18 comments

  • aloha24367 hours ago
    America was in practice running an empire that collected tribute from the rest of planet earth in exchange for entries in a database denominated in a currency they controlled and that was accepted everywhere. Really the only way it could go wrong is putting it under the control of someone who doesn't understand the kayfabe...
    • rapind7 hours ago
      &gt; someone too stupid to understand<p>That&#x27;s only true if he&#x27;s actually &quot;your guy&quot;. There&#x27;s an alternative where it&#x27;s not stupidity that I think more people should be mulling over.
      • yosefk4 hours ago
        While we&#x27;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?
        • gpt53 hours ago
          There is something awfully bad happening to the internet, including Hacker News.<p>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:<p>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.<p>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.<p>3. Central bank buying of gold has been trending down in the last year, down 21% from 2024. So far in 2026 it&#x27;s been going even lower.<p>4. Gold owned by central banks was higher than US treasuries in the 90s (this is mentioned in the article at least).<p>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.
          • j-bos1 hour ago
            Thanks appreciate the broader context in this post. As to your meta comment, besides bots, I think a lot of people are facing a great deal of pain and fear. They&#x27;re emotional and even in hn a critical mass has switched to reading and writing with their gut. Good vibe project, analyse the level of emotionality in comments over time, I&#x27;d bet it&#x27;s gone vertical in the past few months.
          • LeChuck1 hour ago
            Also, never explicitly stating their point. Only asking leading questions.
          • ptero1 hour ago
            I agree with your &quot;sensationalism is bad&quot; take; especially as meaningful, non-incendiary comments now often get quickly downvoted for viewpoint, not tone (IMO downvoting should cost 0.1-0.3 karma). But not with &quot;nothing to see in CB gold holdings fluctuations&quot; view:<p>R1. But central bank gold holdings are rising organically, and partially at the expense of US treasuries. CB gold holdings have been dropping for 35 years, until about 2015. The price rise of gold from 2005 to 2015 did not reverse this trend. From 2015 to 2019 gold price did not rise, but reported holdings did. The recent doubling of the gold price muddies things a little, but the trend is clear.<p>R3. Reported gold purchases have trended down in 2025 and 2026, probably due to price doubling. But they are still positive. Emerging markets did not sell into this strength to build up more liquid holdings (UST) as more effective tools to support their economies against future malaise. Even &quot;trending down&quot; part is muddy, too, because some countries CB do not report it. China, an elephant in the room, started better obfuscating its holdings, including gold, since COVID.<p>R4. Yes. Gold owned by CB strognly trended down since 1980. That trend stopped in 2005 and reversed somewhere between 2005 and 2015. And likely accelerated in the last few years.<p>As a side note, I personally see USTs losing dominance as a reserve asset as a good thing. USG needs some checks on its spending, and world being willing to buy long dated treasuries at below inflation rates incentivizes the &quot;we do not need to solve real problems, we can just print more money&quot; mindset. My 2c.
          • expedition322 hours ago
            Everything is politics. Which makes people who want to avoid it look delusional.<p>As for polarization that&#x27;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&#x27;t need to love your neighbour.
            • rapnie1 hour ago
              &gt; Everything is politics.<p>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 &quot;politics&quot; label slapped onto it by default, esp. where the ideological infighting this attracts complicates having open and frank discussions based on the facts. &quot;Politics&quot; 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.
              • Fricken38 minutes ago
                This is just HN. We&#x27;re explicitly not productive or constructive. We&#x27;re not solving the world&#x27;s problems. We&#x27;re just shooting the shit. This is a forum for wasting time. I guess it wouldn&#x27;t be HN without the delusions of self-importance.
            • manuelmoreale58 minutes ago
              &gt; Everything is politics.<p>Everything you want to be politics is politics. Caring for other people shouldn&#x27;t be politics. Being a decent human being shouldn&#x27;t be politics. There are plenty of things that aren&#x27;t politics unless you decide you want to turn them into politics.
      • ZeroGravitas5 hours 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&#x27;t care about the success of their country but just like the attention.<p>See Brexit, and free trade in general.<p>It&#x27;s a good way to get &quot;the establishment&quot; to gang up on you and defend something complicated while you present simple but wrong alternatives and promise the world.<p>I also think he&#x27;s up for sale (as are all the other similar politicians) to a multitude of buyers, foreign and domestic.
        • vintermann4 hours 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&#x27;t justify effectively to their constituents. &quot;We can&#x27;t help it, it&#x27;s an EU requirement&quot; when leaving out that in the EU, their guys totally supported it.<p>That was bound to backfire at some point or another.<p>I think you&#x27;re right that politicians prefer not to defend complicated (and <i>possibly</i> good) policy to the public. But if they choose easy ways out to avoid it (and they do!) then they&#x27;re to blame too when it collapses. To blame the public for not blindly trusting them won&#x27;t do.
          • 0x3f3 hours ago
            The public is almost fully to blame, and gets the government it deserves. I only hedge a little because education is in control of the state, so to some degree people don&#x27;t choose whether to be educated on the relevant matters.<p>It may be familiarity breeding contempt but I find members of the British public in particular very myopic in obtaining benefits for &#x27;their group&#x27;. There&#x27;s very little interest in society as a whole.<p>Politicians simply bend in order not to upset any of the key voting blocs. But you understand that&#x27;s a selection bias: you wouldn&#x27;t exist as a successful politician if you didn&#x27;t do this. All those who go another path are doomed to obscurity.
            • throw0101c59 minutes ago
              &gt; <i>The public is almost fully to blame, and gets the government it deserves.</i><p>Which has been a popular argument against democracy since at least Plato: just look at the average voter&#x2F;person and their intelligence, understanding of the world, and their character.
