CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
America should try to have 1 billion citizens as a way to compete with China
One Billion Americans is a Book by Matthew Yglesias. I try to put some of his arguments in my own words for your debate!
1) Initial Cost:
Zero dollars. Get the quantity that liberals want, but let conservatives run it. We can tax immigrants higher. They won't mind. If they are making 5 times their salary they could make in the other country, then we will tax them more. If they don't want to, they don't have to. Lets do all the low hanging fruit first. The English speakers, the people with skills that we need.
2) Timeline:
We would grow between 2.5% over the next 50 year, or 5% over the next 25 years.
3) The zones to be designated for the influx of some 600 million people:
We would try to move them as much as possible to the dying towns and cities all across America.
4) From where would you draw your immigrants?
Liberals chose the quantity, conservatives chose the qualifications in order to get a real compromise. The goals is American power, not charity. We can also do charity, but that is not the prime goal. We can debate what will result in the most benefit to America, but we would like to brain drain evil places. The goal would be to rally freedom loving and democracy loving people from all over the planet to be prepared for when Chinese citizens are on average just as wealthy as European and American citizens, so they don't get to dictate the future of the planet from an authoritarian repressive society that doesn't value freedom or democracy. The goal would be to draw the citizens that would integrate into American society the best. We can debate what qualities get what points, but we would prefer English speaking. However, we don't need to be afraid of freedom, and markets that draw people who are poor. It is better to employ them within our country, than to send jobs over seas.
5) A melting pot?
Less politics of grievances resentment and us vs them. Unity. Integration not separation. All believers of democracy, freedom, and well regulated capitalism are welcome. E pluribus unum. Out of many, one. (the motto of the US). Liberals need to show that they are proud of democracy, freedom, the progress we have made, and our common hopes and dreams. We are not so different, and should not exaggerate our differences. If they emphasize our shared destiny, our common humanity, we will be less concerned about fragmentation, isolation, and internal hatred.
6) Will the 600 million immigrants have sufficient teachers, medical personnel.
We get to choose who we let in. We could only let in teachers or medical personnel. If we only accept teacher or medical workers it will help, not hurt, our access.
Friendly competition (not fear): America will be more willing to cheer on China and India's ascent to prosperity if we know that we will still be stronger at the end of it. The only way we can be stronger than China in the long run, is if we have as many people as them.
A declining would power with a chip on its shoulder: Americans will be less easy to manipulate with rage and resentment if China becomes more prosperous, but we remain more powerful. The only way to remain more powerful is if our population increases.
Suppose China and Russia keep threatening their neighbors (Ukraine, George, Syria, Taiwan, Tibet, Uyghurs, South Korea) and abusing their citizens. In that case, we shouldn't have any shortage of hard-working, freedom-loving immigrants.
The only way we can only compete with China long term is by 1) staying a desirable place to live, 2) being open to outsiders, and 3) letting people move to our free and prosperous country. We won't have a chance until our population is as large as theirs. It won't even be a fair competition between different approaches to human rights or economic philosophies. They will just bury us because they are so much bigger.
Using violence to take over unwilling free countries requires unsustainable levels of control, builds hatred, creates short-lived, violently opposed governments.
China was evil when they took over Tibet. They are also wrong not to respect promises made to Hong Kong. They are also evil to threaten violence to take over Taiwan.
By growing, Democracies can keep themselves relevant in ways that authoritarian countries cannot. People worldwide want to move to Democracies, not China or Russia.
American Power: If America wants to continue to be the world's global superpower and compete with China, India, and Russia, we will need more citizens.
Action Now: If America doesn't increase its population now, we will regret it. It will be better for us to integrate many people into our society now, while we have a head start over our rivals. Once China is more powerful than us, it will be riskier for us to do the difficult work of integrating immigrants into our society.
If the USA grew by 5 percent each year, it would only take 23 years to have a billion people. We could do many things that would allow us to grow by 5% per year. If we grew by 5 percent each year, it would only take 23 years to have a billion people. We currently have 330 million. After 1 year we would have 347, then, 364, 382, 401, 421, 442, 464, 488, 512, 538, 564, 593, 622, 653, 686, 720, 756, 794, 834, 876, 919, 965, then 1,014 (or 1 billion people).
If we helped Americans have the number of kids they say they want, with pro-family culture and legislation, and allowed more immigration and refugees, we could have a 5% increase per year.
Living close to neighbors can be annoying if you hear them, but houses can be designed to minimize noise transmission. Unoccupied spaces (like garages, utility rooms, and storage areas) can be placed between adjacent living areas to minimize sounds from neighbors.
Allowing apartments in popular growing cities might slow the price growth of your home, but preventing growth so you can get richer hurts those trying to start a family, kills the American dream, hurts the environment, and makes us weaker as a nation.
Allowing higher housing density is a "free-market" and "freedom to the people" issue. City regulators don't know better than the market what people want, and we can't say we are free if the government regulates everything too much.
Not everyone wants to live in seven-story apartments. Still, an acceptable trade-off for many people is a seven-story apartment with an elevator and amenities. This choice is because a denser community allows for shorter commutes to work, school, walking distance to things to do, and more people. You might not want to live in a dense environment, but still, let people vote with their feet.
Those who worry about immigration feel that it is another example of liberal hypocrisy. Liberals claim to care about the immigrants, but it feels like they just let people move to this country to compete with blue-collar Americans that liberals claim to love but never listen to or care about. And so liberals elite can commit to starting immigration not to drive down low-skilled wages so they can have more nannies and home cleaners. They can import skilled workers that compete with them.
Rich actors who support more immigration should support more legal immigrants from other rich actors who could compete with them. Not just low-skilled immigrants that can compete with the working class they claim to love but secretly despise.
Those who currently worry about immigration often worry about the fragmentation of society into endless factions, with confirmation bias and other natural tendencies that result in ever-growing lists of grievances and hatred if left unchecked or encouraging. They worry that immigrants might not be dedicated to democracy and the long-term success of the American people our traditions. Instead of just calling these people racist, we can address their concerns, and gain their support.
Unchecked Grievances grow and resentment never rests. We need America to be a melting pot. We need to re-emphasize E pluribus unum, the motto of the USA, that translates as: "Out of many, one."
