4 ms·

I think anti-immigrant rhetoric will have the most impact against the US. A lot of the people innovating on this stuff are being maligned and leaving in droves.

I think anti-immigrant rhetoric will have the most impact against the US. A lot of the people innovating on this stuff are being maligned and leaving in droves. Aside from geography, attracting talent from all over the world is the one edge the US has a nation over countries like China. But now the US is trying to be xenophobic like China, restrict tech import/export like China but compete against 10x population and lack of similar levels of internal strife and fissures. The world, even Europe is looking for a new country to take on a leader/superpower role. China isn't there yet, but it might get there in a few years after their next-gen fighter jets and catching up to ASML. But, China's greatest weakness is their lack of ambition and focus on regional matters like Taiwan and south china sea, instead of winning over western europe and india.

dlisboa 1y ago
> But, China's greatest weakness is their lack of ambition and focus on regional matters like Taiwan and south china sea, instead of winning over western europe and india. That's a strength. Them not having interest in global domination and regime change other than their backyard is what allows them to easily make partners in Africa and LATAM, the most important regions for raw materials.
- notepad0x90 1y ago
  You would think so, but historically that's why they never became more than a regional power. Empires for millennia craved trade with China but only the mongols from that region made it all the way to western europe in their invasions. It is a strength, if their goal is to have a stable and prosperous country long term, and that seems to be what they want. good for them. But nature abhors a vacuum, so there will always be an empire at the top of the food chain. Such empires want to maximize wealth for their people and secure them against threats, that's why invasions and exploitation of weaker countries happens. That game hasn't changed. Friendly relations work, until you need a lot of resources from a country that doesn't want to give it up. Or, like with the US, when they're opening up military bases next to your borders and you need a buffer state. Or, when naval blockades and sanctions are being enforced against your country for not complying with extra-sovereign demands. History shows that countries content with what they have collapse or weaken very quickly. China will have a population crisis in a few decades for example, and it won't have the large manufacturing base and its people will be too used to luxuries to go back to slaving for western countries for pennies. Keep in mind that the current china itself is so great and prosperous because of all the invasions it did against western china and satellite states like Vietnam and north Korea (the US isn't special in this regard).
  - lossolo 1y ago
    > But nature abhors a vacuum, so there will always be an empire at the top of the food chain The world has been bipolar and multipolar before in history, and it can be again. The unipolar period of American dominance is ending.
    - notepad0x90 1y ago
      Yes, it can but those poles are expansionist/influential empires not isolationist states. For example, China wants involvement in African development but they don't want any say or interference in local affairs, they can exert influence but they don't want to.
- OrvalWintermute 1y ago
  if you've been tracking the shark deals they give countries for loans, I think you'd recant what you just said. "while the CCP accuses the West of predatory interest rates, the average Chinese rescue loan carries an interest rate of about 5 percent, more than double the IMF’s standard 2 percent. As of Oct. 1, 2025, despite higher U.S. interest rates, the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights lending rate stands at only 3.41 percent, still significantly lower than what China charges struggling nations for so-called relief." These countries paying these loans are the ones least able to pay them back, and at more than double IMF loans, they are really putting them in a vise.
  - skinnymuch 1y ago
    China’s retribution or punishment against loan issues is nowhere close to IMF and the west. Same with them not wanting the state to do what they want. You did the equivalent of showing some stat showing black and brown people do violence and crimes and saying “see how uncivilized they are” ignoring everything else.
- ikidd 1y ago
  >Them not having interest in global domination and regime change I don't even know where to begin with that one.
  - anonzzzies 1y ago
    Alright let's hear it.
  - Jackpillar 1y ago
    Yeah waiting to see historical examples of contemporary China being interested in global domination and regime change, especially in contrast to the US.
drittel 1y ago
[flagged]
- ksynwa 1y ago
  Wow
  - dotnet00 1y ago
    Unsurprising that someone with such beliefs would be too much of a coward to use their real account.
    - drittel 1y ago
      [flagged]
  - drittel 1y ago
    [flagged]
bkandel 1y ago
China's greatest weakness is that their working-age population has already peaked and is in the process of plummeting, which will continue over the coming decades.
- notepad0x90 1y ago
  Yes, and being content and lacking ambition isn't good. Expansionism and immigration can solve that, but they're culturally stagnant in that regard. Without immigration, the US would have faced the same problems.
- FooBarWidget 1y ago
  This is the era of automation. Will they run out of people first or run out of jobs first?
csomar 1y ago
> But, China's greatest weakness is their lack of ambition and focus on regional matters like Taiwan and south china sea, instead of winning over western europe and india. How can they have international hegemony before they clear their regional order? China is more interested in aligning Taiwan than invading; though it’ll probably invade if it can’t align it diplomatically. China is probably not interested in continuing the current Western-style order but to implement their own sino-stuff. At least with the CCP at the helm.
- notepad0x90 1y ago
  They've dominated their region for a long time. Vietnam and NK are their sattellites basically. Russia is their close ally. The only regional opposition they have is India. Taiwan is a small bug to them, the only reason they haven't invaded it is because of TSMC and ASML, mainland China hasn't caught up with them and Nvidia yet. They're all over Africa and south Asia. But unlike the US/West they don't exert political influence. When they build infrastructure for example, they set up worker camps, isolated from the local population. they only employ their own imported people and clean up and leave quietly afterwards. They're acting like good business partners, instead of a superpower wielding it's might and extending its influence. it's good for business for all involved parties for sure, and smart too. But not having strong influence means for example, the US can come in, outbid them, bail out african loans to China and they lose that source of commerce.
