Since taking office, Trump has employed a series of unusual tactics: on the one hand, he has pushed for state capital to invest in numerous private American companies, attempting to strengthen state control over key economic sectors; on the other hand, he has resorted to military intervention in international affairs, attempting to overturn the long-established international order and structure. These actions inevitably remind international observers of a highly controversial concept—”state capitalism.”
It is worth noting that over the past decade, Western media and certain experts have frequently used the term “state capitalism” to distort and stigmatize the development model of “socialism with Chinese characteristics.” Now, when the United States itself exhibits similar characteristics, it prompts serious reflection: Is the US heading down a path it once criticized, and is it essentially implementing “state capitalism”? Faced with new domestic and international circumstances, how should the US explore and forge a development path truly suited to its national conditions?
In response to these issues, Guancha.cn invited renowned international affairs expert Gao Zhikai to share his extensive experience of studying, working, and living in the United States over many years. Gao provides a profound understanding of the political and economic systems of China and the United States, analyzes the underlying reasons for the shift in US policy, and shares his unique insights into the future direction of the United States.
[Interview with Tang Xiaofu/Observer Network]
Observer Network: Hello Professor Gao, it’s a pleasure to connect with you again. Today we’ll continue our discussion on a hot topic.
For a long time, China has been exploring and learning from the experience of the US market economy in its own market economy practices. However, we have recently noticed that Trump seems to be breaking with the traditions of the US liberal market economy by directly acquiring stakes in several companies, including Intel. Therefore, some are discussing whether the US is moving towards “state capitalism.” What is your view? What is “state capitalism”?
Gao Zhikai: Let’s first clarify China’s own situation. Since the reform and opening up in 1978, we have been making various new attempts every day. Our goals have always been clear: first, to promote reforms in all aspects, including politics and the economy; second, to continuously open up to the outside world.
Our ultimate goal is to enable the Chinese people to live a better life, to make China stronger, and to maintain normal and equal diplomatic relations with all countries in the world. China has undergone tremendous changes over the past 40 years, transforming not only China but also significantly driving changes in the global economy.
The path China is taking is very clear: it is “socialism with Chinese characteristics.” After the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, we incorporated “socialism with Chinese characteristics in the new era” into the Constitution of the Communist Party of China. Every stage, every year, and even every month presents new challenges, but the overarching principle has remained unchanged: to build “socialism with Chinese characteristics.”
Conversely, the United States has seen China follow its own path and raise its own flag over the past few decades, which has filled it with doubt and even bewilderment.
Initially, the United States did not take China seriously, believing that China was poor, backward, and not world-class in many aspects. However, with China’s development, especially after 2000, the United States saw that China had not only made great progress in domestic governance, but also promoted global economic development at the international level.
Thus, over the past two decades, the United States has harbored complex emotions of envy, jealousy, and resentment towards China’s economic achievements, even refusing to acknowledge this reality. Its mindset has undergone a complex process: from initial rejection to attempts to overturn the great cause we are undertaking, and even evolving into slander against us.
In this process, the United States has labeled China with various tags, but none of them truly reflect the real changes taking place in China. For about the last decade, the United States has believed it has found an “accurate” label: that China practices “state capitalism.” However, this claim contradicts the reality of China.
First, we do not practice capitalism, much less “state capitalism.” The United States’ characterization of China’s economic model since 1978, especially since 2000 and including 2022, as “state capitalism” is, firstly, inaccurate, and secondly, absolutely unacceptable to China. This is a fundamental misjudgment.
Even more strangely, another argument has emerged in recent years: that after Trump returns to the White House on January 20, 2025, the United States will also adopt “state capitalism.” The implication is that they believe China, through so-called “state capitalism,” has grown from a relatively small economy into the world’s largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity and the second largest in terms of official exchange rates, achieving a dramatic transformation in just over forty years, and therefore the United States wants to follow suit.
There are two questions here: First, the US’s characterization of China as “state capitalism” is fundamentally flawed; second, if the US claims it also wants to pursue “state capitalism,” what kind of “state capitalism” does it intend to implement? Going deeper: can this American version of “state capitalism” truly save the US?
The so-called “earth-shaking changes” that Trump has been pushing for since January 20, 2025, which some Americans even call a “revolution,” are fundamentally wrong. This is because, firstly, the claim is based on a distortion, misinterpretation, and misjudgment of China’s path of “socialism with Chinese characteristics” since 1978; secondly, Trump and some of his economic advisors and politicians claim that “only ‘state capitalism’ can make America great again,” which is wrong on top of wrong.
