| ▲ | ravenstine 3 hours ago |
| All these things are apparently valued at trillions of dollars these days. Where's the trillions, or hundreds of billions worth in improved quality of life? What has gotten better other than the ability to produce more crap? |
|
| ▲ | giancarlostoro 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| In terms of SpaceX (the space portion of it) they've produced the cheapest way to get any payload into space. If you pay anybody else, you will overpay drastically depending on who you want to take your payload into space. In terms of AI, we've seen even here on HN everything from mathematical problems that remaind unsolved, being solved, mathematical proofs being used to disprove theories, heck we even learned more about alzheimers, new antibiotics, precision targeting in oncology, using AI to flag healthcare anomalies in imaging. The benefits are easy to miss, but they're snowballing into place, there's definitely an explosion of useless crap, but you have to look for the real things and you will come to find, that AI is giving us things we otherwise either might not have discovered or wouldn't have within our lifetimes. |
| |
| ▲ | rockskon an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Isn't AI routinely making significant mistakes in analyzing medical imaging? | | |
| ▲ | stingraycharles an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | My understanding is that it’s better than doctors themselves. But it’s probably the same as with autonomous driving: the bar isn’t just “be as good as humans”, it’s “be flawless”. | | |
| ▲ | haldujai an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | It’s actually quite a lot worse than even doctors in training except for highly constrained experimental settings and a few very nice applications that are mostly too tedious/impractical for a human to do or are very basic detection tasks. I am a radiologist and researcher predominately focused on AI. | | |
| ▲ | nesk_ 12 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | A friend of mine, a dermatologist, told me that LLMs are quite performant for melanoma analysis. Based on their own statistics, LLMs are able to beat humans with ~10 years of experience in the field. They will never beat the human instinct tho, but they can be great tools sometimes. Unfortunately, LLMs mostly produce garbage. | |
| ▲ | marcus_holmes an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Thanks for the informed take :) Do you think this will result in more routine/boring/tedious tests? Is the bottleneck on these things the human time to analyse them? | | |
| ▲ | haldujai 18 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I don’t think so, not beyond the current trend in medicine which is going up anyway. For some things, like 3D volume segmentation of structure or disease (e.g. CVA/stroke volume, cardiac muscle mass, iron quantification) the bottleneck is the time it takes so we currently use approximations like single longest dimension, circular regions of interest, etc. AI will dramatically increase accuracy allowing for more accurate treatment and easier large scale research with quantitative endpoints. Other things people think of like detection of aneurysms, fracture, lung nodules are not “hard” but AI has already added and will continue to add the second-reader benefit which will reduce detection errors. For this category the clinical benefit is as of yet unclear and we know that increased detection does not necessarily translate into improved patient outcomes and can in fact make them worse from over-diagnosis which means investigation related harms and over-treatment. We were already in a phase of “over detection” in much of radiology with advances in imaging technology so the incremental benefit of current AI remains to be seen and I personally think is going to be much more limited. I had a case recently where a 2 mm brain aneurysm was missed on 3 CT scans over 10 years but was picked up by AI so now is being followed annually. This is too small to treat considering the risks and a serious argument could be made that 10 years of stability is proof enough that this is almost certainly clinically irrelevant for this patient. Far more interesting areas of AI in imaging are in acquisition of acceleration (i.e. the medical equivalent of upscaling) which can dramatically decrease costs and increase accessibility as well as analyzing imperceptible features. It may not be a popular take here but in my opinion the future of radiology is like what we see in software engineering today - a skilled human equipped with AI will outperform humans without AI and AI without humans, the latter of which we are still several years away from prototyping due to various technical hurdles. |
|
| |
| ▲ | goda90 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | With these kinds of things, I want to see comparisons to trained, alert humans. Cut out all the distracted, stressed, tired, incompetent, intoxicated cases from the baseline. That includes rushed doctors at the end of a long shift. A self driving car doing better than a drunk on the freeway doesn't reassure me that it'll do better than sober me in a snowstorm. | |
| ▲ | BobbyTables2 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I’ve seen the same. But I don’t see that as a glowing beacon of progress. A whole lot of doctors, if not most, didn’t pick their profession out of an interest in medicine… |
| |
| ▲ | koolba an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | It’s so good it even sees things that are not there! |
| |
