Competition: the engine of geopolitics - The New World (Dis) Order (EP 7) - with Alex Stubb
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 май 2024
- In episode 7 of "The World (Dis) Order," Professor Alex Stubb navigates the third part (chapter 5) of his forthcoming book focused on the themes of competition, conflict, and cooperation.
In this episode, Stubb analyses competition through diverse lenses: technological, political, economic, and geopolitical-arguing that countries share a common goal: advancing their prosperity. He contends that competition serves as a catalyst for innovation, growth, and overall welfare.
This examination of competition seeks to untangle the intricate interplay between political and economic systems. To do so, Stubb compares democracies to autocracies while reflecting on the challenge of balancing market and state, monopoly and fragmentation, and development and dominance. Drawing from a 2009 anecdote when he met China's then Vice President Xi Jingpin, he underscores the positive aspects of competition, while also cautioning against its potential spillover.
- In memory of President Martti Ahtisaari (1937-2023), Nobel Peace laureate -
▶ Website: www.eui.eu/stg
▶ LinkedIn: bit.ly/47b5Qox
▶ X: / stgeui
▶ Instagram: / stgeui
As always, an excellent talk on geopolitics and beyond. I’m particularly fond of your anecdotes, which say a lot, albeit brief. Today’s anecdote about your meeting with the Uzbekistan dictator touched a sensitive democratic cord within me (within most of us) that reacts very negatively to authoritarianism, oppression and human rights violations. I come from a country (Brazil) that was known more than his fair share of dictatorship and I’ve been vaccinated against any authoritarian political proposition, but I’m aware that in many places, and for many people, that’s not the case. I worry about the rise of the extreme right almost everywhere, and I despair when I see people who see themselves as « progressive » react positively to abominations, like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Recently, I felt compelled to write a very long text (more than 100 pages) to old friends and acquaintances of mine in Brazil to explain to them why we should all vehemently condemn Putin and his regime for starting that war. I don’t know if I have succeeded, but I had to try. If the Global South is the one that will have the deciding vote on which direction the world would go, I’m glad that at least I made a tiny effort to nudge it to the right way.
I love checking in on Prof. Alex Stubb.
I’ve learned so much about the world’s geopolitics from these videos and his series.
I can’t wait to officially read his book in its final form.
The even keeled tone and consideration Mr. Stubb brings to his conversation is in critical short supply today. I truly love hearing him speak and he reminds me a great deal of Mr. Obama from the US
It’s good to be optimistic. Your lectures are always thought provoking…..good luck on your book and upcoming election.
Thanks to all of you for your reactions to this episode! Like always, Alex and his team are reading them with interest.
Professor Stubb, I enjoy your videocasts because you speak about our world in a way that shows us how complex political systems really are and how they shape the mindsets of people in them. I will be brief. Excuse me to plug my book The Treatise of Teknomix, but I have to do it to explain that I have envisioned a world government and how it would function and if it would be possible, do you think you could comment on it? I will send you a copy of my book the moment I find an address where you can receive it.
Dr Stubb, your thoughtfulness helps me to be thoughtful. Kiitos.
As a Canadian I always want to see how we compare with Finland then the US, always more important to beat Finland that's a real win.
These videos are always fact filled, interesting and thought provoking. I'm an American who benefited from having international professors and domestic ones from, for example, the Maxwell School, I have also worked abroad and traveled widely. Most US citizens either do not have a passport or have not ventured out of North America and the Caribbean, and if they have traveled abroad have done so in the military.
Therefore, the international content is likely to puzzle the US/American audience. Massachusetts, my state, is one of the oldest, started the Revolution in 1774 to protect the traditional proto-democratic governance [which makes it a lot like Switzerland and the non historical story about Wilhelm Tell and the hat of Landburger Gessler] and which has one of the oldest continuous governments and written constitutions in the world. Massachusetts has an HDI more similar to Norway and Switzerland, and much higher than Texas or Florida. The US is more like the EU [with even more exaggerated difference among member states] than like a single centralized country like France or Poland.
I would, therefore, like to see a more granular evaluation of the position of the US in international relations than the usual cartoonish ones to be found on the internet. Certainly, Prof. Stubb and many of his students have studied in the US and are capable of such a study. The problem is that the US is really a democracy, divided into relatively autonomous states, like the Heiliges Römisches Reich, on which it was, in part, modeled. Some of the states are actual democracies, while others are either failing democracies or developing theocratic oligarchies with fascist tendencies. Given that the US influence on the rest of the world is enormous, a correct understanding of the internal politics of the US would seem to be of great value.
Russia, China and the US may be, geopolitically speaking, black boxes, but for different reasons. Russia and China are totalitarian states that hide their internal issues for strategic reasons, while the US hides nothing, leaving outside viewers swamped by conflicting, usually incomplete and often incomprehensible data. Absent the US being replaced by another great power, it seems to me that, even in self defense, other countries and their people need to have a better understanding of the US.
I want this book released so damn badly
I think you'll have to wait for atleast 6 years. He's on his way to become our next President. And unlike US where it's for 4 yrs, in here it's 6.
