The knight in the big world of American TV series

Chapter 2392

In reality, even with air carriers, it would be impossible to achieve a truly large-scale deployment.

But this thing isn't important!

The important thing is that the US government can now tell its story!
In the capital market, the ability to tell a story is more important than anything else!

"Compared to dry financial data, a compelling story can drive asset prices soaring—that's the magic of narrative economics." In the capital markets, it's common to see two companies with similar performance: one sees its stock price skyrocket because it tells a story that "aligns with future trends," while the other focuses solely on its work without crafting a compelling narrative, resulting in a stagnant market capitalization. Narrative economics, in essence, uses stories to build market consensus, convincing investors of an asset's future value and thus driving capital flows. This power can sometimes even surpass the fundamentals of the asset itself.

The reason stories can influence capital markets lies in their ability to "simplify complex information and evoke emotional resonance." Ordinary investors struggle to fully comprehend intricate financial statements and industry analyses, but a simple, easy-to-understand, and hopeful story can be quickly accepted. For example, a tech company proposing a narrative of "using technology to transform traditional industries" doesn't need to explain complex technical principles; simply depicting a scenario of "more convenient future living" can evoke images of vast market potential in investors. A new energy company telling a story of "green transformation" resonates with public expectations for environmental protection, attracting capital that believes in long-term value even if short-term profits are poor. These stories transform abstract "future value" into concrete imaginations, making investors willing to pay for "possibility."

More importantly, stories can create a "self-reinforcing market consensus." When enough people believe a story, it triggers a chain reaction: the first batch of investors buy assets because they believe the story, driving up prices; the rising prices attract even more attention, making them believe "the story is true," and thus they follow suit; the media, seeing the hype, follow up with reports, further amplifying the story's influence, ultimately creating a cycle of "the more it rises, the more people believe; the more people believe, the more it rises." For example, during a certain internet boom, many companies obtained huge amounts of funding simply based on stories of "platform ecosystem" and "user growth," achieving high valuations in the capital market even without a stable profit model—this is the capital aggregation effect brought about by consensus.

However, it's crucial to be wary of "false narratives" detached from fundamentals, as they will ultimately crumble. Some companies, in an effort to attract capital, fabricate stories without real support, such as exaggerating technological capabilities or fabricating market demand. While this may inflate asset prices in the short term, once the story is exposed, it triggers panic selling and a price crash. Truly sustainable stories that can attract capital in the long run must be built on solid fundamentals: either a clear path to profitability, core technological support, or genuine market demand. Like companies that achieve sustained growth, their stories aren't fabricated out of thin air; they are "created"—the story merely allows the market to see their value sooner, rather than creating non-existent value.

But air carrier fleets do exist, and the wealth transported in a single trip is real and impressive!

This will attract funding and boost national morale at the same time!
The latter is actually more important.

It's important to understand that with the collapse of its hegemony, the American worldview suffered tremendous damage, and they never imagined that what they were so proud of would be so fragile.

Historically, it's often the case that observers have a clearer view of human development than those directly involved; this is also true for national development. Nations are rarely willing to admit their incompetence and weakness, especially in the context of modern electoral systems and elite politics, where politicians are even less likely to do so. Although the decline of the United States began with the Afghan War, the world didn't fully grasp it before, given the country's continued strength.

Even small countries know that the more open a country is, the more confident it is; the more closed it is, the more problems its development has. The United States is a case in point. Although its economy is still the world's largest, it is inevitably on the path to decline, and the world has witnessed this. Even its Western allies have expressed doubts: can the US still lead its allies to development? However, the US vehemently denies this, especially its politicians; several presidents have refused to acknowledge its decline. They even believe the US is still the most powerful nation. As Blinken said, the US remains a superpower, constantly instilling confidence in its people and continuously employing external means to suppress the development of China and Russia. However, judging from the current results, these efforts have largely failed. Many people don't understand why Americans refuse to admit their decline. The reason is very simple: it's related to "American hegemony." We know that the US's strength lies in its established global security system and strong national confidence. It is this confidence that allows the US to have the world's largest stock market, attract the most immigrants globally, and gain benefits worldwide. It is precisely because of this confidence that the petrodollar system in the United States remains more stable. For the US, being a superpower and the world's leading power is crucial, as all of its current hegemony and the wealth of its people are built upon this foundation. If the US were to weaken, its hegemony would collapse rapidly. Therefore, for the US, admitting its own weakness would undoubtedly damage national confidence, potentially leading to a stock market crash, massive emigration, and the loss of the petrodollar system—putting the US in danger. Therefore, what the US actually needs to do is maintain its strength and confidence, and preserve its position and advantage, by continuously projecting a tough stance and hindering the development of its rivals. Thus, the US's ongoing stimulus packages are essentially a necessity for maintaining its hegemony. No matter what, the US will never admit its weakness, just like Britain today, which still refuses to acknowledge its decline.

So what matters is whether you have it or not, not how much you have!

As long as this fleet exists.

The US government can reap huge profits from this, and if it doesn't... it means that the Americans missed this opportunity!
This is even more upsetting than the fall of American hegemony.

The most typical example is neon!
During the global internet boom since 1990, Japan, despite having the world's second-largest GDP for 20 years, failed to produce a single internet or technology giant, making it a country lacking creativity. Japan's truly creative period was in the 1970s and 80s. During that time, Japan invented the Walkman, VCR, LCD monitor, semiconductor laser, lithium-ion battery, digital SLR camera… Japan was unparalleled in electronics and semiconductors. In business management, Japan invented lean manufacturing. Culturally, Japan experienced a boom in film, music, animation, comics, and other fields. Since the beginning of the 21st century, 19 Japanese have won Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, and other fields, averaging one per year. Most of these Nobel Prize-winning achievements were obtained in the 1970s and 80s.

