roubini104_Jim Watson_Trump rally in alabama

"أمريكا أولا" والصراع العالمي لاحقا

Jan 2, 2017 Nouriel Roubini

نيويورك ــ لا يمكن اعتبار انتخاب دونالد ترامب رئيسا للولايات المتحدة مجرد رد فعل من التيار الشعبوي المتنامي ضد العولمة، فقد يمثل هذا أيضا نذيرا بنهاية "السلام الأمريكي" ــ أي بنهاية النظام العالمي للتبادل الحر والأمن المشترك الذي وضعت أسسه الولايات المتحدة وحلفاؤها بعد الحرب العالمية الثانية.

كان ذلك النظام العالمي بقيادة الولايات المتحدة سببا لتمكين 70 عاما من الازدهار، وقام على أساس أنظمة موجهه صوب السوق تعتمد تحرير التجارة وزيادة حركة الرأسمال وسياسات ملائمة للرفاهية الاجتماعية تدعمها ضمانات أمريكية لأمن أوروبا والشرق الأوسط وآسيا من خلال الناتو وتحالفات أخرى عديدة.

ومع ذلك قد يتبنى ترامب سياسات شعبوية معادية للعولمة تقوم على تدابير الحماية وتعرقل التجارة وتفرض قيودا على حركة العمل والرأسمال، ولقد ألقى بالفعل ظلالا من الشك على ضمانات الأمن الأمريكية القائمة بقوله إنه سيجبر حلفاء أمريكا على أن يدفعوا مقابل مزيد من الدفاع عن أنفسهم. وإذا كان ترامب جادا في تطبيق سياسة "أمريكا أولا"، فستغير إدارته الاستراتيجية الجيوسياسية للولايات المتحدة لتتجه صوب الانعزال والأحادية وملاحقة المصالح الوطنية للبلاد وحسب.

To continue reading, register now.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

Enjoy unlimited access to the ideas and opinions of the world’s leading thinkers, including long reads, book reviews, topical collections, short-form analysis and predictions, and exclusive interviews; every new issue of the PS Quarterly magazine (print and digital); the complete PS archive; and more. Subscribe now to PS Premium.

Nouriel Roubini

Writing for PS since 2007
165 Commentaries

Nouriel Roubini, Professor Emeritus of Economics at New York University’s Stern School of Business, is Chief Economist at Atlas Capital Team, CEO of Roubini Macro Associates, Co-Founder of TheBoomBust.com, and author of the forthcoming MegaThreats: Ten Dangerous Trends That Imperil Our Future, and How to Survive Them (Little, Brown and Company, October 2022). He is a former senior economist for international affairs in the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton Administration and has worked for the International Monetary Fund, the US Federal Reserve, and the World Bank. His website is NourielRoubini.com, and he is the host of NourielToday.com.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 88 Comments on this article

Ting Mak Oct 15, 2017

Americ's First, America's unilateralism, exceptionalism, go-it alone are indicators that America wants to be a world dictator.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
lakshma reddy Jan 22, 2017

I get to feel that roubinee has not grasped the changing relationships of capital,labor and land with changing technologies and human reactions in his individual(family included) capacity and in tribal,national and international economic and political contexts.

When he speaks and compares US before 1920 and 30s to the present Trump context in relation to Europe and Asian countries like Japan and says similar pattern repeating as a prelude to WW 111 , it's on wrong.

Before 1st and 2nd WW US was a fast growing global economic power surpassing both in technology and economic weather and saving and investments over all other countries taken individually and even combined powers of two or more powers. It has already almost became the dominant power in western hemisphere whereas in Europe the Germany and Asia Japan were ambitiously trying to win over over the territories of existing colonial powers.
It is not surprising that fast growing US,Germany and Japan advocate free trade and UK,France, Russia the declining colonial powers oppose free trade and there were retaliatory war of trade tariff wars and border restrictions leading to global depression.

Things looks simiar but the role of US and Russia and China changed upside down though national prejudices persists for the time being

Secondly we have an UN whose credibility as an international and global instition to preserve world peace and security has not been not much lost.The global public opinion and good will in its favour as bullock pressure against international disorder still holds hope.

Therefore there is no need to so much scare mongering though global public have concerns with growing trend of international protectionist mongering nation ism as their own country fist before others and that philosophy is based on fundamental premise of global good with nation looking it's own national interests like Adamsmith invisible hand.
But the invisible hand based another fundamental premise that there is a government which regulate the game fair trade with power to maintain Law&order and general social welfare among its citizens.
That fundamental premise if accepted and global /world government accepted like in UN with basic functions and duties mentioned supra, yes, every country it's first will logically lead to a well regulated global division of labor and employments to the maximum national interests and global social welfare.