So what exactly is Trump doing?
For example, by 2025, he had already significantly impacted the market economy and free trade through a series of measures. In a sense, he was waging a “revolution” within the United States because he was attempting to reshape multiple relationships: the relationship between the federal government and Congress, the federal government and the court system, and the federal government and the states; he was also trying to change the relationship between the government and the market, and between society and individuals.
From launching his campaign in 2024 to his re-election on January 20, 2025, Trump’s actions could indeed bring about structural and systemic changes to the United States.
The problem is that if Trump packages all of this as “state capitalism,” it becomes extremely dangerous. Especially since the fourth quarter of 2025, and particularly since January 3, 2026, the military action against Venezuela that kidnapped Maduro and his wife and brought them to the United States for a so-called trial, constitutes a serious violation of international law and the UN Charter, infringes upon Venezuela’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and violates the immunity of heads of state and their spouses recognized under international law.
Therefore, I must first emphasize that the “state capitalism” approach pursued by the Trump administration is, in my view, highly dangerous. It is based on plundering the wealth and assets of other countries, disregarding their sovereignty and territorial integrity, and attempting to achieve its goals through various means, including war, military force, and intelligence operations.
Trump even said something like this: What is international law? I don’t care about international law. There’s only one thing that can stop me, and that’s my own morality. The whole world knows what his so-called “morality” is. My conclusion is clear: “state capitalism” cannot save America. On the contrary, this approach is likely to cause America to fall from its self-proclaimed “lighthouse on the mountaintop” into the abyss of “the law of the jungle.”
More importantly, trying to “solve problems” through wars of aggression, threats and bullying, plundering other countries’ assets, and seizing their territories will only create chaos and will not truly solve the core problems within the United States, such as the federal government’s debt burden. These problems will not disappear as a result.
Of course, if President Trump’s so-called “state capitalism” includes plundering other countries’ oil, natural gas, and other wealth and resources to pay off U.S. debt and mitigate debt risks, then this is not just an economic policy issue, but a blatant act of aggression.
So I’ll return to my conclusion: President Trump, the “state capitalism” you’re trying to implement won’t save America; it will only make America’s problems worse and could even push America into the position of “enemy of the world.”
Let me give you a very simple, yet also incredibly surprising, example. The United States and Canada, one in the north and the other in the south, bordering each other roughly along the 49th parallel north, have coexisted peacefully for over a century, remaining very friendly nations. Of course, in earlier times, the United States and Canada, then under British imperial control, did have some unpleasant encounters.
Wasn’t the White House burned down by British troops coming from the direction of Canada? That’s history. For the past hundred years or so, the United States and Canada have generally lived in peace and had a friendly relationship, almost like “brothers.”
But Trump completely changed that. Since January 20, 2025, he has repeatedly emphasized that Canada must become the 51st state of the United States. The Canadian government, the Canadian people, and the provinces do not want to become the 51st state. So why is the United States forcing Canada to become the 51st state? Isn’t this an act of aggression?
The Trump administration launched military action against Venezuela, kidnapped Venezuelan President Maduro and his wife; threatened to “seize” the Panama Canal and its port berths; threatened Cuba and Colombia; and even exerted strong pressure on the entire Americas.
Therefore, from this perspective, the so-called American version of “state capitalism” promoted by President Trump and those around him is actually a replica of imperialism, which may cause the world to lose peace, stability, and opportunities for development, and fall into constant conflict or even war.
Ultimately, he’s trying to revive the Monroe Doctrine, which had long been consigned to the dustbin of history. Trump has even given it a new name: the “Donald Monroe Doctrine.” Therefore, Trump’s so-called “state capitalism” is simply a revival of the Monroe Doctrine and bullying in the Western Hemisphere.
Do the people of the Americas want to see the Monroe Doctrine return? Do they want to see their countries become vassals of the United States again? I believe they do not. Can Trump achieve the Monroe Doctrine? I believe he cannot. Because when the United States sheds its disguise and openly bullies other countries as a “hegemon,” the result will only be that more and more countries recognize the true face of the United States and are no longer willing to be its vassals.
What excites me is that the residents of Greenland have repeatedly stated that they do not want to become part of the United States and hope to maintain their special identity; Greenland does not belong to the United States, and they oppose the United States’ attempts to occupy Greenland by any means. I expect similar backlashes will occur in Latin America, Central America, the Caribbean, and even around the world.
