America was in practice running an empire that collected tribute from the rest of planet earth in exchange for entries in a database denominated in a currency they controlled and that was accepted everywhere. Really the only way it could go wrong is putting it under the control of someone who doesn't understand the kayfabe...
The fact that he has done countless things that are harmful to the US and not a single thing that is in the country's best interests tells me all I need to know. Either he's aligned with an enemy or he just hates the country and wants to destroy it.
Yeah I think the most obvious explanation is looting and ego (to explain the ballroom and putting his name everywhere). I also think there's an awful lot of foreign influence around him and his family and friends before and during his term(s). I mean if I'm a foreign actor seeing your leader's keen interest in looting, I'll probably make him an offer or two...
That money is held in a US treasury account. In February the estimated price from the first 50 M barrels was $2.8bn... with the USA+Israel bombing of Iran, the price of course would have increased since.
> It is not clear what portion of the revenues from the sale - which analysts expect to raise about $2.8bn (£2.1bn) - would be shared with Venezuela.
But let's assume that the USA is going to retain "only" 5% of it: that's still 140 million $ of money flowing in, in perpetuity.
Not to mention that having control of the whole 2.8 billion $ also buys further room for loan and deals made on the USA's preferred currency and preferred terms... Or the expropriation of CITGO.
Of course, that money flowing in will be mostly in the pocket of Trump itself, of the billionaires surrounding him, of the military industrial complex (you have to replenish the weapons stockpiles, after all) and all of the federal contractors (that includes most of the FAANG!)... Lots of people in the USA "labor aristocracy" are going to see material benefit from it.
Ultimately, there's still going to be lots of poor people in the USA who won't be able to afford insulin, and there's going to be lots of resentment abroad (not only in Venezuela)... And one could split hair that Maduro's kidnapping is in the USA's interest, but not in its "best interest" (or similarly trying to argue a no-true-scotman for the definition of "USA's interest")
Not to mention, but it's not only Trump's: it's everyone who he surrounds himself with: JD Vance, Pam Bondi (until a few days ago?), Pete Hegseth, the military generals that didn't get kicked out by Hegseth, etc.
They're all complicit, and they're all going along with him.
And of course, if the Democrats will return to power in the next few elections, I don't expect them to relinquish the leverage and resources that Trump got them, just like Obama and Biden didn't pull out of Afghanistan for several years.
Of course, we saw with AIPAC and JStreet that US lobbying is seeing tons of money from abroad: but those are two different faces of the same medal: the oligarchs and the bourgeoisie have common interests across different countries, and the USA is definitely influencing politicians abroad as much, if not more, than moneyed interests abroad are influencing politicians in the USA.
> That money is held in a US treasury account. In February the estimated price from the first 50 M barrels was $2.8bn... with the USA+Israel bombing of Iran, the price of course would have increased since.
That’s chicken feed compared to the amounts that have been wiped off the stock markets.
I mean on their own those are nice numbers, but you also have to add in the extra military costs of blowing crap up and it starts to seem like chump change to me. We just had a 1.5 trillion defense spending proposal.
Trump, if the US makes it through this administration, might be a boon longterm if it wakes up the populace. The blatantly obvious corruption and grift might just do the trick. Those are some pretty big ifs though.
I disagree with probably the majority of Trump's main policy ideas, but I think a strong case can be made that his immigration policies are in the country's best interests. Not all of them, but as a whole.
Currently, probably yes. If American immigration policy was reshaped to favor immigration of people from high-performing societies, then it would be the opposite.
What color are the people in these 'high performing societies'? I think I have a guess.
Did 'high performing societies' build the railroads? Mine the steel? Forge it? Did 'high performing societies' build the culture we enjoy today?
Here's a secret that you should know but evidently life has never taught you: people who have to struggle to survive are generally smarter, more vigorous, more honorable people. They understand the toll in sweat and blood that the wrong decision takes. They are exactly who we need.
We don't need a nation of pampered trust fund man-children, turning up their delicate noses at everyone not a member of a 'high performing society'.
Illegal immigration brings masses of people from more corrupt, disordered, and perhaps lower average intelligence societies into the US in conditions that make it hard for even the ones who are capable of assimilation to assimilate. It also constitutes a massive flouting of the law for the benefit of business, which sets a bad precedent and lowers public trust in institutions. It also contributes to rising racial tensions that encourage the growth of ethnic tribalism and weaken trust in liberalism.
If you really want to get rid of illegal immigrants, you don't need ICE doing sweeps.
Just make them unemployable. Setup an effective employment eligibility system, and require that employers verify the workers in the system before any payment over $100. Collect biometrics from workers and verify against IRS records. Employers that flout this get fines of 10x wages paid, up to N% of revenue, and maybe jailtime for owners and managers that knowingly violate.
What we have in the U.S. is a bunch of people and politicians loudly decrying illegal immigration and illegal employment, but enjoying the fruits of that illegal employment while paying a fraction of what legal workers would have to be paid.
There's huge appetite for a police state against the little guy, and no appetite for that same police state against business owners and managers.
There's a better way than that. The way the US tax system actually works is incredibly misleading:
1) We pretend to have an income tax but then make it work like a consumption tax in practice. Ordinary people put earnings in excess of spending in a 401k and defer the tax until they want to spend the money. Rich people defer capital gains indefinitely until they want to spend the money. It's an income tax on paper but a consumption tax in practice, and doing it that way is much more complicated than just using a consumption tax.
2) We pretend to have a progressive income tax, but then impose benefits phase outs that fully cancel out the difference in marginal rates between the poor and the rich. Convert the benefits to cash and eliminate the phase outs and you get something which is equally if not more progressive, significantly more efficient and dramatically less complicated.
So, you can throw all of that out and replace it with a flat rate consumption tax and a UBI and it would be as close to a Pareto optimal improvement as anything in politics ever is.
Which also makes a huge amount of headway against the illegal immigration problem, because another disadvantage of pretending to have an income tax is that it effectively subsidizes anyone paying people under the table since then they're not paying the tax. Whereas if people working under the table still have to pay the consumption tax on everything they buy, and they also don't receive the UBI because they're not lawful residents, they'd be at a disadvantage relative to ordinary citizens, instead of the existing system where breaking the rules makes you better off.
The tax code is inefficient on purpose. A simple uniform system is politically infeasible, due to the fact our political system relies on pretending to give special favors to every tailored interest group individually (making the tax code even bigger every time).
We arent at a loss of what to change to make it simpler/optimal. We're at a loss at how to make anyone proposing that not lose the election when everyone else is telling each group they'll lose their special carveous and how about I sweeten the deal some more.
That part of it doesn't seem like the problem. If you want to make a carve out for some group and you're using a consumption tax then you just don't tax that thing or lower the rate (with the cost of having to increase the general rate on everything else). This is occasionally even a good thing, e.g. have a higher tax rate on petroleum than other things to price the externality, or a lower rate on groceries because they're a necessity.
And many of the carve outs are stupid and we shouldn't do them, but that's a separate layer of complexity/inefficiency on top of the mess we get from trying to pretend that "progressive marginal rate structure" and "means testing government benefits" are useful things to have at the same time when they're the mathematical inverse of one another, or that we want an "income tax" even though we don't want the major disincentive for anyone to have savings or make productive investments rather than immediately spending all income on hedonistic consumption.
I agree that your idea would be better. That said, it is still quite possible that even Trump's immigration approach is overall more good than bad for the country.
It's really not. They're deporting less people than Biden did during the same time[1]. They're spending record amounts of money per person deported as well.
I don't disagree that we should be deporting people faster, but this is not the way to accomplish that goal at all. Nor should we be building huge detention facilities. We should be making the process go smoother and faster, not holding people.
Even if Trump's approach is worse than Biden's, which I'm not sure of, that still does not mean it is bad for the country.
Counting deportations alone does not count people who decide not to come at all.
Also, note that I did not say that we should necessarily be deporting more people. I am actually pretty neutral on illegal immigration. But I am trying to address the question of what is good for the country, which is a different thing from what my personal preferences are.
> Even if Trump's approach is worse than Biden's, which I'm not sure of, that still does not mean it is bad for the country.
But the discussion isn't about whether it's bad, but whether it's in the countries best interest. If you switch to a less effective & more damaging policy compared to your predecessor, it's not in the countries best interest, even if it's (supposedly) better than nothing.
Trump's immigration approach is not an approach - it's just an excuse for him to create his own Gestapo.
What was the point of sending ICE, a "domestic" agency, to the Winter Olympics, or letting them take over duties from the TSA? What does an "Immigration and Customs Enforcement" agency have anything to do at a foreign country? What's the point of the Secret Service then?
Intelligence at least as measured by IQ tests is not distributed evenly across humanity. Intelligence as measured by scientific achievements is also not distributed evenly across humanity. Now, this does not mean that intelligence is necessarily not distributed evenly across humanity. For example, I imagine that Germans in 1 AD probably had about the same innate biological intelligence level as Germans in 1800. Yet Germans in 1 AD had few intellectual achievements, whereas in 1800 were some of the most intellectually achieving people in the world. So clearly there is more going on than just biologically innate intelligence. Yet certainly there is some good reason to believe that some human groups have more innate biological intelligence potential than others. I don't think it's racism to claim this. It would be racism to advocate, for example, for treating a high-performing person like a low-performing person because he comes from a low-performing ethnic group. Which I'm not. Like I said in another comment, my attitude to illegal immigration is neutral. But from the point of view of what is best for the United States as a country, which is different from what I personally want, I think it's probably best to encourage immigration of average-high-intelligence groups rather than average-low-intelligence ones.
> Illegal immigration brings masses of people from more corrupt, disordered […]
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." — Donald Trump, June 16, 2015
What blows my mind is how liberals and progressives (of which I count myself a member) don't see to care that this is the policy that pushed Trump into office. Without it he would have flopped with just his MAGA core.
All you need to do to fix illegal immigration is to go after the employers. You know, actually enforce the laws. Streamline it. Declare it a national emergency and put more onerous requirements on businesses to verify legal status. Send ICE to businesses to investigate them instead of kidnapping people.
You'll probably find out pretty quickly that agriculture is extremely dependent on illegal labour, but so be it. Bring it into the light and have an actual debate. The current approach is all for show, or at worst, intimidation.
While we're at it, when did central banks start to buy lots of gold and under which POTUS? Could it have something to do with the freezing of hundreds of billions of some sovereign assets?
There is something awfully bad happening to the internet, including Hacker News.
It seems like rage-baiting, polarizing titles and vibe based comments are being upvoted, with no interest in the facts. For example, in this case:
1. The growth of the gold reserve in comparison to US Treasuries have very little to do with growth in gold acquisition, and has everything to do with gold more than doubling in price in a year.
2. To make it even worse, gold has since fluctuated in value, and treasuries overtook gold momentarily just a week ago. These price fluctuations has nothing to do with geopolitics.
3. Central bank buying of gold has been trending down in the last year, down 21% from 2024. So far in 2026 it's been going even lower.
4. Gold owned by central banks was higher than US treasuries in the 90s (this is mentioned in the article at least).
This is a little meta - but the thing that bothers me is that this low quality discussion like in this thread is spreading everywhere with the same mechanism - bring politics and polarization into every place, no matter how tangentially related it is.
Side stepping a little, but the Twitter and Reddit exoduses brought in a lot of people with established culture and communication dynamics at discrete periods. I considered writing an extension that collapses comments of accounts based on keywords and creation date, but ultimately decided that was regressive.
I think it's important to recognize how much the world has changed in a short period of time. HN was created when SV was unique, a large fraction of the globe was not on the internet, and web tech was new and novel. Everyone was still figuring out how to handle outreach and networking (I was positive it was a scam when the Omiyadar Network cold contacted me - "who does that?"). Today, I meet kids who made their first commits at the same age I was just trying to find friends in town who had computers. Now, our advanced is their common, and they're growing up primed for engagement-forward networking and self-promotion.
HN isn't a calcified relic of the era when it was created, it's a product of its people. We're seeing the new generations connecting from all over the world at a time when the foundational HNers are fading away, and sometimes when there's friction with my expectations of civility and etiquette in discourse and it feels like the noise is drowning out the signal and I yearn for the smaller, quieter days, I take that as my queue that I need to step back and appreciate that this is their time, too.
I think there are less experts on HN than years ago or a decade ago. And the culture of HN is getting slightly changing to a more Reddit culture every year.
It’s too bad because it’s the only place I know where you have experts in tech but also in other industries. And where I got very interesting discussions.
There's unfortunately someone who is posting some HN articles in a hackernews subreddit. I think that's contributed to the rise of Mr. Hot Take One-Liner Mic Drop, that posts something with 20 one liner replies, always at the top. If that continues happening I'm out.
One interesting factoid, since I can remember on HN, if you ever likened a conversation to Reddit they'd downvote you to grey. There are two ways to read that - Reddit is fine, don't criticize it; Reddit is embarrassing, don't diminish the conversation by comparing us to it.
Thanks appreciate the broader context in this post. As to your meta comment, besides bots, I think a lot of people are facing a great deal of pain and fear. They're emotional and even in hn a critical mass has switched to reading and writing with their gut. Good vibe project, analyse the level of emotionality in comments over time, I'd bet it's gone vertical in the past few months.
I agree with your "sensationalism is bad" take; especially as meaningful, non-incendiary comments now often get quickly downvoted for viewpoint, not tone (IMO downvoting should cost 0.1-0.3 karma). But not with "nothing to see in CB gold holdings fluctuations" view:
R1. But central bank gold holdings are rising organically, and partially at the expense of US treasuries. CB gold holdings have been dropping for 35 years, until about 2015. The price rise of gold from 2005 to 2015 did not reverse this trend. From 2015 to 2019 gold price did not rise, but reported holdings did. The recent doubling of the gold price muddies things a little, but the trend is clear.
R3. Reported gold purchases have trended down in 2025 and 2026, probably due to price doubling. But they are still positive. Emerging markets did not sell into this strength to build up more liquid holdings (UST) as more effective tools to support their economies against future malaise. Even "trending down" part is muddy, too, because some countries CB do not report it. China, an elephant in the room, started better obfuscating its holdings, including gold, since COVID.
R4. Yes. Gold owned by CB strognly trended down since 1980. That trend stopped in 2005 and reversed somewhere between 2005 and 2015. And likely accelerated in the last few years.
As a side note, I personally see USTs losing dominance as a reserve asset as a good thing. USG needs some checks on its spending, and world being willing to buy long dated treasuries at below inflation rates incentivizes the "we do not need to solve real problems, we can just print more money" mindset. My 2c.
Well, having tracked soft-science experts for 30 years, I have to say they're wrong over 50% of the time. Moreso, if it's coming from media that's owned by the same country that is causing evil.
>everything to do with gold more than doubling in price in a year.
Gold's price doesn't change, it's 42 2/9 US Dollar per fine troy ounce[1], and has been since 1973.
The problem is that this exchange rate hasn't been enforced, or adjusted since then. This allows the spot price to set the effective price of the dollar in a reciprocal arraignment.
Since, the "Gold Window" was closed by executive order, I posit that, In theory, Donald Trump could get a bunch of conspirators together, with 10.4 Billion in cash (the "Book Value" of the US Gold Reserves), and direct the Secretary of the Treasury to re-open the gold window, in private, and drain the US reserves, personally.
Edit: Nope... the law changed, thank goodness.
If the US somehow re-anchored the Dollar to Gold, the deflationary collapse would crush the economy everywhere, instantly, as all dollars outstanding would increase in real value by a factor of >100, and all debts would crush most people, companies, and economies.
So, realistically, if we wanted to re-anchor the dollar, the new value would have to be greater than the current spot price. To fully back all dollars outstanding, it would be somewhere between 50,000 and 150,000 US Dollars per fine ounce.
I had previously expected this to happen a generation from now, but thanks to the complete collapse of institutional memory, and the current administration, I now expect it to happen before the end of the next administration.
Everything is politics. Which makes people who want to avoid it look delusional.
As for polarization that's been the modus operandi in my country for at least 500 years.
Everyone hates everyone but the alternative was the French, English or Spanish so what can you do?
Turns out you actually really don't need to love your neighbour.
This is mentioned often, but is also such a broad generalization that it is not constructive in any meaningful way. If everything is politics, then it can be eliminated from both sides of the equation. Focus on real and immediate problems at hand and providing concrete solutions need not have "politics" label slapped onto it by default, esp. where the ideological infighting this attracts complicates having open and frank discussions based on the facts. "Politics" has become a weaponised word often used to derail good initiatives, and with great success. The mindset that everything is politics may be contributor to that.
This is just HN. We're explicitly not productive or constructive. We're not solving the world's problems. We're just shooting the shit. This is a forum for wasting time. I guess it wouldn't be HN without the delusions of self-importance.
Everything you want to be politics is politics. Caring for other people shouldn't be politics. Being a decent human being shouldn't be politics. There are plenty of things that aren't politics unless you decide you want to turn them into politics.
The issue is when you get down to the edge cases, you get into politics again.
Is ‘caring’ (what does that mean exactly?) for someone on death row good or bad? You’ll likely find splits in answers along ‘political’ lines, especially depending on things like the nature of the crime, who the victim was, etc.
Is ‘caring’ (again, in what way?) for someone in Palestine good or bad? Or worth how much money to do? Similar split. How about Iran?
What about someone in the inner cities? Who doesn’t work?
Etc.
Hand wavy general statements are easy to have, but when it gets down to actual implementation is when real groups of people start to have very different concrete opinions on how it should be done.
You’ll also find lots of shaming among the group and against ‘outsiders’ trying to enforce idealogy. And if you think that part doesn’t happen, just read your own comment - it’s a mild form of that!
caring: (adjective) displaying kindness and concern for others.
If you look at this definition of caring and find a way to turn it into a politics issue that's your problem, not mine.
If you scale a problem up, then yes, you get into politics. If you scale it all the way down, politics disappear. If you see your next-door neighbor struggling with something and you can help, you should. That's not politics. That's called being a decent human being.
