Thread

1. bwb · 1789586180 · focus · HN ↗

   Get ready for a fun ride my friends :)

   Fun ride =

   Oil is going up, possibly for a long time, which will have a big inflationary effect on everything. And it appears the USA government has lost the conflict it started and effectively given control over key oil delivery channels to Iran. Not to mention Saudia facing real issues from rebel groups / Yemen (simplification).

   Government debt is high in several key economies, and the bond market is being saturated with AI-related bonds, as well as possibly people finally tired of lending the USA/France/UK money at low rates and demanding higher ones. And with higher interest rates and bonds rolling over it means more and more money going to pay for the debt, rather than core services.

   Wild cards lurking in the bushes... AI, AGI, RSI.

   And yonder you have a nuclear power floundering; its only source of hard currency is being rightfully degraded, and its leadership delusional.

   And the one to watch IMO... Russian wheat export ability: wheat prices are up considerably, and combined with inflation from oil, this is the kind of stuff that creates waves of political change like the Arab Spring.

   1. leptons · 1789586770 · focus · HN ↗

      This comment isn't helpful. Please explain for those of us without a degree in economics.

      1. kadoban · 1789587248 · focus · HN ↗

         Inflation is high, so interest rates need to go up to try to slow that, but the economy isn't doing amazing already, and higher interest rates won't help that.

         Not to mention the US debt is _high_ as hell and bond yields mean that's more expensive.

         And the country is run by a broken fool who has no interest or ability to fix any of that.

         1. ThunderSizzle · 1789589472 · focus · HN ↗

            The country has been _run_ by fools for 26 years. Congress has had 26 years to do something about the fiscal situation, and we've had four presidents, and the fiscal responsible side of the electorate is never listened to.

            Both sides are to blame - neither will fix the problem. Obama could've made that his goal - he was competent, had a lot of political good will, and many people were frustrated at the bailout policy Bush did, but instead it was inflationary printing (quantitative easing), Obamacare and Cash 4 Clunkers (which the used car market still hasn't recovered from).

            I never voted for him - I didn't view him as honest, nor did he seem to indicate that he liked America, but was rather just a good talker - but I think he could've been a great president given a less radicalizing agenda.

            He was probably the best situated president in terms of timing to fix the debt problem, but instead it was a good time for divisive politics. By the time Obama finished, it became clear neither party actually cared about the fiscally conservative Ron Paul supporting voting block.

            1. hsbalanxvxjsmab · 1789591261 · focus · HN ↗

               I would love to hear what was "radical" or "divisive" about Obama's policy. A significant portion of the country disliking him because of his skin color doesn't make his policies "radical"

               1. aftbit · 1789595454 · focus · HN ↗

                  A universal health care mandate were both radical and divisive, and the popular nickname for the ACA today is "Obamacare".

                  I happen to think the policy was a good idea, and voting to keep it in play was the best vote of John McCain's career ... but it was definitely both radical and divisive.

                  Now, much of the "mandate" has been stripped away, health care remains a mess, and access is far from affordable, but you can't really blame that one on Obama.

                  1. doom2 · 1789605526 · focus · HN ↗

                     > A universal health care mandate were both radical and divisive

                     It seems quite ironic, given the frequent complaints about the inability of Congress to either govern effectively or fix health insurance (for many and various definitions of "fix"), that the ACA was so divisive. At least it got passed! Yet given the opportunity twice (2017-2019, 2025-2027), a politically viable alternative hasn't been offered up by opponents of the ACA, let alone being able to fully repeal it.

                  2. hsbalanxvxjsmab · 1789612243 · focus · HN ↗

                     Lol cool so health care is your definition of "radical" and "decisive". Hint: it's neither of these things and the only reason it was considered as such was because Obama was black (see tan suit). Seems like we need a few more years of woke cause you still can't see the obvious
                  3. watwut · 1789631811 · focus · HN ↗

                     It was not radical and he adopted originally republican ideas. They even originally backed it.

                     The thing is, the divisiveness comes from one side - conservatives who were and are determine to oppose literally everything.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.