8 ms·

> someone too stupid to understand That's only true if he's actually "your guy". There's an alternative where it's not stupidity that I think more people shoul

by rapind 6mo ago

> someone too stupid to understand That's only true if he's actually "your guy". There's an alternative where it's not stupidity that I think more people should be mulling over.

ejoso 6mo ago
Say more
- BobbyJo 6mo ago
  Being a reserve currency puts a gun to your economy's head. It creates an asymmetry where domestic production of material goods has to jump a gap created by favorable exchange rates in PPP terms. Its great for the day to day life style of your citizens, as other economy's do indeed pay tribute, in a sense, to their consumption of goods produced overseas. However, being paid to do nothing becomes a real problem when the checks stop coming. We're basically the national equivalent of a middle manager who's forgotten all the skills that got him there, and we can voluntarily move back down and start to work in earnest again, or wait to get laid off with no severance.
  - fnordpiglet 6mo ago
    As someone who lives a day to day life, I’m pretty happy for things that are good for my day to day life. Some abstract quasi moralistic reason that things should be tougher so we compete harder feels a little out of touch. I’d note that it’s not the case the US produces nothing, or that it’s lost its capacity to innovate. Effectively most technology, especially software, but hardware as well, is concentrated in the US. Some aspects of the heavy manufacturing and assembly line happens elsewhere but I’d level the middle manager more at the EU. No, we are taking our advantages and lighting them on fire for no obvious reason. Backing into a rationale doesn’t make it rational. Its Christian nationalism fueling raging narcissism made malignant due to senility. Theres no experts, no adults, no experienced people - they’ve all be fired and replaced with sycophantic photogenic personalities. This is not good, there is no upside, it’s Nero hosting UFC while the empire burns. The only out I see is nature helping end this or a total seismic change in Congress and removal from office. Then rebuilding can start and maybe there’s something to salvage. But I doubt it, and I expect the next generations will exist in the rubble of the colosseum.
    - fc417fc802 6mo ago
      I'm not going to take a side in the broader discussion here, however your response fails to engage with what was previously written. > Some abstract quasi moralistic reason What was presented was neither abstract nor moralistic. The argument was one of driving towards a cliff and taking preemptive action before reaching it.
      - theossuary 6mo ago
        No, it was driving towards a cliff and deciding to jump out of the car instead of pressing the breaks. If you're costing at work, worried about being laid off some day, the last thing you do is just quit; you job hunt and try to change habits. Pretending like we have to feel immense pain to strengthen the economy is the quasi moralistic reasoning of a moron
        BobbyJo 6mo ago
        You're making a lot of abstract and quasi moralistic arguments for someone with such a distaste for them.
    - BobbyJo 6mo ago
      > Some abstract quasi moralistic reason that things should be tougher so we compete harder feels a little out of touch. I don't see how any of those descriptions fit what I've said. Also, note, things should indeed not be tougher. A consequence of our economy being so focused on financialization of overseas productivity is that the wealth created from that activity tends to be much more concentrated than that produced from manufacturing, at least historically. Though, who knows if that would hold if onshoring took off in earnest. > I’d note that it’s not the case the US produces nothing, or that it’s lost its capacity to innovate Never said either of those things. I only stated that it makes domestic production harder/less profitable. Though, I'd also like to point out that that the largest companies in our economy are wholly dependent on the output of an island with grave geopolitical risks hanging over its head. China could collapse our economy overnight due to unchecked offshoring. That's not quasi, abstract, or moralistic, just a state we've created. > No, we are taking our advantages and lighting them on fire for no obvious reason. Backing into a rationale doesn’t make it rational. Its Christian nationalism fueling raging narcissism made malignant due to senility. I mean, I have named several, and all of which were put forth prior to Trump's term starting. I'm not a fan of Trump, but it would seem to me you are creating a narrative for yourself that doesn't fit history. > Theres no experts, no adults, no experienced people - they’ve all be fired and replaced with sycophantic photogenic personalities. I think Bessent is pretty good. > This is not good, there is no upside, it’s Nero hosting UFC while the empire burns. The only out I see is nature helping end this or a total seismic change in Congress and removal from office. Then rebuilding can start and maybe there’s something to salvage. But I doubt it, and I expect the next generations will exist in the rubble of the colosseum. Idk about rubble, but corruption does need to be curbed IMO. The current administration has not been good for the rule of law, in spirit. I do think some level of that is unavoidable however, as the judicial branch and executive branches have been sucking power from the legislature for going on 50 years, which also needs correcting.