@@karvakorva1.2 yea I’ve been following. I admit it pains me to say it but I hope he loses the second round so we can keep getting these RUclips videos 😭😭
Thanks for analysis. What the Global west (particularly US and EU) have over other regimens is relatively open immigration. The US ha 212K Indian students. India has 3K US students. This pattern repeats.
If you can get the best and the brightest from around the world, you have long term competitive advantage that the others just cannot match.
That was excellent. A couple thought tangents from this American operating small businesses in the EU. First, I'm not surprised by the dearth of political appeals to "Main Street" Europe (Main Street America is a phrase used to address lifestyle entrepreneurs, people pursuing their dream of running a salon, restaurant, mechanic shop...) as I've never seen/heard it in all my years in Europe. In your opinion is that because this isn't a common "European Dream" or is it just seen as meaningless in a market dominated by 100+years-old firms that simply dominate society. (Anyone thinking there isn't competition in American corporation, look at how the largest 30 firms in the US have changed in the US in the last 50 years, and how they haven't in Germany or France or Europe.) I've my own opinions and observations, but would like to hear others in Europe.
Second, is more of an observation about what the political extremes have done to the global order. It seems to me that the failings of globalisation have been more perceived than actual as people on either end of the political spectrum have made hay from perennial discontentment by giving the discontented an easy out with someone to blame. (Senator Sanders "... the big multinational corporations...", Trump "... these elitist liberals...") I'm not so sure we need to abandon that which is working better so much as realise nothing is ever self-evident; as exemplified in the anecdote from Tashkent. We shouldn't be afraid to vehemently support an imperfect system that is better than all the rest.
Something to keep an eye on is AI. AI technology is being developed extremely rapidly and basically behind closed doors at companies like Open AI, Google, Meta, etc.
The U.S. Congress is focused on extreme party politics right now and they're not paying attention to the need for regulation of AI. Many representatives and senators are older and not tech-savvy either, which doesn't help (i.e., they don't understand the consequences of this technology). The recent firing and subsequent reinstatement of Sam Altman at Open AI is an important event that marks just how quickly things are moving in this field.
My president 🙌
17:41 "We got it wrong".
That "We" notably includes Francis Fukuyama. Personally I would say that indeed: He got it wrong *for that momment,* but in the long run his thesis will prove stronger.
China's growth was very much a function of the amount of Direct Foreign Investment; particularly from the US at first and that broke it out of the stagnation. That and the sharing of business technology with foreign partners, also allowed the Chinese to leap frog the R&D step in most cases and simply take and tweak but mostly take the best we would share and put it in their own products being assembled in the slave wages production plants.
Of course China had great growth rates. We were stimulating China immensely.
Happiest country of the world is the best commendation ever
9:11 The Four Freedoms that became the Four Horsemen of the Apocalyps for the democratic/western world.
Since 1941, the Four Freedoms are freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. People should not have tried to co-opt the phrase for a purely economic doctrine.
No regulations for an open society!
9:14 That you in your exuberance helpt sponsoring. Weird, hu? I will not in this forum expound on the imutability of the karma of any and all of our actions, but you get the gist.
Prof. Stubb: I expect that your book is too far along for a major rewrite, but for future work, may I suggest that you consider the impact of demographics. Tony Judd, in his book “Postwar” commented that Europe’s postwar prosperity (the German Wirschaftswunder, the French Trente Gloriouses) was largely due to a rapid growth in the number of young workers (and consumers). I’m inclined to believe that the aging of populations in much of “the West” - to say nothing of Russia and China - is already having a significant impact on changes to the world order.
Gold is Wanga
Technology is always used for good. Quite a naive statement considering the depth of the rest of the conversation. As always, technology has a positive connotation when in fact tech is overestimated in its benefits and underestimated in its outcomes.
Values vs. Realpolitique: If authoritarian/Autocratic regimes by definition accumulate power and wealth in the hands of a few elites, then they are the natural enemy of liberal democracies where (generally) power and wealth flow up from "the people." ( it's arguable if this is actually true in capitalist systems where, those with money tend to have outsized influence on the political system)
I always find it interesting that authoritarian leaders send their children to live in and "study" in liberal democratic countries and universities.
Authoritarians tend to also be narcissists and in my experience it's impossible to change their minds about anything. They respond only to someone of greater power and authority and only while in the presence of that power and authority.
From a political standpoint I am always frustrated by the willingness of democracies to enable authoritarian regimes. It seems counterproductive to feed the monsters that are trying to eat you.
Now I understand the whole "interdependence" argument and influence through exchange and all that, but so far it seems like a very weak carrot. I wonder how many authoritarian regimes have actually been influenced into becoming liberal democracies, since WWII?
Instead it seems to me that this philosophy is driven by greed (AKA capitalism) and then only afterwards justified through diplomatic happy talk.
Alright it's not all smoke and mirrors and it's impossible to tempt anyone into switching to a system they have never seen, experienced, or know anything about.
