> A new civil war that drives the US to fragment into several independent regions over the course of the next ~five years would kind of be the best scenario from a global perspective.
The US isn't going to passively give up its hold on the world order. You don't think this would trigger a world war?
And if / when the US does topple (whether in 10 years or in 1000 years), at the moment it looks like the only viable next leaders in the world order are autocratic dictatorships.
How is this a best scenario from a global perspective?
> The US isn't going to passively give up its hold on the world order. You don't think this would trigger a world war?
They are literally right in the middle of imploding their soft power; so maybe you are right about passively giving it up when they're actively doing so instead?
The opposition to American hegemony shifted from Europe (ie the USSR) to Asia (ie China). To that end, NATO lacks the capacity to meaningfully impact a conflict in the Pacific. The EU simply does not have the means to project power in that way nor do they have the ability to meaningfully implement economic policies that would effectively reduce Chinese growth.
Trump is an asshole, but the strategy hasn’t really changed in the last decade or so. Obama tried to isolate China with European help, Trump 1.0 tried to convince Europe to step up, Biden showed them we were willing to move on, and now Trump 2.0 is following through.
People fail to realize how anti-European this past decade has been, and not just under Trump. Europe had significant issue with the Inflation Reduction Act. Not to mention the war in Ukraine, which while illegal and entirely caused by Russia, was capitalized upon by American diplomats to the absolute benefite of the US at the expense of Europe.
The overarching plan has been evident for a while, Trump is just blatant about it. He lacks the decorum to make someone happy about being gifted a lemon. Past administrations have had much more tact in that regard.
America does not want direct conflict with China. China doesn’t want direct conflict with America either. It would be catastrophic for both honestly. Neither side would emerge cleanly victorious. Both would be limping away scarred by the experience. To that end America is just trying to let the underlying structural issues play out. China and Europe both have some structural issues that need addressed. America is gonna build up it’s own hemisphere and simply wait the rest of the world out.
Is it the best plan? Honestly it might be. The more I see of it, the more comfortable I am growing with it. I was more worried about it in the Biden days simply because I was still under the mindset of Europe being an important ally. America was undermining the European economy on multiple fronts and it seemed like we were alienating some of our closest allies. Ironically what I think a lot of people are feeling now.
The truth is though that Europe is dead weight. Their economy is anemic, their still too fragmented militarily and they have been actively undermining America’s effects to derisk supply chains from China. Trump’s broad tariffs would have been handled better under someone else, but the end result would have been the same out of simple necessity. Since COVID America has grown more dependent on China due to second order effects. Everytime we close a door someone else opens a window to let them back in. And it’s not just Europe, but Canada, South Korea, others too. Honestly Mexico has probably been our best ally in that regard.
If you follow the geopolitical sphere most of what’s happening is not new. Trump hasn’t really changed the plan - he’s just subtle like a brick to the face. He is loud and boastful about it where before it was clever and subtextual. That is really the only change. Geopoliticallt he tries to dominate while Biden and Obama would convince people something stupid was what they really wanted.
I don’t know if that helps the anxiety at all. I’ve felt it, I’ve been there. I’ve yet to see a better plan though. Honestly, the next decade is gonna be bumpy, but if you look at the long-term trajectory, America is gonna be well ahead of the rest of the world by the 2040s. We are easily in the best strategic position I would say. Once you really wrap your mind around the various aspects of it, it’s not a bad plan. It’s not Trump’s plan, it’s not Biden’s plan, this plan has roots going back over a decade. I’m sure at some point it was just a COA under discussion with multiple decision points and alternatives. Could it have worked itself out differently? Probably. But given where we are it’s probably the best plan for now.
> To that end, NATO lacks the capacity to meaningfully impact a conflict in the Pacific. The EU simply does not have the means to project power in that way
This has been repeated elsewhere in this story. What's your thinking here? I assume you mean the non-US members of NATO, but you seem to have forgotten two G7 members if you're equating NATO - US with the EU.
The remaining members include two nuclear-armed states, five or so aircraft carriers, submarines, several large air forces, navies, etc. What would make them unable to project force into the Pacific?
