Who will take America's place as global superpower?

[Masterhawk]

There has been some talk about how the US is seeing a decline in influence around the world while China's is growing. There are compelling arguments for both positions.

To be specific, a superpower has the following traits:

1. Large share of global GDP

2. Strong military

3. Dominant global currency

4. Major exporter of culture and ideas

5. Center of innovation

A superpower is an entity which becomes the center of the world.

My two cents are that nothing lasts forever. American hegemony will eventually come to an end, even if it doesn't happen within the next decade or two. The US is by no means the first country to dominate the world stage. Before America, Britain dominated. Before Britain dominated, the Netherlands was an economic power of Europe and before the Netherlands came Spain. Each dominated the world for approximately a century (give more or fewer decades). They rose due to strong leadership and favorable economic circumstances and fell due to various issues. It thus stands to reason that America's day in the sunlight will eventually end, even if it isn't ended by China. To make a long story short, the US is losing the drive to innovate and lead the world in favor of the culture war. The big issue with Trump's promise to make America great again is that he would have to recreate the circumstances which made the US a global superpower in the first place. The US became the world's superpower not just because of its good economy but also because Britain, the previous superpower, was in the process of decolonization. The US also wasn't as badly damaged by two world wars as Europe. Most of the rest of the world was too underdeveloped to meaningfully challenge the US. The only real threat to American hegemony was the Soviet Union but even they subsided in the early 90s. Another issue centers around bringing back jobs

Of course, China does have its internal issues, mainly its demographics. China is expected to peak in population in the mid 20s before beginning its decline. This means that the country's workforce will stop growing and the country will be expected to take care of the elderly. It means that in order for China to meaningfully take the title of superpower away from the US, productivity per worker must rise as opposed to having more workers. China has upped the limit from one child to three but even if the policy is completely repealed, people may stick to having more than one child, considering that couples will have to take care of their parents, totaling four people; they may be reluctant to have children which they will then have to take care of. In addition, the one child policy has created a gender imbalance because families prefer to have boys over girls. As a consequence, there are 30 million surplus men, who will never find a spouse. Aside from the surplus men, western countries have the same issue but at the very least, they can make up for it with immigration. China doesn't really have that option because Chinese nationalism is based on ethnicity rather than civic values like in the US. As a result, the people and the government will be reluctant to fill their population with immigrants. There are other issues which may act as a setback such as the housing bubble and corruption at the local level. Of course, America has its own issues like deteriorating trust in institutions, rising cost of living, and the need for Americans to transition to a high skill workforce to continue innovation and keep America competitive. The issue isn't about which country has more pressing issues but about which is doing more to solve them. This is ultimately why China is the biggest contender for replacing the US as global superpower. India is too poor and stuck in red tape. Russia's economic growth is contingent on natural resources and Putin seems to be more focused on absorbing neighboring countries into his sphere of influence than on growing Russia's economy (the military is also proving to be lackluster). The EU probably has the biggest potential for global superpower for a few reasons.

1. The EU as a whole is a lot more open to new ideas than China. Openness is ultimately what paved the way for the industrial revolution. Ultimately, it comes down to imitation vs innovation. China is very good at imitation while it remains yet to be seen whether they do well in innovation.

2. The EU has a head start in GDP per capita over China. They're below the US, primarily because of lower income countries like Poland, Italy, Greece, and Spain.

3. The Euro is already the second most used currency with the Remnabi far behind it.

4. The EU has a demographic advantage over the US with 100 million additional people.

End of part 1

 

[Masterhawk]

