6 ms·

I can't believe the dominant country is running this timeline.

ethbr1 1y ago
Give it a few years. The US ceding its dominance by trying to re-follow its 1970s/80s playbook (now with less Volcker!) in a 2024+ world will go down as one of the biggest geopolitical own-goals of all time.
- Der_Einzige 1y ago
  If trump were willing to call for extended high interest rates, we’d be in a far better spot. Trump trying to bring them down rapidly is perk of mt stupid especially during rampant speculation in GenAI.
  - tb_technical 1y ago
    I don't understand, can you explain why high interest rates will help economic development in the USA in light of its staggering held debt? I'm not an economist, I don't understand how this works.
- preisschild 1y ago
  Unfortunately its "peers" are not much better. The PROC is still authoritarian and wants to invade Taiwan and some EU countries are still fighting more EU integration so that the EU could become a "real" player.
  - integralid 1y ago
    >some EU countries are still fighting more EU integration At least this I understand. Foreign powers, especially you-know-which-one have a strong interest in preventing EU from becoming too strong, and unfortunately this is easy to do because: * it plays on primal human tribal instincts (they want to assimilate us, they will force or enable more immigration, etc) * the way EU works, you only need to convince some of the countries
deaux 1y ago
It already no longer is.
- tb_technical 1y ago
  Depends on your metrics of "dominant country" tbh. In terms of GDP the US is leading. In terms of purchasing power parity China is leading. In terms of military prowess the US is superior, if you believe their advertised weapons capabilities. That being said, if we believed what countries said about their own weapons, then Russia has a number of world ending superweapons - clearly they're the leader here /s. If you believe total number of naval vessels determines might, the Chinese Navy's numbers make them superior. If you believe damage control and logistics determine naval might, the USA has one of the most sophisticated support fleets in the world with world class damage control (combat survivability - but this is a meme). If you believe technological development makes a nation superior, the USA maintains it's edge with trade allies South Korea and Taiwan. If you believe total production is what makes a nation superior... China. Look, you get what I'm saying. The dollar is still the primary reserve currency (for now) and the US still ensures safety in international waters while projecting power regularly.
  - courseofaction 1y ago
    America has very little manufacturing capacity, has lost its edge in batteries and power generation, and is soon to be behind on computing. They're politically fractured, losing all their allies, and no longer have a sustainable military advantage. If they decide to flex their aging muscles against China, they will be outproduced, and can't win in a single decisive blow unless they want to initiate a surprise full nuclear war. They're done. Corruption ate the golden goose, and the people cheered.
    - hollerith 1y ago
      The US is no 2 in manufacturing output and way ahead of no 3. >America . . . has lost its edge in . . . power generation Energy costs are much lower in the US than in Europe or China. China is the world's largest importer of petroleum and of natural gas. In contrast, the US is self-sufficient in petroleum and natural gas. China's petroleum comes by ship from the Persian Gulf and from Russia's European ports (since there is no easy way for Russia to get its oil to its Asian ports). Beijing's worry that something might happen to interrupt its long supply lines of petroleum and natural gas is why it has made a large risky bet on solar electricity. The US, which has more land with high solar potential than China, can sit back and wait to see how China's bet on solar will turn out before it makes big bets on solar. It might be that the cost of electricity specifically is lower in China than the US. If so, that is because Beijing has prioritized building a lot of electricity-generating capacity. It engages in many such infrastructure project to keep its young men employed -- something Washington does not need to do because the US economy provides enough jobs without without Washington's spending on infrastructure projects (so Washington tends to spending on infrastructure only when the project clearly makes economic sense). Beijing imposes tight restrictions on its citizens' ability to invest outside China, so Chinese individual investors, pension funds, etc, put most of their money into deposits into Chinese banks and into Chinese real estate. Most of the funding for infrastructure projects comes from these bank deposits and from borrowing. Governmental debt (including debt owed by state and provincial governments) is a higher percentage of GDP in China than in the US.

