The article argues that the post-Cold War era of U.S. unipolarity, established by the perceived invincibility demonstrated during the Gulf War, has ended. This decline is driven by globalization and technological diffusion, which have democratized advanced military capabilities, allowing regional actors to challenge major powers. Consequently, policymakers must prepare for a more volatile international order marked by frequent crises, heightened costs for securing global trade chokepoints, and reduced predictability from American power. The new rules dictate that great powers can no longer effortlessly impose their will through force.
The Trouble With State Capitalism
English Summary
Geopolitical tensions and the rise of economic warfare are fundamentally reshaping the relationship between states and private enterprise. Governments are increasingly implementing robust measures—such as export controls, investment screening, and subsidies—to protect domestic markets and reshore critical industries. This necessity forces states to compel corporate behavior to achieve foreign policy aims, effectively leading to a global trend toward state capitalism. Policymakers must recognize that the success of these interventions depends on the state's ability to manage and dictate corporate actions, fundamentally altering traditional market dynamics.
中文摘要
地緣政治緊張局勢和經濟戰的興起，正在從根本上重塑國家與私人企業之間的關係。各國政府正越來越多地實施強力的措施——例如出口管制、投資審查和補貼——以保護國內市場並將關鍵產業本土化。這種必要性迫使國家必須強制企業行為以達成外交政策目標，從而有效地引導出全球傾向於國家資本主義的趨勢。政策制定者必須認識到，這些干預措施的成功取決於國家管理和指導企業行動的能力，從根本上改變了傳統的市場動態。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
The article argues that current market borrowing costs are rising independently of the Federal Reserve's policy stance, challenging the assumption that the Fed controls all rates. Evidence shows significant increases in key rates—such as 2-year Treasuries and mortgages—even while the effective federal funds rate remains steady. This divergence occurs because market rates reflect complex factors like inflation expectations, credit risk, and geopolitical volatility, which are outside the central bank's direct control. Policymakers should therefore recognize that sustainable rate moderation requires credible disinflation and disciplined government budgets, rather than relying solely on Fed intervention.
-
3.
Despite recent trade setbacks, the U.S. retains fundamental structural economic leverage over China, particularly in high-tech sectors and intermediate goods. While Beijing can temporarily weaponize specific resources like rare earths, these chokepoints are vulnerable to diversification efforts by the West. The article argues that the most effective strategy is not unilateral action but coordinated multilateral pressure from U.S. allies across Asia and Europe. Washington must therefore coordinate its economic statecraft with partners to maximize damage to China’s export-dependent model.
-
4.
The article argues that bond market behavior is not driven by an 'addiction' to tariff revenue but rather by the government’s overall fiscal health, growth prospects, and debt servicing capacity. Key evidence shows that customs duties generate a fraction of total federal receipts compared to core tax streams, meaning tariffs are too small to fundamentally alter the nation's fiscal trajectory. Furthermore, market reactions were dictated by the aggregate economic damage caused by large tariffs (inflation/growth concerns), not merely the revenue generated. Policymakers should recognize that the real concern for bond investors remains persistent budget deficits and high interest costs, issues that require comprehensive structural reform rather than reliance on tariff income.
-
5.
The author argues that the new 'Section 301' tariffs, ostensibly targeting forced labor, are not a genuine human rights measure but rather an attempt to re-establish a broad, punitive tariff wall. Key evidence supporting this claim includes the rushed nature of the investigation (98 pages for 60 economies), the lack of specific economic harm analysis, and the imposition of disproportionately high tariffs that far exceed any proportional response. Strategically, the use of human rights language to generate revenue sets a dangerous precedent, potentially allowing future administrations to bypass legislative processes and misuse trade law. The article concludes by urging Congress to reform these laws before they cause further damage to international trade frameworks.