In terms of military prowess the US is superior, if you believe their advertised weapons capabilities. That being said, if we believed what countries said about their own weapons, then Russia has a number of world ending superweapons - clearly they're the leader here /s.
If you believe total number of naval vessels determines might, the Chinese Navy's numbers make them superior. If you believe damage control and logistics determine naval might, the USA has one of the most sophisticated support fleets in the world with world class damage control (combat survivability - but this is a meme).
If you believe technological development makes a nation superior, the USA maintains it's edge with trade allies South Korea and Taiwan.
If you believe total production is what makes a nation superior... China.
Look, you get what I'm saying. The dollar is still the primary reserve currency (for now) and the US still ensures safety in international waters while projecting power regularly.
It really worries me that the US president is heavily invested in crypto schemes, since he and his family would benefit with the crash of the dollar. It is the conflict of interest to end all conflicts of interest
Additionally, most people don't consider the Mexico factor. Presently some of the most talented machinists in the world live in Mexico manufacturing parts for American automotive (and other industries).
But, really, this comparison can only be proven in conflict - something both the USA and the CCP want to desperately avoid right now due to his economically coupled they are.
Just in time logistics has been a disaster for the American war machine.
The Malacca straits are to easily blockaded. China needs food imports and energy imports no matter how much alternative energy they build.
No, you can't truck or train it in over land.
They are still facing a massive demographic bomb. They're becoming increasingly authoritarian, which will begin to restrict their production efficiency. They may have a financial bomb as well.
Don't make the mistake that you think that India and Russia are going to be close allies of China.
Russia has extensive territories that China considers theirs historically. Likewise, India and China dispute many territorial issues.
>America . . . has lost its edge in . . . power generation
Energy costs are much lower in the US than in Europe or China. China is the world's largest importer of petroleum and of natural gas. In contrast, the US is self-sufficient in petroleum and natural gas.
China's petroleum comes by ship from the Persian Gulf and from Russia's European ports (since there is no easy way for Russia to get its oil to its Asian ports). Beijing's worry that something might happen to interrupt its long supply lines of petroleum and natural gas is why it has made a large risky bet on solar electricity. The US, which has more land with high solar potential than China, can sit back and wait to see how China's bet on solar will turn out before it makes big bets on solar.
It might be that the cost of electricity specifically is lower in China than the US. If so, that is because Beijing has prioritized building a lot of electricity-generating capacity. It engages in many such infrastructure project to keep its young men employed -- something Washington does not need to do because the US economy provides enough jobs without without Washington's spending on infrastructure projects (so Washington tends to spending on infrastructure only when the project clearly makes economic sense).
Beijing imposes tight restrictions on its citizens' ability to invest outside China, so Chinese individual investors, pension funds, etc, put most of their money into deposits into Chinese banks and into Chinese real estate. Most of the funding for infrastructure projects comes from these bank deposits and from borrowing. Governmental debt (including debt owed by state and provincial governments) is a higher percentage of GDP in China than in the US.
