My idle speculation from a an armchair in China is that while the ‘American century’ sure feels like it’s ending there is no sense of a ‘Chinese century’ beginning. Like the scale here is another level. But it does not feel futuristic because the same technology is already there in all the developed world. Just in far smaller quantities. And the middle income features feel anachronistic.
Maybe this is just the interregnum. Or maybe one simply cannot call these things in advance.
It’s curious that you mentioned in the footnote that Canadians or Australians feel more foreign to you than Chinese immigrants do. Could you elaborate on that?
Canadians are very nice, and very elliptical, tending to conceal their real feelings in order to be non-confrontational. They tend to be conformist and not to rock the boat or disturb social consensus, though of course there are exceptions. They are less entrepreneurial and tend to dream about getting a nice stable job in a bank.
In other words, Canadians fit the stereotypes of Japan far better than Japan itself does.
As for Canadians, they seem more reserved, self deprecating and polite than both Americans and Chinese. I don’t get the Australian thing, but the most well known Australians in America are probably Crocodile Dundee, Mad Max, Nichole Kidman, Steve Irwin and AC⚡️DC, which seem closer to American style than Chinese.
“It’ll be more like the U.S. of Teddy Roosevelt’s time”
It’s funny how you compare China now to the US, just before it got superpower status. I think the mere fact that China gets superpower status will affect the way it relates to the world, just as much as that this was the case with the US.
And thus far, in our "China policy" the US is being led into a "trade war", by a wannabe general who doesn't know what trade is, let alone international trade. (As the maxim goes, most generals are busy preparing for the last war.)
Remember, the orange wack job generating the current whipsaw tariff uncertainty has never and will never, ever own or participate in the operation of a productive business enterprise.
Those who voted for him because they believed he was/is a (successful) "businessman", were gulled on an epic scale.
I guess this shows that the Chinese system of political centralization and economic decentralization has strong utility. Part of the reason why China is doing well is because it's not the Soviet Union. I guess Deng's bet that autocratic capitalism has a long life bar was correct. Also, autocratic capitalism is inadvertently China's largest cultural export to the United States.
Isn't the main thing that China did right that the Soviet Union did wrong that China focused its industrialization on the end of the supply chain (cheap consumer goods for export) while the Soviets focused theirs on the start of the supply chain (energy, metallurgy, chemicals and heavy machinery)?
Why would we not expect China's "national character" to change over time? You mentioned that they might be more similar to the USA of Teddy Roosevelt's era. That USA led to the USA of the 20th century. China might follow a path similar
In the winter of 2020-1 when the Covid pandemic was at its worst, I thought something like "so this is what it was like to be a devout Muslim living through the decline and fall of the Ottoman caliphate?" By which I mean I was thinking "this is what's it's like to learn your own beloved civilization is objectively inferior to a detested rival": was anyone else here thinking similarly at that time?
But I ended up focusing more on your footnote about culture than on your main article here!
I wonder if England is also an example of a very uncultured nation? It is notable that while right-wing nationalists in mainland Europe often speak in terms of preserving their traditional culture, here in England cultural preservationists tend to be on the political left (an extreme example of that would be that the Campaign for Real Ale was founded by a Trotskyite) and English right-wing nationalism is essentially just exclusionary white racism with a dash of football and getting drunk!
And if Chinese people eat a lot of "high-calorie greasy food", then why does China have so much less obesity not only than the United States, but than almost any country in the Americas, Europe or the Middle East?
The average citizen of the PRC makes about one tenth of what an American does, and people in rural areas are very poor and can’t afford much greasy food.
Yeah it depends more on the diet that people eat though - for example the amount of calories that a Japanese got on average is closer to a North Korean than to an American!
level of processed foods and additives? They seem to have laxer inspection regimes that lead to more deaths due to adulteration with poisons, but the modal food produced seems more natural.
Last thing, why would the next century be Chinese and not Indian? Indian is starting from a much lower place economically but has way more upside than China.
No. But I think it will grow a little more slowly and will reach its peak in the later part of this century, at which point China will be in slow decline.
(I’m Indian, so take the bias into account 😅) — But yes, I expect that too. I'm no economist, but I’ve always felt India’s growth has been slower partly because it’s a democracy. Imperfect, sure—but still one where even someone like Modi, often accused of being authoritarian (and yes, he has those tendencies), isn’t anywhere near the level of a Trump or Xi. He’s had to bow down to mass protests—like with the farm laws. That kind of public pushback and policy reversal just doesn’t happen in China.
