner is a scholar in the Department of War Studies at Kings College London. She has a doctorate in History from Harvard University. She specializes in Cold War crises in Berlin and the Middle East. Her work has appeared in The Nation and Foreign Affairs. William C Wohlforth is the Daniel Webster Professor of Government at Dartmouth College in Hanover, NH. His most recent books are America Abroad: The United States' Global Role in the 21st Century (2018), Written with Stephen G Brooks, and The History of International Relations and Russian Foreign Policy in the 20th century (2020), co edited with Anatoly V. Torkunov and Boris F Martynov. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs
In 2016 the United States was stunned by evidence of Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election. But it shouldn't have been. Subversion—domestic interference to undermine or manipulate a rival—is as old as statecraft itself. In A Measure Short of War: A Brief History of Great Power Subversion (Oxford UP, 2025) Jill Kastner and William C. Wohlforth provide a compelling ride through the history of subversion. They examine subversion's allure, its operational possibilities, and argue that, in our high stakes, changing technological landscape, a clear-eyed understanding of the history and parameters of subversion can help polities defend against it. Jill Kastner is a scholar in the Department of War Studies at Kings College London. She has a doctorate in History from Harvard University. She specializes in Cold War crises in Berlin and the Middle East. Her work has appeared in The Nation and Foreign Affairs. William C Wohlforth is the Daniel Webster Professor of Government at Dartmouth College in Hanover, NH. His most recent books are America Abroad: The United States' Global Role in the 21st Century (2018), Written with Stephen G Brooks, and The History of International Relations and Russian Foreign Policy in the 20th century (2020), co edited with Anatoly V. Torkunov and Boris F Martynov. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/russian-studies
In 2016 the United States was stunned by evidence of Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election. But it shouldn't have been. Subversion—domestic interference to undermine or manipulate a rival—is as old as statecraft itself. In A Measure Short of War: A Brief History of Great Power Subversion (Oxford UP, 2025) Jill Kastner and William C. Wohlforth provide a compelling ride through the history of subversion. They examine subversion's allure, its operational possibilities, and argue that, in our high stakes, changing technological landscape, a clear-eyed understanding of the history and parameters of subversion can help polities defend against it. Jill Kastner is a scholar in the Department of War Studies at Kings College London. She has a doctorate in History from Harvard University. She specializes in Cold War crises in Berlin and the Middle East. Her work has appeared in The Nation and Foreign Affairs. William C Wohlforth is the Daniel Webster Professor of Government at Dartmouth College in Hanover, NH. His most recent books are America Abroad: The United States' Global Role in the 21st Century (2018), Written with Stephen G Brooks, and The History of International Relations and Russian Foreign Policy in the 20th century (2020), co edited with Anatoly V. Torkunov and Boris F Martynov. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In 2016 the United States was stunned by evidence of Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election. But it shouldn't have been. Subversion—domestic interference to undermine or manipulate a rival—is as old as statecraft itself. In A Measure Short of War: A Brief History of Great Power Subversion (Oxford UP, 2025) Jill Kastner and William C. Wohlforth provide a compelling ride through the history of subversion. They examine subversion's allure, its operational possibilities, and argue that, in our high stakes, changing technological landscape, a clear-eyed understanding of the history and parameters of subversion can help polities defend against it. Jill Kastner is a scholar in the Department of War Studies at Kings College London. She has a doctorate in History from Harvard University. She specializes in Cold War crises in Berlin and the Middle East. Her work has appeared in The Nation and Foreign Affairs. William C Wohlforth is the Daniel Webster Professor of Government at Dartmouth College in Hanover, NH. His most recent books are America Abroad: The United States' Global Role in the 21st Century (2018), Written with Stephen G Brooks, and The History of International Relations and Russian Foreign Policy in the 20th century (2020), co edited with Anatoly V. Torkunov and Boris F Martynov. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In 2016 the United States was stunned by evidence of Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election. But it shouldn't have been. Subversion—domestic interference to undermine or manipulate a rival—is as old as statecraft itself. In A Measure Short of War: A Brief History of Great Power Subversion (Oxford UP, 2025) Jill Kastner and William C. Wohlforth provide a compelling ride through the history of subversion. They examine subversion's allure, its operational possibilities, and argue that, in our high stakes, changing technological landscape, a clear-eyed understanding of the history and parameters of subversion can help polities defend against it. Jill Kastner is a scholar in the Department of War Studies at Kings College London. She has a doctorate in History from Harvard University. She specializes in Cold War crises in Berlin and the Middle East. Her work has appeared in The Nation and Foreign Affairs. William C Wohlforth is the Daniel Webster Professor of Government at Dartmouth College in Hanover, NH. His most recent books are America Abroad: The United States' Global Role in the 21st Century (2018), Written with Stephen G Brooks, and The History of International Relations and Russian Foreign Policy in the 20th century (2020), co edited with Anatoly V. Torkunov and Boris F Martynov.
