geopolitics

Hot take: Greenland's Masterstroke. Greenland agrees to voluntarily join the United States on the condition of immediate statehood. It then uses that leverage to push the US government towards more sane governance, including the impeachment of Donald Trump, the reinstatement and strengthening of institutional guardrails, and the repair of ties with the EU. Once those objectives are achieved, Greenland then secedes, gaining full independence with the consent of a future US administration.

For the next 100+ years, every American gen will be worse than its precedessor. There's a strange American exceptionalism that believes that the US is uniquely positioned to be great forever. Likewise, there's this immaturity that takes it for granted that every generation ought to live better than its parents' generation. The sentiment, "my parents could afford to buy a house after working just for a few years and it's impossible now."

I would argue that America's superpower status is a temporary condition of history. The US gained access to an extraordinary rich geographic  land mass from the native tribes unlike Europe and Asia. And it was 2nd order country until really the late 1800s/early 1900s. The devastation caused by WWII allowed the US to become the sole superpower.

But there's absolutely no inherent reason why it would stay that way.

When we say we're the best and a superpower too, we're mostly talking about economic indicators to measure progress. Versus say education, health care, gun violence, mental health (anxiety, depression, medication use), obesity, physical health, suicide rates, and so on which have been getting worse over time.

A lot of the wealth generated in the past 50-80 years could have been reinvested into the commons but instead was kept by the wealthiest families and institutions. And I don't see any reason why they would willingly cede that power or invest it back into society.

Having said all this, it's likely true that the US will continue to still have a high standard of living RELATIVE to other countries. 

But unless some radical social/economic changes are made like UBI, I'd expect the average American family will continually have a worse livelihood, health, education, etc. than their parents for the foreseeable future. But, there will still be the wealthy class that will get to reap the majority of benefits.

All over-generalizations are harmful, even this one. How can we achieve brevity in communication without clinging to oversimplified models of the world?

China's Economic Slowdown: Challenges, Debt, and an Uncertain Future. This excellent video explores China's economic challenges, particularly its slowing growth, increasing debt, and the risks associated with these trends. Despite expectations that China would become the world's dominant superpower due to its rapid economic rise, issues such as economic mismanagement, deflation, and high debt levels are creating significant problems. The country's debt crisis, fueled by heavy borrowing for infrastructure and real estate projects, is especially concerning, as it's tied to unsustainable growth expectations.

The housing market in China, reliant on speculative investment and inflated property prices, is a key driver of the country's economic issues. Additionally, China is facing increased internal unrest, particularly among younger workers, and a significant reliance on state-owned companies that have been over-leveraged.

While these problems are concerning, experts argue that an outright collapse of China's economy is unlikely due to its financial safeguards and global influence. However, China’s rise to dominance may have plateaued, and its future remains uncertain. The country's economic future will have significant implications for the global economy, but it's unclear whether it will stabilise, stagnate, or eventually surpass the U.S. economically.

Despite the severity of China's economic challenges, many experts believe that a total collapse is improbable. Rather, China's economic slowdown will likely lead to a period of stagnation and reform, with possible long-term adjustments to its economic structure. However, it's clear that the expectations surrounding China's dominance have not materialised, and its future is now filled with uncertainty.

The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, probably via use of the word "optics" ;) . I've been reading the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (abridged*, of course, at least to start with!). New to the topic, and I’ve never identified as a history buff, but I’m really loving it. I wanted to write a short post about it, but couldn’t quickly figure out how to say what I wanted briefly, so here’s a long one!

It feels like a bird's-eye view of modern politics, in many ways, but especially regarding "The American Experiment." I'm sure this comparison isn't new--it's probably a huge part of what makes Decline and Fall popular today, despite being published in 1776. Since there's a whole trope about Rome buffs, I imagine many of you have hashed over all this a ton previously.

The early part of Decline and Fall starts with how amazing Rome was. Of course, it built on other civilizations and governments that came before it, but I think we these days have a hard time imagining just how surprisingly modern it would seem to us, if we were transplanted to the Roman Empire in its heyday. Of course we have tons of hard tech they didn't. But on the social level, I think a lot of it would feel spookily familiar. (I’m sure the author and I are both missing or leaving out huge ways it’s different. But I think there’s still a lot we can learn from it.)

Widespread assumption of and dedication to: rule of law, trial by peers, market-based economy. And somehow the start of the Roman Empire manifested a deep dedication among citizens and leaders to a Republic as the form of government. No nepotism, no monarchy, no might makes right. Government of the people, by the people, for the people, at least in spirit--my sense is people and government and military were all aligned in their dedication to that spirit. 

And peace! Peace, for centuries, throughout a huge swath of the known world, where that hadn’t happened before. There was a kind of national religion they inherited from the Greeks, but they seem to have been even more dedicated to religious tolerance than to their religion (prior to Constantine and the Christians taking over). Sure, there was kind of constant fighting on the edges of the empire, including always against the pesky Gauls and German barbarians, who really hated the idea of being part of the big empire. But mostly, and especially compared to times before in much of Europe, you could live safe in your home with your family, for generations even, protected by law-abiding and law-enforcing local authorities, backed up by the Roman army when needed, truly answerable to the people through the representation of the Senate, such as it was, and it was pretty great as far as I can tell. 