Now, I know there are still serious issues here—crime against women, caste discrimination, etc.—but I’ve lived here for over 30 years, and I’ve seen improvement. What was once normalized is now openly called out. I don’t see any reason why this won’t keep improving—especially as people grow richer and the state's institutional capacity grows. Even caste is fading for many in my generation—I married out of caste, and so did several of my friends. The more urban and economically mobile people get, the less relevance caste seems to have. It won’t vanish overnight, but I’m convinced it will dissolve out over time.
Culturally too, I think India has more soft power potential—Bollywood, music, the arts, freedom of expression, and a global diaspora that blends in abroad but still proudly carries its identity. Even STEM and tech are catching up—startups, ISRO, and a whole generation of engineers and entrepreneurs are making waves globally.
And on infrastructure, India isn’t just dumping bullet trains and megaprojects into every corner to spike GDP numbers. Development is slower, yes—but arguably more need-based and organic. That’s why I feel India can sustain ~5–6% growth over a longer stretch, and gradually close the gap with China—maybe by the 2060s or 2070. Not as flashy, but possibly more stable and inclusive in the long run.
And I genuinely believe that if India becomes a major power, it’ll be a more responsible one—closer to what America was in the mid-20th century. Our civilizational values just don’t have a conquest mindset, and democracy keeps our impulses in check. We’re messy, but we debate, protest, self-correct—and that makes for a pluralistic, grounded global presence.
I’m curious: How is co-operation with EU viewed in India? How do Indian people think about Europe in general? From European perspective India is becoming much more interesting.
Europe is seen quite positively in India overall. France, especially, is viewed very warmly—people see it as a strong partner in defense, tech, and culture. Germany and the UK also have a good reputation here, mainly because of their engineering, education, and strong Indian diaspora. The only real point of disagreement in recent times was during the Russia-Ukraine war—some felt that Europe didn’t fully understand India’s position and history with Russia. Most people here don’t support war, of course, but there's a practical mindset about long-standing relationships and national interest.
That said, India is definitely looking to build stronger ties with the EU. Trade, investment, and climate cooperation are growing, and there’s real interest on both sides. On the ground too, things are moving—railway modernization is a great example. Companies like France’s Alstom and Germany’s Bombardier (now part of Alstom) have invested a lot in India’s train network. Alstom not only builds regional trains, but also supplies locomotives for the Dedicated Freight Corridors (DFCs)—huge railway projects meant to move goods faster and more efficiently across the country. They’re also involved in RRTS (Regional Rapid Transit System), which is a semi high-speed regional rail service, currently around national capital region. This kind of European collaboration is playing a big role in upgrading both passenger and freight infrastructure.
Interesting, thanks! I believe India is the future of Europe. It is the only nation with potential to compete with China in scale, though it’ll take some time. I see a lot of Indian immigrants in Finland these days, especially in Helsinki. That is good.
When it comes to diversity, don't overlook linguistic diversity. A few years ago, we entertained two Chinese students for a week. They were close friends, spoke the same nat'l language, but their home languages were mutually incomprehensible. They picked a restaurant where the staff fussed over them, & it happened that that staff shared the home language of only one of them.
This is very interesting but pretty off base. For one thing, you're kind of biting off more than you, or anyone else, can chew.
The big point to make is that China and America have distinctive contributions to offer, and if China is the preeminent society in the world, that doesn't necessarily constrain America very much. So (a) "Chinese century while America collapses" and (b) "Chinese century while America plays a brilliant secondary role continuous with its 20th century leadership" are very different scenarios. (a) Is bleak, but (b) needn't be bleak at all.
The other two big points are:
(1) I don't know what the recent progress of Christianity in China looks like, But for quite a while, exponential growth seemed to be on track to make China a majority Christian country. That would make a huge difference.
(2) US decline is a choice for a lot of reasons, but above all because it can be reversed at a stroke by welcoming in far more immigrants.
Great post. There's another dimension that should probably be mentioned, though, which is that as AI takes over more jobs and manufacturing becomes more and more automated, the limitation on productivity output and military buildout is going to shift. Right now, skilled workers to build equipment and soldiers to conquer and hold territory are the primary limitations on military expansion. Additionally, one of the main reasons we see less conquest than we used to is that in a world driven primarily by human capital, it is much more difficult to conquer a population and extract economic value from them: humans who resent their rulers will be less likely to produce at their maximum potential.