People can have ancestral pride, but that seems weird to care about your genetics. Genetic or ethnic group pride only goes to the wrong places. A little bit of nationalism can be OK if it is grounded in fair and friendly competition and a shared commitment to freedom and individual rights (speech, press, expression, political, etc.). Why have pride in your "group." We are all individuals inside our own heads. Why can't we have pride as individuals?
We are not so different, and should not exaggerate our differences. If they emphasize our shared destiny, our common humanity, we will be less concerned about fragmentation, isolation, and internal hatred.
Why can't we all just be dedicated to freedom, democracy. Less politics of grievances resentment and us vs them. Unity. Integration not separation. All believers of democracy, freedom, and well regulated capitalism are welcome. E pluribus unum. Out of many, one. (the motto of the US). Liberals need to show that they are proud of democracy, freedom, the progress we have made, and our common hopes and dreams.
Submit your comprehensive master-plan detailing how you consider such a scheme would be implemented.
Your blueprint for this radical proposal should include specific particulars such as;-
the initial cost,
the zones to be designated for the influx of some 600 million people,
the projected duration of your project,
from where would you draw your immigrants?, and other vital considerations which would require pre-planning on a mammoth scale.
When you refer to China's population of some 1.4 billion it is important to be mindful that the inhabitants of this Country are almost exclusively Chinese and are singing from the same song sheet, as is the case with India's population which is similar to that of China's.
Also, remember, it's not quantity that counts, it's quality.
The British Empire at its peak covered 25% of the world's land mass which had a population of over 400 million at that time.
DURING THE SAME PERIOD THE POPULATION OF BRITAIN WAS AROUND 40 MILLION.
re: "Submit your comprehensive master-plan detailing how you consider such a scheme would be implemented."
1) Initial Cost:
Our country is sufficiently desirable to live in that we could obtain either 2.5% growth for 50 years or 5% growth for 25 years with no up-front cost.
We could make everyone, except for refugees, pay their way. Fees and taxes can offset even their costs from other immigrants, depending on how the system is structured. We should advocate structuring it, so the upfront American cost is $0.
To gain a work permit to Denmark, you need to be experienced in a trade undergoing a workforce shortage, or offered a job with a sufficiently high salary. In Denmark the job will need to be in a highly sought-after profession such as science, healthcare, agriculture and many building-related trades in order to obtain a permit. We could do that in the USA.
2) Timeline:
Timing (Start Now!): If America doesn't increase its population now, we will regret it. It will be better for us to integrate many people into our society now, while we have a head start over our rivals. Once China is more powerful than us, it will be riskier for us to do the difficult work of integrating immigrants into our society.
We would grow between 2.5% over the next 50 year, or 5% over the next 25 years.
It takes a while for immigrants to become integrated into a new society. We should get that over now, while we still have a comfortable lead over China and India. Every new immigrant wave to America has struggled. Irish, Polish, and Italians lived through high crime, disfunction, and discrimination when they first immigrated to America.
3) The zones to be designated for the influx of some 600 million people:
We would try to move them as much as possible to the dying towns and cities all across America.
Once China is more powerful and wealthier than us, and can dictate the their own terms for everything, we can't be sure people will still want to immigrate to America.
4) From where would you draw your immigrants?
Liberals chose the quantity, conservatives chose the qualifications in order to get a real compromise. The goals is American power, not charity. We can also do charity, but that is not the prime goal. We can debate what will result in the most benefit to America, but we would like to brain drain evil places. The goal would be to rally freedom loving and democracy loving people from all over the planet to be prepared for when Chinese citizens are on average just as wealthy as European and American citizens, so they don't get to dictate the future of the planet from an authoritarian repressive society that doesn't value freedom or democracy. The goal would be to draw the citizens that would integrate into American society the best. We can debate what qualities get what points, but we would prefer English speaking. However, we don't need to be afraid of freedom, and markets that draw people who are poor. It is better to employ them within our country, than to send jobs over seas.
5) A melting pot?
Less politics of grievances resentment and us vs them. Unity. Integration not separation. All believers of democracy, freedom, and well regulated capitalism are welcome. E pluribus unum. Out of many, one. (the motto of the US). Liberals need to show that they are proud of democracy, freedom, the progress we have made, and our common hopes and dreams. We are not so different, and should not exaggerate our differences. If they emphasize our shared destiny, our common humanity, we will be less concerned about fragmentation, isolation, and internal hatred.
6) Will the 600 million immigrants have sufficient teachers, medical personnel?
We get to choose who we let in. We could only let in teachers or medical personnel. If we only accept teacher or medical workers it will help, not hurt, our access to these professions. We get to chose. We don't have to be stuck between liberals calling us racist, and us worrying about the debt and our future cohesion, unity, strength.
COST: We can significantly increase the financial (tax) benefit to America per immigrant and still attract enough people to keep us the number one financial power.
Those who currently worry about immigration are concerned with COSTS because of how the debate has been framed. However, we can control the rate of immigration by making it theoretically open to people worldwide but less attractive financially, so the quantity is self-regulated, and American get a greater tax benefit per immigrant.
To gain a work permit to Denmark, you need to be experienced in a trade undergoing a workforce shortage, or offered a job with a sufficiently high salary. In Denmark the job will need to be in a highly sought-after profession such as science, healthcare, agriculture and many building-related trades in order to obtain a permit. We could do that in the USA.
re: "Try answering the questions I've already asked you brainless fuck and maybe I'll ask a few more. YOU AND WHOEVER WROTE THE BOOK TO WHICH YOU REFER ARE FUCKING IDIOTS."
I am sorry. I have to drive my kids to school, but I am trying to answer your questions. No need to freak out.
I started reading at the top and responding to one sentence at the time. I typed my first response before I got to your specific questions. I guess that wasn't the best way of responding, but I was trying to take things one at a time.
re: "Will the 600 million immigrants have sufficient teachers, medical personnel."
What I am calling for is either a 2.5% increase over the next 50 years, or 5% increase over the next 25 years. It is the goal. However, it will take compromise. It is an absolute necessity that we are as strong as China is in 50 years. That is the requirement. So then we ask what we have to do to get there. We would aim our policy so that it moves immigrants only to those places that want them. For example: 'Pine Bluff, Ark., southeast of Little Rock, where the population dropped by 12.5 percent between 2010 and 2020, according to The New York Times. The population is now 87,751, down from 100,258, Business Insider reports."
