> curious how you define national interests

My metric would be what the country’s population today and weighted populations of the future, if they could weigh in, would choose.

It’s possible to frame ex post facto and impossible to pin down in the present. And it’s inherently subjective and culturally relative. But it’s useful to reason with, including for finding patterns in history.

One pattern is the cost of corruption. If a leader is making billions off their power, they’re putting person about polity. That’s currently true in America [1] and China [2][3]. The difference is America has a chance to fix that in ‘28. China used to rotate leaders. But Xi fucked that up. (Note the language similarity between the above comment and how MAGA defends itself. “Trite bullshit.” Beijing has a hidden MACA problem, it’s just had a tougher time dealing with it because Xi reveres Mao.)

[1] https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/spy-sheikh-secret-stake-...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/world/asia/chinas-preside...

[3] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/mar/20/us-intel-sa...

Can’t weighted population of the future change based on what is chosen? For example by immigration and deportations?

Also is MACA actually MCGA? Or something else? Aren’t there similar trends also in Europe and India?