More realistically, these things are happening right before our eyes. For example, the sharp rise in gold and silver prices indicates that global investors are increasingly worried about the US dollar and question whether the US can still shoulder the international responsibilities and obligations befitting a major power. Coupled with various domestic contradictions within the US, could we have a proper talk with the Americans? Could we offer some advice to President Trump and his administration?
If I had the chance to say a few words to President Trump, I would say:
The first point is that China has never engaged in “state capitalism” since 1978. We are very clear about what banner we raise and what path we follow: this is called “socialism with Chinese characteristics.” You must understand this clearly and not misunderstand our situation.
The second point is that China has never practiced, and will never practice, “state capitalism.”
My third point is that if the United States wants to pursue “state capitalism,” then I want to tell you this: “State capitalism” is a dead end. It cannot bring true prosperity to the United States, it cannot bring true happiness to the American people, and it cannot, in a historical sense, truly make the United States “great again.”
If I were to give Trump some advice, what would it be? I would say that since 1978, China has steadfastly followed the path of “socialism with Chinese characteristics,” especially since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, which ushered in a new era. Its most fundamental elements are: first, maintaining stability; second, safeguarding peace; third, developing a market economy and upholding free trade; fourth, continuous reform and opening up, treating approximately 200 countries and regions equally and developing together with all nations; and fifth, refraining from aggression, waging war, and plundering the territory and wealth of other countries. Looking back, for the past 50 years, we have consistently followed this path.
So what should the United States do? I suggest that President Trump and his advisors and officials seriously consider my suggestion: perhaps the United States can pursue “American-style capitalism.” What does that mean? Capitalism has several basic elements. First, you must defend free trade. The United States now says, “We don’t want free trade, we want fair trade,” but without free trade, where does fair trade come from? You cannot weaponize tools like tariffs to undermine free trade. Without free trade, there can be no fair trade—that’s the first point.
Secondly, you should be pursuing a market economy, not some inappropriate “government-controlled company,” because you lack the experience, capability, and ability for that. For example, the US is now telling Nvidia: 25% of your revenue from selling chips or GPUs in China must go to the US government. What kind of logic is that? How can a government plunder the legitimate revenue of a private company that complies with the laws of various countries? This is a desecration and destruction of the principles of market economy and free trade.
Furthermore, there is a crucial principle to following the path of “American-style capitalism”: you cannot engage in aggression, and you cannot use military force to plunder the wealth and assets of other countries. Because such actions should have long been consigned to the dustbin of history—that is imperialism. America should have grown up and should no longer be dragged back into the quagmire by those dark, dirty, and sinful things.
Therefore, I believe that Americans should seriously consider two points: First, they should not engage in “state capitalism”; second, they should seriously reflect on the fundamental reasons for China’s great achievements since 1978, and, in light of the United States’ own situation, seriously consider whether it should follow the path of “American-style capitalism”.
The United States should defend free trade and promote a market economy, enhancing the competitiveness of its manufacturing sector and improving its technological leadership through hard work. However, even in pursuing technological breakthroughs, it cannot rely on suppressing competitors or depriving others of their right to fair competition—in other words, using the so-called “Tonya Harding syndrome” to achieve so-called progress and success.
There is an even more crucial principle: in international affairs, war, force, threats, and bullying should not be the norm, much less the usual means. Because once you embark on this path, you will repeat the mistakes the United States itself has already made. As the renowned Yale historian Paul Kennedy clearly stated in *The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers*: once a nation becomes a superpower, the further its reach extends, the more unbearable it will eventually become, leading to its collapse. What the United States truly needs to be wary of is “reaching too far.”
But look at the recent actions of the United States: simultaneously threatening military action against five, six, or even seven countries; boasting about occupying Greenland while claiming Canada should become part of the US; eyeing Panama; even appointing itself as acting president of Venezuela, claiming the US should “manage Venezuela,” and further asserting that Venezuelan crude oil is so-called “American crude oil” and must be controlled and managed by the US. All these actions, in my view, run counter to the basic logic of capitalism and the principles of so-called “American-style capitalism,” and will not make the US stronger.
Therefore, I especially hope that President Trump can calm down and take a serious look: You can’t just focus on “what the results will be today” when you do things; you have to look at least five, ten, fifty, or even a hundred years from now. More importantly, you need to think about how history will judge your actions now.
