China

Well a more equal world is in the economic interests of those nation, because it will allow them far greater power than they currently have. However a multipolar world is not in favor of the US as it will mean that there's greater competition. Greater competition means that USA has decreased political capabilities, way less influence in geopolitical matters, and a decreased ability to "protect American interests", we can already see this happening to an extent.

BRICs banding together amongst each other to create economic prosperity is the only means for these countries to increase their living standards, and so cooperation is incentivized.

Competition is a zero sum game for these countries, and they know that.

Here's an interesting article. http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/world/in-rday-mes...

Conflict creation for profit is something inherent to humans, not the West alone. We are predators, we eat bunnies, and because bunnies don't kill us in return, we think that it is ok.

For example, Spanish conquered South and Central America, but the people that lived there were not conflict free. In fact, if you compare Spanish with Mayans that will extract the heart out of their alive enemies, or their skin, Spanish were saints in comparison.

Spanish used the help of subordinates Indians to remove the people in power.

Let's not talk about China's History: it is probably as violent or more violent than the West's. For certain intrigues were way more sophisticated as central planning was way bigger.

We can mention Shaka Zulu, or Muslims in Africa.

The main difference was technology advancing so fast as to make non west people bunnies in comparison. Arrows against repetition rifles, or tanks and planes against horses.

I disagree with literally everything said in this article.

Virtually every point the author makes is based on false assumptions, inaccurate information, a misunderstanding or other fallacies.

I really, really didn't want to break it down point by point, and I still don't, but I'm going to tackle the most obvious ones. Keep in mind I don't get them all, there are more than what I list here. I've included sources for some of my claims at the bottom:

- "US growth has stagnated while Chinese growth has continued to do pretty well"

Sure, if you account for the fact that it's not organic growth. Their growth is meticulously planned and executed. They have entire ghost cities which still remain vacant. Approximately 64 million apartments and houses in China are empty and have never been lived in before. There was just an article on Forbes on how they're now starting to fall into disrepair.

China's growth isn't like any other countries' growth and shouldn't be compared as such. Their growth is hollow and empty. They're literally reporting what they want to attract investors and say "See how well we're doing?" That's not fortitude, it's something else.

- "there countries have surpassed our education system"

Public education or higher education? There's a huge difference. You can't lump them together, it's misleading to the point of being inaccurate. In terms of higher education, nobody beats the US. They house 7 of the top 10 ranked universities in the world. The UK has the other 3.

- "The historical track record of the largest economy being overtaken by another is not good."

Irrelevant. Prior examples are absolutely no comparison to the global economy of today. Back then, the "global" economy was non-existent. There were also no nukes, no internet and there wasn't a singular sole superpower. We're now in uncharted territory.

- "The US gets huge advantages from being the world’s largest economy"

It also has its own drawbacks which you don't even touch on. And it also became the largest economy in the world for a reason, because people trust the U.S and its dollar. People invest in the U.S because they see that the country, economy and currency has value and fortitude. Even during the last recession, the damage was minimal despite ignorant people predicting the dollar would vanish after the U.S economy crashes. The only way that would happen is if the country itself vanished, due to war or a large asteroid destroying the continent. Plenty of rich and powerful (non-American) people/entities/corporations have a vested interest in a stable global market. If only because it makes them more money. In the end, that's all that matters. Stability is almost always good for business. That's why the U.S dollar will never "crash and burn". Because the only person who wants it to are your prototypical libertarian anarchists still living with their mothers.

- "The current business model of the US requires the dollar to be the world reserve currency, though the Chinese currency is rapidly becoming a viable alternative. "

Any country that either manipulates or artificially keeps its currency low to help itself (As China does to keep its export market competitive) to the extent China does, will never hold the title of world's reserve currency. The biggest and most obvious issue is one of corruption and trust. Can you really trust China to act fairly with your billions/trillions? To not artificially screw with their currency and/or banks to benefit themselves? Of course not, China only cares about China. No major player is going to unpeg their currency from the dollar to go to a currency with less stability and more corruption. It's simply a lesser of two evils situation and the U.S has proven to be the go-to currency for years, weathering even the worst storms.

- "At some point, China will relax its currency controls, allowing trade and offshore investment to grow rapidly."

And causing their own economy to tank as their export market completely dries up as India or other southeast Asian countries pick up the slack. Adding to that is their populace demanding higher wages. They see what's out there, they too, want the latest Ipad. You can't have borderline slave labor forever. At some point, you have to advance and evolve. And when the export market dries up, so will the jobs. When the jobs dry up, well, you know what happens...

- "whether or not it’s possible for one country to remain as powerful as another with four times as many people."

Using your logic, you shouldn't be talking about China, but instead India. They're set to overtake China. China is also going to experience what's known as the China Crunch sometime around 2030 (due to their 1 child policy).

- "The US should try very hard to find a way to grow faster."

Growing for the sake of growing is dumb. You're spending resources, time and energy on something that really, ultimately doesn't mean anything. We're not playing a game and there's no final score when the game ends. We should instead focus on bettering ourselves as a nation. If that means we grow as a side-effect, so be it. If it means we shrink, then that's ok too.

I think my father said it best, stop worrying about what everyone else is doing and worry about yourself.

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/nobodys-home-the-ghost-cities-...

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/oct/02/world-t...

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/21/news/economy/india-china-fas...

Hence the need to separate the concepts of culture and race, rather than using them interchangeably the way we do now.

All of that also seems true of the US. Everyone wants a "leadership" role, either in government or in the private sector as CEOs or management in general, and even schools nurture students into "leadership" more than "science". Even in Silicon Valley, engineers and scientists don't enjoy the highest status (founders are above them, and VCs above that).

Arguably, the only place in the US where scientists are on the top of the food chain (or close to) is academia.