Host Piya Chattopadhyay speaks with Dartmouth College government professor Stephen G. Brooks about American influence on the world stage amid global crises, our Sunday Documentary follows journalist Adrian Ma's dilemma over a special bottle of whisky, child solider-turned-artist and peace activist Emmanuel Jal shares his insights on conflict and trauma, Stacy Lee Kong, Clifton Cremo, and Chris Turner riff on some of the stories that got people talking this week. Plus: A Christmas story from comedian and satirist Rick Mercer. For more, visit https://cbc.ca/sunday.
Part I of our discussion on Producing Security by Stephen G. Brooks, including introductory remarks on the association between commerce and peace, and the author's nuanced polemic against realism. In what sense is the globalization of production (as distinct from trade) and the rise of inter-firm cooperation a qualitatively unique development under capitalism? What are the stakes for global conflict?Support the show
Invité : Hugo Meijer (CNRS-CERI), autour de plusieurs articles : - Hugo Meijer and Stephen G. Brooks "Illusions of Autonomy: Why Europe Cannot Provide for Its Security if the United States Pulls Back," International Security, Vol. 45, No. 4 (Spring 2021), pp. 7–43 https://direct.mit.edu/isec/article/45/4/7/100571/Illusions-of-Autonomy-Why-Europe-Cannot-Provide - Stephen M. Walt, "Exactly How Helpless is Europe?," Foreign Policy, 21 May 2021 https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/05/21/exactly-how-helpless-is-europe/
What is the proper global role for the United States in the 21st Century? Since World War II, the United States, as the most powerful state, has chosen to be deeply engaged in the world. It has assumed responsibility for global peace and stability, guaranteed the security of dozens of foreign nations, promoted free trade, and posed as the policeman of the world by intervening in distant disputes with little direct relevance for core U.S. interests.The bi-partisan consensus in support of this role has recently shown signs of wear. President Donald Trump criticized it, and won. Public opinion polls for the first time in recent years show significant support for pulling back from this activist foreign policy and pursuing a more modest, less costly approach to the world.In America Abroad: The United States’ Global Role in the 21st Century, Stephen G. Brooks and William C. Wohlforth make a powerful case that America should continue its strategy of deep engagement. But what are the merits of an alternative approach, a grand strategy of restraint? Please join us as we discuss competing ideas about the future of U.S. foreign policy. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
A decade and a half of exhausting wars, punishing economic setbacks, and fast-rising rivals has called into question America’s fundamental position and purpose in world politics. Will the US continue to be the only superpower in the international system? Should it continue advancing the world-shaping grand strategy it has followed since the dawn of the Cold War? Or should it “come home” and focus on its internal problems? The recent resurgence of isolationist impulses has made the politics surrounding these questions increasingly bitter. In America Abroad: The United States’ Global Role in the 21st Century (Oxford University Press, 2016), Stephen G. Brooks (Dartmouth College) and William C. Wohlforth (Dartmouth College) take stock of these debates and provide a powerful defense of American globalism. They stress that world politics since end of World War Two has been shaped by two constants: America’s position as the most powerful state, and its strategic choice to be deeply engaged in the world. Ever since, the US has advanced its interests by pursuing three core objectives: reducing threats by managing the security environment in key regions; promoting a liberal economic order to expand global and domestic prosperity; and sustaining the network of global institutions on terms favorable to US interests. While there have been some periodic policy failures, America’s overall record is astounding. But how would America’s interests fare if the United States chose to disengage from the world and reduce its footprint overseas? Their answer is clear: retrenchment would put core US security and economic interests at risk. And because America’s sole superpower status will long endure, the US will not be forced to turn inward. While America should remain globally engaged, it also has to focus primarily on its core interests: reducing great power rivalry and security competition in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East; fostering economic globalization; and supporting a multilateral institutional system that advances US interests. Pursuing objectives beyond this core runs the risk of overextension. A bracing rejoinder to the critics of American globalism, America Abroad is a powerful reminder that a robust American presence is crucial for maintaining world order. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
A decade and a half of exhausting wars, punishing economic setbacks, and fast-rising rivals has called into question America's fundamental position and purpose in world politics. Will the US continue to be the only superpower in the international system? Should it continue advancing the world-shaping grand strategy it has followed since the dawn of the Cold War? Or should it “come home” and focus on its internal problems? The recent resurgence of isolationist impulses has made the politics surrounding these questions increasingly bitter. In America Abroad: The United States' Global Role in the 21st Century (Oxford University Press, 2016), Stephen G. Brooks (Dartmouth College) and William C. Wohlforth (Dartmouth College) take stock of these debates and provide a powerful defense of American globalism. They stress that world politics since end of World War Two has been shaped by two constants: America's position as the most powerful state, and its strategic choice to be deeply engaged in the world. Ever since, the US has advanced its interests by pursuing three core objectives: reducing threats by managing the security environment in key regions; promoting a liberal economic order to expand global and domestic prosperity; and sustaining the network of global institutions on terms favorable to US interests. While there have been some periodic policy failures, America's overall record is astounding. But how would America's interests fare if the United States chose to disengage from the world and reduce its footprint overseas? Their answer is clear: retrenchment would put core US security and economic interests at risk. And because America's sole superpower status will long endure, the US will not be forced to turn inward. While America should remain globally engaged, it also has to focus primarily on its core interests: reducing great power rivalry and security competition in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East; fostering economic globalization; and supporting a multilateral institutional system that advances US interests. Pursuing objectives beyond this core runs the risk of overextension. A bracing rejoinder to the critics of American globalism, America Abroad is a powerful reminder that a robust American presence is crucial for maintaining world order.
