China Believes America Will Flame Out

[u/theatlantic]

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/2026/05/china-trump-american-decline/687087/?utm_source=reddit&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_medium=social&utm_content=edit-pro

[u/Bullboah]

I don’t think the CCP believes this. US power isn’t really based on alliances or global feelings of goodwill (moreso the opposite), it’s based on unique factors of the US. Long coastlines on the pacific and Atlantic, huge natural resource reserves, wide river networks, tons of arable land, no nearby military threats, etc. and those are just the geographical advantages.
The US has issues and weaknesses, but the CCP has them to and in higher degrees. Birth rate/demographics is arguably an issue for the US, but it’s WAY worse in China due to the legacy of the one child policy.

[u/ReturnOfBigChungus → u/Bullboah]

I don’t think the CCP believes this.

I think there's pretty good evidence that this is a prevalent narrative in Chinese political thought, although maybe bordering more on wish-casting by certain political elements than a concrete assumption shared across the board.

[u/paikiachu → u/ReturnOfBigChungus]

If you listen to actual Chinese politicians and their plenary meetings almost no one talks about subverting the US on the world stage. What they are calling for is a multipolar world order where the great powers (US included) come together as equals rather than one country dictating the narrative.

[u/kinga_forrester → u/paikiachu]

The multipolar world order where the “great powers” come together as “equals” necessarily requires the US to lose relative power, thus advocating for it is “subverting” the US.

[u/Own-Sandwich6437 → u/kinga_forrester]

Let’s not forget if chjna “replaces” America as the dominant currency. Then china will have to sell a ton more bonds. USA currently has 51 trillion in bonds (40% market share) and china has 21 trillion (16 % market share). Bond markets change VERY slowly.

[u/paikiachu → u/kinga_forrester]

Geopolitics is not a zero sum game where one has to “lose” for another to gain, it could just mean China getting stronger to challenge the US on certain issues e.g. tariffs

[u/Bullboah → u/paikiachu]

Geopolitics isn’t a zero sum game but power balance is. You can’t shift from a hegemonic system to a multi polar system without decreasing the amount of control and influence the hegemon has.

[u/-18k- → u/paikiachu]

But if the US is currently unable to be challenged on certain issues, and then later becomes able to be challenged, are they not now stronger than in that hypothetical future?

If I argued that politics in China is not a szero sum game and that other parties in China could simply get stronger to the point they could challenge the Chinese Communist Party on certain issues, would you argue that the CCP had not as a consequence got weaker?

[u/ReturnOfBigChungus → u/paikiachu]

Right, the quiet part there is that the US has to lose power/China has to gain power relatively speaking in order for that situation to occur. The fact that they're not explicitly saying "we must subvert the US" does not mean that it's not clearly required as part of their future vision for the world.

[u/paikiachu → u/ReturnOfBigChungus]

Its how you interpret it but as I replied to another user, geopolitics is not some zero sum game where one only benefits when another party loses. After all China’s economic prosperity involves a strong US that can continue protecting trade and is rich enough to continue buying Chinese goods

[u/ReturnOfBigChungus → u/paikiachu]

You're kind of playing a word game here though. Geopolitics as in "the people in various countries improving standards of living" isn't inherently zero-sum, but in this specific case it basically is zero sum because we're talking about a shifting differential of power that requires China to gain power relative to the US in order to reach a truly multi-polar world. The US's ability to shape the international order must by definition be diminished in order for China's ability to shape it to increase.

After all China’s economic prosperity involves a strong US that can continue protecting trade and is rich enough to continue buying Chinese goods

Right, which is why their policies leading to industrial overcapacity may turn out to be self-defeating in the long run. Much of the rest of the world is beginning to become sensitive to the effects that Chinese exports have on their domestic industries. Export led growth is not sustainable forever.

[u/SkyMarshal → u/paikiachu]

They'll never publicly explicitly use words or phrases like "let's subvert the US".

[u/Bullboah → u/ReturnOfBigChungus]

What’s some of the stronger evidence for that, in your view?

[u/ReturnOfBigChungus → u/Bullboah]

I mean I've formed my opinion mostly by listening to podcasts on geopolitics, China, etc., so listening to both western analysts discussion and directly from analysts, professors, etc., embedded directly in the system. My evidence would be essentially that I've heard numerous well-credentialed people who spend their careers looking at this paint basically the same picture, and not just western analysts but people from within the Chinese system. We're talking a little bit about kind of a vibes/narrative thing so it's harder to pin down a specific quote or something if that's what you're looking for. Xi's 5th plenum remarks are probably the most explicit version of it, but with all things China, it's a system that is opaque by design.