rayiner 1y ago
> But now the US is trying to … compete against 10x population and lack of similar levels of internal strife and fissures. I can’t tell whether you think the anti-immigration stance is a good thing or bad thing.
- notepad0x90 1y ago
  it's bad for the US, because China has 10x population. the US can't make up in quality, what it lacks in quantity without immigration and attracting foreigners.
  - rayiner 1y ago
    The U.S. actually has more people age 25-64 with a college degree (about 90 million) than China (about 80 million).
    - notepad0x90 1y ago
      Yeah, and lots more immigration too. I don't know if those are the ones with college degree, but you can see who's writing all the academic papers. Look up stats like the 3rd most popular language by state and you'll be surprised. There has been a huge effort to import doctors from all over for example, due to the shortage in the US. Even in our tech industry, you don't need to look far to see all the H-1B's. I can't think of a single industry requiring skilled and educated workers that isn't relying on immigration significantly. Even our schools are relying heavily on Chinese and other foreign students for revenue lol. My point was, the non-immigrant birth-rate is very low, so arguably the US should have arrived at the same demographic crisis as japan, china and south korea. Not only that, immigrants attend college at a much higher rate than native-born too.
      - rayiner 1y ago
        Your argument was that the U.S. needs immigration to compete with China’s population advantage. But China doesn’t have a population advantage in college educated workers. China has to scale its educated workforce by sending more of its population to college. Which is certainly doable, but they are currently where the U.S. was 60 years ago. Also, the U.S. has a fertility edge over China, which skilled immigrants do not contribute to. The birth rate of the groups comprising most skilled immigrants (Asians) is very low, much lower than for other Americans.
hollerith 1y ago
>But now the US is trying to be xenophobic like China, restrict tech import/export like China but compete against 10x population and lack of similar levels of internal strife and fissures. Do I infer correctly that you believe that China has less internal strife and fissures than the US has?
- notepad0x90 1y ago
  By perception of the population at least, yes. I mean, the US is literally on the verge of a civil war lol.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - hollerith 1y ago
    Yes, there's a lot of internal division (including now a few assassinations) in the US right now, but in general the US is pretty stable. E.g., it was stable from 1975 to about 2015. The English-speaking lands where the US is now have seen two internal conflicts that killed at least 1% or so of the population: the American revolution, which killed about 1% of the population of the American colonies (but significantly less of the combined entity of England plus its American colonies) and the US Civil War, which killed about 2.4%. Historically, China has been significantly less stable than that. Here is a link to a summary: https://chat.deepseek.com/share/16duc6iflzhav114dx https://chat.deepseek.com/share/16duc6iflzhav114dx Here are 3 excerpts from that summary: >The Transition from Yuan to Ming Dynasty (Mid-14th Century) . . . This period was one of the most devastating in human history. Plague and widespread warfare ravaged China. The population is estimated to have fallen from around 120 million at the Yuan peak to about 60-65 million at the start of the Ming. The death toll was catastrophic, easily exceeding 1% by an order of magnitude. >The Ming-Qing Transition (c. 1618-1683) . . . While debated, estimates suggest a population decline of 20-40 million from a late-Ming peak of around 160-200 million. This includes deaths from war, famine, and plague. >The Taiping Rebellion (1850-1864). This is the deadliest civil war in human history. Most conservative estimates place the death toll at 20-30 million people, with some estimates going as high as 70-100 million when including famine and disease. With a total population of around 400-450 million at the time, this represents a death toll of at least 5-7% of the entire population. Imagine if the primary mission of the US Army was to put down internal rebellions and that everyone involved admitted that this was the main mission. That was the situation in China from 1949 to about 10 years ago, when it becomes no longer possible to identify with confidence the primary mission because Beijing added a second important mission, namely to use its navy and islands in the South China Sea to protect the sea lanes by which China imports oil from the Persian Gulf and exports manufactured goods around the world.
marknutter 1y ago
Nobody is anti-immigrant outside of a small pocket of anti-H1B folks in the tech community. People are, however, anti-illegal-immigrant, which is completely different.
- notepad0x90 1y ago
  A lot of actual racists nazis hijack the anti-illegal-immigrant sentiment. I get that it's illegal, and every US administration has enforced it strictly (despite popular rhetoric). But, the value illegal immigrants bring to the US economy cannot be understated. Purely from a economic standpoint, illegal immigrants are a huge asset. There are other portions of the population that are largely a liability. It's not like illegal immigrants are taking skilled work americans could be doing. And let's be honest, even without illegal immigrants, a lot of unskilled work will be replaced by AI/automation. I personally, have no problem against humane and lawful enforcement of immigration laws. But given that it is a determent to the economy, perhaps more serious and concerning crimes should be enforced? Perhaps the targets should be employers of illegal immigrants? Perhaps zip tying children and locking them in cages and denying them basic hygiene is not the right approach? I think the details is where it gets controversial, most sane people would agree that laws should be enforced.
coliveira 1y ago
The greatest weakness of the US is its utter lack of self awareness and its ambition to dominate others. Nobody is looking for another "leader", people just want to live well without a bully on their neck. So, many countries that are not part of the US closed club are welcoming China as a new business partner.
onetimeusename 1y ago
I went to a school that was heavy on immigrants and had lots of 1st gen citizens as students and all they did was advocate against people like me for admissions and for preferential admissions for their own group. So in my opinion, skilled immigration is not a transfer of talent but an expansion of the upper classes who go to war with each other over a small number of seats. Ironically this zero sum game keeps overall skill levels the same. For every immigrant, say, one citizen loses a seat somewhere.