            • dijksterhuis2 hours ago
              &gt; The public is almost fully to blame, and gets the government it deserves.<p>I&#x27;d frame this another way -- the public are largely responsible, but we put all the blame on politicians&#x2F;government. we vote for these people while we all know <i>they&#x27;re all talking complete and utter nonsense just to get past the job interview</i>. it is the game. i wish it wasn&#x27;t. i wish i could stand in the house of commons during PMQs and point out every BS line every single one of them says. stand up during question time and shout at all the idiots on the panel, disproving every single bullshit line they&#x27;ve fed the audience with stats and analysis and data [0]. but then we&#x27;d probably end up everyone in the country showing up to PMQs&#x2F;question time shouting over each other all at the same time... which wouldn&#x27;t really work lol.<p>the system is not perfect, but it&#x27;s what we&#x27;ve got.<p>&gt; I only hedge a little because education is in control of the state, so to some degree people don&#x27;t choose whether to be educated on the relevant matters.<p>&gt; It may be familiarity breeding contempt but I find members of the British public in particular very myopic in obtaining benefits for &#x27;their group&#x27;. There&#x27;s very little interest in society as a whole.<p>yeah, like, i&#x27;m kind of lucky that i don&#x27;t have children or any other dependants and i went to posh schools, got a decent academic education [1]. i can afford to sit around, pontificate and moralise about what the large scale right or wrong way of doing things should be. i earn enough and don&#x27;t have kids. hell, i&#x27;d be happy if they increased the rate of tax in the top bands. more money to spend on public services for everyone else who actually needs it. seriously, take my spare disposable income! i&#x27;m only gonna spend it on expensive food and cigarettes that&#x27;s gonna make me overweight and have lung cancer and become a drain on the nhs anyway!<p>my mate with three kids doesn&#x27;t have the time for that. she just wants the school to give her daughter the help she needs and has to fight through a bunch of bureaucracy to get there. bureaucracy which exists because the system is under strain because lots of people are asking for the same resources and they&#x27;ve got to figure out <i>some way</i> of apportioning out the resources. same with my mate who is a single parent to a son with pretty hefty ADHD. it&#x27;s no wonder they fall into the &quot;my group first&quot; attitude and&#x2F;or rhetoric with, for example, immigration. they&#x27;re constantly told there&#x27;s all this money is being spent elsewhere on &quot;some other people&quot; and then they look at their kid&#x27;s school struggling with one support worker for hundreds of kids and it&#x27;s like ... well, wtf. same thing with income taxes etc. &quot;we need money for our kids, why on earth is my tax money being spent on X, Y, Z&quot; etc.<p>to be clear: i don&#x27;t agree with the political views of my friend, and i don&#x27;t really care to debate the politics either. i&#x27;m responding to the &quot;myopic&quot; comment from my own perspective, having previously noticed the interesting differences between myself and my friends. they&#x27;re really lovely people! really nice and kind and loving folks. but they have a selfish&#x2F;fear-based-protectionist side to them, like all humans do.<p>that last bit is the important bit for me. fear leads selfish behaviour. people are worried, the &quot;system&quot; is unstable and constantly under strain. and that makes them act in their own selfish interests because they&#x27;re having to jostle for position within the &quot;system&quot; :shrug:<p>&gt; Politicians simply bend in order not to upset any of the key voting blocs. But you understand that&#x27;s a selection bias: you wouldn&#x27;t exist as a successful politician if you didn&#x27;t do this. All those who go another path are doomed to obscurity.<p>this has always been the critical problem from where i sit. like, we&#x27;re forced to vote for people who, ultimately, may only be in the job for a maximum of 5 years total. we don&#x27;t get to vote on the next 30 years cos the next lot could just undo it all. just look at upcoming negotiations with the EU apparently might involve us moving back towards the single market again, which was the whole &quot;once in a generation&quot; brexit vote thing. turns out it&#x27;s not quite so &quot;once in a generation&quot; [2]<p>the trouble for me is that the commonly implemented &quot;long term&quot; model for governance tends to be stuff like authoritarianism, dictatorship etc. ... so...<p>--<p>i wrote way more for this than i thought i would lol<p>[0]: yeah! let&#x27;s properly hold them to account! i can finally use my autistic powers of calling bullshit for the benefit of all! instead of getting into trouble with my boss at work. again. o_o<p>[1]: the non-academic parts were really damaging though. expensive doesn&#x27;t always mean good. highly rated academically doesn&#x27;t always mean good.<p>[1]: thankfully lol
          • rwmj3 hours ago
            The alternative is everything falling apart at home and our manufacturing industries declining dramatically. Maybe the &quot;unpopular economic policy&quot; wasn&#x27;t such a bad idea after all.
            • simmerup2 hours ago
              The people that voted for Brexit aren&#x27;t affected by any of that.<p>In fact, they&#x27;re so protected they&#x27;d probably prefer a recession.
            • pjc503 hours ago
              Well, that&#x27;s the brexit outcome.
        • sph3 hours ago
          &quot;For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.&quot;<p>The issue is that the stupider the politician, the more likely they are unable to understand why their clear, simple answer to the ills of the world is also wrong.<p>Brexit, whatever is happening in the US, is caused by narcissism (a common trait among politicians) paired with a great deal of stupidity and ineptitude, not only among politicians, but among the populace as well.
      • ejoso7 hours ago
        Say more
        • BobbyJo7 hours ago
          Being a reserve currency puts a gun to your economy&#x27;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&#x27;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&#x27;re basically the national equivalent of a middle manager who&#x27;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.
          • cmcaleer6 hours ago
            It&#x27;s as much a gun to adversaries&#x27; 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.<p>It&#x27;s also kind of neat as a financial MAD instrument, because China obviously can&#x27;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&#x27;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.<p>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.
            • ghywertelling4 hours ago
              After the US Dollar with Luke Gromen<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;OOW-oSruO80?t=4072" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;OOW-oSruO80?t=4072</a><p>Luke&#x27;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: &quot;I&#x27;ll take Pereus. I&#x27;ll take that oil field. I&#x27;ll take that copper mine. I&#x27;ll take all that gold.&quot; 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.
              • californical3 hours ago
                Damn that’s actually a crazy thing to think about but makes perfect sense. Thanks for sharing
            • BobbyJo5 hours ago
              &gt; It&#x27;s as much a gun to adversaries&#x27; heads if they hold lots of your bonds (China used to hold over $1T in USTs)<p>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?
            • IsTom3 hours ago
              They can also just not roll them over. That takes time, but it&#x27;s a good % of holdings each year.
            • fakedang5 hours ago
              &gt; by not annoying the US so much they refuse to pay foreign bonds.<p>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.
          • lesuorac1 hour ago
            But why?<p>If you just don&#x27;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.
          • fnordpiglet6 hours 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.<p>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.<p>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.
            • fc417fc8026 hours ago
              I&#x27;m not going to take a side in the broader discussion here, however your response fails to engage with what was previously written.<p>&gt; Some abstract quasi moralistic reason<p>What was presented was neither abstract nor moralistic. The argument was one of driving towards a cliff and taking preemptive action before reaching it.
              • theossuary5 hours ago
                No, it was driving towards a cliff and deciding to jump out of the car instead of pressing the breaks. If you&#x27;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
                • BobbyJo4 hours ago
                  You&#x27;re making a lot of abstract and quasi moralistic arguments for someone with such a distaste for them.
            • BobbyJo5 hours ago
              &gt; Some abstract quasi moralistic reason that things should be tougher so we compete harder feels a little out of touch.<p>I don&#x27;t see how any of those descriptions fit what I&#x27;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.<p>&gt; I’d note that it’s not the case the US produces nothing, or that it’s lost its capacity to innovate<p>Never said either of those things. I only stated that it makes domestic production harder&#x2F;less profitable. Though, I&#x27;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&#x27;s not quasi, abstract, or moralistic, just a state we&#x27;ve created.<p>&gt; 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.<p>I mean, I have named several, and all of which were put forth prior to Trump&#x27;s term starting. I&#x27;m not a fan of Trump, but it would seem to me you are creating a narrative for yourself that doesn&#x27;t fit history.<p>&gt; Theres no experts, no adults, no experienced people - they’ve all be fired and replaced with sycophantic photogenic personalities.<p>I think Bessent is pretty good.<p>&gt; 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.<p>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.
              • watwut3 hours ago
                Bessent is great example of sycophantic photogenic personality.<p>He knows he is lying and he knows he is harming the economy and people in it. But, that does not matter to him.
        • deanputney7 hours ago
          They are arguing that Trump is controlled by a foreign adversary and doing these things at their direction.
      • IAmGraydon6 hours 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&#x27;s best interests tells me all I need to know. Either he&#x27;s aligned with an enemy or he just hates the country and wants to destroy it.
        • RobotToaster4 hours ago
          Or he and his associates can make a lot of money out of crashing the economy and buying up assets for pennies.<p>Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by greed.
          • rapind3 hours ago
            Yeah I think the most obvious explanation is looting and ego (to explain the ballroom and putting his name everywhere). I also think there&#x27;s an awful lot of foreign influence around him and his family and friends before and during his term(s). I mean if I&#x27;m a foreign actor seeing your leader&#x27;s keen interest in looting, I&#x27;ll probably make him an offer or two...