| ▲ | themafia 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > they've produced the cheapest way Were we struggling to do this before? Was the overall percentage reduction in costs? Was some other achievement held back because we couldn't accomplish this? What is now enabled? > to get any payload into space. A limited set of payloads into space. No vehicle can get "any payload" to space at a fixed price. > The benefits are easy to miss, You've listed a bunch of reasons to publish papers. What is the actual ground level change that's occurred? Are those antibiotics produced? Do they actually work just as predicted? Why is that first world problems are exclusively listed but basic problems like world hunger are never even approached? > or wouldn't have within our lifetimes. And your life, your actual life, benefits, how? | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Were we struggling to do this before? We literally couldn't. > Was the overall percentage reduction in costs? Starship will bill NASA 1/20th what SLS does. > What is now enabled? LEO. Artemis. Out of all of these companies, being confused about SpaceX is super weird. | | |
| ▲ | duttish an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | If SpaceX was only Starlink or only Starlink and rockets it would be an horrible circumvention of the rules. But now he's also trying to get the indexes to pay for the giant cash fire called X.ai and the far right huddle Twitter too. I have zero interest in owning anything of either of those companies. | |
| ▲ | alpha_squared an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Granted, I only skimmed some high-line numbers, but isn't their only profitable project Starlink? SpaceX is functionally a satellite internet company that happens to make rockets. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross an hour ago | parent [-] | | > isn't their only profitable project Starlink? SpaceX is functionally a satellite internet company that happens to make rockets Yes. The thing that’s going public is almost entirely an AI play. |
| |
| ▲ | harimau777 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think you missed the core of their question: What has actually gotten better in practical terms for the average American? | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > What has actually gotten better in practical terms for the average American? Starlink has made connectivity cheaper and more available. Earth imaging has made various food production processes more efficient. Weather forecasts have become more accurate. If you’ve genuinely missed the massive economy that LEO has become, it will be a fun thing to catch up on. | | |
| ▲ | autoexec 37 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > Starlink has made connectivity cheaper and more available. Yeah that's working out great for the average American isn't it (https://natlawreview.com/press-releases/2026-consumer-trust-...) > Earth imaging has made various food production processes more efficient. I'm not even going to bother sourcing the fact that food prices have only massively gone up negating any gains in productivity. The average American struggling to buy basics like eggs and meat aren't feasting on more efficient food production. > Weather forecasts have become more accurate. I'm sure the growing homeless population is happy to know they can better predict the weather they'll be sleeping in. This is all totally worth supporting a nazi billionaire | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 16 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > that's working out great for the average American isn't it Yeah. It did. My neighbour’s rates went up. He switched to Starlink. > not even going to bother sourcing the fact that food prices have only massively gone up negating This is like arguing fertilisers are useless because prices went up. > homeless population Not super relevant! > all totally worth supporting a nazi billionaire Nobody said that. But it doesn’t mean the benefits go away. |
|
| |
| ▲ | usef- an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Do we apply a bar this high for any other company/job/business? Saving gov/tax money aka "billing NASA 1/20th what SLS does" doesn't count as worth it to you? Reusing rockets reliably rather than "throwing them away" is a great achievement and I'm surprised people have to justify it on HN | | |
| ▲ | mandeepj 29 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > Reusing rockets reliably rather than "throwing them away" is a great achievement and I'm surprised people have to justify it on HN You can milk a cow only a set number of times! | | |
| ▲ | usef- 4 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Yes, because you're not designing the cow. Progress on rocketry (and reusability) is not completed, btw, there's a lot still to improve. |
|
| |
| ▲ | airstrike an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Stock prices indicate the present value of all future dividends, so it's not about what has happened but about the risk-adjusted expected value of all which is to come. What probability you assign to arrive at that expected value and how you adjust for risk is on you. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | cowmix 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You'll overpay -- but not by trillions. | | |
| ▲ | waterheater 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | On one order, correct, but it's still on the order of hundreds of millions to billions. Also, keep in mind that a stock price discounts expected future cash flows. Is it likely that SpaceX will have a near-peer competitor within a few years? No, it's not, and that market share is being priced-in. | | |
| ▲ | hattmall an hour ago | parent [-] | | Is it likely that SpaceX will have actual reasonable demand? Their major customer is Starlink. How legitimately confident are we in the numbers with regard to price reduction vs creative accounting to offload costs to Starlink and subsidize the launches to appear to offer huge cost reductions? If there exists sufficient demand for the product of space launches then it's probably reasonable to expect their to be a near-peer competitor soon, but that's only if SpaceX were to be profitable, which it isn't, even with the subsidization by Starlink on the order of many billions. |
| |
