Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 8 hours ago, 4 minutes later, 46 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,422,152
@previous (D)
World War Two. Hitler killed a lot of Jews and now the Europeans feel bad but they still like having a little country the Jews can leave Europe and settle in.
Anonymous E double-posted this 8 hours ago, 1 minute later, 48 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,422,153
If you really look into it, and by really look into it I mean just think about it for 5 minutes, the world order is due to World War Two. Why is the US the most powerful and wealthiest country? After World War Two almost half of the global economy was just the United States alone, because Africa was under European control, Europe destroyed Europe, America destroyed Japan, Japan destroyed China, we had no competition.
Anonymous E replied with this 8 hours ago, 50 seconds later, 50 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,422,155
Then the second largest economy for some time was the USSR. Then they fell off, there was a good chunk of time when nobody challenged us. And then China had the audacity to start making money and not be white. Now we have to throw a fit!
Anonymous E replied with this 8 hours ago, 8 seconds later, 55 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,422,159
@1,422,157 (D)
The US really hasn’t declined, it’s only gotten better over time. It’s just the world economy has been growing faster than the US economy so we went from 40% to 25% of the global economy, but we’re still only 4% of the population, and if you compare the GDP of say Africa to the United States and compare population, all of us here in America could survive with way way less money. So really we’re actually all just being massive massive bitches.
Anonymous E replied with this 8 hours ago, 0 seconds later, 56 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,422,162
@1,422,158 (D)
I actually don’t think China is that much of a threat. If you want to counter China, India is a democracy, they have more people than China, if we just invested in India the way we invested in Japan and we let India be the most powerful democracy we’d have nothing to worry about. But Americans are racist so that won’t happen.
> The US really hasn’t declined, it’s only gotten better over time.
The number of work hours it takes to buy a home, pay for college, or cover medical expenses has all gone up.
That's a decline, wouldn't you agree? And it's worse when you realize the US has 4x the wealth per person it did 50 years ago.
Standards of living shouldn't go down when there's more wealth.
This isn't about civil rights either, you can agree with the progress there and still see the problem with people having less material resources for their work.
> It’s just the world economy has been growing faster than the US economy so we went from 40% to 25% of the global economy, but we’re still only 4% of the population, and if you compare the GDP of say Africa to the United States and compare population, all of us here in America could survive with way way less money. So really we’re actually all just being massive massive bitches.
None of that explains why housing, education, or healthcare should become less affordable.
Anonymous E replied with this 8 hours ago, 45 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,422,166
Also if you look at birth rates, China’s population will decline much more rapidly than India’s. So India won’t be a little bit bigger than China 50 or 100 years from now, it will be a lot bigger than China. Africa is the only part of the world that’s projected to grow population-wise for the next century. Which I think it’s such a big mistake the far right is anti black and brown people. Nigeria could actually surpass the United States in population. It would be better if we encourage democracy in Africa because the Chinese for example don’t really care if African countries are democratic or not, but they’re building infrastructure anyway. Given that Africa already has a history of being colonized by the west, it wouldn’t be that hard for China to prop up anti western populists. So far Russia has been doing that rather successfully in the Sahel region. Trump bombed Nigeria which is stupid because Nigeria has been the most against those anti western regimes.
All that stuff can be explained by greed. People are just charging more money, but it’s not a real crisis in that, if they just built more houses, housing would be less expensive. But they’re not doing that because they want money. That’s just a flaw with a capitalist economy.
It's not racist to think countries compete for power and resources, it's just the way the world works.
Russia is white, but the US had bipartisan concern about their power before the USSR collapsed, and there's still many people worried about their influence.
This theory would make sense if history was peaceful and the only concerns were non-white.
Anonymous E replied with this 8 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,422,169
@previous (D)
Well, I never said it was racist to think that countries compete. I was implying that it would be to the advantage of the United States to let India surpass us economically because India has the population to compete with China and we don’t, so if we go head to head with China we’ll lose, but if India was as wealthy as we are and they did, they would win and we would survive.
More people doesn't translate to more of an advantage.
They have more workers, but they also have more people to feed, house, and educate. And in a democracy policies are only going to be reliably good if most people are well-educated.
There's a point to be made about H-1B visas for Indian talent moving to the US since that's where the infrastructure already is though.
Anonymous E replied with this 8 hours ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,422,176
@1,422,173 (D)
More people does translate to more advantage in the long term. China’s population growth stopped much earlier than India's due to the one child policy. If you look into it, India’s economic growth isn’t equal to but is near what China’s economic growth was during their economic miracle. China sustained 10% economic growth every year for 30 years. Right now India is hovering between 7% and 8% growth. They actually could catch up to and surpass China. That’s actually a very real possibility.
Look at those countries, and google what the rate of growth is for each country that has a GDP larger than India and compare it to India. It’s a lot more reasonable than most people think it is that India could be the next China.
Eradication of diseases would make that way more possible. Yeah when nature is still killing you, democracy isn't a top priority, and without strong institutions, dictatorships are very unstable
Anonymous E replied with this 8 hours ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,422,182
The problem with Africa is simply that they’re having too many children for their countries to develop. They have some of the worst dependency ratios in the world because there are so many children who don’t work relative to adults who do work due to high birth rates.
However, when their birth rates do fall below replacement sometime in the 2100s, by then Africa will have 4 billion people and Nigeria will be larger than the United States, so they really could become very economically competitive.
Anonymous E triple-posted this 8 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,422,184
It might seem tempting to try to get Africans to have fewer children, but we actually shouldn’t do that. You can force people to have fewer children but you can’t force them to have more children. China made that mistake and it made them wealthier in the short term but in the long term it will be hard for them to sustain their country when couples have one kid on average. Since Africa is so diverse it’s very unlikely that any individual policy in any individual Africa nation will mess up Africa’s demographics trajectory for all African nations. So I think this is very likely that Africa will be successful in the future and will probably stay that way for much longer than China.
Anonymous E quadruple-posted this 8 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,422,185
Then if you factor in the decline of populations in North America (if immigration doesn’t continue), Asia, and Europe, I think Africa in the long term might not have the same limitation that Asia had where Japan and China almost challenged the west but didn’t quite make it. I think Africans might actually succeed at changing that order.