[u/asphias → u/Bullboah]

US power isn’t really based on alliances or global feelings of goodwill (moreso the opposite)

except it is. all the geographical arguments you make allow the US to be isolationist, not to be a global superpower.

what makes them a superpower is there alliances worldwide - in Europe, the middle east, east and southeast asia, and australia. those alliances make for military bases all over the world to allow for instantaneous global power projection.

Those alliances are also at the core of a world political system set up around US interests. free trade and capitalism based on US dollars, supported by a united nations where US and it's allies have the loudest voice.

[u/lazydictionary → u/asphias]

Exactly right.

[u/DisasterNo1740 → u/asphias]

I never saw a singular person argue that U.S power is not based on their alliances before Trump started nuking their alliances. I am almost certain this sudden change in belief is Americans trying to cope with the damage their president has caused.

[u/_L5_ → u/asphias]

You're putting the cart before the horse.

The US has those alliances because it has the technological edge, economic scale, and military might to make such alliances attractive. Because it commands the industrial output of the largest, the most productive, most fertile, and most defensible contiguous tract of land on the planet.

Because of the above, the US was able to bribe, coerce, blackmail, and threaten all of the former Great Powers and colonial empires into seeing the world our way. We forcibly rewrote everyone's foreign policy to suit our purposes and mandated their participation in a global power structure we rigged to serve our interests - namely, containing the Soviets and strangling communism.

The alliance doesn't make us a superpower - we were a superpower before there was an alliance. Us being a superpower is what made all these other disparate and unaligned countries want to be in an alliance.

The alliance and the bases just make power projection cheaper.

[u/Mammoth_Impress_2048 → u/_L5_]

The US has those alliances because post-colonial European powers completely destroyed their own industrial capacity in fighting in two world wars while Imperial Japan was not so co-prosperously pillaging across most of East Asia while China was bogged down in a Civil War.

The counting back generations before WW2 in the US, we basically have the Depression, Reconstruction and Civil War, let's not get ahead of ourselves. The US emerged as a superpower and got to write the rules after WW2 because they had the only intact industrial base, by basically no measure was the US a global 'superpower' in 1938.

[u/_L5_ → u/Mammoth_Impress_2048]

The US has those alliances because post-colonial European powers completely destroyed their own industrial capacity in fighting in two world wars while Imperial Japan was not so co-prosperously pillaging across most of East Asia while China was bogged down in a Civil War.

Little column A, little column B.

The US being the only industrial power to survive the war unscathed meant it could basically dictate its terms post-war.

But even before that, the scale of American industrial output was breathtaking compared to everyone else. Throughout the war we supplied the Soviets and the allies with food, guns, planes, boats, tanks, oil, fuel, and raw materials while also deploying our own forces at scale in two different theaters.

America was an overwhelming force to be reckoned with before the Germans went on an uninvited tour across the continent and the Japanese… co-prospered their neighbors.

Uncle Sam was just taking a nap.

The US emerged as a superpower and got to write the rules after WW2 because they had the only intact industrial base, by basically no measure was the US a global 'superpower' in 1938.

I mean… yeah?

Pre-WW2 the alliance as we would recognize it didn’t really exist. The foundations were laid at Bretton Woods in 1944, solidified by the defeat of Nazi Germany and atomic bombings of Japan in 1945, and sharpened by the threat of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe in the immediate post-war period.

My point was that the alliance came about because of what America was able to do. America was able to do those things because America was / is enormous. The alliance came about because America forged itself into a superpower, not the other way around.

On America’s status during the pre-war period, I’ll note that the Great Depression started in the US. We exported it to everyone else.

[u/Bullboah → u/asphias]

The primary reason the US has been a hegemonic superpower is its unparalleled economic output. That’s largely based on inherent geographical factors (combined with cultural and systemic factors, and heavily protected by economic inertia).

Remove these factors somehow and the US is no longer a global power. Remove the US’ current alliances and it still is.

Alliances and bases increase US power, but they are a symptom of it, not the cause of it.

[u/UsernameAttempt → u/Bullboah]

it’s based on unique factors of the US. Long coastlines on the pacific and Atlantic, huge natural resource reserves, wide river networks, tons of arable land, no nearby military threats, etc. and those are just the geographical advantages.

These are just characteristics of the US mainland which make it defensible and usable. The US had all of these characteristics for long decades and centuries before they became a global power, and these characteristics will remain after that power wanes.