dlisboa 1y ago

> But, China's greatest weakness is their lack of ambition and focus on regional matters like Taiwan and south china sea, instead of winning over western europe and india. That's a strength. Them not having interest in global domination and regime change other than their backyard is what allows them to easily make partners in Africa and LATAM, the most important regions for raw materials.

notepad0x90 1y ago
You would think so, but historically that's why they never became more than a regional power. Empires for millennia craved trade with China but only the mongols from that region made it all the way to western europe in their invasions. It is a strength, if their goal is to have a stable and prosperous country long term, and that seems to be what they want. good for them. But nature abhors a vacuum, so there will always be an empire at the top of the food chain. Such empires want to maximize wealth for their people and secure them against threats, that's why invasions and exploitation of weaker countries happens. That game hasn't changed. Friendly relations work, until you need a lot of resources from a country that doesn't want to give it up. Or, like with the US, when they're opening up military bases next to your borders and you need a buffer state. Or, when naval blockades and sanctions are being enforced against your country for not complying with extra-sovereign demands. History shows that countries content with what they have collapse or weaken very quickly. China will have a population crisis in a few decades for example, and it won't have the large manufacturing base and its people will be too used to luxuries to go back to slaving for western countries for pennies. Keep in mind that the current china itself is so great and prosperous because of all the invasions it did against western china and satellite states like Vietnam and north Korea (the US isn't special in this regard).
- lossolo 1y ago
  > But nature abhors a vacuum, so there will always be an empire at the top of the food chain The world has been bipolar and multipolar before in history, and it can be again. The unipolar period of American dominance is ending.
  - notepad0x90 1y ago
    Yes, it can but those poles are expansionist/influential empires not isolationist states. For example, China wants involvement in African development but they don't want any say or interference in local affairs, they can exert influence but they don't want to.
OrvalWintermute 1y ago
if you've been tracking the shark deals they give countries for loans, I think you'd recant what you just said. "while the CCP accuses the West of predatory interest rates, the average Chinese rescue loan carries an interest rate of about 5 percent, more than double the IMF’s standard 2 percent. As of Oct. 1, 2025, despite higher U.S. interest rates, the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights lending rate stands at only 3.41 percent, still significantly lower than what China charges struggling nations for so-called relief." These countries paying these loans are the ones least able to pay them back, and at more than double IMF loans, they are really putting them in a vise.
- skinnymuch 1y ago
  China’s retribution or punishment against loan issues is nowhere close to IMF and the west. Same with them not wanting the state to do what they want. You did the equivalent of showing some stat showing black and brown people do violence and crimes and saying “see how uncivilized they are” ignoring everything else.
ikidd 1y ago
>Them not having interest in global domination and regime change I don't even know where to begin with that one.
- anonzzzies 1y ago
  Alright let's hear it.
- Jackpillar 1y ago
  Yeah waiting to see historical examples of contemporary China being interested in global domination and regime change, especially in contrast to the US.