  - cmcaleer 6mo ago
    It's as much a gun to adversaries' heads if they hold lots of your bonds (China used to hold over $1T in USTs) so they would have an interest in not having that blow up by not annoying the US so much they refuse to pay foreign bonds. It's also kind of neat as a financial MAD instrument, because China obviously can't just get everyone to go into their brokerage and market sell a trillion in USTs so they get a lever to pressure the US with but they can't go nuclear without also vaporising their own value. So it works as a melting ice block on which diplomacy is forced on both sides. The death of the UST as a reserve instrument would be a catastrophically bad loss, the only silver lining is that the melting ice block might still be enough by the end of this admin that the new admin might have enough to stand on to rebuild it should they realise the value of it.
    - fakedang 6mo ago
      > by not annoying the US so much they refuse to pay foreign bonds. The problem with this is that a country can only refuse to pay their foreign bonds once. But the buyer can always dump them and scoop them up later for cheap when shit hits the fan.
      - gus_massa 6mo ago
        Hi from Argentina!
    - BobbyJo 6mo ago
      > It's as much a gun to adversaries' heads if they hold lots of your bonds (China used to hold over $1T in USTs) There is a complicated dynamic at play to consider there. Treasuries and the strength of the dollar only matter to wrt international trade, for both China and the US. You have to ask yourself if the value of the dollar went to 0 for that use case, who would be in a worse position, the one that sells dollars to support consumption, or the one that buys them as a tool for trade with 3rd parties?
    - ghywertelling 6mo ago
      After the US Dollar with Luke Gromen https://youtu.be/OOW-oSruO80?t=4072 https://youtu.be/OOW-oSruO80?t=4072 Luke's key point lands at about 1:08:27–1:08:33, where he says that instead of selling treasuries outright (which would draw attention from the American embassy), China can use them as collateral — and the American banks are happy to take it. He then lists what China gets in return: "I'll take Pereus. I'll take that oil field. I'll take that copper mine. I'll take all that gold." He then adds that this works because the incentives align on both sides — the Chinese want to understate their strength, the Americans want to overstate theirs, and the American banks are happy to accept dollar collateral without asking too many questions.
  - lesuorac 6mo ago
    But why? If you just don't run a mega defict every year you can afford to use the interest other countries would have to pay you to borrow dollars to subsidize your own economy.
    - BobbyJo 6mo ago
      "the interest other countries would have to pay you..." That's the problem, they don't have to, and they can choose not to. The fiscal deficit is a whole separate matter, but I think it is a downstream effect of the kind of policies and economy that develop when you run a huge trade deficit selling your currency for goods and services.
- deanputney 6mo ago
  They are arguing that Trump is controlled by a foreign adversary and doing these things at their direction.
IAmGraydon 6mo ago
The fact that he has done countless things that are harmful to the US and not a single thing that is in the country's best interests tells me all I need to know. Either he's aligned with an enemy or he just hates the country and wants to destroy it.
- hax0ron3 6mo ago
  I disagree with probably the majority of Trump's main policy ideas, but I think a strong case can be made that his immigration policies are in the country's best interests. Not all of them, but as a whole.
  - Larrikin 6mo ago
    Why do you think that?
    - hax0ron3 6mo ago
      Illegal immigration brings masses of people from more corrupt, disordered, and perhaps lower average intelligence societies into the US in conditions that make it hard for even the ones who are capable of assimilation to assimilate. It also constitutes a massive flouting of the law for the benefit of business, which sets a bad precedent and lowers public trust in institutions. It also contributes to rising racial tensions that encourage the growth of ethnic tribalism and weaken trust in liberalism.
      - avidiax 6mo ago