In an AI-driven world, however, the limits are going to shift away from humans and towards raw natural resources being the constraint on a civilization's ability to grow. You don't need skilled workers if robots can accomplish all or nearly all of the production chain from resource extraction to production of more robots. You don't need human soldiers to take and hold territory if robot soldiers can destroy enemy militaries and dominate civilian populations.
As you noted, China is very resource-poor relative to its size. The incentives for them to expand their territorial holdings to acquire more raw natural resources will be immense, and their ability to seize territory by force will likely be largely unchecked if the US retreats from the world or falls behind in the technology race, as we seem determined to do. We have already seen China act aggressively to seize natural resources from other countries in a situation in which its power is still being heavily checked by a rival; I would expect to see that trend accelerate dramatically once it perceives the US to no longer be a significant threat to its ambitions. As you noted, the Chinese have proven to be a very selfish civilization, and selfish people rarely tend to barter for what they can easily take.
It is possible that widespread nuclear proliferation might help to constrain this phenomenon, but I'm dubious for the simple reason that nuclear weapons have a very short, sharp escalatory curve. They're excellent deterrents to total conquest or existential threats -- you can credibly threaten mutual destruction over the total loss of your nation's sovereignty -- but they're very poor at dealing with "frog boiling" tactics such as an incursion to seize part of your territory that does not threaten to seize the whole.
How is there no consideration of China’s demographic problem? If not a game changer (though seems like it could be), isn’t this a big enough factor to at least get a paragraph?
Noah, you are basically my favorite Substack writer. Here, you completely ignore that a service economy cannot grow while its server and servee population collapses. And manufacturing capacity would need to automate at a gobsmacking speed to keep growing as the worker population implodes and the government refuses mass immigration as an alternative. You cannot analyze China's future with one whit of accuracy if you never mention or factor in their abysmal birth rate.
This China stuff feels exactly like people hyping up the Soviet Union right before it collapsed. They produce so much stuff! Ok, maybe they do, but are they doing so efficiently and a sustainable manner.
"China has created a world-leading car industry. " There is one slight problem with this conclusion. Chinese car companies don't make any money, and neither do any of their private companies. The Chinese stock market, after adjusting for inflation, has been flat for the last 25 years.
I bet Ford could sell a shit load of cars all over the world if they did not have to worry about actually generating sustainable profits.
You point out that exports aren't nearly that of a share of GDP compared to other countries, but its not the proportion now, but the proportion in the future.
As the Chinese economy has stagnated, exports have become a bigger and bigger portion of the economy and there is only so many times Xi and the CPP can push that button.
I literally don't get the fascination with the car industry and manufacturing in general. Its an insanely low margin business that doesn't generate that much profits and if robotic cars do actually happen in the next few decades, will be completely obsolete.
The most valuable companies aren't manufacturing companies, they are service and design companies. It's a mentality from a bygone era, where instead of who had the most land, it was who could produce the most stuff, and now it is who can produce the best ideas and services.
What would you rather the US had: companies that design the best GPUs or the ones that make them?
"Chinese car companies don't make any money, and neither do any of their private companies. The Chinese stock market, after adjusting for inflation, has been flat for the last 25 years."
Do you have anything to say about how the Chinese economy *does* work? i.e. how they managed to become the manufacturing hub of the world, build up their national infrastructure, etc.
I guess this is possible, of course at the expense of their people. People in the United States have no idea how lucky they are as they scream about tyrrany.
Thomas Friedman has continuously bet against America for 4 decades. Normally based on the opinion of the cab driver who took him to the airport on his way back to the US.
This is a fantasy. Once superintelligent AI exists - which will probably happen before 2040 - no nation or other group of humans will be capable of retaining any influence over the course of events.
Even if the US and China wake up to the threat of superintelligent AI and somehow manage to stop it coming into existence, it's a mistake to believe that in the late 21st Century a country's economic power will depend upon it's demography. The number of robots a country has will be just as important as the number of people it has, and I expect we will have discovered how to reverse aging.
Almost all predictions about the future that I read on Substack assume that technological progress will grind to a halt tomorrow. But why would that happen?
My idle speculation from a an armchair in China is that while the ‘American century’ sure feels like it’s ending there is no sense of a ‘Chinese century’ beginning. Like the scale here is another level. But it does not feel futuristic because the same technology is already there in all the developed world. Just in far smaller quantities. And the middle income features feel anachronistic.
Maybe this is just the interregnum. Or maybe one simply cannot call these things in advance.
It’s curious that you mentioned in the footnote that Canadians or Australians feel more foreign to you than Chinese immigrants do. Could you elaborate on that?
