171–180 of 233 posts
It always gives me an ominous feeling to see these headlines. It's like we're walking out further and further on a frozen lake. "Hey, it's OK, the ice hasn't cracked yet! Let's keep going!"
end is probably ww btw. so are you all ready? last time it did work and lost of war debt was paid
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[RETRACTED]
You have me confused with someone else. This was me 3 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47986799 > If American foreign policy was rational, we wouldn’t have been involved in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and now Iran. Not to mention Somalia, Kosovo, and Libya, and countless minor skirmishes. We’ve been throwing kids into the meat grinder for 75 years, and lighting dollars on fire, for no good reason. There’s n…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
You made a tiny mistake, you forgot the $800 billion for the military!
China and Russia, meanwhile, spend about $450 billion. And you know they get a lot more for their dollar than we do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, healthcare in the US is dramatically more expensive than in other countries. This is true for publicly funded healthcare (e.g. Medicare) and privately funded healthcare. I already mentioned drug prices, another input in the cost of US healthcare is the cost of physician salaries. Physicians in the US are paid ~2x what physicians in the UK are paid [1]. One input to physician salaries is that we limited the num…
I'm not denying it's more expensive. I'm disagreeing with your premise that we could reach the cost effectiveness of European countries. Europe and America aren't interchangeable. You can't achieve the same results in each just by turning the policy knobs to the same settings.
If I compare the prices of a PS5 in the US to a PS5 in the UK (excluding the 20% Tax), they are basically the same price [1].
If I buy a pair of 501 Levi's jeans in the UK [2] and a pair of 501 Levi's jeans from the US [3] I pay basically the same price (again excluding VAT).
If I buy a Ford compact crossover in the US and buy a Ford compact crossover in the UK, I pay basically the same price of ~$33k.
Please explain why it is a fact of life that a drug in the US costs considerably more than the same drug from the same manufacturer just purchased in Europe.
Why can we not compare the cost of drugs Canada, Japan, UK, Germany, ... to the price of drugs in the US?
And again, drugs cost considerably more in the US whether they were purchased publicly or privately.
[1] https://blog.playstation.com/2026/03/27/new-price-changes-fo...
[2] https://www.levi.com/GB/en_GB/clothing/men/jeans/straight/50...
[3] https://www.levi.com/US/en_US/clothing/men/jeans/straight/50...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bingo! Any country borrowing in its own sovereign currency cannot default on debt in that currency, unless it actively decides to do so for political reasons.
This is a fantasy. Do you really think lenders would just not notice if America inflated its currency away to get rid of its debts, and they'd just say "aw shucks you got us. Anyways, here's a new loan at the same terms as last time." ? And what about the American public? Look at how much Americans freaked out over a year or two of 6% yearly inflation. How do you think Americans would respond to 30% monthly inflation…
How so.
> Do you really think lenders
A government with its own sovereign currency doesn't need lenders. In fact, it is the government that allows lenders to lend money - not the other way around.
> Anyways, here's a new loan at the same terms as last time." ?
Why would they need to get a loan for from a lender?
> How do you think Americans would respond to 30% monthly inflation like in Argentina or Turkey?
Do you think that printing money automatically causes inflation? How does that work? Do people have some kind of magical device, or is it a physical phenomenon that can be measured? Of course not. Printing money only causes inflation if it is spend in a way exceeds the capacity of the market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I didn't do anything, that wasn't me. Ok you're defending it. > I don't claim anything, but if this isn't overspending then I think we agree to disagree. Ok if it's over-spending then let's cut the programs that align with my ideology instead of cutting military spending. > You want to solve that with weapons?? That'll only make everyone drop the dollar, as simple as that. Not worried at all - those dollars become…
> Specifically in the case of economic warfare, Iran is losing badly. The worst outcome is some MAGA coal rollers have to pay more for gas. Iran's economy literally doesn't function due to our blockade (which means we also control the Strait of Hormuz). I'd rather pay extra at the pump (well I drive an EV but w/e) then have like 80% of my economy held hostage. No, the worst outcome is Iran continues to mess up everyo…
Which is precisely the reason to attack now before this problem becomes much worse and then Iran adds in nuclear weapons too.