        If you really want to get rid of illegal immigrants, you don't need ICE doing sweeps. Just make them unemployable. Setup an effective employment eligibility system, and require that employers verify the workers in the system before any payment over $100. Collect biometrics from workers and verify against IRS records. Employers that flout this get fines of 10x wages paid, up to N% of revenue, and maybe jailtime for owners and managers that knowingly violate. What we have in the U.S. is a bunch of people and politicians loudly decrying illegal immigration and illegal employment, but enjoying the fruits of that illegal employment while paying a fraction of what legal workers would have to be paid. There's huge appetite for a police state against the little guy, and no appetite for that same police state against business owners and managers.
ZeroGravitas 6mo ago
One less conspiratorial but more pernicious angle, is that attacking things that are good but complex is a great strategy for troll politicians who don't care about the success of their country but just like the attention. See Brexit, and free trade in general. It's a good way to get "the establishment" to gang up on you and defend something complicated while you present simple but wrong alternatives and promise the world. I also think he's up for sale (as are all the other similar politicians) to a multitude of buyers, foreign and domestic.
- vintermann 6mo ago
  For Brexit in particular, it seems clear to me that EU politicians, but the UK ones in particular, used EU as a scapegoat for unpopular economic policy that they themselves actually want, but can't justify effectively to their constituents. "We can't help it, it's an EU requirement" when leaving out that in the EU, their guys totally supported it. That was bound to backfire at some point or another. I think you're right that politicians prefer not to defend complicated (and possibly good) policy to the public. But if they choose easy ways out to avoid it (and they do!) then they're to blame too when it collapses. To blame the public for not blindly trusting them won't do.
  - rwmj 6mo ago
    The alternative is everything falling apart at home and our manufacturing industries declining dramatically. Maybe the "unpopular economic policy" wasn't such a bad idea after all.
    - pjc50 6mo ago
      Well, that's the brexit outcome.
    - simmerup 6mo ago
      The people that voted for Brexit aren't affected by any of that. In fact, they're so protected they'd probably prefer a recession.
yosefk 6mo ago
While we're at it, when did central banks start to buy lots of gold and under which POTUS? Could it have something to do with the freezing of hundreds of billions of some sovereign assets?
- gpt5 6mo ago
  There is something awfully bad happening to the internet, including Hacker News. It seems like rage-baiting, polarizing titles and vibe based comments are being upvoted, with no interest in the facts. For example, in this case: 1. The growth of the gold reserve in comparison to US Treasuries have very little to do with growth in gold acquisition, and has everything to do with gold more than doubling in price in a year. 2. To make it even worse, gold has since fluctuated in value, and treasuries overtook gold momentarily just a week ago. These price fluctuations has nothing to do with geopolitics. 3. Central bank buying of gold has been trending down in the last year, down 21% from 2024. So far in 2026 it's been going even lower. 4. Gold owned by central banks was higher than US treasuries in the 90s (this is mentioned in the article at least). This is a little meta - but the thing that bothers me is that this low quality discussion like in this thread is spreading everywhere with the same mechanism - bring politics and polarization into every place, no matter how tangentially related it is.
  - expedition32 6mo ago
    Everything is politics. Which makes people who want to avoid it look delusional. As for polarization that's been the modus operandi in my country for at least 500 years. Everyone hates everyone but the alternative was the French, English or Spanish so what can you do? Turns out you actually really don't need to love your neighbour.
    - rapnie 6mo ago
      > Everything is politics. This is mentioned often, but is also such a broad generalization that it is not constructive in any meaningful way. If everything is politics, then it can be eliminated from both sides of the equation. Focus on real and immediate problems at hand and providing concrete solutions need not have "politics" label slapped onto it by default, esp. where the ideological infighting this attracts complicates having open and frank discussions based on the facts. "Politics" has become a weaponised word often used to derail good initiatives, and with great success. The mindset that everything is politics may be contributor to that.
scruple 6mo ago
So it's a controlled demolition? In this view, is the goal to devalue our own debt? Extract value while it still has value?
- rapind 6mo ago
  > In this view, is the goal to devalue our own debt? I'm sure that'll be some quacks argument, but I think the goal is simpler. Straight up looting by those in power and their rich friends.

