[jnmandal]

Without entering (and winning) some kind of major conflict, this was always going to happen.

Two things are important to think about.

1. Power should be measured in relative terms not absolute. (For a good treatise on this, read Paul Kennedy's Rise and Fall of the Great Powers). The US would have to be keeping up with China, India, and rest of world to maintain its previous pole position.

2. Great nations/empires generally become so at least partially through population growth. This can be organic or engineered (ie: continuously conquering more and more territory) but rising dominance almost never coincides with demographic stagnation, which the US is experiencing. This population plateau has been accurately predicted by the US Census for my entire lifetime.

Also nothing about this decline is unusual or unexpected. This is the course of empire, which is not a new concept.

[ksec]

>Power should be measured in relative terms not absolute.

I would argue everything should be measured in relative terms. More often than not this is not the case.

>The US would have to be keeping up with China, India, and rest of world to maintain its previous pole position.

This is the biggest problem I see. US is not keeping up. Nor its willingness to compete. Taking the US dollar as world reserve currency for granted. Along with host of other benefits ( and responsibility ) that came with it.

There are signs that we may see a global market recession next year. And China may benefits even more.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46273326

[smallmancontrov]

> Taking the US dollar as world reserve currency for granted.

It's the exact opposite: US citizens got fed up with the domestic problems created by Triffin's Dilemma and wanted out.

Remember, the "imperial revenue" in our model doesn't get helicoptered into the economy, it pumps assets. Stocks, bonds, and real estate. Your share of the imperial loot is proportional to the value of the assets that you own, and worse, even if you don't have a big house and fat brokerage account you still have to compete with people who do and they're going to bid up the price of anything that doesn't have highly elastic supply. Health care, housing, and education are the ones creating problems. America got a great deal, but most Americans got a raw deal: costs went up, income didn't, misery ensued.

Pumped bonds allow (force, really) the government to run deficits (homework: what breaks if they don't? It happened in Clinton's term, you can go and check) and to some extent that distributes the money. There's the whole services narrative which held that the services sector would pump hard enough to backfill manufacturing, but it never did. The people who got the door slammed in their face are no longer convinced that the door is their path to prosperity and now they want to tear the whole thing down.

If you want to hear an actual economist talk about this, see "Trade Wars are Class Wars" by Klein and Pettis.

[orwin]

The fact that successive US governments choose to use their economic hegemony to pump assets rather than invest in their education and healthcare, or at least in their infrastructure, doesn't contradict the fact that it was a great gift, engineered since Bretton-Woods, confirmed at the Smithsonian institute and a few years later at the Kingston accords (and btw, had nothing to do with gold standard but the convertibility of the Dollar. The gold standard realistically ended in the 50s (died for the 5th time in the US alone), and for the 1st time, stayed dead).

[smallmancontrov]

True. We could have taxed and spent enough to spread the wealth around. We chose not to, and now the proverbial children who weren't embraced by the village are burning it down to feel its warmth.

I'm not against calling reserve currency status a privilege so long as you are crystal clear on the point that it was a privilege for America but a curse for most Americans.

[alchemist1e9]

Demographic stagnation? compared to who? everything is relative and I don’t think US demographics has it at a disadvantage over EU, China, Japan, South Korea, does it? So then who is left to take seriously as a competitor?

[maxglute]

High skill demographics. PRC is going mint more STEM in next 20 years than US is set to increase population, all sources total. That's more or less locked in from past 20 years of births. In relative terms, PRC is going to have OCED combined in just STEM, excluding all the other technical skilled workforce. It's the greatest high skill demographic divident in recorded history, in country with superstructure to allocate talent. All the rapid catchup PRC made in last 10 years was built on fraction of highend human capita they will have.

That PRC talent cohort are going to stick around 2060/70/80s. Past that, it's hard to extrapolate, but ~50 years with that much talent advantage can build very durable advantages. Meanwhile the population PRC sheds is overwhelmingly going to be the old, undereducated etc, think 200m rural farmers left behind by modernization that bluntly is net drag on economy/system, but they're also relatively cheap to caretake vs US silver obligations.

Short of AGI, US is not a serious competitor vs PRC in terms of skilled demographics that sustains strategic hegemonic advantages, at least not in our lifetimes.

[seec]

But that's just a function of their large population size.