Now it seems we have a bigger problem. Apparently liberal democracies are not inoculated against authoritarianism. You would think after having experienced freedom and democracy for 200 years and having seen examples of dictatorships that we would not slide back into populist dictatorships. That doesn't seem to be the case. Academics will have to study this problem. I don't want slide into conspiracy theories but I doubt human beings are naturally predisposed to authoritarian systems. ( or are they?)
So with that pre-ramble. Here's the question; If liberal democracies currently hold the advantage, why are we not using that economic power to force change in authoritarian regimes? Because money? Then we must examine how we can reign in the power of capitalism ( or oligarchs) since it is obvious that capitalism is not synonymous with liberal democracy or human rights.😅
Finland is the happiest country in the world because the distance from sovjet/russian influence are dissapearing into the past; who would not be happy about that!
Prof., seeing the world as either a democracy or autocracy, is surely too simplistic and so straight jacketed
it's as you know, neither nor either works perfectly
the reality is, it's
Meritocracy in a perfectly designed administrative system that will work perfectly
- the Utopia of governance
so the challenge is which country administrative system is closest to the 'utopian administrative system'
All good but the description of 'technological pessimism' did not make sense. A technological pessimist would say self-driving cars will destroy a huge sector of blue-collar jobs (truck/taxi/bus/Uber drivers + all the road-side diners they frequent) and CRISPER is the new racism until it finally creates a zombie apocalypse. Technological pessimism is believing technology ultimately hurts humanity more than it helps.
I think here the distinction is really about the amount of regulation required to manage new technology. Europe generally errs on the side of more. The US on the side of less and China on the side of none at all.
If you're a naïve optimist, then you believe only good things come from technological advancement. The lessons learned from the evolution of atomic power should sober everyone. Physicists were initially naïve optimists espousing the benefits of nearly infinite "clean" energy. Then WWII happened and "pragmatists" were reluctantly recruited into the Manhattan project, arguing that if they didn't build a bomb, someone else surely will. Perhaps they thought they were only building a deterrent. Perhaps they were only being practical," if anyone should have an atomic bomb", we should. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, must've been shocking to many who's work contributed to the creation of the atomic bomb. Since then Atomic/Nuclear bombs have only become more demonstrably powerful. And now obtaining an atomic weapon has become a matter of national security and/or national pride.
What's happened to Ukraine has served as an object lesson, in giving up Atomic weapons, once they've been acquired. (Would Russia have attacked, if Ukraine had not agreed to give up it's stash?) This is yet another reason why Russia can not be allowed to reap any benefit from it's invasion of Ukraine (territory or any other) . Nuclear non-proliferation is tough enough already, without countries fearing for their independence, and security guarantees being worthless.
But I digress. Nuclear power even without the threat of human annihilation, is not all roses either. What to do about nuclear waste? Nuclear Accidents? (Chernobyl anyone?, Three Mile Island?, Fukushima? )
Even at it's most basic technology needs to be regulated. Fire, Rocks? each can be used for good or ill, and accidents and negligence can run rampant. Build a wall of rocks, sure, but what about the mortar and the foundation? Cook your food? Sure but, be careful with the sparks not to start a forest fire or die of carbon monoxide poisoning.
Every advancement and solution to a problem can bring with it, its own set of problems. Thinking things through, considering the ethical and moral consequences of a particular use case, and also considering safety, security and privacy are all important before simply releasing something into the wild.
We must always be aware of the law of unintended consequences and be prepared to act accordingly. Beneficial Commerce should not be the only factor to determine whether a technology is "safe" for human consumption, and what rules should be enforced around the use of a new technology. As things stand, we're leaning way over our ski's it's only a matter of time before we faceplant somewhere. If we're lucky, it won't be against a rock or a tree. You can still break you're neck or a limb in a snow bank.
The reverse has happened, when you met Pre. Xi he was worried the Europeans are too competitive and I think he more worried about European exploitative nature(I insert this myself I am sure he has that in mind (as well) if China do not take precautions, it is because of China past experience)) AND Now the Europeans and the west in general are Very Worried that China has become TOO Competitive in many commercial areas, to many of them to be listed here. In addition, China's military expenditure and miliary technology are expanding rapidly and that added even more concerns to the West in general. If you do not want to have wars LEARN to live with a New superpower, China.
Please bear this in mind, Chinese mind is Not like the western mind(*), you know why because I am a Chinese.
* they(both sides) Do not think alike. You westerners always assume Asians think like westerners.
Finland is a social democracy not liberal democracy. That distinguishes it from Gringoland
The pretext for a democracy is NOT basic develop - the pretext is human rights. For once care about the people living under tyranny not their “development”
It sounded to me as though he meant "prerequisite" or "precondition", i.e. to free people from tyranny, it's supposedly necessary to first ensure that they have some basic level of material well-being.
Greater Israel 🙌
"Promo sm"
17:56 That: truth to be told made you/us blue eyed fools.
Governments are saving big time thanks to the COVID vaccine, At least 3% on pensions... Don't respond to this message please