Comment [3]

Agree? Disagree? Let us know what you think. Please include your full name with your comment. Comments may be edited.

• I think mr. Bremmer is right that the world uni-polarization is coming to an end. If we accept the cyclical form of history, then empires come and go. So be it for the American Empire. But the question of interest here is how is this empire going to retreat? Will it “strike back” in trying to remain “on the throne”? I hope not because empires have the ability to disrupt the “natural equilibrum “of this planet and make life for all the others an “inferno”. let’s hope the bail-outs will not make the poor poorer and the rich richer.

  Posted 1 April 2009, 18:50 by Ergis Sefa

• Whilst the populations of democratic nations have lost their appetite for liberal interventionism…and there was enough of a taste amongst many western citizens to have empowered governments to go to war…and politicians are probably less inclined to risk further bloody conflicts, the idea of a non-polar world advocated by Bremmer seems highly possible as governments would rather shore up their own national power base. China and others of course have had little military interest outside its recognised boarders (Tibet and Taiwan et. al.). However the Realist in me can’t quite accept that countries will not attempt to take greater geo-political control particularly as emerging states, once they sense that the ‘big players’ a not moving militarily according to their traditional polarity, will attempt to fill the vacuum. Will so called ‘rogue-nations’ be given this kind of carte blanche? I doubt it. Will such states as Venezuela or Iran who threaten to control certain economic clusters within regions be let off the leash? I think in the end we will remain multi-polar for a while to come.

  Posted 29 March 2009, 14:10 by Dan Stork Banks

• Globalization is a need for human development and growth but as any other tool it required regulating to make it transparent & Fair and the same was lacking from existing practices.

  Globalisation should mean fair integration of nations production, knowledge and wealth .

  What goes wrong in capitalism that they thought that the only forbidden is what you fail to get? this is can not sustain , money need to be invested in added value operations to generate profits and not through Brokering and derivatives.
  .

  Posted 29 March 2009, 00:09 by Mohamed Salem

Commenting is closed for this article.

• The new normal

  The business landscape has changed fundamentally; tomorrow’s environment will be different, but no less rich in possibilities for those who are prepared, argues McKinsey's worldwide managing director Ian Davis.

• China takes aim at dollar

  The Wall Street Journal reports on China's call for a new currency to replace the dollar as the world's standard.

• Zhou Xiaochuan's speech

  The full text of the essay by Zhou Xiaochuan, China's central bank governor, in which he calls for a new world currency, is available here.

• A New Deal for Globalization

  Rising wage inequality in the U.S. is threatening a protectionist backlash that will hurt everyone. The best way to avert the problem, argue Kenneth Scheve and Matthew Slaughter in Foreign Affairs, is by instituting a New Deal for globalization -- one that links engagement with the world economy to a substantial redistribution of income. (Article requires registration)