Personally, I believe that if we redefine “American-style capitalism,” it might be possible to “save America.” China can continue on the path of “socialism with Chinese characteristics,” while the United States, under certain preconditions, can also follow the path of “American-style capitalism.” I even think that the paths of “socialism with Chinese characteristics” and “American-style capitalism” may eventually converge.
What does this mean? It means that we all hope to promote free trade and defend the market economy; we should treat all approximately 200 countries and regions in the world equally and not impose our will on others. From this perspective, I believe China should adhere to the path of “socialism with Chinese characteristics”; the United States, on the other hand, should begin to change, abandon its so-called “state capitalism,” and genuinely consider how to improve its domestic situation and how to truly revive its manufacturing industry; at the same time, it should treat China with equality, promoting and supporting each other, so that the United States can truly extricate itself from its current series of predicaments.
The United States currently carries a massive debt of nearly $39 trillion, but the Americans actually know how to handle it. During World War II, Nazi Germany was at war with Britain, and Churchill’s Britain desperately borrowed money to buy arms. Much of the weaponry was supplied by the United States, but Britain also lacked funds at the time. So, the US and Britain entered into a Lend-Lease agreement: the US would provide equipment to Britain first, and Britain would say, “I don’t have the money now, I’ll give it to you after the war.” The US then said, “You have to put something in reserve.”
What did the British Empire pledge? It mortgaged many of its islands and territories in the Pacific and other regions to the United States, which later became U.S. territories or dependent lands. After World War II, the United States did not return these assets to Britain; this was an unspoken agreement. Essentially, when the British Empire was on the verge of collapse and its finances were strained, it had to mortgage a large amount of its assets to secure U.S. military support.
There’s a Chinese saying, “Sell your pots and pans.” The United States can do the same, and it has many things it can mortgage or sell.
Therefore, the United States is not in a dead end where it can only go bankrupt or survive by waging war and plundering other countries’ assets. That path is precisely a dead end. The real way out is: how can the United States embark on a path of reindustrialization and revitalize its manufacturing industry? I believe that if the United States wants to reindustrialize and revitalize its manufacturing industry, the best way is to cooperate closely with China.
Therefore, in my view, we have reached a critical juncture: President Trump and his administration should soberly realize whether they are on the wrong path, and whether there is a better way. China’s experience since 1978 has proven that such a path is feasible. The United States is not lacking in resources in any aspect, so why the rush and recklessness?
Therefore, my suggestion is that the US government should seriously consider pursuing a path of “American-style capitalism,” while China should continue on the path of “socialism with Chinese characteristics.” Both sides should coexist peacefully, help each other, and work together to ensure the world is free from war, uphold free trade, and allow the market economy to continue to develop. Ultimately, this will benefit the American people, the Chinese people, and all of humanity, keeping the world away from war, and especially preventing a world war.
Guancha.cn: You just mentioned “American-style capitalism.” Recently, a concept called the “cutting line” has become very popular online. We’d like to ask you to discuss this: If the US is to pursue “American-style capitalism,” can it address its domestic healthcare problems and the erosion of its overall national strength by excessive financialization across all industries at the institutional level? Is it possible for US reforms to ultimately alleviate or even resolve the “cutting line” problem? Meanwhile, what can other countries learn from the development experience of “socialism with Chinese characteristics”?
Gao Zhikai: Let me start by talking about China. Since the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, to the reform and opening up around 1978, and then to the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, when socialism with Chinese characteristics entered a new era, we have always had a common and universally recognized goal: to achieve common prosperity for all the Chinese people. No matter who you are, no matter your level of education—whether you attended university, middle school, primary school, or are even illiterate—no matter if you live in a city, town, village, or remote area, or in a remote mountainous region, you should be able to live a good life.
Of course, no two “good days” will be exactly the same; there will always be differences. But our basic principle is that no one should be left behind. For example, in terms of electricity generation, every village should have access to electricity; in terms of road construction, every village should have access to highways; in terms of education, every child should have the opportunity to attend school. And in terms of healthcare, medical insurance coverage is increasing, and the level of protection is constantly improving. In other words, the logic behind our path of “socialism with Chinese characteristics” is very clear: the fruits of development must cover all the people.