> Hand wavy general statements are easy to have
I agree. In fact "everything is politics" is a stupid, hand wavy statement.
> You’ll also find lots of shaming among the group and against ‘outsiders’ trying to enforce idealogy. And if you think that part doesn’t happen, just read your own comment - it’s a mild form of that!
Disagreement != enforcing ideology, at least in my world. And if you don't see it that way, then I guess you're guilty of doing the precise thing you're commenting on.
Under that definition, ‘Caring’ can mean anything from hopes and prayers to major economic sacrifices.
With that struggling neighbor, are you talking about helping them take out their trash at night when they’re tired - or paying unemployment benefits for years?
Notably, in my experience, the ones who talk the most usually just keep talking - and aren’t the ones on the hook for actually doing the hard caregiving when things are really tough. But hey, maybe you’re different?
One big difference we have here is you’re again talking hand waving generalities, and I’m talking concrete economic behaviors and policy. It’s easy to say ‘if you can help you should’, it’s harder when it’s ’where is the line for “can” and “should” exactly when we’re talking millions of people and trillions of dollars’, and people you’ll likely never meet in your life - and taxes that definitely come out of your paycheck each month.
Move the line too much one way, and it incentivizes being a victim. Move it too much the other way, and it crushes people with legitimate problems. Both are real issues.
One less conspiratorial but more pernicious angle, is that attacking things that are good but complex is a great strategy for troll politicians who don't care about the success of their country but just like the attention.
See Brexit, and free trade in general.
It's a good way to get "the establishment" to gang up on you and defend something complicated while you present simple but wrong alternatives and promise the world.
I also think he's up for sale (as are all the other similar politicians) to a multitude of buyers, foreign and domestic.
For Brexit in particular, it seems clear to me that EU politicians, but the UK ones in particular, used EU as a scapegoat for unpopular economic policy that they themselves actually want, but can't justify effectively to their constituents. "We can't help it, it's an EU requirement" when leaving out that in the EU, their guys totally supported it.
That was bound to backfire at some point or another.
I think you're right that politicians prefer not to defend complicated (and possibly good) policy to the public. But if they choose easy ways out to avoid it (and they do!) then they're to blame too when it collapses. To blame the public for not blindly trusting them won't do.
The public is almost fully to blame, and gets the government it deserves. I only hedge a little because education is in control of the state, so to some degree people don't choose whether to be educated on the relevant matters.
It may be familiarity breeding contempt but I find members of the British public in particular very myopic in obtaining benefits for 'their group'. There's very little interest in society as a whole.
Politicians simply bend in order not to upset any of the key voting blocs. But you understand that's a selection bias: you wouldn't exist as a successful politician if you didn't do this. All those who go another path are doomed to obscurity.
> The public is almost fully to blame, and gets the government it deserves.
Which has been a popular argument against democracy since at least Plato: just look at the average voter/person and their intelligence, understanding of the world, and their character.
> The public is almost fully to blame, and gets the government it deserves.
I'd frame this another way -- the public are largely responsible, but we put all the blame on politicians/government. we vote for these people while we all know they're all talking complete and utter nonsense just to get past the job interview. it is the game. i wish it wasn't. i wish i could stand in the house of commons during PMQs and point out every BS line every single one of them says. stand up during question time and shout at all the idiots on the panel, disproving every single bullshit line they've fed the audience with stats and analysis and data [0]. but then we'd probably end up everyone in the country showing up to PMQs/question time shouting over each other all at the same time... which wouldn't really work lol.
the system is not perfect, but it's what we've got.
> I only hedge a little because education is in control of the state, so to some degree people don't choose whether to be educated on the relevant matters.
> It may be familiarity breeding contempt but I find members of the British public in particular very myopic in obtaining benefits for 'their group'. There's very little interest in society as a whole.
yeah, like, i'm kind of lucky that i don't have children or any other dependants and i went to posh schools, got a decent academic education [1]. i can afford to sit around, pontificate and moralise about what the large scale right or wrong way of doing things should be. i earn enough and don't have kids. hell, i'd be happy if they increased the rate of tax in the top bands. more money to spend on public services for everyone else who actually needs it. seriously, take my spare disposable income! i'm only gonna spend it on expensive food and cigarettes that's gonna make me overweight and have lung cancer and become a drain on the nhs anyway!
my mate with three kids doesn't have the time for that. she just wants the school to give her daughter the help she needs and has to fight through a bunch of bureaucracy to get there. bureaucracy which exists because the system is under strain because lots of people are asking for the same resources and they've got to figure out some way of apportioning out the resources. same with my mate who is a single parent to a son with pretty hefty ADHD. it's no wonder they fall into the "my group first" attitude and/or rhetoric with, for example, immigration. they're constantly told there's all this money is being spent elsewhere on "some other people" and then they look at their kid's school struggling with one support worker for hundreds of kids and it's like ... well, wtf. same thing with income taxes etc. "we need money for our kids, why on earth is my tax money being spent on X, Y, Z" etc.
to be clear: i don't agree with the political views of my friend, and i don't really care to debate the politics either. i'm responding to the "myopic" comment from my own perspective, having previously noticed the interesting differences between myself and my friends. they're really lovely people! really nice and kind and loving folks. but they have a selfish/fear-based-protectionist side to them, like all humans do.
that last bit is the important bit for me. fear leads selfish behaviour. people are worried, the "system" is unstable and constantly under strain. and that makes them act in their own selfish interests because they're having to jostle for position within the "system" :shrug:
> Politicians simply bend in order not to upset any of the key voting blocs. But you understand that's a selection bias: you wouldn't exist as a successful politician if you didn't do this. All those who go another path are doomed to obscurity.
this has always been the critical problem from where i sit. like, we're forced to vote for people who, ultimately, may only be in the job for a maximum of 5 years total. we don't get to vote on the next 30 years cos the next lot could just undo it all. just look at upcoming negotiations with the EU apparently might involve us moving back towards the single market again, which was the whole "once in a generation" brexit vote thing. turns out it's not quite so "once in a generation" [2]
the trouble for me is that the commonly implemented "long term" model for governance tends to be stuff like authoritarianism, dictatorship etc. ... so...
--
i wrote way more for this than i thought i would lol
[0]: yeah! let's properly hold them to account! i can finally use my autistic powers of calling bullshit for the benefit of all! instead of getting into trouble with my boss at work. again. o_o
[1]: the non-academic parts were really damaging though. expensive doesn't always mean good. highly rated academically doesn't always mean good.
As a side note if you did just get fat and smoke you wouldn't be a drain on the NHS because being fat and smoking disqualifies you from many procedures and you are likely to die right around retirement age, after you paid most of your lifetime taxes but before you start consuming the very expensive age-related healthcare.
Ironically it is the unhealthy that are overpaying and the very healthy who are underpaying because age related care is such a huge proportion of lifetime medical costs, and that is still before adding in potential sin taxes paid.
The alternative is everything falling apart at home and our manufacturing industries declining dramatically. Maybe the "unpopular economic policy" wasn't such a bad idea after all.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
The issue is that the stupider the politician, the more likely they are unable to understand why their clear, simple answer to the ills of the world is also wrong.
Brexit, whatever is happening in the US, is caused by narcissism (a common trait among politicians) paired with a great deal of stupidity and ineptitude, not only among politicians, but among the populace as well.
Being a reserve currency puts a gun to your economy's head. It creates an asymmetry where domestic production of material goods has to jump a gap created by favorable exchange rates in PPP terms. Its great for the day to day life style of your citizens, as other economy's do indeed pay tribute, in a sense, to their consumption of goods produced overseas. However, being paid to do nothing becomes a real problem when the checks stop coming. We're basically the national equivalent of a middle manager who's forgotten all the skills that got him there, and we can voluntarily move back down and start to work in earnest again, or wait to get laid off with no severance.
It's as much a gun to adversaries' heads if they hold lots of your bonds (China used to hold over $1T in USTs) so they would have an interest in not having that blow up by not annoying the US so much they refuse to pay foreign bonds.
It's also kind of neat as a financial MAD instrument, because China obviously can't just get everyone to go into their brokerage and market sell a trillion in USTs so they get a lever to pressure the US with but they can't go nuclear without also vaporising their own value. So it works as a melting ice block on which diplomacy is forced on both sides.
The death of the UST as a reserve instrument would be a catastrophically bad loss, the only silver lining is that the melting ice block might still be enough by the end of this admin that the new admin might have enough to stand on to rebuild it should they realise the value of it.
Luke's key point lands at about 1:08:27–1:08:33, where he says that instead of selling treasuries outright (which would draw attention from the American embassy), China can use them as collateral — and the American banks are happy to take it. He then lists what China gets in return: "I'll take Pereus. I'll take that oil field. I'll take that copper mine. I'll take all that gold."
He then adds that this works because the incentives align on both sides — the Chinese want to understate their strength, the Americans want to overstate theirs, and the American banks are happy to accept dollar collateral without asking too many questions.
> It's as much a gun to adversaries' heads if they hold lots of your bonds (China used to hold over $1T in USTs)
There is a complicated dynamic at play to consider there. Treasuries and the strength of the dollar only matter to wrt international trade, for both China and the US. You have to ask yourself if the value of the dollar went to 0 for that use case, who would be in a worse position, the one that sells dollars to support consumption, or the one that buys them as a tool for trade with 3rd parties?
> by not annoying the US so much they refuse to pay foreign bonds.
The problem with this is that a country can only refuse to pay their foreign bonds once. But the buyer can always dump them and scoop them up later for cheap when shit hits the fan.
If you just don't run a mega defict every year you can afford to use the interest other countries would have to pay you to borrow dollars to subsidize your own economy.
"the interest other countries would have to pay you..."
That's the problem, they don't have to, and they can choose not to.
The fiscal deficit is a whole separate matter, but I think it is a downstream effect of the kind of policies and economy that develop when you run a huge trade deficit selling your currency for goods and services.
As someone who lives a day to day life, I’m pretty happy for things that are good for my day to day life. Some abstract quasi moralistic reason that things should be tougher so we compete harder feels a little out of touch. I’d note that it’s not the case the US produces nothing, or that it’s lost its capacity to innovate. Effectively most technology, especially software, but hardware as well, is concentrated in the US. Some aspects of the heavy manufacturing and assembly line happens elsewhere but I’d level the middle manager more at the EU.
No, we are taking our advantages and lighting them on fire for no obvious reason. Backing into a rationale doesn’t make it rational. Its Christian nationalism fueling raging narcissism made malignant due to senility. Theres no experts, no adults, no experienced people - they’ve all be fired and replaced with sycophantic photogenic personalities. This is not good, there is no upside, it’s Nero hosting UFC while the empire burns.
The only out I see is nature helping end this or a total seismic change in Congress and removal from office. Then rebuilding can start and maybe there’s something to salvage. But I doubt it, and I expect the next generations will exist in the rubble of the colosseum.
I'm not going to take a side in the broader discussion here, however your response fails to engage with what was previously written.
> Some abstract quasi moralistic reason
What was presented was neither abstract nor moralistic. The argument was one of driving towards a cliff and taking preemptive action before reaching it.
No, it was driving towards a cliff and deciding to jump out of the car instead of pressing the breaks. If you're costing at work, worried about being laid off some day, the last thing you do is just quit; you job hunt and try to change habits. Pretending like we have to feel immense pain to strengthen the economy is the quasi moralistic reasoning of a moron
> Some abstract quasi moralistic reason that things should be tougher so we compete harder feels a little out of touch.
I don't see how any of those descriptions fit what I've said. Also, note, things should indeed not be tougher. A consequence of our economy being so focused on financialization of overseas productivity is that the wealth created from that activity tends to be much more concentrated than that produced from manufacturing, at least historically. Though, who knows if that would hold if onshoring took off in earnest.
> I’d note that it’s not the case the US produces nothing, or that it’s lost its capacity to innovate
Never said either of those things. I only stated that it makes domestic production harder/less profitable. Though, I'd also like to point out that that the largest companies in our economy are wholly dependent on the output of an island with grave geopolitical risks hanging over its head. China could collapse our economy overnight due to unchecked offshoring. That's not quasi, abstract, or moralistic, just a state we've created.
> No, we are taking our advantages and lighting them on fire for no obvious reason. Backing into a rationale doesn’t make it rational. Its Christian nationalism fueling raging narcissism made malignant due to senility.
I mean, I have named several, and all of which were put forth prior to Trump's term starting. I'm not a fan of Trump, but it would seem to me you are creating a narrative for yourself that doesn't fit history.
> Theres no experts, no adults, no experienced people - they’ve all be fired and replaced with sycophantic photogenic personalities.
I think Bessent is pretty good.
> This is not good, there is no upside, it’s Nero hosting UFC while the empire burns. The only out I see is nature helping end this or a total seismic change in Congress and removal from office. Then rebuilding can start and maybe there’s something to salvage. But I doubt it, and I expect the next generations will exist in the rubble of the colosseum.
Idk about rubble, but corruption does need to be curbed IMO. The current administration has not been good for the rule of law, in spirit. I do think some level of that is unavoidable however, as the judicial branch and executive branches have been sucking power from the legislature for going on 50 years, which also needs correcting.
I think the way you phrased your point was quasi moralistic - perhaps not intentionally.
However I’d note that the economic theory of comparative advantage says the rational move is countries and states and cities specialize in what they have a comparative advantage in and by doing so the entire system becomes optimal. Everyone trying to be self sufficient within themselves, and the absurdity of the trade imbalance as a measure, is grossly inefficient for everyone and pulls the entire planet down. Obviously this doesn’t account for instability, but it does explain why our economy has focused in areas we have a comparative advantage while depending on other economies for theirs. This is a feature of modern economic theory, but perhaps has flaws in practical political senses.
Bessent is a complete idiot who equates having money with intellectual supremacy. He’s a sociopath in real life, a sycophant in political life, and a moron who does well following orders of someone smarter than him. He was successful at other people’s funds but when he started his own he totally flopped. He has a gentleman’s degree is political science from Yale, and his uncle was convicted of corruption and spent time in prison while in the US House of Representatives- demonstrating the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. See his corruption regarding mortgages and investment properties for proof.
I do agree we had been dismantling our advantages for a while, but what I said was Trump lit them on fire. In a little over a year every structural advantage the US has enjoyed post WWII is gone and we are hated by allies and enemies alike. We have no leverage with anyone on anything, everyone who might have let us have advantage is seeking a backstop away from us, and any sense we had engendered as a place for people to come to pursue opportunity is gone. We’ve dismantled institutions that took generations to build in months, and eliminated all good will across the planet with literally every human being that uses fossil fuels in any way. This is the most breathtakingly destructive frittering away of advantage for zero gains I could imagine short of simply declaring nuclear war on ourselves.
> However I’d note that the economic theory of comparative advantage says the rational move is countries and states and cities specialize in what they have a comparative advantage in and by doing so the entire system becomes optimal.
The basis of trade barriers of any kind is necessarily against an optimal global economy. I get that. Its the default free trade argument. It's a bit of a spherical-cow argument however, as the moment a country implements any kind of market regulation, free trade becomes arbitration around those regulations. So, unless the entire world becomes libertarian, that argument doesn't hold water.
Not aware of what happened in the 70s then with Bretton Woods? Not aware of what happened pre-08? It has gone wrong multiple times before just for the US and the US exporting inflation is not good for either the US or the rest of the world.
As with NATO, I am not sure what the argument is...yes, other countries should take more of a role in their own defence...yes, other countries should take more of a role in their own economic governance/financial stability.
On this topic specifically though, I will also point out that whatever the faults of the US, no-one had a problem when Germany was exporting crippling levels of deflation (this is one of the main issues that wasn't solved after WW2 despite being identified by Keynes: deficit countries will be told they need to rebalance, but not surplus countries). Germany have solved that problem with catastrophically bad foreign policy destroying their economy (once again) but before this, they were the main source of global financial instability (China, to their credit, is probably one of the only countries ever to rebalance from surplus to deficit country...Germany has done this multiple times over the years and has blamed other countries every time).
Other countries using gold instead of US debt is good for both the US and those countries. Most of the "increase" has been due to gold rising in value and, fundamentally, it cannot solve the problem because the price cannot rise as much as it needs to but it should be part of a mix with SDRs and other securities.
People think the "new thing" is new...this has happened many times before. Macro tourists come in and think ten minutes with ChatGPT has turned them into an economist. Basic knowledge.
US will have to refinance $ 10T of debt next year. That's a gargantuan amount of money and I see no scenario in which this won't have quite higher yields than the expiring one, remnant of the low rate decade.
With foreigners and hedge funds less prone to buy US debt right now it's going to be quite interesting to see what will happen.
It’s going to be a couple of humbling decades for the USA.
The western world was happy to keep the USA as a global police force, as long as they didn’t step too far out of line and at least paid lip service to international law.
With that gone and now caring only about brazen self interest, there is little reason to support the USA as an ally, so they have been demoted to a trading partner(unwillingly).
Honestly it’s much better to do trade with literally anyone else besides the USA.
> More importantly, in the context of this discussion, every president since Bush's first term has had larger deficits than any previous president, regardless of party.
Taking on long term debt at or below the risk free rate _is the point._ It didn't devalue the currency because the global economy was structured around buying that debt. You just need to not jeopardize that second point.
It's a snowball rolling downhill that's reached the point where it is out of control. We cannot stop taking on more debt, which is, let's face it, just printing money electronically. At some point everything will blow up. I just hope it doesn't happen until I'm gone.
The "previous guy" was constrained by a once-in-a-lifetime Congress that was serious about deficits, and he also benefited by another once-in-a-lifetime spurt of economic growth that dramatically increased tax revenue.
As soon as Congress realized they'd been handed a deficit-free budget they went about spending with wild abandon.
And anyway, since that guy we've had two presidents over three terms where the other party controlled the presidency and they didn't and they certainly didn't break the pattern.
