• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who will take America's place as global superpower?

Who will take America's place as global superpower?


  • Total voters
    39
I like to call it the world culture because it assimilates the best of other cultures.

You just like trolling me with your 'blind centrist smoking hopium (if you will)' shtick.
 
My understanding is that it is very difficult for other cultures to assimilate into the Chinese culture and are forcefully replaced by the government.

People don't go to China to become Chinese; they go to earn a living and end up adapting or moving somewhere else, just like people do in any country. Not every immigrant who comes to the U.S. stays. Not every immigrant who ends up in China has a desire to post their political opinions on Facebook. China receives immigrants from pretty much most countries on earth because it's got 1.4 billion people, which makes it a massive market.
 
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.
The Chinese product imports to the US are from cheap Chinese products made by Chinese companies
American corporations do not ‘stay there’ in a China - they predominantly use Chinese owned companies as subcontractors for their tech component builds - specifically smart phones and other tech components (Apple is the largest)
The exceptionally low Chinese labor costs are the main reason
 
Last edited:
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.
Americans want to purchase Chinese goods because they are cheap when compared to American made goods
American companies like Walmart are the conduit for that cheap Chinese shit to be sold in America
As long as American consumers continue to demand cheap Chinese shit, there will always be a market here
 
People don't go to China to become Chinese; they go to earn a living and end up adapting or moving somewhere else, just like people do in any country. Not every immigrant who comes to the U.S. stays. Not every immigrant who ends up in China has a desire to post their political opinions on Facebook. China receives immigrants from pretty much most countries on earth because it's got 1.4 billion people, which makes it a massive market.
300,000 Chinese students in America. 15000 American students in China. There are 5 million Chinese Americans, there are very few Americans who become Chinese. American cultural artifacts, (movies, music , blue jeans, etc.) are a huge export to China, but very little culture exported from China to America.
 
We do import them and they adapt our culture and stay here or if they return to China they spread our culture there. Not the other way around. The culture is what will determine the result. We can assimilate their culture they can not assimilate ours.
Chinese and Japanese cultures will never be assimilated by the West
They are homogeneous cultures and will never adapt or accept Western mores and values
Never
 
300,000 Chinese students in America. 15000 American students in China. There are 5 million Chinese Americans, there are very few Americans who become Chinese. American cultural artifacts, (movies, music , blue jeans, etc.) are a huge export to China, but very little culture exported from China to America.
The real number of Americans studying in China is much much lower

51D377E5-6570-4E0A-BA17-477BA499F3CF.png
 
300,000 Chinese students in America. 15000 American students in China. There are 5 million Chinese Americans, there are very few Americans who become Chinese. American cultural artifacts, (movies, music , blue jeans, etc.) are a huge export to China, but very little culture exported from China to America.

I know this is probably gonna be hard to accept, but...America's not the only country on the planet
 
Chinese and Japanese cultures will never be assimilated by the West
They are homogeneous cultures and will never adapt or accept Western mores and values
Never

Japan is probably homogenous, but not China.
 
Chinese and Japanese cultures will never be assimilated by the West
They are homogeneous cultures and will never adapt or accept Western mores and values
Never
There are millions of Chinese and Japanese Americans. There are very few Americans who become Japanese or Chinese. That was my point.
 
I know this is probably gonna be hard to accept, but...America's not the only country on the planet
We are the most diverse multicultural country on the planet.
 
There are millions of Chinese and Japanese Americans. There are very few Americans who become Japanese or Chinese. That was my point.
It has always been that way, and always will
 
We are the most diverse multicultural country on the planet.

It's probably India, if you measure by diverse languages spoken, religious diversity and generally the "cultural" part of "multicultural".

If you want to measure by percentage of population born elsewhere, the US is up there but probably not ahead of Canada or Luxembourg.

If you mean skin color, then you're on your own. I don't consider "race" to be anything to do with multiculturalism.
 
We are the most diverse multicultural country on the planet.

That's arguably correct, but that by itself necessarily ensure that the U.S. will remain the world's superpower. Relative to China, the U.S. has been steadily losing its degree of power and influence over the last 25 years, whereas China has been rapidly gaining ground. The fact that the U.S. is, for now, considered a liberal democratic, pluralistic society and China's largely dominated by one-party rule doesn't really factor into that trend.