Part 2

If politicians, with the backing of the population, did everything they could to make the EU a unified, competitive entity, the EU would be a superpower. Even better, if every country in Europe (including Russia) acted as one entity, Europe's position as a global superpower would be guaranteed. Of course, the glaring problem is that the EU is fairly divided, even within countries. Right-wing populists are pulling their respective countries towards nationalism and away from a unified Europe. They want the EU to accept fewer immigrants and for the dissolution of the EU. By contrast, the leadership of China wants the country to dominate. They are well aware that historically, China has had a larger share of GDP and view the period from the mid 19th to the mid 20th century as a century of humiliation. In the eyes of Xi Jinping, China is simply retaking its rightful place (it's easy to find parallels between the belt and road initiative and the silk road). This means that those in power have a great incentive to address the country's problems. There have been attempts to address the housing bubble through restricting how many homes each person can own (though it's not successful). There is also a great deal of inequality in China, about as much as the US. Unlike the US, it's mainly based on region with the coastal provinces having significantly higher GDPs per capita than the interior west. The CCP knows all too well that significant inequality, at least when those at the bottom don't benefit, can hinder social stability, it is after all how they came into power in the first place and is ultimately what is undermining American stability. Even if the housing bubble leads to a dire economic crisis for China, it may not be the end of CCP rule. After all, the US underwent a terrible economic crisis before one of the best economies in American history. Currently, China is in a gilded age with massive economic growth but with underlying issues. It remains yet to be seen what happens after the real estate bubble pops. China also has a massive demographic advantage over the US with 4X the population. Even if China can only do as well in everything as the US, it will hold quadruple the GDP, making the country quite a bit better in everything. The US must be at least four times better than China to stay ahead.

 

[Gatsby]

No one will take America's place any time soon. To a first-order approximation, national power is determined by the nation's share of global GDP. This, in turn, is the nation's productivity times its population.

There are only two countries with larger populations than ours - China and India.

China's population peaked last year, and it's entering a severe demographic decline now. Additionally, China achieved its productivity growth for the past few decades by copying Western innovations...but now it's hitting a wall. China's censorship and heavy-handed industrial policy will make it hard to continue doing that.

India's relative power will continue to grow for a while as its population increases and its productivity increases...but India is so poor that it's going to be decades before India has any hope of catching up to the United States.

Russia and the EU are declining powers. They both have low fertility rates, and economies that are stagnant (EU) or shrinking (Russia). Additionally, neither do a particularly great job of assimilating immigrants overall, although the EU has gotten better at this.

So I think America will remain on top for a while. Our birth rates, while not great, are not nearly as bad as China/Russia/EU. Our immigration rates have flagged in recent years, but historically this has been America's ace in the hole. In the grand scheme of things, America is excellent on immigration. And our productivity levels are way, way above most other countries in the world. I don't think most people realize how big of an edge America has over most other countries (even other developed countries) when it comes to GDP per capita.

 

[Ginger Ale]

The EU. They're progressive. They lead in the changes taking place in the future. The U.S. will eventually follow, but we aren't leading. Trump made sure of that one.

 

[Surrealistik]

I voted America, but only because the EU is hamstringing itself in its current unworkable implementation of a common 'one size fits all' currency without a proper system of transfer payments to help balance out its impacts (no ability of member countries to utilize the printing press/set interest rates for the purposes of corrective/remedial monetary policy; currency is undervalued in booming euro economies, overvalued in depressed euro economies thus exacerbating and perpetuating their economic issues) alongside a paralytic governing body; Mark Blyth, who is a phenomenal thinker on what truly ails the EU, puts it best:

.

If the EU was ever able to overcome its counterproductive Balkanization and divisive nationalism, end the bullying and exploitation of depressed eurozone-economies and implement transfer payments, overcome its paralysis of absolute consensus and reform into a properly federalized super-state, it could easily become the dominant world power.

 

[cpwill]

No one will take America's place any time soon. To a first-order approximation, national power is determined by the nation's share of global GDP. This, in turn, is the nation's productivity times its population.

There are only two countries with larger populations than ours - China and India.

China's population peaked last year, and it's entering a severe demographic decline now. Additionally, China achieved its productivity growth for the past few decades by copying Western innovations...but now it's hitting a wall. China's censorship and heavy-handed industrial policy will make it hard to continue doing that.

India's relative power will continue to grow for a while as its population increases and its productivity increases...but India is so poor that it's going to be decades before India has any hope of catching up to the United States.

Russia and the EU are declining powers. They both have low fertility rates, and economies that are stagnant (EU) or shrinking (Russia). Additionally, neither do a particularly great job of assimilating immigrants overall, although the EU has gotten better at this.