Let me ask you this: If you wanted to vote for a guy (or gal) who was serious about reducing the deficit instead of someone who doesn't care as long as the wheels don't come off during his term, who would you vote for?
Here's the better question: If you were serious about reducing the deficit, what would you cut?
It should be possible to reduce Medicare costs significantly by going after healthcare costs in general, i.e. create a ton of new medical residency slots and train a lot of new doctors, and make the healthcare companies actually compete with each other. The AMA and healthcare companies are going to fight you hard.
We currently make large social security payments to affluent retirees who paid in less than we're paying them out. We could reform the system to cost less, i.e. not pay out as much to people who don't need the money. The AARP isn't going to like it.
The DoD budget is pretty big and a lot of it is waste or corruption. But to do this well you have to be good at identifying which parts, you still can't eliminate all of it because some of it is pretty important, and this one is the smallest of the three. And the defense contractors will try to stop you.
To make a meaningful dent in the deficit you would have to do at least two of those but no one is willing to do any of them.
Agreed. This should have been addressed decades ago, and every year that goes buy it will get harder to deal with.
Me, I'd cut everything. Right now, when interest rates are relatively low, we're spending more to service the debt than we're spending on defense. This isn't a problem we can address with half measures.
The giant sacred cows are Defence (War) and Social Security. Could probably solve the deficit pretty quickly by getting money out of politics, especially defence contractor and AIPAC money.
That would require a significant political overhaul though.
And yet the current administration is fixated with trade balance (which conveniently ignores the most important US export that's not accounted: services).
Look at them countries sending food, cars, machinery for pieces of paper. They taking advantage of us!
Just make sure it’s real gold, not just a number on a spreadsheet, or a golden Twinkie made up of tungsten! India got caught with their heads in their asses with that one!
I think pinning this on one guy is a gross oversimplification driven by personal dislike for that guy. In my opinion larger forces are at play. I don't mean it in a conspiratorial way; simply put, the structure of global trade, economy, military power, etc. have shifted to such a degree, that this process has become inevitable.
He ran a surplus by (In Bill Clinton's own words) "ending welfare as we know it". This was his description of the Personal Responsibility Act he signed. That attack on labor and bolstering of the financial markets was a huge contributor to our economic disasters. Keynesian was never meant to be a permanent solution to a growing capitalism system. And the Hayekian system we have now is just pillaging by neoliberals.
(I live in a welfare state and am quite happy about it, despite it having very real financial consequences for me. Welfare state does not benefit "labor", but rather benefits the various people who either can't or don't want to perform labor)
Why do laborers have to work for the right to live when capitalists only have to provide capital and are always assumed to be worthy? Capital and labor is combined to produce new capital. Yet we only expect labor to prove their worth. We're always holding labor's feet to the fire and killing them through policy that allows their poverty by assuming they are lazy.
There is basically zero consequence for capitalists when they decide to withhold capital from laborers. Therefore taking away labor's ability to generate new capital. They took down the entire rust belt by doing this. Why shouldn't we hold them accountable? Why does everyone blame labor and say welfare is only for people in poverty?
> Why do laborers have to work for the right to live
I don't know why, but this is sort of the definition of a laborer, no? Someone who labors.
People who live on welfare are – by definition – not laborers. That was my whole point: "ending welfare" is not "an attack on labor", it's an attack on non-labor.
What is your definition of welfare? Generally caring how the citizens are doing? I believe governments usually don't. There's too much politics for that.
Because such a system isn't just sunshine and rainbows like OP mentions and has real costs like ever increasing debt burdens and wealth and social inequality which naturally create political instability as lower classes and institutions become increasingly stressed. Trump is just a symptom of sentiment created by these consequences.
There is nothing inevitable about strategically moronic war, a super power supporting an ethno-religious genocide, and an orange dildo ripping up international order.
You insist on making it about this administration and your dislike for it, when I am talking about wider shifts like China's ascent, America's de-industralization, Europe's stagnation, drone revolution, shale revolution...
This admin's shortcomings don't need to be listed, anyone with eyes can see. I will just remind you about Biden's "minor incursions" comment, that opened to the door to invasion of Ukraine...
I'm fully conscious of tectonic plates shifting and creating huge change and the need for response. But, again, none of what we've seen the current admin engaged in has been inevitable.
And no, comparing to Biden will not do here. I couldn't care less really about which side is in power (except when there is significant spillover like now). I'm outside of the USA. But I have never seen anything so ridiculous as the current "strategic" choices of the current admin.
I am outside of the USA too. And I don't care either. Plus, once again, when I said inevitable, I meant the process of US losing it's primacy, not whatever this admin is doing.
The events of the last year certainly have a role to play, but the overall effect is just the result of trendlines that have been in play for quite a while.
I think the initial catalyst for this was when the US/Biden arbitrarily removed Russia from SWIFT post Ukraine invasion. Whether people agreed or disagreed with that decision isn't really material to the discussion, the fact remained that the west decided to remove Russia and they basically had no recourse. And given the, well, unpredictable nature of the current US executive I think it's kinda kicked other countries into overdrive.
> Gold has always been stable, because it is physically limited.
Incorrect. Physical scarcity matters, but it’s not the main driver. Gold’s price is far more sensitive to interest rates, dollar strength, sentiment and fear, speculative flows.
The stability it’s historically shown was mostly the result of fixed monetary systems, and those are long gone.
its because you are measuring stable Gold in volatile fiat which is being printed every day depending on the factors you mentioned (interest rates, expectations of future growth, sentiment etc).
because you are getting paycheck in fiat, you are psychologically programmed to think of fiat as something stable, and Gold as volatile.
> its because you are measuring stable Gold in volatile fiat
You're defining gold to be stable, and fiat to be volatile. Well, fiat is volatile, but that doesn't make gold stable.
Gold (measured in dollars) nearly doubled over the last year. Does that mean that the dollar is worth only half what it was a year ago? No, it doesn't. (There's been some inflation, but not nearly 100%.)
Gold is down 10% since January 28th. Does that mean that the dollar is worth 10% more than it was on January 28th? No, it doesn't.
You're wrong; the prices of precious metals have never been stable, which is why bimetallic systems have always had a lot of problems papering over the notionally fixed exchange rate between coins of different metals.
That said, I agree that e.g. gold under a regime where most things for sale are priced in gold is more stable than gold as a novelty investment under a fiat currency regime.
When things are priced in gold, most of the demand for gold comes from the fact that it's useful as currency. All of the phenomena we have now still exist, and they disturb the price, but they're small effects compared to the demand for currency.
In the fiat regime, that source of demand is gone. All of the same random effects still push the price of gold around, but because the price is so much lower (due to much lower demand), the price swings are wilder.
I find this to be quite an interesting perspective change!
If I may try for a metaphor, then it's like our default perspective from the Earth is that we are the center of the universe, the other planets, Sun, and stars move around us, and we are stationary.
But, to zoom out, you can take a more objective view that everything is moving independently (ie, volatile). The baseline stability is a subjective perspective.
The only "stability" gold has is an emergent property of an interconnected system of hairless apes somehow making each other believe they need it. Same with fiat, bitcoin, or whatever we come up with tomorrow. None of these things have any real utility outside of an expectation that the peer ape also finds them valuable.
>Incorrect. Physical scarcity matters, but it’s not the main driver. Gold’s price is far more sensitive to interest rates, dollar strength, sentiment and fear, speculative flows.
Those are only relevant on a shorter timescale; on a long timescale gold's held its value extremely well. The price of a loaf of bread in gold now is still similar to what it was in the Roman Empire 2000 years ago.
That comparison actually sounds horrible for gold... By all accounts we should be extremely more efficient in manufacturing loafs of bread. So a same amount of gold should buy lot more bread now than 2000 years ago.
So if you really think about it. If you held gold for 2000 years. You would only reach same standard of living as 2000 years ago...
All value is subjective and thus at the whims of wild animal spirits.
Gold seems stable largely because the price must rise to make mining significantly more of it economically viable. Yet, were it truly stable, prices measured in terms of gold should have seen price deflation from the Roman era to now. That this is not the case proves that gold has zero intrinsic value. It may have some inherent utility, but that is not the same thing. As people want more gold for use as a conductor, or in alloys for dental prostheses, or for adornment the price will go up. Speculative demand can make the price go up. Demand for trade without USD can make the price go up.
Gold and USD prices are independent of one another. That they can be used to measure one another is also a human invention and an accident of history.
For certain periods of time, not losing to inflation is a major win. The more people think that we're headed into such a period, the more they reach for gold.
The real price of gold has been deflated by paper gold/futures trading, which has the effect of multiplying the perceived amount of gold in circulation without a necessary counterpart in physical gold. Financial institutions can within limits manipulate the price of gold so that it remains lower than it should be if the physical material had to be delivered.
You're seeing the result of something that's been decades in the making. You can see a simple table of dollar reserves here. [1] They've been consistently falling year over year for the past 27 years. And it's not like 1999 was anything particular. Rather the uptake leading up to 1999 as a peak was a result of shenanigans that happened in 1971 [2]. That's when the USD became completely unbacked by anything, enabling the government to start going arbitrarily far into debt. That had short to mid-term positive impacts and long-term catastrophic ones, as is the typical strategy in modern times.
People always exaggerate the impact of geopolitical things, because it feels like the biggest thing ever, especially when you're relatively young. But in reality we're always onto nonsense after nonsense. Countries have the wisdom and view to appreciate this, and so respond to geopolitical stuff (in action, not rhetoric) far more gradually than people do. They're certainly not going to just dump all their dollar reserves because of a single misguided war or even misguided president, or they'd have been gone long ago.
I hear you, the world is always ending. But, I am well past mid-life, I am a huge beneficiary of Pax Americana, and 47 feels like something truly different. Maybe it's just the end of a long pattern, but it is still the end. US-led NATO is dead, and the stability of the USA is dead, therefore the dollar's dominance is weakening.
Don't take my word for it. Listen to Mark Carney at Davos.
I think there is a realization that (1) US' checks and balances do not work, (2) Trump is not a "mistake" of voters and can repeat again.
This is the main reason that things are different. Most presidents were reasonable in their hegemony, and Trump's naked aggression makes everyone to hedge against US.
Bush invaded Iraq on completely and maliciously fabricated evidence. Literally - all of it was made up. He sought EU approval to invade, was rejected, and then invaded anyhow, starting a decades long war leaving the region in complete chaos severely undermining US (to say nothing of global) security. Other presidents happily carried on and even magnified his war in some ways.
And as you go back you can see that our more contemporary actions are just echoes of the past anyhow. Vietnam was also started on a complete and malicious lie. [1] That lie then led to the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans, practically bankrupted the country (playing a major role in the events of 1971), left the country more divided than ever, and concluded with us running away from Vietnam with our tail tucked.
We didn't start the fire. It just always feels so different in the present because you don't know how things are going to turn out, so there's always the possibility that this time it might be something extraordinary as opposed to just this perpetual and never-ending self-crippling.
I think that people also see that government in all its ministries is becoming less competent, because of deliberate actions, firings, and flight of competent people. Uninspiring, uninterested, loyalists as leaders of each department doesn't exactly help.
And the competence of departments is crucial for the well functioning of the country, services high and low. (Diplomacy, war, and education to electricity and roads).
In my view it's both that the State Department, for example, is less competent than before, and that the administration is less likely to listen to the experts and Department officers than before.
How can you reconcile the rest of your comment with:
> That had short to mid-term positive impacts and long-term catastrophic ones, as is the typical strategy in modern times.
Is the catastrophe still coming from the 70s to now? 50 years later? This is the most repeated quip that makes no sense. Same with companies, everyone just repeats "omg they only care about short term" and then years after years the company trots on.
But I guess it's easy to say since the defense is "oh just wait". As if the online commenter is able to see N+1 moves more than whoever they comment about, but that person just simply cannot. Like come on.
The site [1] I already linked has a number of excellent graphs of the endless major inflection points driven by the shift in 1971. Most started in the years prior to 1971 since 1971 was, itself, also a longer term consequence of years of previous mistakes.
Many of those issues started out fairly small and had a rather small impact relative to the initial benefits of 'financial liberty', but those benefits faded fairly rapidly, while the consequences not only remain, but continue to grow. It turns out that free money is rather expensive.
If you look at the achievements and progress that was being made in the 60s in the US in practically every domain, and then you showed them what 60 years in the future awaited for them, the most common response, outside of digital gizmos, would probably be 'what went wrong?'
It’s not a self decapitation exactly. I think Trump, his family, his corporate donors, and other friends are all willing to sacrifice everyone else - including the lead America had - to make themselves rich and powerful. Every single decision to spend - defense, ICE contracts, AI, approvals of anticompetitive acquisitions, changes to regulations, etc - is making that circle richer at our expense.
They don’t care if American supremacy is lost or if the dollar crashes or if the national debt becomes a crisis. As long as they have their wealth. The public is being decapitated, not them.
True. In that sense the voters have self decapitated. I can’t understand how the Trump administration still has support from 40% of the country (per polls). I could understand voting for him due to some issue a voter has strong feelings about. But now we have seen it all play out and it’s a disaster leading to national ruin. And there is no talk of impeachment, trials, and accountability for everyone in his circle. So I guess that 40% DOES choose to self decapitate.
Media that is never critical towards one side is what started all of this. A politician's kryptonite is when their voters find out that they lied or were hypocrites. That is a universal truth.
Single party media outlets like News Corp, Sinclair, Euronews, and so many others have broken that system entirely.
My test to see if someone is a shill/moron is to simply ask them to say one obvious bad thing about "their side." If they cannot, it becomes clear that they are not worth listening to.
> and all the conservative news tells them what to believe
And most traditional news is conservative now.
The idea that the mainstream media was ever leftest was always wrong, but these days its absolutely laughable and yet a lot of people still parrot this like it is the truth.
The US lead over the EU in per capita productivity has massively grown over the last 20 years. There's no indication of waning American power.
America has produced 70 times more stock market wealth if you look only at companies created within the last 50 years than the EU. And this is not all paper wealth. If you look at technological sophistication, whether that's frontier AI models, leading-edge pharmaceutical drugs, total amount of compute, or the space industry, the U.S. has grown its lead over the EU over the last 50 years.
It's because the EU has largely fixated itself on reducing wealth inequality by punishing those who succeed. It's safety-maximalist approach to private industrial action has also hamstringed industry — see Germany closing all 17 of its nuclear power plants. The US doesn't really need to do much except not sabotage itself to maintain its lead. Like in all nations, laissez-faire (French for "leave it alone") allows the private sector to do the rest.
As just an average US citizen living in a not so prosperous area, this rings pretty hollow to my mind and most of Europe sure looks like it is winning over 95% of the people that live around me. We already know the stock market is divorced from reality, IP rights are a short-term benefit, and I fail to see how having more compute or starlink satellites are suppose to carry the US into future economic prosperity.
Now im not saying everything is bad, but it sure feels like a lot of the US economy is a Lamborgini shell stuck on the body of a Ford Focus and we think we are winning because most people haven't noticed yet and the profit margins are higher than ever. Europe sure ain't perfect, they got plenty of problems, but their problems are more like worrying about percentage points in the future, while in the US the worry is whether our economy is going to provide for people at all not in the top 25% long-term. And an angry and unsatisfied mass of lower class people is a recipe for upheaval with everyone on top relying on that not happening.
I'm not so sure people in Europe are better off. There are a lot of very poor regions in Europe compared to how people tend to imagine Europe. In fact, most European countries, if they were U.S. states, would rank among the poorer U.S. states.
Now, looking only at the statistics, there are certainly some things European countries are doing better than the U.S. But based on my research so far, which admittedly isn't enough for a full understanding, my tentative conclusion is that almost all of those things don't seem related to economic policy. They seem more related to things like urban planning, for example more pedestrian- and bike-friendly cities.
In terms of work and wages, U.S. wages are substantially higher than wages in most European countries. And I'm not just talking about longer hours. I mean the compensation per hour is significantly higher.
Averages tell us the general availability of wealth. To give you some perspective, most European countries are poorer than the poorest U.S. state, which is Mississippi. There just aren't as many high-paying jobs. And these figures encompass everything, including what the government spends on health care and welfare programs and education. So Europeans as a whole get much less per capita from both government and private sector. When it comes to purchasing power parity, which takes into account cost-of-living differences, the gap isn't as big as above, but it's still pretty significant.
> It's because the EU has largely fixated itself on reducing wealth inequality by punishing those who succeed.
It's actually because America pivoted[1] from manufacturing to higher-margin services (financial, tech[2]), and generations of American Diplomats had negotiated trade deals that ensure American services are never shut-out or hobbled in most countries. American companies won't look so special,or be nearly as profitable, once they lose their default status that allow them to siphon money from all over the globe -including Europe
2. Silicon valley caught lightning in a bottle. Other American locales repeatedly tried and failed to replicate it - so it rules out American legislative attitudes as the vital ingredient.
If you're familiar with American capital markets and global venture capital, you'd know that it had almost nothing to do with these trade deals. They had a marginal impact. The amount of capital available to startups and established companies at all stages of their development was the main difference. And the difference between the US and EU in that regard came mostly from the US simply not sabotaging itself the way the EU did with extremely high taxes on the top income earners, as part of an agenda to reduce wealth inequality.
The fact that the tech industry concentrated in Silicon Valley is simply due to network effects. Regardless of which locale became the Schelling point for U.S.-based technology companies, that locale would have succeeded, because of the national economic policy it operated inside of.
> ...that locale would have succeeded, because of the national economic policy it operated inside of.
The US policy is about to become a lot more robust and a lot less laissez-faire. Over the decades, the public image of tech CEOs has switched from benign, awkward but genius dorks, to out-of-control bond villains.
There's a tech backlash happening in the US, if you've been paying attention, and legislators follow the voter zeitgeist.
Correct. There seems to be a pretty broad tendency across societies to fixate on reducing wealth inequality. I don't think the U.S. is going to escape it. Taxing the rich is the most popular thing in the world. There's nothing the common man prefers more.