If we only accept teacher or medical workers it will help, not hurt. We get to chose. We don't have to be stuck between liberals calling us racist, and us worrying about the debt and our future strength.
re: "When you refer to China's population of some 1.4 billion it is important to be mindful that the inhabitants of this Country are almost exclusively Chinese and are singing from the same song sheet."
How many languages are there in China? Officially, there are 302 living languages in China. Depending on your definition of "language" and "dialect," this number can vary somewhat.
They are literally genociding their own people right now. I'm not sure they are all singing the same song. They just shoot anyone who is out of tune. If the liberals who run our media and our culture would stand for democracy and acknowledge all our progress, we would see that we are the only functional multi-cultural country in the world. They need to acknowledge the dangers of disintegration and separation and return to promoting our common cause in defending democracy and freedom.
re: "as is the case with India's population which is similar to that of China"
India has 121 languages. They do not even speak the same language, let alone sing the same song.
So how many Indian languages are there? While India has 22 separate official languages, it is home to 121 languages and 270 mother tongues. It's also home to the world's oldest language, Hindi.
We could make it a requirement only to take those who speak English. We could also come to the negation table with liberals and insist that they remove teaching people in their native tongs and only use English immersion in our public schools. We don't negotiate because liberals like calling us racist, and we like threatening old white people that immigrants will replace them. Both sides love the status quo that doesn't fix anything because they can both demonize the other side and scare their supporters into giving them money so that they can get re-elected. We have been in this stale-mate for 30 years. We need to start fixing our long-standing problems, turn down the heat, stop calling each other names, and start bargaining with a goal of America's long-term strength compared to authoritarian, repressive anti-democratic countries that hate freedom.
re: "Also, remember, it's not quantity that counts, it's quality. The British Empire at its peak covered 25% of the world's land mass which had a population of over 400 million at that time. DURING THE SAME PERIOD THE POPULATION OF BRITAIN WAS AROUND 40 MILLION."
The British empire might be the anti-immigration argument you think it is. They were able to take over the world when they had a technology advantage over the rest of the world. However, when the rest of the world got technology they lost their power. They were sidelined from us, a formal colony, even though they had a head start. We passed them because we are much larger than them, and we copied their advances during the industrial and technological revolutions. Does that sound familiar? That is exactly what China is doing to us! We don't like their stealing our patents. However, we did the same thing to England. We actively promoted our citizens disregarding English patents. So in a world in which technology is spreading, and countries are catching up, then size goes back to mattering, just like it did with the once great British Empire. How did we get bigger than England? Immigration. What is our only chance of staying stronger than China? Immigration, if done right. Lets do it right. Lets come to the bargaining table with more facts, and less fear. For instance, lets start with fear. What is the very worst fear? We will be over-ran. If every single person from CANADA, mexico, and central America came here that would only be 220 million people. We would still have less than 1/4 the population density of Germany today. So lets start the negotiation with all the facts, and less fear.
Would the proposed 600 million new immigrants be required to gain entry by way of the existing immigration procedures?
Would this multitude include a proportionate number of, teachers, medical personnel, law enforcement professionals and all those with the necessary skills, trades and professions to ensure their smooth settlement and well being?
This country has a National Debt of some $28 TRILLION, how do you propose to finance the massive initial capital outlay this project would incur?
re: "Would the proposed 600 million new immigrants be required to gain entry by way of the existing immigration procedures?"
We would keep our boarders, and prohibit people we don't want to let into our country. The liberals would make concessions and compromises that would make the conservatives happy. It would be political compromise, and if liberals only want English speakers, then liberals do whatever to get the compromise. We would stop ignoring the issue, and come up with a real plan.
We would keep our borders and prohibit people we don't want to let into our country. The liberals would make concessions and compromises that would make the conservatives willing to support the plan, instead of just calling them racist and ignoring the issue and hoping it goes away.
It would be a political compromise, and if conservatives only want English speakers, then liberals do whatever to get the compromise. We would stop ignoring the issue and develop a real plan.
Our current fertility rate barely keeps up with deaths. We had a completed fertility rate of 1.86 in 2006. And so we would need to adjust immigration so America could grow at 5% for 24 years and get to a billion. We could grow also grow at 2.5% for 48 years. The goal would be to have 1 billion in the next 24 to 50 years.
So, if we don't start having more kids, we would need to adjust immigration to allow between 2.5% or 5% immigration per year.
As we look out at the world, and the complete and utter brutality larger countries have towards smaller countries, we must declare that the Absolut necessity is that by the time Chinese are about as Rich as Americans are on average, we need to have as many citizens as they do.
re: "Would this multitude include a proportionate number of, teachers, medical personnel, law enforcement professionals and all those with the necessary skills, trades and professions to ensure their smooth settlement and well being?"
We get to choose who we let in. We could only let in teachers, medical personnel, cops, or people with trade skills. If we only accept teacher or medical workers it will help, not hurt, our access.
Liberals chose the quantity, conservatives chose the qualifications in order to get a real compromise. The goals is American power, not charity. We can also do charity, but that is not the prime goal. We can debate what will result in the most benefit to America, but we would like to brain drain evil places. The goal would be to rally freedom loving and democracy loving people from all over the planet to be prepared for when Chinese citizens are on average just as wealthy as European and American citizens, so they don't get to dictate the future of the planet from an authoritarian repressive society that doesn't value freedom or democracy. The goal would be to draw the citizens that would integrate into American society the best. We can debate what qualities get what points, but we would prefer English speaking. However, we don't need to be afraid of freedom, and markets that draw people who are poor. It is better to employ them within our country, than to send jobs over seas.
We don't have to be stuck between liberals calling us racist, and us worrying about the debt and our future cohesion, unity, strength.
7) This country has a National Debt of some $28 TRILLION. How would we pay for an increase in immigration.
I support the balanced budget amendment. We can't pass laws that result in increased debt. We would have to craft immigration policy so that objective, independent analysis shows that increased immigration is deficit-neutral or positive over a ten and 50-year duration.