Canadians are very nice, and very elliptical, tending to conceal their real feelings in order to be non-confrontational. They tend to be conformist and not to rock the boat or disturb social consensus, though of course there are exceptions. They are less entrepreneurial and tend to dream about getting a nice stable job in a bank.
In other words, Canadians fit the stereotypes of Japan far better than Japan itself does.
As for Canadians, they seem more reserved, self deprecating and polite than both Americans and Chinese. I don’t get the Australian thing, but the most well known Australians in America are probably Crocodile Dundee, Mad Max, Nichole Kidman, Steve Irwin and AC⚡️DC, which seem closer to American style than Chinese.
I’ll add Keith Urban to that list!
“It’ll be more like the U.S. of Teddy Roosevelt’s time”
It’s funny how you compare China now to the US, just before it got superpower status. I think the mere fact that China gets superpower status will affect the way it relates to the world, just as much as that this was the case with the US.
And thus far, in our "China policy" the US is being led into a "trade war", by a wannabe general who doesn't know what trade is, let alone international trade. (As the maxim goes, most generals are busy preparing for the last war.)
Remember, the orange wack job generating the current whipsaw tariff uncertainty has never and will never, ever own or participate in the operation of a productive business enterprise.
Those who voted for him because they believed he was/is a (successful) "businessman", were gulled on an epic scale.
I guess this shows that the Chinese system of political centralization and economic decentralization has strong utility. Part of the reason why China is doing well is because it's not the Soviet Union. I guess Deng's bet that autocratic capitalism has a long life bar was correct. Also, autocratic capitalism is inadvertently China's largest cultural export to the United States.
https://open.substack.com/pub/yawboadu/p/how-china-is-different-from-the-soviet?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=garki
Isn't the main thing that China did right that the Soviet Union did wrong that China focused its industrialization on the end of the supply chain (cheap consumer goods for export) while the Soviets focused theirs on the start of the supply chain (energy, metallurgy, chemicals and heavy machinery)?
Why would we not expect China's "national character" to change over time? You mentioned that they might be more similar to the USA of Teddy Roosevelt's era. That USA led to the USA of the 20th century. China might follow a path similar
True
In the winter of 2020-1 when the Covid pandemic was at its worst, I thought something like "so this is what it was like to be a devout Muslim living through the decline and fall of the Ottoman caliphate?" By which I mean I was thinking "this is what's it's like to learn your own beloved civilization is objectively inferior to a detested rival": was anyone else here thinking similarly at that time?
But I ended up focusing more on your footnote about culture than on your main article here!
I wonder if England is also an example of a very uncultured nation? It is notable that while right-wing nationalists in mainland Europe often speak in terms of preserving their traditional culture, here in England cultural preservationists tend to be on the political left (an extreme example of that would be that the Campaign for Real Ale was founded by a Trotskyite) and English right-wing nationalism is essentially just exclusionary white racism with a dash of football and getting drunk!
And if Chinese people eat a lot of "high-calorie greasy food", then why does China have so much less obesity not only than the United States, but than almost any country in the Americas, Europe or the Middle East?
The average citizen of the PRC makes about one tenth of what an American does, and people in rural areas are very poor and can’t afford much greasy food.
True but irrelevant. To paraphrase Lee Kwan Yew, in terms of geopolitics total GDP is much more important than per capita.
My question was about obesity rates though, not geopolitical heft.
> why does China have so much less obesity not only than the United States, but than almost any country in the Americas, Europe or the Middle East?
Is this basically a matter of income?
Not really, because rich democratic East Asian countries also have low obesity rates.
Yeah it depends more on the diet that people eat though - for example the amount of calories that a Japanese got on average is closer to a North Korean than to an American!
Right, like Singapore.
Dietary quality and culture then seem like the next most plausible explanation? https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00594-9
level of processed foods and additives? They seem to have laxer inspection regimes that lead to more deaths due to adulteration with poisons, but the modal food produced seems more natural.
Last thing, why would the next century be Chinese and not Indian? Indian is starting from a much lower place economically but has way more upside than China.
In the second half of the century, definitely
you don't think India can replicate China's growth over the last 25 years and be at the exact same point or even higher in 25 years?
No. But I think it will grow a little more slowly and will reach its peak in the later part of this century, at which point China will be in slow decline.