Even if US companies only had the US market, they'd be massive — Google gets ~50% of its revenue from the US alone, Amazon over 60% from North America, and most other Big Tech is in that same range. The US market by itself is plenty huge. And the EU provides 20-30% of US Big Tech revenue. Even losing all of that (very unlikely even under protectionist policies), US tech companies would be doing well, with 70-80% of their current revenue.
Sure, full-blown protectionism everywhere would make the world including the US poorer (less specialization, less division of labor), but it would also harm EU exports, as the US is the EU's biggest importer, and moreover it wouldn't change the factors behind the growing US-EU gap. US-EU trade policies with each other are basically the same. The difference is internal, and mostly comes down to the US just not sabotaging the private sector as much.
The EU did retaliate to Trump's tariffs with its own.
Anyway, I wasn't making a point about recent developments. I was talking about more long-term trends showing that why the US has outpaced EU in economic growth.
Weakening your own domain to get powerful sounds clearly contradictory, yet there are so many examples of elites doing exactly that despite the fact that doing so must've required foresight and planning elaborate enough to not blind them from the consequences.
> Weakening your own domain to get powerful sounds clearly contradictory
No because it's relative. If people around you get weak then you get more powerful automatically. If you get more powerful and people around you also get more powerful then you are in the same situation.
So if power is what you want you destroy others at the same time as building your power. What trump is doing is logical. He isn't living in china or russia. he doesn't care if they get stronger. he cares if people around get weaker relative to him and cronies who are in on it. and that works
Even most dictatorships don't "have a dictator". They have a "great leader" that coincidentally gets voted in again and again, for whom constitutions are amended, and who happens to have his own "revolutionary" irregular militias, not-so-secret police grabbing people on the streets in plainclothes (or worse), a subservient parliament rubber-stamping decrees, etc etc.
Even without some of that, the "unitary executive" theory, as implemented by George W. Bush and Donald J. Trump, is effectively a temporary dictatorship in all but name.
> all the oligarchs in the US got rich when the economy was doing well.
You can make bank when things go bad. Look up the European currency crisis of the 90s, when folks like Soros amassed their billions. Or the few who got 2008 right.
Whoever is betting with incredible timing on Trump's unexpected policy shifts, every other week, is definitely not getting poorer. And when the economy tanks, assets get cheap - which is great if you have accumulated cash.
basically make decisions that make no sense but benefit you financially. Sample. you run a printing business. you dont own it just run it. you sell your main printer and assign a performance bonus to your self. next month your business is closed because you dont have equipment to print, but you also have your bonus in pocket.
As an analogy, you can pump the yield of your crop fields by 50% if you are willing to deplete the soil and cash in on 100 years of careful building of the topsoil layer. The person doing it wins out in the short term 10 years, but society loses out long-term when they gotta spend another 100 years of much lower yields to build the top soil back up to healthy levels. Meanwhile the 10 year guy already made his money and sold off whats dregs are left to seek the next snatch and grab operation.
Not really. It has more to do with gold is now worth almost 3x what it was 2 years ago.
And before you get too excited, this "news" from the World Gold Council. A consortium of gold mining corporations. Clearly it's a pump article "have you bought gold yet? everyone else is! why not you!?!?"
Not really. It has more to do with gold is now worth almost 3x what it was 2 years ago.
It's not like we've suddenly found new and exciting uses for gold though. The reason the price has gone up is because the demand for it has gone up, and the reason why demand has gone up is because people want an alternative to U.S bonds. A bunch of pump articles wouldn't be enough to lead to a 3x price increase.
> the reason why demand has gone up is because people want an alternative to U.S bonds
That makes no sense since the amount held in US bonds is not that different.
The only change is that the gold that people held has gone up in value.
It's not different than holding Google and Apple stock, and when Apple stock goes up people say "oh, it's because people don't want Google stock". That's not true at all.
For the first time in history we are seeing multiple signals of USD losing its #1 position to EUR, all within the last year :
1. Euro-denominated interest rate derivatives (IRD) overtook US dollar-denominated contracts in the over-the-counter (OTC) market for the first time in history and the scale of the crossover is staggering.
2. EUR Real Effective Exchange Rate (REER) which measures actual purchasing power (not nominal price) is going in the opposite direction of USD real purchasing power (RTWEXBGS). 2025/2026 is the largest divergence in history: 10 percentage points in a year.
3. US treasuries is no longer a number 1 foreign reserve asset. EUR reserves grew 2.5x faster than USD reserves when measured in its own absolute terms.
Unlike the Eurozone which maintains a fiscally responsible budget with reasonable debt and a trade surplus, there is simply no foreseeable fix to the problem of ballooning US debt and trade deficits. Nothing can fix the US budget mess.
Anyone who is paying attention to the numbers would certainly have more confidence in EUR over USD.
Since a lot of time the US economy and finance are under stress. Not panic but stress. And this makes the leaders stressful too, so they take defensive and hostile actions, most lately by the Trump's government. The world will neither wait nor allow the US to remain leader, especially with non standard ways. The world changes to a tri-pole with satellite nodes. Gold price is just a variable in the system and is dependent of the global state.
Of course they can. You're pointing out that federal law currently prohibits it? I already understood that to be the case when I made my point.
> they're all going wherever the nation goes on this one.
Unless they all collectively decide on a different course of action. The constitution was left amendable. It has been done several times already. A simple option is to repeal the 17th and to return to a state assembly controlled federal senate.
The core feature of the senate that makes it so indefensible is how it assigns power to states, not people. That relationship cannot be amended, per article 5 of the us constitution.
It's far easier to change a state government than it is the federal government. The states used to be able to recall Senators if they failed to do their jobs correctly; as determined by the elected body within the state. It's simply a single level indirection of Democracy. The House of Representatives is direct. This was intentional.
What's "indefensible" about this?
And you can amend how the body is elected; hell, you can amend how the president is elected. Also Article V provides for a state "constitutional convention" as a process for initiating changes, bypassing both the Senate and the House.
no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate
You know, the clause that comes right after the whole "can't do anything about slavery right now" clause.
I consider this feature of the federation to be indefensible because it deprives the rights of people to equal suffrage, to the benefit of states. States should serve the rights and interests of their citizens, not the reverse.
For that matter, you could amend the Constitution to change the process for amending the Constitution, even to eliminate the possibility of future amendments altogether.
That’s interesting. Hadn’t thought of it that way. I can’t for the life of me figure out why more blue states aren’t taxing their wealthy occupants to cover the gap in lost federal funding from DOGE. If they were smart they would start stretching that muscle.
The union of states arrangement has the side effect of putting the states in competition with each other for things like new/expanding businesses and residents. It's relatively easy to relocate (or even remain in a state while legally "residing" elsewhere). So there are diminishing returns to raising the tax rates significantly on the upper brackets at the state level. I'm not a believer in the trickle down theory but beyond a certain marginal rate many people would just move to a state with a lower rate.
That’s never been proven. The blue states re the most objectively desirable states to live in with maybe the exception of Idaho and Wyoming and Florida. Blue states have more leverage than they apply.
I’m a blue state resident and will not argue the point about overall quality of life. But a quick look at net inflow/outflow rankings by state show there’s already a migration in the red state direction. There are many factors involved, but the cost of living is certainly one. Taxes are a large component of the cost of living. Increasing them on a segment of the population that has the resources to move elsewhere can only result in some additional migration. Whether that results in a net loss of tax revenue remains to be seen.
this somehow excludes such human concept as sense of belonging. might be in usa it has atrophied already but sense of home is really important in some places. place where you spend most of your life, where you have you real social network, neighbors and childhood friends. sometimes its lower tax is not worth loosing it all. its not everything about money (for some)
ps im talking about real persons here, not corporations
You're talking about people who aren't ultra wealthy there. Once the tax bill gets high enough relative to elsewhere it doesn't make sense not to jump through the hoops to change your place of residence.
Once you are ultra-wealthy you don't need to worry about taxes unless you are so greedy as to make earning infinite money your only goal in life even if it hurts you in every other way. And it is silly to set general policy based around how irrational and neurotic individuals will act.
I'm uncertain if I should have included "ultra" there. Point is that the father up the tax bracket you are in this scenario the more of the bill you foot and the larger your monetary incentive to relocate.
But at the same time the more money you make the less paying a bit extra to live where your friends and family are is really that big of a concern. Otherwise why are wealthy people living in and around big expensive cities when they can move to any number of other states and pay a fraction of the cost for housing and services. Many people are sitting on a decades worth of pay or more because they don't want to sell their property and move somewhere cheaper.
I expect that cost of living as a percentage of income goes down even as absolute prices go up in most cases. Whereas the taxes we're talking about here go up.
Your logic amounts to assuming you can significantly raise the price relative to other states on the basis that they already pay a bit more which I don't think follows. The degree is off but also the relative difference isn't there. Living in an expensive house in a big city is going to cost extra no matter where you do it but the taxes we're taking about will only exist in some of those cities.
Meanwhile the higher up the income ladder you go typically the fewer constraints there are tying you to a particular physical location. On the extreme end, if you make it high enough it can get to the point where you can literally relocate to a different country without much issue and it may be worthwhile for you to do so.
I don't buy it, we don't really see it on a smaller scale now despite the same incentives being in place on a smaller scale, in fact it is rare enough to warrant fearmongering news stories when it does happen and PR statements. Nobodies moving out of high tax countries to go live in Somalia without taxes. And if they do leave, then who is to say they can even maintain the same business relationship to the US? They either pay the taxes because the US taxes citizens even outside the US, or if they abandon their citizenship to avoid it then they become subject to the same costs and fines and restrictions as any other foreign persons and businesses.
I really don't really see much of any chance for downsides to 99.9% of the population, but plenty of upsides. If the only thing maintaining the US economy is a a small percentage of rich people sitting on stacks of capital, the US economy is already doomed and the people on top are just trying to be the last ones down into the water.
We do see it though. But usually they hide the income overseas because that's more straightforward or cheaper or whatever. However there are several small island countries that are known for hosting ultra wealthy expats on very favorable terms. This isn't some hypothetical.
In the business world how many companies are just coincidentally booking all their revenue in Ireland?
I'm really not clear what point you're trying to argue here. Someone upthread suggested that a sense of community would prevent the disproportionately wealthy from relocating to nearby states to avoid higher taxes. I call bullshit, dependent on the size of the relative tax gap. They don't even have to sell their house, just purchase a second one and reside there more of the year.
Wealthy people move between countries and change citizenship to avoid overtaxation. Moving between states isn't as big a move.
Countries fight back with exit-taxes, controlling asset movement, and taxing (now) foreign owned assets. The US in particular makes it very difficult to take your theoretical winnings from the table.
I am actually convinced that the last year started the descent of the U.S. as the world’s super power. No wonder U.S. treasuries lost trust. It’s only going to get worse. It doesn’t matter what some billionaires do/get from their ability to manipulate some powers be. The rest of the investment community understands that free markets are strengthened by rule of law and adherence to the law and deploying a self styled socialistic distribution of economic capital is not signaling strength but weakness to the world.
My parents refused to digitize their precious memories stored in VHS tapes. We’ve watched them every few years, and whenever I’be tried to convince them to digitize the tapes, my dad says “oh we’ve been hearing about vhs tapes degrading forever now, it still works”
Meanwhile the video fades more and more every few years, you can barely even make out faces and objects in the frames now. But it’s happened so slowly that he never really realized that it was happening all along
Dreaming of the day where the average non-American doesn't know who the US attorney general is, the name of their secretary of war, and the details of every internal political machination.
I don't mind the name change because it more correctly signals what the position has always been -- a secretary of war with a "secretary of defense" mask on.
You say that, but the world has been a relatively peaceful place since the US became the world's only superpower. The "multi-polar" world the Europeans are always dreaming about could very well be one in which much of Europe looks like Ukraine today.
Too tired to write a novel like I usually would here, but we control the printing and, in large part, the distribution of USD. We don't control anything about gold. Then the USD was king, it entailed tremendous power and control in many ways beyond the obvious like the ability to try to kick people out of the 'global' economy. This is the not-so-secret purpose behind BRICS and dates back to issues starting in 1971.
America was in practice running an empire that collected tribute from the rest of planet earth in exchange for entries in a database denominated in a currency they controlled and that was accepted everywhere. Really the only way it could go wrong is putting it under the control of someone who doesn't understand the kayfabe...
> someone too stupid to understand
That's only true if he's actually "your guy". There's an alternative where it's not stupidity that I think more people should be mulling over.
The fact that he has done countless things that are harmful to the US and not a single thing that is in the country's best interests tells me all I need to know. Either he's aligned with an enemy or he just hates the country and wants to destroy it.
Or he and his associates can make a lot of money out of crashing the economy and buying up assets for pennies.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by greed.
Yeah I think the most obvious explanation is looting and ego (to explain the ballroom and putting his name everywhere). I also think there's an awful lot of foreign influence around him and his family and friends before and during his term(s). I mean if I'm a foreign actor seeing your leader's keen interest in looting, I'll probably make him an offer or two...
I think this is denialism of the profit that the USA extracts with its crimes.
The most recent example include the profits from Venezuelan oil:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgn7p7g79wo
https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/trump-administration-manda...
That money is held in a US treasury account. In February the estimated price from the first 50 M barrels was $2.8bn... with the USA+Israel bombing of Iran, the price of course would have increased since.
> It is not clear what portion of the revenues from the sale - which analysts expect to raise about $2.8bn (£2.1bn) - would be shared with Venezuela.
But let's assume that the USA is going to retain "only" 5% of it: that's still 140 million $ of money flowing in, in perpetuity.
Not to mention that having control of the whole 2.8 billion $ also buys further room for loan and deals made on the USA's preferred currency and preferred terms... Or the expropriation of CITGO.
Of course, that money flowing in will be mostly in the pocket of Trump itself, of the billionaires surrounding him, of the military industrial complex (you have to replenish the weapons stockpiles, after all) and all of the federal contractors (that includes most of the FAANG!)... Lots of people in the USA "labor aristocracy" are going to see material benefit from it.
Ultimately, there's still going to be lots of poor people in the USA who won't be able to afford insulin, and there's going to be lots of resentment abroad (not only in Venezuela)... And one could split hair that Maduro's kidnapping is in the USA's interest, but not in its "best interest" (or similarly trying to argue a no-true-scotman for the definition of "USA's interest")
Not to mention, but it's not only Trump's: it's everyone who he surrounds himself with: JD Vance, Pam Bondi (until a few days ago?), Pete Hegseth, the military generals that didn't get kicked out by Hegseth, etc.
They're all complicit, and they're all going along with him.
And of course, if the Democrats will return to power in the next few elections, I don't expect them to relinquish the leverage and resources that Trump got them, just like Obama and Biden didn't pull out of Afghanistan for several years.
Of course, we saw with AIPAC and JStreet that US lobbying is seeing tons of money from abroad: but those are two different faces of the same medal: the oligarchs and the bourgeoisie have common interests across different countries, and the USA is definitely influencing politicians abroad as much, if not more, than moneyed interests abroad are influencing politicians in the USA.
The problem is not only Trump
> That money is held in a US treasury account. In February the estimated price from the first 50 M barrels was $2.8bn... with the USA+Israel bombing of Iran, the price of course would have increased since.
That’s chicken feed compared to the amounts that have been wiped off the stock markets.
I mean on their own those are nice numbers, but you also have to add in the extra military costs of blowing crap up and it starts to seem like chump change to me. We just had a 1.5 trillion defense spending proposal.
> that's still 140 million $ of money flowing in, in perpetuity.
Oh hey, that's roughly enough to cover for Trump's new renovation plans!
> The problem is not only Trump
Trump, if the US makes it through this administration, might be a boon longterm if it wakes up the populace. The blatantly obvious corruption and grift might just do the trick. Those are some pretty big ifs though.
I disagree with probably the majority of Trump's main policy ideas, but I think a strong case can be made that his immigration policies are in the country's best interests. Not all of them, but as a whole.
Immigrants are the lifeblood of America and always have been. Reject them and you lose what literally made America great.
Do you think, on average, a native born American is more useful to America than one who moves here?
Currently, probably yes. If American immigration policy was reshaped to favor immigration of people from high-performing societies, then it would be the opposite.
What color are the people in these 'high performing societies'? I think I have a guess.
Did 'high performing societies' build the railroads? Mine the steel? Forge it? Did 'high performing societies' build the culture we enjoy today?
Here's a secret that you should know but evidently life has never taught you: people who have to struggle to survive are generally smarter, more vigorous, more honorable people. They understand the toll in sweat and blood that the wrong decision takes. They are exactly who we need.
We don't need a nation of pampered trust fund man-children, turning up their delicate noses at everyone not a member of a 'high performing society'.
Immigration in general is good for a country, and relatively uncontrolled immigration is one of the reasons for America's prior economic strength.
Even if you disagree, Trump's policies have not been effective at anything, apart from creating headlines.
These same headlines have secondary negative effects for the US, like hurting international tourism.
Why do you think that?
Illegal immigration brings masses of people from more corrupt, disordered, and perhaps lower average intelligence societies into the US in conditions that make it hard for even the ones who are capable of assimilation to assimilate. It also constitutes a massive flouting of the law for the benefit of business, which sets a bad precedent and lowers public trust in institutions. It also contributes to rising racial tensions that encourage the growth of ethnic tribalism and weaken trust in liberalism.
If you really want to get rid of illegal immigrants, you don't need ICE doing sweeps.
Just make them unemployable. Setup an effective employment eligibility system, and require that employers verify the workers in the system before any payment over $100. Collect biometrics from workers and verify against IRS records. Employers that flout this get fines of 10x wages paid, up to N% of revenue, and maybe jailtime for owners and managers that knowingly violate.
What we have in the U.S. is a bunch of people and politicians loudly decrying illegal immigration and illegal employment, but enjoying the fruits of that illegal employment while paying a fraction of what legal workers would have to be paid.
