I think acknowledging that the US has fundamental issues that need to be address is a completely fair statement. What nobody can ever seem to answer is, where does the threat to US hegemony come from? China is fundamentally unstable and while it will absolutely be the dominant power in that part of the world, it's unclear whether or not China's growth is sustainable in the long term and nothing good ever comes from leaders who stay in power for decades.
The US still has one fundamental superpower that the doomsday economists always fail to account for. The US can take immigrants from nearly anywhere in the world and within a generation, their children will become 100% culturally American.
There's no other country in the world that brings people into our culture the way Americans do. Is it perfect? Absolutely not.
The media and political system is today a charade of allowed opinions limited to identity politics, which does not threaten the established order. Even if you compare with Clinton and Bush eras, there’s a stark degradation of discussion and the “zoo-like” behavior of politicians. It’s even deliberately entertainment a lot of times, like a mix of reality TV and team sports.
The US is fascinating, because unlike other countries with extreme wealth inequality it has an admirably free press and speech. There are few things that gets you in serious trouble – it’s almost all carrot-regulated. To get a lot of influence you have to play by the “rules”. A simpler way of saying this is of course that media is just aggressive for-profit ventures. Thus censorship is mostly deemed unnecessary (except during Covid when the stick came out for a while).
Could be the other way around. Failed leadership in the ruling class is promoting culture war and strife as a scapegoat. Quite easy to see the rise of race hate correlated with bank bailouts and occupy movement. Immigration won't fix the inequality problem, but could definitely fuel "partisanship"
There is plenty of hyper partisan vitriol and culture war that comes from the extremist left as well. You just might not see it because you agree with their positions on the issues.
For example, there are some on the left that very seriously want to label all Republican voters as far-right extremists, which is itself a very extreme position to take.
As other commenters put in better words, no, not all voters are like that, but the collective results of their voting is a failed coup and more actions again already mentioned in other comments. So whatever was in people's minds, their deeds and their results are what counts in the end. Causes? Internet, bi-partisanship, not creating but heavily amplifying...
It also ignores the reality that there's some level of conservative who's not really represented right now.
I've known people who straight up left the party after voting red their entire lives because of Trump. They, sincerely, believe in smaller government and less spending, both things the party has totally abandoned even ignoring Trumps horrific actions.
They're, for the most part, liberal in other aspects to varying degrees (abortion, drugs, whatever. Lots of "I may not like all of it but if that's the way it is i'll live with it"), but are tired of being told they're equivalent to the KKK because they're not sure how they feel about gender pronouns.
Focusing on questions that'll never have clear answers has been one of the best things to split apart power for reasonable and critical change. The little discussion that occurs seems to be around nebulous goals rather than concrete examples like housing, food, science.
Trump got more votes in 2020 than he did in 2016, and in both cases he got record numbers of votes (though fewer than his opponent). There are surely some people who left the party, but not a significant number. Not enough to make even a blip in the party's overall policy.
And honestly, I've got little sympathy for them if they really are drawing an equivalence between being called names, and a party who is on a path to re-nominate a candidate who conspicuously violated national security and spread conspiracy theories about the election. (The indictment is quite clear that he was told they were false.) They just don't seem even faintly on par, and it's frankly dishonest to suggest that the name-calling is Democratic policy.
Even most of what they supposedly believe about "small government" is partisan lies. The Republican party hasn't even pretended to make a significant cut in government spending. They just point at a few culture-war elements that amount to a rounding error, and then balk at actually authorizing debt for the massive programs their own budget calls for.
Right now those people have a choice of at least trying to make a difference -- either within the Republican party by insisting on the nomination of non-insane candidates, or by trying to transform the Democratic party. They'll find a lot more moderate Democrats who believe very similarly, and who are much closer to the levers of power than the most extreme elements who are the only ones that make Fox News. But right now it sounds like the people you refer to are heavily invested in partisan propaganda, even if they're not willing to actually vote for it.
The thing you're glossing over is that a lot of Trump voters weren't really voting "for" Trump so much as against Democrats. This also happens on the other side as well, most people I know that supported Biden only did so because he wasn't Trump.
Democrats have some policy positions that are troubling for a lot of voters. Gun control is a big one. Much of rural America will vote against Democrats every time just on that one issue alone. Also, defunding the police is unpopular with many voters. There are also many who have moral concerns about gender transition surgeries for minors or allowing biological males to compete in women's sports.
Also, the quality of Democrat candidates for 2016 and 2020 was very low.