| ▲ | giancarlostoro 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sure but SpaceX can get you into orbit for $1400 per kilogram, and future projection and goal is $100 per kilogram. The competition is at $15,000 per kilogram. I think it's a no-brainer for anybody trying to get anything into orbit. Unless someone figures out superior tech that surpasses SpaceX, I'm just not seeing why anyone would spend more for less capable and costly rockets. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | olalonde 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Comments like these make me feel like we're living in different worlds. I use LLMs multiple times a day and they've significantly improved my quality of life. They are also steadily becoming more useful over time (e.g. now solving math problems). |
| |
| ▲ | HerbManic 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I suppose many do live in different worlds. I haven't found anything out of LLM's that has improved my life. It was a fun little toy but could never find a use case. But clearly, your mileage varies greatly from mine. That's cool. I just personally don't the use in more when what I think many need is less. But that comes from essentially this point of view - “Better than a thousand hollow words is one word that brings peace.” ― Buddha | |
| ▲ | newsicanuse 6 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Comments like these make me feel like AI is a computer in the hands of a monkey, and that too the computer which is unreliable. | |
| ▲ | HDBaseT an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I use LLMs daily, both as chat applications and "vibe coding". I wouldn't say it "significantly improved my life" however. Everything AI has done for me right now is a "Nice to have" but it doesn't fulfill my needs. | |
| ▲ | hedora 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I do too, and pay $200/month, but anthropic’s margins on that revenue are negative. What’s the long term plan? Make it up on margin? 100% tariffs on Chinese open weight models? I don’t plan on pulling from my 401k for decades, so the long term plan is the part I care about. | |
| ▲ | thuuuomas 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Do you use Grok multiple times per day? Is Grok solving Erdos problems? | | |
| ▲ | worik 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Do you use Grok multiple times per day? No body who has a choice is using Grok > Is Grok solving Erdos problems? Mēh! At a slower rate than models a fraction of the price | | |
| ▲ | minton an hour ago | parent [-] | | > No body who has a choice is using Grok The Grok app had over 100 million downloads in 2025, over 60 million active users, and generated $350 million in revenue. That’s a lot of people being forced to use it. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | threetonesun 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I’d love it if for once someone on here saying LLMs are some life changing apparatus would give a single example. | | |
| ▲ | hedora 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | We have some exotic chicks the kids picked out, and 4 were going to die of brooder pneumonia. An LLM correctly diagnosed it, and figure out that we could treat them with Nutri-drench Sheep Supplement, since Tractor Supply was sold out of the chicken version, and they are very similar. Of course it then immediately recommended we use hemp bedding that would kill them a different way, but the saleswoman sanity checked all of the above, 100% survival rate. Everyone’s thriving. Chickens would follow the medical advice again, I guess. | |
| ▲ | olalonde an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I can give some recent examples. - Significantly increased my productivity as a software engineer. - Using it daily for Chinese-English translation. Significantly better than pre-LLM translation software. Also, great at teaching grammar, nuances, etc. - General Q&A. Like "Googling" but much faster. This is probably the most common use case for me. | | |
| ▲ | alpha_squared an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > - Significantly increased my productivity as a software engineer. This is exactly the point that keeps coming up that folks are struggling to grasp, myself included. How are you measuring this? It certainly makes me feel productive, but I'm not sure I can confidently say it has actually made me more productive. It's made the easy stuff a no-brainer (e.g. boilerplate, simple logic) and the moderate stuff really hard. Never mind the hard stuff. Vetting the code has become a whole other job on its own. The only folks I've found who confidently claim it increases productivity appear to be online (and without evidence), because no one in person is willing to claim that and show it. | | | |
| ▲ | batshit_beaver an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Significantly increased my productivity as a software engineer. You’re going to have to define productivity as it applies to software engineering. With LLMs we’ve primarily seen the number of PRs over time being discussed as a proxy for LoC, as well as the speed of bootstrapping a small project. None of these have a known correlation with economic output. They just feel good, to the programmer, their manager, or both. > Using it daily for Chinese-English translation. Significantly better than pre-LLM translation software. Also, great at teaching grammar, nuances, etc. Yes dealing with language is the one area LLMs are actually designed for. But what’s the TAM for machine translation? > General Q&A. Like "Googling" but much faster. This is probably the most common use case for me. And now you’re missing any kind of traceability for the information that you “learn,” since it all gets spaghettified and then recombined into a pile of plausible slop with no attribution. Where before you had to do slightly more work to find the information you needed, now it’s available faster but you’re at complete mercy of literally 3 American companies plus the CCP for the accuracy of that information. Most people somehow seem happy with this arrangement. | | |
| ▲ | olalonde an hour ago | parent [-] | | > You’re going to have to define productivity as it applies to software engineering. I meant it in a colloquial way. I just get more done, faster. > And now you’re missing any kind of traceability for the information Modern LLM assistants provide sources and references. While it can sometimes be just "slightly faster", it can genuinely save hours of research on complex ones. Also the "slightly faster" can add up to hours saved with frequent use. |