        • berdario2 hours ago
          I think this is denialism of the profit that the USA extracts with its crimes.<p>The most recent example include the profits from Venezuelan oil:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bbc.co.uk&#x2F;news&#x2F;articles&#x2F;ckgn7p7g79wo" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bbc.co.uk&#x2F;news&#x2F;articles&#x2F;ckgn7p7g79wo</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;venezuelanalysis.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;trump-administration-mandates-venezuelan-oil-royalties-taxes-be-paid-to-us-run-accounts&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;venezuelanalysis.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;trump-administration-manda...</a><p>That money is held in a US treasury account. In February the estimated price from the first 50 M barrels was $2.8bn... with the USA+Israel bombing of Iran, the price of course would have increased since.<p>&gt; It is not clear what portion of the revenues from the sale - which analysts expect to raise about $2.8bn (£2.1bn) - would be shared with Venezuela.<p>But let&#x27;s assume that the USA is going to retain &quot;only&quot; 5% of it: that&#x27;s still 140 million $ of money flowing in, <i>in perpetuity</i>.<p>Not to mention that having control of the whole 2.8 billion $ also buys further room for loan and deals made on the USA&#x27;s preferred currency and preferred terms... Or the expropriation of CITGO.<p>Of course, that money flowing in will be mostly in the pocket of Trump itself, of the billionaires surrounding him, of the military industrial complex (you have to replenish the weapons stockpiles, after all) and all of the federal contractors (that includes most of the FAANG!)... Lots of people in the USA &quot;labor aristocracy&quot; are going to see material benefit from it.<p>Ultimately, there&#x27;s still going to be lots of poor people in the USA who won&#x27;t be able to afford insulin, and there&#x27;s going to be lots of resentment abroad (not only in Venezuela)... And one could split hair that Maduro&#x27;s kidnapping is in the USA&#x27;s interest, but not in its &quot;best interest&quot; (or similarly trying to argue a no-true-scotman for the definition of &quot;USA&#x27;s interest&quot;)<p>Not to mention, but it&#x27;s not only Trump&#x27;s: it&#x27;s everyone who he surrounds himself with: JD Vance, Pam Bondi (until a few days ago?), Pete Hegseth, the military generals that didn&#x27;t get kicked out by Hegseth, etc.<p>They&#x27;re all complicit, and they&#x27;re all going along with him.<p>And of course, if the Democrats will return to power in the next few elections, I don&#x27;t expect them to relinquish the leverage and resources that Trump got them, just like Obama and Biden didn&#x27;t pull out of Afghanistan for several years.<p>Of course, we saw with AIPAC and JStreet that US lobbying is seeing tons of money from abroad: but those are two different faces of the same medal: the oligarchs and the bourgeoisie have common interests across different countries, and the USA is definitely influencing politicians abroad as much, if not more, than moneyed interests abroad are influencing politicians in the USA.<p>The problem is not <i>only</i> Trump
          • 9dev1 hour ago
            &gt; that&#x27;s still 140 million $ of money flowing in, in perpetuity.<p>Oh hey, that&#x27;s roughly enough to cover for Trump&#x27;s new renovation plans!
        • hax0ron36 hours ago
          I disagree with probably the majority of Trump&#x27;s main policy ideas, but I think a strong case can be made that his immigration policies are in the country&#x27;s best interests. Not all of them, but as a whole.
          • InsideOutSanta3 hours ago
            Immigration in general is good for a country, and relatively uncontrolled immigration is one of the reasons for America&#x27;s prior economic strength.<p>Even if you disagree, Trump&#x27;s policies have not been effective at anything, apart from creating headlines.<p>These same headlines have secondary negative effects for the US, like hurting international tourism.
          • Larrikin6 hours ago
            Why do you think that?
            • hax0ron35 hours 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.
              • avidiax5 hours ago
                If you really want to get rid of illegal immigrants, you don&#x27;t need ICE doing sweeps.<p>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.<p>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.<p>There&#x27;s huge appetite for a police state against the little guy, and no appetite for that same police state against business owners and managers.
                • AnthonyMouse3 hours ago
                  There&#x27;s a better way than that. The way the US tax system actually works is incredibly misleading:<p>1) We pretend to have an income tax but then make it work like a consumption tax in practice. Ordinary people put earnings in excess of spending in a 401k and defer the tax until they want to spend the money. Rich people defer capital gains indefinitely until they want to spend the money. It&#x27;s an income tax on paper but a consumption tax in practice, and doing it that way is <i>much</i> more complicated than just using a consumption tax.<p>2) We pretend to have a <i>progressive</i> income tax, but then impose benefits phase outs that fully cancel out the difference in marginal rates between the poor and the rich. Convert the benefits to cash and eliminate the phase outs and you get something which is equally if not more progressive, significantly more efficient and <i>dramatically</i> less complicated.<p>So, you can throw all of that out and replace it with a flat rate consumption tax and a UBI and it would be as close to a Pareto optimal improvement as anything in politics ever is.<p>Which also makes a huge amount of headway against the illegal immigration problem, because <i>another</i> disadvantage of pretending to have an income tax is that it effectively subsidizes anyone paying people under the table since then they&#x27;re not paying the tax. Whereas if people working under the table still have to pay the consumption tax on everything they buy, and they also don&#x27;t receive the UBI because they&#x27;re not lawful residents, they&#x27;d be at a <i>disadvantage</i> relative to ordinary citizens, instead of the existing system where breaking the rules makes you better off.
                  • mothballed1 hour ago
                    The tax code is inefficient on purpose. A simple uniform system is politically infeasible, due to the fact our political system relies on pretending to give special favors to every tailored interest group individually (making the tax code even bigger every time).<p>We arent at a loss of what to change to make it simpler&#x2F;optimal. We&#x27;re at a loss at how to make anyone proposing that not lose the election when everyone else is telling each group they&#x27;ll lose their special carveous and <i>how about I sweeten the deal some more.</i>
                • hax0ron35 hours ago
                  I agree that your idea would be better. That said, it is still quite possible that even Trump&#x27;s immigration approach is overall more good than bad for the country.
                  • unsnap_biceps5 hours ago
                    It&#x27;s really not. They&#x27;re deporting less people than Biden did during the same time[1]. They&#x27;re spending record amounts of money per person deported as well.<p>I don&#x27;t disagree that we should be deporting people faster, but this is not the way to accomplish that goal at all. Nor should we be building huge detention facilities. We should be making the process go smoother and faster, not holding people.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Deportation_in_the_second_Trump_administration#Deportation" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Deportation_in_the_second_Trum...</a>
                    • ChrisGreenHeur3 hours ago
                      If you let in 100 and then throw out 90 you have thrown out many more than if you let in 10 but throw out 30. But the end result is better.
                    • hax0ron35 hours ago
                      Even if Trump&#x27;s approach is worse than Biden&#x27;s, which I&#x27;m not sure of, that still does not mean it is bad for the country.<p>Counting deportations alone does not count people who decide not to come at all.<p>Also, note that I did not say that we should necessarily be deporting more people. I am actually pretty neutral on illegal immigration. But I am trying to address the question of what is good for the country, which is a different thing from what my personal preferences are.
                      • Timon32 hours ago
                        &gt; Even if Trump&#x27;s approach is worse than Biden&#x27;s, which I&#x27;m not sure of, that still does not mean it is bad for the country.<p>But the discussion isn&#x27;t about whether it&#x27;s bad, but whether it&#x27;s in the countries best interest. If you switch to a less effective &amp; more damaging policy compared to your predecessor, it&#x27;s not in the countries best interest, even if it&#x27;s (supposedly) better than nothing.