Therfore take a positive stand towards global UN aligned with the nation's first and not a negative stand with Trump by opposing nationalism perse which only a graves the global trade and public tensions leading negative way national economic and political conflicts leading to military conflicts if irrationality grips mass psyche as in history.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Parsons Jan 14, 2017

It is a great self-delusion that there is or has been a welcome 'pax americana'. US attacks have undermibed international law and security by its policy of 'American exceptionalism' and disastrous 'regime change'and sanctions, interfering even the Brexit vote, in Ukraine, a policy of casual drone slaughter and so on.
The sooner rid the better. Do not flatter yourself - even the terrible devastation of Cambodia and you still lost, no shred of 'pax americana' there eh? Wake up, go home, and help Trump disentangle the mess your failing liberal ologarchy has made, and listen to those however unwelcome in Russia, Europe, Iran and elsewhere who have the courage to tell the truth to power!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
brian corbett Jan 11, 2017

Global economic prosperity has been fading for sometime now as are the benefits promised under the free trade policies of world leaders. The rise of Trump is merely a symptom of failed trickle down economics and the ensuing gap between wealth and the marginalized. Isolationism runs deep in the American psyche and as pointed out, does not bode well based on historical evidence. That said the Trump executive does not have all the say, and the usual negotiations will bring forth the usual compromises. After all 4 years is a short time
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Felipe Manteiga Jan 10, 2017

Trump may be the candidate imposed by a minority, but he is the president. Let's hope he does not harm Americans like the previously imposed president, W, with 9/11, Middle East, and WMD.

Trade agreements and trade mechanisms have showered benetftts to our large enterprises.

Yet, Main Street and our workers, by and large have born the "adjustments" of their wages and wellbeing down.

War in an already globalized village would be risky. Global investments interests would oppose having their own factories or supply chain critical destroyed or even disrupted.

Given the nature of his War Cabinet, and his financial puppet masters, should Americans fear, that as an strategy, will the drivers of the Fourth Industrial Revolution systematically replace humans? Or can one trust this egocentric crowd will come up with new distributional models, like basic income policies, needed to cope with labor-less and zero marginal cost cultures.

Far fetched? Let's hope and pray so. Yet, few gave high probabilities of success to Trumps' minority victory. Nor to an overwhelming control of U.S. Federal political institutions by the American Plutocracy led by Pence and his billionaire club.

First test: will those institutions disappear or be seriously compromised a la Mussolini?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ron Barot Jan 9, 2017

Can Trump think deep enough?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Chris Jones Jan 9, 2017

Methinks you worry too much! We certainly want to avoid disastrous actions equivalent to the Smoot-Hawley Act and the tight money policies which accompanied it. Fair trade is important, but negligently failing to act against unfair trade practices has to stop. If it takes using reciprocating VATs against firms who move their operations overseas because of costs associated with the host countries VATs, Trump should promote policies that provide incentives for the companies to maintain their production in the U.S. Too many economists have noted that many corporations park their production and capital overseas due to punishing tax and regulation policies in the U.S.
We should pursue policies that are beneficial to the U.S. and our allies. We must take for granted that Russia, China, Iran, and other hostile nations will continue to work against our interests. The Sunni nations have failed in many cases to protect and support U.S. interests. Only a few have offered safe harbor to Sunni refugees and helping non-Sunni refugees is in all likelihood non-existent. Members of NATO and similar organizations should meet their obligations. In fact, it seems that renewed vigilance is needed to protect against a nebulous axis of oppressive governments who are currently expanding their operations into many regions.
Be not afraid. Trust, but verify. Peace through strength. These policies combined with smart business practices have always worked in our country's favor.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Konstanzhoglo Konstanzhoglo Jan 9, 2017

Mr Roubini, in fact the problem is that the U.S. doesn't have enough cash and resources to keep on the old order of things.
The world has changed.
If you want to keep on the old order just pay the checks for their allies and supporters. That's all what the U.S. has to do.

Mr Trump sees that the U.S, is not able to keep an old order by old tools, he intuitively understands that going on this way is disastrous for the U.S.
Maybe what he proposed is not the optimal decision but at least he tryies to avoid catastrophy.
- Felipe Manteiga Jan 10, 2017
  
  Mr. Konztanzoglo: Your view is shared by many. The U.S. has more resources that our society know what do with. The massive waste at the Pentagon (not a single audit ever finished in recent times), the inordinate subsidies and tax expenses to our major corporations (with artificially high oil prices, U.S. corporations kept receiving massive energy subsidies), and the rampant corruption at our Federal and State levels, specially in Congress, show this $18.253 000,000,000 (U.S. $18.2 53 Trillion) have along way to go. Baffling as it might seem, the lower the interest paid by our Treasury-- occasionaly dipping on the dark side--the more bonds foreigners bought.
  
  No, America is financially strong, extremely so. Her economic power far surpasses its daunting military might.
  
  No, Americans are the only ones who can destroy America...from within. Will they? If such dismal opportunity arose, adversaries like Russia and China would be willing to collaborate with whoever could undermine this great and powerful nation...lessons from shrewd old Rome.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Emilio Zuniga Jan 9, 2017

The culprit of American power was reached about a decade ago. Since the invation in Irak the limits of traditional war was tested. With Obama policy of multilateral intervention And no deployment of American ground forces in conflict areas, the retrechment of America began. Trump is more outspoken and radical on that vision. We are bound to see more of this retreat, not because out of lack of willinness, but as a reflection of the diminishing global, particularly economic power of the US. As the military men knows, one of the most tricky things is his how to retreat and not loose the war.
- yw yap Jan 9, 2017
  