Interesting idea, but 25-50 years is a long time. Something significant could happen before then. If you're worried about China passing us up in the near future, then that will probably happen sooner than even 25 years. I know this idea will be a gradual process, but it's too late at this point. Even if you were correct about this whole immigration thing, China already has the people, they just need to get their economy together. In regards to the wealth problem you presented, don't think China's command economy is going to get them very far, so the US has nothing to worry about in that regard. If China somehow transitions to a market economy in the near future, then maybe we have something to worry about. You'll find that every time, the people who have the most wealth are those who live in a country with a market economy.
Again, it's an interesting idea, but these are extreme measures. Extreme circumstances call for extreme measures. We're not in an extreme circumstance.
re: "FUTURE: We can't be sure China will pass us in the future. Additionally, even if we tried to grow to a billion people over the next 25 years, China would probably already pass us."
I tried to put your argument in my words. Please tell me if it is a straw man or whatever, or I misunderstood, or whatever.
We can't be 100% sure that China's economy will pass the USA's in the future, but we can be reasonably confident that it will. Bad leaders ignore problems and hope they go away. Hope is a good motto, but not a great plan. Good leaders must put forward various options that will avoid likely problems. We need plans to avoid catastrophes. For example, when civil engineers tell us the levies will break, we probably deserve to get flooded if we are corrupt and ignore their warnings.
Extrapolation of current trends indicates that China's economy will likely pass the USA's soon. Past performance is not guaranteed to continue, but it is the most likely indicator of what will happen in the future when combined with reason and data.
No other viable option at this time: It doesn't seem like the USA has any other alternative other than growing to approximately the same size as China if we want our economy to compete with theirs long term. China has three times our population. It seems highly unlikely for the USA to maintain three times its per capita wealth.
They have problems that we don't have, but they are doing better than us in many ways. They will likely keep closing the gap between their average productivity per citizen.
China has problems that the USA doesn't share, but they are doing better than us in many ways. They will likely keep closing the gap between their average productivity per citizen. We can use the competition as a reason to get our acts together. It is much better than ignoring the problem and pretending it will magically disappear. But it won't be fair competition if they have three times the population.
We are dismantling our advanced learning programs and our merit-based approaches to society that we will need to compete with China. China makes long-term plans while our politicians are stuck in endless loops of pointless revenge, obstructionism, echo-chamber construction, and demonization. China does not allow its cities to be run by homeless drug addicts or significant portions of their cities to be ruled by violent gangs and unsafe police. Chinese students do better than ours. They encourage their students to compete, and we give everyone participation trophies.
It would be OK if China's economy passed ours, but because they run an authoritarian hell-scape, people kept moving here, and our economy eventually passed theirs again. The goal is to move towards being large enough to have the possibility of competing with them in a fair competition.
I tried to put your argument in my words. Please tell me if it is a straw man or whatever, or I misunderstood, or whatever.
You don't have to paraphrase my argument. Many times that will take the argument out of context. Just directly quote me next time.
No other viable option at this time: It doesn't seem like the USA has any other alternative other than growing to approximately the same size as China if we want our economy to compete with theirs long term. China has three times our population. It seems highly unlikely for the USA to maintain three times its per capita wealth.
I don't think it's as simple as more people = more per capita wealth. Remember that China has leverage on the US not because of population, but because of the massive amount of goods the US imports from China. The US is practically throwing money to China. If anything, this is why they might pass us up soon. There is no way that China's command economy is the reason they are passing us. Command economies will absolutely never beat market economies.
China does not allow its cities to be run by homeless drug addicts or significant portions of their cities to be ruled by violent gangs and unsafe police.
Yeah, because of the strict control the government puts on their people. Wouldn't want to live in a place like that. Also, police are the people who enforce the law. Unless you are a police officer, both you and I don't know the half of what they have to deal with on a daily basis. The micromanagement they have to put themselves under to not mess up a single thing they do while society watches them under a microscope is sickening to me when anyone says something like unsafe police.
China is only safer than the US because the government micromanages their people and watches their every move while threatening them by taking away everything they own if they mess up. I wonder what that sounds like? How about the George Floyd case where Derek Chavin got imprisoned basically for life despite the fact that he didn't even kill George Floyd!?!? I hate where this country is going. Increasing the population is not going to solve that problem either.
Chinese students do better than ours. They encourage their students to compete, and we give everyone participation trophies.
All of this including the quote before this one sound like things we could solve without increasing the population. In fact, increasing the population would likely make these problems harder to solve.
The goal is to move towards being large enough to have the possibility of competing with them in a fair competition.
Again, it's not about being large enough, it's about not relying so much on China's goods to fuel our economy.
re: "I don't think it's as simple as more people = more per capita wealth."
It is straightforward. Your GDP equals [the average production per citizen] multiplied by the [number of citizens]. Their productivity per citizen has increased much faster than ours because they are starting from further behind. They only have to copy us to reach our level of productivity per citizen. Their productivity per citizen will keep growing faster than ours. They are currently 1/3 as productive as our population. If they get to 1/2 as productive, they will have a larger GDP because they have three times the population.
re: " but because of the massive amount of goods the US imports from China."
They produce lots of goods because they can pay their workers less. That is why all our manufacturing went overseas. We wouldn't have to ship our manufacturing overseas if we increased our low-skilled, low-salary workers. So if you want to bring back manufacturing, you will have to allow lower-paid workers.
re: "Command economies will never beat market economies."
So if they had ten times our population, you don't think they could beat our economy? They have already beaten Canada, England, Australia, and other free markets. So you are just plain wrong. Suppose they are a lot bigger than us. In that case, their economy will eventually be bigger than ours as the global disparity between educated countries evens out. You are deluding yourself and living in denial if you try to pretend that this will magically change.
re: "Yeah, because of the government's strict control on their people. Wouldn't want to live in a place like that."
I agree 100%. That is why we should leverage our ability to attract and keep those who want to live here. It's really about freedom. How can you support freedom without freedom of movement?
re: "I hate where this country is going. Increasing the population is not going to solve that problem either."
It would solve the problem of them being bigger than us.
re: "In fact, increasing the population would likely make these problems harder to solve."
How? Why? Doesn't this depend on who we bring and what we do? Couldn't we tax external workers at a higher rate so that it helps them and us?
re: "Again, it's not about being large enough, it's about not relying so much on China's goods to fuel our economy."