There's huge appetite for a police state against the little guy, and no appetite for that same police state against business owners and managers.
There's a better way than that. The way the US tax system actually works is incredibly misleading:
1) We pretend to have an income tax but then make it work like a consumption tax in practice. Ordinary people put earnings in excess of spending in a 401k and defer the tax until they want to spend the money. Rich people defer capital gains indefinitely until they want to spend the money. It's an income tax on paper but a consumption tax in practice, and doing it that way is much more complicated than just using a consumption tax.
2) We pretend to have a progressive income tax, but then impose benefits phase outs that fully cancel out the difference in marginal rates between the poor and the rich. Convert the benefits to cash and eliminate the phase outs and you get something which is equally if not more progressive, significantly more efficient and dramatically less complicated.
So, you can throw all of that out and replace it with a flat rate consumption tax and a UBI and it would be as close to a Pareto optimal improvement as anything in politics ever is.
Which also makes a huge amount of headway against the illegal immigration problem, because another disadvantage of pretending to have an income tax is that it effectively subsidizes anyone paying people under the table since then they're not paying the tax. Whereas if people working under the table still have to pay the consumption tax on everything they buy, and they also don't receive the UBI because they're not lawful residents, they'd be at a disadvantage relative to ordinary citizens, instead of the existing system where breaking the rules makes you better off.
The tax code is inefficient on purpose. A simple uniform system is politically infeasible, due to the fact our political system relies on pretending to give special favors to every tailored interest group individually (making the tax code even bigger every time).
We arent at a loss of what to change to make it simpler/optimal. We're at a loss at how to make anyone proposing that not lose the election when everyone else is telling each group they'll lose their special carveous and how about I sweeten the deal some more.
That part of it doesn't seem like the problem. If you want to make a carve out for some group and you're using a consumption tax then you just don't tax that thing or lower the rate (with the cost of having to increase the general rate on everything else). This is occasionally even a good thing, e.g. have a higher tax rate on petroleum than other things to price the externality, or a lower rate on groceries because they're a necessity.
And many of the carve outs are stupid and we shouldn't do them, but that's a separate layer of complexity/inefficiency on top of the mess we get from trying to pretend that "progressive marginal rate structure" and "means testing government benefits" are useful things to have at the same time when they're the mathematical inverse of one another, or that we want an "income tax" even though we don't want the major disincentive for anyone to have savings or make productive investments rather than immediately spending all income on hedonistic consumption.
I agree that your idea would be better. That said, it is still quite possible that even Trump's immigration approach is overall more good than bad for the country.
It's really not. They're deporting less people than Biden did during the same time[1]. They're spending record amounts of money per person deported as well.
I don't disagree that we should be deporting people faster, but this is not the way to accomplish that goal at all. Nor should we be building huge detention facilities. We should be making the process go smoother and faster, not holding people.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_in_the_second_Trum...
If you let in 100 and then throw out 90 you have thrown out many more than if you let in 10 but throw out 30. But the end result is better.
Even if Trump's approach is worse than Biden's, which I'm not sure of, that still does not mean it is bad for the country.
Counting deportations alone does not count people who decide not to come at all.
Also, note that I did not say that we should necessarily be deporting more people. I am actually pretty neutral on illegal immigration. But I am trying to address the question of what is good for the country, which is a different thing from what my personal preferences are.
> Even if Trump's approach is worse than Biden's, which I'm not sure of, that still does not mean it is bad for the country.
But the discussion isn't about whether it's bad, but whether it's in the countries best interest. If you switch to a less effective & more damaging policy compared to your predecessor, it's not in the countries best interest, even if it's (supposedly) better than nothing.
Net?
Trump's immigration approach is not an approach - it's just an excuse for him to create his own Gestapo.
What was the point of sending ICE, a "domestic" agency, to the Winter Olympics, or letting them take over duties from the TSA? What does an "Immigration and Customs Enforcement" agency have anything to do at a foreign country? What's the point of the Secret Service then?
> perhaps lower average intelligence societies
This is nothing but racism. Intelligence is distributed evenly across humanity.
On an unrelated note, how high do you think the rate of American citizens with literacy level 1 is?
Intelligence at least as measured by IQ tests is not distributed evenly across humanity. Intelligence as measured by scientific achievements is also not distributed evenly across humanity. Now, this does not mean that intelligence is necessarily not distributed evenly across humanity. For example, I imagine that Germans in 1 AD probably had about the same innate biological intelligence level as Germans in 1800. Yet Germans in 1 AD had few intellectual achievements, whereas in 1800 were some of the most intellectually achieving people in the world. So clearly there is more going on than just biologically innate intelligence. Yet certainly there is some good reason to believe that some human groups have more innate biological intelligence potential than others. I don't think it's racism to claim this. It would be racism to advocate, for example, for treating a high-performing person like a low-performing person because he comes from a low-performing ethnic group. Which I'm not. Like I said in another comment, my attitude to illegal immigration is neutral. But from the point of view of what is best for the United States as a country, which is different from what I personally want, I think it's probably best to encourage immigration of average-high-intelligence groups rather than average-low-intelligence ones.
I don't think you'll be able to provide evidence for the uneven distribution of IQ across nationalities.
> Illegal immigration brings masses of people from more corrupt, disordered […]
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." — Donald Trump, June 16, 2015
* https://archive.is/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-f...
Never mind that illegal/undocumented immigrants have lower crime and incarceration rates than native-born Americans:
* https://www.cato.org/blog/why-do-illegal-immigrants-have-low...
* https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014704117
What blows my mind is how liberals and progressives (of which I count myself a member) don't see to care that this is the policy that pushed Trump into office. Without it he would have flopped with just his MAGA core.
All you need to do to fix illegal immigration is to go after the employers. You know, actually enforce the laws. Streamline it. Declare it a national emergency and put more onerous requirements on businesses to verify legal status. Send ICE to businesses to investigate them instead of kidnapping people.
You'll probably find out pretty quickly that agriculture is extremely dependent on illegal labour, but so be it. Bring it into the light and have an actual debate. The current approach is all for show, or at worst, intimidation.
The dems spend a disproportionate amount of effort courting tiny voting blocs (e.g. trans) and immigrants unable to vote at all. It is frustrating.
But it does seem to be what their base wants. Keeps the higher moral ground without the irritating responsibility to govern.
While we're at it, when did central banks start to buy lots of gold and under which POTUS? Could it have something to do with the freezing of hundreds of billions of some sovereign assets?
There is something awfully bad happening to the internet, including Hacker News.
It seems like rage-baiting, polarizing titles and vibe based comments are being upvoted, with no interest in the facts. For example, in this case:
1. The growth of the gold reserve in comparison to US Treasuries have very little to do with growth in gold acquisition, and has everything to do with gold more than doubling in price in a year.
2. To make it even worse, gold has since fluctuated in value, and treasuries overtook gold momentarily just a week ago. These price fluctuations has nothing to do with geopolitics.
3. Central bank buying of gold has been trending down in the last year, down 21% from 2024. So far in 2026 it's been going even lower.
4. Gold owned by central banks was higher than US treasuries in the 90s (this is mentioned in the article at least).
This is a little meta - but the thing that bothers me is that this low quality discussion like in this thread is spreading everywhere with the same mechanism - bring politics and polarization into every place, no matter how tangentially related it is.
Side stepping a little, but the Twitter and Reddit exoduses brought in a lot of people with established culture and communication dynamics at discrete periods. I considered writing an extension that collapses comments of accounts based on keywords and creation date, but ultimately decided that was regressive.
I think it's important to recognize how much the world has changed in a short period of time. HN was created when SV was unique, a large fraction of the globe was not on the internet, and web tech was new and novel. Everyone was still figuring out how to handle outreach and networking (I was positive it was a scam when the Omiyadar Network cold contacted me - "who does that?"). Today, I meet kids who made their first commits at the same age I was just trying to find friends in town who had computers. Now, our advanced is their common, and they're growing up primed for engagement-forward networking and self-promotion.
HN isn't a calcified relic of the era when it was created, it's a product of its people. We're seeing the new generations connecting from all over the world at a time when the foundational HNers are fading away, and sometimes when there's friction with my expectations of civility and etiquette in discourse and it feels like the noise is drowning out the signal and I yearn for the smaller, quieter days, I take that as my queue that I need to step back and appreciate that this is their time, too.
I think there are less experts on HN than years ago or a decade ago. And the culture of HN is getting slightly changing to a more Reddit culture every year.
It’s too bad because it’s the only place I know where you have experts in tech but also in other industries. And where I got very interesting discussions.
I think a larger problem is that a lot of YC folks just use Bookface instead of HN.
People have been claiming HN is turning into Reddit for over a decade to the point it's in the guidelines to not make the comparison
[dead]
There's unfortunately someone who is posting some HN articles in a hackernews subreddit. I think that's contributed to the rise of Mr. Hot Take One-Liner Mic Drop, that posts something with 20 one liner replies, always at the top. If that continues happening I'm out.
One interesting factoid, since I can remember on HN, if you ever likened a conversation to Reddit they'd downvote you to grey. There are two ways to read that - Reddit is fine, don't criticize it; Reddit is embarrassing, don't diminish the conversation by comparing us to it.
Thanks appreciate the broader context in this post. As to your meta comment, besides bots, I think a lot of people are facing a great deal of pain and fear. They're emotional and even in hn a critical mass has switched to reading and writing with their gut. Good vibe project, analyse the level of emotionality in comments over time, I'd bet it's gone vertical in the past few months.
Also, never explicitly stating their point. Only asking leading questions.
I agree with your "sensationalism is bad" take; especially as meaningful, non-incendiary comments now often get quickly downvoted for viewpoint, not tone (IMO downvoting should cost 0.1-0.3 karma). But not with "nothing to see in CB gold holdings fluctuations" view:
R1. But central bank gold holdings are rising organically, and partially at the expense of US treasuries. CB gold holdings have been dropping for 35 years, until about 2015. The price rise of gold from 2005 to 2015 did not reverse this trend. From 2015 to 2019 gold price did not rise, but reported holdings did. The recent doubling of the gold price muddies things a little, but the trend is clear.
R3. Reported gold purchases have trended down in 2025 and 2026, probably due to price doubling. But they are still positive. Emerging markets did not sell into this strength to build up more liquid holdings (UST) as more effective tools to support their economies against future malaise. Even "trending down" part is muddy, too, because some countries CB do not report it. China, an elephant in the room, started better obfuscating its holdings, including gold, since COVID.
R4. Yes. Gold owned by CB strognly trended down since 1980. That trend stopped in 2005 and reversed somewhere between 2005 and 2015. And likely accelerated in the last few years.
As a side note, I personally see USTs losing dominance as a reserve asset as a good thing. USG needs some checks on its spending, and world being willing to buy long dated treasuries at below inflation rates incentivizes the "we do not need to solve real problems, we can just print more money" mindset. My 2c.
Well, having tracked soft-science experts for 30 years, I have to say they're wrong over 50% of the time. Moreso, if it's coming from media that's owned by the same country that is causing evil.
https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/russias-central-ban...
Since the advent of the internet, and in fact conversation any in format, people have not overly cared about facts. This isn't a new phenomenon
Low quality: when someone insinuates that the part of the establishment who play "good cop" are not saints.
Reddit has been leaking into HN for years. It’s just finally reached equilibrium.
>everything to do with gold more than doubling in price in a year.
Gold's price doesn't change, it's 42 2/9 US Dollar per fine troy ounce[1], and has been since 1973.
The problem is that this exchange rate hasn't been enforced, or adjusted since then. This allows the spot price to set the effective price of the dollar in a reciprocal arraignment.
Since, the "Gold Window" was closed by executive order, I posit that, In theory, Donald Trump could get a bunch of conspirators together, with 10.4 Billion in cash (the "Book Value" of the US Gold Reserves), and direct the Secretary of the Treasury to re-open the gold window, in private, and drain the US reserves, personally.
Edit: Nope... the law changed, thank goodness.
If the US somehow re-anchored the Dollar to Gold, the deflationary collapse would crush the economy everywhere, instantly, as all dollars outstanding would increase in real value by a factor of >100, and all debts would crush most people, companies, and economies.
So, realistically, if we wanted to re-anchor the dollar, the new value would have to be greater than the current spot price. To fully back all dollars outstanding, it would be somewhere between 50,000 and 150,000 US Dollars per fine ounce.
I had previously expected this to happen a generation from now, but thanks to the complete collapse of institutional memory, and the current administration, I now expect it to happen before the end of the next administration.
[1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/does-the-federal-reserve...
Everything is politics. Which makes people who want to avoid it look delusional.
As for polarization that's been the modus operandi in my country for at least 500 years. Everyone hates everyone but the alternative was the French, English or Spanish so what can you do? Turns out you actually really don't need to love your neighbour.
> Everything is politics.
This is mentioned often, but is also such a broad generalization that it is not constructive in any meaningful way. If everything is politics, then it can be eliminated from both sides of the equation. Focus on real and immediate problems at hand and providing concrete solutions need not have "politics" label slapped onto it by default, esp. where the ideological infighting this attracts complicates having open and frank discussions based on the facts. "Politics" has become a weaponised word often used to derail good initiatives, and with great success. The mindset that everything is politics may be contributor to that.
This is just HN. We're explicitly not productive or constructive. We're not solving the world's problems. We're just shooting the shit. This is a forum for wasting time. I guess it wouldn't be HN without the delusions of self-importance.
> Everything is politics.
Everything you want to be politics is politics. Caring for other people shouldn't be politics. Being a decent human being shouldn't be politics. There are plenty of things that aren't politics unless you decide you want to turn them into politics.
The issue is when you get down to the edge cases, you get into politics again.
Is ‘caring’ (what does that mean exactly?) for someone on death row good or bad? You’ll likely find splits in answers along ‘political’ lines, especially depending on things like the nature of the crime, who the victim was, etc.
Is ‘caring’ (again, in what way?) for someone in Palestine good or bad? Or worth how much money to do? Similar split. How about Iran?
What about someone in the inner cities? Who doesn’t work?
Etc.
Hand wavy general statements are easy to have, but when it gets down to actual implementation is when real groups of people start to have very different concrete opinions on how it should be done.
You’ll also find lots of shaming among the group and against ‘outsiders’ trying to enforce idealogy. And if you think that part doesn’t happen, just read your own comment - it’s a mild form of that!
That is politics.
> ‘caring’ (what does that mean exactly?)
caring: (adjective) displaying kindness and concern for others.
If you look at this definition of caring and find a way to turn it into a politics issue that's your problem, not mine.
If you scale a problem up, then yes, you get into politics. If you scale it all the way down, politics disappear. If you see your next-door neighbor struggling with something and you can help, you should. That's not politics. That's called being a decent human being.
> Hand wavy general statements are easy to have
I agree. In fact "everything is politics" is a stupid, hand wavy statement.
> You’ll also find lots of shaming among the group and against ‘outsiders’ trying to enforce idealogy. And if you think that part doesn’t happen, just read your own comment - it’s a mild form of that!
Disagreement != enforcing ideology, at least in my world. And if you don't see it that way, then I guess you're guilty of doing the precise thing you're commenting on.
Under that definition, ‘Caring’ can mean anything from hopes and prayers to major economic sacrifices.
With that struggling neighbor, are you talking about helping them take out their trash at night when they’re tired - or paying unemployment benefits for years?
Notably, in my experience, the ones who talk the most usually just keep talking - and aren’t the ones on the hook for actually doing the hard caregiving when things are really tough. But hey, maybe you’re different?
One big difference we have here is you’re again talking hand waving generalities, and I’m talking concrete economic behaviors and policy. It’s easy to say ‘if you can help you should’, it’s harder when it’s ’where is the line for “can” and “should” exactly when we’re talking millions of people and trillions of dollars’, and people you’ll likely never meet in your life - and taxes that definitely come out of your paycheck each month.
Move the line too much one way, and it incentivizes being a victim. Move it too much the other way, and it crushes people with legitimate problems. Both are real issues.
So it's a controlled demolition? In this view, is the goal to devalue our own debt? Extract value while it still has value?
> In this view, is the goal to devalue our own debt?
I'm sure that'll be some quacks argument, but I think the goal is simpler. Straight up looting by those in power and their rich friends.
One less conspiratorial but more pernicious angle, is that attacking things that are good but complex is a great strategy for troll politicians who don't care about the success of their country but just like the attention.
See Brexit, and free trade in general.
It's a good way to get "the establishment" to gang up on you and defend something complicated while you present simple but wrong alternatives and promise the world.
I also think he's up for sale (as are all the other similar politicians) to a multitude of buyers, foreign and domestic.
For Brexit in particular, it seems clear to me that EU politicians, but the UK ones in particular, used EU as a scapegoat for unpopular economic policy that they themselves actually want, but can't justify effectively to their constituents. "We can't help it, it's an EU requirement" when leaving out that in the EU, their guys totally supported it.
That was bound to backfire at some point or another.
I think you're right that politicians prefer not to defend complicated (and possibly good) policy to the public. But if they choose easy ways out to avoid it (and they do!) then they're to blame too when it collapses. To blame the public for not blindly trusting them won't do.
The public is almost fully to blame, and gets the government it deserves. I only hedge a little because education is in control of the state, so to some degree people don't choose whether to be educated on the relevant matters.
It may be familiarity breeding contempt but I find members of the British public in particular very myopic in obtaining benefits for 'their group'. There's very little interest in society as a whole.
Politicians simply bend in order not to upset any of the key voting blocs. But you understand that's a selection bias: you wouldn't exist as a successful politician if you didn't do this. All those who go another path are doomed to obscurity.
> The public is almost fully to blame, and gets the government it deserves.
Which has been a popular argument against democracy since at least Plato: just look at the average voter/person and their intelligence, understanding of the world, and their character.
> The public is almost fully to blame, and gets the government it deserves.
