America's economic decline isn't due to policy

[Stratego]

America is slowly losing its superpower status, and the current generation isn't as well off as the generations in the 50's and 60's (relative to the world). Democrats and Republicans have been trying to present policies that would make America that shining beacon again. But I'd like to present my case that America's relative decline isn't due to poor policies, it's simply on a natural course following historical events. I'd also like to present the case that the policies themselves, "trickle-down economics" or bottom up, more social services economics, don't impact the economy as much as the perception of fairness in these policies. This means that if you can control the media enough to control public perception of the policies, the economy can actually improve without changing the policies themselves. Sounds convoluted? Let me explain.

The first part about America's decline being a natural course of history is actually pretty simple. The reason the US was so wealthy in the 50's and 60's wasn't really due to an expansion of Civil Rights or capitalism. In fact Civil Rights may be a result of us being wealthy, and good economy policies may be an illusion. The reason we were so wealthy was that no one else in the world could produce anything. Europe and Asia could produce basically nothing because they just finished their wars of attrition and everybody was piss poor. They either bombed the shit out of each other or we bombed the shit out of them. So, if they wanted anything after the war, they probably need to buy it from us. Even if we were to be Communists during that time, we would still be rich because no one else could make anything. But after years of peace, other countries can start producing things and they start competing with us for resources. At first it's great for us too because when they start producing things we can trade. After a while, we can still trade, but relatively speaking we're not going to be as wealthy compared to them. Our growth is going to start to slow and we're going to go "WTF, how do we get that growth back?" But we can't because other people are producing shit now too.

The second argument is a little bit more complicated, but it's based on the idea that wealth is goods and services. It's also based on supply-side economics, which is kinda being rejected, but shouldn't be. As long as people think that what they're being compensated on is fair, they'll continue to produce. Demand-side economics play a role in what you can produce, but still, the total wealth of the nation is still based on the supply. If you can convince people that what they're getting is fair, then they'll keep producing. Even if the policy is blatantly biased, like citizens get paid more than immigrants for the same job. If the immigrants think it's fair and the citizens think it's fair, then we're going to produce and be wealthy. So, in the debate of trickle-down or bottom-up, I'd say, it doesn't really matter. Just pick one, explain to the people why you've picked it, repeat it enough to convince the people, and you'd still be better off than arguing about which is better.

[The Dude]

me thinks you don't know what supply-side economics actually is.

That said, I agree with the premise it's not just policy. Rest of the world was gonna catch up.

[Stratego]

[Lobster]

It was and continues to be for many a matter of national faith that America became a world power post WW2 due to "destiny" or cultural superiority. The context of colapsing colonial empires due to the two world wars and the rather sizeable vacuum in their wake (pretty much the reason for the Cold War, what the US and USSR were fighting over) is often overlooked.
That America's industrial base, as opposed to any other developped country at the time, remained untouched is also an important factor as you point out.