3 ms·

China has built its own enormous internal market—its own tourism, its own brands, its own everything. They've turned inward not from isolation but from self-suf

China has built its own enormous internal market—its own tourism, its own brands, its own everything. They've turned inward not from isolation but from self-sufficiency. Not sure how the title matches with this line at all. In any case, these kinds of analyses always seem really shallow and historically ignorant to me. I can totally buy the idea that China will become a dominant economic player in the world, if it isn't already. This seems like an obvious, borderline mundane observation to make. What would be more insightful is an analysis of China and the West that factors in three big things: 1. How the unique aspects of America basically make it impossible for the the country to be in the position China was in during the 19th and early 20th centuries, which is to say, a total disaster, beset by civil wars, colonial acquisitions, invasions, on and on. No matter how much China outcompetes America, I don't think it will ever be in that sort of situation. The military and national security state, plus the sheer amount of personal firearms, pretty much guarantees IMO that the US is basically impregnable from outside military interventions. 19th century China had neither of these things. And so I think you're inevitably going to have, at worst, a multipolar world, if not a directly bipolar one. 2. More broadly, how the cultural dynamics of the West led to the Reformation, Wars of Religion, Renaissance, and Industrial Revolution and to the West being the dominant power in the first place. And more importantly, if those cultural trends are still active, even if they are somehow dormant. If you don't factor these in, your picture of history is extremely short-term and basically dependent on contemporary predictions of the future. (See: predictions of Japan in the 1980s.) 3. And more recently, how the "enemy" of the Soviet Union prompted the US to behave more competitively and feel pressured to perform. See, for example, the Space Race. I don't really get the sense that China is anywhere near occupying the same place in the American imagination right now, and so there isn't much of a competitive spirit. There seem to be rumblings of one developing in the last decade, but it's still not quite there. If it ever develops, certainly it's going to be a factor.