> However, right now Iran seems to have the strategic and weapons (no really*) advantages vs. the USA that Ukraine has vs. Russia, so it is a risk worth taking seriously.
I just disagree. Even in your scenario for example the US GDP falling 10%, well, we can stomach that. If we can't, we should pack up the military because any war is going to threaten GDP and we won't be able to defend NATO against a Russian attack (nor can Europe because GDP will fall) nor can we defend Taiwan. I think you and many others are confusing "I don't like this war" with "we can't tolerate temporary disruptions and price shocks".
But in any case Iran's GDP falls 90%, that's much more devastating. Their unemployment rate goes close to 90%. They are already blockaded and we control the Strait of Hormuz too (in order to control the Strait they have to be able to allow access as well, not just deny - we deny too so technically either neither party controls it or we both do).
You're certainly right to point out additional potential damage to regional partners and allies (which further proves the point that this problem must be resolved else Iran can threaten this at any time), but if Iran were to attempt to execute such an attack, it would create a global problem necessitating a global response, troops on the ground, the actual Iranian regime dead - don't forget they do have lives they want to live and we can ensure they and their families don't have that privilege. Iran just the other day struck a ship in the Suez Canal - these global chokepoints can't live hostage to an Iranian regime just because whoops they decided they don't like that the US sold Patriot missiles to Ukraine which they're using to defend against Iran's buddy Russia so you better stop or we'll attack the Strait and the Red Sea and the Suez Canal. We simply cannot and will not live under threat.
Separately I wouldn't liken Russia vs Ukraine to Iran vs America. They're not at all similar outside of a small discussion about the increasing important of drone warfare which the US is already well aware of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again you can do both - you can cut these wasteful programs, you can have a well-funded government that's already well-funded with trillions of dollars, and then also reform healthcare all without raising taxes. Use your imagination.
That sounds nice in a perfectly spherical world but we live in reality. Getting bogged down in line item spending is a trick politicians use to divide us. Net discretionary spending is only 27% of the budget, social security, Medicare, and military spending make up the other 73%. If you eliminated all discretionary spending, we’d still be running a budget deficit.
Politicians? You're sitting here arguing about the line item spending instead of just admitting we should cut obviously bad spending. That's the division that's taking place and it's happening right here in this thread and it's your doing! lol
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they're still wastes of money, and based on the one-line description provided by the OP, they are rather absurd. A few others I can think of: Government insurance/funding for homes destroyed by natural disasters - why am I bailing out Florida homeowners when their home is destroyed by a hurricane? At best you get the first one free and then you're on your own after that. Billions for highway construction that is…
I think it would be more wasteful overall to not give that bailout to florida home owners. A walking migrant crisis and maintaining the refugee camps for impovrished floridians after a hurricane sounds extremely expensive for a long time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they're still wastes of money, and based on the one-line description provided by the OP, they are rather absurd. A few others I can think of: Government insurance/funding for homes destroyed by natural disasters - why am I bailing out Florida homeowners when their home is destroyed by a hurricane? At best you get the first one free and then you're on your own after that. Billions for highway construction that is…
The broad point above by @bilsbie is wrong. Fake made up items completely undermine the point’s credibility, and science spending in the U.S. provides a return on investment, it’s not losing money. That is pure political propaganda and not truth. Your new items have a touch more validity than top comment, but you’re making vast assumptions and stating opinions not shared by all, and not accounting for the economic co…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Haha, so you can bribe the President? I hope this comment is satire. The "masses" are well aware of crypto at this point and BTC is down 47% over this past year. It's just not that useful unless you're trying to skirt laws/regulations[1] or LARPing as a sovereign citizen. 1: Yes, I know, BTC is not even good pick for financial crimes either.
Sounds like you should short it then!