  YES! how to retreat and yet not to lose the war (y)
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Miranda Xafa Jan 9, 2017

There is little risk that the US will turn isolationist under Trump - just read what his Defense Secretary nominee has written about America's place in the world: http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/A-blueprint-for-American-security-9137892.php

Moreover, it is hypocritical for the American left to start worrying about US isolationism only after Trump's victory. Where were they when President Obama abandoned millions of Syrian civilians to their cruel fate without lifting a finger to help them? Many more civilians died in Syria since 2010 than during the Iraq war that the Liberals so loudly complained about.
- yw yap Jan 9, 2017
  
  Guess U can only help if there's "money" to help; is there any "money" in Syria?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Wolff Jan 9, 2017

Excluding the many from the deliberative political process is the key mechanism of power. Roubini now proposes that the entry of populist Americans into the deliberative political process will destroy the current New World Order established by Neoliberal Elites, for Neoliberal Elites.
Certainly would not disagree with him on that fact.
- yw yap Jan 9, 2017
  
  U take a step toward your reward but will risk the opposite; U can't go West & East at the same time :)
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Luke Lea Jan 8, 2017

In my opinion, rather than depending upon US power alone, better for all OECD countries to get together in a new Democratic League, leveraging their combined industrial, commercial, financial, technological, and military power (including access to international banking system & parts of deep oceans beyond China's near neighborhood) to enforce certain civilizational norms in international relations. Their combined power is still great enough to contain China, but will not remain so forever.
- yw yap Jan 9, 2017
  
  one of the most baffling thingy is the intention to contain China when all China wants -despite being humiliated in the past- is to embrace U? Huh?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
kiers sohn Jan 8, 2017

Restrictions on capital and labor mean FREEDOM to set x-rates and domestic economic policy.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Lyle Hyde, Jr. Jan 8, 2017

Mr. Roubini no doubt makes several strong points about the international risks of any coming American retreat into protectionism and semi-isolationism. However, as has been the case with other PS writers, his apparent indifference and complacency toward America's continued footing the bill for a global security umbrella is hard to swallow. In a long age of austerity, downward mobility for the masses, and increasingly destabilizing income inequality, shifting some of this burden to allied governments would only allow the already economically stressed American taxpayer to stand up a little straighter. It might soften said taxpayer's objection that his counterparts in others prosperous Western nations have been getting something like a free ride at his expense for several generations and therein reduce the levels of resentment that have contributed to the continuing populist revolt in the United States. Mr. Roubini seems aloof to this side of the dynamic, leaving one to suspect that he is part of the policy elite, an elite that spans the political spectrum, that has ignored or even dismissed, often enough with social contempt, the bona fide grievances of ordinary working Americans for decades now, opening the door to Mr. Trump.
- Ted Smith Jan 8, 2017
  
  OK, go ahead. Reduce US defence spending from 3.6% of GDP to say 2%.
  
  What would you do with that $250 bn to make "economically stressed American taxpayer to stand up a little straighter", that cannot be done today if the political will was there? What is it that America cannot afford today that it could with that defence spending cut?
  
  I don't doubt NATO members should bear the burden more equally but I smell the whiff of more "look over there" techniques as a way of avoiding difficult questions like:
  - why has America become so unequal in wealth since 1980
  - what to do about the automation of jobs
  - what to do about the globalisation of supply chains
  - why is the political system close to a plutocracy
  - why is the economy become financialised and whose interest does it serve
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Kolker Jan 8, 2017

Isn't it reasonable to suppose that a nation capable of defending itself, should pay for its own defense. Why should the U.S. not only assume the economic costs of self defense, but also the costs of defending nations capable of paying their own way?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ronald Abate Jan 8, 2017

"That US-led global order has enabled 70 years of prosperity." Really? Maybe that is just an urban legend. Seventy years ago the world was just emerging from WWII. Devastation was everywhere except the U.S. and those countries of little significance not involved in the war. The baby boomers were just starting to be born. The war and the Cold War which followed brought forth the greatest scientific and technological revolution ever experienced by the human race. As the countries devastated by the war started the rebuilding process and the returning GIs re-enterted the civilian workforce, received a college education under the GI bill, married and started having children, the demand created by these activities was huge and I would say unparalleled in human history. Baby boomers were not just in the U.S.; they were throughout Europe and Japan. The science and technology created by the both the hot war just ended and the cold war that was just getting started brought forth a dazzling array of consumer goods never dreamed of in human history. Globalization spread this scientific, technological and economic activity throughout the world. I would say that this was a Golden Age that maybe never be repeated again in human history. What created a U.S.-led global order was first and foremost the containment of Soviet communism.

The world today is not the world that we lived thru over the last seventy years. There is no great re-building lying before us, and populations to be restocked. We now have more "stuff" than we know what to do with, and the stuff that will be made in the future will most likely be made with few human hands. Japan is even developing robots that will look after their old people.

