4 ms·

I think this is the most incompetent administration USA has had in modern times, and it’s perhaps the second most authoritarian (next to WW2 era FDR). The curre

I think this is the most incompetent administration USA has had in modern times, and it’s perhaps the second most authoritarian (next to WW2 era FDR). The current administration seems to be taking concrete steps to weaken USA’s financial dominance in a way that has not happened in the years since you were a teenager. I suspect these forces will combine to significantly weaken the dollar.

ldjkfkdsjnv 1y ago
[flagged]
- gtirloni 1y ago
  Are they? None of the recent events point to any plan. It's pure and simple corruption. If by trying you mean trying anything without a clue, I can agree with that. What do you think about the fact you can directly bribe the president through his memecoin or by buying dinners with him? That's "at least trying"? Sometimes change for the sake of change gets you a circus on fire.
- Henchman21 1y ago
  Trying to do what exactly?
  - pstuart 1y ago
    Enrich themselves and punish their perceived enemies? After all, isn't that what government is supposed to be about?
- suzzer99 1y ago
  What exactly is the evidence of this? Debt/deficit? Seems like that's been going up and down forever. Because by every other metric the US economy was humming along until we decided to take a wrecking ball to it, to prevent future wreckage I guess?
- LPisGood 1y ago
  I don’t think that “Sold us down a river” is not an appropriate summary of 100 yers of American executive governance. Further, I don’t think there is any evidence that they are sincerely “trying.”
- justanotheratom 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - alabastervlog 1y ago
    We were probably doomed to see a major public debt crisis eventually when we cut taxes going into two extremely-expensive long wars under W Bush, the “probably” was upgraded to an “almost certainly” when we cut taxes again under Trump, then Covid happening removed the “almost” from that. Now we appear to be trying to move the timing of the crisis from 20+ years out, to less than a decade out.
    - justanotheratom 1y ago
      Federal Revenue actually went up after Trump Tax Cuts. I hope we can agree that there was some justification for a big spending bill in Covid time window. But after that, there was no justification IMO for the crazy spending that happened in the last 4 years. Data: Table of Federal Revenue vs Spending: https://chatgpt.com/share/681e9040-edf8-8008-ae3d-370bb5a0d285 https://chatgpt.com/share/681e9040-edf8-8008-ae3d-370bb5a0d2...
  - LPisGood 1y ago
    I don’t see how someone could draw a parallel between “pro-trump” and “anti-defecit.” His administrations have overseen deficits balloon.
    - justanotheratom 1y ago
      I think you are referring to the last administration when you use the term "balloon" https://chatgpt.com/share/681e9040-edf8-8008-ae3d-370bb5a0d285 https://chatgpt.com/share/681e9040-edf8-8008-ae3d-370bb5a0d2...
- pooty 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - alabastervlog 1y ago
    Fewer than 50% of people who voted, voted for him. He won a plurality, not a majority. (Of course fewer than 50% of eligible voters voted for him, but I’m assuming that’s not what you intended)
  - LPisGood 1y ago
    Less than 50% of the vote went to Trump, and you’ll find that he did very poorly among the well educated. This is the first I’ve heard of any banning, but the facts are clear and frankly it makes sense that an echo chamber opposed to the president’s policies forms wherever well reasoned discussion happens among educated people.
  - watwut 1y ago
    Not true, I was saying conservatives in general wanted this and support this and no one banned me. Some tho tried to argue with me, trying to make them sound innocent
  - tomhow 1y ago
    In other recent threads we’ve been attacked for “censoring” criticism of the administration, which we don't do (we've often intervened to restore posts that have been flagged/flamed by the community). But, nobody gets banned for making thoughtful comments pro or against the administration, and people are only banned for repeated breaches of the guidelines.
starik36 1y ago
This too I’ve heard forever. Usually it’s voiced by alternating view points depending on if their guy is the occupant of the White House or not.
- LPisGood 1y ago
  I sincerely question what you might mean by “heard forever” - much of what is being done here is so far beyond the pale of what has been done before that I can’t seriously understand how someone could look at it and say “ah this is the same as it’s always been, just standard partisan bickering”
  - latency-guy2 1y ago
    If you sincerely question, then it should be easy for you to provide samples of what is "beyond the pale". There is no need for narrative building either, it serves no purpose other than aggravating the other person and making them smaller.
    - LPisGood 1y ago
      I think the “narrative building” is important here, since I am responding to an in-construction narrative. Frankly I really struggle to see how someone who has been reasonably paying attention would need examples; they’re too many to mention. Off the top of my head and in no particular order: 1.) Unilaterally and without the consent of congress invoking emergency powers to place broad tariffs on almost the entire world has never been done 2.) Frequently attacking and undermining the judicial branch, including by transparently punishing entire law firms that represent causes unpopular with the administration has never been done 3.) Brazenly abusing the office of the presidency to further personal financial gain by launching a meme cryptocurrency days before taking office has never been done These are just some of the many examples, and that’s without going into the many things before Jan 20, 2025 that are clearly and undoubtedly unprecedented.
- watwut 1y ago
  Except this is not true, unless you was reading some really weird far right stuff.
CountSessine 1y ago
I don't know about incompetent - there's plenty of smart people around Trump. The big problem seems to be that they all kind of disagree with each other and Trump ends up doing what the guy who talks to him most recently advises him to do. The current "plan" seems to be to leave behind the largely-defunct WTO once and for all and build a selective free-trade alliance specifically excluding China, much like GATT was. I don't think this would really make the US "richer" (or any participant in the alliance) - in fact it would probably make us all a bit poorer. But it would make China much poorer which at this point is kind of the goal. https://www.hudsonbaycapital.com/documents/FG/hudsonbay/research/638199_A_Users_Guide_to_Restructuring_the_Global_Trading_System.pdf https://www.hudsonbaycapital.com/documents/FG/hudsonbay/rese... But that's just today. Next week someone else might get Trump's ear before he speaks to the press.
- CountSessine 1y ago
  For the record, I'm not really sure how I feel about this plan. Free trade with China uplifted 700 million people (in China) from poverty. OTOH, if you believe that China is basically Germany circa 1938 (and indeed, China in 2025 is the largest and most successful fascist state in all of history), then kneecapping China's economy makes plenty of strategic sense. But we could always just keep buying Hitler's Volkswagens - that's the direction our incentive gradient points in. The US doesn't need to be the global police - we could always just let China have Taiwan, the Senkakus, the Ryukyus, etc...
  - LPisGood 1y ago
    I think what a lot of people miss when they talk about America being the “global police” is that almost always the law (so to speak) that the “global police” are enforcing is enforcing is the advancement of American interests.
    - CountSessine 1y ago
      And yet the near-term interest is to keep buying Volkswagens from Hitler.
Hilift 1y ago
The FDR administration two of the Treasury architects of Bretton Woods were Russian agents. One of them, FDR's chief economist, had his US passport and US citizenship revoked. He lived the remainder of his life in Columbia, presumably helping with their "monetary policy success". Don't forget Nixon shock though. That was basically undoing Bretton Woods, but in an incompetent fashion that was amplified by low interest rate induced inflation, and produced "stagflation". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock The smartest guy we had was probably Lawrence Summers.