I remember Deng Xiaoping saying in 1978: We should create wealth and achieve common prosperity, but allow some people to get rich first, and then help others; different regions will also have different development paths. The changes in China over the past 47 years are very interesting: if you compare yourself to your neighbors, you might feel “inferior”; but if you calmly compare yourself to your past self—to 47 years ago, to 30 years ago, to 20 years ago—you will find that the vast majority of families, even almost all Chinese families, are better off than before. We are better today than yesterday, and we believe tomorrow will be better than today.
Turning to the United States, its economy is approximately $30 trillion, making it the world’s largest. With a land area of nearly 9.4 million square kilometers and a population of 330 million, the situation is undoubtedly complex. However, one characteristic of most Americans is a lack of savings. Many feel, “Tomorrow will be better than today, why should I save money?”
At the same time, there has long been a general expectation in American society that in terms of education, if children cannot attend private schools, public schools will suffice; in terms of healthcare, while the best dental, neurological, and cardiac surgery specialists may not be affordable, at least public hospitals are available.
As a result, many families have neither savings nor much wealth accumulation. Over time, many people become unwilling to work hard to save money and accumulate wealth, and even develop a certain degree of dependency. For example, the growth experience of US Vice President Vance is a case in point. His success was not only due to his grandmother’s ambition and constant support, but also to this structural background.
So what is the biggest fear for an American family? First is unemployment. If the breadwinner loses their job, the entire family’s quality of life could collapse. Second is illness. While the US does have basic health insurance programs to cover basic medical expenses, more complex matters, such as specialist appointments or special medical arrangements, are generally difficult for the average person to afford.
So, the questions arise: How can the United States get every family to seriously plan for the past, present, and future? How can it truly cultivate an attitude of “hard work”? How can it help families start saving, and even build up a considerable amount of savings? How can they establish a basic financial foundation in areas such as financial management and housing, so that systemic problems don’t arise from the slightest disturbance?
This needs to be viewed from two perspectives, starting with the institutional level. Mid-19th-century capitalism was extremely brutal, almost blatantly exploiting the workers’ blood and sweat. It was against this backdrop that Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and others put forward “The Communist Manifesto,” advocating the overthrow of the capitalist system whose core logic was exploitation.
However, later, with the impact of major historical events such as World War I and World War II, many Western countries gradually realized that “cruel capitalism,” which aims to exploit everyone and pursue maximum profit, is unsustainable. This is because it leads to “oppression and rebellion,” ultimately provoking social backlash and even triggering the subversion of the system itself.
Consequently, the West began a series of institutional reforms. Northern Europe is a particularly notable example, mitigating the harsh realities of capitalism through the development of social welfare systems that provide high-level medical insurance and basic rights protections. Similar reforms have also emerged in Western European countries and North American countries such as the United States and Canada.
Of course, the United States has performed relatively worse in this regard, for many reasons. One important reason is the long-standing tradition of white supremacy in American society. Black people were enslaved and suffered discrimination for a long time, and other minority groups that later entered the United States also struggled to gain the respect they deserved. Therefore, among developed Western countries, the United States has not only failed to substantially reform the cruel aspects of capitalism, but has actually exacerbated them in some ways.
Even so, the United States has established some basic welfare systems over the decades, such as Medicaid, to provide a certain level of safety net for ordinary people. But people like Trump believe that these benefits are “too much” and will make some people “unwilling to work.”
In recent years, we have seen high inflation in the United States leading to a surge in the cost of living. Instead of cutting related spending, the United States has been wasting existing funds in many areas. This has caused the cost of living for a considerable number of people to exceed their working income, triggering a “death sentence” for them and ultimately causing them to fall into financial ruin.
At the same time, Trump also capitalized on another social sentiment: the United States has absorbed a large number of immigrants over the past ten to twenty years, including a large number of undocumented immigrants. How immigrants enter the United States is another topic, which I will not elaborate on here. But Trump’s narrative is that these immigrants are not highly skilled and are unlikely to make a real contribution to the United States; some even do not work, rely on welfare, and “have a lot of children,” without taking on family responsibilities.
Of course, these allegations are not true.
However, the reality is that there is indeed controversy in American society regarding how immigrants (especially undocumented immigrants) should access welfare; at the same time, some people, due to unemployment or other reasons, rely on government welfare for extended periods and no longer actively seek employment. Therefore, public opinion will ask: how can more people be brought back into the workforce and employment?