(I’m Indian, so take the bias into account 😅) — But yes, I expect that too. I'm no economist, but I’ve always felt India’s growth has been slower partly because it’s a democracy. Imperfect, sure—but still one where even someone like Modi, often accused of being authoritarian (and yes, he has those tendencies), isn’t anywhere near the level of a Trump or Xi. He’s had to bow down to mass protests—like with the farm laws. That kind of public pushback and policy reversal just doesn’t happen in China.
Now, I know there are still serious issues here—crime against women, caste discrimination, etc.—but I’ve lived here for over 30 years, and I’ve seen improvement. What was once normalized is now openly called out. I don’t see any reason why this won’t keep improving—especially as people grow richer and the state's institutional capacity grows. Even caste is fading for many in my generation—I married out of caste, and so did several of my friends. The more urban and economically mobile people get, the less relevance caste seems to have. It won’t vanish overnight, but I’m convinced it will dissolve out over time.
Culturally too, I think India has more soft power potential—Bollywood, music, the arts, freedom of expression, and a global diaspora that blends in abroad but still proudly carries its identity. Even STEM and tech are catching up—startups, ISRO, and a whole generation of engineers and entrepreneurs are making waves globally.
And on infrastructure, India isn’t just dumping bullet trains and megaprojects into every corner to spike GDP numbers. Development is slower, yes—but arguably more need-based and organic. That’s why I feel India can sustain ~5–6% growth over a longer stretch, and gradually close the gap with China—maybe by the 2060s or 2070. Not as flashy, but possibly more stable and inclusive in the long run.
And I genuinely believe that if India becomes a major power, it’ll be a more responsible one—closer to what America was in the mid-20th century. Our civilizational values just don’t have a conquest mindset, and democracy keeps our impulses in check. We’re messy, but we debate, protest, self-correct—and that makes for a pluralistic, grounded global presence.
I’m curious: How is co-operation with EU viewed in India? How do Indian people think about Europe in general? From European perspective India is becoming much more interesting.
Europe is seen quite positively in India overall. France, especially, is viewed very warmly—people see it as a strong partner in defense, tech, and culture. Germany and the UK also have a good reputation here, mainly because of their engineering, education, and strong Indian diaspora. The only real point of disagreement in recent times was during the Russia-Ukraine war—some felt that Europe didn’t fully understand India’s position and history with Russia. Most people here don’t support war, of course, but there's a practical mindset about long-standing relationships and national interest.
That said, India is definitely looking to build stronger ties with the EU. Trade, investment, and climate cooperation are growing, and there’s real interest on both sides. On the ground too, things are moving—railway modernization is a great example. Companies like France’s Alstom and Germany’s Bombardier (now part of Alstom) have invested a lot in India’s train network. Alstom not only builds regional trains, but also supplies locomotives for the Dedicated Freight Corridors (DFCs)—huge railway projects meant to move goods faster and more efficiently across the country. They’re also involved in RRTS (Regional Rapid Transit System), which is a semi high-speed regional rail service, currently around national capital region. This kind of European collaboration is playing a big role in upgrading both passenger and freight infrastructure.
Interesting, thanks! I believe India is the future of Europe. It is the only nation with potential to compete with China in scale, though it’ll take some time. I see a lot of Indian immigrants in Finland these days, especially in Helsinki. That is good.
When it comes to diversity, don't overlook linguistic diversity. A few years ago, we entertained two Chinese students for a week. They were close friends, spoke the same nat'l language, but their home languages were mutually incomprehensible. They picked a restaurant where the staff fussed over them, & it happened that that staff shared the home language of only one of them.
This is very interesting but pretty off base. For one thing, you're kind of biting off more than you, or anyone else, can chew.
The big point to make is that China and America have distinctive contributions to offer, and if China is the preeminent society in the world, that doesn't necessarily constrain America very much. So (a) "Chinese century while America collapses" and (b) "Chinese century while America plays a brilliant secondary role continuous with its 20th century leadership" are very different scenarios. (a) Is bleak, but (b) needn't be bleak at all.
The other two big points are:
(1) I don't know what the recent progress of Christianity in China looks like, But for quite a while, exponential growth seemed to be on track to make China a majority Christian country. That would make a huge difference.
(2) US decline is a choice for a lot of reasons, but above all because it can be reversed at a stroke by welcoming in far more immigrants.
Great post. There's another dimension that should probably be mentioned, though, which is that as AI takes over more jobs and manufacturing becomes more and more automated, the limitation on productivity output and military buildout is going to shift. Right now, skilled workers to build equipment and soldiers to conquer and hold territory are the primary limitations on military expansion. Additionally, one of the main reasons we see less conquest than we used to is that in a world driven primarily by human capital, it is much more difficult to conquer a population and extract economic value from them: humans who resent their rulers will be less likely to produce at their maximum potential.