ldjkfkdsjnv 1y ago

[flagged]

gtirloni 1y ago
Are they? None of the recent events point to any plan. It's pure and simple corruption. If by trying you mean trying anything without a clue, I can agree with that. What do you think about the fact you can directly bribe the president through his memecoin or by buying dinners with him? That's "at least trying"? Sometimes change for the sake of change gets you a circus on fire.
Henchman21 1y ago
Trying to do what exactly?
- pstuart 1y ago
  Enrich themselves and punish their perceived enemies? After all, isn't that what government is supposed to be about?
suzzer99 1y ago
What exactly is the evidence of this? Debt/deficit? Seems like that's been going up and down forever. Because by every other metric the US economy was humming along until we decided to take a wrecking ball to it, to prevent future wreckage I guess?
LPisGood 1y ago
I don’t think that “Sold us down a river” is not an appropriate summary of 100 yers of American executive governance. Further, I don’t think there is any evidence that they are sincerely “trying.”
justanotheratom 1y ago
[flagged]
- alabastervlog 1y ago
  We were probably doomed to see a major public debt crisis eventually when we cut taxes going into two extremely-expensive long wars under W Bush, the “probably” was upgraded to an “almost certainly” when we cut taxes again under Trump, then Covid happening removed the “almost” from that. Now we appear to be trying to move the timing of the crisis from 20+ years out, to less than a decade out.
  - justanotheratom 1y ago
    Federal Revenue actually went up after Trump Tax Cuts. I hope we can agree that there was some justification for a big spending bill in Covid time window. But after that, there was no justification IMO for the crazy spending that happened in the last 4 years. Data: Table of Federal Revenue vs Spending: https://chatgpt.com/share/681e9040-edf8-8008-ae3d-370bb5a0d285 https://chatgpt.com/share/681e9040-edf8-8008-ae3d-370bb5a0d2...
- LPisGood 1y ago
  I don’t see how someone could draw a parallel between “pro-trump” and “anti-defecit.” His administrations have overseen deficits balloon.
  - justanotheratom 1y ago
    I think you are referring to the last administration when you use the term "balloon" https://chatgpt.com/share/681e9040-edf8-8008-ae3d-370bb5a0d285 https://chatgpt.com/share/681e9040-edf8-8008-ae3d-370bb5a0d2...
pooty 1y ago
[flagged]
- alabastervlog 1y ago
  Fewer than 50% of people who voted, voted for him. He won a plurality, not a majority. (Of course fewer than 50% of eligible voters voted for him, but I’m assuming that’s not what you intended)
- LPisGood 1y ago
  Less than 50% of the vote went to Trump, and you’ll find that he did very poorly among the well educated. This is the first I’ve heard of any banning, but the facts are clear and frankly it makes sense that an echo chamber opposed to the president’s policies forms wherever well reasoned discussion happens among educated people.
- watwut 1y ago
  Not true, I was saying conservatives in general wanted this and support this and no one banned me. Some tho tried to argue with me, trying to make them sound innocent
- tomhow 1y ago
  In other recent threads we’ve been attacked for “censoring” criticism of the administration, which we don't do (we've often intervened to restore posts that have been flagged/flamed by the community). But, nobody gets banned for making thoughtful comments pro or against the administration, and people are only banned for repeated breaches of the guidelines.

