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

[ShinkanPo]

The US was fine with giving China advanced technology, for decades. Only more recently they have started to open their eyes to the threat that China is. Back in Clinton days, Bill Clinton mega funder Bernard Schwartz even gave China technology that would make their ballistic missilves more accurate.

The USSR never matched the West for technology, despite throwing ever resource they had at matching and surpassing the West. China, without access to Western and Japanese technology, is not going to match the West anytime soon.

And they are starting to feel the strain of their own ecconomy like how they arrested JackMan.

Soon other Chinese industrialist might just take their patents elsewhere if they fear the CCP could judt go JakMah on them.

Then there is thr fact that it costs more to do your own research about Chips and they know its cheaper and to import American tech than to put money in R&D sure the more amboitous Chinese nationalists,the scholars,the humanists all want to strive for a sekf suficient China but the company heads,communist commisars,Chiefs are all about making quick profits.

 

[MicroBrew]

The main strength of our country is our economy. In many ways half the population wants to see the economy redone. Democrats want to export much of our manufacturing capabilities overseas to China, Mexico, etc. Much of that is being done by making energy and manufacturing very expensive in America due to green ideas.

China has made it well known that they want to be the manufacturing country of the world. The idea that China is going to give that up for green ideas is humorous. China hopes to sell of solar panels and e-cars.

So I don't know, if America can be the top economic country in the world without a significant manufacturing base. It's an experiment that Democrats want to see done to the country. I hope it turns out for the best.

I've often thought much of this race woke ideology being being pushed by Democrat politicians and Universities comes from the exporting of our manufacturing jobs. If kids have fewer job prospects, less reasons to attend Universities, other social ideas are to be pushed.

It isn't Democrats who want to export US manufacturing , it is the whole GOP / DNC establishment and Corporate America. It was Nixon who welcomed China. It was Bush Jnr who signed the Permanent Normal Trading Relations law (permanent Most Favored Nation status) for China that allowed American corps. to increase outsourcing.

 

[MicroBrew]

And they are starting to feel the strain of their own ecconomy like how they arrested JackMan.

Soon other Chinese industrialist might just take their patents elsewhere if they fear the CCP could judt go JakMah on them.

Then there is thr fact that it costs more to do your own research about Chips and they know its cheaper and to import American tech than to put money in R&D sure the more amboitous Chinese nationalists,the scholars,the humanists all want to strive for a sekf suficient China but the company heads,communist commisars,Chiefs are all about making quick profits.

CCP would love to be self sufficient, because self sufficiency is critical to being a world power and for national security. They just don't have the expertise and knowledge base, so they resort to stealing.

 

[tangata motu'a]

Who cares how "powerful" we are? That is so pathetic to worry about things like that. I would settle for the most diverse nation, kindest nation or the least racist nation. We have a long way to go to achieve any of those, so we should be focusing on that instead

 

[Fox by the Sea]

Who cares how "powerful" we are? That is so pathetic to worry about things like that. I would settle for the most diverse nation, kindest nation or the least racist nation. We have a long way to go to achieve any of those, so we should be focusing on that instead

scraping the barrel with these war room trolls

 

[Jack V Savage]

What is a nation these days but an economic zone?

I'm not being trite, I'm not sure it's even the best way to think about things anymore.

I think this comes down to values and what one actually care about. Does playing some 21st century Great Game in Central Asia and the Pacific really do anything for for economic zone A? When B also has nukes? What does a rising population mean besides growth? Does emptying the world of their best and brightest (even if we could craft such a policy) have any moral implications?

Is the last implicit promise holding this country together that growth will continue, and your property and 401ks will get good returns? Where does this end? Is dying in bed in your mansion and leaving millions to your kids to fight over what life is about?

A nation in any days is an idea, a political unit, and an economic zone. If the U.S. has a bigger economic footprint, it has more say in how things operate. People complain about how American corporations are reluctant to criticize human-rights abuses of China--the reason for that is that China has a lot of economic power and is trending to have more. It's only a game for people who are safely removed from the negative impact of China's increasing power or people who are indifferent to human suffering. And I think there's a clear positive moral implication of America attracting the best and brightest from around the world. This could be a factual disagreement, as I don't believe that we're anywhere near a theoretical limit of high-skill people--"brain drain" actually leads to more production of high-skill people; the moral aspect may be for people who think it's bad to have more-educated, analytical-minded people, but I think that's good.