It is just not true. No matter what we do, they will pass us in the next 25 to 50 years, if they continue to have three times our population
It is straightforward. Your GDP equals [the average production per citizen] multiplied by the [number of citizens]. Their productivity per citizen has increased much faster than ours because they are starting from further behind. They only have to copy us to reach our level of productivity per citizen. Their productivity per citizen will keep growing faster than ours. They are currently 1/3 as productive as our population. If they get to 1/2 as productive, they will have a larger GDP because they have three times the population.
It is not straightforward. Stop assuming every equation attributed to this idea is simple. They are not. You are assuming that every single person living in China is working. Do you see how that sounds? Laughable. The second you start to factor in all the other issues, such as working conditions, hours, benefits, you start to see that it's not that simple.
They produce lots of goods because they can pay their workers less. That is why all our manufacturing went overseas. We wouldn't have to ship our manufacturing overseas if we increased our low-skilled, low-salary workers. So if you want to bring back manufacturing, you will have to allow lower-paid workers.
What? You think just because China can pay their workers less that they produce more goods? That's not how it works and you know it. Productivity has a lot more to do with it than just how much you pay your workers. In fact, if anything, paying your workers less would lead to less productivity because they would be more likely to strike, or be unhappy with their job and quit. Also, the idea that we could just increase our low-skilled workers is flawed for a number of reasons not limited to the fact that many of those jobs have been replaced by machines or no longer exist.
So if they had ten times our population, you don't think they could beat our economy? They have already beaten Canada, England, Australia, and other free markets. So you are just plain wrong. Suppose they are a lot bigger than us. In that case, their economy will eventually be bigger than ours as the global disparity between educated countries evens out. You are deluding yourself and living in denial if you try to pretend that this will magically change.
I never said they couldn't beat our economy, I said they couldn't do it solely based on the fact that they have a larger population. If anything, you are deluding yourself... and everyone else who is reading this, if you think that's the only reason. You are just plain wrong. If you want to keep living in denial and think that China's economy is only going to continue to grow because they have more people, go ahead. Just know that you will be the one left surprised when their economy eventually reaches a plateau or starts to decline.
It would solve the problem of them being bigger than us.
No, it wouldn't because size isn't the only factor that determines power or importance on the global stage. Again, you're comparing apples to oranges.
How? Why? Doesn't this depend on who we bring and what we do? Couldn't we tax external workers at a higher rate so that it helps them and us?
There is no evidence to suggest that increasing our population would help solve the problems you mentioned. In fact, it would likely make them worse. overcrowding, for example, would make it harder to provide everyone with basic needs like food and water, and would increase competition for jobs, leading to higher unemployment rates.
re: "It is not straightforward. Stop assuming every equation attributed to this idea is simple. They are not."
It is straightforward. To increase our GDP, we either have to 1) increase our productivity or 2) population. We have already tried to be productive, so the apparent policy change that will result in American GDP growth is skilled-worker population growth.
re: "You are assuming that every single person living in China is working. Do you see how that sounds? Laughable."
I have no idea what you are talking about. When did I say "every single person living in China is working"? Every "single?" I have no idea what point you are trying to make when you said: "every single person living in China is working." Every country is made of people, and we all typically live the same amount of time. It is generally assumed that, except for baby booms after wars, or one-child policies, you continually have new kids born, educated, work, and then retire and die. You are just strawmaning my argument. I never said anything close to that.
Are you trying to say that we should be worried about what type of immigrant we bring here? I agree. It is a strawman argument that those who support immigration only want to bring low-skilled immigrants who don't speak English, don't like the West, wouldn't integrate into our culture, or get along with our existing citizens.
I think it is incredibly foolish of the USA to squander the chance to recruit as many intelligent, skilled immigrants to our shores as we possibly can. Because we are a desirable place to live, there are enough people that want to move here that we could get to 1 billion citizens without having to accept immigrants who don't want to learn English, share our values (democracy, freedom, the rule of law, anti-corruption) and have the skills that we need.
Suppose China and Russia keep threatening their neighbors (Ukraine, George, Syria, Taiwan, Tibet, Uyghurs, South Korea) and abusing their citizens. In that case, we shouldn't have any shortage of hard-working, freedom-loving immigrants seeking our shelter.
The single greatest advantage the USA has over China is that high-skilled immigrants (in STEM and AI) would much rather move here. We are very stupid to prohibit anyone with an American dream. We are competing against ruthless, heartless, authoritarian countries that won't care that we once "ruled the world" once other economies eclipse ours.
re: "The second you start to factor in all the other issues, such as working conditions, hours, benefits, you start to see that it's not that simple."
Again, I don't want to talk to you anymore. I'm going to ban you if you don't start making any sense because you stopped sounding like a rational human a while ago. Talking to you is just a waste of my time. You don't even know how stupid you sound. It has nothing to do with anything. If you want America to be more powerful in a world with productivity levels that are all getting closer to each other, we will need more citizens. You don't have to factor in the price of tea in China.
"Working conditions, hours, and benefits" are just distractions, because you don't want to stay on the topic that you don't have any arguments for: American Power. But because you bring them up, if Chinese citizens work more hours than us, and they keep getting more productive and educated, we may need more citizens than them just to have the same GDP as theirs?
re: "You think just because China can pay their workers less that they produce more goods?"
That is not what I said. You are changing what I said. You added the word "just". No. I don't think that it is "just" because they pay their workers why they "produce more goods." That would be stupid to believe. That is why I DID not say that. Stop miss quoting me. Just google "why did manufacturing move to china" and you will know everything that I said. The first article says: "Given the abundance of Chinese products in the marketplace, it's understandable consumers might wonder why so many goods are made in China. One of the reasons companies manufacture their products in China is because of the abundance of lower-wage workers available in the country."
re: "I never said they couldn't beat our economy."
Yes you did. You said a command economy could never beat a free market.
re: "If you want to keep living in denial and think that China's economy is only going to continue to grow because they have more people, go ahead."
I never said that you. I said that there are two factors that affect GDP 1) The productivity of your citizens and 2) the number of citizens.
re: "it wouldn't because size isn't the only factor that determines power or importance on the global stage. Again, you're comparing apples to oranges."
I never said that. I said that there are two factors that affect GDP 1) The productivity of your citizens and 2) the number of citizens. Size is one of the factors.
re: "There is no evidence to suggest that increasing our population would help solve the problems you mentioned."