                    • pfannkuchen4 hours ago
                      Net?
                  • fakedang4 hours ago
                    Trump&#x27;s immigration approach is not an approach - it&#x27;s just an excuse for him to create his own Gestapo.<p>What was the point of sending ICE, a &quot;domestic&quot; agency, to the Winter Olympics, or letting them take over duties from the TSA? What does an &quot;Immigration and Customs Enforcement&quot; agency have anything to do at a foreign country? What&#x27;s the point of the Secret Service then?
              • throw0101c52 minutes ago
                &gt; <i>Illegal immigration brings masses of people from more corrupt, disordered</i> […]<p>&quot;When Mexico sends its people, they&#x27;re not sending their best. They&#x27;re not sending you. They&#x27;re not sending you. They&#x27;re sending people that have lots of problems, and they&#x27;re bringing those problems with us. They&#x27;re bringing drugs. They&#x27;re bringing crime. They&#x27;re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.&quot; — Donald Trump, June 16, 2015<p>* <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.is&#x2F;https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.washingtonpost.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;the-fix&#x2F;wp&#x2F;2017&#x2F;06&#x2F;16&#x2F;theyre-rapists-presidents-trump-campaign-launch-speech-two-years-later-annotated&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.is&#x2F;https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.washingtonpost.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;the-f...</a><p>Never mind that illegal&#x2F;undocumented immigrants have lower crime and incarceration rates than native-born Americans:<p>* <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cato.org&#x2F;blog&#x2F;why-do-illegal-immigrants-have-low-crime-rate-twelve-possible-explanations" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cato.org&#x2F;blog&#x2F;why-do-illegal-immigrants-have-low...</a><p>* <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pnas.org&#x2F;doi&#x2F;10.1073&#x2F;pnas.2014704117" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pnas.org&#x2F;doi&#x2F;10.1073&#x2F;pnas.2014704117</a>
              • 9dev1 hour ago
                &gt; perhaps lower average intelligence societies<p>This is nothing but racism. Intelligence is distributed evenly across humanity.<p>On an unrelated note, how high do you think the rate of American citizens with literacy level 1 is?
          • rapind3 hours ago
            What blows my mind is how liberals and progressives (of which I count myself a member) don&#x27;t see to care that this is the policy that pushed Trump into office. Without it he would have flopped with just his MAGA core.<p>All you need to do to fix illegal immigration is to go after the employers. You know, actually enforce the laws. Streamline it. Declare it a national emergency and put more onerous requirements on businesses to verify legal status. Send ICE to businesses to investigate them instead of kidnapping people.<p>You&#x27;ll probably find out pretty quickly that agriculture is extremely dependent on illegal labour, but so be it. Bring it into the light and have an actual debate. The current approach is all for show, or at worst, intimidation.
    • cringleyrobert16 minutes ago
      Just make sure it’s real gold, not just a number on a spreadsheet, or a golden Twinkie made up of tungsten! India got caught with their heads in their asses with that one!
    • skippyboxedhero1 hour ago
      Not aware of what happened in the 70s then with Bretton Woods? Not aware of what happened pre-08? It has gone wrong multiple times before just for the US and the US exporting inflation is not good for either the US or the rest of the world.<p>As with NATO, I am not sure what the argument is...yes, other countries should take more of a role in their own defence...yes, other countries should take more of a role in their own economic governance&#x2F;financial stability.<p>On this topic specifically though, I will also point out that whatever the faults of the US, no-one had a problem when Germany was exporting crippling levels of deflation (this is one of the main issues that wasn&#x27;t solved after WW2 despite being identified by Keynes: deficit countries will be told they need to rebalance, but not surplus countries). Germany have solved that problem with catastrophically bad foreign policy destroying their economy (once again) but before this, they were the main source of global financial instability (China, to their credit, is probably one of the only countries ever to rebalance from surplus to deficit country...Germany has done this multiple times over the years and has blamed other countries every time).<p>Other countries using gold instead of US debt is good for both the US and those countries. Most of the &quot;increase&quot; has been due to gold rising in value and, fundamentally, it cannot solve the problem because the price cannot rise as much as it needs to but it should be part of a mix with SDRs and other securities.
    • bijowo16767 hours ago
      elections have consequences...
      • laughing_man7 hours ago
        [flagged]
        • aloha24367 hours ago
          &gt; More importantly, in the context of this discussion, every president since Bush&#x27;s first term has had larger deficits than any previous president, regardless of party.<p>Taking on long term debt at or below the risk free rate _is the point._ It didn&#x27;t devalue the currency because the global economy was structured around buying that debt. You just need to not jeopardize that second point.
          • laughing_man4 hours ago
            It&#x27;s a snowball rolling downhill that&#x27;s reached the point where it is out of control. We cannot stop taking on more debt, which is, let&#x27;s face it, just printing money electronically. At some point everything will blow up. I just hope it doesn&#x27;t happen until I&#x27;m gone.
        • rapind7 hours ago
          This glosses over what Bush was handed from the previous guy and then what he left behind for the next guy.
          • laughing_man4 hours ago
            The &quot;previous guy&quot; was constrained by a once-in-a-lifetime Congress that was serious about deficits, and he also benefited by another once-in-a-lifetime spurt of economic growth that dramatically increased tax revenue.<p>As soon as Congress realized they&#x27;d been handed a deficit-free budget they went about spending with wild abandon.<p>And anyway, since that guy we&#x27;ve had two presidents over three terms where the other party controlled the presidency and they didn&#x27;t and they certainly didn&#x27;t break the pattern.<p>Let me ask you this: If you wanted to vote for a guy (or gal) who was serious about reducing the deficit instead of someone who doesn&#x27;t care as long as the wheels don&#x27;t come off during his term, who would you vote for?
            • AnthonyMouse3 hours ago
              Here&#x27;s the better question: If you were serious about reducing the deficit, what would you cut?<p>It should be possible to reduce Medicare costs significantly by going after healthcare costs in general, i.e. create a ton of new medical residency slots and train a lot of new doctors, and make the healthcare companies actually compete with each other. The AMA and healthcare companies are going to fight you hard.<p>We currently make large social security payments to affluent retirees who paid in less than we&#x27;re paying them out. We could reform the system to cost less, i.e. not pay out as much to people who don&#x27;t need the money. The AARP isn&#x27;t going to like it.<p>The DoD budget is pretty big and a lot of it is waste or corruption. But to do this well you have to be good at identifying which parts, you still can&#x27;t eliminate all of it because some of it is pretty important, and this one is the smallest of the three. And the defense contractors will try to stop you.<p>To make a meaningful dent in the deficit you would have to do <i>at least</i> two of those but no one is willing to do any of them.
              • laughing_man2 hours ago
                Agreed. This should have been addressed decades ago, and every year that goes buy it will get harder to deal with.<p>Me, I&#x27;d cut everything. Right now, when interest rates are relatively low, we&#x27;re spending more to service the debt than we&#x27;re spending on defense. This isn&#x27;t a problem we can address with half measures.
    • epolanski5 hours ago
      US will have to refinance $ 10T of debt next year. That&#x27;s a gargantuan amount of money and I see no scenario in which this won&#x27;t have quite higher yields than the expiring one, remnant of the low rate decade.<p>With foreigners and hedge funds less prone to buy US debt right now it&#x27;s going to be quite interesting to see what will happen.
    • expedition322 hours ago
      A lot of countries have their gold reserves in the US.<p>It was a good idea once but there&#x27;s no doubt in my mind that the Americans will confiscate it all.