Furthermore, let's also consider that one of the two major political parties in particular has been openly hostile to that diversity you're referring to. It has campaigned on platforms of restricting immigration, restricting the vote, and openly rejecting the legitimacy of free/fair elections in which they lose - with violence in at least one infamous case. In fact, in states where they have political control, they've adopted measures that give them the power to certify or refuse certifications on dubious grounds. In short, U.S. democracy is backsliding, so if the notion is that because the U.S. is democratic that it somehow enjoys an advantage over China, I'd re-think that assumption a bit.
 
Being welcoming to people of different cultural backgrounds does make it easy for the US to attract the talented and ambitious. Much of the US success in the 20th century was driven by that. The US is a racist country (all countries are) but paradoxically that sets a bar for first and second generation immigrants and inspires them to succeed.

Well I'm just trying to explain why minorities of the longest standing in the US (blacks and Native Americans) do so much worse than any immigrant minority. The mainstream have ingrained low expectations of them, whereas immigrants they don't know what to expect ... until two or three generations by which time the immigrants are practically mainstream themselves.

One more thing. The American image of Asians in general and Chinese in particular, is one of envy more than resentment. The old image of dawn-to-midnight shop keepers, laundries etc wasn't one of envy, rather of respect. But now the US attracts entrepreneurs and academics from Asia feuling the idea that Asians are not just harder working, but much smarter than us. The stereotype of Asian parents pushing their children hard to achieve at school (and music, and sport, and really much more "work" than any child should have to do) must have some truth to it, because Chinese are only 7 IQ points smarter than Americans which is barely noticeable. I think we'd all be a lot less fearful of China if we remembered that we're only seeing here, the most ambitious and the brightest that China has to offer.
 
That's arguably correct, but that by itself necessarily ensure that the U.S. will remain the world's superpower. Relative to China, the U.S. has been steadily losing its degree of power and influence over the last 25 years, whereas China has been rapidly gaining ground. The fact that the U.S. is, for now, considered a liberal democratic, pluralistic society and China's largely dominated by one-party rule doesn't really factor into that trend.

Furthermore, let's also consider that one of the two major political parties in particular has been openly hostile to that diversity you're referring to. It has campaigned on platforms of restricting immigration, restricting the vote, and openly rejecting the legitimacy of free/fair elections in which they lose - with violence in at least one infamous case. In fact, in states where they have political control, they've adopted measures that give them the power to certify or refuse certifications on dubious grounds. In short, U.S. democracy is backsliding, so if the notion is that because the U.S. is democratic that it somehow enjoys an advantage over China, I'd re-think that assumption a bit.
I believe that an amplification of reactionary sentiment against multiculturalism in the Democracies was carried out by Russia over the last dozen years. This has been recognized and is being combated now.
 
I believe that an amplification of reactionary sentiment against multiculturalism in the Democracies was carried out by Russia over the last dozen years. This has been recognized and is being combated now.

Russia is exploiting vulnerabilities that are inherent in democracies. These vulnerabilities actually exist in any large, complex society, democracy or not, but the issue of who has power and who controls policy is largely settled in an authoritarian state, and if you don't play ball, there are often immediate and severe consequences. In a liberal democracy, people themselves compete for economic, social, cultural, and political power, and they use their economic, social, cultural and political capital to get it.

There are two kinds of people in a democratic society: those who believe in fairly competing for that power and, to some degree, compromising and sharing some of that power with others on one hand, and on the other hand, there are those who believe that they should have primacy over others, and how they get that status is just a means to an end. Democracy is complex. It's hard work. It requires more cooperation than competition.

Russia and other adversaries are exploiting those fault lines with misinformation, but there are other threats to democracy that have nothing to do with Russia, and everything to do with inequality. Over time, growing inequality leads people to doubt the current political system, whatever that system might be, including democracy. As I've put it before, people have a built-in 'fairness' meter. This doesn't mean that everyone expects or feels entitled to live like Elon Musk, but they do feel that they should receive the same benefit of living in an advanced civilization as others do. Things like living in a safe neighborhood. Being able to drink city water without fear of being poisoned. Being able to breathe clean air. Living in a safe neighborhood. Not living in a food desert. Not having to worry that a trip to the hospital or getting an advanced educational degree could leave you in permanent financial distress. Those things.

Interestingly enough, I think both China and the U.S. have a similar problem. They're getting older and they will need to import productive immigrants who can pay the taxes to help maintain their collective productivity and also pay for an expanding balance sheet. I agree with you that, historically speaking, and particularly since 1965, the U.S. has done a better job of solving this problem through immigration. But we're backsliding in this direction as well, and if the right wing gets re-elected on a ethno-nationalist platform, it will have disastrous consequences for the U.S. going forward - consequences which, like Brexit, may not be obvious at first but will insidiously put the country at an ever-increasing disadvantage over time.
 