I'd frame this another way -- the public are largely responsible, but we put all the blame on politicians/government. we vote for these people while we all know they're all talking complete and utter nonsense just to get past the job interview. it is the game. i wish it wasn't. i wish i could stand in the house of commons during PMQs and point out every BS line every single one of them says. stand up during question time and shout at all the idiots on the panel, disproving every single bullshit line they've fed the audience with stats and analysis and data [0]. but then we'd probably end up everyone in the country showing up to PMQs/question time shouting over each other all at the same time... which wouldn't really work lol.
the system is not perfect, but it's what we've got.
> I only hedge a little because education is in control of the state, so to some degree people don't choose whether to be educated on the relevant matters.
> It may be familiarity breeding contempt but I find members of the British public in particular very myopic in obtaining benefits for 'their group'. There's very little interest in society as a whole.
yeah, like, i'm kind of lucky that i don't have children or any other dependants and i went to posh schools, got a decent academic education [1]. i can afford to sit around, pontificate and moralise about what the large scale right or wrong way of doing things should be. i earn enough and don't have kids. hell, i'd be happy if they increased the rate of tax in the top bands. more money to spend on public services for everyone else who actually needs it. seriously, take my spare disposable income! i'm only gonna spend it on expensive food and cigarettes that's gonna make me overweight and have lung cancer and become a drain on the nhs anyway!
my mate with three kids doesn't have the time for that. she just wants the school to give her daughter the help she needs and has to fight through a bunch of bureaucracy to get there. bureaucracy which exists because the system is under strain because lots of people are asking for the same resources and they've got to figure out some way of apportioning out the resources. same with my mate who is a single parent to a son with pretty hefty ADHD. it's no wonder they fall into the "my group first" attitude and/or rhetoric with, for example, immigration. they're constantly told there's all this money is being spent elsewhere on "some other people" and then they look at their kid's school struggling with one support worker for hundreds of kids and it's like ... well, wtf. same thing with income taxes etc. "we need money for our kids, why on earth is my tax money being spent on X, Y, Z" etc.
to be clear: i don't agree with the political views of my friend, and i don't really care to debate the politics either. i'm responding to the "myopic" comment from my own perspective, having previously noticed the interesting differences between myself and my friends. they're really lovely people! really nice and kind and loving folks. but they have a selfish/fear-based-protectionist side to them, like all humans do.
that last bit is the important bit for me. fear leads selfish behaviour. people are worried, the "system" is unstable and constantly under strain. and that makes them act in their own selfish interests because they're having to jostle for position within the "system" :shrug:
> Politicians simply bend in order not to upset any of the key voting blocs. But you understand that's a selection bias: you wouldn't exist as a successful politician if you didn't do this. All those who go another path are doomed to obscurity.
this has always been the critical problem from where i sit. like, we're forced to vote for people who, ultimately, may only be in the job for a maximum of 5 years total. we don't get to vote on the next 30 years cos the next lot could just undo it all. just look at upcoming negotiations with the EU apparently might involve us moving back towards the single market again, which was the whole "once in a generation" brexit vote thing. turns out it's not quite so "once in a generation" [2]
the trouble for me is that the commonly implemented "long term" model for governance tends to be stuff like authoritarianism, dictatorship etc. ... so...
--
i wrote way more for this than i thought i would lol
[0]: yeah! let's properly hold them to account! i can finally use my autistic powers of calling bullshit for the benefit of all! instead of getting into trouble with my boss at work. again. o_o
[1]: the non-academic parts were really damaging though. expensive doesn't always mean good. highly rated academically doesn't always mean good.
[1]: thankfully lol
As a side note if you did just get fat and smoke you wouldn't be a drain on the NHS because being fat and smoking disqualifies you from many procedures and you are likely to die right around retirement age, after you paid most of your lifetime taxes but before you start consuming the very expensive age-related healthcare.
Ironically it is the unhealthy that are overpaying and the very healthy who are underpaying because age related care is such a huge proportion of lifetime medical costs, and that is still before adding in potential sin taxes paid.
[dead]
The alternative is everything falling apart at home and our manufacturing industries declining dramatically. Maybe the "unpopular economic policy" wasn't such a bad idea after all.
The people that voted for Brexit aren't affected by any of that.
In fact, they're so protected they'd probably prefer a recession.
It's true, pensioners are very isolated from the problems of working people.
Well, that's the brexit outcome.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
The issue is that the stupider the politician, the more likely they are unable to understand why their clear, simple answer to the ills of the world is also wrong.
Brexit, whatever is happening in the US, is caused by narcissism (a common trait among politicians) paired with a great deal of stupidity and ineptitude, not only among politicians, but among the populace as well.
the politician doesn't necessarily have to be stupid, just know that there are enough stupid voters
Say more
Being a reserve currency puts a gun to your economy's head. It creates an asymmetry where domestic production of material goods has to jump a gap created by favorable exchange rates in PPP terms. Its great for the day to day life style of your citizens, as other economy's do indeed pay tribute, in a sense, to their consumption of goods produced overseas. However, being paid to do nothing becomes a real problem when the checks stop coming. We're basically the national equivalent of a middle manager who's forgotten all the skills that got him there, and we can voluntarily move back down and start to work in earnest again, or wait to get laid off with no severance.
It's as much a gun to adversaries' heads if they hold lots of your bonds (China used to hold over $1T in USTs) so they would have an interest in not having that blow up by not annoying the US so much they refuse to pay foreign bonds.
It's also kind of neat as a financial MAD instrument, because China obviously can't just get everyone to go into their brokerage and market sell a trillion in USTs so they get a lever to pressure the US with but they can't go nuclear without also vaporising their own value. So it works as a melting ice block on which diplomacy is forced on both sides.
The death of the UST as a reserve instrument would be a catastrophically bad loss, the only silver lining is that the melting ice block might still be enough by the end of this admin that the new admin might have enough to stand on to rebuild it should they realise the value of it.
After the US Dollar with Luke Gromen
https://youtu.be/OOW-oSruO80?t=4072
Luke's key point lands at about 1:08:27–1:08:33, where he says that instead of selling treasuries outright (which would draw attention from the American embassy), China can use them as collateral — and the American banks are happy to take it. He then lists what China gets in return: "I'll take Pereus. I'll take that oil field. I'll take that copper mine. I'll take all that gold." He then adds that this works because the incentives align on both sides — the Chinese want to understate their strength, the Americans want to overstate theirs, and the American banks are happy to accept dollar collateral without asking too many questions.
Aren't these things just legal fictions that only exist because/as long as the US government allows it?
Damn that’s actually a crazy thing to think about but makes perfect sense. Thanks for sharing
> It's as much a gun to adversaries' heads if they hold lots of your bonds (China used to hold over $1T in USTs)
There is a complicated dynamic at play to consider there. Treasuries and the strength of the dollar only matter to wrt international trade, for both China and the US. You have to ask yourself if the value of the dollar went to 0 for that use case, who would be in a worse position, the one that sells dollars to support consumption, or the one that buys them as a tool for trade with 3rd parties?
They can also just not roll them over. That takes time, but it's a good % of holdings each year.
> by not annoying the US so much they refuse to pay foreign bonds.
The problem with this is that a country can only refuse to pay their foreign bonds once. But the buyer can always dump them and scoop them up later for cheap when shit hits the fan.
Hi from Argentina!
But why?
If you just don't run a mega defict every year you can afford to use the interest other countries would have to pay you to borrow dollars to subsidize your own economy.
"the interest other countries would have to pay you..."
That's the problem, they don't have to, and they can choose not to.
The fiscal deficit is a whole separate matter, but I think it is a downstream effect of the kind of policies and economy that develop when you run a huge trade deficit selling your currency for goods and services.
As someone who lives a day to day life, I’m pretty happy for things that are good for my day to day life. Some abstract quasi moralistic reason that things should be tougher so we compete harder feels a little out of touch. I’d note that it’s not the case the US produces nothing, or that it’s lost its capacity to innovate. Effectively most technology, especially software, but hardware as well, is concentrated in the US. Some aspects of the heavy manufacturing and assembly line happens elsewhere but I’d level the middle manager more at the EU.
No, we are taking our advantages and lighting them on fire for no obvious reason. Backing into a rationale doesn’t make it rational. Its Christian nationalism fueling raging narcissism made malignant due to senility. Theres no experts, no adults, no experienced people - they’ve all be fired and replaced with sycophantic photogenic personalities. This is not good, there is no upside, it’s Nero hosting UFC while the empire burns.
The only out I see is nature helping end this or a total seismic change in Congress and removal from office. Then rebuilding can start and maybe there’s something to salvage. But I doubt it, and I expect the next generations will exist in the rubble of the colosseum.
I'm not going to take a side in the broader discussion here, however your response fails to engage with what was previously written.
> Some abstract quasi moralistic reason
What was presented was neither abstract nor moralistic. The argument was one of driving towards a cliff and taking preemptive action before reaching it.
No, it was driving towards a cliff and deciding to jump out of the car instead of pressing the breaks. If you're costing at work, worried about being laid off some day, the last thing you do is just quit; you job hunt and try to change habits. Pretending like we have to feel immense pain to strengthen the economy is the quasi moralistic reasoning of a moron
You're making a lot of abstract and quasi moralistic arguments for someone with such a distaste for them.
> Some abstract quasi moralistic reason that things should be tougher so we compete harder feels a little out of touch.
I don't see how any of those descriptions fit what I've said. Also, note, things should indeed not be tougher. A consequence of our economy being so focused on financialization of overseas productivity is that the wealth created from that activity tends to be much more concentrated than that produced from manufacturing, at least historically. Though, who knows if that would hold if onshoring took off in earnest.
> I’d note that it’s not the case the US produces nothing, or that it’s lost its capacity to innovate
Never said either of those things. I only stated that it makes domestic production harder/less profitable. Though, I'd also like to point out that that the largest companies in our economy are wholly dependent on the output of an island with grave geopolitical risks hanging over its head. China could collapse our economy overnight due to unchecked offshoring. That's not quasi, abstract, or moralistic, just a state we've created.
> No, we are taking our advantages and lighting them on fire for no obvious reason. Backing into a rationale doesn’t make it rational. Its Christian nationalism fueling raging narcissism made malignant due to senility.
I mean, I have named several, and all of which were put forth prior to Trump's term starting. I'm not a fan of Trump, but it would seem to me you are creating a narrative for yourself that doesn't fit history.
> Theres no experts, no adults, no experienced people - they’ve all be fired and replaced with sycophantic photogenic personalities.
I think Bessent is pretty good.
> This is not good, there is no upside, it’s Nero hosting UFC while the empire burns. The only out I see is nature helping end this or a total seismic change in Congress and removal from office. Then rebuilding can start and maybe there’s something to salvage. But I doubt it, and I expect the next generations will exist in the rubble of the colosseum.
Idk about rubble, but corruption does need to be curbed IMO. The current administration has not been good for the rule of law, in spirit. I do think some level of that is unavoidable however, as the judicial branch and executive branches have been sucking power from the legislature for going on 50 years, which also needs correcting.
Bessent is great example of sycophantic photogenic personality.
He knows he is lying and he knows he is harming the economy and people in it. But, that does not matter to him.
I'd rather he stroke Trump's ego and stay in the room, than lose his ability to help the American people.
I think the way you phrased your point was quasi moralistic - perhaps not intentionally.
However I’d note that the economic theory of comparative advantage says the rational move is countries and states and cities specialize in what they have a comparative advantage in and by doing so the entire system becomes optimal. Everyone trying to be self sufficient within themselves, and the absurdity of the trade imbalance as a measure, is grossly inefficient for everyone and pulls the entire planet down. Obviously this doesn’t account for instability, but it does explain why our economy has focused in areas we have a comparative advantage while depending on other economies for theirs. This is a feature of modern economic theory, but perhaps has flaws in practical political senses.
Bessent is a complete idiot who equates having money with intellectual supremacy. He’s a sociopath in real life, a sycophant in political life, and a moron who does well following orders of someone smarter than him. He was successful at other people’s funds but when he started his own he totally flopped. He has a gentleman’s degree is political science from Yale, and his uncle was convicted of corruption and spent time in prison while in the US House of Representatives- demonstrating the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. See his corruption regarding mortgages and investment properties for proof.
I do agree we had been dismantling our advantages for a while, but what I said was Trump lit them on fire. In a little over a year every structural advantage the US has enjoyed post WWII is gone and we are hated by allies and enemies alike. We have no leverage with anyone on anything, everyone who might have let us have advantage is seeking a backstop away from us, and any sense we had engendered as a place for people to come to pursue opportunity is gone. We’ve dismantled institutions that took generations to build in months, and eliminated all good will across the planet with literally every human being that uses fossil fuels in any way. This is the most breathtakingly destructive frittering away of advantage for zero gains I could imagine short of simply declaring nuclear war on ourselves.
> However I’d note that the economic theory of comparative advantage says the rational move is countries and states and cities specialize in what they have a comparative advantage in and by doing so the entire system becomes optimal.
The basis of trade barriers of any kind is necessarily against an optimal global economy. I get that. Its the default free trade argument. It's a bit of a spherical-cow argument however, as the moment a country implements any kind of market regulation, free trade becomes arbitration around those regulations. So, unless the entire world becomes libertarian, that argument doesn't hold water.
They are arguing that Trump is controlled by a foreign adversary and doing these things at their direction.
Not aware of what happened in the 70s then with Bretton Woods? Not aware of what happened pre-08? It has gone wrong multiple times before just for the US and the US exporting inflation is not good for either the US or the rest of the world.
As with NATO, I am not sure what the argument is...yes, other countries should take more of a role in their own defence...yes, other countries should take more of a role in their own economic governance/financial stability.
On this topic specifically though, I will also point out that whatever the faults of the US, no-one had a problem when Germany was exporting crippling levels of deflation (this is one of the main issues that wasn't solved after WW2 despite being identified by Keynes: deficit countries will be told they need to rebalance, but not surplus countries). Germany have solved that problem with catastrophically bad foreign policy destroying their economy (once again) but before this, they were the main source of global financial instability (China, to their credit, is probably one of the only countries ever to rebalance from surplus to deficit country...Germany has done this multiple times over the years and has blamed other countries every time).
Other countries using gold instead of US debt is good for both the US and those countries. Most of the "increase" has been due to gold rising in value and, fundamentally, it cannot solve the problem because the price cannot rise as much as it needs to but it should be part of a mix with SDRs and other securities.
gibberish
Nope, just economic history.
People think the "new thing" is new...this has happened many times before. Macro tourists come in and think ten minutes with ChatGPT has turned them into an economist. Basic knowledge.
What's your point tho
US will have to refinance $ 10T of debt next year. That's a gargantuan amount of money and I see no scenario in which this won't have quite higher yields than the expiring one, remnant of the low rate decade.
With foreigners and hedge funds less prone to buy US debt right now it's going to be quite interesting to see what will happen.
It’s going to be a couple of humbling decades for the USA.
The western world was happy to keep the USA as a global police force, as long as they didn’t step too far out of line and at least paid lip service to international law.
With that gone and now caring only about brazen self interest, there is little reason to support the USA as an ally, so they have been demoted to a trading partner(unwillingly).
Honestly it’s much better to do trade with literally anyone else besides the USA.
elections have consequences...
[flagged]
> More importantly, in the context of this discussion, every president since Bush's first term has had larger deficits than any previous president, regardless of party.
Taking on long term debt at or below the risk free rate _is the point._ It didn't devalue the currency because the global economy was structured around buying that debt. You just need to not jeopardize that second point.
It's a snowball rolling downhill that's reached the point where it is out of control. We cannot stop taking on more debt, which is, let's face it, just printing money electronically. At some point everything will blow up. I just hope it doesn't happen until I'm gone.
This glosses over what Bush was handed from the previous guy and then what he left behind for the next guy.
The "previous guy" was constrained by a once-in-a-lifetime Congress that was serious about deficits, and he also benefited by another once-in-a-lifetime spurt of economic growth that dramatically increased tax revenue.
As soon as Congress realized they'd been handed a deficit-free budget they went about spending with wild abandon.
And anyway, since that guy we've had two presidents over three terms where the other party controlled the presidency and they didn't and they certainly didn't break the pattern.
Let me ask you this: If you wanted to vote for a guy (or gal) who was serious about reducing the deficit instead of someone who doesn't care as long as the wheels don't come off during his term, who would you vote for?
Here's the better question: If you were serious about reducing the deficit, what would you cut?
It should be possible to reduce Medicare costs significantly by going after healthcare costs in general, i.e. create a ton of new medical residency slots and train a lot of new doctors, and make the healthcare companies actually compete with each other. The AMA and healthcare companies are going to fight you hard.
We currently make large social security payments to affluent retirees who paid in less than we're paying them out. We could reform the system to cost less, i.e. not pay out as much to people who don't need the money. The AARP isn't going to like it.
The DoD budget is pretty big and a lot of it is waste or corruption. But to do this well you have to be good at identifying which parts, you still can't eliminate all of it because some of it is pretty important, and this one is the smallest of the three. And the defense contractors will try to stop you.
To make a meaningful dent in the deficit you would have to do at least two of those but no one is willing to do any of them.
Agreed. This should have been addressed decades ago, and every year that goes buy it will get harder to deal with.
Me, I'd cut everything. Right now, when interest rates are relatively low, we're spending more to service the debt than we're spending on defense. This isn't a problem we can address with half measures.
The giant sacred cows are Defence (War) and Social Security. Could probably solve the deficit pretty quickly by getting money out of politics, especially defence contractor and AIPAC money.
That would require a significant political overhaul though.
And yet the current administration is fixated with trade balance (which conveniently ignores the most important US export that's not accounted: services).
Look at them countries sending food, cars, machinery for pieces of paper. They taking advantage of us!
A lot of countries have their gold reserves in the US.
It was a good idea once but there's no doubt in my mind that the Americans will confiscate it all.
Not your keys, not your coin.
America did it to its own people too.