      • mothballed2 hours ago
        Not your keys, not your coin.<p>America did it to its own people too.
    • epolanski5 hours ago
      And yet the current administration is fixated with trade balance (which conveniently ignores the most important US export that&#x27;s not accounted: services).<p>Look at them countries sending food, cars, machinery for pieces of paper. They taking advantage of us!
    • shake_head_pig26 hours ago
      [dead]
    • neonstatic4 hours ago
      I think pinning this on one guy is a gross oversimplification driven by personal dislike for that guy. In my opinion larger forces are at play. I don&#x27;t mean it in a conspiratorial way; simply put, the structure of global trade, economy, military power, etc. have shifted to such a degree, that this process has become inevitable.
      • ferfumarma3 hours ago
        The Clinton administration ran a budget surplus
        • dannyfritz0754 minutes ago
          He ran a surplus by (In Bill Clinton&#x27;s own words) &quot;ending welfare as we know it&quot;. This was his description of the Personal Responsibility Act he signed. That attack on labor and bolstering of the financial markets was a huge contributor to our economic disasters. Keynesian was never meant to be a permanent solution to a growing capitalism system. And the Hayekian system we have now is just pillaging by neoliberals.
        • neonstatic2 hours ago
          Again, that&#x27;s a domestic issue. It was at a time, when all US adversaries were either in trouble or not stabilized yet.
      • throwaway3153144 hours ago
        Because such a system isn&#x27;t just sunshine and rainbows like OP mentions and has real costs like ever increasing debt burdens and wealth and social inequality which naturally create political instability as lower classes and institutions become increasingly stressed. Trump is just a symptom of sentiment created by these consequences.
      • LightBug12 hours ago
        There is nothing inevitable about strategically moronic war, a super power supporting an ethno-religious genocide, and an orange dildo ripping up international order.
        • neonstatic2 hours ago
          You insist on making it about this administration and your dislike for it, when I am talking about wider shifts like China&#x27;s ascent, America&#x27;s de-industralization, Europe&#x27;s stagnation, drone revolution, shale revolution...<p>This admin&#x27;s shortcomings don&#x27;t need to be listed, anyone with eyes can see. I will just remind you about Biden&#x27;s &quot;minor incursions&quot; comment, that opened to the door to invasion of Ukraine...
          • LightBug12 hours ago
            I&#x27;m not insisting on anything.<p>I&#x27;m fully conscious of tectonic plates shifting and creating huge change and the need for response. But, again, none of what we&#x27;ve seen the current admin engaged in has been inevitable.<p>And no, comparing to Biden will not do here. I couldn&#x27;t care less really about which side is in power (except when there is significant spillover like now). I&#x27;m outside of the USA. But I have never seen anything so ridiculous as the current &quot;strategic&quot; choices of the current admin.
            • neonstatic2 hours ago
              I am outside of the USA too. And I don&#x27;t care either. Plus, once again, when I said inevitable, I meant the process of US losing it&#x27;s primacy, not whatever this admin is doing.
  • potamic8 hours ago
    Dated Jan 9. When the headlines is in present tense, it is kinda misleading to post as-is at a later time.
  • icegreentea28 hours ago
    The events of the last year certainly have a role to play, but the overall effect is just the result of trendlines that have been in play for quite a while.<p>Here&#x27;s a world gold council (i know...) review&#x2F;survey of central banks gold holdings from mid 2025 (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.gold.org&#x2F;goldhub&#x2F;research&#x2F;central-bank-gold-reserves-survey-2025" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.gold.org&#x2F;goldhub&#x2F;research&#x2F;central-bank-gold-rese...</a>). It notes that gold purchases (by mass) have been elevated going back to ~2023.<p>Gold prices have also been on an upward trajectory ever since 2023 (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;goldprice.org&#x2F;gold-price-history.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;goldprice.org&#x2F;gold-price-history.html</a>)<p>Whatever is happening now is bigger than actions over the last year.
    • bijowo16767 hours ago
      Gold has always been stable, because it is physically limited.<p>It is the fiat currency debasement via unlimited money printing that makes the gold chart go up.<p>Imagine being in Zimbabwe or Weimar Germany and watching your stock portfolio and gold going up...
      • andsoitis7 hours ago
        &gt; Gold has always been stable, because it is physically limited.<p>Incorrect. Physical scarcity matters, but it’s not the main driver. Gold’s price is far more sensitive to interest rates, dollar strength, sentiment and fear, speculative flows.<p>The stability it’s historically shown was mostly the result of fixed monetary systems, and those are long gone.
        • bijowo16767 hours ago
          its because you are measuring stable Gold in volatile fiat which is being printed every day depending on the factors you mentioned (interest rates, expectations of future growth, sentiment etc).<p>because you are getting paycheck in fiat, you are psychologically programmed to think of fiat as something stable, and Gold as volatile.<p>while in reality prices expressed in Gold ounces remained fairly stable for example: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;i.redd.it&#x2F;1b5mfrqkxxef1.jpeg" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;i.redd.it&#x2F;1b5mfrqkxxef1.jpeg</a>
          • AnimalMuppet43 minutes ago
            &gt; its because you are measuring stable Gold in volatile fiat<p>You&#x27;re <i>defining</i> gold to be stable, and fiat to be volatile. Well, fiat <i>is</i> volatile, but that doesn&#x27;t make gold stable.<p>Gold (measured in dollars) nearly doubled over the last year. Does that mean that the dollar is worth only half what it was a year ago? No, it doesn&#x27;t. (There&#x27;s been some inflation, but not nearly 100%.)<p>Gold is down 10% since January 28th. Does that mean that the dollar is worth 10% <i>more</i> than it was on January 28th? No, it doesn&#x27;t.<p>Gold is not as stable as you claim it is.
          • mememememememo4 hours ago
            Fiat is a shit investment that loses even with interest but it isn&#x27;t really volatile.
          • thaumasiotes6 hours ago
            You&#x27;re wrong; the prices of precious metals have never been stable, which is why bimetallic systems have always had a lot of problems papering over the notionally fixed exchange rate between coins of different metals.<p>That said, I agree that e.g. gold under a regime where most things for sale are priced in gold is more stable than gold as a novelty investment under a fiat currency regime.<p>When things are priced in gold, most of the demand for gold comes from the fact that it&#x27;s useful as currency. All of the phenomena we have now still exist, and they disturb the price, but they&#x27;re small effects compared to the demand for currency.<p>In the fiat regime, that source of demand is gone. All of the same random effects still push the price of gold around, but because the price is so much lower (due to much lower demand), the price swings are wilder.
        • logicchains4 hours ago
          &gt;Incorrect. Physical scarcity matters, but it’s not the main driver. Gold’s price is far more sensitive to interest rates, dollar strength, sentiment and fear, speculative flows.<p>Those are only relevant on a shorter timescale; on a long timescale gold&#x27;s held its value extremely well. The price of a loaf of bread in gold now is still similar to what it was in the Roman Empire 2000 years ago.
          • Ekaros1 hour ago
            That comparison actually sounds horrible for gold... By all accounts we should be extremely more efficient in manufacturing loafs of bread. So a same amount of gold should buy lot more bread now than 2000 years ago.<p>So if you really think about it. If you held gold for 2000 years. You would only reach same standard of living as 2000 years ago...
          • hdgvhicv3 hours ago
            So you’d be far worse off if you had put your savings in gold than in fiat currency based investments<p>Barely keeping up with inflation is not the win you think it is.
