J| WHAT IS THE GLOBAL SCOPE OF THE U.S.?

Although the complexities of governance of the U.S. are not easy to decipher, it is compelling to know its current understanding of global issues and how it plans to optimally manage them amidst a multifarious collection of possibilities which have various probabilities of success and various levels of risk.  I am talking about the U.S. ability of managing global relations in a way that would safeguard its global leadership.   

Is there an optimum approach
to Polyarchy

Relevant initiatives should focus on identifying value systems that are similar to that of the U.S.  Specifically, I am suggesting a three-prong strategy with which to address the global governing challenge of the U.S.  For instance, solidifying relations with individualistic socioeconomic cultures, which by definition are in proximity to the U.S., should be the first strategy. 

Second strategy would be to identify, initiate and develop relations with trans-culturalist countries as such environments would be more prone to appreciate and accept the individualistic values of the U.S.

The third strategy would focus on cultivating a symbiotic relationship with countries that embrace collectivistic socioeconomic values.  In the interim, care must be exercised in mitigating ill-effects resulting from transitioning from collectivism to individualism and vice versa.  In an increasingly globalizing environment, antithetical positions will always be present, and those should be accepted and viewed as differentiable.  That is, we can expect and try to encourage similar thinking but we should not hope to homogenize behaviors.

By and large, U.S. global leadership’s goal should be to create encourage and support a global value system that brings dissimilar value systems closer to understanding and accepting each other.  In the future, near or distant, amidst a polyarchic environment, the challenges that the U.S. faced in the days of the cold war with the Soviet Union would pale in comparison to the challenges that ostensibly may be developing in its relationship with China and other developing global antagonists.   

A quick look at the World Economy 

Following the U.S. victory at the 2^nd World War and the Bretton Woods Conference of 1944, the U.S. Dollar was established as the world’s reserve currency.  Under that regime every currency was pegged on the Dollar and the Dollar was the only currency to be pegged on gold.  This system has allowed the U.S. to control the value of the Dollar and trade activity.  That is, the Dollar value is affected by inflation and the level of trade activity is determined by the strength or weakness of the Dollar.  

On the basis of the above it is plausible to ask: Why is the Biden Administration testing the tolerance of the U.S. economy, the international integrity of the U.S. Dollar, the strength of long-standing politico-economic relations with other countries and, in fact, with other confirmed international partnering relationships?  Haven’t we learned from the Johnson Administration’s experience with financing the Vietnam War and Poverty?  Such experience caused persistent inflation and the first loss of faith in the dollar as well as the subsequent decision of the Nixon Administration to end the convertibility of the Dollar to Gold, and, its resulted devaluation. 

Furthermore, what action could the U.S. government take in order to neutralize and render ineffective the action of BRICS and others to challenge the reserve status of the U.S. Dollar?  Collectively, a quick answer to both would be controlling inflation and heading off an out-of-control debt-to-GDP ratio. 

China is thought, by political experts and economists, to be the most formidable global antagonist to the U.S. on economic, military and geopolitical fronts such as international relations.  

Different prognosticators have made different predictions about the expected growth of the Chinese economy.  Goldman Sacks suggests that China’s GDP will exceed that of the U.S. by 2035.  Likewise, Citi Bank’s institutional research predicts that China’s GDP will outpace that of the U.S. by the mid 2030s.  Regardless, the U.S. GDP in 2022 was $25.5 trillion, whereas China’s GDP was $18.3 trillion.  Above predictions may or may not hold depending on the growth of the respective economies.  However, it is worth noting that, at this writing, the debt-to-GDP ratio of the U.S. is around 123% whereas the debt-to-GDP of China is around 70%.  In addition, according to a report by the Institute of International Finance (IIF) debt is likely to be adversely affected as the growth of the economy slows.  It would be interesting to note how the fluidity of economic growth may be affected favorably or unfavorably.  For instance, the higher the global market share of Artificial Intelligence (AI) the greater the revenues and return to the economy.  Publicized forecasts predict that AI will contribute $900 billion by 2026 and more than $15 trillion by 2030 to the global economy.  

Question: What might the global market share of AI be for the U.S.? 

Cross-cultural Issues 

I would like to discuss select cross-cultural issues that are seemingly pertinent in our day-and-age exchange which either enhance positive relations or augment conflict.  The negative effects dominate in cultures that are rigidly different.

Perception – Behavior

Social psychology suggests that perception affects behavior and that behavior is a reflexive act of perception.  In turn, perception is affected by cognitive analysis of information as it may be impacted by existing customs and cultural values.  It follows that behavior might be influenced by the dynamic exchange between communicative cognition and cultural traits or character as those are thought to influence formation of perception.  By and large, the perception that the American culture is an internationally recognized popular culture is an unspoken advantage which the U.S. must safeguard as it will yield favorable behavior toward the U.S.  

By contrast, knowing that the American culture is not positively viewed everywhere, the U.S. must strive to change existing negative perceptions against it.  For instance, President Putin of Russia reportedly has stated that a nuclear war with America is inevitable.  Such statement accentuates the imperative need of the U.S. to manage and mitigate the above Putin’s perception.

Impact of Communication on Collaboration

In a global context, communication between antagonistic cultures might either help alleviate conflict or even establish and enhance collaboration.  Showing a culture of flexibility, in communications, insufflates goodwill enhancing the level of trust, fostering perception and understanding behavior.  

In antithesis, lack of communication is viewed as helping to increase antagonistic behavior.  This is a valid syllogism since communication is a necessary step to potentially foster collaboration.  By communication I mean observing and developing awareness of the counterpart’s positions and their likely misinterpretation of our relevant positions.  This exercise would establish viable understanding of different positions, creating and increasing trust and ensuring prospects of collaboration.  

Regulative vs. Cognitive-Cultural 

Different cultural environments pose different challenges to the individuals, organizations, or countries in their exchanges with each other.  There are two such distinctly different environments.  Those are Regulative and Cognitive-Cultural.  First, let’s define the idiosyncrasy of Regulative and Cognitive-Cultural.  Regulative contextual essence addresses a standardized organizational cultural environment.  Whereas, Cognitive-Cultural embraces socio-cultural values that are less standardized and more fluid and flowing.  

The context of those cultures has different impact on those who practice or exercise them.  In a Regulative environment different cultures engage in standardized exchange with a unified purpose to achieve a prescribed task or goal.  For instance, the Federal Reserve Bank employs economists of different ethnicities and gender, such as; Black, Asian, White, Male and Female.  

On the contrary, in a Cognitive-Cultural environment people’s cultural values and habits take precedence over organizational tasks or goals.  Now, the interfacing of the above two cultures is likely to produce an overlap in the cross-cultural space known as Trans-culturalism.  Trans-culturalism may increase the cohesiveness between or among disparate cultures.

Politico-Economic Cultures

How do politico-economic cultures differ?  Conflict results from the institutional politico-economic framework.  Countries operate under different sociopolitical structures.  Such sociopolitical structures affect economic development.  Political systems view and practice governance differently.  For instance, the use of regulation may produce or stagnate economic activity.  

Government policy may, at times, have more or less social orientation.  For instance, in Sweden healthcare is funded by public funds.  Regulation may be used to achieve economic ends or effect social goals.  Often, governments use both regulation and deregulation in their search for an optimum position in response to social expectations.  Benefits of economic regulation must not be at the expense of the benefits sought through social regulation.  The desired middle ground of those two would be the theoretical optimum at which the society should derive the highest possible payoffs.  A sustainable long-term policy for the U.S. would be to achieve and maintain an optimum balance between economic growth and satisfaction of social needs.

Author: CGP .+.