Just make sure it’s real gold, not just a number on a spreadsheet, or a golden Twinkie made up of tungsten! India got caught with their heads in their asses with that one!
Scott Bessent is literally the guy who broke the pound, I think he understands
I think pinning this on one guy is a gross oversimplification driven by personal dislike for that guy. In my opinion larger forces are at play. I don't mean it in a conspiratorial way; simply put, the structure of global trade, economy, military power, etc. have shifted to such a degree, that this process has become inevitable.
The Clinton administration ran a budget surplus
He ran a surplus by (In Bill Clinton's own words) "ending welfare as we know it". This was his description of the Personal Responsibility Act he signed. That attack on labor and bolstering of the financial markets was a huge contributor to our economic disasters. Keynesian was never meant to be a permanent solution to a growing capitalism system. And the Hayekian system we have now is just pillaging by neoliberals.
> ending welfare as we know it
> That attack on labor
How is ending welfare an "attack on labor"?
(I live in a welfare state and am quite happy about it, despite it having very real financial consequences for me. Welfare state does not benefit "labor", but rather benefits the various people who either can't or don't want to perform labor)
Why do laborers have to work for the right to live when capitalists only have to provide capital and are always assumed to be worthy? Capital and labor is combined to produce new capital. Yet we only expect labor to prove their worth. We're always holding labor's feet to the fire and killing them through policy that allows their poverty by assuming they are lazy.
There is basically zero consequence for capitalists when they decide to withhold capital from laborers. Therefore taking away labor's ability to generate new capital. They took down the entire rust belt by doing this. Why shouldn't we hold them accountable? Why does everyone blame labor and say welfare is only for people in poverty?
> Why do laborers have to work for the right to live
I don't know why, but this is sort of the definition of a laborer, no? Someone who labors.
People who live on welfare are – by definition – not laborers. That was my whole point: "ending welfare" is not "an attack on labor", it's an attack on non-labor.
I reject your definition of welfare. You're thinking far too narrowly about the benefit to society by taking care of your citizens' needs.
What is your definition of welfare? Generally caring how the citizens are doing? I believe governments usually don't. There's too much politics for that.
Again, that's a domestic issue. It was at a time, when all US adversaries were either in trouble or not stabilized yet.
Because such a system isn't just sunshine and rainbows like OP mentions and has real costs like ever increasing debt burdens and wealth and social inequality which naturally create political instability as lower classes and institutions become increasingly stressed. Trump is just a symptom of sentiment created by these consequences.
There is nothing inevitable about strategically moronic war, a super power supporting an ethno-religious genocide, and an orange dildo ripping up international order.
You insist on making it about this administration and your dislike for it, when I am talking about wider shifts like China's ascent, America's de-industralization, Europe's stagnation, drone revolution, shale revolution...
This admin's shortcomings don't need to be listed, anyone with eyes can see. I will just remind you about Biden's "minor incursions" comment, that opened to the door to invasion of Ukraine...
I'm not insisting on anything.
I'm fully conscious of tectonic plates shifting and creating huge change and the need for response. But, again, none of what we've seen the current admin engaged in has been inevitable.
And no, comparing to Biden will not do here. I couldn't care less really about which side is in power (except when there is significant spillover like now). I'm outside of the USA. But I have never seen anything so ridiculous as the current "strategic" choices of the current admin.
I am outside of the USA too. And I don't care either. Plus, once again, when I said inevitable, I meant the process of US losing it's primacy, not whatever this admin is doing.
[dead]
Dated Jan 9. When the headlines is in present tense, it is kinda misleading to post as-is at a later time.
The events of the last year certainly have a role to play, but the overall effect is just the result of trendlines that have been in play for quite a while.
Here's a world gold council (i know...) review/survey of central banks gold holdings from mid 2025 (https://www.gold.org/goldhub/research/central-bank-gold-rese...). It notes that gold purchases (by mass) have been elevated going back to ~2023.
Gold prices have also been on an upward trajectory ever since 2023 (https://goldprice.org/gold-price-history.html)
Whatever is happening now is bigger than actions over the last year.
I think the initial catalyst for this was when the US/Biden arbitrarily removed Russia from SWIFT post Ukraine invasion. Whether people agreed or disagreed with that decision isn't really material to the discussion, the fact remained that the west decided to remove Russia and they basically had no recourse. And given the, well, unpredictable nature of the current US executive I think it's kinda kicked other countries into overdrive.
Gold has always been stable, because it is physically limited.
It is the fiat currency debasement via unlimited money printing that makes the gold chart go up.
Imagine being in Zimbabwe or Weimar Germany and watching your stock portfolio and gold going up...
> Gold has always been stable, because it is physically limited.
Incorrect. Physical scarcity matters, but it’s not the main driver. Gold’s price is far more sensitive to interest rates, dollar strength, sentiment and fear, speculative flows.
The stability it’s historically shown was mostly the result of fixed monetary systems, and those are long gone.
its because you are measuring stable Gold in volatile fiat which is being printed every day depending on the factors you mentioned (interest rates, expectations of future growth, sentiment etc).
because you are getting paycheck in fiat, you are psychologically programmed to think of fiat as something stable, and Gold as volatile.
while in reality prices expressed in Gold ounces remained fairly stable for example: https://i.redd.it/1b5mfrqkxxef1.jpeg
> its because you are measuring stable Gold in volatile fiat
You're defining gold to be stable, and fiat to be volatile. Well, fiat is volatile, but that doesn't make gold stable.
Gold (measured in dollars) nearly doubled over the last year. Does that mean that the dollar is worth only half what it was a year ago? No, it doesn't. (There's been some inflation, but not nearly 100%.)
Gold is down 10% since January 28th. Does that mean that the dollar is worth 10% more than it was on January 28th? No, it doesn't.
Gold is not as stable as you claim it is.
You're wrong; the prices of precious metals have never been stable, which is why bimetallic systems have always had a lot of problems papering over the notionally fixed exchange rate between coins of different metals.
That said, I agree that e.g. gold under a regime where most things for sale are priced in gold is more stable than gold as a novelty investment under a fiat currency regime.
When things are priced in gold, most of the demand for gold comes from the fact that it's useful as currency. All of the phenomena we have now still exist, and they disturb the price, but they're small effects compared to the demand for currency.
In the fiat regime, that source of demand is gone. All of the same random effects still push the price of gold around, but because the price is so much lower (due to much lower demand), the price swings are wilder.
I find this to be quite an interesting perspective change!
If I may try for a metaphor, then it's like our default perspective from the Earth is that we are the center of the universe, the other planets, Sun, and stars move around us, and we are stationary.
But, to zoom out, you can take a more objective view that everything is moving independently (ie, volatile). The baseline stability is a subjective perspective.
Fiat is a shit investment that loses even with interest but it isn't really volatile.
The only "stability" gold has is an emergent property of an interconnected system of hairless apes somehow making each other believe they need it. Same with fiat, bitcoin, or whatever we come up with tomorrow. None of these things have any real utility outside of an expectation that the peer ape also finds them valuable.
>Incorrect. Physical scarcity matters, but it’s not the main driver. Gold’s price is far more sensitive to interest rates, dollar strength, sentiment and fear, speculative flows.
Those are only relevant on a shorter timescale; on a long timescale gold's held its value extremely well. The price of a loaf of bread in gold now is still similar to what it was in the Roman Empire 2000 years ago.
That comparison actually sounds horrible for gold... By all accounts we should be extremely more efficient in manufacturing loafs of bread. So a same amount of gold should buy lot more bread now than 2000 years ago.
So if you really think about it. If you held gold for 2000 years. You would only reach same standard of living as 2000 years ago...
All value is subjective and thus at the whims of wild animal spirits.
Gold seems stable largely because the price must rise to make mining significantly more of it economically viable. Yet, were it truly stable, prices measured in terms of gold should have seen price deflation from the Roman era to now. That this is not the case proves that gold has zero intrinsic value. It may have some inherent utility, but that is not the same thing. As people want more gold for use as a conductor, or in alloys for dental prostheses, or for adornment the price will go up. Speculative demand can make the price go up. Demand for trade without USD can make the price go up.
Gold and USD prices are independent of one another. That they can be used to measure one another is also a human invention and an accident of history.
All value is subjective.
> The price of a loaf of bread in gold now is still similar to what it was in the Roman Empire 2000 years ago.
That seems pretty unlikely, when the price of a loaf of bread in gold now is less than half of what it was only 3 years ago.
You've picked a shorter timescale.
So you’d be far worse off if you had put your savings in gold than in fiat currency based investments
Barely keeping up with inflation is not the win you think it is.
For certain periods of time, not losing to inflation is a major win. The more people think that we're headed into such a period, the more they reach for gold.
The real price of gold has been deflated by paper gold/futures trading, which has the effect of multiplying the perceived amount of gold in circulation without a necessary counterpart in physical gold. Financial institutions can within limits manipulate the price of gold so that it remains lower than it should be if the physical material had to be delivered.
The fact that this all happened by choice is really something.
It's like witnessing a self-decapitation.
You're seeing the result of something that's been decades in the making. You can see a simple table of dollar reserves here. [1] They've been consistently falling year over year for the past 27 years. And it's not like 1999 was anything particular. Rather the uptake leading up to 1999 as a peak was a result of shenanigans that happened in 1971 [2]. That's when the USD became completely unbacked by anything, enabling the government to start going arbitrarily far into debt. That had short to mid-term positive impacts and long-term catastrophic ones, as is the typical strategy in modern times.
People always exaggerate the impact of geopolitical things, because it feels like the biggest thing ever, especially when you're relatively young. But in reality we're always onto nonsense after nonsense. Countries have the wisdom and view to appreciate this, and so respond to geopolitical stuff (in action, not rhetoric) far more gradually than people do. They're certainly not going to just dump all their dollar reserves because of a single misguided war or even misguided president, or they'd have been gone long ago.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_currency#Global_curren...
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system#Nixon_sho...
[2] - https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
I hear you, the world is always ending. But, I am well past mid-life, I am a huge beneficiary of Pax Americana, and 47 feels like something truly different. Maybe it's just the end of a long pattern, but it is still the end. US-led NATO is dead, and the stability of the USA is dead, therefore the dollar's dominance is weakening.
Don't take my word for it. Listen to Mark Carney at Davos.
I think there is a realization that (1) US' checks and balances do not work, (2) Trump is not a "mistake" of voters and can repeat again.
This is the main reason that things are different. Most presidents were reasonable in their hegemony, and Trump's naked aggression makes everyone to hedge against US.
Bush invaded Iraq on completely and maliciously fabricated evidence. Literally - all of it was made up. He sought EU approval to invade, was rejected, and then invaded anyhow, starting a decades long war leaving the region in complete chaos severely undermining US (to say nothing of global) security. Other presidents happily carried on and even magnified his war in some ways.
And as you go back you can see that our more contemporary actions are just echoes of the past anyhow. Vietnam was also started on a complete and malicious lie. [1] That lie then led to the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans, practically bankrupted the country (playing a major role in the events of 1971), left the country more divided than ever, and concluded with us running away from Vietnam with our tail tucked.
We didn't start the fire. It just always feels so different in the present because you don't know how things are going to turn out, so there's always the possibility that this time it might be something extraordinary as opposed to just this perpetual and never-ending self-crippling.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident
I think that people also see that government in all its ministries is becoming less competent, because of deliberate actions, firings, and flight of competent people. Uninspiring, uninterested, loyalists as leaders of each department doesn't exactly help.
And the competence of departments is crucial for the well functioning of the country, services high and low. (Diplomacy, war, and education to electricity and roads).
In my view it's both that the State Department, for example, is less competent than before, and that the administration is less likely to listen to the experts and Department officers than before.
(I'm not american.)
How can you reconcile the rest of your comment with:
> That had short to mid-term positive impacts and long-term catastrophic ones, as is the typical strategy in modern times.
Is the catastrophe still coming from the 70s to now? 50 years later? This is the most repeated quip that makes no sense. Same with companies, everyone just repeats "omg they only care about short term" and then years after years the company trots on.
But I guess it's easy to say since the defense is "oh just wait". As if the online commenter is able to see N+1 moves more than whoever they comment about, but that person just simply cannot. Like come on.
The site [1] I already linked has a number of excellent graphs of the endless major inflection points driven by the shift in 1971. Most started in the years prior to 1971 since 1971 was, itself, also a longer term consequence of years of previous mistakes.
Many of those issues started out fairly small and had a rather small impact relative to the initial benefits of 'financial liberty', but those benefits faded fairly rapidly, while the consequences not only remain, but continue to grow. It turns out that free money is rather expensive.
If you look at the achievements and progress that was being made in the 60s in the US in practically every domain, and then you showed them what 60 years in the future awaited for them, the most common response, outside of digital gizmos, would probably be 'what went wrong?'
[1] - https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
It’s not a self decapitation exactly. I think Trump, his family, his corporate donors, and other friends are all willing to sacrifice everyone else - including the lead America had - to make themselves rich and powerful. Every single decision to spend - defense, ICE contracts, AI, approvals of anticompetitive acquisitions, changes to regulations, etc - is making that circle richer at our expense.
They don’t care if American supremacy is lost or if the dollar crashes or if the national debt becomes a crisis. As long as they have their wealth. The public is being decapitated, not them.
That's fair. I agree. I was thinking of the USA as one actor. The USA votes, or chooses not to, and that has effects.
True. In that sense the voters have self decapitated. I can’t understand how the Trump administration still has support from 40% of the country (per polls). I could understand voting for him due to some issue a voter has strong feelings about. But now we have seen it all play out and it’s a disaster leading to national ruin. And there is no talk of impeachment, trials, and accountability for everyone in his circle. So I guess that 40% DOES choose to self decapitate.
Heather McGhee's concept of 'drained pool politics' really resonates with me: https://newrepublic.com/article/171844/heather-mcghee-moving...
They don’t care when the media on am and talk radio, evangelical and mega churches, and all the conservative news tells them what to believe
Media that is never critical towards one side is what started all of this. A politician's kryptonite is when their voters find out that they lied or were hypocrites. That is a universal truth.
Single party media outlets like News Corp, Sinclair, Euronews, and so many others have broken that system entirely.
My test to see if someone is a shill/moron is to simply ask them to say one obvious bad thing about "their side." If they cannot, it becomes clear that they are not worth listening to.
What’s the worst thing, in your mind, about “your side”, assuming you have one.
I grew up in Seattle mostly, some of my policy positions could paint me as a progressive, and they are somewhat "my people."
It turns out that progressives are just as easily fooled as any other group, by a slick turn of phrase. For example, "Genocide Joe."
I once thought my group was more thoughtful. But, it turns out that ALL of us are easily programmed meat machines.
Voted for Obama, he totally messed up with Russia and Crimea.
I could go on, and on. I believe that the only -ism I can believe in is fallibilism.
> and all the conservative news tells them what to believe
And most traditional news is conservative now.
The idea that the mainstream media was ever leftest was always wrong, but these days its absolutely laughable and yet a lot of people still parrot this like it is the truth.
People like to do this because it's simple, but it's so unrealistic that it's basically a fairy story in terms of explanatory power.
You have to take account of warring internal factions.
The US lead over the EU in per capita productivity has massively grown over the last 20 years. There's no indication of waning American power.
America has produced 70 times more stock market wealth if you look only at companies created within the last 50 years than the EU. And this is not all paper wealth. If you look at technological sophistication, whether that's frontier AI models, leading-edge pharmaceutical drugs, total amount of compute, or the space industry, the U.S. has grown its lead over the EU over the last 50 years.
It's because the EU has largely fixated itself on reducing wealth inequality by punishing those who succeed. It's safety-maximalist approach to private industrial action has also hamstringed industry — see Germany closing all 17 of its nuclear power plants. The US doesn't really need to do much except not sabotage itself to maintain its lead. Like in all nations, laissez-faire (French for "leave it alone") allows the private sector to do the rest.
As just an average US citizen living in a not so prosperous area, this rings pretty hollow to my mind and most of Europe sure looks like it is winning over 95% of the people that live around me. We already know the stock market is divorced from reality, IP rights are a short-term benefit, and I fail to see how having more compute or starlink satellites are suppose to carry the US into future economic prosperity.
Now im not saying everything is bad, but it sure feels like a lot of the US economy is a Lamborgini shell stuck on the body of a Ford Focus and we think we are winning because most people haven't noticed yet and the profit margins are higher than ever. Europe sure ain't perfect, they got plenty of problems, but their problems are more like worrying about percentage points in the future, while in the US the worry is whether our economy is going to provide for people at all not in the top 25% long-term. And an angry and unsatisfied mass of lower class people is a recipe for upheaval with everyone on top relying on that not happening.
I'm not so sure people in Europe are better off. There are a lot of very poor regions in Europe compared to how people tend to imagine Europe. In fact, most European countries, if they were U.S. states, would rank among the poorer U.S. states.
Now, looking only at the statistics, there are certainly some things European countries are doing better than the U.S. But based on my research so far, which admittedly isn't enough for a full understanding, my tentative conclusion is that almost all of those things don't seem related to economic policy. They seem more related to things like urban planning, for example more pedestrian- and bike-friendly cities.
In terms of work and wages, U.S. wages are substantially higher than wages in most European countries. And I'm not just talking about longer hours. I mean the compensation per hour is significantly higher.
EU Europe average per-capita income ≈ $30,500
United States per-capita income ≈ $68,000
Averages tell nothing about an average citizen.
Also, there are other measurements like inequality, healthcare cost, social securities...
Averages tell us the general availability of wealth. To give you some perspective, most European countries are poorer than the poorest U.S. state, which is Mississippi. There just aren't as many high-paying jobs. And these figures encompass everything, including what the government spends on health care and welfare programs and education. So Europeans as a whole get much less per capita from both government and private sector. When it comes to purchasing power parity, which takes into account cost-of-living differences, the gap isn't as big as above, but it's still pretty significant.
Avetage tells nothing you should use median or a graph.
Median data is better, yes, but it's harder to get. Average correlates quite strongly with median.