            • AnimalMuppet41 minutes ago
              For certain periods of time, not <i>losing</i> to inflation is a major win. The more people think that we&#x27;re headed into such a period, the more they reach for gold.
        • coliveira7 hours ago
          The real price of gold has been deflated by paper gold&#x2F;futures trading, which has the effect of multiplying the perceived amount of gold in circulation without a necessary counterpart in physical gold. Financial institutions can within limits manipulate the price of gold so that it remains lower than it should be if the physical material had to be delivered.
  • consumer4518 hours ago
    The fact that this all happened by choice is really something.<p>It&#x27;s like witnessing a self-decapitation.
    • somenameforme7 hours ago
      You&#x27;re seeing the result of something that&#x27;s been decades in the making. You can see a simple table of dollar reserves here. [1] They&#x27;ve been consistently falling year over year for the past 27 years. And it&#x27;s not like 1999 was anything particular. Rather the uptake leading up to 1999 as a peak was a result of shenanigans that happened in 1971 [2]. That&#x27;s when the USD became completely unbacked by anything, enabling the government to start going arbitrarily far into debt. That had short to mid-term positive impacts and long-term catastrophic ones, as is the typical strategy in modern times.<p>People always exaggerate the impact of geopolitical things, because it feels like the biggest thing ever, especially when you&#x27;re relatively young. But in reality we&#x27;re always onto nonsense after nonsense. Countries have the wisdom and view to appreciate this, and so respond to geopolitical stuff (in action, not rhetoric) far more gradually than people do. They&#x27;re certainly not going to just dump all their dollar reserves because of a single misguided war or even misguided president, or they&#x27;d have been gone long ago.<p>[1] - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Reserve_currency#Global_currency_reserves" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Reserve_currency#Global_curren...</a><p>[2] - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Bretton_Woods_system#Nixon_shock" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Bretton_Woods_system#Nixon_sho...</a><p>[2] - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;wtfhappenedin1971.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;wtfhappenedin1971.com&#x2F;</a>
      • consumer4517 hours ago
        I hear you, the world is always ending. But, I am well past mid-life, I am a huge beneficiary of Pax Americana, and 47 feels like something truly different. Maybe it&#x27;s just the end of a long pattern, but it is still the end. US-led NATO is dead, and the stability of the USA is dead, therefore the dollar&#x27;s dominance is weakening.<p>Don&#x27;t take my word for it. Listen to Mark Carney at Davos.
        • ivell6 hours ago
          I think there is a realization that (1) US&#x27; checks and balances do not work, (2) Trump is not a &quot;mistake&quot; of voters and can repeat again.<p>This is the main reason that things are different. Most presidents were reasonable in their hegemony, and Trump&#x27;s naked aggression makes everyone to hedge against US.
          • kzrdude2 hours ago
            I think that people also see that government in all its ministries is becoming less competent, because of deliberate actions, firings, and flight of competent people. Uninspiring, uninterested, loyalists as leaders of each department doesn&#x27;t exactly help.<p>And the competence of departments is crucial for the well functioning of the country, services high and low. (Diplomacy, war, and education to electricity and roads).<p>In my view it&#x27;s both that the State Department, for example, is less competent than before, and that the administration is less likely to listen to the experts and Department officers than before.<p>(I&#x27;m not american.)
      • vasco6 hours ago
        How can you reconcile the rest of your comment with:<p>&gt; That had short to mid-term positive impacts and long-term catastrophic ones, as is the typical strategy in modern times.<p>Is the catastrophe still coming from the 70s to now? 50 years later? This is the most repeated quip that makes no sense. Same with companies, everyone just repeats &quot;omg they only care about short term&quot; and then years after years the company trots on.<p>But I guess it&#x27;s easy to say since the defense is &quot;oh just wait&quot;. As if the online commenter is able to see N+1 moves more than whoever they comment about, but that person just simply cannot. Like come on.
        • somenameforme18 minutes ago
          The site [1] I already linked has a number of excellent graphs of the endless major inflection points driven by the shift in 1971. Most started in the years prior to 1971 since 1971 was, itself, also a longer term consequence of years of previous mistakes.<p>Many of those issues started out fairly small and had a rather small impact relative to the initial benefits of &#x27;financial liberty&#x27;, but those benefits faded fairly rapidly, while the consequences not only remain, but continue to grow. It turns out that free money is rather expensive.<p>If you look at the achievements and progress that was being made in the 60s in the US in practically every domain, and then you showed them what 60 years in the future awaited for them, the most common response would probably be &#x27;what went wrong?&#x27;<p>[1] - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;wtfhappenedin1971.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;wtfhappenedin1971.com&#x2F;</a>
    • SilverElfin8 hours ago
      It’s not a self decapitation exactly. I think Trump, his family, his corporate donors, and other friends are all willing to sacrifice everyone else - including the lead America had - to make themselves rich and powerful. Every single decision to spend - defense, ICE contracts, AI, approvals of anticompetitive acquisitions, changes to regulations, etc - is making that circle richer at our expense.<p>They don’t care if American supremacy is lost or if the dollar crashes or if the national debt becomes a crisis. As long as they have their wealth. The public is being decapitated, not them.
      • consumer4518 hours ago
        That&#x27;s fair. I agree. I was thinking of the USA as one actor. The USA votes, or chooses not to, and that has effects.
        • pjc503 hours ago
          People like to do this because it&#x27;s simple, but it&#x27;s so unrealistic that it&#x27;s basically a fairy story in terms of explanatory power.<p>You have to take account of warring internal factions.
        • SilverElfin8 hours ago
          True. In that sense the voters have self decapitated. I can’t understand how the Trump administration still has support from 40% of the country (per polls). I could understand voting for him due to some issue a voter has strong feelings about. But now we have seen it all play out and it’s a disaster leading to national ruin. And there is no talk of impeachment, trials, and accountability for everyone in his circle. So I guess that 40% DOES choose to self decapitate.
          • aaronbrethorst7 hours ago
            Heather McGhee&#x27;s concept of &#x27;drained pool politics&#x27; really resonates with me: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;newrepublic.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;171844&#x2F;heather-mcghee-moving-beyond-drained-pool-politics" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;newrepublic.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;171844&#x2F;heather-mcghee-moving...</a>
          • b3ing8 hours ago
            They don’t care when the media on am and talk radio, evangelical and mega churches, and all the conservative news tells them what to believe
            • consumer4518 hours ago
              Media that is never critical towards one side is what started all of this. A politician&#x27;s kryptonite is when their voters find out that they lied or were hypocrites. That is a universal truth.<p>Single party media outlets like News Corp, Sinclair, Euronews, and so many others have broken that system entirely.<p>My test to see if someone is a shill&#x2F;moron is to simply ask them to say one obvious bad thing about &quot;their side.&quot; If they cannot, it becomes clear that they are not worth listening to.
              • andsoitis7 hours ago
                What’s the worst thing, in your mind, about “your side”, assuming you have one.
                • consumer4517 hours ago
                  I grew up in Seattle mostly, some of my policy positions could paint me as a progressive, and they are somewhat &quot;my people.&quot;<p>It turns out that progressives are just as easily fooled as any other group, by a slick turn of phrase. For example, &quot;Genocide Joe.&quot;<p>I once thought my group was more thoughtful. But, it turns out that ALL of us are easily programmed meat machines.<p>Voted for Obama, he totally messed up with Russia and Crimea.<p>I could go on, and on. I believe that the only -ism I can believe in is fallibilism.