Regardless of the opinion of the Democratic candidates, they were not literally criminals, and not obviously incompetent.
I don't particularly care if you voted for Biden only because he wasn't Trump. That seems like kind of the absolute bare minimum level of agreement -- one that tens of millions of Americans fell below. With it, we can at least pretend to hold a national conversation about policy issues you're discussing. Without it, the entire proposition of democracy appears to fall apart.
and accused of many more, additionally, indicted for over a dozen more.
His foundation was convicted of stealing from a cancer charity, his fake university defrauded students: "Donald Trump was found to have defrauded students, and was forced to pay $25 million in restitution." At this point, if you ask such a question, you are exposing yourself as either ignorant, a blind supporter, or a sea lion. This is not acceptable behavior and you should know it, just like Trump's behavior. Especially the highly documented criminal behavior related to Jan 6th and stealing classified documents, hiding them from investigators, lying about it, etc. At this point if you are not aware of this.....it appears that you have decided to be for whatever reasons you chose. It is time to reevaluate how/what you believe in.
Sorry to say but both of your sides are just bonkers. You've left any sense of centerism well behind. The left has 4 year olds going through gender reassignment surgery, and...well the right take your pick lol.
Now if it's the politicians driving people to be more extreme, or a more extreme population being reflected in politics, I don't know.
"The left has 4 year olds going through gender reassignment surgery..." Source? No one is performing surgery on children to reassign their "gender" last time I looked at any credible source. However, I would love to see where these claims come from and the facts that substantiate them.
As an immigrant: immigration is an area where the US is unique, or at least exceptional.
For a long time, the US has slurped up the top talent of the world, as well as cheap labor to support domestic industries like agriculture. Ironic that American “excellence” is about poaching excellence from elsewhere? Perhaps. Nobody wants to admit it, since it would mean “real Americans” don’t get special treatment for being born in the US and A. But all industries benefit, and politicians know this.
In Europe for instance, immigration has failed largely at talent acquisition. It has succeeded partially at the humanitarian goals, but at a large cost. In my experience, EU immigration policy has been more about safety than opportunity. It’s hard for low skilled immigrants to break into strongly regulated labor markets like in Western Europe, and at no fault of their own are instead supported by welfare systems. I don’t know if it’s a net-negative in absolute cost, but certainly in opportunity cost. It’s also raised a lot of anti-immigration sentiment.
That said, I think increasing inequality is transforming immigration also in America. The opportunity for poor (both immigrants and “native”) to move upwards with “hard work and dedication” is diminishing quickly. I think the current generation of immigrants won’t get such a big quality-of-life improvements as they used to.
Would your country allow an American to become a full citizen as easily as America does? Could their children (so long as they were born there) become whatever is your country’s equivalent to President is?
Our immigrants have no legal and very few practical limitations once they become legal citizens. The only exception I can think of is that you can only be President if you were born on US soil.
Our immigrants can, have, and continue to become highly successful. The cultural difference is that we acknowledge that nearly all of us are descended from immigrants.
> Our immigrants have no legal and very few practical limitations once they become legal citizens.
This is true in nearly every developed country. It would be puzzling if it weren’t. In the eyes of the law a citizen is a citizen, regardless of birth, in most of the developed world. The US is not unique in this way.
> Would your country allow an American to become a full citizen as easily as America does?
Yes, actually, although I will concede that the path to citizenship varies VERY substantially from place to place. I don’t think it’s true to say that the US is especially outstanding in how easy it is to gain citizenship.
It's much easier to become a UK citizen than an American. And yet that doesn't stop the ongoing socio-economical decline in the UK, from a world super power to the rejects of Europe.
If America has an edge, immigration isn't it. Probably it's geography and natural resources. A good comparison to make would be with Canada, a country with worse geography and less resources, but similar or even friendlier immigration policy.
pretty much this. Compared to even as recently as 140 years ago when the British empire was powerful, there are no empires vying for territory , unlike 400 + years ago, when there were at least a dozen empires and they all had a shot. Russia is having a hard time taking over territory, and China is much more isolationist compared to past empires.
What does all this have to do with senile monetary policy. Economic laws do not give a flying fuck about "culturally American".
And speaking of that - your fathers were so keen on that point that they had to intern Japanese Americans up to 3rd generation (stealing their property), segregate blacks etc. etc.
Climate will. The monetary system basically is up like that that by pulling itself by its bootstraps. Everyone keeps betting in a better future. What if that “better” need to be acknowledged by most players as worse?
