6 ms·

Who do we expect will replace Americas global leadership and will they really be better for everyone?

wolvoleo 9mo ago
China probably. No I don't think it is better but at least their leadership is actually sane. Evil, but sane and predictable.
- scotty79 9mo ago
  Even the evil adjective starts to look debatable in contrast to what current hegemony is doing on its way down. Apparently their worst offence so far was calmly outgrowing and out competing their peers while benefiting global consumers with he fruits of organized labor of their own society.
  - philipallstar 9mo ago
    I'm particularly annoyed that the US is for the people of Iran and not, like China, for the government of Iran. And the US putting secondary sanctions on Russian oil to starve Putin from Chinese and Indian oil revenues? Disgusting.
    - wolvoleo 9mo ago
      The US is for the oil of Iran, not its people. Just like it doesn't actually care about the people of Venezuela, just its oil.
  - wolvoleo 9mo ago
    I was referring more to the millions of Uyghurs in political prisons and their overreaching surveillance of the population. And I was just speaking of what I think about China, not saying the current US administration is any better. I don't think it will be there forever though.
    - scotty79 9mo ago
      Right the Uyghurs, a word we never knew before. When faced with credible threat of islamic terror in their country China implemented some harsh, systemic ideas about what to do with it. I'm sure if they just started two wars in the middle east instead the western community would be way more lenient towards them. China did what it though was the correct thing and the west happily classified it as racism and religious persecution. However when the pandemic came China had zero restraint towards applying harsh measures on the bulk of their population regardless of race and relligion. And while their solutions are harsh and possibly incorrect is it really unique on the global stage? US, the shining city on the hill, when faced with a problem of having inadequate social support systems to help the more recent immigrants decided that it will try to build concentration camps on the teritorry of one of their closest vassals. This can't be correct or humane solution either. And when it comes to surveillance, China is on the forefront, but US and UK closely follow. What's different is that China does their surveillance overtly and tries to make it socially useful. I don't for one second believe that technologically Palantir and such are more than one step behind.
      - wolvoleo 9mo ago
        Your comments are all about "the US is bad too" which I consider whataboutism. I am not from the US nor live there and I was opposed to all the wars in the middle east and to palantir and the Snowden revelations etc. But that doesn't make what China does better in any way. And those millions of Uyghurs they locked up couldn't possibly all be terrorists. That makes it racism and religious persecution. Ps how is Cuba a vassal state of the US? When you speak of a concentration camp I assume you refer to Guantanamo?
        scotty79 9mo ago
        Whataboutism is when someone tries to wipe the issue from the dialog by steering conversation towards a different issue of the same nature. I mostly acknowledge that China implemented less than stellar ideas. I'm merely suggesting that such things should be evaluated in the context. I don't believe in objective morality so how moral you are must be evaluated in relation to your peers. > And those millions of Uyghurs they locked up couldn't possibly all be terrorists. They were unassimilated population that China believed (while watching the west) might breed trouble. This alone makes the comparison with what US is doing right now pretty fair. > That makes it racism and religious persecution. Chinese was locking up all ethnic and religious groups during the pandemic. That might point to an explanation that maybe religion and race is irrelevant. Only safety matters. If westerners did that it would be racism and religious persecution. But in a culture that gives a very little thought to both race and religion saying that might be just western projection. > Ps how is Cuba a vassal state of the US? When you speak of a concentration camp I assume you refer to Guantanamo? No. I'm talking about Salvador and a place built with US money where people that ICE has no idea where to send back are kept indefinitely. But I don't want to discuss that, to avoid whataboutism. I'm just telling it to provide background for evaluation how terrible were the things that China did.
