| ▲ | torginus a day ago |
| I feel like there's some credibility to 'this time it's different' The US economy depends on the country's position of world hegemon - the US dollar is the world's main reserve currency, the US enforces international order and trade rules via its military strength, it dominates technology and culture through 'US defaultism'. I dont think AI even factors in to this. The US economy is priced for global reach - if it manages to lose that through a combination of credible competitors, and loss of goodwill - it's going to be in heaps of trouble. The looming US debt is also a great question - a lot of economists have argued that since most US debt is good. It's mostly in forms of treasuries purchased in USD that pay in USD - this means the indebtedness creates a huge amount of dollars abroad that foreigners have to then spend on US services, driving demand. Should the US become an unfriendly power to the rest of the western world, it will find the demand for its currency plummeting, which I don't want to outline is a big issue. All said, I think if the US continues down the political path it currently seems to be pursuing, 'this time it's different' actually will be. |
|
| ▲ | BobbyJo 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > It's mostly in forms of treasuries purchased in USD that pay in USD - this means the indebtedness creates a huge amount of dollars abroad that foreigners have to then spend on US services, driving demand. Strangely enough, this is exactly the opposite of how it works. The dollars abroad tend to stay abroad, as either a more stable alternative to local currencies, or a reserve currency. Likewise, treasuries held abroad tend to stay there as reserves. This is how the US is able to run both a huge debt, and a huge trade deficit. If the dollars were being repatriated, the trade deficit would close, and the influx of money would cause hotter inflation. Same with treasuries, yields would spike as demand fell. There are lots of second order effects there, good and bad, but, basically, those dollars not coming home has funded America for quite some time. |
| |
| ▲ | CraigJPerry 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I, a foreign entity, have sold something to an american and now have 10 dollars and zero treasuries. I purchase a treasury. I have zero product, zero dollars and one treasury. At some point in future i have zero product, maybe 12 dollars and zero treasuries. Presumably i now either repeat the cycle or use my winnings to spend on us output. GP’s version checks out, your assertion about dollars staying abroad doesnt track? What am i misunderstanding - How did these dollars get abroad, how did they repatriate to buy treasuries, how did a treasury become a reserve, how did the dollars still exist abroad after being exchanged for treasuries? | | |
| ▲ | DangitBobby an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > Presumably i now either repeat the cycle or use my winnings to spend on us output. What you are missing is that these dollars can be circulated indefinitely in the global economy without ever repatriating, because they are valuable and useful as actual currency. They may never come back to the US. | | |
| ▲ | AdamN 24 minutes ago | parent [-] | | They also don't have to circulate - they can be used as collateral for debts. |
| |
| ▲ | carbonguy 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > I, a foreign entity, have sold something to an american and now have 10 dollars and zero treasuries. Or you sold something to a non-American entity in a dollar-based market, eg. oil. The dollars do come from America to begin with, but once they get "out there" they work as a medium of exchange for whoever wants to use them for that purpose. | | |
| ▲ | direwolf20 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Which is why the US historically bombed any country that sold oil for other currencies, but now china is negotiating the petroyuan and it's working. |
| |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | raincole 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Presumably i now either repeat the cycle Most of the time this is exactly (foreign or not) institutions do. Think about it, if the 10-dollar treasury is due and you got your money back, the US debt will go down by 10 dollars. However, in our reality, the total amount of US debt almost never goes down. Of course some interest will be used in other ways, like spending on the US goods or staying as cash to provide liquidity. But at the end of the day, the most popular way to spend the money got from due treasuries is... to buy more treasuries. | |
| ▲ | ezconnect 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Because the world trades using US dollars. Country A needs to buy something from Country B. Country A needs to buy/get dollars to buy stuff from Country B. Country B will not accept anything but dollars or gold for its products because it also needs to buy other stuff like oil in dollars from other countries. | | |
| ▲ | direwolf20 an hour ago | parent [-] | | It could accept any credible currency if it was connected enough. Euros, yuan, rupees and yen aren't going anywhere for at least 20 years. Each one is a separate system and countries mostly connect to just one, which is USD, but that doesn't have to be the case forever. India won't accept euros because it's not part of the ECB, not because it doesn't believe in their value. But India has accounts at US banks in dollars. Banks do this, not countries. Most banks in the world have accounts at US banks to accept dollars with, they don't have accounts at eurozone banks to accept euros with, or Japanese banks to accept yen with. It doesn't matter in everyday practice because it's easy to exchange euros in eurozone banks or yen in yenzone banks with dollars in dollarzone banks. There's plenty of infrastructure for that. It matters in long–term economic trajectories because all those banks are holding US dollars and the US exports inflation to them and they're not holding euros and then ECB can't. |
|
| |
| ▲ | bertjk 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If dollars were being repatriated, but as investment into financial instruments and real estate instead of purchases of goods and services, then that would not affect the trade deficit, right? | |
| ▲ | locknitpicker 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Strangely enough, this is exactly the opposite of how it works. The dollars abroad tend to stay abroad, as either a more stable alternative to local currencies, or a reserve currency. I think you have it backwards. The US dollar can be handled as a more stable alternative only if it's actually stable. As soon as the US government starts to deteriorate goodwill and outright be hostile towards the world, not only does the US dolar lose its value as a stable alternative but foreign governments start to be motivated to dump their assets, which further tanks its value. In the past couple of weeks we started seeing countries outright dump their investments in US dolar to derisk their portfolio, and they did it at the tune of billions of dollars. You also started to see political pressure for foreign governments to demand their gold reserves are pulled out of the US, which means this pressure goes way beyond US dollars. |
|
|
| ▲ | raincole 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > The looming US debt is also a great question - a lot of economists have argued that since most US debt is good. It's mostly in forms of treasuries purchased in USD that pay in USD - this means the indebtedness creates a huge amount of dollars abroad that foreigners have to then spend on US services, driving demand. You got it wrong (I'm sure most economists don't get it wrong and you just misread/misquote). USD is the default reserve and settlement medium for many countries. They buy US treasuries mainly to satisfy the demand of USD itself, not to buy goods and services from the US. That's why the US has such a huge trade deficit. The US doesn't point a gunpoint at other countries to force them buy treasuries[0]. It can lend so much money because the other countries want treasuries. [0]: Ironically the US tends to do the opposite - forcing other countries to buy US goods and close trade gap. |
| |
| ▲ | wahern 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | He's not wrong in his conclusion, just not accurate in why. If countries start moving away from depending on the trade imbalance with the US, the demand for USD will dry up. And they are trying to move away from it because of politics, specifically because of US bullying. But more importantly, the US is increasing trade barriers in a naive attempt to reduce that trade imbalance, which is the biggest reason everybody holds so many dollars--they're paid in dollars when exporting to the US, but don't buy enough US imports (individually or collectively) to spend & exchange all those dollars, which is why they park them in treasuries and other US investments. And it won't be long before oil begins receding from the picture (at least relative to total global trade, if not absolute dollars), displaced by renewables. Though oil is odd in that while creating demand for USD to settle transactions even for non-US oil, it's also a significant US export and has the effect of repatriating dollars. The importance of USD globally was always on borrowed time. Global GDP has exploded in the 21st century, and the size of the US economy relative to the global economy is shrinking, albeit slowly. The US share of global GDP was like 35% in 1985. By 2030 it's projected to be as low as 12%. It doesn't necessarily follow that this would change the dynamic of strong dollar demand supporting US investments and debt, but it makes it much easier for this dynamic to change as countries become increasingly less reliant in relative terms on exporting to the US. In fact, it's kinda idiotic to rock this boat unless/until we're prepared for some serious fiscal belt tightening. As global GDP increases relative to the US, in theory the rest of the world could support profligate US debt in perpetuity. | | |
| ▲ | throw__away7391 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > the size of the US economy relative to the global economy is shrinking This is not true, not at all, it dipped as China grew initially, but looking at the past few years this trend had reversed and the US was again growing as a percentage of the global economy, going from a low of about 21% in 2011 to nearly 27% today. It seems certain now that Trump has put a bullet in this growth, but it was hardly inevitable. In 2024 the US was in an incredibly strong position relative to the rest of the world. | | |