Whenever someone cites the fact that there are millions of vacant homes across the US as evidence of either oversupply or an inequitable distribution, they're almost always misunderstanding that real estate has a "natural vacancy rate" of ~6%.
With real estate, there is inherently time in which it lays empty between tenants moving in and out or being sold. When a place like California has over a million of vacant homes, that still makes for a vacancy rate below the "natural vacancy rate"!
The other big category of vacant housing is in places that are depopulating due to lack of jobs. We could be giving decaying homes in the Rust Belt, but they'd be more of a liability to the new owner than anything else.
are short term rentals part of that 6 percent? Because I'm sure it's way more than that if you calculated homes vacant that do not have a permanent resident with at least a 6 to 12 month lease.
Honestly those calculations are always misleading in nature. There are 28 vacant units per homeless person in America, where are those 28 units, in what state are they? If housing in some abandoned part of Detroit was interesting then homeless people would not be pooling in Los Angeles.
It reminds me of the yearly "Jeff Bezos made 4 billions today" because Amazon had a good day or the (very Canadian) "Average Canadian is 100k in debt" (because they factor in mortgages). It's sensationalistic journalism that completely avoid any type of critical thinking because it's much easier to ignore all the rational explanations in the pursuit of clicks.
Those numbers always include houses vacant for any reason. Includes houses for sale, that need to be tourable, and houses that sold, that about to be occupied by new owners. Same applies for houses for rent.
And factor in how long it takes for someone to move out, the place to go on the market and the next person to move in. My city currently has about 5% vacancy rate. That means a given unit on average is empty about a month every two years. That alone can be reasonably eaten up just by people moving. This leaves very little room for choosing where to live and in what type of unit. We really need to be closer to 10%
This is a stupid metric trying to compare 2 unrelated things. An increase could mean a better housing supply or a drop in homelessness. A decrease could mean more homeless people or less rental turnover. It would be infinity with no homeless problem. Which way am I supposed to want this number to go?
Imagine thinking the world is going to collapse the same year we get extremely useful AI, Starship will likely circle the Earth, LK-99, huge leap in fusion global wind and solar grow faster than ever, incredibly low unemployment, massive GDP growth, plus a major prospect for curing cancer.
But it comes at the cost of destruction of the natural environment that supports us. Some of that is unavoidable in order to have progress. Much of it is just wasteful, stupid practices driven by selfishness & pursuit of short-term profit.
I hope humanity can cut that waste & move towards long-term thinking. Where personal interests are more or less inseparable from the interests of society as a whole. Improve society, the natural environment, and you (& all your loved ones) profit.
Well to throw it out there, I disagree with the article author's pessimism and most of your beliefs as well? I think AI is going to be a very very mixed bag and mostly encourage even more obnoxious behaviors/practices as it's adopted, I think starship is heavily overblown, LK-99 is interesting but looking to not be a superconductor, and while we've had leaps in fusion we're still 10-50 years from a a reactor.
The amount of mental gymnastics it takes to compare the US in 2023 to Rome post sacking in 410 AD is staggering. Stop reading when you see a mention of the "arc of history" is a generally good rule that I should have followed here.
the virality of this article and others, as well as careers and books built off it, suggests a large market and captive audience for such 'doom porn' even if factually dubious.
The "American Empire" ended with the Philippines' independence in 1946. It's easy to proclaim the demise of something that never actualy existed. The claim is always that America had this vast empire by using its power to influence the word economy and other countries decisions. But that isn't an empire. The evidence is that when these countries become more developed the "empire" immediately "collapses." So was that an empire? Certainly not a classical case of an empire. It seems like these people want there to have been an American Empire just so that they can say it collapsed.
On Rome, the issue of Rome wasn't that Romans were poor, far from it. The source of the Roman Emperor's power was by feeding Egyption wheat to the Romans.[0] If the author is looking for a cause to the fall of Rome, one explaination is that the people chose to exchange thier freedom for government subsidized food. They pretended that the Princeps ("first among the equals") had thier intrests in mind, while the system slowly eroded an collapsed over the course of 500 years. Over that time, the traditional Roman ethic of responsibilty, the one that made them reject Monarchy, was replaced by neglect and indifference. This said, boiling down the fall of the Roman Empire to one dimension is foolish anyway.
For a related but MUCH deeper dive into this subject, check out the book "The End of the World Is Just the Beginning: Mapping the Collapse of Globalization" by Peter Zeihan.