A decade and a half of exhausting wars, punishing economic setbacks, and fast-rising rivals has called into question America’s fundamental position and purpose in world politics. Will the US continue to be the only superpower in the international system? Should it continue advancing the world-shaping grand strategy it has followed since the dawn of the Cold War? Or should it “come home” and focus on its internal problems? The recent resurgence of isolationist impulses has made the politics surrounding these questions increasingly bitter. In America Abroad: The United States’ Global Role in the 21st Century (Oxford University Press, 2016), Stephen G. Brooks (Dartmouth College) and William C. Wohlforth (Dartmouth College) take stock of these debates and provide a powerful defense of American globalism. They stress that world politics since end of World War Two has been shaped by two constants: America’s position as the most powerful state, and its strategic choice to be deeply engaged in the world. Ever since, the US has advanced its interests by pursuing three core objectives: reducing threats by managing the security environment in key regions; promoting a liberal economic order to expand global and domestic prosperity; and sustaining the network of global institutions on terms favorable to US interests. While there have been some periodic policy failures, America’s overall record is astounding. But how would America’s interests fare if the United States chose to disengage from the world and reduce its footprint overseas? Their answer is clear: retrenchment would put core US security and economic interests at risk. And because America’s sole superpower status will long endure, the US will not be forced to turn inward. While America should remain globally engaged, it also has to focus primarily on its core interests: reducing great power rivalry and security competition in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East; fostering economic globalization; and supporting a multilateral institutional system that advances US interests. Pursuing objectives beyond this core runs the risk of overextension. A bracing rejoinder to the critics of American globalism, America Abroad is a powerful reminder that a robust American presence is crucial for maintaining world order. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
A decade and a half of exhausting wars, punishing economic setbacks, and fast-rising rivals has called into question America’s fundamental position and purpose in world politics. Will the US continue to be the only superpower in the international system? Should it continue advancing the world-shaping grand strategy it has followed since the dawn of the Cold War? Or should it “come home” and focus on its internal problems? The recent resurgence of isolationist impulses has made the politics surrounding these questions increasingly bitter. In America Abroad: The United States’ Global Role in the 21st Century (Oxford University Press, 2016), Stephen G. Brooks (Dartmouth College) and William C. Wohlforth (Dartmouth College) take stock of these debates and provide a powerful defense of American globalism. They stress that world politics since end of World War Two has been shaped by two constants: America’s position as the most powerful state, and its strategic choice to be deeply engaged in the world. Ever since, the US has advanced its interests by pursuing three core objectives: reducing threats by managing the security environment in key regions; promoting a liberal economic order to expand global and domestic prosperity; and sustaining the network of global institutions on terms favorable to US interests. While there have been some periodic policy failures, America’s overall record is astounding. But how would America’s interests fare if the United States chose to disengage from the world and reduce its footprint overseas? Their answer is clear: retrenchment would put core US security and economic interests at risk. And because America’s sole superpower status will long endure, the US will not be forced to turn inward. While America should remain globally engaged, it also has to focus primarily on its core interests: reducing great power rivalry and security competition in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East; fostering economic globalization; and supporting a multilateral institutional system that advances US interests. Pursuing objectives beyond this core runs the risk of overextension. A bracing rejoinder to the critics of American globalism, America Abroad is a powerful reminder that a robust American presence is crucial for maintaining world order. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
A decade and a half of exhausting wars, punishing economic setbacks, and fast-rising rivals has called into question America’s fundamental position and purpose in world politics. Will the US continue to be the only superpower in the international system? Should it continue advancing the world-shaping grand strategy it has followed since the dawn of the Cold War? Or should it “come home” and focus on its internal problems? The recent resurgence of isolationist impulses has made the politics surrounding these questions increasingly bitter. In America Abroad: The United States’ Global Role in the 21st Century (Oxford University Press, 2016), Stephen G. Brooks (Dartmouth College) and William C. Wohlforth (Dartmouth College) take stock of these debates and provide a powerful defense of American globalism. They stress that world politics since end of World War Two has been shaped by two constants: America’s position as the most powerful state, and its strategic choice to be deeply engaged in the world. Ever since, the US has advanced its interests by pursuing three core objectives: reducing threats by managing the security environment in key regions; promoting a liberal