8 ms·

First, this ignores that the USA benefits tremendously from trading with other countries, most of all with China. If this mindset was applied universally, the U

First, this ignores that the USA benefits tremendously from trading with other countries, most of all with China. If this mindset was applied universally, the USA (and the world) would be worse off. It also ignores that treating countries as though they are enemies can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. It can increase the threat rather than decrease it. Second, it's not necessarily in one's best interest to live in a "top dog" country. There are plenty of happy and prosperous people living outside the USA. The USA ranks 26th for median wealth. To give another example, even if China took the top dog spot, the average US citizen would still be better off than the average Chinese citizen. Thirdly, I don't think the US remaining top dog is a realistic objective in the long term. In my opinion, it would be smarter to lead by example knowing that your successor will be judged by the standard you set.

roberttod 4y ago
Your first argument sounds like appeasement, didn't work so well in WW2. Sounds like burying your head in the sand hoping no one will do anything bad. I think the parent post means top dog in military and power sense, not welfare of citizens which is all well and good until another nation is trying to undermine your core values. > Your successor will be judged by the standard you set What successor are we thinking of here? Is that China? India? Russia? These are all very scary regimes.
- roenxi 4y ago
  The story of appeasement was basically that the Nazis kept invading places, country after country, until they tried to take on the USSR and got transformed into paste (the US getting involved being a major factor). It was really quite breathtaking in hindsight because they wouldn't stop and obviously didn't intend to stop, ever. gp's argument has no parallel to appeasement.
  - roberttod 4y ago
    > treating countries as though they are enemies can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. It can increase the threat rather than decrease it. That's what I was referring to. Not appeasement exactly but seems like similar logic.
    - roenxi 4y ago
      That logic is nothing like appeasement. Or if it is then appeasement is a great strategy that we should all be using daily at all levels of societal organisation. Making enemies of people who are not enemies is one of the stupidest moves imaginable. It is hard to overstate how mistaken that sort of mistake would be.
- Santosh83 4y ago
  Yes indeed. Two out of those three countries have never invaded outside countries, whether for freedom, WMD or some other crap excuse. One of them is actually a functioning democracy. On the other hand a citizen of a country that has invaded almost a dozen sovereign nations, conducted almost an equal number of proxy wars and even used nuclear weapons twice, thinks we are scary. And lumps Russia, China and India all into one ill defined category of "scary regimes"... All this ignoring for the moment the general Western enterprise of erstwhile colonialism and current economic neocolonialism that makes the destruction wrought upon developing nations by direct war/attacks pale in comparison.
  - plonk 4y ago
    > Two out of those three countries have never invaded outside countries If you consider Taiwan a country, that's technically true but misleading. China would have invaded long ago if the US weren't capable or (claiming to be) willing to defend it.
    - trasz 4y ago
      [citation needed]. US claims that’s true, but everyone who remembers Iraq knows US loves a good lie. China, on the other hand, explicitly declares they won’t invade. China also doesn’t have much to gain by invading, and everything to lose.
      - thematrixturtle 4y ago
        Could you point us to China saying that? AFAIK China's policy is precisely the opposite: they've repeatedly made it very clear they will use military force if Taiwan ever proclaims independence.
        trasz 4y ago
        No - they made it clear that they will use military force if US invades Taiwan. They also made it very clear that they want peaceful solution, because their economy doesn’t depend on waging wars. Feel free to prove otherwise; note that Chinese statements are quite often misquoted.
ChrisLomont 4y ago
> The USA ranks 26th for median wealth Wealth is also a function of age - older people tend to have more - and that ranking is not normalized by such extraneous factors. The US is number 2 by median income, and number 1 for median disposable income, both of which are pretty important, especially to younger people that want cash flow to enjoy life.
- milchek 4y ago
  Out of curiosity, where did you get these numbers from? I’m not from the US, but what I do read and see on the internet is that people in the US also have a lot of debt (education, medical, and of course credit) I’m surprised that even for median disposable the US is number 1. But then again, maybe it’s a case of the internet being drowned out by a vocal minority?
  - Noumenon72 4y ago
    Rich people have more debt than poor people because they have more ability to repay. The only way debt could truly signify one country is worse off than another is if the situation were unstable (people accumulating debt in a short-term crisis and they will not be able to repay).
  - Bromeo 4y ago
    I was also surprised, but it seems to be true. Wikipedia lists the median disposable income after adjusting for local prices (PPP), and USA is first on that list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_capita_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_c...
  - unilynx 4y ago
    Building up debt seems a good way to increase disposable income, at least in the short run.
- dgb23 4y ago
  Number 1 for disposable income sounds off. Are daycare, tuitions, healthcare, public transport, rent/mortgages etc. factored in?
mattgperry 4y ago
Personally I think it's better to "do by example" with other open western democracies. And then when dealing with China etc rather than letting them roughshod over your financial and data economies because of principles or whatever, enforce the same rules upon them as they put upon you. Then there's an actual incentive and mechanism by which trade can open up in a fair manner. Our (speaking broadly about the west) current approach to China is madness.
- lazyeye 4y ago
  Ive never understood why the concept of reciprocity is so obvious yet never discussed. China blocks your apps, you block theirs. I guess you'd have to be an idiot like Trump to even suggest such a thing.
  - layer8 4y ago
    “The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.”
    - lazyeye 4y ago
      Lol...taking the high moral ground in this situation is naive in the extreme.
    - zmgsabst 4y ago
      Reciprocity is so fundamental to nature that people can’t stop doing it: Most of the studies about “people are irrational” are times psychologists fail to realize that people are acting on an iterated (rather than single round) game — and enforcing reciprocity through their “irrational” acts. We know at an instinctive level that reciprocity is necessary in game theory — eg, Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma.
      - mnw21cam 4y ago
        There are situations where it is entirely rational and advantageous to make people think you are irrational.
robertlagrant 4y ago
> First, this ignores that the USA benefits tremendously from trading with other countries, most of all with China. If this mindset was applied universally, the USA (and the world) would be worse off. This is true, but it only works if everyone does it. If one country is the main one that safeguards trade, releases costly scientific research (and open source codebases) for nothing and plays as well as it can, but others don't (and even look down on the safeguarding country for spending so much on defence instead of bread/circuses) then it takes a massive force of goodwill on the part of that one country to keep doing it. (I am not a US citizen/resident, to pre-empt the standard ad hominem :)
pastacacioepepe 4y ago
> the average US citizen would still be better off than the average Chinese citizen By what metrics? As an example, longevity is slightly higher in China than in US (77.30 years vs 77), it is GROWING in China while decreasing in US, or china has a transportation system that is orders of magnitude better than the US one. Ever heard of the high speed train system and how quickly was it built? Median income alone isn't enough to judge the quality of life of a country. I'd rather be poorer but live longer and in a country that works also for non-millionaires, but you can take more money with the lower longevity if you prefer.
- refurb 4y ago
  You realize vast swaths of China’s population are pretty much rural farmers living of less than $5,000 per year right?
  - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
    The poverty rate in US is ~14%, that's tens of millions of Americans living in poverty. Comparing incomes directly doesn't help, how much can $5k buy you in China vs how much can the poverty level income buy you in US?
    - Consultant32452 4y ago
      Okay, let's assume there's total economic equality between Americans and Chinese. In China if you're the wrong religion they put your men in prison camps and assign a rapist to sleep in bed with your women and indoctrinate them into the communist party. If you are in prison, China will murder you and sell your organs. In China the labor conditions are so bad they have to install "suicide nets" in factories because so many people try to jump out of windows or off roofs to kill themselves. America has MANY warts, but there's really no comparison.
      - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
        It's pointless to get into a competition for who's worst. I disagree at least partially on each one of your points and could reply with something equally bad or worse that's happening right now in the US, but I won't as we're talking about economics, not unsourced genocide claims.