Having more workers, by simple math, increases the GDP. Every dollar produced in America increases the GDP.
re: "In fact, it would likely make them worse. overcrowding, for example, would make it harder to provide everyone with basic needs like food and water, and would increase competition for jobs, leading to higher unemployment rates."
Like I said many times before, we could triple our population to 1 billion citizens and still have lower population density than German, the most powerful country in Europe. They are doing fine. I can't talk to you anymore. You are gone.
re: "China's command economy will not allow them to overtake America's market economy."
[I tried to put your argument in my own words. Please tell me if my summary reveals a misunderstanding or a strawman argument.]
If China has three times our population, they don't have to be very competitive with the USA per capita. They will only have to be 1/3 as efficient as the USA. Every indication tells us they will achieve this soon. It isn't a fair competition, with our tiny population. But we don't need to be tiny. Size does matter. Quantity has a quality all of its own. The best and the brightest from worldwide want to participate in our free country, with lots of opportunities.
I tried to put your argument in my own words. Please tell me if my summary reveals a misunderstanding or a strawman argument.
Don't summarize my argument, just directly quote it. You might take it out of context.
If China has three times our population, they don't have to be very competitive with the USA per capita. They will only have to be 1/3 as efficient as the USA.
This would only be true if China had a market economy. China does not. This is like comparing apples to oranges. It's not as simple as population.
But we don't need to be tiny. Size does matter. Quantity has a quality all of its own. The best and the brightest from worldwide want to participate in our free country, with lots of opportunities.
You know what matters more than quantity? Quality. If the best and brightest want to participate in our free country, then let them. We don't need 1B+ other people as well.
Re: “This would only be true if China had market economy.”
No. It is simple math. If their citizens have 1/3 our wealth per citizen, and they have 3 times the number of citizens, then they have equal purchasing power to us. They can buy just as much stuff as us. If they taxed their citizens at the same rate, then they would have just as much wealth, then they would have just as much money to fund their military and R&D.
No, the simple math is that the Chinese government does not have every single citizen's money. The reality is that there are many more factors than what you are taking into account here. For example, you are not accounting for the many people who have money deposited in banks outside of China. Another example is the people who have investments in other countries. Did you take into account the value of those investments? What about the fact that some people have money buried in their backyards? There are many ways to hide money, and the Chinese government would have a very difficult time trying to track it all down. What about the people who have bought bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies? The list goes on and on. You are going to need a better equation than 1/3 x 3 = 1
re: "No, the simple math is that the Chinese government does not have every single citizen's money."
That is not GDP. Gross domestic product (GDP) is a monetary measure of the market value of all the final goods and services produced in a specific time period by countries. I never said the Chinese government has the money.
re: "For example, you are not accounting for the many people who have money deposited in banks outside of China. Another example is the people who have investments in other countries. Did you take into account the value of those investments? What about the fact that some people have money buried in their backyards? There are many ways to hide money, and the Chinese government would have a very difficult time trying to track it all down. What about the people who have bought bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies? The list goes on and on. You are going to need a better equation than 1/3 x 3 = 1"
If the money is controlled by Americans it is part of American GDP. If the money is controlled by Chinese, it is part of Chinese GDP. You really shouldn't pretend you can talk about this stuff, if you don't even know what GDP is.
Re: “You want to know what matters more than quantity? Quality. If the best and the brightest want to participate in our free country, then let them. We don’t need 1B+ other people as well.
So, instead of focussing on what we disagree, lets identify common ground. It sounds like you agree we should try to compete to attracts the wealthy, highly educated people to our country? This should drive down the wages for the jobs that have lots of need. But instead of what is best for our country, many people are trying to wage a cultural war. The rich try to import lower wage workers, so they can get low cost house cleaners, and child care. The working class people don’t want highly educated immigrants, because they don’t LIKE highly educated people.
But immigration shouldn’t be about what type of people you like, our about telling your citizens they are better than outsiders, and outsiders suck, and outsiders will destroy your country. Anti-immigration shouldn’t be viewed as a way of telling your citizens they are the best, and should feel threatened by outsiders. Immigration should be about importing the type of people, rich and poor, that will help us keep manufacturing, agricultural jobs here in America and that will also help us compete in high tech fields against China. Even if you don’t have high tech skills, you shouldn’t have such pride as saying our country doesn’t NEED high tech workers…
It sounds like you agree we should try to compete to attracts the wealthy, highly educated people to our country?
I never said I agreed with attracting them, I simply stated that if they wanted to come to the US, then nobody is stopping them.
But immigration shouldn’t be about what type of people you like, our about telling your citizens they are better than outsiders, and outsiders suck, and outsiders will destroy your country. Anti-immigration shouldn’t be viewed as a way of telling your citizens they are the best, and should feel threatened by outsiders. Immigration should be about importing the type of people, rich and poor, that will help us keep manufacturing, agricultural jobs here in America and that will also help us compete in high tech fields against China. Even if you don’t have high tech skills, you shouldn’t have such pride as saying our country doesn’t NEED high tech workers…
This looks a lot like you are trying to frame me as someone who opposes immigration. I don't oppose immigration and it doesn't help your argument to frame me as one. I am perfectly okay with people coming into our country, but we don't need 1 billion or over 1 billion people here. People are moving jobs overseas because factors such as inflation, the minimum wage drive, and other things are increasing costs for producers. Increasing the number of working men and women will not solve the problem. Businessmen will not move jobs back overseas because inflation along with specific production costs will drive the cost of production up. The increased wage drive resulting from inflation and politically motivated actions in government will drive wages for workers up. It's not about the people, it's about the economic state of the US. These issues can only be fixed from within the US, not by importing more people.
We need to fix the economic policies within the US before we can really consider if we need to import 1B+ people into the US.
re: "I stated that if they wanted to come to the US, nobody was stopping them."
That's not true. People can come here with student visas. However, once they get their master's degree or Ph.D., we make them leave.
re: "This looks a lot like you are trying to frame me as someone who opposes immigration. I don't oppose immigration and it doesn't help your argument to frame me as one. I am perfectly okay with people coming into our country"
You shouldn't expect people on the internet to try and understand what you believe or judge you as a person. I have never met you and don't know anything about you. I am not trying to frame you as believing anything. I am trying to respond to arguments you made, or I think other people have made, or that people could make in the future. When we respond to each other, I will try to limit my response to the words I see.
re: "Companies are moving jobs overseas because factors such as inflation, the minimum wage drive, and other things are increasing costs for producers."