seanicus 1y ago
It's hard to imagine what could even constitute a modern Sputnik moment, but it's an interesting thought experiment. I just don't think that Americans care enough, and both countries are way more dependent on each other than the US and USSR ever were. Caveat I've been wrong on pretty much every political prognostication I've ever made, so buy some defense industry stocks. Maybe US gets really good at maglev trains and in reprisal China goes full throttle on inventing teleportation/hyperdrive tech?
- breppp 1y ago
  Full AGI is a pretty trivial example
- keiferski 1y ago
  A fully functional moon base? Mars colony?
porphyra 1y ago
> How the unique aspects of America basically make it impossible for the the country to be in the position China was in during the 19th and early 20th centuries, which is to say, a total disaster, beset by civil wars, colonial acquisitions, invasions, on and on. The US literally had a civil war in the 19th century. And judging by the current polarized political sentiments, I wouldn't be surprised if another one happened in my lifetime. But yes, I don't think anyone will be invading the US any time soon. > More broadly, how the cultural dynamics of the West led to the Reformation, Wars of Religion, Renaissance, and Industrial Revolution and to the West being the dominant power in the first place. Prior to the Renaissance, the West languished for centuries in the dark ages and middle ages whereas China prospered during the Tang and Song Dynasty. So it clearly isn't something that's uniquely about, say, Christianity or chivalrous knights, that allowed the West to develop so well. Cycles of dominance like the Islamic Golden Age and stuff seem to be mostly driven by institutions and luck rather than fixed cultural traits. Probably what got the West to become the dominant power and industrialize was the development of scientific thinking, which translated to advantages in every respect such as ship navigation and making cannons, which then led to colonialism and extracting resources from every part of the world. But now everyone has scientific thinking, and if anything, China is embracing science a lot more while America is regressing back into superstitions (for example, the current United States Secretary of Health and Human Services is a conspiracy theorist and anti-vaccine activist). Also, you allude to Japan's stagnation after the 1980s, but I think that's largely due to policy, demographics, and external factors.
- keiferski 1y ago
  The American Civil War was nothing like the Chinese civil wars of the 19th and 20th centuries. America industrialized almost directly as a consequence of the war, and in some sense it was an economic war of the industrial north conquering the agrarian south. Really not comparable to the chaotic situation that happened in China, with warlords, foreign interventions, etc. And scientific thinking is very much a consequence of cultural trends in Europe, many of which were explicitly religious in nature.
- _DeadFred_ 1y ago
  Having been to both China and the American midwest (and living in a red state) China is WAY more superstitious. The US stuff is purely reactionary, not the bubbling up of some strong longly held cultural beliefs.
bryanlarsen 1y ago
Before the Meiji Restoration or the unification of Mongolia, the economy and population of China dwarfed Japan and Mongolia far more than the economy and population of the US dwarfs Mexico. It seems impossible to think that Mexico could conquer the US, but far more implausible things have happened in past history.
- chrisco255 1y ago
  Strange tangent, but Mexico doesn't even have a top 30 military strength. The U.S. can project power to every corner of the globe. It not only outnumbers Mexico but it has a number of technological, geographical, financial, logistical advantages that Mexico is nowhere near competing with. In the distant past nations didn't even necessarily understand the full capacity of their competition. In modern warfare, we know our enemies capabilities and they know our capabilities, satellites leave little to the imagination. Japan leapfrogged China by industrializing quicker than they did. Industrialization is an obvious force multiplier for an economy and military.
  - bryanlarsen 1y ago
    That's the situation now, but what's the situation going to be like 50 or 100 years from now? If Mexico experiences its own Meiji Restoration type experience and the US experiences a civil war over the next few decades...
    - chrisco255 1y ago
      A civil war wouldn't even necessarily be a reason for the U.S. to go into decline, it certainly wasn't the case in the 19th century. U.S. handily beat Mexico then went to war with itself then had some of the strongest economic growth in world history, as it rolled out telegraph, telephones, electricity and light bulbs, tons of rail line, invented powered flight and mass produced automobiles. At any rate Mexico/U.S. situation is completely different than Japan/China. Mexico is growing rapidly and America wants Mexico to succeed. It eases the burden on U.S. from excessive immigration if Mexico is able to develop its economy to a comparable level. Mexico still has tons of problems though not least of which is the insane violence and heinous crimes committed by their cartels. It's far more likely Mexico cracks up from the cartel activity than the U.S. at this juncture.
like_any_other 1y ago
> How the unique aspects of America basically make it impossible for the the country to be in the position China was in during the 19th and early 20th centuries, which is to say, a total disaster, beset by civil wars, colonial acquisitions, invasions, on and on. No matter how much China outcompetes America, I don't think it will ever be in that sort of situation. Generals are always preparing to fight the previous war.. Look at China's actions (or the West's, for that matter). Rarely is it an invasion with guns and bombs (with the notable exception of the US Middle East policy). Mostly it's slow economic takeover. What good will guns do you, when to sell your wares, you need permission from a Chinese market owner [1], or when the only jobs are in Chinese-owned chains and conglomerates? It won't be as bad, but it could be differently bad - for all the invasions China suffered, they are still today 91% ethnically Han-Chinese [2], in stark contrast to the dramatic demographic transformation of the US since 1965. [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/chinas-jdcom-buy-germanys-ceconomy-deal-valuing-it-25-billion-2025-07-30/ https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/chinas-jdco... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#Ethnic_groups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#Ethnic_g...
supportengineer 1y ago
>> beset by civil wars One of us has not been watching the news lately.
- keiferski 1y ago
  Not even remotely similar to the chaos that was China circa 1800-1950.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - supportengineer 1y ago
    Please wait
watwut 1y ago
Personal firearms do absolutely nothing against foreign invation. They can amount to small scale terrorism and that is it
- keiferski 1y ago
  There are 18 million veterans and 400 million firearms in the US today, in a peaceful situation.
- runlaszlorun 1y ago
  > They can amount to small scale terrorism and that is it Or a large scale insurgency. Something millions of military veterans have (unfortunately) witnessed first hand.
- AngryData 1y ago
  And? You don't need to win big set piece battles to win a war. Insurgencies have won over and over again because without the support of the local people, the occupying forces must continuously expend massive amounts of capital along with some of their own lives to maintain control. The people are what makes an area either valuable or expensive.
xg15 1y ago
> The military and national security state, plus the sheer amount of personal firearms, pretty much guarantees IMO that the US is basically impregnable from outside military interventions. I find that a bit naive. First, as for the point about firearms, I honestly don't think this is very relevant for the ability of a state to defend itself. Lots of firearms in civil possession might make life harder for domestic police - because they have (at least in theory) some obligation to protect the state's citizens and their property, even those citizens with firearms. So they cannot arbitrarily overpower those people. An invading army has no such qualms. Just have a look at the wars that are currently going on, or the US' own invasions in the past. They have rockets, drones, airstrikes, artillery, tanks and all the other goodies at their disposal and will generally avoid getting anywhere near where your firearm could hit them. They won't try to arrest you, they'll simply blow up your house. The second point has merit: The US not only has the most powerful national military in the world, it's also the leader of the most powerful international military alliance. Not to mention it is still at the center of the global trading and financial system, as well as the internet. Because of those factors, a chance of invasion is nil. But that's nothing uniquely American, it just reflects the amount of power America currently has. Britain was in a similar position two centuries ago and Spain before that. It might change again.
- vdqtp3 1y ago
  > An invading army has no such qualms. > They won't try to arrest you, they'll simply blow up your house. The point is, they'd have to blow up so many houses it's not viable.