Why do the Liberals writing in this and other publication think the past is our guide to the future. There is no universalist threat like Soviet communism to threaten the world. China is a rising power, but has benefitted handsomely from the world order built by the U.S. post WWII. It remains to be seen what changes they will try to force on the world in the coming years. Russia is a declining power. They do not pose an economic or military threat. Iran poses a problem for Middle Eastern countries, and for the world only insofar as a war there would seriously impact the availability of hydrocarbons. However, if Trump is successful developing North America into a hydrocarbon superpower, something the Progressive-Left, probably including contributors to this online journal, will try their hardest to prevent, a catastrophe in the Middle East may not be quite as devastating for the world economy as would be the case today.

What I really like about Trump, although I did not vote for him; I voted against Clinton, is that he is a"proven" wealth creator, which is an ability sorely lacking in the Obama and recent previous administrations. All these college professors, think tank types, lawyers, and government bureaucrats that have these opinions about how the world should be organized and run, have never really created any wealth. They have sure consumed wealth, and not just a few have destroyed wealth, mostly in the name of some left0wing ideology. Our great standard of living is entirely due to the wealth creators., which is not taught in our colleges and universities.

I am looking forward with cautious optimism. I think his pick for S of S is brilliant. Tillers is a man that rose to the top of an incredibly well run and profitable organization, a corporation that promotes based upon real achievement, not because he had the right ideology, an ideology that has never been proved successful or because of his riding on someone's coattails, or because he made a large contribution.
- Jimm Roberts Jan 9, 2017
  
  well said
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David John Stone Jan 8, 2017

Every separate point made here seems to me to turn a reality on it't head.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Lowell Mainland Jan 8, 2017

As somebody who did not vote for Trump, I share concerns about what will happen in our future. However, some of the issues cited are, at the least, out of context. Clearly there are "Islamic terrorists" who have hijacked that religion coming to get us, and relying on information from barely functioning governments to vet these people is reckless. To quote Britney Spears: "oops I did it again" means more people may die - that's not acceptable.
If memory serves, Trump is saying that NATO countries need to pay that which executed treaties required. If you are not required to adhere to signed agreements, why sign them?
As was shared, I did not vote for Trump and think we can do better for a President. However, misleading people to make a point only leads to distrust between participants required to collaborate to solve problems.
We are a great country, and will survive as a great nation because of the spirit of our citizenry. Whether it be Obama or Trump as President, our future has and always will be bright.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ting Mak Jan 8, 2017

Pax Americana is an US designed international order to preserve the West's control and interest of the world after the collapse of the colonial era due to WWII at the expense of the still underdeveloped world. Since then underdeveloped countries have become developing countries and they want to get rid of the rules and regualtions in the Pax Americana that discriminate them and violate their interest. America's protection of its f Pax Americana has led to instabilities and conflicts around the world, not peace and prosperities as evidenced by the present situation in the Middle East, Korea, East Europe and South China Sea.
- Chris Jones Jan 9, 2017
  
  You fail to hold the Communists responsible for the underdevelopment and millions of deaths in their own countries and throughout the world. The "blame America" advocates forget our greatest blunders occurred fighting against Cold War subversive movements while supporting dictatorships. Those allied with us prospered for the most part while those in the Marxist alliance suffered economically, psychologically, and physically.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- yw yap Jan 9, 2017
  
  Agreed! (y)
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Wolff Jan 8, 2017

Professor Roubini, either purposefully or through neglect, fails to mention the role of Finance Capitalism in bringing US back to the retrograde political-economic conditions that existed prior to WWI/II.
"Isolation" may lead to global conflict next, but it is the failure of Finance Capitalism that is forcing US into political and economic isolationism.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Lyle Hyde, Jr. Jan 8, 2017

Mr. Roubini makes several strong points about the international risks of any coming American retreat into protectionism and semi-isolationism. However, as has been the case with other PS writers, his apparent indifference and complacency toward America's continued footing the bill for a global security umbrella is hard to swallow. In a long age of austerity, downward mobility for the masses, and increasingly destabilizing income inequality, shifting some of this burden to allied governments would only allow the already economically stressed American taxpayer to stand up a little straighter. It might soften said taxpayer's objection that his counterparts in other (some more) prosperous Western nations have been getting something like a free ride at his expense for several generations and therein reduce the levels of resentment that have contributed to the continuing populist revolt in the United States. Mr. Roubini seems aloof to this side of the dynamic, leaving one to suspect that he is part of the policy elite, an elite that spans the political spectrum, that has ignored or even dismissed, often enough with social contempt, the bona fide grievances of ordinary working Americans for decades now, opening the door to Mr. Trump.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Andrew Cole Jan 8, 2017

The problem is the vested interest elite "the Davos crowd". China. Russia and Islam are indeed three of the main threats to the West but institutions like the EU and the democrats and the Davos elite generally, have become so totally compromised, that THEY have exposed the West to danger. The EUs German imposed devastation of Southern Europe, and threated trade war with the Uk (with its Nato role), the Iran treaty, the Bill Clinton surrender to China and Islam on many issues, the failure to respond to ISIS, the Syrian debacle are not failures of Trump.
There are signs that Trump will stand up to China, and will stand by the Phillipines, Korea, Japan, and SE Asia, but holding back fanatically racist and Imperialist China is going to take changes in alliances which will have to involve some sort of understanding with Russia and militarization of the societies under threat. Perhaps the Davos brigade need to go back to "the clash of civilizations" and ask why the key institutions they support have done the exact opposite of what was needed to survive?!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Per Kurowski Jan 8, 2017

