Die bröckelnden Grundlagen der amerikanischen Stärke

At *Foreign Affairs*, [Amy Zegart](https://www.hoover.org/profiles/amy-zegart) argues that the sources of power in modern geopolitics have shifted from tangible to intangible resources — not least, software, brainpower, and artificial intelligence. As she writes:

>These assets are difficult for governments to control once they are “in the wild” because of their intangible nature and the ease with which they spread across sectors and countries. U.S. officials, for example, cannot insist that an adversary return an algorithm to the United States the way the [George W. Bush administration](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/topics/gw-bush-administration) demanded the return of a U.S. spy plane that crash-landed on Hainan Island after a Chinese pilot collided with it in 2001. Nor can they ask a Chinese bioengineer to give back the knowledge gained from postdoctoral research in the United States. Knowledge is the ultimate portable weapon.

Against this backdrop, Zegart argues that “many of the U.S. government’s capabilities are deteriorating. Its traditional foreign policy tools have withered: confirming presidential appointments has become so fraught that at least a quarter of key foreign policy positions sat vacant halfway through the first terms of the last three U.S. presidents.”

Overall Zegart stresses the importance of education and innovation in maintaining American power.

She also suggests that, “The gravitational pull of the private sector is bolstering short-term innovation and economic benefits, but it is also draining the sources of future innovation.”

Do you agree with this claim about the opportunity cost (to the country) of private sector work? Why or why not?