So basically Michael Pettis is paid by the Chinese ministry of education to be a permanent doomer about China on Twitter and other media? And somehow MSM and Trump inner circle swallowed all of that up? Watch out Gordon Chang, you got some serious competition in the SFA.
American Economics Thread
- Thread starter Bernard
- Start date
Regarding point #2 that is the aim of the United States to adjust the relationship of surplus countries and deficit countries. A system reboot for the world.
Regarding point #7 that is game on for sure. A system reboot then inject AI into it to cement American leadership.
Then again, it is what Iron Mike Tyson said, "Everyone has a plan, until they get punched in the mouth."
The fog of boxing.
Do you guys think the cancellation of the Boeing deal will affect the NGAD and Boeing will have to pay their best employee again?
Attachments
-
warner-bros-interactive-entertainment-hitman-2-io-interact-2.jpg
The funny thing is that if Clinton, through Bush Jr. and Obama, had not gotten bogged down in the Middle East spending trillions of dollars on useless wars, they could have redesigned international geopolitics, rebuilt their infrastructure and created industrial opportunities to maintain or rehabilitate American industry, they would now be in a much more comfortable position to face China, at all levels.
Regarding point #2 that is the aim of the United States to adjust the relationship of surplus countries and deficit countries. A system reboot for the world.
Regarding point #7 that is game on for sure. A system reboot then inject AI into it to cement American leadership.
Then again, it is what Iron Mike Tyson said, "Everyone has a plan, until they get punched in the mouth."
The fog of boxing.
A US with a functional infrastructure, with a truly competitive industry, in addition to having maintained a more egalitarian socio-economic situation, would be in a much better position today than the current US to face China. They would not have this unpayable debt, they would not have these deficits that corrode public finances and accumulate debt.
I mean, you might as well have said if China didn't go through the Cultural Revolution, it's economy and technology might have surpassed America's completely by now and Taiwan would've been reunited. Could've, should've, would've, didn't.
America DID get into those Mideast military adventures AND boggled the ability to get the spoils from those adventures. That's the reality.
All these shoulda, woulda, coulda sounds good but America was so dominant at the time nobody was thinking about being in a comfortable position to face a future China. One could also say that if America didn't interfere in the middle east it risked losing influence in a very strategic region and it would have started its decline. The truth is that empires will rise and they will fall, no matter what America did it would have always come to a point where its power would begin to wane, America had ascended to the height of global power it had nowhere else to go but down.
It's not so much that empires rise and fall, their golden ages waxing and waning. It's more that American decline after a relatively short period of dominance has happened so suddenly. Also America's "Golden Age" when compared to other imperial golden ages has seemed relatively short.
I think hundreds of years into the future, historians will not characterize the 90's and early 2000's as some sort of period of American triumphalism, and they won't see Reagan's plan to spend the Soviet Union into oblivion as some brilliant stratagem. Instead, they'll see that Reagan's actions ultimately sealed the fates of both the United States and the Soviet Union. Yes, the Soviet Union would fall first, but in doing so, Reagan basically exhausted America too and made it much more brittle and unable to withstand any further crisis. The unique arrogance that American culture imbues its leaders and its people will probably be attributed as helping to speed up the decline of an already exhausted empire.
More like the lead acetate theory on Roman collapse will see vindication…
This was highly unlikely since the conditions were not available to achieve this level of development for the Chinese at that time. This is a fantasy. I am talking about a hypothetical reality that is achievable. Since this is a matter of public policy, the Americans could very well have redesigned the entire global structure to remain relevant in the coming decades if they had the wisdom to understand the process of decline of a nation, they just had to have studied history.
One thing to note is that this short-sightedness of American statesmen would not have prevailed if they had really had the necessary competence to assess and study trends. For example, the Americans would have intervened in the Middle East even without the attack on the WTC. Some leaders of the Bush administration had already wanted to invade and defeat Iraq since the first Gulf War. The attacks of September 11, 2001, only facilitated these actions.
Before, we looked at the world of the Cold War and saw the interaction between the United States and the Soviet Union: one limited the other. These limitations no longer existed in the years following the Cold War. If there was effective opposition to American foreign policy, it came from within the United States; however, this opposition that had a voice was silenced.
The decline and fall of empires are complex phenomena, influenced by a variety of interconnected factors. The main reasons for an Empire to fall are:
Excessive expansion - The US could very well have reduced its role in the world by reassessing its military presence
Depletion of resources - Resources were diverted to the aforementioned purposes that only enrich those who are interconnected with this expansion
Rebellions and civil unrest - With the resources diverted, there are fewer resources left to effectively improve the social situation of its citizens, the example of the VA and homeless people
Advances of rivals - Here is the only factor that the Americans could not have avoided, could have delayed, but could not have prevented, but still, the advance of rivals could very well have been controlled if there had been a coherent proposal of policies, which has not been the case for three decades and remains the case inferred here.
I disagree. American Middle East policy is tied to defending Israel. This is a historical mischaracterization of American foreign policy that has been conducted since the 1970s and 1980s. The US was already a superpower before it was really relevant in the Middle East and would continue to be dominant even without the unjustified military presence. Even today, there are only Americans in the Middle East because of Israel.