roberttod 4y ago

Your first argument sounds like appeasement, didn't work so well in WW2. Sounds like burying your head in the sand hoping no one will do anything bad. I think the parent post means top dog in military and power sense, not welfare of citizens which is all well and good until another nation is trying to undermine your core values. > Your successor will be judged by the standard you set What successor are we thinking of here? Is that China? India? Russia? These are all very scary regimes.

roenxi 4y ago
The story of appeasement was basically that the Nazis kept invading places, country after country, until they tried to take on the USSR and got transformed into paste (the US getting involved being a major factor). It was really quite breathtaking in hindsight because they wouldn't stop and obviously didn't intend to stop, ever. gp's argument has no parallel to appeasement.
- roberttod 4y ago
  > treating countries as though they are enemies can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. It can increase the threat rather than decrease it. That's what I was referring to. Not appeasement exactly but seems like similar logic.
  - roenxi 4y ago
    That logic is nothing like appeasement. Or if it is then appeasement is a great strategy that we should all be using daily at all levels of societal organisation. Making enemies of people who are not enemies is one of the stupidest moves imaginable. It is hard to overstate how mistaken that sort of mistake would be.
Santosh83 4y ago
Yes indeed. Two out of those three countries have never invaded outside countries, whether for freedom, WMD or some other crap excuse. One of them is actually a functioning democracy. On the other hand a citizen of a country that has invaded almost a dozen sovereign nations, conducted almost an equal number of proxy wars and even used nuclear weapons twice, thinks we are scary. And lumps Russia, China and India all into one ill defined category of "scary regimes"... All this ignoring for the moment the general Western enterprise of erstwhile colonialism and current economic neocolonialism that makes the destruction wrought upon developing nations by direct war/attacks pale in comparison.
- plonk 4y ago
  > Two out of those three countries have never invaded outside countries If you consider Taiwan a country, that's technically true but misleading. China would have invaded long ago if the US weren't capable or (claiming to be) willing to defend it.
  - trasz 4y ago
    [citation needed]. US claims that’s true, but everyone who remembers Iraq knows US loves a good lie. China, on the other hand, explicitly declares they won’t invade. China also doesn’t have much to gain by invading, and everything to lose.
    - thematrixturtle 4y ago
      Could you point us to China saying that? AFAIK China's policy is precisely the opposite: they've repeatedly made it very clear they will use military force if Taiwan ever proclaims independence.
      - trasz 4y ago
        No - they made it clear that they will use military force if US invades Taiwan. They also made it very clear that they want peaceful solution, because their economy doesn’t depend on waging wars. Feel free to prove otherwise; note that Chinese statements are quite often misquoted.