drittel 1y ago

[flagged]

ksynwa 1y ago
Wow
- dotnet00 1y ago
  Unsurprising that someone with such beliefs would be too much of a coward to use their real account.
  - drittel 1y ago
    [flagged]
- drittel 1y ago
  [flagged]

bkandel 1y ago

China's greatest weakness is that their working-age population has already peaked and is in the process of plummeting, which will continue over the coming decades.

notepad0x90 1y ago
Yes, and being content and lacking ambition isn't good. Expansionism and immigration can solve that, but they're culturally stagnant in that regard. Without immigration, the US would have faced the same problems.
FooBarWidget 1y ago
This is the era of automation. Will they run out of people first or run out of jobs first?

csomar 1y ago

> But, China's greatest weakness is their lack of ambition and focus on regional matters like Taiwan and south china sea, instead of winning over western europe and india. How can they have international hegemony before they clear their regional order? China is more interested in aligning Taiwan than invading; though it’ll probably invade if it can’t align it diplomatically. China is probably not interested in continuing the current Western-style order but to implement their own sino-stuff. At least with the CCP at the helm.

notepad0x90 1y ago
They've dominated their region for a long time. Vietnam and NK are their sattellites basically. Russia is their close ally. The only regional opposition they have is India. Taiwan is a small bug to them, the only reason they haven't invaded it is because of TSMC and ASML, mainland China hasn't caught up with them and Nvidia yet. They're all over Africa and south Asia. But unlike the US/West they don't exert political influence. When they build infrastructure for example, they set up worker camps, isolated from the local population. they only employ their own imported people and clean up and leave quietly afterwards. They're acting like good business partners, instead of a superpower wielding it's might and extending its influence. it's good for business for all involved parties for sure, and smart too. But not having strong influence means for example, the US can come in, outbid them, bail out african loans to China and they lose that source of commerce.

rayiner 1y ago

> But now the US is trying to … compete against 10x population and lack of similar levels of internal strife and fissures. I can’t tell whether you think the anti-immigration stance is a good thing or bad thing.

notepad0x90 1y ago
it's bad for the US, because China has 10x population. the US can't make up in quality, what it lacks in quantity without immigration and attracting foreigners.
- rayiner 1y ago
  The U.S. actually has more people age 25-64 with a college degree (about 90 million) than China (about 80 million).
  - notepad0x90 1y ago
    Yeah, and lots more immigration too. I don't know if those are the ones with college degree, but you can see who's writing all the academic papers. Look up stats like the 3rd most popular language by state and you'll be surprised. There has been a huge effort to import doctors from all over for example, due to the shortage in the US. Even in our tech industry, you don't need to look far to see all the H-1B's. I can't think of a single industry requiring skilled and educated workers that isn't relying on immigration significantly. Even our schools are relying heavily on Chinese and other foreign students for revenue lol. My point was, the non-immigrant birth-rate is very low, so arguably the US should have arrived at the same demographic crisis as japan, china and south korea. Not only that, immigrants attend college at a much higher rate than native-born too.
    - rayiner 1y ago
      Your argument was that the U.S. needs immigration to compete with China’s population advantage. But China doesn’t have a population advantage in college educated workers. China has to scale its educated workforce by sending more of its population to college. Which is certainly doable, but they are currently where the U.S. was 60 years ago. Also, the U.S. has a fertility edge over China, which skilled immigrants do not contribute to. The birth rate of the groups comprising most skilled immigrants (Asians) is very low, much lower than for other Americans.