by rapind 6mo ago

> someone too stupid to understand That's only true if he's actually "your guy". There's an alternative where it's not stupidity that I think more people should be mulling over.

ejoso 6mo ago

Say more

BobbyJo 6mo ago
Being a reserve currency puts a gun to your economy's head. It creates an asymmetry where domestic production of material goods has to jump a gap created by favorable exchange rates in PPP terms. Its great for the day to day life style of your citizens, as other economy's do indeed pay tribute, in a sense, to their consumption of goods produced overseas. However, being paid to do nothing becomes a real problem when the checks stop coming. We're basically the national equivalent of a middle manager who's forgotten all the skills that got him there, and we can voluntarily move back down and start to work in earnest again, or wait to get laid off with no severance.
- fnordpiglet 6mo ago
  As someone who lives a day to day life, I’m pretty happy for things that are good for my day to day life. Some abstract quasi moralistic reason that things should be tougher so we compete harder feels a little out of touch. I’d note that it’s not the case the US produces nothing, or that it’s lost its capacity to innovate. Effectively most technology, especially software, but hardware as well, is concentrated in the US. Some aspects of the heavy manufacturing and assembly line happens elsewhere but I’d level the middle manager more at the EU. No, we are taking our advantages and lighting them on fire for no obvious reason. Backing into a rationale doesn’t make it rational. Its Christian nationalism fueling raging narcissism made malignant due to senility. Theres no experts, no adults, no experienced people - they’ve all be fired and replaced with sycophantic photogenic personalities. This is not good, there is no upside, it’s Nero hosting UFC while the empire burns. The only out I see is nature helping end this or a total seismic change in Congress and removal from office. Then rebuilding can start and maybe there’s something to salvage. But I doubt it, and I expect the next generations will exist in the rubble of the colosseum.
  - fc417fc802 6mo ago
    I'm not going to take a side in the broader discussion here, however your response fails to engage with what was previously written. > Some abstract quasi moralistic reason What was presented was neither abstract nor moralistic. The argument was one of driving towards a cliff and taking preemptive action before reaching it.
    - theossuary 6mo ago
      No, it was driving towards a cliff and deciding to jump out of the car instead of pressing the breaks. If you're costing at work, worried about being laid off some day, the last thing you do is just quit; you job hunt and try to change habits. Pretending like we have to feel immense pain to strengthen the economy is the quasi moralistic reasoning of a moron
      - BobbyJo 6mo ago
        You're making a lot of abstract and quasi moralistic arguments for someone with such a distaste for them.
  - BobbyJo 6mo ago
    > Some abstract quasi moralistic reason that things should be tougher so we compete harder feels a little out of touch. I don't see how any of those descriptions fit what I've said. Also, note, things should indeed not be tougher. A consequence of our economy being so focused on financialization of overseas productivity is that the wealth created from that activity tends to be much more concentrated than that produced from manufacturing, at least historically. Though, who knows if that would hold if onshoring took off in earnest. > I’d note that it’s not the case the US produces nothing, or that it’s lost its capacity to innovate Never said either of those things. I only stated that it makes domestic production harder/less profitable. Though, I'd also like to point out that that the largest companies in our economy are wholly dependent on the output of an island with grave geopolitical risks hanging over its head. China could collapse our economy overnight due to unchecked offshoring. That's not quasi, abstract, or moralistic, just a state we've created. > No, we are taking our advantages and lighting them on fire for no obvious reason. Backing into a rationale doesn’t make it rational. Its Christian nationalism fueling raging narcissism made malignant due to senility. I mean, I have named several, and all of which were put forth prior to Trump's term starting. I'm not a fan of Trump, but it would seem to me you are creating a narrative for yourself that doesn't fit history. > Theres no experts, no adults, no experienced people - they’ve all be fired and replaced with sycophantic photogenic personalities. I think Bessent is pretty good. > This is not good, there is no upside, it’s Nero hosting UFC while the empire burns. The only out I see is nature helping end this or a total seismic change in Congress and removal from office. Then rebuilding can start and maybe there’s something to salvage. But I doubt it, and I expect the next generations will exist in the rubble of the colosseum. Idk about rubble, but corruption does need to be curbed IMO. The current administration has not been good for the rule of law, in spirit. I do think some level of that is unavoidable however, as the judicial branch and executive branches have been sucking power from the legislature for going on 50 years, which also needs correcting.
- cmcaleer 6mo ago
  It's as much a gun to adversaries' heads if they hold lots of your bonds (China used to hold over $1T in USTs) so they would have an interest in not having that blow up by not annoying the US so much they refuse to pay foreign bonds. It's also kind of neat as a financial MAD instrument, because China obviously can't just get everyone to go into their brokerage and market sell a trillion in USTs so they get a lever to pressure the US with but they can't go nuclear without also vaporising their own value. So it works as a melting ice block on which diplomacy is forced on both sides. The death of the UST as a reserve instrument would be a catastrophically bad loss, the only silver lining is that the melting ice block might still be enough by the end of this admin that the new admin might have enough to stand on to rebuild it should they realise the value of it.
  - fakedang 6mo ago
    > by not annoying the US so much they refuse to pay foreign bonds. The problem with this is that a country can only refuse to pay their foreign bonds once. But the buyer can always dump them and scoop them up later for cheap when shit hits the fan.
    - gus_massa 6mo ago
      Hi from Argentina!
  - BobbyJo 6mo ago
    > It's as much a gun to adversaries' heads if they hold lots of your bonds (China used to hold over $1T in USTs) There is a complicated dynamic at play to consider there. Treasuries and the strength of the dollar only matter to wrt international trade, for both China and the US. You have to ask yourself if the value of the dollar went to 0 for that use case, who would be in a worse position, the one that sells dollars to support consumption, or the one that buys them as a tool for trade with 3rd parties?
  - ghywertelling 6mo ago
    After the US Dollar with Luke Gromen https://youtu.be/OOW-oSruO80?t=4072 https://youtu.be/OOW-oSruO80?t=4072 Luke's key point lands at about 1:08:27–1:08:33, where he says that instead of selling treasuries outright (which would draw attention from the American embassy), China can use them as collateral — and the American banks are happy to take it. He then lists what China gets in return: "I'll take Pereus. I'll take that oil field. I'll take that copper mine. I'll take all that gold." He then adds that this works because the incentives align on both sides — the Chinese want to understate their strength, the Americans want to overstate theirs, and the American banks are happy to accept dollar collateral without asking too many questions.
- lesuorac 6mo ago
  But why? If you just don't run a mega defict every year you can afford to use the interest other countries would have to pay you to borrow dollars to subsidize your own economy.
  - BobbyJo 6mo ago
    "the interest other countries would have to pay you..." That's the problem, they don't have to, and they can choose not to. The fiscal deficit is a whole separate matter, but I think it is a downstream effect of the kind of policies and economy that develop when you run a huge trade deficit selling your currency for goods and services.
deanputney 6mo ago
They are arguing that Trump is controlled by a foreign adversary and doing these things at their direction.