Yes, Britain and France have aircraft carriers but they are old, small and likely to be sunk by modern hyper-sonics. Europe's inability to project power is well documented though. Most of the 2025 literature is more related to overland mobility in Europe, since that is the piece Europe is currently working to fix, but the European militaries are not designed for global engagement. Most American documents on the topic don't even really mention NATO's involvement against China. Here's some stuff to consider though. Here is a decent primer:
> The truth is though that Europe is dead weight. Their economy is anemic, their still too fragmented militarily
What an incredibly ignorant statement. Europe's economy in real terms is doing fine, their productivity is growing. The US's economy only looks good on paper, but outside of the AI bubble, companies aren't growing wages are stagnant with inflation.
Europe is also on the verge of federalization. But you have to understand getting over two dozen countries with vastly different cultures, histories and languages to cooperate is a gargantuan task. One the EU has been incredibly successful at.
Over the past 15 years the European economy has grown from 16.25 to 18.50 trillion per World Bank. In 2008 the combined economic strength of the EU was 110% of the United State's. Today it's ~65%. By and large the European economy completely missed the mark on the Internet/Web3.0 technology revolution. You certainly have bright spots like ASML, but those are the exception and not the rule. It's reindustrialization efforts are facing massive head wins from energy costs and China is absolutely wrecking their neo-colonial African holdings.
I hope the EU moves to a more Federalized model of governance - it would certainly benefit them. And I agree that it won't be easy. I am not sure California and Texas would agree to the model the United States has today. I can't even imagine what it would be like for Germany and France. But they have some serious issues to address. These are some foundational changes that are unlikely to happen in the next year or two.
Adjust GDP per hours worked, you will find Europe has eclipsed the US in terms of productivity.
The US has the benefit of the government borrowing insane amounts of money to juice it's economy, by being the world hegemony. That advantage has evaporated and you see the current capital going to unproductive industries.
The ratio in money between the revenues in Europe and those in USA is rather misleading.
With the same amount of money you can do much more in Europe. Even in the few domains where USA had a traditional advantage, like the prices of electronic devices, e.g. computers, things have changed a lot recently.
Prompted by another discussion thread on HN, I have compared yesterday some prices for computers and associated components in USA and in Europe. Now the prices in USA are 30% to 40% higher, in sharp contrast with how the price ratio was in the previous years, when prices were lower in USA.
The real economic strength of Europe vs. USA is much greater than the values of GDP expressed in USD, and including some meaningless indicators, would seem to imply.
Someone has downvoted for unknown reasons my posting, even if what I have written are just true facts, not some personal opinion.
Perhaps the downvoter has not believed that the prices have become so bad in USA, but then he/she should have checked the prices instead of downvoting.
After another HN poster has said yesterday that he has just bought a computer in Europe and the same computer was more expensive by 37.5% in USA, I thought that this is unbelievable, so I have also checked myself the prices.
I have just bought an ASUS NUC computer in Europe at a price equivalent with $490 and the same computer is on Newegg at $679, i.e. more expensive by 38.5%, a value very close to that reported by the other poster.
Moreover, I have equipped that computer with an 1 TB SSD and 32 GB DDR5, at a hugely increased price in comparison with last summer, i.e. the DDR5 modules are more than 3 times more expensive now (thanks to the US companies hoarding memory devices). Even so, the total cost in Europe was equivalent with slightly less than $900 while the same configuration on Newegg was slightly less than $1200.
Q.E.D.
In past years the opposite was true, i.e. computers and related components were cheaper in USA, even if the difference was not so great as it is now in the reverse direction.
Therefore it is clear that the dollar is overvalued, its true value is much less in comparison with the euro than the official exchange rate says. For most non-electronic things, the prices were lower in Europe even before. So the GDP of USA is also not as big as it is claimed.
> To that end, NATO lacks the capacity to meaningfully impact a conflict in the Pacific.
NATO is literally the North Atlantic Treaty Org. Basic map-reading tells you that the Pacific is not the North Atlantic. Sure, securing the Pacific might take a "Pacific Treaty" of regional powers, but we see no signs of that kind of thinking at present from the USA. Bridges are being burned not built.
> Trump is an asshole, but the strategy hasn’t really changed ... Trump hasn’t really changed the plan -- he’s just subtle like a brick to the face
Is this the new talking point? That it's business as usual with an uglier face?