  - throwawayqqq11 9mo ago
    Iam sceptical whether china is more evil than the current and historic US. Both countries have commited atrocities but the US was way more involved "for their interests overseas". Maybe the western distrust towards china will make it a different power equilibrium.
  - Buxato 9mo ago
    If you think that's the worst offence then you should check the recent and past news more often.
    - scotty79 9mo ago
      What was the most grusome Chinese offence you learned about form the news recently?
  - card_zero 9mo ago
    Stop getting Chinese territory under your fishing boats! Leave immediately for correct and healthy harmony! Fires water cannon
    - RobotToaster 9mo ago
      As opposed to America who uses cruise missiles on fishing boats in a different continent?
  - RobotToaster 9mo ago
    Maoist protracted people's war has traditionally relied on being less of an asshole to the peasants than the enemy.
- mschuster91 9mo ago
  China wants but China won't. They lack the military capability of force projection that is the basis of the US dollar dominance, their currency cannot be used as a reserve/trading currency due to capital transfer controls (that have no sign of ever going away because otherwise everyone who has money in China will move it immediately out of the reach of the CCP), foreign investors have gotten very skeptical over the years regarding IP theft on one side and supply chain law issues (e.g. underage labor, 996 and modern slavery, environmental concerns) on the other, and on top of that China is getting rocked hard by the inevitable consequences of the one-child policy that is driving up labor costs, further reducing the attractivity for foreign investors.
  - bborud 9mo ago
    China doesn’t need to project force. Economics might is sufficient. Yes, they want Taiwan, but that’s a silly national pride thing. It would not really benefit them to take it by force.
    - mschuster91 9mo ago
      > Yes, they want Taiwan, but that’s a silly national pride thing. It would not really benefit them to take it by force. We thought the same about Putin, and yet he went and invaded Ukraine. We thought the same about Trump, and yet he went and abducted the president of a sovereign country. Never underestimate nationalist BS or outright mental deficiency.
      - bborud 9mo ago
        The difference is desperation. Putin was facing instability and was afraid of ending up like Khadafi. He needed a war. Xi is not facing those challenges. He wants Taiwan, but the Chinese play long games so he can wait.
        mschuster91 9mo ago
        > Xi is not facing those challenges. He is facing other challenges, a lot of chickens are coming home to roost - chiefly the demographic collapse, the inevitable result of the one-child policy, but also the rise of wages leading other countries to be the outsourcing target, decades of selling out nature / the environment, a crashing real estate sector, brain drain...
bilekas 9mo ago
The US is resigning the position intentionally. It's not as if someone is gearing up to replace it. But as a trade partner? China, markets love reliability and stability. Not every 4 years wondering if there will be another trade war for reasons unknown. You'd be very surprised the amount of malicious behavior countries will ignore to allow trade. Look at Saudi Arabia.
ranguna 9mo ago
No one, we don't need a leader. We need decentralised governance.
- bborud 9mo ago