Russia is exploiting vulnerabilities that are inherent in democracies. <snip por favor>. Over time, growing inequality leads people to doubt the current political system, whatever that system might be, including democracy. As I've put it before, people have a built-in 'fairness' meter. This doesn't mean that everyone expects or feels entitled to live like Elon Musk, but they do feel that they should receive the same benefit of living in an advanced civilization as others do. Things like living in a safe neighborhood. Being able to drink city water without fear of being poisoned. Being able to breathe clean air. Living in a safe neighborhood. Not living in a food desert. Not having to worry that a trip to the hospital or getting an advanced educational degree could leave you in permanent financial distress. Those things.

Well said. Growing wealth inequality is a threat to liberty AND security, for the majority who are left out.

As voters though, they're wedded to the idea that they can get good things from government without ever having to pay taxes for them. It can go on maybe a decade longer, but only with modest tax increases and downward pressure on all the good things. Basically, as voters they have been deceived and like anyone, will be loathe to admit that.


Interestingly enough, I think both China and the U.S. have a similar problem. They're getting older and they will need to import productive immigrants who can pay the taxes to help maintain their collective productivity and also pay for an expanding balance sheet. I agree with you that, historically speaking, and particularly since 1965, the U.S. has done a better job of solving this problem through immigration. But we're backsliding in this direction as well, and if the right wing gets re-elected on a ethno-nationalist platform, it will have disastrous consequences for the U.S. going forward - consequences which, like Brexit, may not be obvious at first but will insidiously put the country at an ever-increasing disadvantage over time.

Actually I would say that the humanitarian motive for immigration used to coincide with the US's unlimited need for hard workers, but now it really doesn't. The US is taking in skilled and in some cases rich immigrants, because those are more in demand by the private sector than laborers are. Of course there are still some refugees admitted, but the number has not grown anywhere near as much as the "supply" has. Perhaps the humanitarian motive always was a sham, or a way of feeling good about poor people picking the cotton or mowing lawns ("we're doing them a favor!") but I take a more positive view. The tolerance of Americans for too high a rate of immigration (any kind) has always been limited, so the different kinds of immigration have to be balanced and currently, the interests of industry outweigh the compassionate motive.

It's really hard to imagine the US taking in a million peasants, who only speak French if any of the national languages of Europe. But I suppose the Europeans really didn't have much choice. As Australia became so alarmed about, refugees who come on unsafe boats are very hard to "stop at the border" and all Western countries are signatories to the Refugee Convention which requires them to harbor asylum seekers while they're processed if they're actually in the country. And the laws of the sea prevent letting them drown. The best countries like Greece could do is not to sail around at all, so they didn't have to pretend they never saw unsafe boats. Europe with the Mediterranean and also long land borders, never stood a chance so they just accepted the refugees. But Australia with a much favorable single sea route (via Indonesia, which isn't where the refugees were coming from) seemed to have success with towing boats back (or transferring refugees to essentially disposable life-boats, if their boat wasn't sea worthy) but I say seemed to because all that did is raise the price to refugees: they quickly wised up that with nothing more than a few thousand dollars, a clean criminal record and a holiday itinerary, they could easily enter Australia as tourists and then apply for asylum. The exact same thing is happening in the US. When you raise the effective cost of illegally immigrating above the cost of a holiday visit, no wall is going to do you any good. And obviously the US is not going to shut down such a lucrative "export" industry as foreign tourism. At best, the US can keep out Interpol-listed criminals.
 
As voters though, they're wedded to the idea that they can get good things from government without ever having to pay taxes for them. It can go on maybe a decade longer, but only with modest tax increases and downward pressure on all the good things. Basically, as voters they have been deceived and like anyone, will be loathe to admit that.

It's complicated. I think the real problem is that the tax code is set up so that the plutocrats don't have to pay a lot of taxes. That said, yes, a lot of people want heaven but don't want to die first. They want the goods without accepting a slight bump in taxation.

I'd respond to the rest, as it's good stuff but it's late on this side of the planet.
 
It's complicated. I think the real problem is that the tax code is set up so that the plutocrats don't have to pay a lot of taxes. That said, yes, a lot of people want heaven but don't want to die first. They want the goods without accepting a slight bump in taxation.