To the dangers of protectionism, isolationism, add that of the regulatory risk aversion that since 1988 is present in the risk-weighted capital requirement for banks, with 0% risk weight for the Sovereign, 20% for the AAArisktocracy, 35% residential housing, and 100% for We the People. That has banks, in the Home of the Brave, no longer financing the riskier future, like lending to SMEs, only refinancing the safer past and present. Regulatory terrorism should also be on the list of issues of any Homeland Security.

http://subprimeregulations.blogspot.com/2012/01/homeland-security-what-if-terrorist.html
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Lyle Hyde, Jr. Jan 8, 2017

Mr. Roubini no doubt makes several strong points about the international risks of any coming American retreat into protectionism and semi-isolationism. However, as has been the case with other PS writers, his apparent indifference and complacency toward America's continued footing the bill for a global security umbrella is hard to swallow. In a long age of austerity, downward mobility for the masses, and increasingly destabilizing income inequality, shifting some of this burden to allied governments would only allow the already economically stressed American taxpayer to stand up a little straighter. It might soften said taxpayer's objection that his counterparts in others prosperous Western nations have been getting something like a free ride at his expense for several generations and therein reduce the levels of resentment that have contributed to the continuing populist revolt in the United States. Mr. Roubini seems aloof to this side of the dynamic, leaving one to suspect that he is part of the policy elite, an elite that spans the political spectrum, that has ignored or even dismissed, often enough with social contempt, the bona fide grievances of ordinary working Americans for decades now, opening the door to Mr. Trump.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Allan Bleiken Jan 8, 2017

SURPRISE SURPRISE

What an irrelevant discussion. Every country in every negotiation tries to accomplish what is best for their country. What country would do otherwise?

The point of every negotiation is to protect your interests and to optimize your advantages. TRUMP WOULD NOT BE A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS PERSON IF HE DID NOT DO THIS.

If Trump proposes unacceptable conditions to another country, there will not be any agreement or deal. That's the way it works and to make a big deal out of something that has been going on for generations is a waste of time and ink.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Douglas Evans Jan 8, 2017

Absolutely correct. But what is so very disturbing is the "cozy" up to The Kremlin and Mr. Putin. My question is, "why is Mr. Trump so much in love with Putin and Russia"? He talks about making America Great again, but his love affair with Russia is very strange. Why Russia. What is going on in Trumps mind? Does Trump have some kind of secret relationship with Putin, or are there some special secret agreements about business with Russia that no one knows about. Russia is not a friend to the US. No in any shape, manner or form. So the question is: Why?
- Karen Williams Jan 9, 2017
  
  Of course, it could also be as simple as that the two men have similar senses of humor and have "hit it off" on a personal level. Or that once Trump did find he liked Putin, he went through both thought processes I described in my other reply as well.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Karen Williams Jan 9, 2017
  
  Why? Of course with Trump it's hard to know. But one very logical reason would be that smacking China across the face would be that much more risky if you couldn't count on Russia to at least stay neutral.
  Another possible thought process: telling the entire Middle East to go fight it out amongst themselves without any more involvement from the U.S. is also less risky if Russia sits poised to sell us lots of oil and gas.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Chris Jones Jan 9, 2017
  
  Don't forget that Mr. Obama was weaned by Soviet sympathizers and several Maoist sympathizers in his administration had to resign. The Nobel Peace Prize and Russian reset were in vain despite all that love talk.
  The RNC was not hacked and the hack of the DNC with the hysterical over reaction amounts to red herring BS. Trump will probably have the Russians portrayed as squatters in Ukraine and liable for back rent with penalties.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jeremiah Hartnett Jan 8, 2017

I agree, a complete abandonment of our international leadership would be terrible but we do need to get our own house in order to get others to follow.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Glen Sarvis Jan 8, 2017

I was wondering who will fill Roubini's position at NYU when he dons his US military uniform?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Thomas I. Palley Jan 8, 2017

This is "group think" from a servant of the Davos "World Economic Forum" set. These are difficult political times. Trump is not good for us, and nor is the Davos set. The great political pitfall is, in reaction to Trump, we go back to supporting the Davos crowd.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Patrick Newman Jan 8, 2017

"70 years of prosperity"? - For whom!
- Douglas Evans Jan 8, 2017
  
  For the United States, and for the whole world.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Tomas Ramirez Jan 8, 2017

The United States is the main promoter of wars, conflicts, coups and massacres all over the world. American isolationism is good for world peace.
- yw yap Jan 9, 2017
  
  :)
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Julius Klein Jan 8, 2017

More misleading arguments from the Left. WW 2 didn't happen because the US was isolationist, and I think the writer knows that. Like every student knows, WW 2 happened because the seeds of that conflict were planted in the Treaty of Versailles that ended WW 1. France in particular tried to beat Germany into a role of subservient state. The US trade policy had nothing to do with it. As Americans, we are really tired of being told that we have to protect everyone, then everyone tells us we are the bad guys and they don't want our protection. So, I say to the EU, which has had the luxury of living in a socialist cradle to grave state, defend yourselves. Build an army. Get nuclear weapons. Stop importing terrorists and letting them randomly kill and maim your citizens, while your politicians continue to apologize for them. Let South Korea and Japan deal with China. The USA has lifted MANY boats after WW2, why should we continue to do it? Yes, America First. Who else will do that, will the EU put us first? will Russia, or China, or Japan? Sorry, you are all living in another reality, one that never existed. Is time for the USA to take care of the USA first, and let the others deal with their own problems. If you don't like it, go live in one of those other places that you all think are so great.
- Greg Afuso Jan 9, 2017
  