So I think America will remain on top for a while. Our birth rates, while not great, are not nearly as bad as China/Russia/EU. Our immigration rates have flagged in recent years, but historically this has been America's ace in the hole. In the grand scheme of things, America is excellent on immigration. And our productivity levels are way, way above most other countries in the world. I don't think most people realize how big of an edge America has over most other countries (even other developed countries) when it comes to GDP per capita.

I agree with all of the particulars in this, but, would offer a couple of additional points that, I think, mitigate what you've argued:

1. The replacement for a single global super power doesn't have to be a single global superpower. Regionalism, with local hegemons, is a fully plausible future, complete with an increase in wars, especially in areas that don't have a regional hegemon. So, just to make explicit: to say that "no one is ready to replace the United States" is not the same as "ergo, we will maintain the global order we have enjoyed up to this point".

2. Much of our ability to ensure order and influence overseas comes from our ability to project force, but, that capability is under serious long term threat. In the early 2030s (we think), we are going to face a fiscal crises from unfunded liabilities, and the American people are going to have to ask themselves how much they are willing to cut from their elderly-support programs in order to maintain a forward-leaning defense posture. They are probably not going to be likely to cut much, and, Defense will probably take quite the beating in the subsequent budget battles.

 

[phoenix2020]

China, unquestionably. Too many advantages in energy generation, applied physics, semiconductor manufacturing, quantum computing, manufacturing engineering and data sciences. Of the also-rans, the USA has been rolling strikes constantly with regard to spaceflight and has a head start to compete with China in data science and economic output beyond Earth.

I like Germany's chances to remain a manufacturing hub but without semiconductor capability, I believe they will atrophy.

I don't see India getting there until they adopt strong governance closer to the Western mold.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Chinussia!

 

[rickc]

China, unquestionably. Too many advantages in energy generation, applied physics, semiconductor manufacturing, quantum computing, manufacturing engineering and data sciences. Of the also-rans, the USA has been rolling strikes constantly with regard to spaceflight and has a head start to compete with China in data science and economic output beyond Earth.

I like Germany's chances to remain a manufacturing hub but without semiconductor capability, I believe they will atrophy.

I don't see India getting there until they adopt strong governance closer to the Western mold.

Not if the free world gets its stuff together.

America needs to realize the danger of being so dependent on China for manufactured goods. China could easily follow Russia as a candidate for the extreme sanctions we are applying to Russia. They realize it. That is why they are not supporting Russia presently.

 

[TheParser]

NO country will dominate in the future.

The United States of America will eventually have so many internal unpleasantness that it will lose the desire or ability to be No. 1 as it implodes.

China will never be No. 1 because a country with a picture-based language will never be accepted as the Boss.

Russia is a backward nation and will always be so. It is doomed to be ruled by a series of feckless czars.

*****

Furthermore, space travel is destined to become a reality.

So there will literally be other worlds for people to live on.

The nations on Earth will become depopulated.

 

[charliebrown]

US is currently a superpower but it is getting weaker with time.
As we push globalization, we push human progress and with human progress comes stronger countries.

As our successful children eventually surpass us, those successful young countries will successfully surpass the US.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

There has been some talk about how the US is seeing a decline in influence around the world while China's is growing. There are compelling arguments for both positions.

To be specific, a superpower has the following traits:

1. Large share of global GDP

2. Strong military

3. Dominant global currency

4. Major exporter of culture and ideas

5. Center of innovation

A superpower is an entity which becomes the center of the world.

My two cents are that nothing lasts forever. American hegemony will eventually come to an end, even if it doesn't happen within the next decade or two. The US is by no means the first country to dominate the world stage. Before America, Britain dominated. Before Britain dominated, the Netherlands was an economic power of Europe and before the Netherlands came Spain. Each dominated the world for approximately a century (give more or fewer decades). They rose due to strong leadership and favorable economic circumstances and fell due to various issues. It thus stands to reason that America's day in the sunlight will eventually end, even if it isn't ended by China. To make a long story short, the US is losing the drive to innovate and lead the world in favor of the culture war. The big issue with Trump's promise to make America great again is that he would have to recreate the circumstances which made the US a global superpower in the first place. The US became the world's superpower not just because of its good economy but also because Britain, the previous superpower, was in the process of decolonization. The US also wasn't as badly damaged by two world wars as Europe. Most of the rest of the world was too underdeveloped to meaningfully challenge the US. The only real threat to American hegemony was the Soviet Union but even they subsided in the early 90s. Another issue centers around bringing back jobs