ChrisLomont 4y ago

> The USA ranks 26th for median wealth Wealth is also a function of age - older people tend to have more - and that ranking is not normalized by such extraneous factors. The US is number 2 by median income, and number 1 for median disposable income, both of which are pretty important, especially to younger people that want cash flow to enjoy life.

milchek 4y ago
Out of curiosity, where did you get these numbers from? I’m not from the US, but what I do read and see on the internet is that people in the US also have a lot of debt (education, medical, and of course credit) I’m surprised that even for median disposable the US is number 1. But then again, maybe it’s a case of the internet being drowned out by a vocal minority?
- Noumenon72 4y ago
  Rich people have more debt than poor people because they have more ability to repay. The only way debt could truly signify one country is worse off than another is if the situation were unstable (people accumulating debt in a short-term crisis and they will not be able to repay).
- Bromeo 4y ago
  I was also surprised, but it seems to be true. Wikipedia lists the median disposable income after adjusting for local prices (PPP), and USA is first on that list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_capita_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_c...
- unilynx 4y ago
  Building up debt seems a good way to increase disposable income, at least in the short run.
dgb23 4y ago
Number 1 for disposable income sounds off. Are daycare, tuitions, healthcare, public transport, rent/mortgages etc. factored in?

mattgperry 4y ago

Personally I think it's better to "do by example" with other open western democracies. And then when dealing with China etc rather than letting them roughshod over your financial and data economies because of principles or whatever, enforce the same rules upon them as they put upon you. Then there's an actual incentive and mechanism by which trade can open up in a fair manner. Our (speaking broadly about the west) current approach to China is madness.

lazyeye 4y ago
Ive never understood why the concept of reciprocity is so obvious yet never discussed. China blocks your apps, you block theirs. I guess you'd have to be an idiot like Trump to even suggest such a thing.
- layer8 4y ago
  “The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.”
  - lazyeye 4y ago
    Lol...taking the high moral ground in this situation is naive in the extreme.
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    Reciprocity is so fundamental to nature that people can’t stop doing it: Most of the studies about “people are irrational” are times psychologists fail to realize that people are acting on an iterated (rather than single round) game — and enforcing reciprocity through their “irrational” acts. We know at an instinctive level that reciprocity is necessary in game theory — eg, Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma.
    - mnw21cam 4y ago
      There are situations where it is entirely rational and advantageous to make people think you are irrational.

robertlagrant 4y ago

> First, this ignores that the USA benefits tremendously from trading with other countries, most of all with China. If this mindset was applied universally, the USA (and the world) would be worse off. This is true, but it only works if everyone does it. If one country is the main one that safeguards trade, releases costly scientific research (and open source codebases) for nothing and plays as well as it can, but others don't (and even look down on the safeguarding country for spending so much on defence instead of bread/circuses) then it takes a massive force of goodwill on the part of that one country to keep doing it. (I am not a US citizen/resident, to pre-empt the standard ad hominem :)

pastacacioepepe 4y ago

> the average US citizen would still be better off than the average Chinese citizen By what metrics? As an example, longevity is slightly higher in China than in US (77.30 years vs 77), it is GROWING in China while decreasing in US, or china has a transportation system that is orders of magnitude better than the US one. Ever heard of the high speed train system and how quickly was it built? Median income alone isn't enough to judge the quality of life of a country. I'd rather be poorer but live longer and in a country that works also for non-millionaires, but you can take more money with the lower longevity if you prefer.

refurb 4y ago
You realize vast swaths of China’s population are pretty much rural farmers living of less than $5,000 per year right?
- pastacacioepepe 4y ago
  The poverty rate in US is ~14%, that's tens of millions of Americans living in poverty. Comparing incomes directly doesn't help, how much can $5k buy you in China vs how much can the poverty level income buy you in US?
  - Consultant32452 4y ago
    Okay, let's assume there's total economic equality between Americans and Chinese. In China if you're the wrong religion they put your men in prison camps and assign a rapist to sleep in bed with your women and indoctrinate them into the communist party. If you are in prison, China will murder you and sell your organs. In China the labor conditions are so bad they have to install "suicide nets" in factories because so many people try to jump out of windows or off roofs to kill themselves. America has MANY warts, but there's really no comparison.
    - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
      It's pointless to get into a competition for who's worst. I disagree at least partially on each one of your points and could reply with something equally bad or worse that's happening right now in the US, but I won't as we're talking about economics, not unsourced genocide claims.