World

Ezra Klein reviews the new book The Post-American World by Fareed Zakaria:

In short, Zakaria makes two arguments, one descriptive, one normative. The first argument, the descriptive one, is that moment of unipolarity is ending. This odd interregnum between the fall of the Soviet Union and the maturation of other world powers (ranging from developing behemoths like India and China to major alliances like the EU) is coming to an inevitable, and entirely predictable, end. America will neither rule nor run the world alone. India, China, Brazil, Russia, and Europe are simply too big to let us have the globe to ourselves. [...]

The question, then, is not whether a multipolar world will arise, but how we will react to it. We can, as many of the neoconservatives advocate, react with fear and suspicion, viewing the power of others as a threat to ourselves. [...] We can, in other words, create a zero-sum international competition with all the attendant risks and consequences.

Or we can see the arrival of other powers as a positive-sum development. We can realize that just as Japan benefits from the internet created in America, so too can we benefit from advances discovered in China, Brazil, and Germany. A cancer cure developed in Singapore can save lives in South Dakota, an energy technology discovered in Germany can cut emissions in Georgia. And on a global political level, we can see these emergent powers as protectors and guarantors of regional stability and progress who will do much to better their own regions and reduce the sort of chaos that could spin beyond borders and across continents.

Liberals see opportunities for cooperation, while conservatives see nothing but competition.

See Newsweek for an excerpt from the book.

Ezra Klein discusses the French presidential election and that country's love of leisure time:

The apparent popularity of the 35-hour workweek, though, deserves some attention — as does the French mandate of 5 weeks of vacation. The French like not working incessantly. They are consciously sacrificing a bit of economic growth in order to devote more time to leisure. It's a perfectly legitimate choice for a society to make. But it's never represented that way in domestic punditry, as we exclusively evaluate policy decisions based on their effects on measurable economic indicators. [...]

I'd give up a lot for a guaranteed five weeks of vacation. That's time enough to vacation with friends, and regularly see my family, and take the occasional long weekend. Indeed, I'd love to see an economist model what that would cost us. It would have to be an almost unimaginably high number to dissuade me from taking the deal.

It's rare that I read an opinion piece in the mainstream media anymore that's startlingly creative and original. But TIME Magazine's Person of the Year is someone that nobody ever would have guessed.

America loves its solitary geniuses — its Einsteins, its Edisons, its Jobses — but those lonely dreamers may have to learn to play with others. Car companies are running open design contests. Reuters is carrying blog postings alongside its regular news feed. Microsoft is working overtime to fend off user-created Linux. We're looking at an explosion of productivity and innovation, and it's just getting started, as millions of minds that would otherwise have drowned in obscurity get backhauled into the global intellectual economy.

Who are these people? Seriously, who actually sits down after a long day at work and says, I'm not going to watch Lost tonight. I'm going to turn on my computer and make a movie starring my pet iguana? I'm going to mash up 50 Cent's vocals with Queen's instrumentals? I'm going to blog about my state of mind or the state of the nation or the steak-frites at the new bistro down the street? Who has that time and that energy and that passion?

The answer is, you do. And for seizing the reins of the global media, for founding and framing the new digital democracy, for working for nothing and beating the pros at their own game, TIME's Person of the Year for 2006 is you.

AP:

Americans question the ability of the United States to create democracy in other countries, and are divided on whether successful efforts could even make the U.S. safer, according to a poll released Thursday.

Only 36 percent of those surveyed by the Public Agenda Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index believe the U.S. can help spread democracy — a major objective for the Bush administration in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.

"People do regard it as a desirable goal," Public Agenda Chairman Daniel Yankelovich said. "But from a common sense point of view, both Democrats and Republicans have concluded that democracy is something that countries come to on their own."

Barbara O'Brien of Mahablog on globalization:

So maybe I'm an economic imbecile but I can't see how "opportunities" are being created for American workers when appliances are built in Mexico and sold in India. And whenever I have asked this of righties, I'm told a little pain is the price of progress — once upon a time horse-drawn carriage manufacturers went out of business, too.

Yes, but as I understand it people stopped buying horse-drawn carriages because they were buying automobiles instead — automobiles mostly manufactured in Detroit. So automobile manufacturing replaced carriage manufacturing; when one door closed, another was already open. Electric lights replaced candles. Home computers replaced typewriters. One kind of manufacturing was shoved aside as another took its place. Yes this was stressful on individuals who lost jobs, but technological innovations do create many new opportunities.

But outsourcing is different. What new opportunities will be created for workers by outsourcing manufacturing overseas? Please spell it out for me. I can't see it. Yes, American-owned businesses might make more money, but there's no law that says that money will be used to create more jobs for American workers. It's more likely to create more jobs for Mexican workers. How can American labor compete other than by pricing itself down?

And this from Robert Kuttner in the Boston Globe: