This more or less guarantees winning on the very longer run.
You still have gradual decay, which can unfold over centuries, and that is ok, but that is cyclical and you rise back in a century or so.
The real issues with the US/West is wars, too many of them. Even if the dollar standard guarantees a money printer. Its not exactly free. Triffin dilemma de-industrializes your country. Your politics has too much ego to stop fighting. In the meanwhile you lose industry, stability, time and just don't have focus for things that matter. Somebody who is more sane wins in the meanwhile.
UK really needed to build more industries instead of fighting WW1/2. Its a shame that Churchill won above Chmaberlain/Halifax. You get the fake thrill of winning a war, you shouldn't have even gone into, destroyed yourself fighting, all for some fake sense of bravado which led to your disaster.
If things go South for US from here. George Bush will likely have the same standing in history.
tl;dr- If you are winning, keep it that way, and don't fight wars.
Say again? If we're talking strictly about the United States as per the article that inspired this post, the U.S. is a case study of a prosperous, remarkably stable democracy steadily increasing its prosperity, wealth, influence and power while also for the vast majority of its history investing for the long term and in vital infrastructure. This process hasn't been constant or evenly incremental but it has been there for (now) literally centuries.
The same could be said of Britain and many other developed countries on shorter but still reasonably long scales. On the other hand when you look at dictatorships in the wider scope of the modern era, the vast majority of them either invest explosively only to fail catastrophically at some point before reverting to some other variant of government, or countries that see their biggest failures happen during periods of dictatorship, and their major socioeconomic successes happen during periods of something at least approaching democracy and openness.
There are exceptions to the above tendencies in favor of democracy, but China can't yet be called such. It has had only 80 years under its present dictatorship (preceded by decades of warlord rule, weakness and chaos) and of those only the last 40 have been ones of relatively stable growth, investment in major projects AND concurrent increases in prosperity. Under Mao it invested in certain major projects, but at nearly cataclysmic social, economic and human cost. Hardly a model, in those days, of dictatorship being applied to patient, wise planning.
>Concerning the USA, the divide between the extra rich and the general poor is nowadays too large to have a functioning country.
Really? Feel like sharing the mechanism by which these claims of overly severe wealth inequality will make the US collapse any time soon?
Note also that as another comment above this mentions, the U.S has had more or less similar levels of said inequality for the last 100 years.... in which it functioned as a stable, relatively peaceful, democratic, increasingly prosperous society in which overall standards of living in absolute terms have gone up enormously.
This is not what it said. It said it was about the same 100 years ago. It improved for a long time before going back up.
Accepting "the purpose of a thing is what it does" is important for these times. So is avoiding the epistemic traps of disingenuous actors.
50 years ago? Perhaps some of what you describe applied, in very limited form and only if you view a small segment of the media/political landscape with extremely rose-tinted glasses, but go read more of U.S media history to see how completely off base you really are.
Media in the United states has spent most of its history being absolutely saturated with extremely yellow, scandal-mongering political hack journalism of the absolute most dishonest kind you can imagine (yes even in the age of social media). This was the case throughout the 19th century, the whole early part of the 20th century and it certainly applied 50 years ago, which would be roughly the late 60's to the 70s.
Overall, i'd say you have no idea at all of what you're talking about and pulled this funny notion out of nowhere for the sake of forcing an alarmist point.
For decades the vast majority of those who even knew Trump existed were aware from the beginning he was a fake and it was just so curious to watch him take the pratfalls that he set himself up for. He only became widely known because he was such a complete failure compared to ordinary businessmen, and he would not shut up about how successful he was, it just emphasized how much he didn't have a clue and he was all PR. It was so cringeworthy people could not help but notice. Some things never change.
But under those media conditions he was merely a comic figure for the longest time. Bragging about how rich he is when he's actually bankrupt in more ways than one.
It just wouldn't have been very easy to build critical mass among people who would be willing to take him the least bit seriously. Especially about anything concerning money.
Now it's too late.
I get that the establishment also sometimes does good things like create the EPA but it seems like those good things only ever happen after there's a huge amount of public screeching and that the default behavior is for the establishment to wage war and enrich itself.
The establishment should not be in bed with the media IMO. While the current fragmented media landscape is causing turbulence in the short term it is a good thing in the long term IMO.
