Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

2025 Letter

danwang.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 340 posts

Re: 2025 Letter

#61

Post by yunnpp »

bix6 wrote: post #55
dzonga wrote: post #49

London has the house prices of California and the income levels of Mississippi. the UK is seriously broken, I always reflect on the energy generation statistics of the UK per capita while in the US you see automated car washes, in the uk most car washes are Albanians n other immigrants etc

House prices are out of wack anywhere desirable because the local income is irrelevant when non-locals are allowed to scoop up the local supply.

Countries like Indonesia have banned foreigners from owning land altogether. You can apparently still own property through land-lease agreements and other arrangements, but not the land. I think they've cracked down on illegal rentals too.

Re: 2025 Letter

#62

Post by loudmax »

apples_oranges wrote: post #16
152334H wrote: post #5

> Beijing has been preparing for Cold War without eagerness for waging it, while the US wants to wage a Cold War without preparing for it. great line

It's not clear what the US plan even is. Move all manufacturing back home and compete with China ASAP?

The "US plan," is driven by the executive office. That is to say, the by the US president.

Insofar as there is any plan, the current officeholder's priorities are to project the appearance of personal power on television. If you're wondering what's going on strategically, don't go thinking that there's some grand plan, or even an intention to benefit the United States in the long term. There are some people in the cabinet who are thinking long term, but that's not universal, and that's not what they're selected for. Every action that is taken is to satisfy the president's narcissism and ego in the present moment. You have to understand the "US plan" in this light for anything coming out of the executive office to make sense.

Re: 2025 Letter

#63

Post by nullorempty »

dpark wrote: post #51
nullorempty wrote: post #35

>Lack of action due to the expectation of long timelines is one of the sins of the lawyerly society. >But American problems seem more fixable to me than Chinese problems. China has stayed on trajectory of improving life of its society for a long time. USA has been in decline all that time and decent accelerated after Cold War with Russia ended. All of China's growth comes from its internal resource. Growth in the USA…

> USA has been in decline all that time and decent accelerated after Cold War with Russia ended. Exactly when do you believe this decline started? I have some major concerns about the current trajectory of the USA, but it seems like nonsense to say that the US has been in decline since well before the Cold War ended. > I can't speak freely in Canada I wonder what it is that you want to say but can’t. Comparing China…

> Exactly when do you believe this decline started? with 'perestroyka' in the USSR which predates end of the cold war - ever since they thought they won over communist/socialist ideas and accelerated with the breakup of the USSR

>I wonder what it is that you want to say but can’t.

Nice try, this won't provoke me.

>That’s true. Unelected officials can stay in power and accrue wealth for much longer than elected officials.

Sure, sure. The systems are setup differently but you are using the same logic for both coming from the assumption that power is used to acquire personal wealth.

For some (many) power isn't about acquisition of wealth but about responsibility, taking care of a hard chore. It's a mistake to think that Xi is in power for wealth.

I often draw a parallel with being a father. You have some power, but mostly you have responsibilities.

Re: 2025 Letter

#64

Post by nradov »

ksec wrote: post #58

In the thread "Roomba maker goes bankrupt, Chinese owner emerges" [1], I wrote about China'a hardware capability now going far beyond what US can imagine. In Dan's article; >A rule of thumb is that it takes five years from an American, German, or Japanese automaker to dream up a new car design and launch that model on the roads; in China, it’s closer to 18 months. Not only is China 3 - 5 times faster in terms of prod…

China doesn't particularly need US soybeans but they're going to have to continue importing soybeans from somewhere (like Brazil or Canada) indefinitely. Like any commodity, soybeans are (somewhat) fungible. China doesn't have the right combination of arable land and cheap fertilizer necessary to be self-sufficient in soy at an economically viable cost. Of course, China's population is now declining so ironically that could increase their food security in a few decades.

Re: 2025 Letter

#65

Post by seanmcdirmid »

glitchc wrote: post #45
apples_oranges wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clear what the US plan even is. Move all manufacturing back home and compete with China ASAP?