  Two Opium Wars, the carving up of Africa and Asia, institutionalized racism and unfair forced trade agreements - European Imperialism was evil and needed to be destroyed. How was WW2 not inevitable?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Peter Ellis Jan 8, 2017
  
  I don't think that you get the gist of the article. It may not be as clear-cut as Roubini says but it is certainly not as you say - and there were many pre-WWII who thought and said the same. As to Versailles - was the US so weak that it could not bring France into line? Was Wilson so innocent of the conditions of the treaty?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
James Falkiner Jan 7, 2017

Succinct as always, but the reality is globalization is leaving many US citizens behind and they are now voting no. So the question is what does Trump do to address these concerns of people who don't buy the current story?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Greg Afuso Jan 6, 2017

Globalization has only helped India, China and the former Soviet countries catch-up with western technology just as the Cold War did for post-war Germany and Japan. Furthermore, Pax Americana ended with the great Recession of 2008-2009. Come on, get real and have a look at what IS happening right now, the collapse of the Chinese and EU economies will be devastating for the world. The Russians and British are already preparing for this reality, and so should the U.S. We need to stop deluding ourselves with past glories and false optimism.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
олег вася Jan 6, 2017

"The lesson of history is clear: protectionism, isolationism and a policy of "America First" are a recipe for economic and military catastrophe."

Yeah, the Megillah. And protectionism and isolationism and global conflict are the result of the same phenomenon - the collapse of the capitalist model of development. You can say a hundred times the word "paste" but his mouth will not become sweeter.
What is happening to your country, the author is not a series of coincidences and failures like trump , but a logical outcome.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Cary Fraser Jan 4, 2017

The Pax Americana ended under the George W. Bush administration. The Obama administration marked the search for a framework for American leadership within a rapidly changing international order. Trump's election signals the abdication of American leadership which opens the way for a long-term restructuring process across the international system - driven by the growing strategic importance and economic dynamism of the Asian states. It is the end of the North Atlantic centred international order.
- Cary Fraser Jan 5, 2017
  
  China, Russia and their partners in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization have been assiduously coordinating strategies for the development of an alternative bloc outside of the purview of the Pax Americana. Given the strategic vision imparted to his heirs by Deng Tsiao-Ping, it is evident that the Chinese have been measured in their approach to consolidating and expanding their influence across the Eurasian landmass with the One-Belt, One-Road Initiative being the latest articulation of a long-term strategy of a peaceful rise. Russia has been using its energy exports to create linkages that will provide for multi-lateral market expansion and investment.
  In effect, the foundations for an alternate order has been laid - the major issue will be whether the strategy adopted will provide a framework that sustains a peaceful transition over the short- and medium term. The key issues will be the management of conflicts in South Asia and the Middle East - without the recourse to nuclear proliferation.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Curtis Carpenter Jan 5, 2017
  
  Yes, that's a correct interpretation from my point of view as well. The open questions are 1) how the transition to a new order will occur and 2) what the new order will look like when it finally arrives. The transition to the new order is likely to be messy as others seek to establish a leadership role for themselves. Europe and Japan in particular have cause to be alarmed.
  
  The certainty it seems to me though, is that nature abhors a vacuum -- and Donald Trump is nothing if not a vacuum.
  
  For all of the faults, failures and bitter complaints people had with Pax Americana, it will be missed one day.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Doyle Jan 4, 2017

Fair bit of wild surmising here. It's too early to know which way Trump will go, so it's not very productive to mention it yet.

The comment that SE asian nations may have to prostrate them selves before China is really stupid. Would it be first prize or second prize to have to do that. When one takes into account all the SE Asian mischief that emanated from the USA over the 20th Century, China dominance might actually come as a relief!
- yw yap Jan 4, 2017
  