He has some interesting thoughts, and it's worth exploring his end of the spectrum but... I'd read in the same way you'd read "What if the Confederacy had won the Civil War".
It's a linear projection of the future ignoring basically all technological advances, market responses, or ability to work around logistical barriers. The world is just not that dramatic, and people mostly muddle through.
I think he under estimates the arrival of solutions based on economic pressure. He sights platinum as an example of extremely limited resources. I think if supplies are cut off new solutions will be found, and new mines. It’s just the best current mines are priced low enough further exploration isn’t sensible. Same with silicon production.
Oil production in the us is a good example of this. We slowef producing oil because costs were too high, and exploration wasn’t worthwhile. When costs caught up, new techniques were developed, and new fields were discovered.
>That general improvement, over the long haul, in the material conditions of people lends an arc to the human story. History is not cyclical, like the seasons of the year. Rather, history is the story of a fundamental inversion in progress. We are slowly graduating from top-down systems of political control to bottom-up systems. Like an iceberg rolling over in the open oceans, human society has been transiting from despotism toward democracy over the millennia.
Very much disagree.
He talked about Roman Empire's (and late Republic) massive inequality, but he forgot about Athens, where Western notions of democracy were born and strangled by kings and republics (then Emperors). We have had peasants republics in Dark Age Europe (Frisia, San Marino, even Venezia and Genoa and a dozen elective city-states).
In Asia, my tribe has had majestic maharajas that spun the entire region, who then retreated to their mountain refuges to rule as sacral kings, only to lose power to bottoms-up tribal and village councils that revolted into theocracy only to be subsumed into the colonial state.
Politics is downstream of culture and economics, not the cause of the latter.
There are several fundamental differences between a democracy in a nation and one at a workplace:
- Someone owns the workplace. No citizen owns the nation.
- If you don't like a workplace, you can switch to another, or start your own. You mostly can't do that with a nation.
- There's nothing preventing people from starting workplaces with a "democratic model" (and there are a few around). They just don't seem to work very well.
Ironically it was once much easier to change nations as well. Or, under some limited circumstances to even start your own. Hard borders are a relatively new thing taking into account the breadth of human history.
Accountant, developer for a few years, now bills himself as a “staff writer” on his own Substack.
I browsed the titles of his Substack. At one point he offhandedly asserts that Gloria Steinem was a CIA spook who had a role in undoing the New Deal. He asserts that the thesis of his blog is that we have become entrapped in debt by suppressing the truth of hallucinogens. To support his thesis he touches on everything from “the eternal feminine” to early Christianity to the Knights Templar to Karl Marx.
ChatGPT, please write something with the cultural theorizing of Jordan Peterson, the hallucinogen/conspiracy interests of Joe Rogan, and the debt/collapsarian virality of Zero Hedge.
The US has to fail or come close to it so that things can be reformed.
The ignorant right refuse to be educated and keep making decisions based on ignorance, fear and nonsense, decisions that can't be sustained and are at odds with the direction most of the country needs to go.
Something has to happen since friction keeps building, it has to erupt at some point.
This is such a poorly thought out essay I'm surprised to see it here. No citations to previous historians,m thinkers, philosophers, etc. until we get to Marx. And then this beauty:
> The less employers pay out in wages, the fewer consumers there will be for their products. This fundamental contradiction means there is a ticking countdown clock built into the capitalist system of production.
Yeah, because the people who lose their jobs to technology just sit there and never recover? No, luddite, new work is discovered. Technology boosts productivity.
> Top tax brackets were taxed at 95% during this period, which many Americans identify as a Golden Age.
WW2 had to be paid for. Let's avoid that again. There was a long period when we had little to no Federal income tax.
> The monetization of this debt, euphemistically referred to as “Quantitative Easing”, has been going on ever since
No it has stopped.
I love that the premise of this essay is in 100BC Rome had wealth inequality and it collapsed 500 years later. Yeah, imminent.
> The passage of old systems into the dustbin of history is a normal part of the millennia-long trend of gradual improvement that characterizes the human story. It’s inevitable.
LOL. I'm happy I didn't have a sip of tea in my mouth as it would be all over my screen right now.
> The central idea behind this System Failure newsletter is that we could have the kind of revolution were there is dancing in the streets and the cafes are open all night.
Yeah, so romantic. You mean the kind where millions of people suffer.
This essay, I can't believe it, was written but a human adult. This would be C level work in a Sophomore high school class. This person really needs to read a lot more philosophy and history and maybe layoff the Marx as clairvoyant thing. Especially when his main thing was shown empirically to be completely wrong.
