And yet who lives in larger square foot housing, has more leisure time, consumes more goods, produces more stuff, and lives longer lives? I think you know...
Hah, that's a born on third base and thinks they hit a home-run argument.
Russia (and plenty of others) got mangled by the consequences of the Great War (part one & two) a massive civil war, communism, then post-communist anarchy for a few years.
In context they're doing well. The chances of the USA as a polity surviving similar stress-tests dont seem high.
Like the rise of Islam. There was no small amount of fortuitous outside circumstance in the US rise to global power.
Also you're wrong about the immigration/genius aspect. Western Europe the British Isles & Russia have tens of millions of immigrants from menial to high skill. Loose ideological labels like "conservatism" or "liberalism" have little to do with it.
Is that almost like making sweeping claims, without historical context and using vaguely ideological terms?
My point was that US didnt get to it's current status without substantial good fortune. That had little to do with it's leadership, socioeconomics nor foundational principles.
Granted having a large continent, good river transport, vast agricultural land & resources along with weak neighbours. Gives natural advantages.
Still the USA emerged as a great power. When rival powers crippled themselves in a ruinous war. The inital geopolitics of which had little or nothing to do with the USA. (China was already screwed up)
That post Great War century of fortune can change, the dollar might remain a reserve currency but it's getting less hegemonic.
Also given that most US immigration is economically driven, then it stands to reason that major socioeconomic downturns will reduce that factor over time.
Which sweeping claim? That the US imports a large % of the high IQ people in the world? This is a fact. Or that other places are nasty and we see it in demographic decline... like Japanese women who refuse to marry patriarchal Japanese men & then get blamed for 'killing Japan'? I mean, we can both pull up the number of H1B visa holders in STEM & you'll see I was soft-pushing my argument. The number is absurdly crushing. Your unfamiliarity with the stats has nothing to do with whether I'm generalizing or not.
As for the carnage in Europe: those jokers went to war because they were all nationalist, conservative, and didn't believe in win-win solutions. Precisely my thesis. Instead of keeping the right flank strong, they should have signed a naval treaty with the Brits, but no... had to listen to Von Moltke.
It's not luck that America brain-drained Europe. It's why Von Neuman's photo is at the head of the article. I've been meaning to write an essay applying the analysis in Paul Kennedy's The Rise And Fall Of The Great Powers, and now I see there is a need for the next generation to understand the theoretical (and empirical) framework of power politics. The standard of productive power changes in every era. For Spain it was gold, for England it was credit, for USA it was industry and then it was entrepreneurialism... and now it's IQ. Please. I just did the stats. The math speaks for itself.
With a smaller population Russia graduates twice the engineers as the US. Same is true in computer science.
And yet who lives in larger square foot housing, has more leisure time, consumes more goods, produces more stuff, and lives longer lives? I think you know...
Hah, that's a born on third base and thinks they hit a home-run argument.
Russia (and plenty of others) got mangled by the consequences of the Great War (part one & two) a massive civil war, communism, then post-communist anarchy for a few years.
In context they're doing well. The chances of the USA as a polity surviving similar stress-tests dont seem high.
Like the rise of Islam. There was no small amount of fortuitous outside circumstance in the US rise to global power.
Also you're wrong about the immigration/genius aspect. Western Europe the British Isles & Russia have tens of millions of immigrants from menial to high skill. Loose ideological labels like "conservatism" or "liberalism" have little to do with it.
Lol, this is a math problem that you solved with a slogan.
Ok.
Is that almost like making sweeping claims, without historical context and using vaguely ideological terms?
My point was that US didnt get to it's current status without substantial good fortune. That had little to do with it's leadership, socioeconomics nor foundational principles.
Granted having a large continent, good river transport, vast agricultural land & resources along with weak neighbours. Gives natural advantages.
Still the USA emerged as a great power. When rival powers crippled themselves in a ruinous war. The inital geopolitics of which had little or nothing to do with the USA. (China was already screwed up)
That post Great War century of fortune can change, the dollar might remain a reserve currency but it's getting less hegemonic.
Also given that most US immigration is economically driven, then it stands to reason that major socioeconomic downturns will reduce that factor over time.
Which sweeping claim? That the US imports a large % of the high IQ people in the world? This is a fact. Or that other places are nasty and we see it in demographic decline... like Japanese women who refuse to marry patriarchal Japanese men & then get blamed for 'killing Japan'? I mean, we can both pull up the number of H1B visa holders in STEM & you'll see I was soft-pushing my argument. The number is absurdly crushing. Your unfamiliarity with the stats has nothing to do with whether I'm generalizing or not.
As for the carnage in Europe: those jokers went to war because they were all nationalist, conservative, and didn't believe in win-win solutions. Precisely my thesis. Instead of keeping the right flank strong, they should have signed a naval treaty with the Brits, but no... had to listen to Von Moltke.
It's not luck that America brain-drained Europe. It's why Von Neuman's photo is at the head of the article. I've been meaning to write an essay applying the analysis in Paul Kennedy's The Rise And Fall Of The Great Powers, and now I see there is a need for the next generation to understand the theoretical (and empirical) framework of power politics. The standard of productive power changes in every era. For Spain it was gold, for England it was credit, for USA it was industry and then it was entrepreneurialism... and now it's IQ. Please. I just did the stats. The math speaks for itself.
Thanks for your engagement.