In an AI-driven world, however, the limits are going to shift away from humans and towards raw natural resources being the constraint on a civilization's ability to grow. You don't need skilled workers if robots can accomplish all or nearly all of the production chain from resource extraction to production of more robots. You don't need human soldiers to take and hold territory if robot soldiers can destroy enemy militaries and dominate civilian populations.
As you noted, China is very resource-poor relative to its size. The incentives for them to expand their territorial holdings to acquire more raw natural resources will be immense, and their ability to seize territory by force will likely be largely unchecked if the US retreats from the world or falls behind in the technology race, as we seem determined to do. We have already seen China act aggressively to seize natural resources from other countries in a situation in which its power is still being heavily checked by a rival; I would expect to see that trend accelerate dramatically once it perceives the US to no longer be a significant threat to its ambitions. As you noted, the Chinese have proven to be a very selfish civilization, and selfish people rarely tend to barter for what they can easily take.
It is possible that widespread nuclear proliferation might help to constrain this phenomenon, but I'm dubious for the simple reason that nuclear weapons have a very short, sharp escalatory curve. They're excellent deterrents to total conquest or existential threats -- you can credibly threaten mutual destruction over the total loss of your nation's sovereignty -- but they're very poor at dealing with "frog boiling" tactics such as an incursion to seize part of your territory that does not threaten to seize the whole.
How is there no consideration of China’s demographic problem? If not a game changer (though seems like it could be), isn’t this a big enough factor to at least get a paragraph?
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/chinas-demographics-will-be-fine
Noah mentioned it as the reason why China may only be dominatent for a half century.
Noah, you are basically my favorite Substack writer. Here, you completely ignore that a service economy cannot grow while its server and servee population collapses. And manufacturing capacity would need to automate at a gobsmacking speed to keep growing as the worker population implodes and the government refuses mass immigration as an alternative. You cannot analyze China's future with one whit of accuracy if you never mention or factor in their abysmal birth rate.
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/chinas-demographics-will-be-fine
This China stuff feels exactly like people hyping up the Soviet Union right before it collapsed. They produce so much stuff! Ok, maybe they do, but are they doing so efficiently and a sustainable manner.
"China has created a world-leading car industry. " There is one slight problem with this conclusion. Chinese car companies don't make any money, and neither do any of their private companies. The Chinese stock market, after adjusting for inflation, has been flat for the last 25 years.
I bet Ford could sell a shit load of cars all over the world if they did not have to worry about actually generating sustainable profits.
We'll see
You point out that exports aren't nearly that of a share of GDP compared to other countries, but its not the proportion now, but the proportion in the future.
As the Chinese economy has stagnated, exports have become a bigger and bigger portion of the economy and there is only so many times Xi and the CPP can push that button.
I literally don't get the fascination with the car industry and manufacturing in general. Its an insanely low margin business that doesn't generate that much profits and if robotic cars do actually happen in the next few decades, will be completely obsolete.
The most valuable companies aren't manufacturing companies, they are service and design companies. It's a mentality from a bygone era, where instead of who had the most land, it was who could produce the most stuff, and now it is who can produce the best ideas and services.
What would you rather the US had: companies that design the best GPUs or the ones that make them?
I feel like I am taking crazy pills.
"Chinese car companies don't make any money, and neither do any of their private companies. The Chinese stock market, after adjusting for inflation, has been flat for the last 25 years."
Do you have anything to say about how the Chinese economy *does* work? i.e. how they managed to become the manufacturing hub of the world, build up their national infrastructure, etc.
I guess this is possible, of course at the expense of their people. People in the United States have no idea how lucky they are as they scream about tyrrany.
Thomas Friedman has continuously bet against America for 4 decades. Normally based on the opinion of the cab driver who took him to the airport on his way back to the US.
Friedman or Tyler Cowen? I'm with Tyler.
This is a fantasy. Once superintelligent AI exists - which will probably happen before 2040 - no nation or other group of humans will be capable of retaining any influence over the course of events.
Even if the US and China wake up to the threat of superintelligent AI and somehow manage to stop it coming into existence, it's a mistake to believe that in the late 21st Century a country's economic power will depend upon it's demography. The number of robots a country has will be just as important as the number of people it has, and I expect we will have discovered how to reverse aging.
Almost all predictions about the future that I read on Substack assume that technological progress will grind to a halt tomorrow. But why would that happen?