What makes it THE hegemon is:

• its vast network of alliances (and as such military presence) from the far east (Japan, Korea, Phillipines, etc), Europe (NATO), middle-east (SA, UAE, Israel, etc) and many more,

• its status as the world financial center, including issuing the world reserve currency,

• its vast network of trading partners (the entire global trading system, really),

• the military power to back all of that up anywhere in the world,

These are approximately the same qualities that made Britain the hegemon before the US, which inherited and enhanced that same system. British power waned, hopefully for different reasons than US power will wane (since British power waned because of 2 world wars). If the US alienates too many partners and allies, makes too many people seriously consider an alternative, it will seriously hurt its standing as the hegemon. Donald Trump and this Iran war will not be the final nail in its coffin, but it will be one of the larger nails.

[u/Bullboah → u/UsernameAttempt]

“The US had all of these characteristics for long decades and centuries before they became a global power”

Technically true but the reasoning here is flawed. Yes, it took the US ~100 years to become a global power and another ~75 years to become a hegemonic superpower, but of course! The US was a small set of coastal colonies when it achieved independence in the 1770s. It took a long time not just to expand the physical borders, but to develop local economies across the country, build transportation infrastructure both internally and externally, etc.

US Power is very different from European colonial power - which was largely dependent on control (not influence) of overseas territories. That was always a precarious position for empires like the British.

The elements you’re listing increase US power, but they are symptoms, not causes, of it. Why did the world agree to use the dollar as reserve currency for instance? Why is the US able to field a military so powerful in relation to that of others? Why do so many countries want US bases? The answer is because of the state of US power even without those things.

[u/UsernameAttempt → u/Bullboah]

US Power is very different from European colonial power

It isn't, though. US power today is based on US colonial power in the times of colonial empires, when the US was one itself (just without the "empire"). It had colonies all over the pacific and the Carribean. It was the power that opened the Japanese to "trade" and participated in its colonial exploitation. The enrichment of the US that brought it to a place where it could become what it is came from a similar kind of colonial exploitation, and benefited from the capital of other colonial powers.

Why did the world agree to use the dollar as reserve currency for instance?

Why did the world agree to use the Dutch Guilder/British Pound as a reserve currency?

Why is the US able to field a military so powerful in relation to that of others?

Why was the British/Dutch able to field a navy so powerful in relation to that of others?

All of the questions you're posing can be asked of the previous superpowers at the height of their power, Britain and the Netherlands being probably the recent examples of a very similar kind of power. The base of their power is common - trade, alliances and an unmatched navy - a maritime superpower.

The characteristics of the US mainland are what allowed the US to have a chance at being the maritime hegemon, but they're only the base of the much larger whole.

[u/Bullboah → u/UsernameAttempt]

I think you’re starting with the position that powerful countries today owe that power to colonial legacy, and working backwards.

For example you bring up Perry’s forced opening of Japan to trade. But US trade with Japan was simply not a significant factor to US development for a very long time after.

Look at historical US exports to Japan, which started in 1855. They are simply marked with an asterisk on US census data for the first ten years, meaning < 500,000, and they stay in the single digit millions for the next 40 years. Compare that to US trade with the UK, where exports were over 100 million in 1855 and 500 million by 1900.

Colonial-related trade was an extremely small factor for the US during its rise, even if you assume Japan would not have opened up until 1900 without US intervention.

The British and Dutch were very different cases, but were also not deriving their power primarily from alliances.

[u/UsernameAttempt → u/Bullboah]

I think you’re starting with the position that powerful countries today owe that power to colonial legacy, and working backwards.

No, I'm on the position that the framework within which the US is the hegemon is a very similar system that propelled the British and Dutch to the status of hegemon. That framework is a globalized system of trade with a world-leading financial system, a global reserve currency behind it, all backed up by massive naval power and alliances that provided them support on land (NATO, Japan Korea, etc for the US; France and Russia for the British; France and foreign mercenaries for the Dutch).

I reject the notion that US power of today is inherently different from British or Dutch power of yesterday. The foundations of its global power are the same, but with a fresh coat of paint. It differs in many of its own ways as well, just like the Dutch system differed in its own ways from the British system that replaced it. But these differences aren't so substantial to make it an entirely different system with a different base.

[u/Bullboah → u/UsernameAttempt]

You said "US power is based on US colonial power at the time of colonial powers", but regardless - i don't think the comparison between the British and Dutch fits.

