It would be far smarter to have invested in the workforce continually. A microcosm of this is how we mismanaged college education and is a symptom of a larger problem: As far as US policy goes, got complacent and extractive over innovative and additive. The narrative shifted from 'abundance for all' to 'the pie is only so big' (that is, unless you're a favored incumbent, like defense contractors). It doesn't stop here. Job training programs, continual education, robust workforce displacement services, proper social welfare programs. We lack all of this (and more).

Another would be to remove burdens off companies that are better handled by the collective of society, via the government. Take universal healthcare. An often unnoticed benefit is how it would shift liabilities off the books of a huge number of companies, from the auto manufacturers to smaller businesses. A tax is a much easier and simplified expense to deal with over legacy healthcare costs that can weigh down a business. It also has a secondary knock off effect: employers can't use it as a pair of handcuffs. In all likelihood, an unintended side effect of universal healthcare would be an increase in entrepreneurship from the middle class. People who would otherwise be handcuffed to their job because of health insurance.

Somehow, the lesson everyone took away from the G.I. Bill was not that the government providing robust funding of social services (IE college, home ownership) works. That part is seemingly ignored by the vast majority of the conversation around the 'good times past' that many Americans romanticize.

Too many of my fellow citizens are prioritizing their own short term gains over the long term health of the community and society in which they were empowered by to get ahead in the first place. This will inevitably crater quite spectacularly bad.

Or they just move their "headquarters" and the US part of the business will be a subsidiary.

This is an old, and well tested strategy.

E.g. Commodore International formally had its head office in The Bahamas, but the entire leadership team worked out of the US.

You can try putting more constraints on what will get a company considerd a US company to catch those kinds of structures, but as you indirectly point out, there are really only downsides to playing that game.

It's fiat wealth so... write the ledger however.

The majority don't care so long as they have enough food and shelter and healthcare.

The whole scoreboard based on bank accounts is all made up wankeroo.

Let's just have AI avatars fight for gloating rights; Goku beat Superman on PPV so Japan gets to host the inter dimensional cable world cup! And otherwise keep the biologically essential logistics flowing cause that collapse is when the meat suits will toss aside socialized truths of history and go crazy primate.

Conveniently India and the EU just signed a major trade deal.

No, I think companies that want to stay competitive will leave the US.

That's what the third shoe is for - aircraft carriers.

Pretty much. America is destined for a decline. The billionaires can make money regardless of border by always moving things around and utilizing their expansive resources for any possible loopholes and escape hatches while manipulating public policy.

Canada’s industrial economy was also undamaged. And so, by definition, the US was not the only one.

> They’ll just incentivize their local companies to compete

They already do.

> You cannot have only one side (US companies) capture 100% of the value.

This is the value prop of the US military

https://youtu.be/B1zKWNB2rho?t=230

Amazon's MGM subsidiary spent 75 million dollars thus far on the Melania Trump documentary that by all accounts, is looking like its going to be a box office bomb. Reportedly, 30 million of that 75 went directly to Melania[0]

[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2026/jan/28/melania-trump-d...

Iowa hasn't been purple for a while. Montana maybe a bit more recently.