Even if you wanted to, you cannot bring the majority of your population to a high-skill level. That's not surprising, but still it is debatable whether China is producing value in line with their large, highly skilled cohort. They seem to be stuck on the hard problem, relying a lot on the import of foreign-invented technologies. That may change over time; we will see…

[maxglute]

Yes, the entire point is their population denominator so large that, past 20 years of birth + ongoing shit tier TFR still gives them incredible technical talent generation advantage now that they sorted out tertiary and industry pipeline. They don't need majority of their pop to be high skilled, and it's not, we're simply talking about PRC workforce upgrading from 20% -> 30%/40% skilled workforce vs OCED already maxing out at 50%+, that ~30% PRC skilled already exceeds entire US workforce. PRC relatively shit TFR still gives them absolute and relative global talent advantage.

Skilled job supply: labour supply is definitely issue, and there is theoretical ceilling on how much high skilled technical jobs there can be. But PRC only country with talent glut, vs everyone else projected shortage. That automatically gives them both strategic and economic advantage (unlimited cheap high end labour). And part of the shortage (i.e. source of youth unemployment) is simply they spammed academia harder than industry. real estate to industry pivot lagged academia machine going brrrt by 10 years. Industry is going brrrt now, but will still take time to generate 10s of millions of high end jobs, which btw will simultaenously erode western high end. Every industry where western incumbants gets displaced by more efficient PRC players basically lose significant portion of their operating profits and downsize.

>be stuck on the hard problem

They are manifestly not. They have been brutally accelerating / demolishing / catching up / and recently leading. Look at actual timeline, bulk of tertiary talent generation is post 2000s academic reforms (add 10-15year masters+industry pipeline), they didn't explode academic system and talent output until ~2010s, bulk of new talent + a few years for cohorts to integrate into and simultaneously expanding high end industry = almost all the high end catchup was done in the last 10 years shortly after workforce composition STARTED STEM/skilled shift. And most of that catch was done when PRC was growing from 20m-40m STEM, i.e. from half US STEM to parity, and exploding before it reached parity due to PRC industry cluster advantages.

Like the amount of progress/catchup they have made across every sector relative to execution time is objectively stupendendous, as in historic outlier tier, and now they're leading/frontier in various sectors, which already invalids they can only fast follow. They're simply not retarded with industrial policy until coldwar 2.0 that forced them to decide to indigenize everything and that was 7 years ago, they're pretty much caught up in nearly everything except the absolute pinacle, and even then they seem to be beating western projected catchup timeline (see today's Chinese EUV prototype report).

This all happened in basically 10 years, when PRC cultivated pool for mid-career professionsals in 2010s from 2000s tertiary reforms. They will have conservatively 50 years and 2x-3x larger skilled workforce and much larger/developed industrial base going forward, i.e. OCED combined, but not paper workforce, workforce with actual access to the densest and most complete industrial chain in the world brrrting at PRC speed.

IMO this is talent/industrial base advantage that is as insurmountable as US WW2 advantage that sealed US hegemony for 50+ years. Like even if US AGIs first cope strategy is true, LBH, said AGI is going to look at the numbers, the industrial chain density, the sheer abundance of power and abillity to generate atoms, and immediately defect to PRC.

[jnmandal]

Compared to itself. Same phenomenon as in Japan. Rising powers almost never have this issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_tsunami

[rchaud]

There is an unspoken alternative for dealing with being out-populated by rival states. That is to reduce their populations through sanctions, blockades, starvation and outright war. These methods have been used by the Soviet Union in Ukraine, Germany/USSR in Poland, Imperial Japan in China, Belgium in the Congo. It continues to happen today, most openly in Palestine.

[kamaal]

>>That is to reduce their populations through sanctions, blockades, starvation and outright war.

Speaking as Indian, Our population growth happened when we were poor, and masses were uneducated/illiterate.

I have one more theory that- Population growth happens when poor people have access to lots of carbohydrates. Plus having lots of children is somewhat akin to having meat robot automatons whom you can send for physical work and make money.

If you want to use sanctions to do reduce population it doesn't work in the modern era. Poor people eat well and make babies.

[OgsyedIE]

An important caveat to #2. Rising populations can only be leveraged into more power if they can be channeled into import substition. Countries where import substitution is suppressed can not gain power.

[IAmBroom]

> Countries where import substitution is suppressed can not gain power.

What does that mean? Seriously; I can't make sense of it.

[OgsyedIE]

Import substition is a process where domestic industry develops by adopting the processes of overseas industries contributing to imports, so that the country can import the raw materials and make the product, instead of importing the full product at the market price. Most surveys of macroeconomics reveal that it is integral and foundational to the development of most industrialised countries today, e.g. China.

The exporter countries contain smart people who may seek to suppress this process to maintain revenue flows. This prevents the development from happening.