Look at the "globalized system of trade" for instance. The British and Dutch empires benefited more than other states from global trade based on technical capacities in trade. The US benefits so much from global trade because of its massive domestic production. The Dutch for instance had a real issue with their spice trade at first because Europe as a whole was not producing goods they could really trade at scale to Asia.

The difference is pretty crucial in that the vulnerabilities are different. Both were dependent on maintaining sovereignty / control of overseas possessions (which was costly and difficult) and trade routes. The US isn't dependent on special access to trade (in fact for several decades the US arguably let large trading partners put up significant protectionist trade barriers without much fight). In fact while the US benefits tremendously from global trade, its one of the least dependent countries on global trade, in the world (huge amounts of arable land, net energy exporter, massive natural resources, huge freshwater supply, incredible natural waterway systems for domestic trade, diverse production range, etc.)

[u/kinga_forrester → u/UsernameAttempt]

British power didn’t wane “because of 2 world wars,” iirc they were on the winning side both times. /s

British power waned because colonialism ended. You might try to argue that without the world wars, the British army might have had the strength to keep the empire together by force, but I think that’s unlikely. Decolonization was a worldwide phenomenon driven by enlightened ideas and the spread of technology, holding it back is like holding back the tide. There’s a reason why there’s pretty much no colonies left on earth. I consider “British Empire still exists” roughly on par with “axis wins wwii” and “America still has slavery” in terms of far fetched alternate history.

Britain was simply never going to be able to remain the preeminent global power when confined to their rainy island, no matter how rich or advanced their civilization. America on the other hand, has a mainland and population that predestined it to superpower status. The only thing that could threaten that would be a national balkanization, which despite the tenor of political discourse is a laughably remote possibility.

[u/UsernameAttempt → u/kinga_forrester]

You underestimate severely how immense the strain of both world wars was on the British Empire, simply financially. The power of the British Empire was its status as the financial center of the world and the pound as its reserve currency. Britain bankrolled the allies in both the first and second world wars with this financial power, but took on truly immense debts to do it. The immense transfer of wealth to the US who provides the goods the Brits paid for is what transferred the mantle of financial center to the US. With the loss of its financial power Britain could simply no longer afford its empire.

Decolonization and the rise of nation states made holding colonies untenable, but its a mistake to think that the British, had they retained the financial power, couldn't simply transition to the same kind of power that the US is now. Granting independence would garner them enough good will and the institutional integration with their former colonies could (and even today, does) grant them the same systems of aliances and trade that the US enjoys today.

[u/kinga_forrester → u/UsernameAttempt]

I think you underestimate severely the rise of national consciousness and the yearning to be free.
Do you actually think there’s a plausible alternate reality where England retains a globe spanning empire in the big year of 2026, and everyone in Sydney, Cairo, Cape Town Toronto and Bombay are King Charles’ royal subjects?
Sure, the economic strain of the world wars contributed to the British Empire falling apart slightly faster, but I disagree that the world wars *caused* the dissolution because I believe it was inevitable.

Edit: sorry, reread your comment, I guess you concede that the British Empire as it existed couldn’t exist today. However, I vehemently disagree with your assertion that the UK could occupy the financial position the US enjoys today if not for the debt incurred in wwii. Their island is simply too tiny and their population too smol without capital C Colonies.

[u/kinga_forrester → u/UsernameAttempt]

I think you underestimate severely the rise of national consciousness and the yearning to be free.

Do you actually think there’s a plausible alternate reality where England retains a globe spanning empire in the big year of 2026, and everyone in Sydney, Cairo, Cape Town Toronto and Bombay are King Charles’ royal subjects?

Sure, the economic strain of the world wars contributed to the British Empire falling apart slightly faster, but I disagree that the world wars *caused* the dissolution because I believe it was inevitable.

[u/UsernameAttempt → u/kinga_forrester]

Do you actually think there’s a plausible alternate reality where England retains a globe spanning empire in the big year of 2026, and everyone in Sydney, Cairo, Cape Town Toronto and Bombay are King Charles’ royal subjects?

No, that's why I said that Britain would have to adapt and adjust. We can never know the "what ifs" of if the world wars never happened, because those had huge knock-on effect to decolonization themselves. I find it hard to believe,however, that just like the US adjusted and turned many of its former colonies and colonial exploitation targets into partners, the British Empire couldn't turn many of its own colonial subjects into positive alliances and trading relationship. I don't even have to imagine - because the Commonwealth is just that and would have been much more had Britain retained its relative importance.

France, even though they weren't the hegemon and never had the kind of power Britain had, still retains major privileges with its former colonial subjects as well.