|
| |
| ▲ | s1artibartfast 13 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Immediate medical and childcare advice from LLM are pretty life changing. Interpreting reports, avoiding drug interactions, or knowing when to seek medical care. And before people object- I can literally use the same LLM my doctor does to check these things, without waiting 2 weeks for an appointment. I helped my parents work through bacterial culture results when he was hospitalized with sepsis, and ask their doctor for specific follow up tests. I rebuilt my gas furnace and fixed my dishwasher with AI as an assistant. Those aren't the fun parts tho. My favorite is touring art museums ancient historical sites with an LLM guide. It can give me a short academic essay about every artist, painting, or artifact. It can pull out details quirky stories about the history that I specifically would find interesting. I cant recommend this enough. Its like visiting with a 10 PhD docents in art history. | |
| ▲ | Cider9986 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Some guy vibe coded a tasks app client that I really like. Not life changing but I couldn't find one that suited my needs since de-iPhoning before this one. | |
| ▲ | wyre 29 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | https://www.the-scientist.com/chatgpt-and-alphafold-help-des... Literally saved his dog's life. |
| |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | dartharva 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Even if they are, it still doesn't justify the ridiculous levels of overvaluation. They are not essentials and their consumer demand is extremely elastic. |
|
|
| ▲ | chasd00 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Try to keep perspective, these valuations are just functions of the stock market the end result of some spreadsheet. They have nothing to do with quality of life. Why would you relate those two things in the first place? |
| |
| ▲ | mindwok 32 minutes ago | parent [-] | | They are fundamentally different, but people desire they be aligned. The public expects the economy to producing higher quality of life for us, otherwise what is it doing? And for whom? But whether it actually does so is a function of other things. That gap seems bigger than usual right now with AI and tech eating the whole economy. |
|
|
| ▲ | wyager 15 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Where's the trillions, or hundreds of billions worth in improved quality of life? Starlink and Claude are both awesome and huge QoL improvements for me! |
|
| ▲ | wahern 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Nominal global financial wealth is about $350 trillion. If you include real estate global nominal wealth is about $600 trillion. A good portion of that[1] is what alot of people might call fake money--valuation inflation, etc. And global wealth, even just financial wealth, isn't quite as mobile across borders as one might assume. So marshalling a trillion dollars stateside is gonna make at least some moderate waves. Still, in the grand, global scheme of things a trillion dollars is a rounding error. A trillion isn't what it used to be, and there's trillions to be had even without any realized productivity gains from AI. [1] I'm no financial analyst, but judging by the last few recessions and the overall trajectory over the past 30 years, I'd ballpark at most about 1/3 of that to go up in smoke if we had a severe downturn tomorrow. It's not all fake money. The whole world has industrialized over the past 30 years on a scale that is still unfathomable for most people today. |
|
| ▲ | Avicebron 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Raven, Raven.. that's for those who can borrow against that to know and you to likely never find out. What you thought your life would improve? Didn't you hear, wages are only increasing, why don't you invest some of that sweet cash into @JumpCrissCross' fund, it'll be alright. What were you going to do with healthcare anyway? |
| |
| ▲ | treyd 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Meanwhile the federal minimum wage is still $7.25/hr. | | |
| ▲ | fakeBeerDrinker 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | And how many earn this? Around 1% of hourly employees…if that. Not what I’d be concerned with right now. | | |
| ▲ | georgemcbay 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Why shouldn't we be concerned about it? A society should be judged by how it treats those at the bottom and by that metric our current society is pretty awful. | | |
| ▲ | SubmarineClub 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | ? Who are you to say they deserve more than that. | | |
| ▲ | adithyassekhar an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I come to this website everyday. And each day I lose faith in humanity a little more. | |
| ▲ | harimau777 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Who are you to say that they don't? | |
| ▲ | georgemcbay an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | My own lived experience tells me they deserve more. The vast majority of people I've known who have worked for minimum wage were much harder workers and frankly just much better humans (who happened to have less privileged starts in life) than the vast majority of people I've known who are financially secure. But even if you don't believe they deserve more inherently, it would still be dumb for us to continue to let income inequality grow at the ridiculous rates it has been over the last 40 years. This pattern never turns out well for society. |
|
| |
| ▲ | ipaddr 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why not raise it then? | | |
| ▲ | fakeBeerDrinker an hour ago | parent [-] | | I don’t know, ask the states that have lower wages on the books (even though federal prevails). |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | s1artibartfast 21 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Quality of life doesnt matter. What matters is the choices people make to spend their money on. This is what drives profits. If you are upset about people spending their extra productivity and labor hours on poision and mental laxitives, i would mostly agree. This is a failure of culture to adapt to distratcions and shiny objects |