hollerith 1y ago

>But now the US is trying to be xenophobic like China, restrict tech import/export like China but compete against 10x population and lack of similar levels of internal strife and fissures. Do I infer correctly that you believe that China has less internal strife and fissures than the US has?

notepad0x90 1y ago
By perception of the population at least, yes. I mean, the US is literally on the verge of a civil war lol.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- hollerith 1y ago
  Yes, there's a lot of internal division (including now a few assassinations) in the US right now, but in general the US is pretty stable. E.g., it was stable from 1975 to about 2015. The English-speaking lands where the US is now have seen two internal conflicts that killed at least 1% or so of the population: the American revolution, which killed about 1% of the population of the American colonies (but significantly less of the combined entity of England plus its American colonies) and the US Civil War, which killed about 2.4%. Historically, China has been significantly less stable than that. Here is a link to a summary: https://chat.deepseek.com/share/16duc6iflzhav114dx https://chat.deepseek.com/share/16duc6iflzhav114dx Here are 3 excerpts from that summary: >The Transition from Yuan to Ming Dynasty (Mid-14th Century) . . . This period was one of the most devastating in human history. Plague and widespread warfare ravaged China. The population is estimated to have fallen from around 120 million at the Yuan peak to about 60-65 million at the start of the Ming. The death toll was catastrophic, easily exceeding 1% by an order of magnitude. >The Ming-Qing Transition (c. 1618-1683) . . . While debated, estimates suggest a population decline of 20-40 million from a late-Ming peak of around 160-200 million. This includes deaths from war, famine, and plague. >The Taiping Rebellion (1850-1864). This is the deadliest civil war in human history. Most conservative estimates place the death toll at 20-30 million people, with some estimates going as high as 70-100 million when including famine and disease. With a total population of around 400-450 million at the time, this represents a death toll of at least 5-7% of the entire population. Imagine if the primary mission of the US Army was to put down internal rebellions and that everyone involved admitted that this was the main mission. That was the situation in China from 1949 to about 10 years ago, when it becomes no longer possible to identify with confidence the primary mission because Beijing added a second important mission, namely to use its navy and islands in the South China Sea to protect the sea lanes by which China imports oil from the Persian Gulf and exports manufactured goods around the world.

marknutter 1y ago

Nobody is anti-immigrant outside of a small pocket of anti-H1B folks in the tech community. People are, however, anti-illegal-immigrant, which is completely different.

notepad0x90 1y ago
A lot of actual racists nazis hijack the anti-illegal-immigrant sentiment. I get that it's illegal, and every US administration has enforced it strictly (despite popular rhetoric). But, the value illegal immigrants bring to the US economy cannot be understated. Purely from a economic standpoint, illegal immigrants are a huge asset. There are other portions of the population that are largely a liability. It's not like illegal immigrants are taking skilled work americans could be doing. And let's be honest, even without illegal immigrants, a lot of unskilled work will be replaced by AI/automation. I personally, have no problem against humane and lawful enforcement of immigration laws. But given that it is a determent to the economy, perhaps more serious and concerning crimes should be enforced? Perhaps the targets should be employers of illegal immigrants? Perhaps zip tying children and locking them in cages and denying them basic hygiene is not the right approach? I think the details is where it gets controversial, most sane people would agree that laws should be enforced.

coliveira 1y ago

The greatest weakness of the US is its utter lack of self awareness and its ambition to dominate others. Nobody is looking for another "leader", people just want to live well without a bully on their neck. So, many countries that are not part of the US closed club are welcoming China as a new business partner.

onetimeusename 1y ago

I went to a school that was heavy on immigrants and had lots of 1st gen citizens as students and all they did was advocate against people like me for admissions and for preferential admissions for their own group. So in my opinion, skilled immigration is not a transfer of talent but an expansion of the upper classes who go to war with each other over a small number of seats. Ironically this zero sum game keeps overall skill levels the same. For every immigrant, say, one citizen loses a seat somewhere.