| ▲ | Forgeties79 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > In 2024 the US was in an incredibly strong position relative to the rest of the world. The GOP did a fantastic job of blaming all the shockwaves from Covid on Biden. Don’t get me wrong, his admin made some pretty poor choices, but he did inherit the Covid economy and basically got blamed for it. Whereas Obama inherited the recession and wasn’t blamed for it in the same way. They also did a good job of making it look like all of these problems were only happening here and hiding the fact that other countries were actually in far worse shape. Relatively speaking, as bad as it all was, we did better than most economically speaking. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | xanthor 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The US has pointed and fired guns at other countries for moving away from US treasuries, but alternative justifications are produced to reassure our domestic population that it’s really because the foreign leader is a very bad guy. |
|
|
| ▲ | SllX a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Should the US become an unfriendly power to the rest of the western world, it will find the demand for its currency plummeting, which I don't want to outline is a big issue. Right now this is much more of a maybe, possibly, eventually, over a long enough time horizon. As of the end of 2025, USD still made up 57% of foreign reserves vs 20% for the Euro and 3% for the Chinese renminbi. Nearly all commodities are still priced in USD and about 50% of trade invoicing is done in dollars, closer to 60% if you exclude the Eurozone. USD also makes up about 60% of SWIFT transactions. So the demand is still there today and de-dollarization is not really a thing in aggregate as of January 2026, despite all of the events of the past year or so. So if this time is different, I’m not seeing it yet. |
| |
| ▲ | panarky 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The international "rules-based order" is a good idea when most nations play by the rules most of the time, and when the most powerful at least pretend to follow the same rules as everyone else. A world order based on rules makes it possible to live at a much higher level of abstraction. Abstractions like rule of law, democracy, government currencies and stock exchanges are intangible and imaginary. They're mostly just figments of collective belief. But these wispy and unreal ideas that everyone believes in make it possible for most people to live longer, healthier and less difficult lives. The "rules-based order" was always partly mythical, but as long as everyone kept pretending, it mostly continued to function. But when we devolve from the rules-based order to the old order of pure power and might-makes-right, kings and dictators, when there's no more collective belief that the rules apply to the rich and powerful, then the tower of abstractions collapses, and we're back to the cold, hard, brutal and difficult real world. People will find out that life in the real world is a lot poorer and more miserable than life at the top of the tower of abstractions, even if your brokerage account appears to double. | | |
| ▲ | jmward01 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I generally agree with your comment except the 'back to the real world' part. This is just the difference between a world with the gains that cooperation give verses a world with just the maximized minimum return that distrust leads to. A trusting world is the real world we have seen for decades. It is a real world we can choose to keep pushing for. | | |
| ▲ | nradov an hour ago | parent [-] | | Who is the "we" who can choose? People training this from places like the USA and India have at least some modicum of choice. In China not so much. |
| |
| ▲ | Lutger 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Neither is 'real'. The power of might depends on belief just as much as the power of rules. You need a whole lot of compliance, even when forced by fear and terror, to just keep up a police state. The belief consists of where people think other people assign authority to, at large. But that can be just as brittle as a meme stock if the time is right. Social reality is always constructed. No single construction is more real than any other. | |
| ▲ | YZF 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The rules based order is mostly a fabrication of recent history. Perhaps between the fall of the Soviet Union, China becoming more open, and the general peace and prosperity it seemed like it existed. Politics between countries has always been around interests. Countries have no interest in giving up their sovereignty. They may pretend to respect these "rules" when it suits them and then ignore them when it doesn't. Everyone is focused on how "bad" the US is but a) the US has always more or less done whatever it wants b) Russia and China (and many others) have never even pretended to play or accept these "rules". Canada's Carney whines about "international order" when just a few years ago China simply abducted Canadians in response to the supposed "orderly" arrest of the Huawei CFO to be extradited to the US. So Canada basically abducts the CFO of a major Chinese company and China abducts Canadians in retaliation and that's a rules based order to who exactly? And we can put together an endless list of an endless number of countries. So when exactly was there ever a rules based order except as a tool for countries to bully each other and for the poorer dictator led countries to try and get a seat at the table because they can vote in the UN general assembly. | | |
| ▲ | tpm 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Russia and China (and many others) have never even pretended to play or accept these "rules". This false. They have pretended to play by the rules, and when breaking them, to at least manufacture some pretext, or to deny it was a state activity at all. One example I can give you is that when invading Czechoslovakia in 1968, the Soviet Union convinced a few Czechoslovak politicians to write a letter inviting the forces for "brotherly help", thus manufacturing a case that it's not really an invasion. They didn't have to do it, the force differential was overwhelming, but they did it because they could point at the letter on international stage. All this may seem a bit pointless but binding them in international structures brought interesting fruit in the wake of Helsinki conference on human rights. After that they were forced to at least somewhat follow the signed documents which lead to significantly better conditions to dissidents behind the Iron Curtain. And there are many examples like this, when pointing at international rules actually made things better. So let's not throw that away. | | |
| ▲ | direwolf20 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Russia fabricated an attack on Russia by Ukraine before invading Ukraine. So this is still occurring. |
| |
| ▲ | cjfd 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Incorrect. The rules based order was first attempted after the first world war and then created after the second one. These are lessen that have been bought with blood. Lots of blood. Megaliters of it. The incredible stupidity of throwing that away is absolutely disgusting. | | |
| ▲ | YZF 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_international_order "The nature of the LIO, as well as its very existence, has been debated by scholars." Nobody is throwing anything away and that thing you think they're throwing away didn't really exist. | | |
| ▲ | cjfd 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Whether or not a 'LIO' exists is not that interesting to me. What is interesting is what actually exists and what has happened in history. What actually exists is an enormous shock after, for instance, world war one where the question arose how it is possible that basically an entire generation of young men was slaughtered. E.g., every small village in France has a memorial of the fallen soldiers during world war one. For many decades after the war commemoration were/are still being held. It used to be that competing for territory was just the normal thing countries did. Then, it became clear that this has a potentially enormous cost in human lives. The obvious conclusion for people who are not sleepwalking through life and through history, is that any political leader who advocates for a change in country borders and does so much as hint to violent means of doing so is totally deranged and immoral. A similar shock has gone through the world after world war two, which, for instance, lead to the creation of the declaration of universal human rights. Among the decent public, it is also concluded that a violation of human rights is deranged in immoral. |
| |
| ▲ | JPLeRouzic 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I acknowledge that the 20th century was marked by much bloodshed, but this wasn't limited to the world wars and it continues violently into the 21st century. If the world is governed by rules, why does the United States maintain a considerable number of military bases around the world, far exceeding the total number of military bases of all other countries combined? Why is the American military budget so much higher than the combined military budgets of all other countries? | | |
| ▲ | Propelloni 10 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > If the world is governed by rules, why does the United States maintain a considerable number of military bases around the world, far exceeding the total number of military bases of all other countries combined? It's the other way around. Rules are tools of peace. No peace, no rules. But if you want peace then you have to be ready to wage war. It's called deterrence and the EU is learning this just now, again. That's also one reason why the USA has been called the world police... because it was true.* If nobody enforces the rules any more, things break down and we close in on violence. It is plain to see on the global scale, e.g. Russia's war against Ukraine, and also the domestic scale, e.g. ICE's violence against their own citizens in the USA. > Why is the American military budget so much higher than the combined military budgets of all other countries? The US military budget is about three times that of the EU or China's, or about a third of all military spending on the globe. Obviously, this is much higher than any single entity, but not all other countries combined. * Frankly, being the world police has had a lot of benefits for the USA. Why they are abdicating this position to run a protection racket instead is for wiser people than me to answer. |
| |
| ▲ | farss 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The "rules-based international order" was a fiction popularized by US policy makers who wanted to quietly substitute it for international law, so they could violate said laws, while still vaguely gesturing at moral authority. | | |