|
| ▲ | throwawa1 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think this is the story of tech in general. In my life, I've seen 3 really big steps down for the middle class: 2001, 2008 and then covid. Basic necessities are expensive today - people point to high GDP but what I see is high prices and poverty. And Tech, we've built a dystopian surveillance state. |
| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Basic necessities are expensive There is going to be a well-deserved shitshow when these IPO proceeds start hitting real estate markets. | | |
| ▲ | sailfast 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | A shitshow for whom? I see it as extremely unlikely for the United States of America to not allow individuals to purchase things for whatever money they can pull together. The only answer is to make it unacceptable socially, more costly economically (taxes, etc), or the third option which involves pitchforks (perhaps that also falls under "unacceptable socially") that I hope we can avoid at all costs. (is this the show you mention?) Feels like folks used to understand the balance a bit better - but I think I made that up. This next governance cycle is going to be a trust-busting, wealth-confiscating one I think. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > shitshow for whom? I think there will be a tremendous political opportunity in the next 6 months to capitalize on rage in cities against new tech wealth driving up housing costs. | | |
| ▲ | Avicebron 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | :) | |
| ▲ | throwawa1 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Housing prices aren't going up. They peaked in late 2022. Boomers are a huge generation, with homes millennials and Gen Z can't afford to buy. And they are smaller generations. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Housing prices aren't going up Where? Rents and home prices are increasing in most American markets. | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Where's the trillions, or hundreds of billions worth in improved quality of life? I think these IPOs are going to mint tens of thousands of new millionaires or something. That, in turn, will generate massive tax windfalls for all levels of government. > other than the ability to produce more crap? This is a big "other than." (And to be clear, the jury is still out on whether AI will let us produce more in the long run.) |
| |
| ▲ | avmich 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If jury is still out on positivity, long term, of AI, I'd really like to see arguments for that. Historically all - almost? - technical improvements were net positive; even some blunders had upside. AI is dangerous, yes, but e.g. fission was developed for the bomb, and now powers significant numbers of households worldwide - the tech less than 90 years old. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > all - almost? - technical improvements were net positive I think it’s very likely AI is a technical improvement. But there is still a chance it’s a small improvement being massively overbuilt. |
| |
| ▲ | nixon_why69 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's not a pyramid scheme, it's a reverse funnel. |
|
|
| ▲ | coliveira an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The stock market is just a game that rich people use to manipulate money. It is not a reflection of the real world. Consider for example Google, one of the companies with highest valuation in the market. If Google stops working now, the only problem we'll have is getting a few minutes back of our time. Nobody will have big issues in life because one cannot find a web page, view more ads, and watch silly videos! However they will swear that Google is the most important company in the world to justify the money people throw at it. I won't even go to Meta, which is like celebrating that people are using crack cocaine... |
| |
| ▲ | bdangubic an hour ago | parent [-] | | you can replace “google” with every company that exists or has ever existed so no sure what the purpose of your comment is unless you are pitching abolishing the stock market. google is what they are because they make shitton of money and will continue to do so (more and more) into foreseeable future. that is stock market, always has been, always will be | | |
|
|
| ▲ | notepad0x90 36 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] |
| this sounds like a reddit comment too much. why would trillions of dollars improve your quality of life. a bunch of companies get investments from a bunch of VCs who took out loans... and that means your quality of life should improve? And what's more crap exactly? it feels like your grasping at straws to take one set of things and associate them with others. yeah, lots of terrible products out there, lots of enshittification, lots of topics of discussion there. But AI and GPUs are being used in such a diverse way it is impossible to have one opinion on it all like how you're trying to. I'm not even disagreeing (or agreeing with you), I'm just saying that's a lazy comment to make. if these companies making profits without paying taxes, that's a voter problem (not even politics, just people being shitty voters, self not excluded). For everyone else who might think they have a better formed opinion on this topic, I only ask that you apply the same level of passion to how the US national debt is now 120% of the GDP. The government is fighting wars and printing money, devaluing your wealth, and indebting your country to previously unseen levels. At least the banks and VCs are using their money (unless they get a bail out again), not your actual tax money, and the tax money and wealth of generations of Americans. You have a president literally stealing billions of dollars in broad day light from literally you. |