            • georgemcbay8 hours ago
              &gt; and all the conservative news tells them what to believe<p>And most traditional news is conservative now.<p>The idea that the mainstream media was ever leftest was always wrong, but these days its absolutely laughable and yet a lot of people still parrot this like it is the truth.
      • ETH_start6 hours ago
        The US lead over the EU in per capita productivity has massively grown over the last 20 years. There&#x27;s no indication of waning American power.<p>America has produced 70 times more stock market wealth if you look only at companies created within the last 50 years than the EU. And this is not all paper wealth. If you look at technological sophistication, whether that&#x27;s frontier AI models, leading-edge pharmaceutical drugs, total amount of compute, or the space industry, the U.S. has grown its lead over the EU over the last 50 years.<p>It&#x27;s because the EU has largely fixated itself on reducing wealth inequality by punishing those who succeed. It&#x27;s safety-maximalist approach to private industrial action has also hamstringed industry — see Germany closing all 17 of its nuclear power plants. The US doesn&#x27;t really need to do much except not sabotage itself to maintain its lead. Like in all nations, laissez-faire (French for &quot;leave it alone&quot;) allows the private sector to do the rest.
        • whatever12 hours ago
          Does Azure&#x2F;AWS&#x2F;Google&#x2F;FB sell as well in China as well it does in the EU?<p>They sell close to 0. Europe made a conscious decision to not limit the reach of the infinite margin US companies.<p>The deal was we buy your fancy services and expensive war toys, but you keep us safe.<p>America forgot its obligation. Hence the deal is off.<p>Now VW is making war machines and Airbus is building AI infra.
          • ETH_start2 hours ago
            Even if US companies only had the US market, they&#x27;d be massive — Google gets ~50% of its revenue from the US alone, Amazon over 60% from North America, and most other Big Tech is in that same range. The US market by itself is plenty huge. And the EU provides 20-30% of US Big Tech revenue. Even losing all of that (very unlikely even under protectionist policies), US tech companies would be doing well, with 70-80% of their current revenue.<p>Sure, full-blown protectionism everywhere would make the world including the US poorer (less specialization, less division of labor), but it would also harm EU exports, as the US is the EU&#x27;s biggest importer, and moreover it wouldn&#x27;t change the factors behind the growing US-EU gap. US-EU trade policies with each other are basically the same. The difference is internal, and mostly comes down to the US just not sabotaging the private sector as much.
        • overfeed5 hours ago
          &gt; It&#x27;s because the EU has largely fixated itself on reducing wealth inequality by punishing those who succeed.<p>It&#x27;s actually because America pivoted[1] from manufacturing to higher-margin services (financial, tech[2]), and generations of American Diplomats had negotiated trade deals that ensure American services are never shut-out or hobbled in most countries. American companies won&#x27;t look so special,or be nearly as profitable, once they lose their default status that allow them to siphon money from all over the globe -including Europe<p>1. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;americanbusinesshistory.org&#x2F;2022-updated-largest-companies-charts&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;americanbusinesshistory.org&#x2F;2022-updated-largest-com...</a><p>2. Silicon valley caught lightning in a bottle. Other American locales repeatedly tried and failed to replicate it - so it rules out American legislative attitudes as the vital ingredient.
          • ETH_start2 hours ago
            If you&#x27;re familiar with American capital markets and global venture capital, you&#x27;d know that it had almost nothing to do with these trade deals. They had a marginal impact. The amount of capital available to startups and established companies at all stages of their development was the main difference. And the difference between the US and EU in that regard came mostly from the US simply not sabotaging itself the way the EU did with extremely high taxes on the top income earners, as part of an agenda to reduce wealth inequality.<p>The fact that the tech industry concentrated in Silicon Valley is simply due to network effects. Regardless of which locale became the Schelling point for U.S.-based technology companies, that locale would have succeeded, because of the national economic policy it operated inside of.
      • dartharva8 hours ago
        Weakening your own domain to get powerful sounds clearly contradictory, yet there are so many examples of elites doing exactly that despite the fact that doing so must&#x27;ve required foresight and planning elaborate enough to not blind them from the consequences.
        • throwaway2901 hour ago
          &gt; Weakening your own domain to get powerful sounds clearly contradictory<p>No because it&#x27;s relative. If people around you get weak then you get more powerful automatically. If you get more powerful and people around you also get more powerful then you are in the same situation.<p>So if power is what you want you destroy others at the same time as building your power. What trump is doing is logical. He isn&#x27;t living in china or russia. he doesn&#x27;t care if they get stronger. he cares if people around get weaker relative to him and cronies who are in on it. and that works
      • IAmGraydon6 hours ago
        Funny enough, that&#x27;s capitalism, isn&#x27;t it? Survival of the most ruthless, and morality is a weakness. Are we surprised he was born out of this?
      • bijowo16767 hours ago
        The worst part is that I dont see a meaningful opposition to Trump.<p>if American political system allows President to do that and allows such President to be elected, than such system deserves to die.
      • refurb8 hours ago
        How does sacrificing America&#x27;s lead make American oligarchs richer? That doesn&#x27;t even make sense.
        • toyg7 hours ago
          It does, it&#x27;s textbook &quot;banana republic&quot;. Dictator and close circles enrich themselves, everyone else gets poorer.<p>US voters were so worried that South America would come to them, that they have become the worst of South America.
        • vincnetas7 hours ago
          basically make decisions that make no sense but benefit you financially. Sample. you run a printing business. you dont own it just run it. you sell your main printer and assign a performance bonus to your self. next month your business is closed because you dont have equipment to print, but you also have your bonus in pocket.
        • bijowo16767 hours ago
          just like stock trader, you can get rich from going long, you also can get rich by shorting the economy (selling short).<p>this is what trump is doing: selling America short
        • heavyset_go5 hours ago
          Look at post-USSR Russia
    • themafia8 hours ago
      America just experienced a leveraged buy out.
    • refurb8 hours ago
      Not really. It has more to do with gold is now worth almost 3x what it was 2 years ago.<p>And before you get too excited, this &quot;news&quot; from the World Gold Council. A consortium of gold mining corporations. Clearly it&#x27;s a pump article &quot;have you bought gold yet? everyone else is! why not you!?!?&quot;
      • onion2k7 hours ago
        <i>Not really. It has more to do with gold is now worth almost 3x what it was 2 years ago.</i><p>It&#x27;s not like we&#x27;ve suddenly found new and exciting uses for gold though. The reason the price has gone up is because the demand for it has gone up, and the reason why demand has gone up <i>is</i> because people want an alternative to U.S bonds. A bunch of pump articles wouldn&#x27;t be enough to lead to a 3x price increase.
      • chronc63933 hours ago
        &gt; It has more to do with gold is now worth almost 3x what it was 2 years ago.<p>And why is it worth 3x?<p>But S&amp;P500 is not?
      • consumer4517 hours ago
        Are you saying that the USA is doing just great and there is nothing for anyone to worry about?<p>Are you saying that the price of gold just spontaneously went up?<p>From over hear it seems like the age of Pax Americana is over, and gold at ~$4,600 is one of the results.
        • rustystump7 hours ago
          No, but it was due for a correction for a while now. That correction has sparked extra speculation because everything is gambling now.<p>Ofc those with an incentive of higher priced gold will tell to buy gold. Only time will tell if they were right.
  • richardatlarge4 hours ago
    Silver has gone up more by percentage since 47, as a side note
  • tsoukase53 minutes ago
    Since a lot of time the US economy and finance are under stress. Not panic but stress. And this makes the leaders stressful too, so they take defensive and hostile actions, most lately by the Trump&#x27;s government. The world will neither wait nor allow the US to remain leader, especially with non standard ways. The world changes to a tri-pole with satellite nodes. Gold price is just a variable in the system and is dependent of the global state.