| ▲ | YZF 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | International law was and is also a fiction. We have various conventions and agreements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law "In the 1940s through the 1970s, the dissolution of the Soviet bloc and decolonisation across the world resulted in the establishment of scores of newly independent states.[67] As these former colonies became their own states, they adopted European views of international law.[68] A flurry of institutions, ranging from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank) to the World Health Organization furthered the development of a multilateralist approach as states chose to compromise on sovereignty to benefit from international cooperation.[69] Since the 1980s, there has been an increasing focus on the phenomenon of globalisation and on protecting human rights on the global scale, particularly when minorities or indigenous communities are involved, as concerns are raised that globalisation may be increasing inequality in the international legal system.[70]" | | |
| ▲ | camgunz 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Laws aren't fictitious just because people/countries break them. No one writes a law thinking "that settles that, no more embezzling." Laws simply tell you how that system works: you embezzle, FBI arrests you, you get tried, etc. Also the US always made a big deal about not joining various treaties, with their reasoning explicitly being "we actually plan to do a lot of things that would violate that treaty." In that sense, that shows the US actually had respect for those institutions. Also, the west benefited from this arrangement. Most western countries could benefit from the rules based order, and when they needed a little pump, the US broke some rules and brought home a treat for the home team. You might argue this undermines the whole enterprise, but my counterargument is this is the longest period of relative peace and prosperity humankind has ever experienced, so although it wasn't perfect, it was a huge improvement. | |
| ▲ | direwolf20 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | All law was and is a fiction. Nothing can stop a murderer murdering you. | |
| ▲ | tpm 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > In the 1940s through the 1970s, the dissolution of the Soviet bloc There was no dissolution of Soviet bloc during that time. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | mmooss 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Abstractions like rule of law, democracy, government currencies and stock exchanges are intangible and imaginary. They're mostly just figments of collective belief. > But when we devolve from the rules-based order to the old order of pure power and might-makes-right, kings and dictators, when there's no more collective belief that the rules apply to the rich and powerful, then the tower of abstractions collapses, and we're back to the cold, hard, brutal and difficult real world. Many have absorbed and believe the argument of the might-makes-right crowd that their vision is 'real' and their enemies' vision is 'imaginary'. Unless people believe in what they seek, they are lost. There's nothing imaginary about it; that theory is paper thin and doesn't survive simple examination. Obviously, humans are social animals that live in groups, have powerful intellects, and therefore have tremendous ability to cooperate and work together toward greater good; we've done it many, many times. Freedom and democracy have appealed powerfully to people worldwide, in a tremendously wide variety of cultures. That model was created by people who had experienced WWI and WWII; they knew more of your 'reality' than probably you or I ever will, and with that knowledge and experience they created this order. And the greater good long predates that; religions and similar ethical codes based on the greater good long predate modern democracy and the rules-based order. Rules-based orders predate it. The Gospels in the New Testament are an easy, very familiar example, from 2,000 years ago (and a significant basis of modern freedom and democracy). Similar is true for abstractions like law, government, justice, etc. We all are biologically the same, essentially, as the best of humanity and the worst - both are in all of us. It's our choice, our moral choice, what we do. That is also a fundamental that long predates the post-war order, democracy, the Englightenment, etc. Inevitability is a cheap tactic long used by those whose ideas are undesireable and don't withstand scrutiny. Our choice is easier than those who survived WWII, and their predecessors. Our ancestors gave us the tools, the institutions, etc. They had to build them from nothing for a skeptical world. | | |
| ▲ | Lutger 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | The source of truth in fascism is not popular support or inquiry, thus they always need to channel some privileged connection to reality, or claim to voice the true will of the people and authentically represents the pure will of the nation. Its a farce, of course, but one that can sometimes muster enough support to keep the signs in the shop with just a bit of intimidation and violence to back it up. |
| |
| ▲ | majormajor 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The US has played by different rules, might makes right, in the western hemisphere for a long time. Screwing around with Greenland shit, on the other hand, seems riskier. | | |
| ▲ | 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | mjanx123 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In practice the US could already do whatever it wanted in Greenland/Canada etc. The options for the motivation behind the theatrics I see.
1. Instill fear in the vassals->support for militarization rises there->they become more useable as proxies against RF/China
2. Just another Trump silliness | | |
| |
| ▲ | dwoldrich 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I dislike the saying "the devil's in the details". It is the inverse of where the devil actually thrives - in the clever abstractions. The beasts who rule this world are the banksters and their vast bureaucratic thrall. Their failing is these rulers have huffed their own degenerate anti-human messages for the past 75 years, have become deranged themselves, and now they've lost their attractiveness and persuasive power. See what's gone almost completely by the wayside in their green agenda and lgbtqia+4g message as they struggle to cope and maintain their grip. Public, centralized AI is their great hope for control, but it won't survive the lawsuits and consumer protections that are coming. The banksters are 100% parasitical and headed for ruination. The rules-based liberal order (liberal democracy) is quite real and has replaced any meaningful investments with speculative bubbles and rugpulls, put human life itself up for sale, and waged endless wars, psychological and kinetic. That's the brutal facts rather than beautiful abstractions. All's well that ends. | | |
| ▲ | RGamma 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | What do you propose instead? Why don't the things that you condemn in "liberal democracy" happen there? | | | |
| ▲ | mlsu 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Buddy if you think financial crashes were bad today, you should see what happens when banking is not regulated (great depression). Or, if you think war is bad today, you should see what happens when the world becomes multipolar and countries start carving up the world for territory (WWII). Like please, read a history book. I'm sure I agree with you that there are many problems with this system but life without it can get so much worse. The green agenda? 4G? That's the worst thing you can imagine? | | |
| ▲ | dwoldrich an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > 4g? I just can't ever remember what's supposed to come after the plus, I thought maybe lmnop, but the l is already taken. It's not the worst I can imagine, it's just the major societal/financial movements they funded bigly that have traumatized and enthralled hundreds of millions that they cast off like dirty old rags - and we don't even get a chance to discuss it. Before you nitpick me on particulars, I'm talking about the big, sometimes years-long (like global warming), crises that suddenly cease to be crises. One week it's no-jab-no-job-get-your-boosters and stay on lockdown, next week: stop talking about it, Putin is invading Ukraine! And two years later, return to office! Right on the quarterly schedule, no less! Poof, existential threat disappears, it's magic. Today they suddenly need mega power generation so bad, they need their AGI so baaaad! Forget all that other stuff. Green agenda? It never was a threat, move along to the new crisis. What are people spun up about in my town now? Immigration police. It's not going to work this time, I think. This one is so clumsy and just a repeat of BLM/defund the police. (And what the hell was "thank your first responders" faff about just prior, then?) All the people will finally see this one is manufactured and fake and ghey. But alas, no. The purple haired moms and their truant little kids and the unicorn costumed antifa and the self-absorbed, boomer hippy grandmas were on the street corner yesterday morning, protesting immigration police and demanding honks. A hundred people, some clearly paid, organized for this! Le sigh. People never stop getting spun up now. They never ask why all the threats are always positioned as existential now. It's not because "they are", clearly they are not, as past ones have proven not to be. But, they don't have any memory for the latest crazes of even the near past because they are constantly making themselves afraid. > banking is not regulated Because the snakes we have have done such a great job, and who did the carving? "Devil you know", is that your point? It's not a great point if you think about it. I'm not looking forward to working hard scrabbling for food, no. I'd much rather code JavaScript in peace. Yes, I have read history. I know we _could_ all be fabulously wealthy with today's tech if we didn't have this debt-based, permanent war system to drag along. If your history lessons extend back before the 1900's at all, you'll know maybe there's something to look forward to. | |
| ▲ | 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | pegasus 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Actually, what you're listing above is just another set of beautiful (to you) abstractions. No, "banksters" are not "100% parasitical". The percent is definitely less than 100. But, you know, as they say: the devil is in the details. | | |