People find their own meaning. I don't think that's the gov't's job, and the effort to have a gov't that supplies meaning to people's lives (as opposed to doing what it can to ensure safety and material prosperity) invariably turns monstrous.

 

[Jack V Savage]

how exactly do you propose we go about pursuing a growth agenda? American corporations are focused on increasing the bottom line. that's not conducive to having large families. maybe we can import more immigrants and expand the permanenent underclass, but that only creates more social instability in a country as race-conscious as the US. Also, not sure i agree that the world is better with US at the helm than china. I've been to hong kong and kowloon and beijing, thailand, philippines, malaysia, indonesia and other parts of the chinese disapora. they're not worse than the US. in fact, in some ways they're more open-minded and accepting of other peoples differences than a lot of americans i meet in cali and new york.

Immigration (particularly but not exclusively high-skill), aggressive pursuit of full employment, gov't-funded R&D, family support, etc. Lots we can do. Obviously ridiculous to think that immigrants are a permanent underclass. Strongly, strongly disagree that the world would be better with China as the dominant economic power.

 

[Amerikuracana]

Until about 2007

 

[DespicablePeep]

That does not mean they are going to match the West technologically. The UAE is rich but technologically they are far behind any European nation, the US, Japan and Korea.

Throwing money at R&D does not mean a nation is necessarily going to be at the cutting edge of tech. The USSR put all their resources into defense tech and surpassing the West, but they were always behind, except for the early days of space exploration.

Don't kid yourself, China has a plan for the future which they are set on. The government has a vision and they are committed to that in a global market. USSR had the technology they just did not have a market to drive, how can a closed economy compete with early steps of globalization?

 

[MicroBrew]

Don't kid yourself, China has a plan for the future which they are set on. The government has a vision and they are committed to that in a global market. USSR had the technology they just did not have a market to drive, how can a closed economy compete with early steps of globalization?

Ofcourse China has a plan, but like the USSR they are not on the technological forefront, and if the West decides to wake up and decouple from China, China will be in big trouble.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That isn't even remotely possible. The world historically has been asian centric for most of history and with the region coming online, it takes very little growth to match the U.S and Europe.. I don't even think it shoud be even considered to boost immigration when for the most part it is used for wage suppression and not to meet some unfillable shortage. People should be just focusing on their standard of living and not this idea of being the economic center of anything.

Um, genius, immigration raises wages. The easiest way to boost our living standard is to just increase immigration numbers.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It isn't Democrats who want to export US manufacturing , it is the whole GOP / DNC establishment and Corporate America. It was Nixon who welcomed China. It was Bush Jnr who signed the Permanent Normal Trading Relations law (permanent Most Favored Nation status) for China that allowed American corps. to increase outsourcing.

It isn't anyone who is trying to export U.S. manufacturing. It's just that the economy is evolving away from that. Just like we used to have a farming-based economy, but growth in other sectors made it an increasingly small portion of our economy, and productivity gains in the sector meant that aside from that effect, it employed an increasingly low share of American workers. It's just evolution and progress rather than a bad thing or some kind of evil plot.

 

[MicroBrew]

It isn't anyone who is trying to export U.S. manufacturing. It's just that the economy is evolving away from that. Just like we used to have a farming-based economy, but growth in other sectors made it an increasingly small portion of our economy, and productivity gains in the sector meant that aside from that effect, it employed an increasingly low share of American workers. It's just evolution and progress rather than a bad thing or some kind of evil plot.

It is exporting US manufacturing in the sense that the US government and Corporations encouraged the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs. Claiming our respective governments and establishment set out to export some manufacturing is criticism that was levied against Margret Thatcher.

 

[DespicablePeep]

Ofcourse China has a plan, but like the USSR they are not on the technological forefront, and if the West decides to wake up and decouple from China, China will be in big trouble.

lol decouple from China? In a global market? China depends as much of the US as the US depends on them. China is making progress in the technology front, say they steal all you want but right now they are using Sinovac as a way to get countries to sign for their 5g.