  We have that. What has broken down is cooperation. The kind that has ensured relative peace for 80’ish years. That order is breaking down and creates instability. Instability means more conflict and less productive use of resources.
  - operation_moose 9mo ago
    Well, cooperation with one specific player. Cooperation among the rest of the world is rapidly progressing in response.
    - bborud 9mo ago
      Yes and no. Internal cohesion is weakened (the most extreme example of which is brexit) by resurgence of nationalism and xenophobia. At the same time new trade deals and alliances are formed and deepened.
      - ranguna 9mo ago
        That's a good overview. As usual: things are complex, not necessarily bad overall.
- delaminator 9mo ago
  That's not how it works though, is it? What you're really saying there is global governance. Which faction that emerges as a dominant ever says "Oh no! We better stop using our advantage to improve our condition".
bborud 9mo ago
China seems to be the only candidate. But whatever happens it won’t be in the same way as before. As for whether it is better for everyone, that question became a lot harder in just the last year. Who is «everyone»? And what do we mean by «better»? With the US wanting to annex territory from its NATO allies, and engaging in extortionate tariffs, it is harder to argue that the US is good for Europe. Which is why Europe has already started to look eastward. Starting with a comprehensive trade deal with India. What’s happening is good for Russia and China. Not so much for the rest of the world.
- michaelsshaw 9mo ago
  I disagree that something good for China is necessarily bad for the rest of the world, which you seem to imply here includes only Europe. China alone has a higher population than Europe and the USA combined. I'd say that even if things got worse for Europe, to humanity it still constitutes a net benefit. Lives aren't of less value just because they're in a (gasp) communist country.
  - johnnyanmac 9mo ago
    Not necessarily. But China's aggression towards Taiwan and their recent rare earth metals move last year show that China does not have the worlds best interests at heart either. We're picking between two evils and China's evil is more predictable than the US's right now. This goes for Asia in general. Korea, Japan, and China spent centuries fighting and making them the de facto super power makes it easy to resume the Korean war or try to overtake the (military wise) crippled Japan should they be emboldened by the faltering/collapse of NATO.
    - newsclues 9mo ago
      How much coal do they burn? Did climate change suddenly become NOT an existential threat? Are their global fishing fleets sustainable? Where do the precursors for fentanyl come from?
      - 9mo ago
saubeidl 9mo ago
The EU just signed large deals with Latin America and India, binding a sizable chunk of the world to its rules. ASEAN is on the docket, Japan, Canada and South Korea have been signed for a while now. Make of that what you will. Power isn't always tanks and soldiers. Sometimes its bureaucracy and contracts.
operation_moose 9mo ago
The single superpower thing was an anomaly which was mostly a result of one specific country being largely untouched by WW2; we're more likely heading back towards multiple regional powers with varying levels of cooperation, e.g. EU+Mercosur+India agreements that just happened. The lines are still being drawn, but its doubtful one single power will emerge.
tock 9mo ago
Seems like the rest of the world is just signing new trade deals and continuing on as normal. I hope America returns to normalcy in the next election and everything settles down. Else it seems like back to the old multipolar world.
- operation_moose 9mo ago
  I don't see any way we're not heading back to the multipolar world. They've managed to burn almost all of the goodwill and soft power that took 80 years to accumulate in 373 days. Even with a "return to normalcy", the trade and military agreements being forged are permanently diminishing America's influence. Especially given that we're never more than 4 years away from this happening again.
causalscience 9mo ago
[dead]