| ▲ | dwoldrich an hour ago | parent [-] | | Definitely less than 100? What do you know about it? How is what they've accomplished not monstrous crime so total, and we haven't even properly named it? It's systematized, bureaucratized, anti-human. "Clown World" is the meme, but that is not sufficient. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | maxglute 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >demand is still there today Not all demand the same. There are broadly 2 types of USD buyers 1. price insensitive: sovereign banks, who buys for liquidity/storage 2. price sensitive: hedge funds, private buyer who buys returns Type 1 buyers are bailing out of treasury. Type 1 are marginal buyers, the close auction regardless or rate, this keeps rates low -> debt servicing low. They artificially depress yield to non market rates, without them rate go up because you have more price sensitive buyers who buy for returns. This increases borrowing costs, hence US debt repayment rising massively. Type 1 buyers, i.e. US allies (and historically even adversaries) soaked up treasuries are now de-dollarizing / buying gold in lieu of _more_ USD. Type 1s underpin the "privilege" part of exorbitant privilege. The more they de-dollarize the more dollars become exorbitant, aka debt like everyone else. Type1, sovereign held 60% of USD to 40% in last 5 years. This large part of why interest tripled and debt servicing went from 350B to 1T in 5 years. Type1s exit to 20% in another 5 years and maybe interest goes to 5%, debt servicing 2T+. It's the difference between 10%/20%/30% debt servicing as % of federal revenue. This not to mention USD reserve ticking down at 1% per year means meaningful changes in our lifetimes, and velocity may increase with developments like Saudi no longer locking oil to dollar. Less USD as % of global reserve = more network effects of alternate payment = increased potential velocity of USD reserve drop. This doesn't mean other currencies pickup all slack, i.e. central banks seem to be going in gold / commodities with no counter party risk for new storage. The net result is USD will still be around, in large volumes, but the cost/debt to sustain the system will be "normalized" while US budget is historically is built around USD debt being privileged. AKA difference between borrowing money from family vs payday loans. >Nearly all commodities are still priced in USD PRICED as in benchmarked in USD, but =/= USD is being spent to settle them. There's a fuckload of commodities where PRC alone buys 30/40/50%+ of global production, and while quoted in USD, increasingly settled in rmb/CIPS, bilateral currencies, BRI infra or other swaps mechanisms that bypasses USD. This one of the largest source of dedollarization - PRC went from single digit % to plurality of cross-border settlements in RMB/non USD. Though this is just very recent leading indicator that USD is functionally circumventable. | | |
| ▲ | cbdevidal 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | There is another type of demand that I rarely see mentioned. Not only does the United States owe trillions of US dollars, other nations do, as well. They hold many trillions worth of loans denominated in US dollars. They must be repaid in US dollars and not in any other currency. And not just to the United States but to other nations, as well. South Africa owes US dollars to Australia, Australia owes US dollars to Brazil, Brazil owes US dollars to Argentina, etc. These nations are hungry for every dollar we print. Even if every trading partner dropped the dollar for trade tomorrow, and if everyone who owned Treasuries all sold them at once, there would still be demand for US dollars to repay their loans. The IMF made them an offer they couldn’t refuse, and spun a sticky web of a debt trap as a result. Three minute video:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_SaG9HVXMQg&pp=ygUQZG9sbGFyIG1... | | |
| ▲ | maxglute 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | >They must be repaid in US dollars IMO this one of those cases where dollars is ultimately benchmark than requirement, IOU/settlement forms can always be restructured/renegotiated if USD is no longer lender of last resort, i.e. alternative payment systems enables take it or leave it deals in medium/long term. USD/reserve status snowballed because US controlled techstack postwar which US leveraged (along with military hegemony) to USD controlling primary energy (petrodollar). Civilization/modernity was locked behind USD. Money followed existential goods provider, that's the real USD / unipolarity moat. There's no take it / leave it from US company scrip because leaving eurodollar system = technical default (most usd loans hardcoded on newyork/english law) from eurodollar western financial system = death sentence. Once that lock/dependency erodes all kinds of force majeure geopolitics can rationalize breaking dollar contracts. AKA multipolarity. If alternate techstack/payment systems pops up and reach tipping point, country A can just say to country B who only wants USD (due to alignment or whatever), I don't have enough USD, here's RMB & cips/Brics+ & mbridge basket of equivalent value. This geopolitical layer, if BRIC+ can offer fossil, food without US and PRC can offer renewable energy, capital goods, consumer goods, technology, including 80% as good semi and civil aviation... etc if chokepoint goods are no longer exclusively under USD perview, then USD enforcement mechanism simply dies. If we're talking about loans/aid, IMF is really pittance, low hundreds of billions. It's why PRC is now using their 3T USD surplus to basically do their own shadow USD lending without IMF conditionalities... countries now don't need to buy USD from US. And somehow PRC currently lending / providing swaplines with their USD at lower rates than US treasury. Incidentally, this dollar recycling also lowers demand for new USD bonds, further reduce type1 margin buyers. This circles back to other nations own trillions of USD to each other... when you remove type1s, you're left with type2 private sector / non bank financial institutions - these are the buys where each USD bought increases triffin burden, i.e. they are the exorbitant curse / payday loans traps that makes USD reserve more expensive to maintain. Their demand is a trap, not a benefit. | | |
| ▲ | cbdevidal 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > alternative payment systems enables take it or leave it deals in medium/long term. Assuming of course that the lender is interested in the alternative payment currency. Or that the borrower is willing to accept the consequences of default. I don’t see accepting other forms of currency to be relevant in the short term—there is little use for the Yuan outside of China, for example. I suppose creditors can use them to buy more trinkets, or trade for dollars with people who want more trinkets. And defaults can happen at any time, but the credit rating system is still widely respected. Things can certainly change, but I doubt overnight. > It's why PRC is now using their 3T USD surplus to basically do their own shadow USD lending without IMF conditionalities... countries now don't need to buy USD from US. So they’re using US dollars, not Yuan. That trend is changing; before 2021, most of China’s loans were in USD. After COVID, loans denominated in RMB have grown to 20%. Again, I can see how that would change conditions in the long term, but not overnight. I am not optimistic for the dollar in the long term but I used to fear waking up one morning to hyperinflation. Not anymore. | | |
| ▲ | maxglute 22 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Yes, hence "medium/long term", though for me that's potential 10-20 year horizon. > buy more trinkets RMB buys capita goods, energy goods... and as PRC domestically moves way from oil, it still has massive refining/petchem infra generating surplus, so they'll likely be net hydrocarbon seller (refined products), as in RMB can even buy oil / oil products. This part important, 2025 PRC has parity/exceeded the US as worlds largest crude refiner by capacity. Together with massive, massive SPR for storage... aka they have like 1B+ barrels of oil in storage which gives them pricing power (as in they have artifical oil field to influences oil prices). They will not be retiring all the oil infra as they electrify, they'll use freed up surplus for reselling hydrocarbon in rmb. Right now, outside of high end commercial aviation and semi conductor, PRC can underwrite 99% of development goods for affordable prices. This not 10/20 years ago where countries still had to through host of western industries to get factory/city off ground, PRC more or less one stop shop now. The TLDR is rmb buys entire physical layer that enables modernity. > credit rating system is still widely respected. Respecting western credit rating =/= fear of being locked western credit rating. People don't default from eurodollar because they fear losing access to energy, food, commodities. Things already changed in the sense RU has demonstrated BRICS makes surviving outside of western finance system feasible. Fear is what enforces/maintains system. Respecting is about keeping options open not avoiding death sentence anymore. >US dollars, not Yuan. They're doing both, refinancing or inking new contracts in RMB. But main point is PRC shadow dollar lending is part of their dedollarization effort = getting rid of / recycling / lending their surplus USD at expense of US treasury. People may keep using USD, but US gov not getting exorbitant privilege. As long as USD is being used, and as long as PRC can maintain trade surplus, PRC can feasibly maintain pool of USD to ensure USD liquidity remains costly. It's like the oil/SPR reserve, PRC having pool of USD to reprocess/recycle gives them some pricing power to undermine oil/and USD. >hyperinflation IMO this more likely than not, and not really something to fear. Not end of society hyperinflation but if US debt gets too unsustainable, geopolitically much better to inflate away debt and fuck creditors than default. Like it's still reputationally technical/soft default, but less "embarassing", and more importantly, because dedollarization takes time, mechanically US can inflate debt faster than holders can ditch USD without crashing value. If things get desperate to that point, USD has the dollar is our currency but your problem nuclear option. Not saying this good for US, but least bad for US. |
| |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > If alternate techstack/payment systems pops up and reach tipping point, country A can just say to country B who only wants USD (due to alignment or whatever), I don't have enough USD, here's RMB & cips/Brics+ & mbridge basket of equivalent value. Alternate payment systems aren't even required for this. If other countries are trying to divest US dollars and country B is owed "US dollars" and country A wants to pay in something else, country B would want to accept the something else of equivalent value because it's trying to reduce its US dollar holdings and would just be immediately turning around to resell them anyway. Conversely, if country B is insisting on US dollars for alignment reasons while other countries don't want them then that's only providing country A with the opportunity to divest its US dollars by using them to pay the debt. Then country B ends up with them, but now what is it supposed to do with them? The real reason those sorts of debts result in stability is that all the countries owed a lot of US dollars are going to do what they can to prevent the US dollar's value from declining. | | |