  • znnajdla3 hours ago
    For the first time in history we are seeing multiple signals of USD losing its #1 position to EUR, all within the last year :<p>1. Euro-denominated interest rate derivatives (IRD) overtook US dollar-denominated contracts in the over-the-counter (OTC) market for the first time in history and the scale of the crossover is staggering.<p>2. EUR Real Effective Exchange Rate (REER) which measures actual purchasing power (not nominal price) is going in the opposite direction of USD real purchasing power (RTWEXBGS). 2025&#x2F;2026 is the largest divergence in history: 10 percentage points in a year.<p>3. US treasuries is no longer a number 1 foreign reserve asset. EUR reserves grew 2.5x faster than USD reserves when measured in its own absolute terms.<p>Unlike the Eurozone which maintains a fiscally responsible budget with reasonable debt and a trade surplus, there is simply no foreseeable fix to the problem of ballooning US debt and trade deficits. Nothing can fix the US budget mess.<p>Anyone who is paying attention to the numbers would certainly have more confidence in EUR over USD.
  • 9dev1 hour ago
    Are you tired of winning yet?
  • edweis7 hours ago
    Is there a place where we can find the complete USA investment portfolio?
    • Havoc56 minutes ago
      You mean debt portfolio?
  • justsomedev26 hours ago
    Cant wait for US to go bankrupt
    • nickserv3 hours ago
      Be careful what you wish for.
  • yalogin7 hours ago
    I am actually convinced that the last year started the descent of the U.S. as the world’s super power. No wonder U.S. treasuries lost trust. It’s only going to get worse. It doesn’t matter what some billionaires do&#x2F;get from their ability to manipulate some powers be. The rest of the investment community understands that free markets are strengthened by rule of law and adherence to the law and deploying a self styled socialistic distribution of economic capital is not signaling strength but weakness to the world.
    • laughing_man7 hours ago
      People have been convinced of that my entire life, and I&#x27;m old now.
      • californical3 hours ago
        My parents refused to digitize their precious memories stored in VHS tapes. We’ve watched them every few years, and whenever I’be tried to convince them to digitize the tapes, my dad says “oh we’ve been hearing about vhs tapes degrading forever now, it still works”<p>Meanwhile the video fades more and more every few years, you can barely even make out faces and objects in the frames now. But it’s happened so slowly that he never really realized that it was happening all along
      • chronc63932 hours ago
        &gt; People have been convinced of that my entire life, and I&#x27;m old now.<p>People in the UK still think they are the #1 superpower today
      • vincnetas7 hours ago
        yes it takes multiple generations until empires collapse. even then there are remains left. usa will not disappear it will just become less relevant.
        • sph2 hours ago
          Dreaming of the day where the average non-American doesn&#x27;t know who the US attorney general is, the name of their secretary of war, and the details of every internal political machination.
          • 9dev1 hour ago
            I recommend dreaming of they day they don&#x27;t have a secretary of war but defence again
      • brazukadev3 hours ago
        A lot of English people still have issues accepting they are not a world super power anymore.
    • gpvos7 hours ago
      It only accelerated what was already happening. But yes, Trump accelerated it by <i>a lot</i>. He&#x27;s a madman.
  • therobots9278 hours ago
    America really is in for a wake up call.
    • themafia8 hours ago
      The federal government is. We&#x27;ll see if the founders concept of a union of states is worth as much as it was proclaimed to be.
      • aloha24367 hours ago
        &gt; We&#x27;ll see if the founders concept of a union of states is worth as much as it was proclaimed to be.<p>States can&#x27;t issue their own currency, they&#x27;re all going wherever the nation goes on this one.
        • themafia5 hours ago
          &gt; States can&#x27;t issue their own currency<p>Of course they can. You&#x27;re pointing out that federal law currently prohibits it? I already understood that to be the case when I made my point.<p>&gt; they&#x27;re all going wherever the nation goes on this one.<p>Unless they all collectively decide on a different course of action. The constitution was left amendable. It has been done several times already. A simple option is to repeal the 17th and to return to a state assembly controlled federal senate.
          • NewJazz4 hours ago
            How would that benefit anyone?...<p>The core feature of the senate that makes it so indefensible is how it assigns power to states, not people. That relationship cannot be amended, per article 5 of the us constitution.
            • themafia4 hours ago
              It&#x27;s far easier to change a state government than it is the federal government. The states used to be able to recall Senators if they failed to do their jobs correctly; as determined by the elected body within the state. It&#x27;s simply a single level indirection of Democracy. The House of Representatives is direct. This was intentional.<p>What&#x27;s &quot;indefensible&quot; about this?<p>And you can amend how the body is elected; hell, you can amend how the president is elected. Also Article V provides for a state &quot;constitutional convention&quot; as a process for initiating changes, bypassing both the Senate and the House.
              • jasomill3 hours ago
                For that matter, you could amend the Constitution to change the process for amending the Constitution, even to eliminate the possibility of future amendments altogether.
      • therobots9278 hours ago
        That’s interesting. Hadn’t thought of it that way. I can’t for the life of me figure out why more blue states aren’t taxing their wealthy occupants to cover the gap in lost federal funding from DOGE. If they were smart they would start stretching that muscle.
        • dpb0017 hours ago
          The union of states arrangement has the side effect of putting the states in competition with each other for things like new&#x2F;expanding businesses and residents. It&#x27;s relatively easy to relocate (or even remain in a state while legally &quot;residing&quot; elsewhere). So there are diminishing returns to raising the tax rates significantly on the upper brackets at the state level. I&#x27;m not a believer in the trickle down theory but beyond a certain marginal rate many people would just move to a state with a lower rate.
          • vincnetas7 hours ago
            this somehow excludes such human concept as sense of belonging. might be in usa it has atrophied already but sense of home is really important in some places. place where you spend most of your life, where you have you real social network, neighbors and childhood friends. sometimes its lower tax is not worth loosing it all. its not everything about money (for some)<p>ps im talking about real persons here, not corporations
            • fc417fc8025 hours ago
              You&#x27;re talking about people who aren&#x27;t ultra wealthy there. Once the tax bill gets high enough relative to elsewhere it doesn&#x27;t make sense not to jump through the hoops to change your place of residence.
        • Acrobatic_Road6 hours ago
          they are trying and its backfiring on them
    • refurb8 hours ago
      Why? Because gold bugs caused a gold bubble?
  • mt181 hour ago
    [dead]
  • nmbrskeptix8 hours ago
    [dead]
  • hackernews6829 hours ago
    [flagged]
  • johng8 hours ago
    If the value of gold goes up, doesn&#x27;t this essentially help the US anyway? I believe our gold reservers are twice that of the closest country?<p>Source: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tradingeconomics.com&#x2F;country-list&#x2F;gold-reserves" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tradingeconomics.com&#x2F;country-list&#x2F;gold-reserves</a>
    • somenameforme7 hours ago
      Too tired to write a novel like I usually would here, but we control the printing and, in large part, the distribution of USD. We don&#x27;t control anything about gold. Then the USD was king, it entailed tremendous power and control in many ways beyond the obvious like the ability to try to kick people out of the &#x27;global&#x27; economy. This is the not-so-secret purpose behind BRICS and dates back to issues starting in 1971.
  • Animats7 hours ago
    Wow. This reflects the price of gold going up. A lot.