China probably. No I don't think it is better but at least their leadership is actually sane. Evil, but sane and predictable.

scotty79 9mo ago
Even the evil adjective starts to look debatable in contrast to what current hegemony is doing on its way down. Apparently their worst offence so far was calmly outgrowing and out competing their peers while benefiting global consumers with he fruits of organized labor of their own society.
- philipallstar 9mo ago
  I'm particularly annoyed that the US is for the people of Iran and not, like China, for the government of Iran. And the US putting secondary sanctions on Russian oil to starve Putin from Chinese and Indian oil revenues? Disgusting.
  - wolvoleo 9mo ago
    The US is for the oil of Iran, not its people. Just like it doesn't actually care about the people of Venezuela, just its oil.
- wolvoleo 9mo ago
  I was referring more to the millions of Uyghurs in political prisons and their overreaching surveillance of the population. And I was just speaking of what I think about China, not saying the current US administration is any better. I don't think it will be there forever though.
  - scotty79 9mo ago
    Right the Uyghurs, a word we never knew before. When faced with credible threat of islamic terror in their country China implemented some harsh, systemic ideas about what to do with it. I'm sure if they just started two wars in the middle east instead the western community would be way more lenient towards them. China did what it though was the correct thing and the west happily classified it as racism and religious persecution. However when the pandemic came China had zero restraint towards applying harsh measures on the bulk of their population regardless of race and relligion. And while their solutions are harsh and possibly incorrect is it really unique on the global stage? US, the shining city on the hill, when faced with a problem of having inadequate social support systems to help the more recent immigrants decided that it will try to build concentration camps on the teritorry of one of their closest vassals. This can't be correct or humane solution either. And when it comes to surveillance, China is on the forefront, but US and UK closely follow. What's different is that China does their surveillance overtly and tries to make it socially useful. I don't for one second believe that technologically Palantir and such are more than one step behind.
    - wolvoleo 9mo ago
      Your comments are all about "the US is bad too" which I consider whataboutism. I am not from the US nor live there and I was opposed to all the wars in the middle east and to palantir and the Snowden revelations etc. But that doesn't make what China does better in any way. And those millions of Uyghurs they locked up couldn't possibly all be terrorists. That makes it racism and religious persecution. Ps how is Cuba a vassal state of the US? When you speak of a concentration camp I assume you refer to Guantanamo?
      - scotty79 9mo ago
        Whataboutism is when someone tries to wipe the issue from the dialog by steering conversation towards a different issue of the same nature. I mostly acknowledge that China implemented less than stellar ideas. I'm merely suggesting that such things should be evaluated in the context. I don't believe in objective morality so how moral you are must be evaluated in relation to your peers. > And those millions of Uyghurs they locked up couldn't possibly all be terrorists. They were unassimilated population that China believed (while watching the west) might breed trouble. This alone makes the comparison with what US is doing right now pretty fair. > That makes it racism and religious persecution. Chinese was locking up all ethnic and religious groups during the pandemic. That might point to an explanation that maybe religion and race is irrelevant. Only safety matters. If westerners did that it would be racism and religious persecution. But in a culture that gives a very little thought to both race and religion saying that might be just western projection. > Ps how is Cuba a vassal state of the US? When you speak of a concentration camp I assume you refer to Guantanamo? No. I'm talking about Salvador and a place built with US money where people that ICE has no idea where to send back are kept indefinitely. But I don't want to discuss that, to avoid whataboutism. I'm just telling it to provide background for evaluation how terrible were the things that China did.
- throwawayqqq11 9mo ago
  Iam sceptical whether china is more evil than the current and historic US. Both countries have commited atrocities but the US was way more involved "for their interests overseas". Maybe the western distrust towards china will make it a different power equilibrium.
- Buxato 9mo ago
  If you think that's the worst offence then you should check the recent and past news more often.
  - scotty79 9mo ago
    What was the most grusome Chinese offence you learned about form the news recently?
- card_zero 9mo ago
  Stop getting Chinese territory under your fishing boats! Leave immediately for correct and healthy harmony! Fires water cannon
  - RobotToaster 9mo ago
    As opposed to America who uses cruise missiles on fishing boats in a different continent?
- RobotToaster 9mo ago
  Maoist protracted people's war has traditionally relied on being less of an asshole to the peasants than the enemy.
mschuster91 9mo ago
China wants but China won't. They lack the military capability of force projection that is the basis of the US dollar dominance, their currency cannot be used as a reserve/trading currency due to capital transfer controls (that have no sign of ever going away because otherwise everyone who has money in China will move it immediately out of the reach of the CCP), foreign investors have gotten very skeptical over the years regarding IP theft on one side and supply chain law issues (e.g. underage labor, 996 and modern slavery, environmental concerns) on the other, and on top of that China is getting rocked hard by the inevitable consequences of the one-child policy that is driving up labor costs, further reducing the attractivity for foreign investors.
- bborud 9mo ago
  China doesn’t need to project force. Economics might is sufficient. Yes, they want Taiwan, but that’s a silly national pride thing. It would not really benefit them to take it by force.
  - mschuster91 9mo ago
    > Yes, they want Taiwan, but that’s a silly national pride thing. It would not really benefit them to take it by force. We thought the same about Putin, and yet he went and invaded Ukraine. We thought the same about Trump, and yet he went and abducted the president of a sovereign country. Never underestimate nationalist BS or outright mental deficiency.
    - bborud 9mo ago
      The difference is desperation. Putin was facing instability and was afraid of ending up like Khadafi. He needed a war. Xi is not facing those challenges. He wants Taiwan, but the Chinese play long games so he can wait.
      - mschuster91 9mo ago
        > Xi is not facing those challenges. He is facing other challenges, a lot of chickens are coming home to roost - chiefly the demographic collapse, the inevitable result of the one-child policy, but also the rise of wages leading other countries to be the outsourcing target, decades of selling out nature / the environment, a crashing real estate sector, brain drain...