| ▲ | cbdevidal 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The real reason those sorts of debts result in stability is that all the countries owed a lot of US dollars are going to do what they can to prevent the US dollar's value from declining. That’s the crux of it. Nations can proclaim they are ready to dump the dollar—and indeed, it is happening slowly—but politicians still have a strong appetite for USD-denominated loans. I am not optimistic for the dollar in the long run, but I no longer fear waking up tomorrow to see hyperinflation. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | BobbyJo 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > So if this time is different, I’m not seeing it yet Compare those numbers to 5 years ago. Remember, this is the timescale of a country, not a beagle. America has run on the strength of the dollar for decades, and the symptoms of that collapsing are likely to play out over decades. | |
| ▲ | willtemperley 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > USD still made up 57% of foreign reserves Yes, but that's the lowest it's been since 1994, in percentage terms. In dollar terms it's been largely flat for the last decade: https://wolfstreet.com/2025/12/26/status-of-the-us-dollar-as... | |
| ▲ | jacquesm 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The end of 2026 was remarkably different to the world of today, and it that's logical it is - checks calendar - already 31 days ago. Now imagine another year of this. | | | |
| ▲ | dyauspitr 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That number has been dropping by a percent every year for USD over the last 10 years. It used to be 65% USD in 2015 | | |
| ▲ | SllX 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sure, and in 1992 it was 46%, and in 2000 it was 71% and in 2013 it was 61%. USD foreign exchange reserves have definitely declined from their peak, but by “declined” we’re talking about going from “overwhelmingly dominant” to “merely dominant” to potentially in a few years “equal to every other foreign currency reserve in the world combined”, and maybe USD foreign exchange reserves will decline even further beyond that point. | | |
| ▲ | somenameforme 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | There's some major historical events here. It's not just random movement. Here is a sort of visualization of key points and the USD share of global reserves with the events attached. The number in percent is the USD share of global reserves. 1970 (85%) - Up until 1971 [1] the USD was backed by gold by the Bretton Woods system. Other countries could trade USD in for gold at a fixed rate and in exchange would peg their currencies to the USD and trade in the USD. The idea was to prevent the US from ever being able to exploit their power in this system because if we printed too many dollars other countries could just hoover those dollars up on the cheap, convert them to gold, and make a bunch of money. Nonetheless we did print excessive amounts of money and abuse the power this system was granting us. So France dutifully hoovered up those dollars and made a gold call. We said 'nah', defaulted on our debts, and withdrew from Bretton Woods. This led to the famous quote from Nixon's Secretary of the Treasury: "The dollar is our currency, but it's your problem." 1990 (47%) - Following those events, the USD began seeing rapid inflation, and other countries were rapidly dropping the dollar. This 'peaked' around 1990. But then in 1991 the USSR collapsed. This not only left the US as the undisputed and sole 'king' of the world, but also led to these former nations beginning to dollarize once the dust had settled. The USD suddenly again starts to see mass adoption. 2001 (72%) - The adoption reaches its peak in 2001. At this point not only was there the dotcom bubble, but the world order begins clearly shifting with China and Russia developing increasingly rapidly and looking to become viable world powers once again. And there's been a gradual process of de-dollarization since then declining to where it is today to less than 57% and very much trending to where we were right before the USSR collapsed. 2025 (57%) - Where we are today. We're very much trending towards 1990, only 10 points away, which is the level when everybody was dumping the USD, the US economy was shaky at best, and there was another major superpower in the world and nobody was quite sure who would 'win.' This is far more significant than 'random noise' you're implying. --- I am leaving out plenty of relevant happenings including the transition to the petro dollar, South American economic crisis, and so on - but these only contribute to eras I think, while the above are the main drivers. [1] - https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ | | |
| ▲ | ezconnect 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I only check the US stock markets to see the health of the US Dollar. Every time it reaches new high it means dollar devalues a tiny bit more than the last stock market peak. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | superfluous_g 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| ▲ | phkahler 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The dollar is going down in value right now. Thats the plan. It makes foreign goods more expensive and exports more affordable to other countries. Meanwhile it should have less inflationary pressure on domestically produced stuff like housing. I dont know if this is going to work or collapse. If it does work IMO they still need to reduce the debt - current actions are because we are backed into a corner, so that needs to be corrected. |
| |
| ▲ | labcomputer 33 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > Meanwhile it should have less inflationary pressure on domestically produced stuff like housing. This is pure fantasy. A weak dollar makes it more affordable for foreign capital to buy US assets, yes, including housing. The president himself recently admitted on video that he plans to make house prices rise. | |
| ▲ | jacquesm 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There is no plan. There is just chaos. | | |
| ▲ | jfyi an hour ago | parent [-] | | There is a plan, it's a deliberate assault on financial institutions with the intention of seizing financial control. |
| |
| ▲ | laluser 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It also increases profits for multi-national US companies since they get paid in other currencies, which they then convert to dollars locally. Basically, they have favorable FX tailwinds. | |
| ▲ | echelon 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The "Mar a Lago Accord" plan [1], for those curious. The US debt is one major rationale behind the strategy. It's a dangerous plan that relies on keeping allies happy and re-establishing hegemony via a Plaza Accords / Bretton Woods 2.0 type system. It's not going to work if you simultaneously piss all of the allies off. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ts5wJ6OfzA by Money & Macro, which is a fantastic economics YouTube channel. Patrick Boyle has also spoken about this in pieces. | |
| ▲ | watwut 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Who is that "we" backed into corner? USA as such certainly not. Maybe you mean "pro-democracy anti abuse" people? Those yes. But administration and far right are not in corner. They are in full active act achieving exactly what they wanted. | |
| ▲ | SmirkingRevenge 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Eh, it's not a plan, it's make believe. It's a flimsy back-filled rationale thrown on top the mercurial (and often sadistic) whims of an American Caligula, so the elite enablers can pretend there's something rational - or even good - about the chaos and destruction they are supporting. There isn't. It's just chaos and destruction. | | |
| ▲ | baby 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | What scares me is that lots of American believe there is a plan and that the current administration is competent | |
| ▲ | tonetheman 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
|
| ▲ | oceanplexian 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > The US economy depends on the country's position of world hegemon Unfortunately, the data doesn't back this up. The US economy is actually one of the least trade-dependent nations in the world. 27% of GDP is trade-oriented (The value of imports and exports as a function of GDP), while the global average is 63%. The US is so developed, that even if the country was completely cut off from the world and operated as an internal economy it would still remain the world's largest. |
| |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That's mostly a result of you using percentages rather than dollars and the US being one of the largest countries. 27% of US GDP is 165% of Germany's GDP and Germany is the third largest economy in the world after the US and China. | |
| ▲ | OscarTheGrinch 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Become a hermit kingdom to own the libs. At a certain point we have to ask: what is the point of politics? Who are we doing all this civilisation stuff for? Is a nation an engine of prosperity to enrich the lives of its people, or a life support system for the Dear Leader? | |
| ▲ | mndgs 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Nonsense. If 27% of GDP is suddenly gone, how US economy could be the largest? (rest of the world can substitute US trade between itself) | | |
| ▲ | oceanplexian 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | The US Economy is 53% larger than the next largest, China, in terms of real GDP (Not fake PPP nonsense). 28T vs 18T. | | |
| ▲ | anukin 15 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | PPP is more relevant than gdp nominal. | |
| ▲ | ben_w 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | How is PPP "fake"? Nominal only matters specifically for trade, which in this hypothetical is the thing the USA is expressly failing to do. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | llm_nerd 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >The US is so developed, that even if the country was completely cut off from the world and operated as an internal economy it would still remain the world's largest. That's a pretty enormous assumption. The US economy tends to crash into a smouldering ruin on the tiniest fluctuation in the inputs. The notion that you could abolish 27% of the real GDP and everything else just continues is not reality based. The US is barrelling towards a natural debt limit and that alone is going to be utter catastrophe for an economy that is fuelled by an insane amount of debt spending. The fact that some of the cons, like Trump and Graham, are trying to extract as much as they can as quickly as they can is telling enough. The US economy is a tenuous mirage. Like Americans constantly love showing the fun charts demonstrating that various backwater, poor, Methville states with negligible business or industry have a higher GDP / capita than most developed nations. Sure they do. |