I agree. The minimum wage does cause higher wages in the USA. That is why manufacturing went overseas. However, the movement of manufacturing overseas did not happen during higher inflation in the USA.
re: "Increasing the number of working men and women will not solve the problem. Business people will not move jobs back overseas because inflation and specific production costs will drive the cost of production up."
When we bring more low-wage workers here, we can move manufacturing here.
re: "The increased wage drive resulting from inflation and politically motivated actions in government will drive wages for workers up."
Suppose you believe in the markets and free markets' ability to compete against command economies. In that case, you must understand that prices and wages respond to supply and demand. Suppose we want to decrease computer programmer wages. All things being equal, in that case, we need more computer programmers to keep the supply up and the demand down. Or you could have the government subsidize or counter the market forces.
re: "It's not about the people; it's about the economic state of the US."
This sounds like a generic slogan preventing you from going into the details. What are you talking about? What is the economic state of the USA? Specifically?
re: "These issues can only be fixed from within the US, not by importing more people."
What issues? Are you trying to change the topic? I am talking about the USA competing with China. Why are you trying to change the topic?
re: "We need to fix the economic policies within the US before we can really consider if we need to import 1B+ people into the US."
I didn't say we should import 1B+ people. We already have 330 million. The proposal is to grow by 2.5% over the next 50 years (through increasing our birth rate or importing more people) or by 5% over the next 25 years.
Sure. We need to fix all our problems and be as efficient as possible. We need to decrease crime, improve education, build better roads, and invest in things like R&D and other stuff. But, if the problem is that China is much bigger than us, why would we allow ourselves to ignore the problem of them being much bigger than us?
You shouldn't expect people on the internet to try and understand what you believe or judge you as a person.
That sounds a lot like you're saying "I'm not going to try to understand your position" and it's a bit hypocritical. It may not have sounded like it, but I genuninely did try to understand your position before deciding that it wasn't logical.
When we respond to each other, I will try to limit my response to the words I see.
I am not asking you to limit your responses, but if you want to, then by all means go ahead. I'm not stopping you...
However, the movement of manufacturing overseas did not happen during higher inflation in the USA.
You're conflating two different things. The cost of living and the cost of production. They're not the same thing.
When we bring more low-wage workers here, we can move manufacturing here.
That doesn't make any sense. The whole point of moving manufacturing overseas is to lower production costs. Bringing in more low-wage workers would just increase production costs due to the increased amount of labor wages paid to each new individual.
Suppose you believe in the markets and free markets' ability to compete against command economies. In that case, you must understand that prices and wages respond to supply and demand. Suppose we want to decrease computer programmer wages. All things being equal, in that case, we need more computer programmers to keep the supply up and the demand down.
This is a really basic understanding of how supply and demand works. And it doesn't really apply to the situation because there's no reason to think that wages for computer programmers will be cheaper in China than they are in the US. In fact, it's quite possible that they'll be more expensive because of the cost of living.
Or you could have the government subsidize or counter the market forces.
The government can't subsidize or counter every market force. And even if they could, it would be incredibly inefficient and would result in a lot of waste.
This sounds like a generic slogan preventing you from going into the details. What are you talking about? What is the economic state of the USA? Specifically?
It sounds like a generic slogan because it is... I don't have to go into details because everything precluding that simple statement is enough to justify it. It's like switching the title and the body. Why do I have to explain this stuff to you? It's really not that complicated.
What issues? Are you trying to change the topic? I am talking about the USA competing with China. Why are you trying to change the topic?
The issue is that you're trying to frame the debate in a way that doesn't make any sense. You're talking about immigration as if it's the only thing that matters. It's not. There are other factors at play here. I shouldn't have to keep reminding you.
I didn't say we should import 1B+ people. We already have 330 million. The proposal is to grow by 2.5% over the next 50 years (through increasing our birth rate or importing more people) or by 5% over the next 25 years.
The title of the debate: America should try to have 1 billion citizens as a way to compete with China
The affirmative position of the debate: 1B+
No, you didn't say that we should only import 1B+ people, but you did say we should have 1B+ people. That's the affirmative position. You're being inconsistent with your own position...
But, if the problem is that China is much bigger than us, why would we allow ourselves to ignore the problem of them being much bigger than us?
We're ignoring the problem because there are much better ways to solve it than importing 1B+ people. I have already gone over this...
TOO EXTREME: re: "Trying to grow our country between 2.5% and 5% over the next 25 to 50 years is too extreme of a plan to try to grow large enough to compete with China."
[I tried to put your argument in my own words. However, please tell me if my summary reveals a misunderstanding or a strawman argument.]
Keeping the economy of the USA larger than China's is a benefit to Americans and the world. Therefore, we should do a cost-benefit analysis to identify the plan to preserve relative American economic power with the fewest risks. However, we are already trying to make our workers more efficient, and the only numbers we can modify are quality and quantity. Therefore, if we want to compete with China, we will need more workers.
I tried to put your argument in my own words. However, please tell me if my summary reveals a misunderstanding or a strawman argument.
Don't put my argument in your own words, you might take it out of context.
Keeping the economy of the USA larger than China's is a benefit to Americans and the world. Therefore, we should do a cost-benefit analysis to identify the plan to preserve relative American economic power with the fewest risks. However, we are already trying to make our workers more efficient, and the only numbers we can modify are quality and quantity. Therefore, if we want to compete with China, we will need more workers.
We should most definitely keep the economy of the US larger than China's economy. This does not mean growing the population by 1B+. As long as China stays a command economy, we have an economic advantage over China. We can strengthen our economy without growing our population to 1B+. One of the ways we can do this is by decreasing our reliance on Chinese goods.
We can’t just ignore the fact that China will soon pass ours. What we are doing is not working. We have to have a real plan, not just hopes and dreams that somehow things will change and they won’t pass our wealth…
We can’t just ignore the fact that China will soon pass ours. What we are doing is not working. We have to have a real plan, not just hopes and dreams that somehow things will change and they won’t pass our wealth…
You're right, which is why I said we should decrease our reliance on Chinese goods. Trade is always good, and will always help a country more than if that country completely depended on itself. But everything should be done in moderation. Trade with China is not done in moderation. We trade way too much with China. The US needs to diversify trading with many different countries. This way, we can continue to trade to keep up our economic activity, but also not rely as much on Chinese goods.
