George Harrell: Peter Zeihan & The Myth of the Pax Americana 

This theology major is using Zeihan's name to get clicks. He cherry picks a few exceptions to the rules based order to say PZ is wrong, but does nothing to disprove the general accuracy of his argument. Horseshit video.

A standard, pedestrian overview of US global policy. One waits in vain for any non-trivial discussion of Zeihan's work. Freaking bait and switch!

All true but it doesn't prove that Pax Americana is a myth. In fact, this reinforces it. The US grew more powerful, even as there were numerous wars, as had always been the case throughout history, but no repeat of those two 20th century global convulsions.

What makes Zeihan’s essays valuable is that he’s able to look forward, to predict coming events. Both in terms of chaos & conflict AND in terms of future opportunities. If you are an investor and have money on the table this material is highly valuable. Not only does he base his analysis on economic data, geography, politics but he has eye opening information on demographics. Your arguments are honest but you are not telling us something we don’t already know. Where is the value? Why would I want more of this? There are no AH HAW moments in your talk. No insightful break throughs. You are mucking about listing the sins of past US governments. Looking backwards. There are a million other historians doing the same thing. You simply don’t understand your opponent. KNOW YOUR OPPONENT before you step into the ring.

A miss read on Bretton Woods and the US role in Globalization. 1, by 1944-46, the US had been dragged, kicking and screaming, into sorting out 2 European Messes and saw a 3rd on the Horizon. The redacted sections of Bretton Woods came up with a plan to deal with this. 2, the USN guaranteed Global Maritime Shipping, Not world peace. Talk of World Peace was all a cover to make the US costs for Globalization politically palatable. Rather, Globalization was a bribe to join the US as allies vs the Soviet Union. This worked because the European States had had to rely on reaching out of Europe for resources for the previous 500 years in order to survive in the Ultra competitive European theater. Without Navies to protect shipping, they were doomed. 3, after the Soviet Union fell, the US fished around for an alternative strategic purpose for Globalization all the while retooling its Navy for policing, but not Maritime Security. 4, the US sacrificed about 1/3 of its business, capital and jobs over 70 years to keep Globalization going. The US voters and industry are now tired of the expense. 5, so now, Globalization is coming to an end because a lack of tools to protect shipping, with unsurprising consequences.

Where's the myth??? I can find out myself what Zeihan says. Where's your argument what is what YOU have to say?

So, what's your point? The US government acted on behalf of US political and economic interests. If long term planning was involved rather than post war opportunism, all the better. Communism was the sworn enemy to western capitalism and were also engaged in covert operations to gain power and influence throughout the world. Zeihans interpretations on the development of the post-war Bretton Woods arrangement are accurate and that arrangement raised that standard of living through (mostly) peaceful means for much of the world up to this very day. You make a lot of statements, but don't indicate what YOU would have done if you were at the helm of US foreign economic and military policy. Your next video (I did subscribe) should include your global policy strategy that would have made the US economy more robust than it is, in that same time frame. I would also enjoy hearing your political and economic policy recommendations for reindustrializing North America to produce the things we need for our standard of living if China and other non-western producers go into decline, as Zeihan suggests. I look forward to your future work.

I’m waiting for you to make a coherent point. Your family should be deeply disappointed in you!

I'm here for any mention of the OSS.

I’m sorry, but this also misses Zeihan’s greater point all together. This guy wants to point out understood truths of history and say that Zeihan is wrong because he doesn’t celebrate these facts. This is just a speech about the speaker not getting it. I encourage anyone reading this and the speaker himself to read “end of the world..” and then watch some of Zeihan’s forums in the interest of understanding what is being spelled out.

The USA entangling ourselves into foreign alliances is a violation of the fundamental principles our beautiful Country was founded upon. Peter gives excellent lessons in geography and demographics. He confesses he’s an internationalist, Atlanticist and a huge fan of the Bretton Woods order and bemoans its collapse.

The gentleman represents a generation of males SAVED from a world were they are drafted into service, thanks pax America.

The entire premise of your arguement is wrong because the US was not a hegemon during the cold war. The last 30 years of US-secured globalization have been an extremely useful post-colonial evener. Rich powerful countries had to struggle to maintain wealth and relevance, while poor countries built relevance and power to keep others out.

The CFA is a great outrage.

It didn't seem to be the purpose of the talk, but it would be nice if such things ended with a crack at a reasonable solution. We often hear people bemone one state of affairs or another (e.g. mideast conflict), or give an excellent history lesson, as shown here, but then often we hear nothing about a path forward that the parties involved can take seriously.

All this guy did was cherry pick post World War II history. Did this guy support his pax America criticism?

This dude read the book of Zeihan, I thought he’s making a valid rebuttal of his book? 😂

Dude geopolitics is not your realm. Im not an expert but this feels like a paper written by a high school junior

Christians...

The incel platform is strange

this guy simply quotes other people . . . just bs