LOL, if you minimize every natural obstacle to growth[1] and consider that the vast majority of everything is purely a result of population, and at the same time discounting the huge population ceiling difference between the US and Germany, then yeah, nothing matters anymore.
You cannot be a long term world power without abundant natural resources of almost every type. Having lots of smart and rich people obviously puts you in a good position, but we're arguing about being #1-2 in the world, not #20.
Also for the hypothetical German-led union, the EU, after 70 years of efforts, is still a weak confederation. It's weaker than even the original US based on the Articles of Confederation.
> LOL, if you minimize every natural obstacle to growth[1]
Claiming that natural resources are fundamental limiter to growth just isn't accurate. Market access and innovation is far more important.
Thorium is unlimited in both countries so energy isn't a resource problem.
The reality is, housing policy is far more important for success then aluminum deposits.
> You cannot be a long term world power without abundant natural resources of almost every type.
That is just false. The growth of most of the western world is not based on its own mining. Japan also wasn't very mining heavy. China growth hasn't come from its own energy resources.
That a completely regressive idea. Having access to a broad reliable supply is what actually matters matters.
Modern Germany doesn't need to mine its own stuff to be rich and have reliable inputs. Having reliable access to Sweden is more important then having Iron ore deposits.
The reality is when world power were replaced, it was almost always by countries with larger populations. Germany overtook Britain because Germany had more population. US overtook Germany because of population. China is gone overtake the US because of population.
If Britain wasn't replaced by Germany because Germany had more resources. Arguably Germany had less then the British Empire.
Having a large population economically integrated as close to the peak of technological progress with reliable market access has always been how great power replaced each other. By that metric Imperial Germany would be smaller then the US (depending on its immigration policy) but not by a huge margin.
> Coal: US #4, Germany #8.
That's not a good thing. Coal is literally bad for your society by any objective matter. At least in the last 60 years.
> Gas: US #1, Germany #50.
Focusing on gas over nuclear is making your society worse, its basically the coal of the last 50 years.
You cannot be a long term world power without abundant natural resources of almost every type. Having lots of smart and rich people obviously puts you in a good position, but we're arguing about being #1-2 in the world, not #20.
The US has been playing on easy mode since 1820.
> I rather have Nordics close then Iowa.
Iowa GDP per capita: 78k.
Nordics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_countries) combined and averaged: 66k.
Also for the hypothetical German-led union, the EU, after 70 years of efforts, is still a weak confederation. It's weaker than even the original US based on the Articles of Confederation.
[1]
Based on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_countries_by_mineral_...
Coal: US #4, Germany #8.
Gas: US #1, Germany #50.
Oil: US #1, Germany, #54.
Uranium: US #15, Germany N/A.
Thorium: US #5, Germany N/A.
Aluminium: US #9, Germany #17.
Copper: US #5, Germany N/A.
Gold: US #5, Germany N/A.
Iron ore: US #9, Germany N/A.
Nickel: US #9, Germany N/A.
Lithium: US #5, Germany N/A.
Palladium: US #4, Germany N/A.
Platinum: US #4, Germany N/A.
Rinse and repeat for most resources out there: US usually top 5-10, Germany nowhere to be found.