This is a real plan, not hopes and dreams that this issue will spontaneously fix itself.
It is just abundantly clear that I am not talking to someone who knows anything about economics and global trade. Just saying that we should manufacture things in different countries than China isn't going to solve the problem of China's economy passing ours.
If we move our manufacturing to countries with higher labor wages than China, will our products still sell when they cost more than products made in China?
How are you going to get companies to move manufacturing away from China? Wish they would? Want them to?
It is just abundantly clear that they will keep the factory, and keep making whatever they were making before.
I don't think I can keep talking to you. You pretend that you know economics and trade policy, but don't. Its like you don't even know that you don't know how trade works, and you just think wishing we could trade with other companies is going to save our economy from being passed by China. It's just kind of sad.
It is just abundantly clear that I am not talking to someone who knows anything about economics and global trade.
I don't think I can keep talking to you. You pretend that you know economics and trade policy, but don't. Its like you don't even know that you don't know how trade works, and you just think wishing we could trade with other companies is going to save our economy from being passed by China. It's just kind of sad.
Before I actually begin disputing you, let's address this load of nonsense first. I never pretended to know anything about economics or global trade, and I never said that I did. You're the one who has been talking as if you're some sort of expert on the subject when it's quite obvious that you're not. Just because I don't share your alleged "knowledge" on a particular subject doesn't mean that I'm pretending to know things that I don't. That's a huge leap in logic, and it's blatantly false. Second of all, you seem to think that because I don't know as much about economics and global trade as you allegedly do (despite there being no particular evidence to show that you do), that my opinion is somehow invalid. That's not how it works. My opinion is just as valid as yours, even if I don't have the same amount of knowledge on the subject. Let's continue.
Just saying that we should manufacture things in different countries than China isn't going to solve the problem of China's economy passing ours.
Hmm... You're missing the part where I said that we would decrease our reliance on China, didn't you? Yes. You did. Unfortunately for you, that is an umbrella statement that covers many different ways we could decrease our reliance on China, not just manufacturing things in other countries. Moving past your ignorance, I will point out that we could be more self-reliant on certain goods that we import in bulk.
If we move our manufacturing to countries with higher labor wages than China, will our products still sell when they cost more than products made in China?
Don't take the US out of the equation and act like it can't be a solution to the problem. The goal is to move businesses back to the US, not to root them in other countries. It is possible to move businesses back to the US, you know...
How are you going to get companies to move manufacturing away from China? Wish they would? Want them to?
The only wishing that is going on here is you wishing this country magically had 1B+ population.
It is just abundantly clear that they will keep the factory, and keep making whatever they were making before.
If by "they" you mean the businesses that left for China in the first place, then sure. They'll keep doing what they're doing now because they've found a place with even cheaper labor than here. But if by "they" you mean businesses that are currently in China, then I don't think you understand how business works. Businesses are not static. They move and change all the time in order to make more money and survive. So if the conditions in China change such that it is no longer as profitable to do business there, businesses will leave. It's not complicated. Again, the goal is to get businesses back to America, not rooted in China.
Like I keep saying again and again, the solution is absolutely not to have 1B+ population.
First quality over quantity. The issue with this argument is your comparing a dictatorship to a republic. First need to get everyone in america on the same page. Make housing more dense in large cities and attempt to increase food production to a level I dont even think America can accomplish. Must also make factories for those workers to work with barely enough income to pay for food hand housing. To get to 1bil you will have to lower the standard of living that honestly modern Americans won't be comfortable with. You think gay rights and trans acceptance is a thing in China? Hella naw.
See, when the level of living goes down. The population goes up. As population goes down you get more levels of living. It's a balance mainly dictated to the prosperity of the population. Only a small percentage have wealth in China. But they have a large population who are just trying to survive and make a living. The modern society of America won't exist because unlike China America doesn't have a large population trying to figure out how to get food on the table. We do need to correct our poverty, but it's a luxury to have our kind of cultural arguments. A luxury China doesn't contend with.
“ and attempt to increase food production to a level I dont even think America can accomplish.”
We already export 30% of the food we grow. We can grow much more.
” Must also make factories for those workers to work with barely enough income to pay for food hand housing.”
I’m not sure I understand. Most jobs in America are not factory workers. Are you saying immigrants won’t have enough money? They come here because they are able to make more money here. Elon Musk moved here, and has made a lot of money for America. Do you wish he would have immigrated somewhere else?
“To get to 1bil you will have to lower the standard of living that honestly modern Americans won't be comfortable with.”
What if the average immigrant made more money than the average American. Wouldn’t they pay more taxes, and increase the standard of living for Americans?
” You think gay rights and trans acceptance is a thing in China? Hella naw.”
I don’t know what you are talking about. I think you are arguing against an imaginary person with Imaginary beliefs. You think I want to bring a lot of people to America that don’t believe in Gay rights?
America was kicking China around like a dog when they had half the population they have now, and China was at over a billion people then. America's problem is they like to include their enemies to feel not racist. Then their enemies go for their throat.
I agree that we should not have allowed China into the world trade organization, until they allowed democracy and showed that they respected the freedom of their citizens. That was stupid on us, and it was trying to live in a make-believe wishful world, instead of the real world. However, that might be a problem on the "no immigration" side of the fence now. We can't go back. They are passing us in artificial intelligence, and super-fast planes. They are passing our technology in a number of fronts now. What is your plan? Just let them keep catching up and pass us? They will pass us once their citizens are 1/2 as rich as ours. They are close to equal to us now because they have 3 times the population, but their citizens are only 1/3 as rich as ours. However they are growing at a much faster rate than us, because it is easier for poor countries to grow fast. Simple math shows that the only way for us to compete with them long term is to have more people. Right?
Besides, we weren't kicking China around like a dog. We were a peaceful isolated country until WWI. We tried to mind our own business. We tried to have the Monroe doctrine that stayed out of other people's business. If we were the big dog again, we could talk softly but carry a big stick. If we decided to boycott a company, like we are trying to do to Russia, other countries would have to listen because we would be the BIGGEST MARKET, not China. That way we could use our soft power (such as currency) instead of "kicking" other nations around.