Replying to Avatar Mike Brock

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.

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.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

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

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.