The US doesn't have a plan, it has a framework. The framework allows it to be nimble in a way that centralized economies (like China) can never match. My money's on the US out-competing everyone else in the long run.

I can’t tell if this is sarcasm or if you are serious. The USA’s framework is to just wish for things to happen and then be surprised when those things don’t happen. There is basically no executing plan beyond grifting money to a few corporations because they supported the president during the election.

Re: 2025 Letter

#67

Post by skeeter2020 »

teiferer wrote: post #15

> One way that Silicon Valley and the Communist Party resemble each other is that both are serious, self-serious, and indeed, completely humorless. There is a commedy show literally called Silicon Valley making fun of what's going on in the valley and everybody I know in tech loves it and appreciates the humor.

More accurate:

There WAS a comedy called Silicon Valley that wrapped more than 5 years ago ABOUT the valley made in Hollywood by a guy with a science background who grew up in NEW MEXICO and SAN DIEGO, featuring ACTORs, none of them actual techies from the bay area.

Re: 2025 Letter

#68

Post by elp62 »

scubbo wrote: post #27

A fascinating and eye-opening read. One of my intentions for this coming year is to critically examine and (if appropriate) alter or dispel some preconceptions I have. To that end, I'm curious about this part: > You don’t have to convince the elites or the populace that growth is good or that entrepreneurs could be celebrated. Meanwhile in Europe, perhaps 15 percent of the electorate actively believes in degrowth. I…

In the vibrant capitalist society envisioned by Joseph Schumpeter, all boats are lifted because better businesses replace incumbents, both improving products for the larger society and continually redistributing wealth. In my view, since 2008 my country (the US) has distanced itself from this policy, instead focusing on protecting incumbents for fear of loss of employment. The unpopular policy of bailouts pursued in 2008-2009 and then again during the pandemic has led to a stagnant, top-heavy economy with most of the disadvantages of capitalism and less and less of the upside.

I don't think degrowth is necessary to solve this problem, although I'm sure it has its merits. But I think growth can still occur without the trend toward oligarchic or feudal society, and in fact a society with a vibrant economy would have more growth than we do today.

Re: 2025 Letter

#69

Post by specproc »

lithocarpus wrote: post #57
specproc wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Not disagreeing but also I wonder how it compares to inequality in Britain before the US was a thing.

The core issue is that most major businesses are ultimately owned directly or indirectly abroad, largely in America, with some tapping by London-based intermediaries.

Supermarkets and shopping centres, national assets (e.g., water) the story is the same. Then there's Amazon et al.

Profit generated in this country is by and large not spent here, and is certainly not taxed adequately.

This causes inequality by short-circuiting redistributive measures, either local economic multipliers or government spending.

What gains are felt are concentrated in service sectors which facilitate global capital, concentrated in London. See OP's thoughts on legalistic societies.

It compares to inequality in England before the US was a thing, in the same way. Small elite benefiting from global plunder, vast inequality internally.

The British Empire didn't actually end. There was a hostile takeover by Washington at the end of WW2.

Re: 2025 Letter

#70

Post by ceuk »

As a Brit, I struggled to get much interesting out of this considering how many times he mentions "Europe" (in that condescendingly general way that only US folks seem to manage).

He talks about "European" prospects and his trip to Denmark but then cites London as a representative example?

This almost broke my brain it felt so incoherent.

Never mind that (despite my personal wishes) we're not even part of the EU (which I assume is what he means by "Europe"). Surely he knows what an anomaly London is? It's not representative of anything except itself.

Referencing the extreme wage dispersion and severe housing pressure of London in a rant about Europe in general is a completely pointless endeavour.

He did say one thing I agree with. If you like good food, rich culture and great surroundings, "Europe" is indeed a lovely place to be for the most part.

Maybe I'll just keep that as my takeaway. It's too early in the year for doom and gloom anyway

Post reply on HN