Africa is theirs already, so most countries in Asia and soon most of South America.

 

[MicroBrew]

lol decouple from China? In a global market? China depends as much of the US as the US depends on them. China is making progress in the technology front, say they steal all you want but right now they are using Sinovac as a way to get countries to sign for their 5g.

Africa is theirs already, so most countries in Asia and soon most of South America.

China relies far more on the US than vice versa. The US uses China as a source of cheap labor. Other countries can fill that niche. China uses the West as a source of technology and as a market for its cheap consumer goods.

And as for Africa, the West can rest China's influence away with superior deals. China has business interests in Africa, but I am not seeing them actually controlling the continent. There is plenty of anger in Africa against Chinese business practices.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It is exporting US manufacturing in the sense that the US government and Corporations encouraged the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs. Claiming our respective governments and establishment set out to export some manufacturing is criticism that was levied against Margret Thatcher.

I don't think this is responsive to the point I made. It's not some kind of evil plot to export manufacturing. It's just an evolutionary process. Our workforce is more educated, and people generally prefer higher-paid, more stimulating jobs, while workers in other places don't have as many options, etc. It's like water running down a mountain.

 

[MicroBrew]

I don't think this is responsive to the point I made. It's not some kind of evil plot to export manufacturing. It's just an evolutionary process. Our workforce is more educated, and people generally prefer higher-paid, more stimulating jobs, while workers in other places don't have as many options, etc. It's like water running down a mountain.

It's not an "evil" plot, but critics have said that Western governments' policy wonks deliberately wanted to move away from an econonmy manufacturing certain goods to one providing high end goods and services.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It's not an "evil" plot, but critics have said that Western governments' policy wonks deliberately wanted to move away from an econonmy manufacturing certain goods to one providing high end goods and services.

But the gov't doesn't have that kind of control over the economy. What we're talking about is the result of individual decisions and innovations by millions of individual people. I'd guess that overwhelmingly most politicians in both parties would prefer to try to prevent change because they don't understand how the process works or they at least know that their constituents don't.

 

[Denter]

It isn't anyone who is trying to export U.S. manufacturing. It's just that the economy is evolving away from that. Just like we used to have a farming-based economy, but growth in other sectors made it an increasingly small portion of our economy, and productivity gains in the sector meant that aside from that effect, it employed an increasingly low share of American workers. It's just evolution and progress rather than a bad thing or some kind of evil plot.

Neither here nor there, but American ag is shockingly productive these days. Just the fact that we have the Mississippi watershed (transport by water is much cheaper than by land) with a natural bug kill off(winter) means the US will never not be relevant, in a world where many nations have to import food.

 

[Denter]

A nation in any days is an idea, a political unit, and an economic zone. If the U.S. has a bigger economic footprint, it has more say in how things operate. People complain about how American corporations are reluctant to criticize human-rights abuses of China--the reason for that is that China has a lot of economic power and is trending to have more. It's only a game for people who are safely removed from the negative impact of China's increasing power or people who are indifferent to human suffering. And I think there's a clear positive moral implication of America attracting the best and brightest from around the world. This could be a factual disagreement, as I don't believe that we're anywhere near a theoretical limit of high-skill people--"brain drain" actually leads to more production of high-skill people; the moral aspect may be for people who think it's bad to have more-educated, analytical-minded people, but I think that's good.

People find their own meaning. I don't think that's the gov't's job, and the effort to have a gov't that supplies meaning to people's lives (as opposed to doing what it can to ensure safety and material prosperity) invariably turns monstrous.

What's the "idea of America"? What do we do when people who live here don't share this idea? Who decides what this idea is, and who decides when it changes? Such an idea is incompatible with liberalism.

Meaning is always communal, because identity is socially negotiated. What you are saying is that you prefer informal structures handle issues of meaning and purpose, and the government instead ought to be some kind of referee. That is just not possible- every law and policy assumes values and asserts them, and ours right now is autonomy, which is itself incoherent.