3 ms·
Competing with it is a problem for conservativism. Some admittedly loose reasoning: Conservativism preserves currently widely accepted structures, including id
by mmooss 2y ago
Competing with it is a problem for conservativism. Some admittedly loose reasoning:
Conservativism preserves currently widely accepted structures, including ideas, by ridiculing and excluding new ones; social structures, by outlawing / persecuting / demonizing new ones as a threat to 'our traditions' and 'way of life'; businesses, through tariffs and other anti-competitive measures - the House GOP is considering a bill that reduces antitrust powers, for example; existing economic sectors, by government picking winners and funding them, limiting the economy to what is popular and that the government already understands, such as manufacturing; etc.
Remember the land of the individual, of personal freedom, of opportunity, that by its culture generated invention and innovation that other places, without that culture, couldn't match. What China, which is limited by central control, is doing is copying well-established innovations - a biotech industry that relies on clinical trials. Cutting edge stuff - decades ago.
What has made the US successful is creating, innovating, and moving on to the next thing - things the government and most of the public are far behind on. Look at the boom in the IT industry over the last several decades (also no longer cutting edge except in limited ways).
How can that happen now? The US has currently embraced relatively extreme conservatism. People are afraid to offer challenging ideas, and make their money from rent and from squeezing revenue from old ideas (the stereotypical private equity model). They can't go anywhere except by pleasing the oligarchy, now including the government.
- vladms 2y agoWhile agree with the whole analysis, I do wonder if most/enough/all the ones supporting the regime change in US are really conservatives ("embraced extreme conservatism") or they just feel/are "left behind" hence they want any change. People might not care who is in power (although they will suffer the consequences), but if after 4 years they do not live better they will say "let's change" - without really checking what is the alternative... In the end, alternation of rulers is probably on average healthier than having the same guys over and over, but it is no guarantee of success.
- theLiminator 2y agoI personally think you're right. I think that in general a lot of people want change for the sake of change if they're unhappy (or often even if they're happy).
- mmooss 2y agoThat hypothesis goes back to Trump's first election. I think it appeals to fears and stereotypes that working-class white people are fundamentally racist and don't care about democracy and freedom, which is why it makes a strong impression - people remember it and repeat it. IIRC, the data from the elections doesn't support it (but I don't have the data). I think Trump's real powerbase is a wealthy elite, including those who have great influence over the business world and, most critically, over the flow of information, including on Facebook, Instagram, and X.
- overfeed 2y ago> I think Trump's real powerbase is a wealthy elite If you look at the breakdown of any Trump approval/disapproval poll, you'll see who the powerbase is. The billionaires are disposable supplicants, they got on the Trump train late and he doesn't really trust them as far as he can throw them.
- mmooss 2y ago> The billionaires are disposable supplicants, they got on the Trump train late and he doesn't really trust them as far as he can throw them. That's true of everyone. The billionaires are not disposable, however; they are essential to his power.
- dlisboa 2y ago> Remember the land of the individual, of personal freedom, of opportunity, that by its culture generated invention and innovation that other places, without that culture, couldn't match. What China, which is limited by central control, is doing is copying well-established innovations They don’t seem to be limited by it at all and in many areas of high tech innovation they are years ahead. It’s very hard to argue that their EV market, for instance, is not an example of competitiveness driving innovation, which is supposedly the hallmark of the free market.
- firejake308 2y agoTheir EV market is pretty competitive, and they have multiple brands all releasing EVs. Nio, BYD, and Xpeng come to mind. Compare to the US, where we only have one EV maker with a decent market share (Tesla) which has stagnated in innovation. My argument is that where China has succeeded, it has done so by adopting Western values like free-market competition (see the reforms of Deng Xiaopeng) and where the West has failed, it is due to monopolization and stagnation/decadence.
- TFYS 2y agoRelying too much on free-market competition is what is causing the west to stagnate. Left on their own, markets will produce monopolies and won't invest in expensive and risky basic research, or really anything of value where that value can't be captured by a single profit seeking entity. China is using free markets more as a tool when it makes sense and not treating it as an intrinsic value like the west has been. China has used subsidies and carefully controls that no businesses get to a monopoly position, which allows markets to function more efficiently and directs their power to things that make sense for the nation as a whole instead of just a single company or industry.
- firejake308 2y agoTo boil down our discussion to one point, perhaps it is "competitive markets" that are necessary for success, and not necessarily "free markets".