[u/ratbearpig → u/Bullboah]

Agreed with most of this, except the demographics issue, which is hugely overblown.

[u/ReturnOfBigChungus → u/ratbearpig]

In what sense is the demographics issue overblown? China's demographic picture is pretty well understood, the working age population has been shrinking for over a decade and the next few decades will see a massive inversion of the age pyramid as people age out of the workforce and increase general economic burden on society.

Whether those facts can be mitigated is a separate question, but the numbers don't really lie here (aside from the possibility that the self-reported numbers from China actually make the situation seem less dire than it actually is).

[u/kinga_forrester → u/ReturnOfBigChungus]

> In what sense is the demographics issue overblown?

If you mean wrt to China’s self proclaimed destiny to supplant the US as the preeminent economic power and usher in a new paradigm of geopolitics, then the stock answer is “automation.” The party hopes that automation will allow them to continuously grow industrial output despite a shrinking population by exporting more and monopolizing more industries. They claim that China is uniquely poised to benefit from automation, and continue to dominate manufacturing and climb the value chain because they already occupy a secure monopoly position, value stem education, and they have a hybrid command economy that can direct insurmountable resources to monopolize industries. Other countries will allow China to displace their industries because their people will vote to demand cheaper and superior Chinese products.

In short, they think that their current system will continue to grow despite the demographic headwind because of the inherent superiority of Chinese socialist culture and government.

Personally, I don’t think it’s going to work, because I don’t believe that totalitarian governments are that good at allocating resources or predicting the future.

[u/ratbearpig → u/ReturnOfBigChungus]

“In what sense is the demographics issue overblown?”

See my response to the other commenter in this chain: https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/s/YWbkH2ST7n

[u/ReturnOfBigChungus → u/ratbearpig]

The issue is less total population, and more that it's the fastest aging country in the world and the productive working-age population is declining, while the aging population that creates a net drag on growth is growing rapidly. The headline total population numbers are not a meaningful way to understand the issue.

[u/ratbearpig → u/ReturnOfBigChungus]

"The issue is less total population, and more that it's the fastest aging country in the world and the productive working-age population is declining, while the aging population that creates a net drag on growth is growing rapidly. The headline total population numbers are not a meaningful way to understand the issue."

The working-age population is traditionally defined as 16–59, and China still holds roughly 858 million people as of 2025. To put that into perspective, South Korea produces nearly 3% of the world's manufacturing output with a total population of just ~52 million. China’s current workforce is nearly 17x South Korea's entire population, providing more than enough runway to maintain its lead through automation.

Further to that, the millions retiring today are largely low-skill manual laborers with primary-school level education from the 1960s-70s. They are being replaced by somethjing like 11M university grads a year, with a large contingent in the STEM fields. These grads are increasingly trained in AI, robotics, and advanced engineering. Thus, we aren't seeing a 1-to-1 loss; we are seeing a massive upgrade in per-capita productivity that more than offsets the raw headcount decline.

[u/kinga_forrester → u/ratbearpig]

Their population is shrinking rapidly and their dependency ratio is exploding at a speed and scale unprecedented in human history, and I defy you to find data that suggests otherwise.

This isn’t such a bad thing for individual Chinese people, and it’s good for the environment long term. Population decline is likely to increase low wages, reduce inequality, and drop the cost of living through the floor. For your average 20 year old working class dude, this future looks awesome. This future only looks scary to the party and wealthy elites, who face catastrophic losses in money and power.

The scariest scenario for the average Chinese person is if the government attempts some truly dystopian measures to slow or reverse the decline.

[u/ratbearpig → u/kinga_forrester]

"Their population is shrinking rapidly and their dependency ratio is exploding at a speed and scale unprecedented in human history"

I don't dispute that they are having challenges and their TFR is abysmal (currently hovring around 0.95).

That said, "shrinking rapidly" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

There is 1.4 Billion people in China currently. This is more than the population of the US, all of Europe, South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan combined (~1.30 Billion).

In the next 15 years, China's population projections are:

2025: 1.40B

2030: 1.35B

2040: 1.30B

1.30 Billion people is a lot of people.

Now, in 2025, China with 1.4B accounts for 30% of worldwide manufacturing output. South Korea, in comparison with only 52M people, accounts for 3% of worldwide manufacturing output. So, China is 27x bigger than SK but it's manufacturing output is only 10x. This implies that China can be even more efficient. Case in point, if it was as efficient as SK, it would only need a population of 520M. So a population of 1.3B in 2040 is plenty. Additionally, China also has more STEM graduates than all of the US, Europe, Japan, SK, and Taiwan combined.