starik36 1y ago

This too I’ve heard forever. Usually it’s voiced by alternating view points depending on if their guy is the occupant of the White House or not.

LPisGood 1y ago
I sincerely question what you might mean by “heard forever” - much of what is being done here is so far beyond the pale of what has been done before that I can’t seriously understand how someone could look at it and say “ah this is the same as it’s always been, just standard partisan bickering”
- latency-guy2 1y ago
  If you sincerely question, then it should be easy for you to provide samples of what is "beyond the pale". There is no need for narrative building either, it serves no purpose other than aggravating the other person and making them smaller.
  - LPisGood 1y ago
    I think the “narrative building” is important here, since I am responding to an in-construction narrative. Frankly I really struggle to see how someone who has been reasonably paying attention would need examples; they’re too many to mention. Off the top of my head and in no particular order: 1.) Unilaterally and without the consent of congress invoking emergency powers to place broad tariffs on almost the entire world has never been done 2.) Frequently attacking and undermining the judicial branch, including by transparently punishing entire law firms that represent causes unpopular with the administration has never been done 3.) Brazenly abusing the office of the presidency to further personal financial gain by launching a meme cryptocurrency days before taking office has never been done These are just some of the many examples, and that’s without going into the many things before Jan 20, 2025 that are clearly and undoubtedly unprecedented.
watwut 1y ago
Except this is not true, unless you was reading some really weird far right stuff.

CountSessine 1y ago

I don't know about incompetent - there's plenty of smart people around Trump. The big problem seems to be that they all kind of disagree with each other and Trump ends up doing what the guy who talks to him most recently advises him to do. The current "plan" seems to be to leave behind the largely-defunct WTO once and for all and build a selective free-trade alliance specifically excluding China, much like GATT was. I don't think this would really make the US "richer" (or any participant in the alliance) - in fact it would probably make us all a bit poorer. But it would make China much poorer which at this point is kind of the goal. https://www.hudsonbaycapital.com/documents/FG/hudsonbay/research/638199_A_Users_Guide_to_Restructuring_the_Global_Trading_System.pdf https://www.hudsonbaycapital.com/documents/FG/hudsonbay/rese... But that's just today. Next week someone else might get Trump's ear before he speaks to the press.

CountSessine 1y ago
For the record, I'm not really sure how I feel about this plan. Free trade with China uplifted 700 million people (in China) from poverty. OTOH, if you believe that China is basically Germany circa 1938 (and indeed, China in 2025 is the largest and most successful fascist state in all of history), then kneecapping China's economy makes plenty of strategic sense. But we could always just keep buying Hitler's Volkswagens - that's the direction our incentive gradient points in. The US doesn't need to be the global police - we could always just let China have Taiwan, the Senkakus, the Ryukyus, etc...
- LPisGood 1y ago
  I think what a lot of people miss when they talk about America being the “global police” is that almost always the law (so to speak) that the “global police” are enforcing is enforcing is the advancement of American interests.
  - CountSessine 1y ago
    And yet the near-term interest is to keep buying Volkswagens from Hitler.

Hilift 1y ago

The FDR administration two of the Treasury architects of Bretton Woods were Russian agents. One of them, FDR's chief economist, had his US passport and US citizenship revoked. He lived the remainder of his life in Columbia, presumably helping with their "monetary policy success". Don't forget Nixon shock though. That was basically undoing Bretton Woods, but in an incompetent fashion that was amplified by low interest rate induced inflation, and produced "stagflation". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock The smartest guy we had was probably Lawrence Summers.