Of course, China does have its internal issues, mainly its demographics. China is expected to peak in population in the mid 20s before beginning its decline. This means that the country's workforce will stop growing and the country will be expected to take care of the elderly. It means that in order for China to meaningfully take the title of superpower away from the US, productivity per worker must rise as opposed to having more workers. China has upped the limit from one child to three but even if the policy is completely repealed, people may stick to having more than one child, considering that couples will have to take care of their parents, totaling four people; they may be reluctant to have children which they will then have to take care of. In addition, the one child policy has created a gender imbalance because families prefer to have boys over girls. As a consequence, there are 30 million surplus men, who will never find a spouse. Aside from the surplus men, western countries have the same issue but at the very least, they can make up for it with immigration. China doesn't really have that option because Chinese nationalism is based on ethnicity rather than civic values like in the US. As a result, the people and the government will be reluctant to fill their population with immigrants. There are other issues which may act as a setback such as the housing bubble and corruption at the local level. Of course, America has its own issues like deteriorating trust in institutions, rising cost of living, and the need for Americans to transition to a high skill workforce to continue innovation and keep America competitive. The issue isn't about which country has more pressing issues but about which is doing more to solve them. This is ultimately why China is the biggest contender for replacing the US as global superpower. India is too poor and stuck in red tape. Russia's economic growth is contingent on natural resources and Putin seems to be more focused on absorbing neighboring countries into his sphere of influence than on growing Russia's economy (the military is also proving to be lackluster). The EU probably has the biggest potential for global superpower for a few reasons.

1. The EU as a whole is a lot more open to new ideas than China. Openness is ultimately what paved the way for the industrial revolution. Ultimately, it comes down to imitation vs innovation. China is very good at imitation while it remains yet to be seen whether they do well in innovation.

2. The EU has a head start in GDP per capita over China. They're below the US, primarily because of lower income countries like Poland, Italy, Greece, and Spain.

3. The Euro is already the second most used currency with the Remnabi far behind it.

4. The EU has a demographic advantage over the US with 100 million additional people.

End of part 1

Our decline in influence has ended with the removal of Cheeto Jesus.

 

[vegas giants]

China will become the world leader. It is basic demographics and economics

 

[Surrealistik]

Not if the free world gets its stuff together.

America needs to realize the danger of being so dependent on China for manufactured goods. China could easily follow Russia as a candidate for the extreme sanctions we are applying to Russia. They realize it. That is why they are not supporting Russia presently.

China has serious demographic and debt issues as is (touched upon by the OP). In addition, there is historically (and deservedly) low trust and sentiment regarding an increasingly militant, totalitarian and oppressive China chasing off huge swaths of foreign investment and manufacturing via the elevated political risks it presents coupled with higher production costs while undermining the Belt and Road Initiative (where fully a third of its projects are facing major setbacks or cancellation), driving isolation, and encouraging the formation of countervailing and containing coalitions like QUAD. https://www.arabianbusiness.com/abn...rities-are-scrambling-to-slow-down-the-exodus || https://www.financialexpress.com/opinion/is-china-still-the-factory-of-the-world/2240670/ || https://www.forbes.com/sites/prince...ting-down-the-worlds-factory/?sh=47e06056c2f2

In general I agree with Hal Brands' take:

China Is a Declining Power—and That’s the Problem

The United States needs to prepare for a major war, not because its rival is rising but because of the opposite.

foreignpolicy.com

 

[Ug make hammer]

China has serious demographic and debt issues as is (touched upon by the OP). In addition, there is historically (and deservedly) low trust and sentiment regarding an increasingly militant, totalitarian and oppressive China chasing off huge swaths of foreign investment and manufacturing via the elevated political risks it presents coupled with higher production costs while undermining the Belt and Road Initiative (where fully a third of its projects are facing major setbacks or cancellation), driving isolation, and encouraging the formation of countervailing and containing coalitions like QUAD. https://www.arabianbusiness.com/abn...rities-are-scrambling-to-slow-down-the-exodus || https://www.financialexpress.com/opinion/is-china-still-the-factory-of-the-world/2240670/ || https://www.forbes.com/sites/prince...ting-down-the-worlds-factory/?sh=47e06056c2f2

In general I agree with Hal Brands' take:

China Is a Declining Power—and That’s the Problem

The United States needs to prepare for a major war, not because its rival is rising but because of the opposite.

foreignpolicy.com

Again you're talking up the vaporware QUAD and overlooking that unlike B&R it is not a trade pact. Yes, B&R is beset by failures but it's still more than the US is prepared to risk. The US is a decadent empire, and those are risk-averse.

