Opinion Realistically speaking how much longer do you expect the US to be the most powerful nation?

[Sketch]

Trade deficits are partly a reward for being a successful nation. Gov't debt isn't at levels where it's a problem. Where we really have a disadvantage is our low population relative to China's. That means that in terms of total market power, they're likely to pass us (though they have serious demographic problems of their own). We have other advantages and better relationships with other powerful countries. My guess is that we will remain the most powerful nation throughout the lifetime of everyone living, but the margin will continue to fall unless we can boost immigration numbers.

Way too obvious

 

[tenniswhiz]

I never thought I’d say it...but it’s actually important to have a few guys who lean towards the foreign policy of Kissinger, Weinberger, and Cheney. America should always be in a position to dominate.
It’s a balance though. You can’t let those guys take control of everything either.

 

[Jack V Savage]

What's the problem?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Way too obvious

I'm talking about economics. It is obviously true.

 

[Perturabo]

What's the problem?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Racists out in force today, I see.

 

[Confucamus]

The EU is being subverted and will fall as well. Poland and Eastern Europe aren’t going to cuck under and become African/Islamic nations like the UK and France and Germany.

Europe is in just as bad of a spot as we are in america. Canada Australia and New Zealand are fucked as well.

A lot of people forget how close we came. Hillary wanted to increase refugee flow from Syria by 550%.

 

[Sketch]

I'm talking about economics. It is obviously true.

Rather than immigration, what about incentives for Americans to have kids?

 

[Proud American]

Rather than immigration, what about incentives for Americans to have kids?

We both know the answer to that question.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Rather than immigration, what about incentives for Americans to have kids?

No need to choose. We should do both.

 

[Sketch]

We both know the answer to that question.

What’s interesting is he uses China as an example. China is almost completely homogenous and completely against immigration. They even have concentration camps.

 

[Jack V Savage]

What’s interesting is he uses China as an example. China is almost completely homogenous and completely against immigration. They even have concentration camps.

If you guys like China so much, you should move there.

 

[Sketch]

No need to choose. We should do both.

I agree. I just felt your initial answer seemed to imply (Which it did) that pure immigration is the answer. Let’s build up the native population too, right? A startling number of abortions happen in the black community for example. America should be focusing on Americans first and immigration as the secondary choice.

 

[DespicablePeep]

The Americans are also obsessed with Russia for example. For Europe it is not relevant. Russia is relevant just in terms of army.

So what China will be No 1? They are 1,4 billion.

People in Canada and Europe are more relaxed.

Wut? I'm portuguese. Their 1.4Bi is precisely what makes them special, they have enough cheap labour to sacrifice for their growth and yet they are expanding their labour to poorer countries, taking over Africa and South America.

PCC has a clear goal and no morals about using cheap labour to get there.

Why you think Europe or US keep turning a blind eye to immigration? The rich need cheap labour and a market.

 

[Sketch]

If you guys like China so much, you should move there.

Where in my post does it say I like China? There is no example of me liking China in that post.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I agree. I just felt your initial answer seemed to imply (Which it did) that pure immigration is the answer. Let’s build up the native population too, right? A startling number of abortions happen in the black community for example. America should be focusing on Americans first and immigration as the secondary choice.

The problem with trying to encourage births is that it'll take a while to start having an impact on birthrates, and then babies take a long time before they can contribute meaningfully to the economy. Immigration is a shortcut to maintaining our (i.e., America's--I know you're Canadian) economic superiority over China.

Where in my post does it say I like China? There is no example of me liking China in that post.

You're not supporting the stupid policies that are ensuring their doom? Seems that you were pointing them out as if they're good (while I was pointing out that their sole advantage over us is their bigger population).

 

[Sketch]

The problem with trying to encourage births is that it'll take a while to start having an impact on birthrates, and then babies take a long time before they can contribute meaningfully to the economy. Immigration is a shortcut to maintaining our (i.e., America's--I know you're Canadian) economic superiority over China.



You're not supporting the stupid policies that are ensuring their doom?

Hmm, this doesn’t make sense. So America will take in more immigrants than they can handle to artificially fight against a country like China with 1 billion Chinese? America can barely take care of its population now. Lack of family doctors and healthcare, lack of housing etc.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Hmm, this doesn’t make sense. So America will take in more immigrants than they can handle to artificially fight against a country like China with 1 billion Chinese? While it’a a noble cause, America can barely take care of its population now. Lack of family doctors and healthcare, lack of housing etc.

America can handle many, many more immigrants (remember, we don't have a natural-resource-based economy; more prime-age adults means we're richer per person). We should build more also.

Initial point was that China will close the power gap with us because their economy will eventually become bigger (making them the most important market, which gives them significant leverage in dealing with companies and other countries). The reason their economy will eventually be bigger even though they're much poorer per person is that they have a lot more people. The obvious way to counter that is to get more people. And their long-term population trend is down so we could turn things around again pretty quickly with smart immigration policy (including getting their best people).

 

[Sketch]

America can handle many, many more immigrants (remember, we don't have a natural-resource-based economy; more prime-age adults means we're richer per person). We should build more also.

Initial point was that China will close the power gap with us because their economy will eventually become bigger (making them the most important market, which gives them significant leverage in dealing with companies and other countries). The reason their economy will eventually be bigger even though they're much poorer per person is that they have a lot more people. The obvious way to counter that is to get more people. And their long-term population trend is down so we could turn things around again pretty quickly with smart immigration policy (including getting their best people).

So China will have a bigger economy because they have more people, and the solution is for America to also get more people?

Got it.

Edit: I just saw your closing point, about taking Chinas best. That is so naive it’s almost surreal to read.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So China will have a bigger economy because they have more people, and the solution is for America to also get more people?

Got it.

Big part of it, yeah. Just basic logic. I happen to think there are other good reasons for pursuing a growth agenda (which, again, also includes encouraging more births), but my belief that it's better for the world to have the U.S. rather than China in the position of world economic leader is a major driver of it.