IAmGraydon 6mo ago

The fact that he has done countless things that are harmful to the US and not a single thing that is in the country's best interests tells me all I need to know. Either he's aligned with an enemy or he just hates the country and wants to destroy it.

hax0ron3 6mo ago
I disagree with probably the majority of Trump's main policy ideas, but I think a strong case can be made that his immigration policies are in the country's best interests. Not all of them, but as a whole.
- Larrikin 6mo ago
  Why do you think that?
  - hax0ron3 6mo ago
    Illegal immigration brings masses of people from more corrupt, disordered, and perhaps lower average intelligence societies into the US in conditions that make it hard for even the ones who are capable of assimilation to assimilate. It also constitutes a massive flouting of the law for the benefit of business, which sets a bad precedent and lowers public trust in institutions. It also contributes to rising racial tensions that encourage the growth of ethnic tribalism and weaken trust in liberalism.
    - avidiax 6mo ago
      If you really want to get rid of illegal immigrants, you don't need ICE doing sweeps. Just make them unemployable. Setup an effective employment eligibility system, and require that employers verify the workers in the system before any payment over $100. Collect biometrics from workers and verify against IRS records. Employers that flout this get fines of 10x wages paid, up to N% of revenue, and maybe jailtime for owners and managers that knowingly violate. What we have in the U.S. is a bunch of people and politicians loudly decrying illegal immigration and illegal employment, but enjoying the fruits of that illegal employment while paying a fraction of what legal workers would have to be paid. There's huge appetite for a police state against the little guy, and no appetite for that same police state against business owners and managers.