This is rubbish though on multiple dimensions, this is now a kakistocratic and kleptocratic US administration, that is going out of its way to alienate allies .
> America is gonna be well ahead of the rest of the world by the 2040s.
I think you'll find that kleptocrats don't tend to have that "get ahead" effect.
I agree there are strong undercurrents but how can we give Trump 2 any credit when we're annihilating brand America. Hearing Trump speak to Macron about the nobel prize and now he's tweeting out "I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace." We aren't a reliable partner and with the structural issues and real politik anything we try to do now in the pacific will cost substantially more. Alls we needed to do was deepen the partnerships we had and look like a mean bulldog against China.
The same could be said of corporations who aren’t required to report pollution and thus exploit because it’s legal. Morality isn’t encoded in most agreements.
The entire premise of copyleft is taking advantage of copyright law to be able to represent moral expectations in the copyright license. Within the limits of copyright law is plenty of room to choose something restrictive enough to fit with whatever you want. If you pick a permissive license and people use your software in accordance with that license, complaining just doesn't make sense. The license you have them explicitly allows this. It's not a loophole, it's not a mistake in the license, it's not something that the license authors didn't foresee, it is a feature.
It is unfortunate when people make decisions that have legal ramifications they do not understand, but there's gotta be at least a little personal responsibility here. It's no different for code than anything else. There was a case not long ago where someone who made royalty free music changed their mind and tried to make copyright claims against people who had used their music in their YouTube videos. But can we be fair here? If you released this thing with an explicit royalty free license like that, can you really get mad because you can't get royalties that you clearly didn't expect in the first place?
If you're worried that you may regret releasing your own works under open source licenses, permissive or copyleft, then simply don't do it. The downside is that you can't be a direct part of the open source ecosystem, either by using existing (non-permissive) libraries or by being adopted by other open source software, but the thing is the vast majority of developers are aware of what they're signing up for. If someone makes a million dollars off of your open source software, you can have an expected paycheck of $0.00, and that even goes if it's copyleft. The plus side of this trade-off is that it enables anyone to take advantage of your software, even if they wouldn't normally have the means of licensing a product for their use case, with very low friction, providing the maximum benefit.
Copyright law, though, certainly does let you encode the expectation that "if you want to make money using this you must pay me", so if that's your expectation, don't use licenses that contradict it, especially not just because it is trendy.
It's public knowledge that he's a prof at stanford and publicly available directories can lead you to his office. Not to mention that he's famous enough that this is almost certainly not the first time someone shares a photo like this.
If it was a photo of his home I'd understand but this is essentially public knowledge.
I am no expert, but I am in the process of transitioning over to NextJS. Reason being it's quite opinionated on how to structure your app / blog and you can produce a completely static website with it - not to mention that there is a very large community to learn and lean on if you get stuck.
Increasing wages is itself inflationary. If the costs of a company increase then so too do the price of their product or service. I’m not disagreeing that we shouldn’t increase wages, but I just want to point out that wages and inflation are correlated.
Strongly disagree. Strictly speaking inflation is the result of adding money to the system faster than you add value. The effects of that are not themselves inflation.
Study of the Zimbabwe hyperinflation makes it really easy to see that this is true.
Increasing wages correlates with inflation, but it's a _very_ weak correlation. In most industries labour does not make up the lion's share of business expenses.
Studying minimum wage increases between 1978 and 2015:
> we find prices grow by 0.36 percent for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage.
Considering that company profits and the income of the top 20% went up, it seems fair that other income goes up too. There may be some inflation but I think wage earners would still be much better off.
With that logic you might as well pay no one anything because that would increase the prices. It just doesn't pencil out logically when you think it through. Fact is, wages are historically depressed. We've shown you can have higher ratios of wages to prices in the past, we've just never bothered to keep the ratio maintained as we've seen GDP growth over the years, and have instead favored having the capital class to gobble up the resulting gains instead of seeing more redistribution of all of this accumulated wealth as in years past.
Well, define "latin america". This place has huge cultural differences. Culturally and ethnically we're even more diverse than the U.S.
In parts and some social circles of Latin America, closer to the U.S. marketing, diamond engagement rings are coveted, indeed. But it is not everywhere.
The majority of the world is still using Google to search the web [0], including high school students (let's also think about high school students outside of North America).