Now, the bird's-eye view of the modern USA comes in when, generation after generation, leader after leader, eventually monarch after monarch, the common-knowledge shared dedication to being a Republic and to all the ideas above, faded over time. First, one or two leaders came along who had enough sway over the army and enough popularity with the people that they were able to, against the grain of all Republic dedication, declare themselves effective leaders of the empire. First humbly, as first-among-many. Then with time, openly and pompously. Then with more time, it became obvious to everyone that the Republic was only a Republic in name, that it was just obviously "the way things worked" that the army effectively got to decide who became emperor, and that as soon as the army switched loyalties, you'd better be ready for a change, including probably a bunch of people getting killed for being on the wrong side. 

The thing about Decline and Fall, wrt this kind of degradation, is you get to read real human stories of this happening, again, and again, and again, and again. The same patterns, the different humans with unique circumstances playing them out. 

Why did the dedication to the original ideals degrade with time? I think the same natural processes, and lack of opposing processes, have led the US and myriad other democracies down similar paths over time. People and groups learn to subvert the system to get more of what they want in the short term, sacrificing the common-knowledge dedications and ideals that support the good things they have in the world. They pay less attention to the whole than is needed to maintain it. 

I'll name what I see today as one instance of roughly this kind of degradation, and I hope it's a little spicy. I have been part of many, many conversations in organizations where, when discussing some strategic question for the organization, the word "optics" comes up. For the uninitiated, the word "optics" in this context means: people could see what we're doing and have interpretations of it. We don't want those interpretations to have bad consequences for us. So let's be sure to include in our strategizing some component of consideration for trying to get people's impressions (the public, journalists, stakeholders, or etc) to be at least neutral. I can understand that. But I want to live in a world where we're creating the whole we want, not mostly attempting to persuade or convince or if nothing else not be noticed by parts of society that IMO we ought to relate to as peers. If we all practice distrusting our peers' sense-making processes in this way of strategizing about "optics", we'll all end up with a society with worse and less sense-making. So what do I want instead? I want us to take actions with integrity. Yes to being aware of our reputation (individually, organizationally, etc) and acting with integrity.

(*The abridged version I landed on, after some back and forth about versions with Claude, is the Womersly version. I love it. You get 100-200 pages of the above, which was just right for this first-timer.)

#DeepTakes

Is it because of national security or something else? A bit of rant... with a desire to understand what's actually happening...

From the reviews I've seen on Chinese EVs, they're super cool and seemingly more affordable. But they're not sold here in the US. Google tells me that it's because of security concerns - i.e. over the air updates that could stop the cars from working or they could secretly be listening on our conversations. 

But what I don't get is that Volvo, although a Swedish brand, is now owned by a Chinese conglomerate (since 2010). You can buy a Volvo so easily here in the States. Why are there no concerns about national security? And Chinese EVs can be purchased in the UK. Are they not concerned about security?

What's actually at play here?

What do you need from a candidate to convince you to vote for them? For me by far the most important thing is geopolitics. Given that America is the world police and is largely responsible for keeping world maritime trade routes open (on which the entire world economy rests - including the US economy), it is shocking to me how much people focus on internal things like crime, abortion, gun control (all of which are very important, but pale in comparison to the whole planet imo).

I think America has done a good job of leading the world in the last 70 years despite also messing up many times, I struggle to think of any other power that could have done better. I’m very set on voting for Harris, but I hope to find out in this debate that she and her VP are better than I expect, and hopefully not worse than I expect.

Wow, they switched from Israel to Helene really abruptly. That was disorienting for me. I thought we were just getting started on Israel

What do you need from a candidate to convince you to vote for them? For me by far the most important thing is geopolitics. Given that America is the world police and is largely responsible for keeping world maritime trade routes open (on which the entire world economy rests - including the US economy), it is shocking to me how much people focus on internal things like crime, abortion, gun control (all of which are very important, but pale in comparison to the whole planet imo).

I think America has done a good job of leading the world in the last 70 years despite also messing up many times, I struggle to think of any other power that could have done better. I’m very set on voting for Harris, but I hope to find out in this debate that she and her VP are better than I expect, and hopefully not worse than I expect.

What do you need from a candidate to convince you to vote for them? For me by far the most important thing is geopolitics. Given that America is the world police and is largely responsible for keeping world maritime trade routes open (on which the entire world economy rests - including the US economy), it is shocking to me how much people focus on internal things like crime, abortion, gun control (all of which are very important, but pale in comparison to the whole planet imo).

I think America has done a good job of leading the world in the last 70 years despite also messing up many times, I struggle to think of any other power that could have done better. I’m very set on voting for Harris, but I hope to find out in this debate that she and her VP are better than I expect, and hopefully not worse than I expect.