Nostr Web Client

One major reason I'm pretty cool on the predictions of severe and sudden U.S. decline, is some factors nobody ever talks about.

1. The US is one of the younger countries in the world, with a growing population -- China's population is in rapid decline because of the hangover from the one-child policy. And birthrates have not recovered and continue to decline.

2. The US remains far and away the top destination for immigration in the world.

3. North America is insanely resource rich. It wouldn't be cheap or easy, but the US and Canada in particular have resources in the ground that can substitute out most mineral dependency. Including lithium and rare-earths like neodymium.

4. The US and Canada are food superpowers. Between these two countries, they produce well in excess of domestic demand, and are massive food exporters. Especially to China. China recognizes this, and has been in a rush to replace food exports from the U.S. and Canada with imports from places like Brazil. While they've made material moves here, the dependency remains very high.

5. My worries about AI aside, recent advances in artificial intelligence have demonstrated that US-based companies continue to enjoy serious advantages in terms of R&D.

These are structural advantages that were very important to the rise of the US to begin with. And they're structural advantages that persist today.

These factors matter regardless of inflation or the monetary regime.

For all of these reasons, political and moral arguments aside on whether or not the US *should* persist or decline, these factors should cause one to hedge their certainty that US collapse is certain.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Marakesh 𓅦 2y ago

Are you speaking of America, or the United States government? I think of the nation/country and the government that rules over it as not exactly the same thing (despite the "We The People" nonsense). I do agree that one may persist, while I hope the other goes the way of all governments...

Mike Brock 2y ago

I don't think we're transitioning to anarcho-capitalism any time soon. Or ever.

Marakesh 𓅦 2y ago

I don't think 'Muricans are ready for it either. It's like when they said you can't expect a Thomas Jefferson to arise out of Iraq and create a democracy over there, because the people didn't have the cultural background for it. I fear 'Muricans have been too steeped in Statism to regain their liberties. And so, if it's not to be anarcho-capitalism, I think it will mean greater Statism trending toward totalitarianism.

Mike Brock 2y ago

I think we are tribal from a fundamental nature standpoint. It's not a matter of indoctrination. The fact we formed civilization the way we did, was path dependent from our genetics and environment. It wasn't some arbitrary idea cooked up for the benefit of a uniquely corrupt elite.

Mike Brock 2y ago

Hell, Canada has so much excess wheat production capacity, that it uses a ridiculous supply management regime to create artificial scarcity to prevent wheat prices from getting too cheap, as a back-handed farming subsidy. Which has been the butt of a lot of trade disputes between Canada, the US and the EU.

Marakesh 𓅦 2y ago

So is that an unintended consequence, or intentional design / nefarious agenda?

Mike Brock 2y ago

It’s clearly intentional design. And even though I think it’s bad economic policy, I don’t think it’s “nefarious”. I try to avoid simplistic good and evil categories for such things.

Kensho 2y ago

Don't forget uninhibited access to the Atlantic and Pacific. The North American landmass will probably never be surpassed unless another power takes over space.

Achieving Stasis 2y ago

You read Peters book?

Mike Brock 2y ago

Peter, who?

Achieving Stasis 2y ago

Peter Zeihan, a lot of similarities in your points and his thesis on de-globalization sit pertains to US

Mike Brock 2y ago

I have not read his book.

Mike Brock 2y ago

So I read a little about Zeihan's views and watched some of his YouTube videos now. I can see why people might compare my argument to his -- he definitely makes a few of the same arguments.

But Zeihan strikes me as falling into a analytical approach to understanding the world that I simply don't subscribe to. Other examples of this are Noam Chomsky and John Mearsheimer.

Now, all three of these men have clearly different political views and come to different conclusions on various things. Zeihan certainly doesn't seem to share Chomsky's analysis of Ukraine war. But I think they both make the same mistakes.

They tend to view the world like a chessboard, and their theories of state action are derived from what I believe are cartoonishly simple reducios on how states make decisions. They tend to view everything through the lens of institutionally-entrenched motives of action, that treats the leaders of states and states as the same thing, and that the interests of people (like Putin, George W. Bush, or Xi Jinping) are intrinsically inseparable. In fact, they're treated like hapless puppets against the backdrop of often pernicious intractable interests. Explanations like bravado, miscalculation, ignorance, etc. are not really treated as serious candidates for a theory of state action in any case.

I happen to think these are very good theories for explaining state action in many cases.

Achieving Stasis 2y ago

Thank you for sharing, I truly appreciate that you took the time to consider and respond.

Moon 2y ago

I tend to agree with this. Additionally the 50 individual states as political incubators may bode well even for the federal government long term, as leaders from states with successful economic / social policies may be elevated to the national stage.

For instance, some US states will reject bitcoin, others will embrace it to varying extents - the outcomes, amping other things will speak for themselves.

I can see the American nation persisting but the governance, especially the scale, scope and nature of federalism, perhaps, being forced to evolve substantially.