Today at least, if anything, people have access to a vast plurality of views that despite many of them being absurdly mistaken at least through the mechanism of their existence let massive cracs rapidly open in any official or propagandist narrative. On the whole, this is what major media truly hates, while couching its complaints in fear mongering about misinformation.... Much of that fear mongering surged especially strong during the recent pandemic, while media at the exact same time promoted several major official narratives that were obviously politically motivated rather than being based on any thing resembling solid editorial standards.
Maybe he tried?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverside_South,_Manhattan#Tel...
America's political class got complacent and lazy, and forgot that they have to sell what they were pushing to the American people. They never even FOUGHT the battle of ideas. As they age out/get pushed out new Ben Franklin with their own printing press types will rise.
people with enough skill and compatible mindsets need no management, they care, they will innovate, improve, repair
if the structure is at odds with that, they will ask to compensate the pain by large salary bumps because pleasure is turned into pain
They didn’t import millions of poor people to do all the dirty or unpleasant jobs in their countries.
Seemed almost like an elephant in the room for a minute there.
But looking back, was it a market "correction" or maybe just a rug-pull?
You probably had to be there.
But we knew there was nothing like it until the 1970's.
So many of the people who had lived through 1929 were still alive.
Unless you were quite fortunate in the early 1970's, you would realize that 2008 was a non-event by comparison.
There was the same amount of inequality a century ago in the US, so what happened at that time.
Suffice it to say that the debacle presents circumstantial evidence that "rich with not too much effort" might encourage dangerously laissez faire behavior.
Just boring right wing poltics paid for by russian rubles.
I asked who is "they" from this sentence.
Galadriel. She would be a great and terrible queen. All would love her, and despair.
> People that don't know any history?
For some reason, I find that people who accuse others of not knowing history tend to be the most ignorant of it themselves. History buffs don't seem to be walking around telling other people they "don't know any history". Just an observation.
For an example of a benevolent dictator, look at King Leopold II of Belgium, the Builder King. Loved by his people. Created the Royal Trust, donating a most of his properties to the Belgian nation. Brought culture and prestige to Belgium.
For an example of the atrocities of a malevolent dictator, look at King Leopold II of Belgium. The butcher of the Congo. Unbelievable exploitation and atrocities committed under his rule.
Or look at Ashurbanipal, the last "Great King" of Assyria, who built one of the greatest libraries in history; a collection of human knowledge surpassed in the ancient world only by the Library of Alexandria. And a genocidal maniac who spent months not just pillaging and raping opposing cities long after they had been defeated, but destroying any trace of the people who lived there, salting the land, and seeding the ground with weeds so that it would be impossible to ever re-build.
A wise builder-king with the power and drive to make the nation and world a better place for all its people would absolutely be the best government humanity has been able to achieve so far. Checks and balances are a necessity for a functioning government, but they do bog things down.
My point, of course, is that this is completely counter to human nature, and has (almost?) never been achieved, even in those times that it appears that it has.
Except for 99.9% of those millennia, humanity had very different challenges than it does today. One of the biggest being effective communication between people. There's a reason the U.S. constitution talks about sending delegates to Washington D.C. Another being an abundance of basic necessities that simply did not exist when Voltaire was writing. Increased globalization, vast changes in technology, bitcoin, AI, automation, social media, etc. Why would you assume political theory from even 100 years ago holds up in the face of all those differences?
And political theory, like history, tends to be written by the victors. What percent of all laws ever written were about maintaining the status quo for the people currently in power? It's a lot; I wouldn't be surprised if it's over 90%.
There's no reason to believe that humanity has "figured government out" by now. There's still plenty of room for experimentation in what works best in today's world. For example, why can individuals not collectively draft legislation, in the same way they can draft Wikipedia articles or open-source software? What would it take to make that happen?
And come on, "Galadriel" and some mythical pharaoh? This is your argument-viable examples? I think a little too much fantasy is overtaking your thoughts; you might want to switch to non-fiction for a few months to balance yourself out.
And a dictatorship. Democracy does not fit very well with long term plans, unless you either make huge efforts to ensure everyone gets their fair share (see Scandinavia) or you have a good plan for people being rich with not too much effort (see Switzerland and other tax havens).
Concerning the USA, the divide between the extra rich and the general poor is nowadays too large to have a functioning country.