[deciplex]

I don't think you know what the fuck you're talking about. One power eclipsing another does not imply a mass migration, as you suggest. It can just be... one power eclipsing another. It doesn't mean everyone can or even should move there, and it certainly doesn't mean that reactionary dickheads pushing back against any criticism of the status quo have some ace in the hole gotcha argument they can apply to any and all situations, as you seem to think. Your line of reasoning here, again, is transparently copium.

Quite the contrary, I will stay in the US because I anticipate that our loss of power and prestige vis a vis China will result in many structural changes as we are forced (often against cultural inertia) to embrace more advanced productive relations to have any hope of keeping up. I want to be here for that, thanks.

[toss1]

Since when does questioning whether one person might move equal a mass migration or and ace-in-the-hole argument? Your language seems to indicate a sore spot has been hit.

We will see how it turns out. The main question is whether China has stolen enough technological ideas and knowledge to achieve escape velocity on their own. They've enjoyed free reign for 'partnering', coercion, & industrial & academic espionage for decades, and have indeed made very significant advances. That access is now being curtailed. If China has gained enough, and has sufficient financial assets, and can manage it, it should be able to bootstrap itself to next levels. Or, it may start faltering, in no small part to the inherent structural limitations of authoritarian states.

I think it is very much an open question

I'd still put my chips on the Democracies. Betting against the USA has always been a bad bet. But it's still been less than 250 years, so things may change.

[deciplex]

> Your language seems to indicate a sore spot has been hit.

Uh yeah? Because you're not arguing in good faith. As I've already said, "if you like it so much why don't you move there" is such a boring dogshit argument that even South Park made fun of it. Twenty years ago. It would be one thing if you knew anything about me or my circumstances, but since you don't, I can safely assume that you frequently apply this logic as a rebuttal to any criticism of the status quo, which is an extremely small-brained, liberal thing to do. Nice work.

At any rate, all states are authoritarian, so if there is some structural limitation inherent there, the US and China are on equal footing. The real structural limitation at issue here lies in the US where we have both a highly-centralized economy dominated by a few actors and one driven entirely by the profit motive. Not a good spot to be in unless you think rent-seeking is good for productivity. Which, hell, given your performance in this thread so far, maybe you do think that. But, it isn't. This explains the respective growth and development trajectories of both nations.

Anyway I'm done with this thread as you still haven't put anything compelling or thought provoking into any of your dozen or so posts here, and I'm not interested in reading any more of your reactionary liberal bullshit arguments, if that's what we're calling them. So feel free to put whatever witty zingers you like in your inevitable reply, with links to Adrian Zenz' Twitter account etc. I hope we don't cross paths here again.

[toss1]

>>" all states are authoritarian"

If you believe that, you believe in rendering language meaningless

Authoritarianism is on a spectrum, and there is a MASSIVE difference between very authoritarian states like Russia and China vs the USA.

If the USA operated like Russia or China, Julian Assange would have disappeared or been executed decades ago, and not be set free today.

Under more democratic societies, the institutions of government and society are all independent. In govt, the executive, legislative, judicial branches, and in society the institutions of press, academy, industry, religion, commerce, sport, community, etc. all operate largely independently of each other. Under absolute or relative authoritarianism, they are coerced to varying degrees to serve the benefit and/or whim of the executive.

Again, there is a massive difference, and I'm afraid it is you who are failing to bring thought to the conversation. Good day.