You're right, from the point of view of Americans it is OK to influence every aspect of life in other countries, but if the reverse occurs it is the end of the world. Given that China is quickly becoming the richest country of the world, it is just normal they will have more and more influence in American society, just looking from the economic point of view. Consider for example how Japan started having a cultural influence around the world in the 80s. The same will happen with China.

China is quite far from being the richest country in the world by any measure.

You can fool yourself as long as you want. Just stop reading the news.

I look at the underlying data. The news is full of excitable suggestion because that gets attention.

China's managed to lift a huge number of people out of poverty and deserves credit for that. They did it at a terrific cost in human life and rights and they deserve opprobrium for that, in particular for the continued and now increasing level. We have plenty of examples from history that such an approach is not sustainable.

Regardless, if you look at the numbers the odds of significant further growth are dubious. China remains quite poor on per capita GDP, even on a PPP basis it is in the lower half of countries. It has an enormous unemployment problem, and a huge demographic overhang. Corruption, false statistics, and cronyism remain dominant in the economy and government, more reminiscent of a small state than a massive one, and all of which make it very difficult to manage large shocks.

I'm not saying the PRC is some benign kumbaya entity. But they have deep structural weaknesses that are not discussed much because it's more useful to various people to point elsewhere.

> China remains quite poor on per capita GDP, even on a PPP basis it is in the lower half of countries.

This is exactly why China has such a huge growth ahead. Just to get to the level of countries like Australia this will make their economy several times the size of US.

China’s population is already too old and their total fertility rate decline too steep for the growth you’re arguing for to occur.

By the way, US fertility rate is 1.63, far lower than the replacement rate of 2. This means that the US is also under a generational population decline.

China’s official fertility rate is 1.7, but there is evidence they’re (of course) lying about the data and it’s closer to 1.3 [1]. The US can support a lower total fertility rate with immigration and its existing wealth and dollar reserve status. China cannot.

[1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/11/04/china-one-child-policy-...

Yeah it doesn't help there's like a 1:3 female to male ratio, even if they wanted to meet replacement rate, thanks to one child policy incentivizing parents get abortions or committing infanticide until they had a son, they don't have enough wombs to go around. A lot of angry desperate young males though, which is causing different societal problems, kidnappings of females from other countries, etc.

This cuts both ways. The problem is that the US is already developed and the lower fertility rate will only keep up what they have. China has a lot of people who are, in this generation, coming out of poverty, and this will continue for decades, until the possible downsides of fertility show up.

Moreover, the US is changing its immigration policies exactly at the moment they need it most, which seems to be another tragic mistake.

Certainly not as old as Europe, so they'll probably get at least to that level.