Two examples:

1: the 'unequal treaties' between 19th century Japan and America prohibited certain kinds of tariffs and subsidies by Japan. This allowed westerners, prominently Americans, to maintain market share in Japan by product dumping.

2: in 18th and 19th century India various British offices at different times had policies of having their sepoys arrest textile workers and maim them by the forcible amputation of both thumbs, to preserve the market share of British textiles.

[seec]

Agreed. For a while, importing stuff “on the cheap” looks like a good deal, but overtime if that makes your own industries weak, you are just losing power.

You can't win by just buying stuff from someone else; it appears that people have a hard time understanding that nowadays.

[flowerthoughts]

If you can't produce something domestically that takes away the need to import that thing, the nation cannot gain power.

[throwaway5465]

China has grown old before it grew rich. The past decade has been one of a collapsed houehold sector (and birth rate below the already gloomy concensus back in 2010), general deflation, and bright lights and conspicious technology achieved only through throwing government spending at ritzy projects - centrally planned growth and waste. Being unable to escape the domestic security agenda will forever neuter global aspiration, from currency to technology.

India is yet to harmonise widespread organisation.

Relative gaps are smaller, but the persistance of gap is never more entrenched than ever.

That is not a decline. It is however a Great Game, not played with nations but with ideology and where the US and China are quite aligned. That game is less visible until it is seen.

[IAmBroom]

> India is yet to harmonise widespread organisation.

I've always said that if India got a unified national language they would become a nearly instant world power.

Imagine an India where English was mandated in every public school - and every child, regardless of caste (which officially doesn't exist...), attended school. English, because it's more internationally useful than Hindi, and doesn't have the same ethnological competition (Hindi vs Bengali vs Tamil vs <297 others>).

Then imagine that, now that all of India can actually speak to each other, they get their shit together, and build a truly functional national highway system. Top it off with a safe railway system, complete with modern trains. Enough trains that you don't have to ride on top. (OK, I'm starting to dream big.)

One generation later India is a dominant world power. Pakistan is completely fucked, sure, because Delhi will never get over their petty sibling hatred. But India can start power-brokering between all other nations.

[lotsofpulp]

Isn’t English the de facto national language in India? Everyone who can afford to, teaches their kid English.

India’s big problem is lack of natural resources, and lack of clear hierarchy to manage the limited resources (including choosing to screw some people for the greater good). China had the same issue of enormous population relative to natural resources, but it had the clear hierarchy to be able to execute.

[pasttense01]

Natural resources aren't that important anymore. Look at Singapore with essentially no natural resources, but a high standard of living for example. And the U.S. has strong natural resources, but they represent a fairly small portion of the economy.

[lotsofpulp]

A highly educated small island city state protected by larger countries due to the very nature that it doesn’t have anything to take is not at all comparable to feeding, moving, and sheltering 1.5B people.

[rchaud]

India is divided by its caste system and religion to a much greater extent than it is by language. Successive governments have put far more effort into dominating its Muslim and Sikh minorities than implementing a high - quality universal education system that harmonizes a base level of skill across the population. The most educated state in the country is the Communist-run Kerala where the people speak Malayalam.

India is similar to the USSR in that it buckets disparate languages, religions and cultures into a single nation with inevitable separatist tendencies.

[smallmancontrov]

The "centrally planned growth is hollow and doomed" narrative doesn't seem to fit China like it fit the USSR. Did the USSR ever make 80% of the stuff in your home?

As for making friends, the US empire is highly atypical in its "friendliness" and it's entirely plausible that its successor will revert to the mean.

[pointlessone]

> Without entering (and winning) some kind of major conflict, this was always going to happen.

If only there was a conflict somewhere with a perieved superpower, maybe a nuclear country or something that would be relatively easy to win without even entering into a direct altercation. Oh, wait!

America could’ve easily won the war in Ukraine by just ging away a bit more weapons, specifically long range missiles. It could even just tell European countries to give their long rhange missiles in exchange for a resupply for some plausible deniability.It could’ve been a bit more generous with intelligence.

Unfortunately, America elected Trump. A person who doesn’t believe in anything that doesn’t directly concern him. If it doesn’t benefit (or hurt) him personally it might as well not exist. Which make it easy to sway his foreign policy. Russia is actively trying to buy him and he thinks it’s great. It’s going to be a very fast decline of American influence as more and more countries around the world will see that it takes very little to buy an american president, allegedly the most powerful person in the world. And if any petty dictator can buy him, what worth is his power?