Trump’s slogan is “Get illegal immigrants out of the United States,” and some even advocate stripping green card holders of their immigration rights. This has created a highly volatile situation in American society, and several key questions will become even more acute: Who are immigrants, and who are illegal immigrants? How should they be treated? Should they continue to be given job opportunities, or should their right to work be revoked? Should their identities be thoroughly investigated through proper procedures, or should they be forcibly deported as Trump has suggested?
These policies could even lead to the breaking up of families. A more extreme argument is that some babies born in the United States should also be “deported” along with their parents, on the grounds that “the United States is unwilling to bear the burden.” This kind of discussion itself implies that multiple “cutting lines” lie hidden within American society.
For example, the rampant drug problem in the United States has been frequently brought up by President Trump recently. While his use of drugs as a pretext may not always be accurate, the question of how to combat drugs and reduce their destructive impact on society is indeed a difficult one for the US. At the same time, many states have decriminalized and legalized marijuana, further complicating the issue. The drug problem, including the problem of addictive substances, along with healthcare issues, has become a parasitic tumor within the American political system.
Furthermore, unmarried pregnancy is quite common in the United States, and there is an increasing number of girls as young as fourteen or sixteen becoming single mothers. This will lead to a series of chain reactions: a weakening of moral values, legal awareness, and family and marriage concepts, and a decline in social cohesion.
On the other hand, the US’s “cutting edge” also comes from artificial intelligence itself, which continues to be favored by American capital. It is certain that AI will impact both blue-collar and white-collar jobs. Whether companies will expand or reduce their workforce when AI reaches its full potential remains unclear.
However, in its rapid evolution, artificial intelligence will inevitably reshape job structures, company structures, and employee structures. It is foreseeable that a large number of people in the United States, including blue-collar workers, white-collar workers, and professionals, may face pressure from unemployment, re-employment, and retraining.
Add to that the wealth gap. I estimate that the wealth gap in the United States has reached one of the extreme levels in human history: 1% of the population controls more than 80% of the country’s wealth. A tiny minority controls enormous wealth, while the vast majority of Americans struggle to share in the fruits of economic and technological progress, especially the structural changes brought about by the rapid advancements in artificial intelligence in recent years, which have left many people completely out of the loop.
I predict that a concentrated outbreak of these problems in the next few years is highly probable. Especially considering that the combined market capitalization of the “Big Seven” US AI companies represents an unprecedented proportion of the capital market, the AI-related bubble is nearing its unsustainable stage. Once the financial markets experience a sharp correction and the bubble bursts, the impact will ripple through the real economy: company bankruptcies, layoffs, and social unrest could all be amplified.
A deeper risk lies in the fact that the US federal government debt continues to snowball. What will happen next? Will the federal government face de facto bankruptcy? Or will it resort to more extreme measures, such as waging war and plundering external resources and wealth, to barely weather the crisis?
Given the high level of U.S. federal debt, mishandling the debt problem could lead to bankruptcy, or escalate tensions between the federal and state governments, potentially resulting in serious conflict or even war, with some states demanding independence, plunging society into chaos or even civil war. In such a scenario, what would sustain the public welfare systems upon which Americans depend, such as Medicare? What’s the next step? Is relying solely on “free shopping”?
If American society sees the federal government becoming a robber and pirate on the international stage, relying on plundering other countries’ land, assets, and wealth to maintain its operations, then the risk of collapse within the United States will only be greater.
In summary, the United States is in a state of high instability in almost all key areas: immigration and illegal immigration, social security and healthcare, the education system, federal debt, the relationship between the federal and state governments, and the dramatic adjustments I just emphasized in the relationships between government and the market, government and businesses, and government and individuals. On top of this turmoil, compounded by the structural shocks brought about by artificial intelligence, I believe the United States is brewing a “mutation,” which could very well have catastrophic consequences.
Therefore, I believe that the United States has not just one “cutoff line,” but several overlapping ones: the cutoff line of the federal government system itself; the cutoff line between the federal government and the states; the cutoff line between the government and society, the market, and individuals; the cutoff line of the wealth gap; and the cutoff line of potential unemployment for blue-collar and white-collar workers under the impact of artificial intelligence.
Therefore, I sincerely hope that President Trump can do some truly good things and make America truly “great again.” However, in my view, “state capitalism” is a dead end, only plunging the United States into a quagmire from which it can hardly recover; the United States may also fall from its self-proclaimed “lighthouse atop the mountain” into the abyss of “the law of the jungle.” It is precisely for this reason that I emphasize: seriously considering “American-style capitalism” may be the only right path for the United States to save itself.