|
|
| ▲ | willtemperley 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| De-dollarisation is happening, but slowly. China has decreased its US treasury holdings by about 7% a year over the last five years [1]. It won't happen quickly because no-one would want to tank the market while they're selling. [1] https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/foreign-treasury-... |
|
| ▲ | jillesvangurp 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Economic crashes are hard to predict. In the end stock markets are a bit irrational. They don't crash just because there are good rational reasons. And then some irrational thing triggers a mass panic when you least expected and the whole thing crashes. The circumstances and timing (it's been a while) suggest we are probably closer to a crash happening. From a loan/interest point of view, the dollar de-valuating a bit is actually not a bad thing for the US. It stimulates exports and inflation. And at the same time that reduces the value of the debt (and that is paid in dollars). The downside is that inflation going up usually also means interest going up. And Trump resisting that because he wants to accelerate the economy might not be a good thing. The big picture here is oil. The world is slowly moving away from oil as the key driver for economies and paying for it in dollars. China is well on its way electrifying large parts of its economy. To the point where it is starting to import less diesel. And they border on Russia with whom they trade in Yen, not dollars. A world that is going to trade less and less oil is going to be less dependent on dollars. I'm not an economist though. But planning for some kind of crash/correction seems prudent. |
| |
| ▲ | pyrale 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Economic crashes are hard to predict. Some of them are, some of them aren't. An economic crash is pretty much guaranteed if international relations break down in such a way that international partners believe trading with the US is a liability. Dollar going down won't stimulate exports if the cause for it was an aversion to buying US products in the first place. Whether or when that will happen, and to which extent, is another story, all we can say is that the momentum created by the current US administration moves us closer to that point. Will they come to their mind before that happen? Will they be able to restore trust? Will the lingering effect from the damage already done subside? These are hard questions. | |
| ▲ | ezconnect 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The next crash will probably be a race for assets or hard assets for the people who can afford it. It means the stock market will reach all time high, gold all time high and land prices skyrocketing as people try to escape from the dollar currency. The US President will still be proud the economy is still good because the stock market is at all time high and the people are rich because their homes are at all time high valuation but the middle class can barely afford food because there are no available jobs that pays good enough. |
|
|
| ▲ | cookiengineer 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I wanted to add that since the last threat of Trump in Davos where he didn't even know the difference between Iceland and Greenland and accidentally threatened another sovereign country, almost all social insurances of EU countries have started to liquidate/sell their US bonds and assets. If that is not a red sign to BlackRock, then I don't know... |
|
| ▲ | dgellow 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This time is already different. It's way past the point where the US is unfriendly towards the western world |
|
| ▲ | b112 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If the US debt gets to the point that interest on debt can't be paid, the US will just print enormous sums of money. Debt is in $, not in valued or devalued currency. Sure, the end result will be a deprecation of the dollar. But the interest will be paid. So the real downside to debt is not-overly apparent. Look at how much money was printed for COVID payments, and the like? And at other economic downturns? I do wonder, when will the merry-go-round stop? |
|
| ▲ | bayarearefugee a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > 'this time it's different' I remember reading this a lot in 2000-2001 and 2007-2008 That said, overall I sort of agree with your assessment except for having any optimism that the US changes course. The current looming problems with the US economy are almost entirely unforced errors of the Trump administration (they could have done basically nothing and taken credit for the Biden soft landing and economic growth) but they aren't going to course correct. Trump has no ability to admit mistakes even to himself and he's now surrounded by lots of people who stand to enrich themselves from the chaos even as the average American is harmed greatly. |
| |
| ▲ | 0xDEAFBEAD 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >Trump has no ability to admit mistakes even to himself Whatever happened to 'TACO' | | |
| ▲ | bayarearefugee 11 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | TACO is not the same as admitting a mistake. Admitting a mistake involves some amount of learning not to make the same mistake again. The reason this is important practically speaking can be seen in situations like chaotic tariffs and threatening allies. The TACO move might allow us to step back from the cliff in these situations but the fact that we keep being on the cliff on a weekly basis means every other world actor has no choice but to make plans to have us committed in the long term, and this is going to cause huge, long term problems for the US economy. | |
| ▲ | ben_w 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Aesop's fox and "sour" grapes. He chickens out, but can't admit to himself that this is what happened. | |
| ▲ | tsimionescu an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | It got replaced with a simpler system of comparing attack rolls to the AC directly. Oh, wait, that was THAC0... |
| |
| ▲ | JKCalhoun 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Still, he'll be gone one day and I am going to be all in on that day. It'll all be hockey-sticks from that moment on. | | |
| ▲ | Espressosaurus 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | How much of America’s growth since the 40s is attributable to its hegemony, stability, and the emergence of USD as the reserve currency of the world? And where other developed, stable nations started dropping in population, the US continued growing thanks to immigration and its center as a research Mecca. All of those are being unwound as we speak, and it’ll take decades to prove to the world that any trade policy and government agreements may be kept longer than 4 years. | | |
| ▲ | refurb 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The US became the wealthiest country on a per capita income basis in the 1880’s, over taking the UK. The US was quite isolationist up until the end of WW2, so I’d argue global hegemony isn’t that important when it comes to economic performance. | | |
| ▲ | Braxton1980 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | What about the Spanish American war (1898), the Philippine-American war(1899), and World War One (1917) |
| |
| ▲ | 0xDEAFBEAD 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >growth since the 40s The US growth trend has been fairly constant since the late 1800s. There's no real discontinuity in the trend around the time the US become hegemon. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/GDP_per_... Part of why Switzerland is so stable is because of its neutrality. Switzerland doesn't have to deal with Russia interfering in its elections the way the US does. |
| |
| ▲ | Ma8ee 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | He'll be gone. The trust in the US won't come back. If your constitution and political system allow such a moron to wreak so much havoc in such a little time, why would we ever trust you again? | | |
| ▲ | JKCalhoun 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't disagree. I'm referring specially to the (famously short-sighted) stock market. |
| |
| ▲ | baby_souffle 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Trump, yes. The millions of people that voted for him multiple times despite no shortage of reports and credible allegations that he was a scumbag... Will not. Trump isn't the problem, he's a symptom. | | |
| ▲ | YZF 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | What you're missing is that America was always like that. And it's been extremely successful. For sure there have been some changes in social dynamics, not just in the US, but worldwide. But the recipe that made the US successful has not changed much. Market economy, geography, attracting talent, innovation, freedom. | | |
| ▲ | Braxton1980 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | >Market economy The recent massive increase in the US governments direct and indirect involvement in business decisions changes things. Trump is pushing/forcing countries and companies to invest in the US. He's added more restrictions on who they can sell their products. New significant widespread tariffs also exist that forces businesses to decide on how they can handle it while being pressured not to raise prices. Government involvement in business decisions, even if indirect, is not a market economy. In a true market economy supply and demand should determine prices and businesses and consumers make the decisions on their respective side. There's also background pressure on businesses to avoid angering Trump and this affects their decision making process. >attracting talent, innovation, Trump raised the fee for H1Bs, blocked student visas from 19 countries, and revoked 100k visas for people who were here as students, business reasons, vacation, and other. He also is removing legal status from many groups. His inflammatory rhetoric and actions have harmed the international reputation of the US. There's also a prevalent anti-immigrant mood in the US and a much smaller This decreases the pool of people who can choose to come here and for that smaller amount it increases the probability that smart and innovative people may look elsewhere to either study or start a company. There are also those that had legal status, lost it, and must leave. These are another set of groups that could have contained some talented and innovative people. Talented immigrants have done so much for our economy and standing in the world.