  FAIR Comment :)
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Jan 4, 2017

Nouriel Roubini takes a look at America's history of isolationism and protectionism in the 1920s-1930s that "helped sow the seeds of World War II," and gives an idea about the danger Trump's "America First" policy could portend - "a recipe for econmic and military disaster." Trump touted for "pursuing only the national interests of the homeland" - bringing jobs back. He has vowed to scrap America's decades-old commitment towards allies and their "security guarantees", by turning its military into an enterprise, and allies into customers, who would have to pay for their defence.
This "America First" in geopolitics could plunge the country into isolationism. It's unlikely that the GOP Congress would let Trump make good on his campaign pledges. Republicans and Democrats are proud of their "Pax Americana," that has allowed the international community to benefit from the global "order of free exchange and shared security" since World War II. They need their overseas allies to secure America's "global economic and financial power in a deeply interconnected world. If left unchecked, these countries will eventually be able to threaten core US economic and security interests."
The author is right about an "American disengagement from Europe" being a victory for Putin, who had annexed Crimea, invaded eastern Ukraine and committed war crimes in Syria. Putin has always seen the EU and NATO as thorns in his side. It plays into his hands that the EU and the eurozone be weakened by crises, as it would allow him to reassert "influence in the former Soviet bloc." It's true that the Brexit vote last June and Italy’s "failed referendum on constitutional reforms" in December have taken a toll on the European project, whose future is now being threatened by "extreme anti-Europe left- or right-wing populist parties /that/ could come to power in France and Italy, and possibly in other parts of Europe" in upcoming elections. But Europeans seem to learn a lesson from the US election and seek to prevent Russia from duplicating its success in their countries.
The absence of America's role as global cop would embolden countries with an expansionist ambition to flex their muscles, leading to "a global conflict." The Shia-Sunni conflict in the Middle East could escalate, pitting Iran against Saudi Arabia in their power struggle for regional hegemony and triggering a potential nuclear arms race among key players like Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey; China's territorial disputes with countries in the East and South China Seas would heighten tensions in Asia, encouraging Japan and South Korea to go nuclear and defend themselves against China and North Korea.
While Trump is smitten with admiration for Putin's strong leadershp and has vowed to mend ties with Russia, he is obsessed with China bashing and has raised Beijing hackles by speaking to Taiwan's leader and appointing the economist and China hawk, Peter Navarro to lead his new National Trade Council. Navarro said it "was the worst political and economic mistake in American history in the last 100 years" that Bill Clinton helped China join the World Trade Organisation, allowing cheap Chinese imports inundate the American market.
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 that the author mentions, forced foreign automobile manufacturers to build their models for export to America in America, with American parts and labour. If Trump sets tariffs on Chinese imports with similar attempts to protect America's home economy, experts believe it would be destructive in a world of economic interdependence. Even Navarro finds protectionist measures like the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs a bad idea, as it led into the Great Depression. Nevertheless the "countervailing tariffs" - barriers imposed to stop unfair trading practices that he accuses China of following, could trigger a trade war.
The author says America's protectionist and isolationist policies in the 1930s "hampered global economic growth and trade, and created the conditions for rising revisionist powers to start a world war." Today, he says "similar policy impulses could set the stage for new powers to challenge and undermine the American-led international order." A century ago geography helped America stay away from conflicts and crises, nowadays it won't help protect the "isolationist" Trump from threats posed by "ambitous powers such as Russia, China and Iran" - especially his own personal interests abroad, that are vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schaeffer Jan 3, 2017

"Protectionism – starting with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff"
Alas, ignorance rules. The U.S. imposed very high tariffs with the Fordney–McCumber Tariff starting in 1922. Somehow the U.S. and Europe survived for another 7 years. Indeed, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was a consequence of the Depression, not a cause.

A broader point is that after WWII, America balanced its foreign trade (massive trade deficits came decades later) and rigorously enforced its immigration laws. The U.S. boomed and the world prospered.

Open Borders and huge trade deficits have grievously wounded the USA. We can only hope that Trump will fix these critical problems.
- John Landrum Jan 4, 2017
  
  Well said! Thanks.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Joe Zammit-Lucia Jan 3, 2017

"Russia is already challenging the US and the EU in Ukraine, Syria...etc"

Of course this is true. But also true is that the US and the EU have consistently challenged Russia - expansion of NATO to Russian borders, drawing in Ukraine (a highly sensitive buffer country), etc. It is not clear what an appropriate Russian response should be to these developments.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Christopher williams Jan 3, 2017

Too many facets to cover in a single article, but I would suggest concentrating on one aspect, namely how democracy has been shocked during 2016 - and how we need to understand the reason before the potential of 2017 as a series of after shocks (often more damaging).
The Trump phenomenon is partly caused by a similar protectionism in USA to 90 years ago, but based on economic, rather than military, reasoning. Most middle Americans (i.e. nor from either coast) do not have an interest in the rest of the world; they are concentrating on why their relative wealth has declined over the last 20 years. What Trump has done has been extraordinary in the way he uses simple thoughts and social media to connect with this important sector of America. His message of America First is clearly successful, not least in demanding that foreigners pay for the security that USA offers. In that regard, Trump's apparent friendship with Putin (and therefore, by extension, with Erdogan) should have every European looking very hard at what that means, both on its Eastern borders and for potential flows of migrants from Asia and Africa.
Whether Trump can manage to hold together his rump support in USA is something to consider - although we should assume he can do that, at least for the next year or more - while Europe has to come to big decisions this year. Have we seen the worst in its divisiveness with Brexit, or will French, Dutch, Italian and German electorates be as gullible regarding populist social media?
There is a real danger, both militarily (particularly for Europe) and financially for everyone, but it is hard to see USA coming to help the rest, under its new leader - without enormous sums of money being paid. Is Europe too divided to organize itself, either to negotiate a reasonable sum or to build an alternative defense? I am afraid the answer is 'yes', while each country is becoming more short-termist in its electioneering and choices of new leaders.
For Asia and Africa, no more space in this comment .. but just as many worries ...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mazen Salhab Jan 3, 2017