The tax code is still based on a "captains of industry" economy where rich people were typically industrialists. Now rich people maintain and grow their wealth by investment (or more likely, letting an expert invest for them) so there's a "banking class" above the industrialists.

To cut to the chase, the ability of big money to make more money at the expense of all productive industry and workers, has progressed to far to be reined in by a share-trading tax or unlimited capital gains tax. It's time for a wealth tax!

A wealth tax does not have to be permanent. In fact by its nature it can't be. Once it has eliminated whatever we consider to be "excessive" concentrations of wealth, there's nothing left to tax. And of course capital flight has to be considered. I would apply a wealth tax (or wealth nationalization) for just one or two years, "as an experiment" and thus seek to avoid a panic capital flight.

To those concerned I'm "punishing" the rich: in the maze of corporations permitted by US law, it is somewhat meaningless to ask who owns what. The wealth is just there, like a pile of drugs on the floor during a police raid. We'll take some of that thanks, and all you honest businessmen can go free!
 
The US is very likely to remain dominant for some time.

Nobody has military toys in as serious quantity and quality.

English is a wonderful second language of choice - not associated with dictatorship as Spanish and Russian are and not difficult to learn from junior high school on, as Chinese would be.

For the purposes of getting rich, other countries are fine - Japan has learned exactly how to get economic superstatus not only for itself, but also away from other countries.

For purposes of developing more realistic social models, other countries are better, because extreme wealth inequality is bad for democracy, representative government, quality of life, health, and, ultimately, survival.

Nonetheless, the US still has characteristics that result in much innovation. Putin has said he envies our creativity, because he knows he can't attain it while holding the lid too tightly on the social pot as a dictator. I've known quite a few Chinese who understand the same thing.

Western Europe and Japan both have significant capacities for innovation, but we still have a partial edge. The problem is that, to continue in areas of importance, we have to have better math/science/computer skills all over. East Asians are the true competition.

The conservatives in the US, whose policies are more responsible for extreme wealth inequality, threaten to screw up the US. Their values are utterly dissociated with innovation, dumb down school children, allow excessive production of bad food/housing/environment and health/psychological well being. At the same time, both right and left have been almost hopelessly stupid about various social and economic problems. We could lose it because of this.
 
For the purposes of getting rich, other countries are fine - Japan has learned exactly how to get economic superstatus not only for itself, but also away from other countries.

You're kidding, right? Japan got spectacularly rich the same way the US did: by exporting much more than they imported. But then their currency rose, because they did not have the international contacts to fix it at one rate with trading partners, so their export competitiveness fell. They still export, and they still do OK supplying their own fat domestic market, but they have had to resort to off-shoring industry just the way the US has had to. Including ironically, off-shoring to the US.

Japan is doing OK, but nowhere near what a projection from the mid '90 would suggest. They've hit the growth ceiling of post-industrial nations, and hit it harder than any other nation. Their GDP is the same now as it was in 1995!
 
You're kidding, right? Japan got spectacularly rich the same way the US did: by exporting much more than they imported. But then their currency rose, because they did not have the international contacts to fix it at one rate with trading partners, so their export competitiveness fell. They still export, and they still do OK supplying their own fat domestic market, but they have had to resort to off-shoring industry just the way the US has had to. Including ironically, off-shoring to the US.

Japan is doing OK, but nowhere near what a projection from the mid '90 would suggest. They've hit the growth ceiling of post-industrial nations, and hit it harder than any other nation. Their GDP is the same now as it was in 1995!
You misunderstand. Back in the 1980s, the Japanese had figured out how to prevent numerous US inventors and innovators from taking off with their inventions and innovations. As soon as the inventors/innovators got patents, Japanese patented the applied use of the inventions/innovations for products. As a result, when the former couldn't find American companies to produce certain related products for them, they turned to the Japanese, who said they could get them only if they paid. It's how the Japanese legitimately got rich.

They destroyed the best hopes for some of the best successes in the US. This never changed, and other countries could imitate this highly imaginative play. No, they haven't been great at GDP, but they won that round and it is still paying off for them and hurt the US.

Everyone off-shored industry - it's the capitalist way. You can generate pots of money this way, but if it's done carelessly, people in your own domestic market go into a down-spiral as in the US. Japanese people don't have that problem, as Euro countries don't. When you hurt your own domestic market, too, as we have, you don't have a chance to turn it around without major government policy change. They didn't hurt themselves like this.
 
Christmas Island, for sure.
Nah.

Easter Island.

They've been biding their time, developing combat mechs they hide inside those so-called "Statues"
 
Back
Top Bottom