That would explain why nation states like China and Japan, even though they are smarter than the modern day US, are doing worse than the US. They haven't had as much time to optimize their societies for the area their nation covers and the lifestyles they live.
The US has existed in its current form since 1787 ( Delaware, last state to join the union ). That's 237 years to optimize the same land area.
Modern Japan historically came to be in 1868, which gives it 156 years to optimize itself. Although I would argue that Japan was completely changed after WW2 where they had to surrender their territories that were considered part of the Japanese empire outside of Japan. Which makes it 67 years to optimize itself.
The republic of China was founded in 1912. That's 112 years to optimize itself. However, it took over Tibet in 1951 which is a big enough piece of land to count as a major change in its territory that it has to work over. Which makes it 73 years. 1949 when the Chinese government fled to Taiwan which makes it 75 years.
India gained its independence in 1947. That's 77 years.
Stability leads to growth when it isn't leading to stagnation.
The US is the only place that has had the chance to be stable for as long as it has at its current size.
The fact that even with that large a time gap, the US isn't centuries ahead of the rest of the world suggests that the US has actually been underperforming taking all of its advantages into account.
The modern Chinese state has existed for half as long as the US and already crossed it in terms of PPP GDP.
China has 4x the population of the US, and a higher IQ.
China taking into account that it is half the age of the US, has been growing at a rate of more than 3x compared to the US since its inception to be able to keep up.
Even now the Chinese economy continues to grow at a more rapid rate than the US.
Given enough time the Chinese would obviously outgrow the US, being smarter than them long enough would accumulate the benefits.
The primary challenge that persists for the US is that the population of China is too high compared to that of the US.
The average Chinese is smarter than the average American. The average Chinese needs to be only 1/4th as efficient as the average American to surpass their economy. The Chinese economy is not 1/4th as efficient though, it is far more efficient than that even if not as efficient as the US economy.
China will naturally surpass the US if both the entities maintain their current form, given enough time there is no doubt about that.
The disadvantage over the long run exists for the US as it has to remain 2x more competitive than the Chinese at the end of the century even when taking population loss into account.
Conclusion:
The only solution for the US to remain a future global hegemony is to form a larger union. The average Chinese is well on his way to be more competent than the average European. The US could maintain a 10-15% performance lead over the Chinese into the next century but it is not possible for them to remain two times more productive than the Chinese for that long as the Chinese intellectual competence accumulates over time.
China is guaranteed to overtake the US by 2100 at most if the US does not become an expansionist empire.
Technologically the Chinese are catching up at a speedrun pace.
Even with all the current disadvantages, we can expect a 1.5x growth advantage in favor of China vs US.
That's easily enough for China to cross the US by the end of the century in terms of nominal GDP.
The US has no choice but to increase immigration and to expand its territories this century to maintain its position as global number 1.
Conclusion 2:
North American Union formed before 2100 to be able to keep ahead of China.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Well the US clearly needs more influence because it is growing at a rate of 2.5% average at most. China remains ahead.
Expanding to have another nation state be directly a part of you is far different from having a military base in another nation state in terms of resource access and total GDP.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Having direct control
would 
be a net negative. You honestly don't think 
that having another nation be responsible of your defense with military 
units in your nation doesn't provide better 
trade deals? We would 
be fighting 
counterinsurgencies out the butt if we tried direct colonial control. Heck our empire 
is an improved model 
of the British 
empire 
where 
they did the same thing. Send troops to support a native 
power 
struggle and prop up their regime in order to receive financial and defense benefits.
Our GDP is fine as long as we remain innovative. The U.S. issues are domestic
regulation and policy stunting growth and increasing corruption. Not our overwhelming presence on the world 
stage. The Chinese 
will only surpass if they allow for innovation but right 
now their government suppresses that greatly because it would 
be a threat to CCP control. The Chinese 
will remain a regional power 
at worst. They have no ambition or means to have global control 
in the same capacity as the U.S.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Look. By the end of the day Chinese growth rate remains above that of the US.
The US needs to integrate with Canada at least to open up resource access and grow its population.
The main issue is population. The US needs to be 2x its current size to be in the safe zone.
The US population needs to be growing at a rate of 1% per year at least. It is not.
The US needs to be innovating at a rate where it stays ahead of China in all industries with the gap ever widening. It is not.
The US in its current form is something that can be overtaken given enough time by a larger nation state.
By 2100 five nation states are expected to have populations higher than the US. That's five nation states with a chance to surpass the US one day.
If South Korea can maintain GDP growth rates similar to the US then China can certainly maintain GDP growth rates higher than the US.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
So was the soviets
We gain little
from this.
Then China
is fricked worse than us.
I'm going
to go swim so I'll respond to the rest later 
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yes and just like the US is an upgrade over the UK, the Chinese are an upgrade over the Soviets.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
They still have the issue of being an extractive economy like the soviets.
What makes the U.S. work is unlike most nations
in history 
is that its economy is innovative rather than extractive.
What you state
is true for most nations 
like China, Russia, etc. but for the U.S. it would 
create more problems than it would 
solve
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
China cannot be called an extractive economy as it is only 10-30 years behind the US depending on which technology you are looking at and even ahead of the US when it comes to nuclear reactors. You wouldn't call the US from 30 years ago an extractive economy.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
This isn't due to innovation though? They extract labor from their people and steal/bribe foriegn nation/companies for their technology. Thats why they will remain behind
the U.S.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
China is ahead of the west when it comes to nuclear technology?
The whole they only steal is a big cope taking into account that the stealing is an additional tool when they cannot overtake or reach parity with just innovating.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context