[throwaway34241]

The corporate world isn't a bad analogy. But corporates are still by and large very profitable, some companies operate as they always have (although that isn't newsworthy, and it isn't a marketing point), and on this specific topic (testing) leetcode type questions are still ubiquitous.

If social trends seriously impaired companies' competitiveness I might expect to see the companies that are more on board underperform. But when I think of recent corporate failures (maybe Google failing to compete with FB on chat / VR / Google plus etc), garden variety mismanagement still seems like it has more impact.

So I also disagree with the policy, but worrying about "transforming the economy to third world status" like the OP seems like it is going overboard. If suboptimal policy choices or social trends destroyed society it would have been destroyed a long time ago many times over (and San Francisco wouldn't be a startup hub).

[angelzen]

Post-stalinist Soviet Union, while not manically murderous, eventually imploded under the weight of a myriad suboptimal policy choices. Alas, it took 40 years to do so. There is a lot of inertia, I don't think anyone is arguing that UC (or Google) will collapse next year, but that the weight of poor policy choices compounds over time.

Re "mass de-industrialization", there is a historical reference, specifically the complete bankruptcy of ex Soviet block industry in the '90s, being sold for pennies to Western investors to bulldoze it and build something else in its place. I don't have a crystal ball, but I do wonder how US/China rivalry will play out in the 2040s and beyond.

[throwaway34241]

I think it's useful to explore historical perspectives, but there are many others. If I look at my parents' generation in the US, people were being forced against their will to fight overseas in a war that didn't achieve anything (and involved mass poisoning the crops of substance farmers). You had double-digit inflation, rationing gas by license plate, and, at points, literal price controls.

Before the baby boomers we had global war, before that the great depression and growing literal communism, before that prohibition and the mob. And of course prohibition was prompted by social problems around alcohol.

So I don't think "problems compound" is always true. For a long time, teen pregnancy and alcohol use were on the rise, but that trend didn't continue indefinitely, and both have relatively recently had dramatic declines.

If you look closely enough at any time period there are often multiple serious political, economic, and/or social problems, so much so that it seems to be the norm rather than the exception.

> Post-stalinist Soviet Union, while not manically murderous, eventually imploded under the weight of a myriad suboptimal policy choices

Even this I'm not so sure. Here is a graph of their GDP [1]. My understanding is it was a political collapse first (a failed coup), and the economic collapse followed. An example that I've read China has been very mindful of (apparently Xi talks about Russia much more in his books than he does the US).

> I do wonder how US/China rivalry will play out in the 2040s and beyond.

Me too, at that point they'll probably be a much larger economy than the US. Will that have a destabilizing effect (especially with a potential military conflict over Taiwan)? Or will (the US) having a shared rival be somewhat unifying? The UK did OK despite declining in (relative) importance, but I could imagine the US struggling with its domestic problems even without any great power rivalry...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Soviet_Union_GDP_per_capi...