These type articles are like the Marxist version of the Christian Rapture. I expect the same things to be written about the impending collapse of capitalism a thousand years from now.
I have my general reservations about this piece, but one thing the author does raise that isn’t commonly spoken about (perhaps because it’s taken for granted) is how credit affects the housing market.
Low interest rates correlate pretty directly with housing market booms.
> One month before the presidential election of 2008, the giant Wall Street bank Citigroup submitted to the Obama campaign a list of its preferred candidates for cabinet positions in an Obama administration. This list corresponds almost exactly to the eventual composition of Barack Obama’s cabinet.
That sentence isn't exactly warranted from the evidence. Citigroup submitted recommendations that happened to line up with reality, and they were sent to the Obama campaign, not the other way around.
This person has some serious misunderstandings about the world. That theres an inevitable progress happening organcially, that democracy gives people the ability to fold reality and make anything true, that money is a circle... It's all overarticulated communism and malthusianism. The truth is, our current governing system is collapsing, but not due to some hidden hand that guides us towards communism in the long run. It is due to something much more interesting and dynamic, the fact that people think they can organize chaotic systems without entropy occurring somewhere, basically the exact opposite of what the author thinks is happening, and the future looming over the horizon has much more potential for beauty than their one dimensional imagination can envision.
From what I can find, Rome (the city) ca. 100 AD had a population around 1 million; 5 million seems about right if you swap BC in for AD and the whole area ruled from Rome (60-75 million by 100 AD) in place of the city of proper.
The strongest argument is buried towards the end of the article and even then its not touched on directly.
Due to compound interest, our financial system requires exponential growth.
Exponential growth isnt possible in a finite world. Thats the fundamental contradiction woven into the fabric of our society.
Perfectly effective capitalists may be able to stave off government intervention till they own everything but at that point growth will basically cease.
> Exponential growth isnt possible in a finite world
Exponential growth in use of material resources isn't.
But exponential growth in wealth is, because a given quantity of wealth does not require a fixed amount of material resources to achieve. Efficiency improvements can continue to drive that quantity down.
The real strongest argument is one that the article does not even make (because it considers productivity gains to be a problem instead of a benefit): the huge productivity gains associated with technology improvment, drastically reducing the number of humans required to produce a given quantity of goods or services, should result in huge decreases in the price of the goods and services where the gains are made. For example, food production in the US today takes about 1 in 20 people; a century ago it was more like 19 in 20. That huge gain in efficiency should have resulted in a huge decrease in the price of food.
Why did this not happen? Because of governments manipulating the money supply. The effect of this is to transfer wealth to the financial system (banks and other financial institutions) from everyone else. A key way this shows up is that prices stay the same or even increase, even though productivity improves greatly. That is the fundamental problem woven into the fabric of our society: so many aspects of our economy are now dependent on government manipulation of the money supply that there is no easy way to stop doing it. But we have to stop doing it if we want ordinary people to gain the benefits of increased productivity.
> Exponential growth isnt possible in a finite world.
That the world and its resources are finite is irrelevant. You probably mean "finite economy". Resources and work done upon them may be the basis of cost, but the economy is not so tightly coupled to resources because cost is not equal to price. Price is whatever the market accepts.
If we have a finite economy you're not wrong about this, but you're omitting a few corollaries.
1) A finite economy implies a zero-sum game.
2) "Exponential growth" is only exponential for a window of time. Nothing lasts forever.
3) Bankruptcy exists. It's the safety valve that releases the pressure of compound interest.
So, for there to be exponential winners there must also be one or more losers. This allows for the growth you're skeptical of. You see this all the time on the stock market. "Growth" is most often money being moved around. Assume the trivial case where there's one "loser" and one "winner". If the loser is worth a lot more, a tiny drop in its value can be a massive win for the winner. If it keeps accelerating for a while it will look like "exponential growth" for the winner.
As for bankruptcy, that loss is someone's gain. The value can be recovered and growth at any rate can still occur. Just because the loser couldn't keep up with their debt doesn't mean their assets aren't enough to pay it back plus interest with different people driving.
Anyway, the total value of the world economy is not really finite. It doesn't go up just because of inflation, but also from new value being added. New value can be due to efficiency gains on work, not just the discovery of new resources. The rate at which new value is created is unpredictable though.