seanicus 1y ago

It's hard to imagine what could even constitute a modern Sputnik moment, but it's an interesting thought experiment. I just don't think that Americans care enough, and both countries are way more dependent on each other than the US and USSR ever were. Caveat I've been wrong on pretty much every political prognostication I've ever made, so buy some defense industry stocks. Maybe US gets really good at maglev trains and in reprisal China goes full throttle on inventing teleportation/hyperdrive tech?

breppp 1y ago
Full AGI is a pretty trivial example
keiferski 1y ago
A fully functional moon base? Mars colony?

porphyra 1y ago

> How the unique aspects of America basically make it impossible for the the country to be in the position China was in during the 19th and early 20th centuries, which is to say, a total disaster, beset by civil wars, colonial acquisitions, invasions, on and on. The US literally had a civil war in the 19th century. And judging by the current polarized political sentiments, I wouldn't be surprised if another one happened in my lifetime. But yes, I don't think anyone will be invading the US any time soon. > More broadly, how the cultural dynamics of the West led to the Reformation, Wars of Religion, Renaissance, and Industrial Revolution and to the West being the dominant power in the first place. Prior to the Renaissance, the West languished for centuries in the dark ages and middle ages whereas China prospered during the Tang and Song Dynasty. So it clearly isn't something that's uniquely about, say, Christianity or chivalrous knights, that allowed the West to develop so well. Cycles of dominance like the Islamic Golden Age and stuff seem to be mostly driven by institutions and luck rather than fixed cultural traits. Probably what got the West to become the dominant power and industrialize was the development of scientific thinking, which translated to advantages in every respect such as ship navigation and making cannons, which then led to colonialism and extracting resources from every part of the world. But now everyone has scientific thinking, and if anything, China is embracing science a lot more while America is regressing back into superstitions (for example, the current United States Secretary of Health and Human Services is a conspiracy theorist and anti-vaccine activist). Also, you allude to Japan's stagnation after the 1980s, but I think that's largely due to policy, demographics, and external factors.

keiferski 1y ago
The American Civil War was nothing like the Chinese civil wars of the 19th and 20th centuries. America industrialized almost directly as a consequence of the war, and in some sense it was an economic war of the industrial north conquering the agrarian south. Really not comparable to the chaotic situation that happened in China, with warlords, foreign interventions, etc. And scientific thinking is very much a consequence of cultural trends in Europe, many of which were explicitly religious in nature.
_DeadFred_ 1y ago
Having been to both China and the American midwest (and living in a red state) China is WAY more superstitious. The US stuff is purely reactionary, not the bubbling up of some strong longly held cultural beliefs.

bryanlarsen 1y ago

Before the Meiji Restoration or the unification of Mongolia, the economy and population of China dwarfed Japan and Mongolia far more than the economy and population of the US dwarfs Mexico. It seems impossible to think that Mexico could conquer the US, but far more implausible things have happened in past history.

