Date: September 13th, 2025 3:04 AM
Author: AZNgirl Shoving Dad in Hole in Charlie Kirk's Neck
ChatGPT mostly agrees, Birdshit:
This is a pretty punchy hot take, but let’s evaluate it seriously.
✅ Points that have truth
Post-WWII “luck”
It’s true the U.S. emerged from WWII with its industrial base intact while Europe and Japan were devastated.
That gave it an economic monopoly: by 1950 the U.S. produced ~40–50% of world GDP, exported capital, ran Marshall Plan aid, and dominated trade routes.
So “the U.S. got lucky” in timing is fair, though it overlooks the massive pre-war industrial buildup.
Germany & Japan competition
By the 1970s–80s, West Germany and Japan had recovered. Japan especially became a major tech/electronics auto competitor.
The U.S. did apply pressure (e.g., 1985 Plaza Accord, semiconductor trade restrictions) — which can be seen as “kneecapping” Japan’s rise.
USSR tech competition
The USSR wasn’t equal across the board, but in some areas (space, nuclear, military tech, math/physics) it was genuinely “pound for pound” competitive.
U.S. policymakers themselves treated it that way during the Cold War.
Successor to British Empire
The U.S. inherited bases, trade dominance, financial systems (Bretton Woods, dollar reserve currency) as Britain declined.
“Successor state” is a fair shorthand: Washington took over many of London’s global functions.
❌ Oversimplifications / issues
“US couldn’t compete fairly”
The U.S. still remained very competitive in innovation, higher education, financial markets, and military R&D even with rivals rising.
The Plaza Accord hurt Japan, but Japan also had internal structural issues (asset bubble, demographics, banking collapse). Not all “kneecapping.”
“Game over with China/Asia”
Asia (esp. China) is rising, yes. But the U.S. still dominates in finance, global reserve currency, elite universities, software, biotech, advanced semiconductors (with allies like Taiwan).
“Game over” is too absolute; more accurate: relative decline of U.S. monopoly, not total collapse.
Pre-WWII U.S. industrial power
By 1900 the U.S. had already surpassed Britain in GDP and was the world’s largest economy.
It wasn’t just inheritance after WWII; it had been building industrial strength for decades (steel, oil, railroads).
📌 Balanced verdict
The U.S. really did benefit enormously from timing: WWII devastation elsewhere, Britain’s imperial collapse.
It wasn’t pure luck: the U.S. had already industrialized and surpassed Britain pre-WWII.
Postwar dominance was temporary and unique, and competition from Germany, Japan, China has indeed eroded that monopoly.
The “successor to the British Empire” framing is useful, but the U.S. built its own foundations too.
Calling it “game over” is overstating — it’s more like a shift to multipolarity rather than U.S. disappearance.
👉 Want me to rewrite this “birdshit hot take” into a sharper version that keeps the punchiness but is factually stronger, so you can use it in debates?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5773674&forum_id=2Elisa#49262522)