If the US doesn't join TPP then China will. The US is simply too selfish to enter any further trade groups beyond NAFTA, and that's why the US will lose.

 

[Surrealistik]

Again you're talking up the vaporware QUAD and overlooking that unlike B&R it is not a trade pact. Yes, B&R is beset by failures but it's still more than the US is prepared to risk. The US is a decadent empire, and those are risk-averse.

If the US doesn't join TPP then China will. The US is simply too selfish to enter any further trade groups beyond NAFTA, and that's why the US will lose.

QUAD isn't vaporware so much as it is an established defensive alliance focused on containment that is becoming increasingly relevant and necessary with the intensifying of Chinese aggression/expansionist ambitions, particularly given its designs on Indian and Japanese territories and the South China Sea. Meanwhile, B&R is basically coming apart at the seams, whether or not you feel the US will mount any countervailing initiative, not to mention that it's not nearly about to cure the fundamental problems that ail China, especially not as it exists.

As to the TPP/trade groups, that's a nice, largely baseless opinion you've got there, nevermind that China will probably never be admitted to the CPTPP between Canada, Japan, Mexico and Australia's refusal to admit it on the basis of its unacceptable levels of state intervention and control it will not relinquish, as well its infamous litany of self-serving WTO violations and shortcomings (speaking of selfishness).

 

[Rexedgar]

The Duchy of Grand Fenwick?

 

[Ug make hammer]

QUAD isn't vaporware so much as it is an established defensive alliance focused on containment that is becoming increasingly relevant and necessary with the intensifying of Chinese aggression/expansionist ambitions, particularly given its designs on Indian and Japanese territories and the South China Sea. Meanwhile, B&R is basically coming apart at the seams, whether or not you feel the US will mount any countervailing initiative, not to mention that it's not nearly about to cure the fundamental problems that ail China, especially not as it exists.

As to the TPP/trade groups, that's a nice, largely baseless opinion you've got there, nevermind that China will probably never be admitted to the CPTPP between Canada, Japan, Mexico and Australia's refusal to admit it on the basis of its unacceptable levels of state intervention and control it will not relinquish, as well its infamous litany of self-serving WTO violations and shortcomings (speaking of selfishness).

So you're not addressing my claim that US culture does not allow of any sacrifice at all, nor risk taking, which would pass even the low bar of being better than B&R.

Looking at forty years of extraordinary growth from China, forced at times by loss-making government intervention, you just idly dream that it will grind to a stop because of "demographics". The US is not going to compete for bilateral foreign markets, because that is loss-making at first and economically risky. US corporations might, but the odds of that would be greatly improved by the US government insuring them, which the US government will not do because to voters it looks like foreign aid.

I feel like we've had this conversation before? Neither of us has a magic way to see the future of either country, but you really should be more sceptical of the idea that China will just collapse without any effort by the US or its corporations. Military containment is pretty much irrelevant, and I think you know that. Unless China does something reckless and gets productive assets bombed? But the US doesn't really want that either. It comes with costs and "beggar thy neighbour" does not make a country richer.

To give you some idea of the costs involved, how would the US "bring jobs back home" from China? US corporations must have trillions invested there. So firstly, don't allow them to invest any more (including even upgrading existing factories). Then the US government either raids their headquarters (nationalizing them), or offers to buy out American subsidiaries in China. The US government does not have the guts to do either of those things, as they would put hard downward pressure on the Dow and FTSE.

I don't expect to persuade you. I just wish you'd stop kidding yourself that China's rise will stop by itself, or can be stopped without substantial US sacrifice. Being second in the world is not the worst case scenario for America!