bilekas 9mo ago

The US is resigning the position intentionally. It's not as if someone is gearing up to replace it. But as a trade partner? China, markets love reliability and stability. Not every 4 years wondering if there will be another trade war for reasons unknown. You'd be very surprised the amount of malicious behavior countries will ignore to allow trade. Look at Saudi Arabia.

ranguna 9mo ago

No one, we don't need a leader. We need decentralised governance.

bborud 9mo ago
We have that. What has broken down is cooperation. The kind that has ensured relative peace for 80’ish years. That order is breaking down and creates instability. Instability means more conflict and less productive use of resources.
- operation_moose 9mo ago
  Well, cooperation with one specific player. Cooperation among the rest of the world is rapidly progressing in response.
  - bborud 9mo ago
    Yes and no. Internal cohesion is weakened (the most extreme example of which is brexit) by resurgence of nationalism and xenophobia. At the same time new trade deals and alliances are formed and deepened.
    - ranguna 9mo ago
      That's a good overview. As usual: things are complex, not necessarily bad overall.
delaminator 9mo ago
That's not how it works though, is it? What you're really saying there is global governance. Which faction that emerges as a dominant ever says "Oh no! We better stop using our advantage to improve our condition".

bborud 9mo ago

China seems to be the only candidate. But whatever happens it won’t be in the same way as before. As for whether it is better for everyone, that question became a lot harder in just the last year. Who is «everyone»? And what do we mean by «better»? With the US wanting to annex territory from its NATO allies, and engaging in extortionate tariffs, it is harder to argue that the US is good for Europe. Which is why Europe has already started to look eastward. Starting with a comprehensive trade deal with India. What’s happening is good for Russia and China. Not so much for the rest of the world.

michaelsshaw 9mo ago
I disagree that something good for China is necessarily bad for the rest of the world, which you seem to imply here includes only Europe. China alone has a higher population than Europe and the USA combined. I'd say that even if things got worse for Europe, to humanity it still constitutes a net benefit. Lives aren't of less value just because they're in a (gasp) communist country.
- johnnyanmac 9mo ago
  Not necessarily. But China's aggression towards Taiwan and their recent rare earth metals move last year show that China does not have the worlds best interests at heart either. We're picking between two evils and China's evil is more predictable than the US's right now. This goes for Asia in general. Korea, Japan, and China spent centuries fighting and making them the de facto super power makes it easy to resume the Korean war or try to overtake the (military wise) crippled Japan should they be emboldened by the faltering/collapse of NATO.
  - newsclues 9mo ago
    How much coal do they burn? Did climate change suddenly become NOT an existential threat? Are their global fishing fleets sustainable? Where do the precursors for fentanyl come from?
    - 9mo ago

saubeidl 9mo ago

The EU just signed large deals with Latin America and India, binding a sizable chunk of the world to its rules. ASEAN is on the docket, Japan, Canada and South Korea have been signed for a while now. Make of that what you will. Power isn't always tanks and soldiers. Sometimes its bureaucracy and contracts.

operation_moose 9mo ago

The single superpower thing was an anomaly which was mostly a result of one specific country being largely untouched by WW2; we're more likely heading back towards multiple regional powers with varying levels of cooperation, e.g. EU+Mercosur+India agreements that just happened. The lines are still being drawn, but its doubtful one single power will emerge.

tock 9mo ago

Seems like the rest of the world is just signing new trade deals and continuing on as normal. I hope America returns to normalcy in the next election and everything settles down. Else it seems like back to the old multipolar world.

operation_moose 9mo ago
I don't see any way we're not heading back to the multipolar world. They've managed to burn almost all of the goodwill and soft power that took 80 years to accumulate in 373 days. Even with a "return to normalcy", the trade and military agreements being forged are permanently diminishing America's influence. Especially given that we're never more than 4 years away from this happening again.

causalscience 9mo ago

[dead]