Hm, I generally agree with the first part. I was not meaning anything to say “the US should be in charge of the world” (I mean… more than it already is). China or the EU or the Arab world as a foil to the US just getting to do whatever it wants (particularly as pertains to small countries) sounds like a good thing, yes.
I have some minor disagreements about the details of the rest of it… honestly, I see the US and China as like two guys at work who constantly are pissed at each other, bickering or trying to get one over on the other guy, and everyone else makes jokes about how they should just get married. They obviously depend on each other. The system of trade they’ve worked out works great for both countries and is to both of their benefit, for whatever minor efforts they make to grab bigger slices of the pie from the other from time to time. With the exception of total idiots like Trump, I don’t think any of the decision makers on either side want to upset that in any genuine sense.
I’m not sure that China’s economic development is set up for success. I am sorry to not be able to explain it, but I do not understand the details; someone smarter than me whose judgement I respect broke down to me why China’s development is unsustainable on its current model, and I didn’t follow it well enough to remember it and tell it to you. That is not to say any big crisis is brewing, just that it’ll be difficult for it to continue without big changes just because it has been growing quite a lot up until now. But I wouldn’t take it ascending to dominance as being a definite trajectory. IDK, if I have a chance I can ask him again and then maybe explain it to you once I actually understand it.
The US’s military is massive by any measure but the pure numbers are a little misleading; a ton of stuff gets put under “military” that really isn’t. A ton of basic science and technology research goes under “defense”; e.g. the internet was developed under the military budget (DARPA). Maintaining bases overseas is military, sure, but a lot of the purpose and actual day-to-day practice of it is soft power and maintaining on-the-ground relationships with other countries. They’re not just fighting wars with it with every base on every given day. But yeah, it’s certainly powerful enough to be terrifying if the US government falls into the hands of someone (like you-know-who) or some grouping, who will apply it to pursue for-real domination instead of just hegemony and occasional oppression.
But yeah, broadly speaking I think I agree with a lot of what you’re saying. Just like anyone, the US can get oppressive if there is no counterbalancing force to provide an alternative or keep their power level in check. What I was saying was “big countries are dangerous things and that includes non capitalist ones,” not “big countries are dangerous things, except the US, that one’s okay!”
Hm, I generally agree with the first part. I was not meaning anything to say “the US should be in charge of the world” (I mean… more than it already is). China or the EU or the Arab world as a foil to the US just getting to do whatever it wants (particularly as pertains to small countries) sounds like a good thing, yes.
I have some minor disagreements about the details of the rest of it… honestly, I see the US and China as like two guys at work who constantly are pissed at each other, bickering or trying to get one over on the other guy, and everyone else makes jokes about how they should just get married. They obviously depend on each other. The system of trade they’ve worked out works great for both countries and is to both of their benefit, for whatever minor efforts they make to grab bigger slices of the pie from the other from time to time. With the exception of total idiots like Trump, I don’t think any of the decision makers on either side want to upset that in any genuine sense.
I’m not sure that China’s economic development is set up for success. I am sorry to not be able to explain it, but I do not understand the details; someone smarter than me whose judgement I respect broke down to me why China’s development is unsustainable on its current model, and I didn’t follow it well enough to remember it and tell it to you. That is not to say any big crisis is brewing, just that it’ll be difficult for it to continue without big changes just because it has been growing quite a lot up until now. But I wouldn’t take it ascending to dominance as being a definite trajectory. IDK, if I have a chance I can ask him again and then maybe explain it to you once I actually understand it.
The US’s military is massive by any measure but the pure numbers are a little misleading; a ton of stuff gets put under “military” that really isn’t. A ton of basic science and technology research goes under “defense”; e.g. the internet was developed under the military budget (DARPA). Maintaining bases overseas is military, sure, but a lot of the purpose and actual day-to-day practice of it is soft power and maintaining on-the-ground relationships with other countries. They’re not just fighting wars with it with every base on every given day. But yeah, it’s certainly powerful enough to be terrifying if the US government falls into the hands of someone (like you-know-who) or some grouping, who will apply it to pursue for-real domination instead of just hegemony and occasional oppression.
But yeah, broadly speaking I think I agree with a lot of what you’re saying. Just like anyone, the US can get oppressive if there is no counterbalancing force to provide an alternative or keep their power level in check. What I was saying was “big countries are dangerous things and that includes non capitalist ones,” not “big countries are dangerous things, except the US, that one’s okay!”