 

[rickc]

Two ways to stop china's hold on American manufacturing. Both require that American corporations no longer see it profitable to stay there.

The pandemic and the Chinese lockdowns caused huge supply disruptions. Looks like they are about to go into another lockdown. Seems some manufacturers are already deciding they have more control manufacturing here. Computer chips are a big one.

This Russia War has revealed just how delicate that global economy is. What if China decided to take Taiwan back? What would happen if China was subjected to the same sort of sanctions Russia is now?

I am sure multinational corporations are reevaluating their positions around the world. We will just have to see what they decide.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Two ways to stop china's hold on American manufacturing. Both require that American corporations no longer see it profitable to stay there.

That has to be done gradually (somehow) or there will be a stock market crash and your government will get voted out.

The pandemic and the Chinese lockdowns caused huge supply disruptions. Looks like they are about to go into another lockdown. Seems some manufacturers are already deciding they have more control manufacturing here. Computer chips are a big one.

Computer chips are the perfect example of a low-employment industry. Chip fabs also have a progression from high earning (when their process is still new) to barely profitable embedded chips, and then (barring further investment) obsolescence.

So sure, it's good news when new chip fabs are built in the West, but it does not follow that labor intensive industries can move there too. Perhaps a workable solution is building new factories in "friendly" low income countries, eg Brazil or India.

This Russia War has revealed just how delicate that global economy is. What if China decided to take Taiwan back? What would happen if China was subjected to the same sort of sanctions Russia is now?

China doesn't have a massive nuke boner, also occupying an island is quite different to occupying a land neighbour. I honestly don't think they will make a move on Taiwan unless (or until?) they have naval parity with the US.

I am sure multinational corporations are reevaluating their positions around the world. We will just have to see what they decide.

Pretty sure it won't be the best case scenario: selling their China holdings to the government there, at cents on the dollar.

Physical assets like factories can just be left to run down. Skilled workers however stay in China.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Voted "not sure," to be direct that is how all of you should have voted.

For one the term global superpower has a range of definitions depending on where you search, head over to the World Bank or IMF and you may get a different answer than what the UN considers as criteria, making the OP's assessment of the term narrowminded and in some regards dishonest.

An example, the UN can be considered a global superpower all without being a nation. Going with a "political and economic union" becomes more than enough even though nations like Germany, the UK, and France have substantial GDP ranking and military capability on their own.

Another example, Russia is still considered a global superpower even though they are a distant #12 on the GDP ranking list and California as a State dwarfs them in the same category.

If you wanted to argue that a true global superpower is dominant in the categories of economics, military, technology, education, and social understandings then every single present global superpower without exception has a few chinks in their armor.

An example, the US is still considered by numerous sources the dominant global superpower for a slew of reasons however there is no assessment in the areas of technology, or education, or social understandings, or even freedoms and happiness indexes where the US is even in the top 10. Extreme #1 in military might, still out in front with the largest GDP, largest import and export capabilities, something like 65 other nations use the US dollar as a means of exchange, oil is still traded globally in the dollar, etc. But not even in the top 5 in most educated nations, similar story with science or reading or mathematics. No where near the top.

And every bit of the above is secondary to a nation's style of government.

No one anytime soon is going to take over being the #1 dominant global superpower according to those sources as their criteria does not have the US in jeopardy from others on the same list. Like China or the EU as a collective of nations.

We may jockey back and forth for generations to come in all the categories but what we do not have evidence of is a giant shift in the numbers, other than perhaps Russia for obvious reasons and China for even more obvious reasons. Both China and Russia are in some facet of decline for issues unrelated to why the US is sinking in other areas.

If I were asked to bet I would say that if the EU can quit acting like power hungry lunatics over their member nations they as a group could become very dominant for generations to come, assuming their aristocracy does not run off another member as they did with the UK.

Perhaps in 2100 you may have an answer, but we have little evidence we will all wake up next year to some radical change in the order of global superpowers. Keeping us all solidly in the "not sure" category as just about anything can happen without direct evidence that it all of a sudden will.

 

[Ug make hammer]

If I were asked to bet I would say that if the EU can quit acting like power hungry lunatics over their member nations they as a group could become very dominant for generations to come, assuming their aristocracy does not run off another member as they did with the UK.

