Contemporary China, with its maniacal building, corrupt systems, and creation of immense entrepreneurial wealth, strongly resembles America's late 19th-century Gilded Age. This historical parallel suggests China may be heading towards its own "Progressive Era" of technocratic reform and civil service improvements.

China's immense state capacity allows for rapid infrastructure development but also enables disastrous national policies like the one-child policy or Zero-COVID. Unlike the deliberative U.S. system, China's efficiency means that when it goes off track, it can go catastrophically off track before any course correction is possible.

Despite America's high standard of living, decades of wage stagnation have created a national psychology of pessimism. Conversely, China's explosive wage growth, even from a lower base, fosters optimism. This psychological dimension, driven by the *trajectory* of wealth, is a powerful and often overlooked political force.

China operates as a high-agency "engineering state" that executes relentlessly on large-scale projects. In contrast, America's deliberative, litigious society often leads to endless delays and failures on major infrastructure goals like the California high-speed rail, highlighting a fundamental difference in state capacity and approach.

The U.S. has a historical engineering tradition it can revive to solve its building crisis. China, however, lacks a deep-rooted liberal or lawyerly tradition of constraining state power. This path dependency makes it far easier for America to become a better builder than for China to become more rights-respecting.

China's "engineering state" mindset extends beyond physical projects to social engineering. The Communist Party treats its own people as a resource to be moved or molded—whether displacing a million for a dam or enforcing the one-child policy—viewing society as just another material to achieve its objectives.

From a Chinese perspective, its vast manufacturing capacity, supported by world-class infrastructure, is a global utility. The concept of "Made in China" is reframed as "Made for the World." This view suggests the U.S. should focus on its own strengths like innovation ("zero to one") instead of viewing China's manufacturing prowess ("one to 100") as a national security threat.

A nation's leadership class shapes its priorities. China's government, heavily populated by engineers, excels at long-term, systematic infrastructure and technology projects. The US, dominated by lawyers, often gets mired in litigation and short-term cycles, hindering large-scale execution.

China, led by engineers, treats national problems as megaprojects to be built. The U.S., dominated by lawyers, excels at blocking initiatives through legal challenges. This core difference explains why China can build rapidly while the U.S. struggles with infrastructure and progress.