---- He cut government funding for many scientific research endeavors and government programs. These may or may not be replaced by private industry. It's justified to cut waste as government spending is a problem but speed and extent of the cuts makes it questionable if a proper assessment was done. ---- I'm sure you can point to similar actions in the past but I believe the quantity, speed, and intensity are significantly different than in recent times. I'm also not arguing that some changes weren't justified. I just believe it's a clear change in the ingredients for the worse. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Government involvement in business decisions, even if indirect, is not a market economy. In a true market economy supply and demand should determine prices and businesses and consumers make the decisions on their respective side. This is true but not a novelty. The US has been doing all kinds of things to harm its markets for decades, e.g. artificially constraining the housing supply, using tax incentives and manipulating interest rates to goose consumer spending and in the process drive up consumer debt, and let's not even get into all the ways it molests the healthcare market. That isn't to say that they're good -- those markets are very messed up -- but things like this are bad, not new. > Trump raised the fee for H1Bs, blocked student visas from 19 countries, and revoked 100k visas for people who were here as students, business reasons, vacation, and other. The H1B program has been widely abused for a while now and in general the US is in need of significant immigration reform. Many of the things Trump does are stupid, because of course they are, but the general premise of "hey wasn't this supposed to be for researchers and scientists rather than mechanic-level IT work" seems to have something to it here. You can't say we're importing the best and brightest while also doing everything possible to make it so that someone who is a doctor in another country with a world-class medical system has to basically start over from scratch in order to be a doctor in the US. And then people will have much to criticize about what Trump is doing. But okay then, so do something better instead of all the doing nothing that was happening before. > It's justified to cut waste as government spending is a problem but speed and extent of the cuts makes it questionable if a proper assessment was done. It clearly wasn't. The problem is we need some kind of structural reform -- a system that doesn't allow wasteful programs to accumulate and increase in number over time -- but that would require a functioning Congress, which has instead been doing everything it can for decades to abdicate their role to the executive branch. Which has term limits and therefore the attention span of a goldfish for those kinds of structural problems, and then we end up back in the situation where either no attempt is made to fix it or the attempt is amateur hour because it's attempting a contextual fix to a structural problem. |
|
| |
| ▲ | datsci_est_2015 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The rest of the Republican Party is completely devoid of charisma, especially the kind that drew so many voters to Trump. There is no drop-in replacement. Lots of money will be spent trying to manufacture a replacement, though. That will be fun to watch. If you thought the last-minute rally around Kamala was tough to watch… | | |
| ▲ | PlanksVariable 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Isn’t the VP generally the shoe-in nominee? Vance lacks charisma and gravitas, but he only has to be better than the Democratic candidate. For every Bill and Barack, the Democrats have also given us a Kamala, Hillary, and Al. Never underestimate their ability to pick a loser. | |
| ▲ | backpackviolet 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | But what the republican party has, is a lot of isolationist voters who cannot be moved by appeals to markets or international trade. They don’t care about that stuff. Sure, the republicans will look hilarious trying to replace Trump for a while … but those Americans aren’t going anywhere and will gladly vote for the next Trump whenever they show up, same as they voted for Reagan and Bush II. The American attitude driving this current period is much deeper and wider than one man, and people thinking it will all go away when one old man steps down are going to be “surprised” when we’re dealing with this again in ten years or twenty years or three years. | | |
| ▲ | datsci_est_2015 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Don’t get me wrong, I’ll be the first to jump up and say there’s a deep cultural rot in America that, if it weren’t for the fortune of incredible financial success, would have us be seen as a hellhole of antisocial maniacs. That being said, I just don’t buy into the notion that the strategy of the party from 2016-2024 (maybe 100 Trump rallies per year?) can carry over into the late 2020s / early 2030s. If anything, this is me saying everyone is aware that the current window for reactionary politics in America is closing as Trump loses his vigor and gets closer to being too old to do what he did between 2014 and 2024. The reactionaries in the government and behind the scenes may make one last desperate grab at maintaining power. | | |
| ▲ | sooheon 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The weird cousin of "This time it's different": "That time was different" | |
| ▲ | XorNot 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's not the point: the point is America did this twice. The world is not going to deal with America radically flip flopping every policy position every 4 years, and escalating that every time. The US has just finished (maybe?) threatening to invade a NATO allied country. The occurrence rate of that has gone from "never" to "at least once". The delta change on that is infinity: there will never be a world in several generations where that is not a strategic risk the world has to deal with every 4 years. | | |
| ▲ | datsci_est_2015 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | > That's not the point: the point is America did this twice. The world is not going to deal with America radically flip flopping every policy position every 4 years, and escalating that every time. I’ll admit, I’m becoming confused about the point of our back-and-forth. All I’m trying to express is that probably by the end of 2026, and definitely by 2028, the people who are trying to enact reactionary change (Stephen Miller, PayPal Mafia, Heritage Foundation, etc.) will have to adjust their strategy. They are losing their charismatic leader, if not because of constitutional limits on presidential terms, then by his very obvious reduced vigor (he will not be able to do 100 rallies in a calendar year again). On the world stage, yes, America has stumbled. Maybe even worse, some international folks are realizing that the America that they thought existed was just a Hollywood mirage, and that we were always one recession and a few thousand votes in Florida from becoming a global pariah. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | actionfromafar 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Can't all that be solved by posting ICE guards around all polling stations? | | |
| ▲ | SpicyLemonZest 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | There's no law of nature that proves democracy can't be overthrown, but ICE is currently struggling against popular resistance to merely enforce immigration law in a single medium-sized city. Right now there's not much indication they have either the desire or operational capacity to pull off nationwide voter suppression. (And a number of special elections over the past year have defeated regime-backed candidates without ICE involvement.) | | |
| ▲ | watwut 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | If they tried to merely immigration law, they would had no issue. They were successful at creating fear and making conflict avoidant people stay home. Despite large amount of protesters, that is real effect. And it would create real vote suppression. You would had people not voting out of fear. And the opposing side having less votes (even if they win, they win less) |
|
| |
| ▲ | NDizzle 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think JD Vance has plenty of charisma. | | |
| ▲ | datsci_est_2015 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Definitely an odd duck out in the context of Trump, Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush, Reagan. Also remember it’s not just being charismatic, but charismatic enough to keep people distracted from increasingly unpopular reactionary politics that defy even conservative beliefs (e.g. gun control, speech policing, deficit spending, plenary executive). | | |
| ▲ | vkou 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Gun control (for minorities), speech policing (for liberals), deficit spending (when they are in charge), and a plenary executive (when Obama isn't president) are core conservative beliefs. They say that they don't like those things, but you can't listen to what politicians and talking heads on TV say. Politicians and talking heads lie all the fucking time. You have to look at what people do. They aren't stupid in not understanding the hypocrisy. We are... for thinking that they don't know that they are hypocrites. |
| |
| ▲ | kj4211cash 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Wait. Do you really think that or are you being sarcastic? | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | JackFr 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Trump is president because: - the absolute failure of the left and the press to address Biden’s cognitive decline. - Democrats deciding to die on the “trans women are women” hill. The marginal Trump voter did not very much care for Trump. | | |
| ▲ | bayarearefugee 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I agree that the Democratic party has fumbled the ball (over and over) and deserves a lot of blame for where we are now, but all of the trans talk in 2024 was driven entirely by the right. The Democratic party wasn't talking about trans people in 2024 (if anything the Democratic campaign was conspicuously avoiding the conversation entirely). The trans "debate" that people remember from that time period was driven entirely by right-wing ads and social media. Obviously this is a pretty successful strategy considering how many people falsely remember who was actually talking about this. | | |
| ▲ | kevin_thibedeau 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 2024 Democratic platform [1] word counts: men: 4
woman/women: 86
gay: 3
transgender: 8
They slit their own throats by ignoring half of the voting population.[1] https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/FINAL-MASTE... | |
| ▲ | JackFr 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They talked about it because they knew the median voter disagreed with the Democrats. | |
| ▲ | nate_meurer 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's true, the Democratic party found themselves in a bit of a pickle during the 2024 election. But it's because the party has been obsessed with the trans culture war for over a decade, culminating in the Biden admin's demands that all womens' spaces be opened up to men who self-identify as women. Prisons, college dorms, sports teams, school locker and shower rooms... there is no place or program that a male wouldn't be able to access the instant he said he was a woman. These principles of self-identification and gender identity as a protected characteristic were being enshrined in government rules and regs at all levels, from Title IX, HUD, Department of Corrections, to countless state and local rules. Remember Kamala telling the ACLU in that she would provide taxpayer-funded gender affirming surgeries to illegal immigrants if elected president? If Democrats really didn't want to have that debate you mention, why do they lean so heavily into the trans stuff to begin with? | | |
| ▲ | eeeeep 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > the Biden admin's demands that all womens' spaces be opened up to men who self-identify as women > there is no place or program that a male wouldn't be able to access the instant he said he was a woman I find it refreshing to see this stated so plainly and without euphemism. It really does lay bare the insanity of this policy. |
| |
| ▲ | 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | t-3 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No, it's because Obama disillusioned the left, and Biden just hammered it home. Those who thought the Democrats could actually represent the "big tent" have all been disappointed over and over again by sheepdogging and ignoring popular issues with bipartisan support in favor of corporate interests with only an occasional performative nod towards liberal ideals. That's why the right showed up to vote and the left stayed home. | | |