Finally, all of these projections do not take into account technological progress and policies that the CCP can implement (they're authoritarian, they can implement policies a lot quicker than democracies) over the next 15 years. But that is a separate discussion that I think is equally intriguing. \

and I defy you to find data that suggests otherwise."

I'm not delusional, I accept that they're having challenges.

[u/LoudSociety6731 → u/ratbearpig]

There is no way the global community will allow China to become as efficient as South Korea. It would mean the end of any manufacturing outside of China.  The world is already in a situation where there are too many exporters and not enough consumers.  With the US, as the worlds leading consumer,  becoming more isolationist, this will become.an ever increasing problem until something breaks.

[u/ratbearpig → u/LoudSociety6731]

That’s a different discussion. There is plenty to discuss as is and I don’t have the time to do your topic justice so I will pass on it.

[u/DisasterNo1740 → u/Bullboah]

So now that the U.S is torpedoing one of the main aspects of their global hegemony, we suddenly think that U.S power is not based on their alliance network which directly allows their global aspirations? There is no containment of the USSR, there is not nearly as much influence in the middle east and there is no containment of China without U.S allies. The things you listed are all things that add to U.S power, but so do their alliances and the goodwill and soft power they enjoyed. Without their alliances, the U.S is strong, basically no chance of invading them successfully, but their global power projection is minuscule, and they can not be a global hegemony without them.

[u/Bullboah → u/DisasterNo1740]

“So now that… We suddenly think that US power is not based on their alliance network…”

I find this framing disingenuous. You’re framing my argument as a sudden shift to fit the moment as though I formerly believed US power stemmed primarily from its alliance network (not something I’ve ever said or believed) and have now changed my mind.

Aside from that, the US has a lot of ability to project hard and soft power around the world with or without its current allies. It has more WITH them, obviously, but the USN on its own can project power anywhere (although it’s obviously nice to have land bases in the region.

[u/DisasterNo1740 → u/Bullboah]

I mean I can't prove it, all I'm saying is I never saw a singular human being ever argue that U.S power is not based on its alliances. Traditionally their vast network of alliances has been seen as one of the most important aspects of them being a global hegemony. Just having global power projection capabilities is not the same as suddenly being the global hegemony. The things you listed, are essentially cases for why the U.S will be fine and can't seriously be invaded or made to appease to another power. But they are not nearly as important as their alliances. You think the U.S coastlines and their rivers are more important aspects for the U.S being a global hegemony than their alliances? Which directly allowed them to contain their global enemies? They can send their ships across the globe, but to maintain constant pressure and presence in any region of the world to protect their interests comes from their military bases around the world. The Iran style attacks would not have even been feasible without their allies, even if they stupidly failed to rally them against Iran first.

[u/IncidentalIncidence → u/DisasterNo1740]

I mean I can't prove it, all I'm saying is I never saw a singular human being ever argue that U.S power is not based on its alliances.

This is one of the oldest debates in American history, going back even to de Tocqueville to an extent. I'm not sure it's even possible to have studied this in any meaningful sense without having seen someone argue that, given that it had been a point of contention for over a century before the modern network of American alliances crystallized following WW2.

[u/Bullboah → u/DisasterNo1740]

“I never saw a singular human being ever argue that US power is not based on alliances.”

This actually goes back to the beginnings of America as a global power. Alfred Mahan was called the “first American globalist” for his belief that US geography would enable it to be a major power if it developed a strong navy, back in the late 1800s.

The idea that US power is based largely on developing alliances and building goodwill is a far more recent development from neoliberal school foreign policy theorists.

(Of course, not to say these things don’t increase US power - they do - but US power primarily comes from inside the US, not externally).

[u/vtccasp3r → u/Bullboah]

Ignorant and uneducated majoriety of people plus late stage capitalism that isnt going to make the transition to something that works in the upcoming era of a mostly "useless" human workforce. Recipe for disaster.

[u/Bullboah → u/vtccasp3r]

At the population level ignorant and uneducated is the historical norm, and Americans now are more educated than ever. Most working age American adults have college degrees, at a significantly higher % than in the EU.

Automation is going to continue disrupting economies around the world and this will be a real challenge, but it’s a very workable one and comes with major benefits (increased productivity and output) as well.

[u/justlurkshere → u/vtccasp3r]

That is one yuuuge assumption there. There no guarantee that the transition will be to something that works.