Are profit margins a better measure of economic dominance than output volume?
Core argument: U.S. firms dominate global profit margins vs. Japan, Europe, and China, demonstrating superior economic power beyond GDP comparisons.
Profit, [Brooks and Vagle] argue, is evidence that one company can do something others can’t. Monopolists have the highest profit. Oligopolists make good money. Manufacturers of toys and textiles have razor thin margins. When Brooks and Vagle measure profits, they find that U.S. firms dominate, while Japan and Europe remain significant players. China is a second-tier player. The U.S. and allies lead in profits across the board. When it comes to high tech products, the imbalance in America’s favor is particularly pronounced. If profitability is the result of power dynamics, then the U.S. is far more powerful than comparing GDP or industrial output implies. There are a couple of potential counterarguments. Is China pursuing a loss-leading strategy, accepting low profits in the short run to win market share in the long run? In solar power, China has commoditized the sector and produced overcapacity that has led to losses, not profits. There’s no moat in solar the way there is around tech. Is perhaps profitability the right metric in peace but not in war? China is betting that its production advantage will create more durable CATL-style moats that eventually enable both profit and power.