economic order to expand global and domestic prosperity; and sustaining the network of global institutions on terms favorable to US interests. While there have been some periodic policy failures, America’s overall record is astounding. But how would America’s interests fare if the United States chose to disengage from the world and reduce its footprint overseas? Their answer is clear: retrenchment would put core US security and economic interests at risk. And because America’s sole superpower status will long endure, the US will not be forced to turn inward. While America should remain globally engaged, it also has to focus primarily on its core interests: reducing great power rivalry and security competition in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East; fostering economic globalization; and supporting a multilateral institutional system that advances US interests. Pursuing objectives beyond this core runs the risk of overextension. A bracing rejoinder to the critics of American globalism, America Abroad is a powerful reminder that a robust American presence is crucial for maintaining world order. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
A decade and a half of exhausting wars, punishing economic setbacks, and fast-rising rivals has called into question America’s fundamental position and purpose in world politics. Will the US continue to be the only superpower in the international system? Should it continue advancing the world-shaping grand strategy it has followed since the dawn of the Cold War? Or should it “come home” and focus on its internal problems? The recent resurgence of isolationist impulses has made the politics surrounding these questions increasingly bitter. In America Abroad: The United States’ Global Role in the 21st Century (Oxford University Press, 2016), Stephen G. Brooks (Dartmouth College) and William C. Wohlforth (Dartmouth College) take stock of these debates and provide a powerful defense of American globalism. They stress that world politics since end of World War Two has been shaped by two constants: America’s position as the most powerful state, and its strategic choice to be deeply engaged in the world. Ever since, the US has advanced its interests by pursuing three core objectives: reducing threats by managing the security environment in key regions; promoting a liberal economic order to expand global and domestic prosperity; and sustaining the network of global institutions on terms favorable to US interests. While there have been some periodic policy failures, America’s overall record is astounding. But how would America’s interests fare if the United States chose to disengage from the world and reduce its footprint overseas? Their answer is clear: retrenchment would put core US security and economic interests at risk. And because America’s sole superpower status will long endure, the US will not be forced to turn inward. While America should remain globally engaged, it also has to focus primarily on its core interests: reducing great power rivalry and security competition in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East; fostering economic globalization; and supporting a multilateral institutional system that advances US interests. Pursuing objectives beyond this core runs the risk of overextension. A bracing rejoinder to the critics of American globalism, America Abroad is a powerful reminder that a robust American presence is crucial for maintaining world order. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
A decade and a half of exhausting wars, punishing economic setbacks, and fast-rising rivals has called into question America’s fundamental position and purpose in world politics. Will the US continue to be the only superpower in the international system? Should it continue advancing the world-shaping grand strategy it has followed since the dawn of the Cold War? Or should it “come home” and focus on its internal problems? The recent resurgence of isolationist impulses has made the politics surrounding these questions increasingly bitter. In America Abroad: The United States’ Global Role in the 21st Century (Oxford University Press, 2016), Stephen G. Brooks (Dartmouth College) and William C. Wohlforth (Dartmouth College) take stock of these debates and provide a powerful defense of American globalism. They stress that world politics since end of World War Two has been shaped by two constants: America’s position as the most powerful state, and its strategic choice to be deeply engaged in the world. Ever since, the US has advanced its interests by pursuing three core objectives: reducing threats by managing the security environment in key regions; promoting a liberal economic order to expand global and domestic prosperity; and sustaining the network of global institutions on terms favorable to US interests. While there have been some periodic policy failures, America’s overall record is astounding. But how would America’s interests fare if the United States chose to disengage from the world and reduce its footprint overseas? Their answer is clear: retrenchment would put core US security and economic interests at risk. And because America’s sole superpower status will long endure, the US will not be forced to turn inward. While America should remain globally engaged, it also has to focus primarily on its core interests: reducing great power rivalry and security competition in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East; fostering economic globalization; and supporting a multilateral institutional system that advances US interests. Pursuing objectives beyond this core runs the risk of overextension. A bracing rejoinder to the critics of American globalism, America Abroad is a powerful reminder that a robust American presence is crucial for maintaining world order. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
