This is absolutely right. US leadership in kickstarting the international economy is crucial. But the case for this is also partly because the United States itself is dependent on the good health of the world economy.

The Bank of England said this just now in explaining its latest historic interest rate cut – “The world economy appears to be undergoing an unusually sharp and synchronised downturn. Measures of business and consumer confidence have fallen markedly. World trade growth this year is likely to be the weakest for some considerable time.” As Obama said soon after the election – “We must also remember that the financial crisis is increasingly global and requires a global response.”

In the discussions of recent months it has become increasingly clear to me that both the US and the wider global economies need:
1. coordinated macro-economic stimulus (both through monetary and fiscal policy)
2. strong international economic institutions like the IMF and World Bank (both of which seem to have been contributing positively to dealing with the current crisis), and
3. every possible measure to maintain an open international trading system and to avoid the perils of protectionism.

This is very much in line with what we can learn from the now-revived John Maynard Keynes (as understood from Skidelsky’s and Moggridge’s biographies, and Markwell’s study of Keynes and international relations).

It is good to see Barack Obama place emphasis on the international context, and the importance of US leadership. It would be even better to see him commit clearly to those three points, including to be clear that he will stand strongly against the self-destructive economic nationalism and protectionism that has done so much harm in the past.

US economic leadership in this way will serve the interests both of the United States and of the wider world.