Give it a few years. The US ceding its dominance by trying to re-follow its 1970s/80s playbook (now with less Volcker!) in a 2024+ world will go down as one of the biggest geopolitical own-goals of all time.

Der_Einzige 1y ago
If trump were willing to call for extended high interest rates, we’d be in a far better spot. Trump trying to bring them down rapidly is perk of mt stupid especially during rampant speculation in GenAI.
- tb_technical 1y ago
  I don't understand, can you explain why high interest rates will help economic development in the USA in light of its staggering held debt? I'm not an economist, I don't understand how this works.
preisschild 1y ago
Unfortunately its "peers" are not much better. The PROC is still authoritarian and wants to invade Taiwan and some EU countries are still fighting more EU integration so that the EU could become a "real" player.
- integralid 1y ago
  >some EU countries are still fighting more EU integration At least this I understand. Foreign powers, especially you-know-which-one have a strong interest in preventing EU from becoming too strong, and unfortunately this is easy to do because: * it plays on primal human tribal instincts (they want to assimilate us, they will force or enable more immigration, etc) * the way EU works, you only need to convince some of the countries

deaux 1y ago

It already no longer is.

tb_technical 1y ago
Depends on your metrics of "dominant country" tbh. In terms of GDP the US is leading. In terms of purchasing power parity China is leading. In terms of military prowess the US is superior, if you believe their advertised weapons capabilities. That being said, if we believed what countries said about their own weapons, then Russia has a number of world ending superweapons - clearly they're the leader here /s. If you believe total number of naval vessels determines might, the Chinese Navy's numbers make them superior. If you believe damage control and logistics determine naval might, the USA has one of the most sophisticated support fleets in the world with world class damage control (combat survivability - but this is a meme). If you believe technological development makes a nation superior, the USA maintains it's edge with trade allies South Korea and Taiwan. If you believe total production is what makes a nation superior... China. Look, you get what I'm saying. The dollar is still the primary reserve currency (for now) and the US still ensures safety in international waters while projecting power regularly.
- courseofaction 1y ago
  America has very little manufacturing capacity, has lost its edge in batteries and power generation, and is soon to be behind on computing. They're politically fractured, losing all their allies, and no longer have a sustainable military advantage. If they decide to flex their aging muscles against China, they will be outproduced, and can't win in a single decisive blow unless they want to initiate a surprise full nuclear war. They're done. Corruption ate the golden goose, and the people cheered.
  - hollerith 1y ago
    The US is no 2 in manufacturing output and way ahead of no 3. >America . . . has lost its edge in . . . power generation Energy costs are much lower in the US than in Europe or China. China is the world's largest importer of petroleum and of natural gas. In contrast, the US is self-sufficient in petroleum and natural gas. China's petroleum comes by ship from the Persian Gulf and from Russia's European ports (since there is no easy way for Russia to get its oil to its Asian ports). Beijing's worry that something might happen to interrupt its long supply lines of petroleum and natural gas is why it has made a large risky bet on solar electricity. The US, which has more land with high solar potential than China, can sit back and wait to see how China's bet on solar will turn out before it makes big bets on solar. It might be that the cost of electricity specifically is lower in China than the US. If so, that is because Beijing has prioritized building a lot of electricity-generating capacity. It engages in many such infrastructure project to keep its young men employed -- something Washington does not need to do because the US economy provides enough jobs without without Washington's spending on infrastructure projects (so Washington tends to spending on infrastructure only when the project clearly makes economic sense). Beijing imposes tight restrictions on its citizens' ability to invest outside China, so Chinese individual investors, pension funds, etc, put most of their money into deposits into Chinese banks and into Chinese real estate. Most of the funding for infrastructure projects comes from these bank deposits and from borrowing. Governmental debt (including debt owed by state and provincial governments) is a higher percentage of GDP in China than in the US.