| ▲ | danaris 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Biden was by far the most effective and most progressive Democratic president of the post-WWII era. What "hammered home" the disillusionment was not Biden's actions*, but rather the media narrative built around him, particularly by the newspaper most identified with the Democratic Party: the New York Times. They were angry that he didn't give them deference early on, and that, combined with the desire of their wealthy Republican owner to push his politics, led to the constant drumbeat of stories about Biden's supposed "cognitive decline", when he's still much sharper than Trump. ETA: ...not to mention totally ignoring all his very real accomplishments, like forgiving the student debt of millions of people (yes, despite not getting as many as he wanted, he really did achieve that) and the infrastructure bill. * His inaction, particularly on prosecuting Trump, was a separate matter. | | |
| ▲ | woooooo 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | No amount of writing could ever outweigh that debate performance he had. He should have declined to run and let a primary winner enter the race with some momentum. |
|
| |
| ▲ | PlanksVariable 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes, and also pushing identity politics down voters’ throats, selecting an inept candidate without a primary, their desperate attempts to buy votes with debt forgiveness, and opening the border, which escalated to a full-blown crisis leading into election season. If we extrapolate Trump’s health today compared to where he was at just a year or two ago, I think Republicans will face the same dilemma the Democrats did soon. It will be interesting to see how they handle it. | |
| ▲ | ulfw 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | But cares about something that has zero effect on them? Trans? How many of them know a single trans person? Like somehow that's a huge thing for Trump voters but a crashing economy is not? | | |
| ▲ | telotortium 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Lots of people know trans people (by which I mean people that have decided to take some visible action to transition) by now - the people in the boonies and flyover states have access to the same internet as everyone else, so a lot of people outside the most progressive cities have transitioned. You have to remember that trans had been at the front of the culture for 10 years (since Caitlyn Jenner) by the time of the 2024 election. | |
| ▲ | thatcat 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The stocks didn't really go down yet and their media sources are distraction agents. | |
| ▲ | PlanksVariable 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Crashing the economy? In the past year the S&P 500 rose 14%, unemployment is at 4.4%, and inflation is around 2.7%. There are many things to criticize Trump for but the economy has not actually crashed. | | |
| ▲ | ulfw 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The S&P 500 rose 1.04% in EUR terms only. That's basically nothing. Of the 14% in USD terms 13% evaporated because he crashed the dollar compared to all other currencies (EUR, GBP, CHF, AUD, whatever) | |
| ▲ | danaris 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Trump ran on an explicit promise to bring down grocery prices on day 1. Grocery prices have continued to climb. Absolutely nothing he has done could remotely be said to be aimed at bringing them down. He has also instituted massive attacks on the power of labor, and on the offices that report on things like the unemployment rate. "The economy" is not just the stock market; unemployment numbers literally cannot be trusted coming from Trump's BLS; and an inflation of 2.7% is, in fact, fairly high (it's 35% higher than the "target" rate of 2%). |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | UltraSane 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | No, Trump getting elected twice is the exact reason Fox News and the like were created. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | sandworm101 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >> Should the US become an unfriendly power to the rest of the western world, it will find the demand for its currency plummeting, which I don't want to outline is a big issue. For those who want to return the US to the haydays of manufacturing, the days of cheap steel and people working in mills, a rock-bottom dollar is a necessary first step. To sell widgets, the US dollar needs to be low. And to get workers into low-wage mill jobs the population needs to be hungry. |
|
| ▲ | baby 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Can US debt be seen as equity? We mint equity from times to times, do buy backs, allow people to tokenize it to pay with it and so on... |
|
| ▲ | nazcan 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is one thing I've heard repeated - that USD needs to be spent in America - seems like other countries could just transact with it directly. |
| |
| ▲ | thaumasiotes 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | They can and they do; that's called dollarization. It's worth observing that dollars that are never supposed to return to the US don't have the same anti-counterfeiting pressure that dollars spent in the US do. I don't know how much of a market there is in counterfeiting USD for dollarized economies. | | |
| ▲ | etskinner 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | This sounds hard to believe. Adding anti-counterfeit messures to the bills that have them ($10s and up?) can't be that expensive compared to the value of the note, why would they make two different versions? Not to mention, that would break fungibility. Can you provide a source? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | eduction 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > if the US continues down the political path it currently seems to be pursuing, 'this time it's different' actually will be You’ve set no time bound so what you say here is essentially irrefutable. It boils down to “on this path we will eventually have a big bust.” You’re right if it happens in 1 year or 30. You’ve also not defined the bounds of the path. Paths can weave. So essentially that part of it becomes meaningless because anyone can draw a line that starts with today. Tech has a long history of boom bust cycles. Some busts are much more mild than others. Some upend the whole economy for protracted periods. In reality no one knows when AI will bust and how bad it will be. Those are the key questions, not whether there will eventually be a tech (or broad) bust. Of course there will be if you’re looking out to infinity days from today. Most economic commentary is like this including the linked article: so poorly defined as to be low worth as even speculation. |
|
| ▲ | YZF 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This time is not different in the sense that at some point crazy valuations get a reality check. But that's not "the crash of the US economy", that's a stock market crash, and those will happen (tell me when - I'd also like to know) and they also tend to crash all around the world. The US economy has had ups and downs and I'm sure will still have but despite the wishful thinking of Marxists it's still the least worst economy around in perhaps the least worst country. It still attracts talent and money. It still leads in many areas. It's still very productive. There are huge ecosystems and a cultural base. It's still the world's largest economy. Where will the balance tilt? China? India? Anyways, be careful of what you wish for, if the power shifts to China we are going to have a very different world, and not in a good way. I don't think it's even in China's interest to see a large decline of the US, after all they're a big customer. |
| |
| ▲ | peyton 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I don't think it's even in China's interest to see a large decline of the US, after all they're a big customer. Yeah aren’t they just Leninist but using us as a signal of what to make? I thought rough shape of the scheme was you get to build a factory using free loans in bullshit money that buys rice and apartments but can’t leave the country, then use that to get real money you can take elsewhere by making shit Americans want to buy. You can’t trade the bullshit money for real money without the factory step. |
|
|
| ▲ | fjordofnorway 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > I dont think AI even factors in to this. I think another way to look at the expansion of the capitalist economy is the onboarding of people into entry day jobs and transitions of economies upward.. AI may have relatively little to do with the US' tantrums yet I think it has a lot to do with the end of expansion and a fast contraction of the availability of top jobs as the last economies enter the middle of the funnel can't be good. |
|
| ▲ | ActorNightly 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Its standard Republican playbook. Get in power, enrich themselves, kick the can down the road to Democrats, then blame the Democrats for poor economy. This is why ironically Trump cancelling elections and installing himself as a 3d term president would actually be good. People need to see that no matter how bad they think things were under Democrats, it can get much much worse. Say goodbye to your house value and 401k plans for retirement, you gonna be a wage slave well into your 60s, but hey, at least we fixed "wokeness" |
|
| ▲ | benSaiyen 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Simple solution; raise taxes. Been saying that will be the outcome eventually as the olds continue to die and the youth feel zero obligation to senile pants shitters and corpses. GenZ fucking hates Boomers and a whole lot of GenX (that insurance CEO? GenX. Epipen price hiking CEO? GenX. Whole lot of tech CEOs of note? Yup, GenX) Generations beyond Z will never experience Boomers and 1900s American life. They won't care about an arbitrary line in the sand. GenX ain't getting any younger, won't have Boomer support. A reasonable scenario right now; rest of the world intentionally collaborates to isolate US, destabilize US, act as a forcing function for US to reassert internal control by swiftly deflating buying power of useless rich[1]. The world is sick of US CEOs who do little but jiggle values in spreadsheets. Sundar and many others have said CEOs are likely a very easy job to automate away; useless pageantry. There is rapidly growing domestic and overseas will to depose those non-contributors. Fastest way to stem the collapse of reality for 10s of millions of Americans with a lot of guns too. [1] Americans buying power has been deflated by 300% since 1980... I am sure it is purely coincidence Boomers have run the world for most of it. |
| |
| ▲ | majormajor 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | "Soak the rich" laws were passed around a hundred years ago in the US in response to obscene wealth; worked out pretty well for a long time before they got rolled back and we got a new round of oligarchs. |
|
|
| ▲ | rayiner 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > The US economy depends on the country's position of world hegemon Citation needed? This feels like a retcon. Remember that the U.S. became the biggest economy in the world in 1890: https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&.... That was half a century before World War II and the military empire that followed. |
| |
| ▲ | t-3 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | The trillion dollars a year pumped into the military support the stock prices of quite a few highly-valued companies. A sudden collapse of hegemony would be bad for "the market", but that seems unlikely unless WW3 actually kicks off instead of a few more rounds of opportunistic snatching and bullying by the big countries, and in that case few people would care about the stock market. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | leptons 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Trump famously bankrupted 3 casinos. The US economy will be the 4th. |
| |
|
| ▲ | 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | fuckyah 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [dead] |
|
| ▲ | fsckboy 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| >The US economy depends on the country's position of world hegemon no it doesn't. it's much closer to "you need the best economy to be a hegemon" |