> It's because the EU has largely fixated itself on reducing wealth inequality by punishing those who succeed.
It's actually because America pivoted[1] from manufacturing to higher-margin services (financial, tech[2]), and generations of American Diplomats had negotiated trade deals that ensure American services are never shut-out or hobbled in most countries. American companies won't look so special,or be nearly as profitable, once they lose their default status that allow them to siphon money from all over the globe -including Europe
1. https://americanbusinesshistory.org/2022-updated-largest-com...
2. Silicon valley caught lightning in a bottle. Other American locales repeatedly tried and failed to replicate it - so it rules out American legislative attitudes as the vital ingredient.
If you're familiar with American capital markets and global venture capital, you'd know that it had almost nothing to do with these trade deals. They had a marginal impact. The amount of capital available to startups and established companies at all stages of their development was the main difference. And the difference between the US and EU in that regard came mostly from the US simply not sabotaging itself the way the EU did with extremely high taxes on the top income earners, as part of an agenda to reduce wealth inequality.
The fact that the tech industry concentrated in Silicon Valley is simply due to network effects. Regardless of which locale became the Schelling point for U.S.-based technology companies, that locale would have succeeded, because of the national economic policy it operated inside of.
> ...that locale would have succeeded, because of the national economic policy it operated inside of.
The US policy is about to become a lot more robust and a lot less laissez-faire. Over the decades, the public image of tech CEOs has switched from benign, awkward but genius dorks, to out-of-control bond villains.
There's a tech backlash happening in the US, if you've been paying attention, and legislators follow the voter zeitgeist.
Correct. There seems to be a pretty broad tendency across societies to fixate on reducing wealth inequality. I don't think the U.S. is going to escape it. Taxing the rich is the most popular thing in the world. There's nothing the common man prefers more.
Does Azure/AWS/Google/FB sell as well in China as well it does in the EU?
They sell close to 0. Europe made a conscious decision to not limit the reach of the infinite margin US companies.
The deal was we buy your fancy services and expensive war toys, but you keep us safe.
America forgot its obligation. Hence the deal is off.
Now VW is making war machines and Airbus is building AI infra.
Even if US companies only had the US market, they'd be massive — Google gets ~50% of its revenue from the US alone, Amazon over 60% from North America, and most other Big Tech is in that same range. The US market by itself is plenty huge. And the EU provides 20-30% of US Big Tech revenue. Even losing all of that (very unlikely even under protectionist policies), US tech companies would be doing well, with 70-80% of their current revenue.
Sure, full-blown protectionism everywhere would make the world including the US poorer (less specialization, less division of labor), but it would also harm EU exports, as the US is the EU's biggest importer, and moreover it wouldn't change the factors behind the growing US-EU gap. US-EU trade policies with each other are basically the same. The difference is internal, and mostly comes down to the US just not sabotaging the private sector as much.
You write as if Trump did not put tariffs on european exports to US.
Europe could put same tariffs on USA services and the margins in USA will disappear
It's like you see but ignore what the other poster said. Europe allowed US services to grow, but it can stop them too. Same way China does.
Funny how you write about 50% market share being USA, when the other poster writes about the other part. That might dissappear.
The EU did retaliate to Trump's tariffs with its own.
Anyway, I wasn't making a point about recent developments. I was talking about more long-term trends showing that why the US has outpaced EU in economic growth.
1) USA's stock rose on the back of dollar being the reseve currency. It will fall when not anymore
2) Germany lost nuclear power plants due to russia sponsored interference
The same russia that supported Brexit
Weakening your own domain to get powerful sounds clearly contradictory, yet there are so many examples of elites doing exactly that despite the fact that doing so must've required foresight and planning elaborate enough to not blind them from the consequences.
> Weakening your own domain to get powerful sounds clearly contradictory
No because it's relative. If people around you get weak then you get more powerful automatically. If you get more powerful and people around you also get more powerful then you are in the same situation.
So if power is what you want you destroy others at the same time as building your power. What trump is doing is logical. He isn't living in china or russia. he doesn't care if they get stronger. he cares if people around get weaker relative to him and cronies who are in on it. and that works
Funny enough, that's capitalism, isn't it? Survival of the most ruthless, and morality is a weakness. Are we surprised he was born out of this?
The worst part is that I dont see a meaningful opposition to Trump.
if American political system allows President to do that and allows such President to be elected, than such system deserves to die.
How does sacrificing America's lead make American oligarchs richer? That doesn't even make sense.
It does, it's textbook "banana republic". Dictator and close circles enrich themselves, everyone else gets poorer.
US voters were so worried that South America would come to them, that they have become the worst of South America.
Well we know the US doesn't have a dictator, so that's not a good example.
This all sounds incredibly hand wavey "oh, they just do things that benefit themselves but tank the US economy".
From what I've seen all the oligarchs in the US got rich when the economy was doing well.
Do you have a specific example of someone who got rich by "tanking the US economy"?
> we know the US doesn't have a dictator
Even most dictatorships don't "have a dictator". They have a "great leader" that coincidentally gets voted in again and again, for whom constitutions are amended, and who happens to have his own "revolutionary" irregular militias, not-so-secret police grabbing people on the streets in plainclothes (or worse), a subservient parliament rubber-stamping decrees, etc etc.
Even without some of that, the "unitary executive" theory, as implemented by George W. Bush and Donald J. Trump, is effectively a temporary dictatorship in all but name.
> all the oligarchs in the US got rich when the economy was doing well.
You can make bank when things go bad. Look up the European currency crisis of the 90s, when folks like Soros amassed their billions. Or the few who got 2008 right.
Whoever is betting with incredible timing on Trump's unexpected policy shifts, every other week, is definitely not getting poorer. And when the economy tanks, assets get cheap - which is great if you have accumulated cash.
No, actually those countries do call them dictators - I’m not aware of any similar to what you’ve described.
A very few select oligarchs got rich during the European currency crisis - and anybody oligarchs got hammered.
How do the oligarchs decide? Do they meet in secret?
basically make decisions that make no sense but benefit you financially. Sample. you run a printing business. you dont own it just run it. you sell your main printer and assign a performance bonus to your self. next month your business is closed because you dont have equipment to print, but you also have your bonus in pocket.
just like stock trader, you can get rich from going long, you also can get rich by shorting the economy (selling short).
this is what trump is doing: selling America short
As an analogy, you can pump the yield of your crop fields by 50% if you are willing to deplete the soil and cash in on 100 years of careful building of the topsoil layer. The person doing it wins out in the short term 10 years, but society loses out long-term when they gotta spend another 100 years of much lower yields to build the top soil back up to healthy levels. Meanwhile the 10 year guy already made his money and sold off whats dregs are left to seek the next snatch and grab operation.
Look at post-USSR Russia
Not really. It has more to do with gold is now worth almost 3x what it was 2 years ago.
And before you get too excited, this "news" from the World Gold Council. A consortium of gold mining corporations. Clearly it's a pump article "have you bought gold yet? everyone else is! why not you!?!?"
Not really. It has more to do with gold is now worth almost 3x what it was 2 years ago.
It's not like we've suddenly found new and exciting uses for gold though. The reason the price has gone up is because the demand for it has gone up, and the reason why demand has gone up is because people want an alternative to U.S bonds. A bunch of pump articles wouldn't be enough to lead to a 3x price increase.
> the reason why demand has gone up is because people want an alternative to U.S bonds
That makes no sense since the amount held in US bonds is not that different.
The only change is that the gold that people held has gone up in value.
It's not different than holding Google and Apple stock, and when Apple stock goes up people say "oh, it's because people don't want Google stock". That's not true at all.
> It has more to do with gold is now worth almost 3x what it was 2 years ago.
And why is it worth 3x?
But S&P500 is not?
SP500 is linked to profits. Gold is purely speculative.
Are you saying that the USA is doing just great and there is nothing for anyone to worry about?
Are you saying that the price of gold just spontaneously went up?
From over hear it seems like the age of Pax Americana is over, and gold at ~$4,600 is one of the results.
No, but it was due for a correction for a while now. That correction has sparked extra speculation because everything is gambling now.
Ofc those with an incentive of higher priced gold will tell to buy gold. Only time will tell if they were right.
America just experienced a leveraged buy out.
For the first time in history we are seeing multiple signals of USD losing its #1 position to EUR, all within the last year :
1. Euro-denominated interest rate derivatives (IRD) overtook US dollar-denominated contracts in the over-the-counter (OTC) market for the first time in history and the scale of the crossover is staggering.
2. EUR Real Effective Exchange Rate (REER) which measures actual purchasing power (not nominal price) is going in the opposite direction of USD real purchasing power (RTWEXBGS). 2025/2026 is the largest divergence in history: 10 percentage points in a year.
3. US treasuries is no longer a number 1 foreign reserve asset. EUR reserves grew 2.5x faster than USD reserves when measured in its own absolute terms.
Unlike the Eurozone which maintains a fiscally responsible budget with reasonable debt and a trade surplus, there is simply no foreseeable fix to the problem of ballooning US debt and trade deficits. Nothing can fix the US budget mess.
Anyone who is paying attention to the numbers would certainly have more confidence in EUR over USD.
Silver has gone up more by percentage since 47, as a side note
Is there a place where we can find the complete USA investment portfolio?
You mean debt portfolio?
Since a lot of time the US economy and finance are under stress. Not panic but stress. And this makes the leaders stressful too, so they take defensive and hostile actions, most lately by the Trump's government. The world will neither wait nor allow the US to remain leader, especially with non standard ways. The world changes to a tri-pole with satellite nodes. Gold price is just a variable in the system and is dependent of the global state.
Months old article.
America really is in for a wake up call.
The federal government is. We'll see if the founders concept of a union of states is worth as much as it was proclaimed to be.
> We'll see if the founders concept of a union of states is worth as much as it was proclaimed to be.
States can't issue their own currency, they're all going wherever the nation goes on this one.
> States can't issue their own currency
Of course they can. You're pointing out that federal law currently prohibits it? I already understood that to be the case when I made my point.
> they're all going wherever the nation goes on this one.
Unless they all collectively decide on a different course of action. The constitution was left amendable. It has been done several times already. A simple option is to repeal the 17th and to return to a state assembly controlled federal senate.
How would that benefit anyone?...
The core feature of the senate that makes it so indefensible is how it assigns power to states, not people. That relationship cannot be amended, per article 5 of the us constitution.
It's far easier to change a state government than it is the federal government. The states used to be able to recall Senators if they failed to do their jobs correctly; as determined by the elected body within the state. It's simply a single level indirection of Democracy. The House of Representatives is direct. This was intentional.
What's "indefensible" about this?
And you can amend how the body is elected; hell, you can amend how the president is elected. Also Article V provides for a state "constitutional convention" as a process for initiating changes, bypassing both the Senate and the House.
I was specifically referencing this clause:
no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate
You know, the clause that comes right after the whole "can't do anything about slavery right now" clause.
I consider this feature of the federation to be indefensible because it deprives the rights of people to equal suffrage, to the benefit of states. States should serve the rights and interests of their citizens, not the reverse.
For that matter, you could amend the Constitution to change the process for amending the Constitution, even to eliminate the possibility of future amendments altogether.
This might be unconstitutional?
That’s interesting. Hadn’t thought of it that way. I can’t for the life of me figure out why more blue states aren’t taxing their wealthy occupants to cover the gap in lost federal funding from DOGE. If they were smart they would start stretching that muscle.
The union of states arrangement has the side effect of putting the states in competition with each other for things like new/expanding businesses and residents. It's relatively easy to relocate (or even remain in a state while legally "residing" elsewhere). So there are diminishing returns to raising the tax rates significantly on the upper brackets at the state level. I'm not a believer in the trickle down theory but beyond a certain marginal rate many people would just move to a state with a lower rate.
That’s never been proven. The blue states re the most objectively desirable states to live in with maybe the exception of Idaho and Wyoming and Florida. Blue states have more leverage than they apply.
I’m a blue state resident and will not argue the point about overall quality of life. But a quick look at net inflow/outflow rankings by state show there’s already a migration in the red state direction. There are many factors involved, but the cost of living is certainly one. Taxes are a large component of the cost of living. Increasing them on a segment of the population that has the resources to move elsewhere can only result in some additional migration. Whether that results in a net loss of tax revenue remains to be seen.
this somehow excludes such human concept as sense of belonging. might be in usa it has atrophied already but sense of home is really important in some places. place where you spend most of your life, where you have you real social network, neighbors and childhood friends. sometimes its lower tax is not worth loosing it all. its not everything about money (for some)
ps im talking about real persons here, not corporations
You're talking about people who aren't ultra wealthy there. Once the tax bill gets high enough relative to elsewhere it doesn't make sense not to jump through the hoops to change your place of residence.
Once you are ultra-wealthy you don't need to worry about taxes unless you are so greedy as to make earning infinite money your only goal in life even if it hurts you in every other way. And it is silly to set general policy based around how irrational and neurotic individuals will act.
I'm uncertain if I should have included "ultra" there. Point is that the father up the tax bracket you are in this scenario the more of the bill you foot and the larger your monetary incentive to relocate.
But at the same time the more money you make the less paying a bit extra to live where your friends and family are is really that big of a concern. Otherwise why are wealthy people living in and around big expensive cities when they can move to any number of other states and pay a fraction of the cost for housing and services. Many people are sitting on a decades worth of pay or more because they don't want to sell their property and move somewhere cheaper.
I expect that cost of living as a percentage of income goes down even as absolute prices go up in most cases. Whereas the taxes we're talking about here go up.
Your logic amounts to assuming you can significantly raise the price relative to other states on the basis that they already pay a bit more which I don't think follows. The degree is off but also the relative difference isn't there. Living in an expensive house in a big city is going to cost extra no matter where you do it but the taxes we're taking about will only exist in some of those cities.
Meanwhile the higher up the income ladder you go typically the fewer constraints there are tying you to a particular physical location. On the extreme end, if you make it high enough it can get to the point where you can literally relocate to a different country without much issue and it may be worthwhile for you to do so.
I don't buy it, we don't really see it on a smaller scale now despite the same incentives being in place on a smaller scale, in fact it is rare enough to warrant fearmongering news stories when it does happen and PR statements. Nobodies moving out of high tax countries to go live in Somalia without taxes. And if they do leave, then who is to say they can even maintain the same business relationship to the US? They either pay the taxes because the US taxes citizens even outside the US, or if they abandon their citizenship to avoid it then they become subject to the same costs and fines and restrictions as any other foreign persons and businesses.
I really don't really see much of any chance for downsides to 99.9% of the population, but plenty of upsides. If the only thing maintaining the US economy is a a small percentage of rich people sitting on stacks of capital, the US economy is already doomed and the people on top are just trying to be the last ones down into the water.
We do see it though. But usually they hide the income overseas because that's more straightforward or cheaper or whatever. However there are several small island countries that are known for hosting ultra wealthy expats on very favorable terms. This isn't some hypothetical.
In the business world how many companies are just coincidentally booking all their revenue in Ireland?
I'm really not clear what point you're trying to argue here. Someone upthread suggested that a sense of community would prevent the disproportionately wealthy from relocating to nearby states to avoid higher taxes. I call bullshit, dependent on the size of the relative tax gap. They don't even have to sell their house, just purchase a second one and reside there more of the year.
Wealthy people move between countries and change citizenship to avoid overtaxation. Moving between states isn't as big a move.
Countries fight back with exit-taxes, controlling asset movement, and taxing (now) foreign owned assets. The US in particular makes it very difficult to take your theoretical winnings from the table.
they are trying and its backfiring on them
Why? Because gold bugs caused a gold bubble?
Debt spiral
It’s obvious that printing money is the best way out of the USAs debt problem. Gold still sucks though.
I am actually convinced that the last year started the descent of the U.S. as the world’s super power. No wonder U.S. treasuries lost trust. It’s only going to get worse. It doesn’t matter what some billionaires do/get from their ability to manipulate some powers be. The rest of the investment community understands that free markets are strengthened by rule of law and adherence to the law and deploying a self styled socialistic distribution of economic capital is not signaling strength but weakness to the world.
People have been convinced of that my entire life, and I'm old now.
My parents refused to digitize their precious memories stored in VHS tapes. We’ve watched them every few years, and whenever I’be tried to convince them to digitize the tapes, my dad says “oh we’ve been hearing about vhs tapes degrading forever now, it still works”
Meanwhile the video fades more and more every few years, you can barely even make out faces and objects in the frames now. But it’s happened so slowly that he never really realized that it was happening all along
yes it takes multiple generations until empires collapse. even then there are remains left. usa will not disappear it will just become less relevant.
Dreaming of the day where the average non-American doesn't know who the US attorney general is, the name of their secretary of war, and the details of every internal political machination.
I recommend dreaming of they day they don't have a secretary of war but defence again
I don't mind the name change because it more correctly signals what the position has always been -- a secretary of war with a "secretary of defense" mask on.
You say that, but the world has been a relatively peaceful place since the US became the world's only superpower. The "multi-polar" world the Europeans are always dreaming about could very well be one in which much of Europe looks like Ukraine today.
> People have been convinced of that my entire life, and I'm old now.
People in the UK still think they are the #1 superpower today
A lot of English people still have issues accepting they are not a world super power anymore.
It only accelerated what was already happening. But yes, Trump accelerated it by a lot. He's a madman.
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
Are you tired of winning yet?
Cant wait for US to go bankrupt
Be careful what you wish for.
Wow. This reflects the price of gold going up. A lot.
If the value of gold goes up, doesn't this essentially help the US anyway? I believe our gold reservers are twice that of the closest country?
Source: https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/gold-reserves
Too tired to write a novel like I usually would here, but we control the printing and, in large part, the distribution of USD. We don't control anything about gold. Then the USD was king, it entailed tremendous power and control in many ways beyond the obvious like the ability to try to kick people out of the 'global' economy. This is the not-so-secret purpose behind BRICS and dates back to issues starting in 1971.