But in the 21st century, neon lights suddenly became outdated.

In fact, Japan has a solid foundation in the internet industry. In the late 90s, Japan invented the world's first QR code, obtained the world's first commercial 3G license, and created the i-mode model, the ancestor of the world's mobile internet.

Having achieved so much, why would they miss out on the internet wave?

Firstly, conglomerates look down on the internet.

In fact, Japan has a solid foundation in the internet industry. In the late 90s, Japan invented the world's first QR code, obtained the world's first commercial 3G license, and created the i-mode model, the ancestor of the world's mobile internet.

It's important to understand that Japan's economy largely relies on conglomerates. In the 2019 Fortune 500 list, 52 Japanese companies were included, with total revenue of $31291 trillion, equivalent to 64% of Japan's GDP. Of these 52 companies, over 40 belong to Japan's six largest conglomerates. Behind these staggering figures lies the massive investment these conglomerates have made in the financial and manufacturing sectors over the years. Finance is the pulse, manufacturing is the flesh and blood; they aim to further control the economic lifeline through this.

As for the internet, it's not so much that Japan missed out, but rather that the conglomerates never even considered it.

Investing in the internet means giving up some familiar old businesses. If the money you spend goes well, great, but what if it goes down the drain? This kind of adventurous spirit might work for young people, but they are a bunch of killers; they have no emotions.

Another issue is Japan's notoriously poor entrepreneurial environment. VCs working on overseas projects avoid Japan altogether, preferring to fly to Kenya to take photos with giant animals rather than risk being turned away in Japan, a country teeming with conglomerates. Therefore, seeing a local startup grow into a unicorn is extremely difficult. Japan lacks tolerance for entrepreneurs. Success is fine, but failure means bankruptcy and loss of reputation, followed by the inability to find re-employment. The failure rate in the internet industry is extremely high, almost a nine-out-of-ten chance of failure; once you enter this circle in Japan, you're already considered an outcast. Secondly, the income after entrepreneurial success is generally mediocre. Japan values ​​fairness; even a CEO's after-tax salary is only a few times that of an average employee, while the tens or even hundreds of times difference seen in the US and China is unlikely in Japan. In the US and China, many young people with nothing try to achieve upward social mobility and financial freedom through internet entrepreneurship, but in Japan, the economic motivation for starting a business is not strong.

Japanese citizens also have many complaints about entrepreneurship. In the comments section of a blog post titled "Why Has Japan Become a Country Lagging Behind in Entrepreneurship?", Japanese netizens began to express their opinions:
Some netizens complained about the inefficiency of domestic government agencies by pointing out the differences in the entrepreneurial process between China and other countries. They suggested that since the status quo cannot be changed, it would be better to stay in a large company and adapt to the situation in Japan (this view was shared by most people).

Some netizens also criticized Japan for not recognizing its own position, saying that the authorities do not encourage mass entrepreneurship because they think Japan is developing very well, but it is clearly lagging behind in many aspects and is completely unaware of this.

With a poor environment, unfavorable policies, and low income, Japan truly offers no way for entrepreneurs to survive.

After World War II, thanks to technology transfer from the United States, Japan sold home appliances and automobiles so much that Americans cried "The wolf is coming!" Back then, Japan was a bold and outspoken nation daring to challenge authority; now, it's like an old man clutching his ancestral porcelain heirloom, afraid the slightest tremor will break it. The whole society exudes a stagnant atmosphere of "Don't change, or you're doomed." Watching the trends of new energy and artificial intelligence sweep by one after another, they stubbornly cover their ears, pretending the wind is too strong to hear.

Missing those opportunities means that the whole society lacks new growth points, leading to a more conservative and closed society.

Involution is severe.

This is also one of the important reasons why Japan lost thirty years!

If the United States doesn't want to end up with a lost decade or two someday, then...

It has to do something special!
We keep shouting to both domestic and international markets, "We're still here! We're still here!"

So when the military proposed this idea, everyone present actually thought it was a good idea!

As for why the military would come up with such an idea... of course, it's because such a good thing as an airborne carrier is naturally under the control of the military!
Damn, with the overall economy in such a mess, the military also needs to find new sources of profit growth!
Commissioners Smith and his ilk are not going to let their quality of life suffer. They don't care about any of that nonsense; all they care about is making money!

The problem is, even when it comes to making money, practical issues need to be considered!
If the United States collapses, where will they make money?
Now that hegemony has collapsed, although the government will still allocate funds to the military to rebuild the naval fleet for its own needs, there are actually not many opportunities for them to make money in this regard anymore.

There's nothing we can do about it. The US used to be number one, so they did some shoddy work to make easy money, and that was about it. Nobody really took it seriously; after all, our great America is invincible, so wasting a little money is no big deal!
But now the rebuilding of the navy is being watched closely by the entire nation. If they try to mess things up like before, they'll be killed in no time.

You can't go against everyone!

And what about the army and air force if the navy is rebuilt? After all, it's not their business. They have no chance to make money, since the navy itself doesn't have enough to go around, and it's impossible for them to get any. That's fine, but the problem is that if the navy's budget is increased, then the army and air force will have less!

The navy has always taken the lion's share of the military budget, but now that you've taken 90%, the army and air force are completely out of the running!

Don't underestimate the power of the army; the air force is not to be trifled with either.

Therefore, we must come up with new ways to make money, otherwise the military itself can start doing it.