We’re basically screwed. And while all of this is happening we can only look on on horror while there is practically zero credible resistance to the maga cult.
The US gave a Security Guarantee to Ukraine to get rid of its nuclear weapons. So did nuclear powers Britain, France and Russia. Britain and France will honour this, the US and Russia not so much...
Harry Dexter White, for those who don’t know, led the US delegation at Bretton Woods and was a Soviet agent, albeit pre-Cold War and before Communism was discredited and its barbarity well known.
Chris, as a student of Keynes’ career, do you think is any parallel now to the pro-Russian / anti-UK/Europe position taken by Harry Dexter White in Bretton Woods (against Keynes’ global interest)? From what little I know and understand of that fascinating era it looks to me that the US / HDW position then is very close to what we’re seeing today: to protect ourselves we need to empower our enemies and weaken our friends.
Apologies for delayed response - I've actually been thinking long and hard about your question.
One of the traps we fall into is saying things like 'the US view was...' or 'the US thinks this...'
Of course, this is anthropomorphic. Views and behaviours of a country vary, depending on who you are talking to and, most critically, who is in charge at any particular time. We reach for overarching theories and explanations that often over-simplify. At least, that's what I tend to do.
I once read a story about Truman - I've only a memory of this and cannot find a reference so it may be bogus. Truman is alleged to have said, long after he abruptly called in all the UK's lend-lease loans of WW2, "if i had known what i was signing, I wouldn't have done it". Calling in those debts bankrupted the UK and some historians think made a big contribution to the post-war immiseration of the UK and the collapse of Empire. Some also say that the collapse of Empire was an explicit policy goal of the US. In keeping with my first comments, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that powerful elements in the US administration wanted to reduce the UK to a minor power, to the benefit of the US. Most US citizens probably couldn't have cared less about the UK.
Which brings me to Harry D-W. Many historians think he was a Soviet spy but there is still some doubt. What he definitely did was get the better of Keynes at Bretton Woods. He pursued what he saw as US interests and clearly thought that reducing Britain to size would be to the benefit of the US. Maybe he thought that would also help Russia but I guess we will never know.
It was Palmerston, I think, who said that countries have no friends, only interests. Over the past 80 years you could interpret all US foreign policy in those terms. You could also spot one or two things they did that were done simply because they were the right thing to do. We only observe actions and outcomes but can never see inside the heads of the actors.
What we do know is that the last 80 years were very unusual in terms of European history. Since Columbus stumbled on the Americas, there has been a big war of one kind or another, roughly every 30 years or so. Often involving Germany and France and the UK. Or whatever those countries were called at the time.
Great power rivalry, unchecked and unbalanced always ends up in the same place. Because narrow self interest, unchecked, always leads to war.
Thanks, and I’m flattered that the question piqued your interest and prompted such a long and thoughtful reply. The BW negotiations era was fascinating, I must study it better. I think it’d make a great docu-drama mini series!
I’m afraid I share your view about war. I think it’s now very much a non-trivial risk. Where or when is uncertain but the history of fascism and unchecked power suggests it’s likely.
We’re basically screwed. And while all of this is happening we can only look on on horror while there is practically zero credible resistance to the maga cult.
In my tiny and insignificant way, I am fighting!
Minsky can never be cited often enough!
The US gave a Security Guarantee to Ukraine to get rid of its nuclear weapons. So did nuclear powers Britain, France and Russia. Britain and France will honour this, the US and Russia not so much...
Harry Dexter White, for those who don’t know, led the US delegation at Bretton Woods and was a Soviet agent, albeit pre-Cold War and before Communism was discredited and its barbarity well known.
Chris, as a student of Keynes’ career, do you think is any parallel now to the pro-Russian / anti-UK/Europe position taken by Harry Dexter White in Bretton Woods (against Keynes’ global interest)? From what little I know and understand of that fascinating era it looks to me that the US / HDW position then is very close to what we’re seeing today: to protect ourselves we need to empower our enemies and weaken our friends.
Apologies for delayed response - I've actually been thinking long and hard about your question.
One of the traps we fall into is saying things like 'the US view was...' or 'the US thinks this...'
Of course, this is anthropomorphic. Views and behaviours of a country vary, depending on who you are talking to and, most critically, who is in charge at any particular time. We reach for overarching theories and explanations that often over-simplify. At least, that's what I tend to do.
I once read a story about Truman - I've only a memory of this and cannot find a reference so it may be bogus. Truman is alleged to have said, long after he abruptly called in all the UK's lend-lease loans of WW2, "if i had known what i was signing, I wouldn't have done it". Calling in those debts bankrupted the UK and some historians think made a big contribution to the post-war immiseration of the UK and the collapse of Empire. Some also say that the collapse of Empire was an explicit policy goal of the US. In keeping with my first comments, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that powerful elements in the US administration wanted to reduce the UK to a minor power, to the benefit of the US. Most US citizens probably couldn't have cared less about the UK.
Which brings me to Harry D-W. Many historians think he was a Soviet spy but there is still some doubt. What he definitely did was get the better of Keynes at Bretton Woods. He pursued what he saw as US interests and clearly thought that reducing Britain to size would be to the benefit of the US. Maybe he thought that would also help Russia but I guess we will never know.
It was Palmerston, I think, who said that countries have no friends, only interests. Over the past 80 years you could interpret all US foreign policy in those terms. You could also spot one or two things they did that were done simply because they were the right thing to do. We only observe actions and outcomes but can never see inside the heads of the actors.
What we do know is that the last 80 years were very unusual in terms of European history. Since Columbus stumbled on the Americas, there has been a big war of one kind or another, roughly every 30 years or so. Often involving Germany and France and the UK. Or whatever those countries were called at the time.
Great power rivalry, unchecked and unbalanced always ends up in the same place. Because narrow self interest, unchecked, always leads to war.
Thanks, and I’m flattered that the question piqued your interest and prompted such a long and thoughtful reply. The BW negotiations era was fascinating, I must study it better. I think it’d make a great docu-drama mini series!
I’m afraid I share your view about war. I think it’s now very much a non-trivial risk. Where or when is uncertain but the history of fascism and unchecked power suggests it’s likely.
a fabulous book on BW is the one (The Summit) by Ed Conway of sky news
It’s difficult to know what the outcome of all this Trump-Musk generated chaos will be.
I’m amazed that more US multinationals are not up in arms!
Economic growth won’t occur with the present uncertainties.