ZeroGravitas 6mo ago

One less conspiratorial but more pernicious angle, is that attacking things that are good but complex is a great strategy for troll politicians who don't care about the success of their country but just like the attention. See Brexit, and free trade in general. It's a good way to get "the establishment" to gang up on you and defend something complicated while you present simple but wrong alternatives and promise the world. I also think he's up for sale (as are all the other similar politicians) to a multitude of buyers, foreign and domestic.

vintermann 6mo ago
For Brexit in particular, it seems clear to me that EU politicians, but the UK ones in particular, used EU as a scapegoat for unpopular economic policy that they themselves actually want, but can't justify effectively to their constituents. "We can't help it, it's an EU requirement" when leaving out that in the EU, their guys totally supported it. That was bound to backfire at some point or another. I think you're right that politicians prefer not to defend complicated (and possibly good) policy to the public. But if they choose easy ways out to avoid it (and they do!) then they're to blame too when it collapses. To blame the public for not blindly trusting them won't do.
- rwmj 6mo ago
  The alternative is everything falling apart at home and our manufacturing industries declining dramatically. Maybe the "unpopular economic policy" wasn't such a bad idea after all.
  - pjc50 6mo ago
    Well, that's the brexit outcome.
  - simmerup 6mo ago
    The people that voted for Brexit aren't affected by any of that. In fact, they're so protected they'd probably prefer a recession.

yosefk 6mo ago

While we're at it, when did central banks start to buy lots of gold and under which POTUS? Could it have something to do with the freezing of hundreds of billions of some sovereign assets?

gpt5 6mo ago
There is something awfully bad happening to the internet, including Hacker News. It seems like rage-baiting, polarizing titles and vibe based comments are being upvoted, with no interest in the facts. For example, in this case: 1. The growth of the gold reserve in comparison to US Treasuries have very little to do with growth in gold acquisition, and has everything to do with gold more than doubling in price in a year. 2. To make it even worse, gold has since fluctuated in value, and treasuries overtook gold momentarily just a week ago. These price fluctuations has nothing to do with geopolitics. 3. Central bank buying of gold has been trending down in the last year, down 21% from 2024. So far in 2026 it's been going even lower. 4. Gold owned by central banks was higher than US treasuries in the 90s (this is mentioned in the article at least). This is a little meta - but the thing that bothers me is that this low quality discussion like in this thread is spreading everywhere with the same mechanism - bring politics and polarization into every place, no matter how tangentially related it is.
- expedition32 6mo ago
  Everything is politics. Which makes people who want to avoid it look delusional. As for polarization that's been the modus operandi in my country for at least 500 years. Everyone hates everyone but the alternative was the French, English or Spanish so what can you do? Turns out you actually really don't need to love your neighbour.
  - rapnie 6mo ago
    > Everything is politics. This is mentioned often, but is also such a broad generalization that it is not constructive in any meaningful way. If everything is politics, then it can be eliminated from both sides of the equation. Focus on real and immediate problems at hand and providing concrete solutions need not have "politics" label slapped onto it by default, esp. where the ideological infighting this attracts complicates having open and frank discussions based on the facts. "Politics" has become a weaponised word often used to derail good initiatives, and with great success. The mindset that everything is politics may be contributor to that.

scruple 6mo ago

So it's a controlled demolition? In this view, is the goal to devalue our own debt? Extract value while it still has value?

rapind 6mo ago
> In this view, is the goal to devalue our own debt? I'm sure that'll be some quacks argument, but I think the goal is simpler. Straight up looting by those in power and their rich friends.