Right, inflation reduction act and China decoupling in general. Tangentially, Mexico is now the US' top trading partner, with China in 3rd place. Industrial real estate in Laredo, TX is exploding as part of this economic reconfiguration.
Let's be realistic, this is directly related to the Tax Cut and Jobs act and the USMCA. The IRA will have minimal impact and even those effects are yet to be realized.
It wasn't rocket science, make it advantageous to produce your goods sold in America in America. Economies of scale will follow and make it true that producing goods for export makes sense too, even with the tax hit.
The USMCA only tinkered with NAFTA. The principal changes are in the automotive and dairy industries, and they are extremely minor. This is certainly not a major component of the manufacturing construction boom.
The TCJA could be having a larger impact, with immediate expensing of capital costs and depreciation provisions, but it was also passed 6 years ago.
Last time was the war of 1812. Funnily enough the only war that does not have a more catchy name. Guess if you lose a war you don’t want to remember it really.
yeah, I actually read a book about that, which there aren't many of. The multiple half-assed "invasions" of Canada were a disaster for the US, as was the loss of Detroit and Michilimackinac Island. On the latter, the Brits had no reason to give it back, but they did.
People like to remember the Battle of New Orleans, except the war was already over. Good thing the Brits were preoccupied with Napoleon.
I think the US suffered minor attacks on the mainland and invasion of Alaskan islands in WW2, in addition to the more well-known attacks at Pearl Harbor and Midway.
Not sure it was a loss for USA as a country. The real losers of that war were all the indigenous who were involved, and perhaps Spain who'd lose Florida a short time later.
For now. The Roman Empire wasn't suffering from invasions during its prime years. Only when it got too old and weak, it was picked apart by its neighbors. On the human scale, the US is maybe 50 years old: still strong, but there are obvious signs of decline.
The Roman Empire suffered from plenty of invasions and direct military defeats during its peak years.
The Roman Empire also showed plenty of what people would see as obvious signs of decline during what we now call its rise.
The idea that an Empire follows a 3 act trajectory of rise, plateau, and fall is incorrect or at least incomplete. The history of empires is one of multiple waves of expansion and contraction. The peak can only be seen in hindsight.
While you’re in it, you might be able to see the slope, but there’s no way to tell whether you’re headed towards local or global maxima or minima.
If you’d asked a Roman on the street in 53 BC, after a Roman army had been decisively beaten by the Parthians, he probably would have been worried about obvious signs of decline as well, but that was well over a century before what most people think of as the peak of the empire.
That’s not to say America can’t be sliding off of a global maximum, but there’s absolutely no way to tell until it’s over.
Yeah, I think it's impossible to say, but I also think you have to think in relative terms. How is a nation (or empire) faring in comparison to its peers or competitors? If it seems to be in decline in some way, but everyone else is also in decline the same way, then they may still be at the top. America is having some big problems lately, but it seems like most of its peers and adversaries are also having big problems too.
The Roman Empire was constantly invaded during its rise and then was constantly splintering and fighting civil wars along with the occasional war against foreign powers in its height. You’re completely wrong about that
