This is a possible scenario by ~2040: Centralized China vs International India. Surveillance state vs decentralized digital diaspora. Two rising powers, with very different cultures.
The US may be like the declining British Empire, whose dominance in 1913 was gone by 1945.
The conventional wisdom is that we are gearing up for a multi-decade conflict between the US and China.
But what if the US gets KO’d in the first round, by military defeat abroad and inflation at home, followed by civil conflict and/or a national divorce?
There’s another 1st round KO possibility, which I mention for the sake of completeness. Garside’s book “China Coup” makes the case that Xi could be felled by his internal enemies (possible!) and that this will lead to democratization (IMO implausible). washingtonpost.com/outlook/unreal…
The naive anti-China take is the idea that their navy is or will remain weak, that they’re an economic house of cards, that they’ll fall in a ditch. Cope, IMO.
The smarter version is that there are pressure points around leadership itself. That’s also the Longer Telegram thesis.
As a sci-fi scenario, let’s assume the 1st round US KO happens. The US loses to CCP on Taiwan, then sees a global run on the dollar, along with domestic unrest.
After all, fiat currency is backed by men with guns, so the dollar’s strength is tied to perceived military might.
After the dust settles, the century may then shape up.
The 1st Cold War between the US & Russia was tank against tank, plane against plane. Symmetric.
This 2nd Cold War between China and Indians + world (not India per se) may be centralization vs decentralization. Asymmetric.
The global conflict of capitalism vs communism, US vs USSR, was political and geographic. Who controls what territory?
The global conflict of centralization vs decentralization, China + tributaries vs Indians + allies, may be digital and economic. Who runs what networks?
People aren’t really gaming out how to protect liberal values in a world where the US military loses to CCP & the dollar fails. It’s just assumed this will never happen.
But the strength of the Chinese superstate in that scenario will be immense. Many would bend the knee.
Btw, on a 20 year timeframe, robotics may erode China’s manufacturing advantage, and drones may do the same to China’s military advantage — turning both into software.
Their ban on decentralized backends may even put them behind from a cybersecurity standpoint, in the long-term.
Just as the UK handed things off to the culturally adjacent US, the dark horse scenario is that democratic India and its diaspora need to become the global champion of liberal values, relative to China, if America descends into anarchy.
The various versions of the elephant graph show the phenomenon of the ascending and descending class.
Roughly speaking, most of the world along with the global elite has been economically gaining in recent years, while the Western middle class has not. brookings.edu/research/whats…
Sean McMeekin's latest tour-de-force makes a strong case that Stalin should be thought of as the main actor in WW2 — not Hitler or the US. amazon.com/dp/B08F6Z72Q4
One angle he goes into that I hadn't seen elsewhere is that the Soviets *wanted* the Japanese and Americans to fight.
Makes sense, given the Russo-Japanese War of 1905 and the 1939 Soviet/Japanese war in Manchuria! But not that widely discussed. thediplomat.com/2012/08/the-fo…
He unearths some amazing quotes, which of course make sense, but are a new angle on things.
Even under Lenin, the Soviets *wanted* the Japanese to fight the Americans, and the Euros to fight each other. Then they'd roll in and install communism. Which is kind of what happened...
This list has many omissions, of course, but it's directionally accurate. And illustrates a few things.
1) You don't need a US visa to make it anymore. 2) Billionaires will exist no matter what the US government does. Millionaires too. 3) Asia isn't the future, it's the present.
Therefore slogans like "billionaires should not exist" or "every billionaire is a policy failure" actually stem from an outdated American chauvinist view of the world.
No US policy can now stop the founders of the world from finally rising. Because wealth is decentralizing.
Oh, so you think the founder of a huge company might know something? Their success was survivorship bias. Dumb luck! As we all know, Zuck just flipped a coin and this datacenter appeared.
This is in response to the common trope that successful entrepreneurs were just "lucky". There are so many micro-decisions involved in building a company that it'd be quite a trick to simply random walk your way to infinity.
Chance certainly plays a role in many contests, and to a greater degree in investing than entrepreneurship, but to even be in the game in the first place requires some skill.
Put another way: missing one shot is luck, being in the NBA after making many shots is skill.
We're transitioning from fiat information — it's true because this august institution said so! — to cryptoinformation, which is truth anyone can computationally verify.