Seems ' Mr. Roubini is the official spokesman of the democratic US state department ! I might agree with him that the protectionism & isolationism are not the best scenario the US could have , however we have to major concepts : first , the world now is totally different from 1930s & 1930s , the globalization , the technology integration and the global powers. Second ' the US remains the global power and no country would have the ability nor capability to be the super power , at least now . I don't think the Trump's selected administration would be ideological than pragmatic . Trump could have different domestic social & economic policies ' however managing the foreign relations is likely to be pragmatic than what he declared as a presidential candidate , simply because there is no other solution , and making America great again means the economic isolationism is a just another slogan supported by the conservative politicians.
- yw yap Jan 3, 2017
  
  "Making America great again" won him the seat. Whether he will do exactly that is yet to be seen. Hmm, Endless possibilities.....
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jack Lee Jan 3, 2017

When America was first in the 50's 60's 70's 80's and early 90's we did just fine and will again. "Magically" linking America first to isolationism does not make them the same. Historically the US has done best when we kept our interests first. Frankly this whole article is sophomoric.
- Norm Winn Jan 4, 2017
  
  Keeping our interests first and shooting ourselves in the foot aren't the same thing!
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Alexey Kulikov Jan 2, 2017

My company spent 5 years developing profitable product line, which was transferred to China in course of two weeks. Now we are buying the same thing from China, we need it anyway. It’s all D. Trump fault.
- Jose araujo Jan 3, 2017
  
  Its called free markets, and market eficiency, and guess what Mr. Trumps party was allways a greate defender of those.
  
  Bue guess what Democrats were trying to make that in the case your BOSS (mosyt probably a Republican) outsourced the work to china, at least you had the basic to provide food and health to your children
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Julius Bloomfield Jan 2, 2017

Yes, there some big generalizations in this post, but the historical and present trends cannot be ignored. Pedantic arguments about one or two points should not cloud the view of the big picture. Given that there will be a shift in alliances, there will be shift in how trade is conducted in the future. Where will the US consumer get their products at low prices? Will they be prepared to pay for them if they are produced in the US? Perhaps Russia will be the new supplier of cheap goods, produced by US companies operating in Russia? The Turkey/Russia/US alliance is a reality. Where does China fit in? Does it form an alliance with Mexico (which also has warm water ports in the same 2 oceans)? How will Europe deal with Russia without US support? Nobody knows how this will play out, but one thing is certain – a major shift in alliances causes major upheavals in foreign policy and security. Couple all of this with an explosion in population and the ability for third world populations to see how life in like in the modern world, the pressure will continue on mass migration, and the prospect of massive social unrest is very real. Given all of this the public opinion is still of protectionism and a desire to turn the clock back 3 or 4 decades, and once the train of public opinion is going down the tracks it is very hard to stop it, no matter where the track leads.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jerry Syder Jan 2, 2017

this is fear mongering of the first order by a wall street operative who makes a living from international trade and in keeping the status quo world order. the new administration will spread some of their money around more equitably, by creating new markets within the u.s. and more jobs, too. let's give trump a chance to prove his mettle. there'll be plenty of time for criticisms if he fails.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jose araujo Jan 2, 2017

Kudos to Roubini, the only one so far that didn't get carried away by the Trump adoration.

Amazing how many free market defenders are now oligarch champions...
- Norm Winn Jan 4, 2017
  
  Oligarch is perhaps the best descriptor of Trump in his thinking, his methods and more importantly, is telling about how he will govern. That is why he admires Putin, someone whom has levered his time in office into a personal fortune estimated at 85 billion (as reported). Do not be surprised if and when his personal fortune starts influencing his official actions as President.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Armin Schmidt Jan 2, 2017

From my point of view the trend is subgroup liberation. For good reasons. Also feared for good reasons, as mentioned in the article. In my account's biography I propose a safeguarding rule-of-thumb and a bridge towards time of reviving best-for-all spirit.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jerry F. Hough Jan 2, 2017

This is wildly hysterical and just flat wrong on the history of the 1920s and 1930s. As even Krugman says, Smoot-Hawley had almost no effect at all. Did Ataturk follow Hayek as Roubini wants Trump to do? Did that policy destroy Turkey?

The populism that mattered in the 1920s and 1930s came from a populist reaction in Europe--a reaction to excessive free market policies there combined with excessively harsh treatment of Germany.

If the world is lucky, Trump will expand an alliance with Russia to include Turkey (that is, will join the the existing Russia-Turkey alliance) and return to the arrangement that produced peace in Iraq for hundreds of years. Give the South to Persia (that is how the South became Shiite) and the North to Ottomans and predecessors (that is, how the area became Sunni).

What Trump should do is call for Turkish divisions to conquer Mosul--a Sunni city--and tame the Kurds throughout the area with whatever repression is needed. Then let Turkey rule northern Iraq as a tightly run protectorate.

Roubini could not pass an exam in a Freshman American history course. Let him teach Americans something about Turkish history. Most Americans cannot even locate Turkey on a map. Turkey with its 80 million people and a NATO army is the natural great power in the region, not tiny Israel.
- yw yap Jan 3, 2017
  
  Guess turkey is what many Westerners feast on during the Christmas holiday? :)
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.