Whew ok final nail here: before modern capitalism, economic systems of the past definitely had these same properties and successfully operated in scarce environments before the industrial revolution. Shuffling money around to keep things afloat is not a new idea. It might be the oldest idea we've got and all modern economic systems have this in common. What you quoted from the article is not a strong argument against capitalism. It's an argument for anarchy.
Due to compound interest, our financial system requires exponential growth.
what if the exponent of exponential growth gradually approaches zero. technically it is still exponential. that possibility is often ignored. Japan for example has been able to sustain itself by gradually transitioning from red-hot growth in the 70s-80s to near zero growth.
How finite is the world? Where will we stop making efficiency gains? Is colonizing the solar system impossible?
Great breakthrough sound impossible till we make them. Yet, we have antibiotics, eradicated polio, invented the phone, the airplane and the internet and maybe soon the superconductor.
Oh man, another one of these "America is going to collapse or has collapsed" articles. The evidence shows the opposite: by almost every metric, the US is in a better position and stronger compared to the rest of the world, but also stronger on an absolute basis too such as real GDP, corporate profits, stock market gains, low unemployment rate, tech/innovation (such as electric cars, AI, etc.), etc. Even in regard to inflation or unrest, things are still worse elsewhere, such as protests in France, or even higher inflation in Germany, the UK, and Turkey. if America does collapse, it will only be after the rest of the world or conditional on the rest of the world collapsing too and likely first.
Anyone who has strong conviction otherwise of collapse can put up money right now and bet on such as outcome, such as with put options on the S&P 500 , or puts on the dollar , or shorting the S&P 500 and going 'long' foreign markets. Many have, and it put it bluntly, has ended badly.
> if America does collapse, it will only be after the rest of the world or conditional on the rest of the world collapsing too and likely first.
If other countries aren't positively affected by the positive picture you describe of the US (looks like they are negatively impacted), then why should they be negatively affected when, if, the US does indeed collapse? Shouldn't it be the opposite? They'll become positively impacted?
I think they are better equipped and better prepared in the events of a possible collapse of the US, or perhaps the USD
You describe a situation without taking into account nor caring about the events, then you draw a conclusion, that's unfair an disingenuous, COVID alone should have been an eye opener for the less pessimistic
COVID alone should have been an eye opener for the less pessimistic
Covid agrees with my thesis. the US pulled ahead of the rest of the world during and after Covid, in terms of GDP, stock market recovery, unemployment, etc. Other countries fared worse economically, had worse restrictions that lasted longer. China has still not recovered.
It doesn't, you completely ignore how much the FED have printed, you totally ignore how much more in debt the US is, and finally, you completely ignore how half of the world decided to ditch the USD and form a new global alliance called the BRICS+
It's easy to print money, the latency is probably very high, for how long can the US keep faking its metrics, with the USD loosing its global reserve status.. waking up will be difficult
> half of the world decided to ditch the USD and form a new global alliance called the BRICS+
Are you still talking about the Covid response? Not much actually changed since 2019 with the BRICS. Oops - I should say not much positive changed for the BRICS since 2019. Russia, though, got itself into a war that is causing massive economic damage.
So this looks like you're just throwing out a bunch of arguments, hoping something will stick in a reader's mind, but without much concern for reality.
> So this looks like you're just throwing out a bunch of arguments, hoping something will stick in a reader's mind, but without much concern for reality.
No, that's what you tried to do, all I did was to remind you of the events that led to today Monday August 7, 2023
If America does collapse, it will likely be for political reasons. Maybe the people in power will let it crash and burn for some misguided principle, or they will do something immensely stupid with unforeseen consequences. American economy is strong, and the society is robust enough, but there are serious risks due to the combination of dysfunctional politics and a high degree of centralization.
Economically we seem to have primed ourselves for a kind of crackup boom. One cycle from now, or mabe half, the relevant numbers may not add up anymore. Politics have exacerbated, and have not fixed, the math our nation is built on. If you hope in that moment of crisis politicians will ride to the rescue with a googleplex stimulus plan, this is precisely the problem.
> and the society is robust enough, but there are serious risks due to the combination of dysfunctional politics
Aren't America's dysfunctional politics evidence against the idea that "[American] society is robust enough"? Politics and society are not distinct entities in a democracy.
The US still has one fundamental superpower that the doomsday economists always fail to account for. The US can take immigrants from nearly anywhere in the world and within a generation, their children will become 100% culturally American.
There's no other country in the world that brings people into our culture the way Americans do. Is it perfect? Absolutely not.