6 ms·

Almost no mention of America's dire affordability/availability problems with housing. Nor spiraling costs of education - though that might be more of an out-of

Almost no mention of America's dire affordability/availability problems with housing. Nor spiraling costs of education - though that might be more of an out-of-control arms race, or negative-sum game.

roenxi 1y ago
In fairness, the US has so many problems (mostly of its own making) that it would be hard to enumerate them and give them fair treatment in one article. Plan A appears to be monetising the debt, which as far as I'm aware hasn't worked out well for any major power, ever. And it isn't clear that is a top-few problem right now what with the multiple-front military issues they are facing, some fairly important parts of the political system breaking down and the apparent problems manufacturing goods and services. The issue seems to be that the US voting public is overwhelmed by the complexity of understanding what a good idea looks like or what is in their own interests. A lot of that can be laid at the feet of the Boomers though. Hopefully they pull through, the US has historically had a remarkable ability to lurch out of disaster and sort of shamble on into accidental prosperity.
- cool_dude85 1y ago
  >The issue seems to be that the US voting public is overwhelmed by the complexity of understanding what a good idea looks like or what is in their own interests. I can't agree. The highest profile elections we are offered have, in the recent past, been choices between absolutely terrible options. In 2016 we could choose between a largely reviled Iraq War supporter and Trump, in 2020 the senile Biden and Trump, and in 2024 a continuation of Biden's term, represented by a poor politician hand-picked by the party and Trump, the one-term loser. In my adult life, the best candidate I have been able to vote for is a guy whose signature achievement in office was passing a heritage foundation Healthcare bill centered around fining me for not bolstering Blue Cross' bottom line. How am I supposed to vote in my interests?
  - bigstrat2003 1y ago
    This is why I continually advocate for more federalism in our government (the way we used to have, before the Civil War and the New Deal rebuilt the country around the federal government). The presidential elections encompass so many issues, with so much at stake, that they invariably become messy elections which suck all the oxygen out of the room. What we need instead is to make the presidential office (and Congress too!) as boring and limited as we can get away with, and let those decisions be made as locally as possible. Obviously not all things are practical to solve locally (defense being the classic example), but a lot of things are. For example, there is no need to have the federal government dictating standards for education, let states do that. There's no need to have the federal government dictating what drugs are legal, let states do that. When we limit the power of the federal government, the government as a whole will become more responsible to the will of the people, because your political power won't be filled diluted the way it is now.
    - cool_dude85 1y ago
      My political power would most certainly be more diluted - down to nothing - if we moved to a "state's rights" type system. As it happens, I live in Florida, so my choices for state and local office have been much worse than they have for president. I could absolutely not cast a vote in my interests if more power was at the state level.
      - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
        As hard as it seems to be, moving to a state that's more in line with your values might be a good idea.
        DerArzt 1y ago
        The problem with moving states is that there's a devil to pay when you loose your support network (family, friends, local coworkers). And the cost of moving isn't realistic for some.
- bell-cot 1y ago
  > In fairness, the US has... True. But the ever-upward cost of housing is obviously a major locus of one-way asset prices, and The Number Go Up Rule.
queenkjuul 1y ago
Didn't it? Why build housing if scarcity increases rent

roenxi 1y ago

In fairness, the US has so many problems (mostly of its own making) that it would be hard to enumerate them and give them fair treatment in one article. Plan A appears to be monetising the debt, which as far as I'm aware hasn't worked out well for any major power, ever. And it isn't clear that is a top-few problem right now what with the multiple-front military issues they are facing, some fairly important parts of the political system breaking down and the apparent problems manufacturing goods and services. The issue seems to be that the US voting public is overwhelmed by the complexity of understanding what a good idea looks like or what is in their own interests. A lot of that can be laid at the feet of the Boomers though. Hopefully they pull through, the US has historically had a remarkable ability to lurch out of disaster and sort of shamble on into accidental prosperity.

cool_dude85 1y ago
>The issue seems to be that the US voting public is overwhelmed by the complexity of understanding what a good idea looks like or what is in their own interests. I can't agree. The highest profile elections we are offered have, in the recent past, been choices between absolutely terrible options. In 2016 we could choose between a largely reviled Iraq War supporter and Trump, in 2020 the senile Biden and Trump, and in 2024 a continuation of Biden's term, represented by a poor politician hand-picked by the party and Trump, the one-term loser. In my adult life, the best candidate I have been able to vote for is a guy whose signature achievement in office was passing a heritage foundation Healthcare bill centered around fining me for not bolstering Blue Cross' bottom line. How am I supposed to vote in my interests?
- bigstrat2003 1y ago
  This is why I continually advocate for more federalism in our government (the way we used to have, before the Civil War and the New Deal rebuilt the country around the federal government). The presidential elections encompass so many issues, with so much at stake, that they invariably become messy elections which suck all the oxygen out of the room. What we need instead is to make the presidential office (and Congress too!) as boring and limited as we can get away with, and let those decisions be made as locally as possible. Obviously not all things are practical to solve locally (defense being the classic example), but a lot of things are. For example, there is no need to have the federal government dictating standards for education, let states do that. There's no need to have the federal government dictating what drugs are legal, let states do that. When we limit the power of the federal government, the government as a whole will become more responsible to the will of the people, because your political power won't be filled diluted the way it is now.
  - cool_dude85 1y ago
    My political power would most certainly be more diluted - down to nothing - if we moved to a "state's rights" type system. As it happens, I live in Florida, so my choices for state and local office have been much worse than they have for president. I could absolutely not cast a vote in my interests if more power was at the state level.
    - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
      As hard as it seems to be, moving to a state that's more in line with your values might be a good idea.
      - DerArzt 1y ago
        The problem with moving states is that there's a devil to pay when you loose your support network (family, friends, local coworkers). And the cost of moving isn't realistic for some.
bell-cot 1y ago
> In fairness, the US has... True. But the ever-upward cost of housing is obviously a major locus of one-way asset prices, and The Number Go Up Rule.

queenkjuul 1y ago

Didn't it? Why build housing if scarcity increases rent