Hacker News Reader

Comment by caycep | Hacker News Reader

The question in a rational mind is, why would it even bother? US/China partnership is the most economically successful in world history, even more so than US/UK or AUKUS. But the downside of CCP government structure is that paranoia at the top ranks has a good probability of overruling rationality.

Albeit US cannot speak as US-centric paranoia/"exceptionalism" may do the same thing...and the electorate voted to self destruct the government despite US economy being the strongest in decades.

View on HN

> US economy being the strongest in decades

The vast majority of its people do not share in that success and have seen a declining standard of life relative to prior generations whereas in China, the opposite is quite demonstrably true, despite increasingly similar concentrations of wealth and political power.

On the contrary, real wages in the USA are the highest they've ever been. Social media and fentanyl are making people unhappy but for most people it's not an economic problem.

Sure thing, Dr. Pangloss.

> Average age of first-time homebuyers is 38, an all-time high.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2024/11/05/the-average-age-of-first...

> U.S. homelessness rose 18 percent in 2024, continuing multi-year upward trend

> https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/u-s-homelessness-rose-18...

> analysis of government data estimates that people in the United States owe at least $220 billion in medical debt.

https://www.kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/the-burden-of-m...

> Average age of first-time homebuyers is 38, an all-time high.

And why is this a problem?

What is wrong with renting for life, exactly? I’m seeing more and more people own rental properties, but do not own their primary residence by choice.

Here in NL we first went from non profits owned by the members to gov housing. They just took everything without payment. Then they privatized everything and the corporation got the houses for free. All was fine for a few years then profit became the only agenda point while they were already swimming in free money and didn't want to build. Building was not attractive compared to getting houses for free. All rents are now maximized to the legal limit of course. They also run various inspection teams to force people to make their neighborhood look more expensive so the value goes up so that the rent can be increased further. For maintenance one can call 1 hour per week. They pretty much have lavish offices full of overpaid paperclip maximizers who don't do anything anyone needs, on the contrary, things would be better if they did nothing.

To add to the irony there are also self-made landlords who do similar work on similar scale on their own! They are usually available for defects and damages day and night.

Back when the people owned the non profits they build and fixed everything asap on the cheap. It might even be better than owning the home directly.

There's maybe an analogous situation in New York's Chinatown in Manhattan but it is running into problems - a lot of buildings owned by community "neighborhood organizations" but my understanding is they are somehow running out of funds and might need to sell

>"And why is this a problem?"

As a free person I want to own my place. I have better ways to spend my money rather than feeding some asshole

if you want to be a free person and own your place you may have to move out of the USA as in the USA you are not allowed to own your place. each year you have to pay (via “property tax”) for the right to occupy the property which you are not legally allowed to own. 23 states even prohibit people from owning cars… so not really all that free :)

I live in Canada, own house and pay property taxes. Cut the BS. You know what I mean under own. Yes ownership is limited but even limited it is much better than throwing away extra dosh to some middleman I do not give a flying fuck about.

this is “common wisdom” that owning is better, the “math” on that seldom checks out

https://www.kiplinger.com/real-estate/buying-a-home/renting-...

It checks out big time for me.

>"In 21 U.S. metros, the monthly cost of owning is at least 50% more expensive"

I am not in the US. 21 metros do not constitute country. When I bought house in major metro (Toronto) it was $200,000. So please do not feed me this pathetic propaganda.

For better or worse, home ownership in the USA has been incentivized. Younger generations are now frozen out of the primary means to accumulate wealth.

Ways forward are a) continued denial (status quo), b) YIMBYs defeat NIMBYs, c) change policy (incentivize renting) or d) <insert radical policy proposal here>.

> What is wrong with renting for life, exactly?

Nobody wants to be your serf until they're 38, bozo.

I rent in the SF Bay and love it. My money does a lot better in the stock market than it does invested in dirt and bricks.

The bad economy is the biggest (arguably only) reason Trump won against Harris, and by a landslide at that.

You may think that expensive gasoline and cartons of eggs are a meme, but the reality is that the economy has become pretty damn Shite(tm) for the commons. Costs of living are objectively higher than they were just a couple years ago and incomes haven't kept pace either.

The stock market is having the time of its life (and as a small time investor I find that nice) but it's completely detached from the economy.

You can cherry-pick problems here and there, of course, but the aggregate statistics are pretty clear. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

I thought eggs were high because of the bird flu.

Landslide? Electorally?

Trump won both the electoral and popular votes and won all the swing states. The Republicans took both Houses of Congress and held all governorships up for election.

Yes, he won by a landslide and the biggest factor was the bad economy.

The factor was calling the economy a bad economy, they are already backtracking on promises since the economy is doing pretty well already and they won’t be able to juice it much more.

Anyone who thinks 49.9% of the vote (vs 48.4%) is a landslide will quickly find them in negative approval ratings if they think that gives them much political capital (if trump focuses and spending rather than earning capital, that is, which he definitely will).

I think the problems with the economy (consolidation, corporate/private equity power, general inequality) are too big for any administration to fix even assuming they would want to. But yeah GDP and unemployment rate are fairly misleading metrics.

The biggest problem is inequality, but Trump is the last person in the world who would address that, so the metrics he has focused: pricing, stock markets, unemployment, are going to be very hard to move up (and retire easy to move down). It’s going to be hard next four years unless he somehow doesn’t do what he says he is going to do.

Politics is about rhetoric, not reality.

Recall that GWB declared a mandate (to reverse all progressive social programs since the New Deal) when he squeaked out a victory over Kerry.

Ya, but then hurricane Katrina happened and he flubbed it.

2020 election: Biden 51.3% 81.2 million (302 electoral), Trump 46.8% 74.2 million (232 electoral). Democrats control of House (but lost 13 seats) and quasi-control of Senate (gained 3 seats).

2024 election: Trump 49.7% 77.3 million (312 electoral), Harris 48.4% 75 million (226 electoral). Republicans control of House (but lost 1 seat) and control of Senate (gained 4 seats).

1972 election: Nixon 60.7% 47.2 million (520 electoral), McGovern 37.5% 29.2 million (17 electoral). Democrats control of House (but lost 13 seats) and control of Senate (gained 2 seats).

1984 election: Reagan 58.8% 54.5 million (525 electoral), Mondale 40.6% 37.6 million (13 electoral). Democrats control of House (but lost 16 seats). Republicans control of Senate (but lost 2 seats).

Source: many Wikipedia links

Trump won both the electoral and popular votes and won all the swing states.

That's not what "landslide victory" means.

In fact Trump's electoral total was scarcely different from Biden's in 2016, and his popular vote margin was far narrower. Historically speaking, both of these are much closer to dead heats than they are to what are generally considered to be landslide victories (like Clinton's wins in 92-96, and Reagan's in 84-88).

You're only saying it's a "landslide" because Trump keeps saying that in his speeches.

But as usual he's either simply lying, or has no idea what he's talking about.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com