chrisco255 1y ago
Strange tangent, but Mexico doesn't even have a top 30 military strength. The U.S. can project power to every corner of the globe. It not only outnumbers Mexico but it has a number of technological, geographical, financial, logistical advantages that Mexico is nowhere near competing with. In the distant past nations didn't even necessarily understand the full capacity of their competition. In modern warfare, we know our enemies capabilities and they know our capabilities, satellites leave little to the imagination. Japan leapfrogged China by industrializing quicker than they did. Industrialization is an obvious force multiplier for an economy and military.
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  That's the situation now, but what's the situation going to be like 50 or 100 years from now? If Mexico experiences its own Meiji Restoration type experience and the US experiences a civil war over the next few decades...
  - chrisco255 1y ago
    A civil war wouldn't even necessarily be a reason for the U.S. to go into decline, it certainly wasn't the case in the 19th century. U.S. handily beat Mexico then went to war with itself then had some of the strongest economic growth in world history, as it rolled out telegraph, telephones, electricity and light bulbs, tons of rail line, invented powered flight and mass produced automobiles. At any rate Mexico/U.S. situation is completely different than Japan/China. Mexico is growing rapidly and America wants Mexico to succeed. It eases the burden on U.S. from excessive immigration if Mexico is able to develop its economy to a comparable level. Mexico still has tons of problems though not least of which is the insane violence and heinous crimes committed by their cartels. It's far more likely Mexico cracks up from the cartel activity than the U.S. at this juncture.

like_any_other 1y ago

> How the unique aspects of America basically make it impossible for the the country to be in the position China was in during the 19th and early 20th centuries, which is to say, a total disaster, beset by civil wars, colonial acquisitions, invasions, on and on. No matter how much China outcompetes America, I don't think it will ever be in that sort of situation. Generals are always preparing to fight the previous war.. Look at China's actions (or the West's, for that matter). Rarely is it an invasion with guns and bombs (with the notable exception of the US Middle East policy). Mostly it's slow economic takeover. What good will guns do you, when to sell your wares, you need permission from a Chinese market owner [1], or when the only jobs are in Chinese-owned chains and conglomerates? It won't be as bad, but it could be differently bad - for all the invasions China suffered, they are still today 91% ethnically Han-Chinese [2], in stark contrast to the dramatic demographic transformation of the US since 1965. [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/chinas-jdcom-buy-germanys-ceconomy-deal-valuing-it-25-billion-2025-07-30/ https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/chinas-jdco... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#Ethnic_groups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#Ethnic_g...

supportengineer 1y ago

>> beset by civil wars One of us has not been watching the news lately.

keiferski 1y ago
Not even remotely similar to the chaos that was China circa 1800-1950.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- supportengineer 1y ago
  Please wait

watwut 1y ago

Personal firearms do absolutely nothing against foreign invation. They can amount to small scale terrorism and that is it

keiferski 1y ago
There are 18 million veterans and 400 million firearms in the US today, in a peaceful situation.
runlaszlorun 1y ago
> They can amount to small scale terrorism and that is it Or a large scale insurgency. Something millions of military veterans have (unfortunately) witnessed first hand.
AngryData 1y ago
And? You don't need to win big set piece battles to win a war. Insurgencies have won over and over again because without the support of the local people, the occupying forces must continuously expend massive amounts of capital along with some of their own lives to maintain control. The people are what makes an area either valuable or expensive.

xg15 1y ago

> The military and national security state, plus the sheer amount of personal firearms, pretty much guarantees IMO that the US is basically impregnable from outside military interventions. I find that a bit naive. First, as for the point about firearms, I honestly don't think this is very relevant for the ability of a state to defend itself. Lots of firearms in civil possession might make life harder for domestic police - because they have (at least in theory) some obligation to protect the state's citizens and their property, even those citizens with firearms. So they cannot arbitrarily overpower those people. An invading army has no such qualms. Just have a look at the wars that are currently going on, or the US' own invasions in the past. They have rockets, drones, airstrikes, artillery, tanks and all the other goodies at their disposal and will generally avoid getting anywhere near where your firearm could hit them. They won't try to arrest you, they'll simply blow up your house. The second point has merit: The US not only has the most powerful national military in the world, it's also the leader of the most powerful international military alliance. Not to mention it is still at the center of the global trading and financial system, as well as the internet. Because of those factors, a chance of invasion is nil. But that's nothing uniquely American, it just reflects the amount of power America currently has. Britain was in a similar position two centuries ago and Spain before that. It might change again.

vdqtp3 1y ago
> An invading army has no such qualms. > They won't try to arrest you, they'll simply blow up your house. The point is, they'd have to blow up so many houses it's not viable.