The European project has come a long way but still has a long way to go. I'm a bit baffled by "power hungry lunatics" but maybe it refers to product and labor regulations which are necessary to achieve full economic union. Until there is full economic union it makes little sense to develop a common military, which would be the essential feature of a superpower. The language differences will remain forever, and along with them effective limitations on the freedom of labor to relocate.

I would go so far as to say that Europe cannot be considered a superpower until it is federated as firmly as the US is, AND has a unified military. That's a fair way off, if it's even possible.

 

[Ren]

America's resilient. It's been strong enough to survive even the dumbest of democrats and it keeps on rolling. GO USA!!!

 

[bomberfox]

That has to be done gradually (somehow) or there will be a stock market crash and your government will get voted out.



Computer chips are the perfect example of a low-employment industry. Chip fabs also have a progression from high earning (when their process is still new) to barely profitable embedded chips, and then (barring further investment) obsolescence.

So sure, it's good news when new chip fabs are built in the West, but it does not follow that labor intensive industries can move there too. Perhaps a workable solution is building new factories in "friendly" low income countries, eg Brazil or India.



China doesn't have a massive nuke boner, also occupying an island is quite different to occupying a land neighbour. I honestly don't think they will make a move on Taiwan unless (or until?) they have naval parity with the US.



Pretty sure it won't be the best case scenario: selling their China holdings to the government there, at cents on the dollar.

Physical assets like factories can just be left to run down. Skilled workers however stay in China.

Eh problem with building factories in low income countries is they tend to keep the income there low which drives a race to the bottom.

 

[Surrealistik]

So you're not addressing my claim that US culture does not allow of any sacrifice at all, nor risk taking, which would pass even the low bar of being better than B&R.

Again, that's a nice, largely baseless opinion you have there.

Looking at forty years of extraordinary growth from China, forced at times by loss-making government intervention, you just idly dream that it will grind to a stop because of "demographics". The US is not going to compete for bilateral foreign markets, because that is loss-making at first and economically risky. US corporations might, but the odds of that would be greatly improved by the US government insuring them, which the US government will not do because to voters it looks like foreign aid.

I feel like we've had this conversation before? Neither of us has a magic way to see the future of either country, but you really should be more sceptical of the idea that China will just collapse without any effort by the US or its corporations. Military containment is pretty much irrelevant, and I think you know that. Unless China does something reckless and gets productive assets bombed? But the US doesn't really want that either. It comes with costs and "beggar thy neighbour" does not make a country richer.

To give you some idea of the costs involved, how would the US "bring jobs back home" from China? US corporations must have trillions invested there. So firstly, don't allow them to invest any more (including even upgrading existing factories). Then the US government either raids their headquarters (nationalizing them), or offers to buy out American subsidiaries in China. The US government does not have the guts to do either of those things, as they would put hard downward pressure on the Dow and FTSE.

I don't expect to persuade you. I just wish you'd stop kidding yourself that China's rise will stop by itself, or can be stopped without substantial US sacrifice. Being second in the world is not the worst case scenario for America!

First of all, military containment evidently matters given China's recent aggression towards its neighbours, which is precisely why QUAD was revived and became increasingly relevant.

Second, China has done far more damage to itself than America ever has, particularly in conjunction with its recent misinformation concerning COVID, 'wolf warrior' diplomacy, crackdowns and aggression, causing a historic loss of trust in and regard for the country, and a massive exodus of manufacturing and investment per the increasingly apparent political risks (with up to 33% of manufacturers internationally already stating their intention to leave China, or scale back operations there per prior links, no specific American action required!), and that's not even getting into its likewise self-inflicted demographic and debt issues.

Frankly if this is sustained, yeah, I don't think America has to do all that much, but China of course remains a threat and thus the US absolutely should be proactive on the matter. Concretely derailing Chinese ambitions of world dominance (such that we don't rely wholly on the CCP's incompetence) can certainly be achieved over time via graduated policies which encourage the exodus that has already begun due to heavy handed Chinese assertions of state power via intensifying economic containment and isolation over time in conjunction with allies that are increasingly cognizant of the need for decisive action and trade pacts that are currently being worked on.