Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by BLKNSLVR 16 days ago
The thing I worry about is: what happens when an actual set of adults get back into the White House?

That could well be the trigger for the crash of all crashes because they might actually bring some reality pins with them, which are the antithesis of the growing, in size and number, fantasy balloons of hot-air the current cough leadership cough is facilitating.

3 comments

> what happens when an actual set of adults get back into the White House?

Not just White House though, it's all the leaders of various government organisations, and private companies too. Nasdaq didn't need to change the rules for SpaceX IPO, rotten at the top.

The opposition in the US doesn't believe in anything except "stability". That means they'll probably keep most actual Trump administration policies. Probably even the war on Iran, though they might stop pretending to call it off every weekend.
To people who think I'm cynical (and are presumably downvoting), I present this nice example which just turned up: "Kirsten Gillibrand wants to save crypto - but Trump windfall is a political obstacle"

https://theintercept.com/2026/07/13/gillibrand-crypto-trump-...

I am not exaggerating.

The problem with Democrats is that they believe in too many things, not that they believe in only stability.

You can find a Democrat on both sides of every issue. It's a big tent party, and houses a lot of oddballs.

The ones with power, like Gillibrand, are not "oddballs". They must be seen as exponents of the central idea of the party, which is basically just stable interest on capital. They might once have opposed the allocation of capital into crypto, but if capital is invested in crypto now, then crypto must be defended. Marx's quip about the Tories in England feels appropriate:

"The Tories in England long imagined that they were enthusiastic about monarchy, the church and the beauties of the old English Constitution, until the day of danger wrung from them the confession that they are enthusiastic only about ground rent."

Which will trigger even more wealth transfer to the top .1%, which the 99% will blame on the administration, and put the corrupt lot back in a few years later

Eventually though the world moves on and China takes over

China's got its own set of economic problems that they're masking. Their domestic economy is stagnant and they're trying to keep factories pumping out stuff. Since their domestic economy isn't biting, they're flooding the world with exports. This isn't sustainable, especially if and probably when the rest of the world decides that they're done with government backed Chinese companies killing theirs (and you're starting to see that).
> This isn't sustainable, especially if and probably when the rest of the world decides that they're done with government backed Chinese companies killing theirs (and you're starting to see that).

Well... China's foreign currency reserves are practically infinite and the rest of the world knows they can't push back on China too hard or lose a lot of important imports. For Europe for example, India and China together make 80% of the foundational ingredients for medicine [1]. Our supply chains are gone, even if we wanted to, it would take years to have fabs ready that could produce the domestic demand for stuff as simple but vital such as painkillers and antibiotics.

[1] https://www.diepresse.com/17552998/80-prozent-der-wirkstoffe...

I don't subscribe to the "China is just to big and important to fight" arguments. Countries that peg their currencies distort markets, mask problems, and eventually that comes crashing down (see also Asian financial crisis, the Bank of England pegging in the early 1990s, etc).
I think China isn't exactly a good example of corruption-free administration...
I took their implication as China is essentially next in line to be the dominant superpower.

(I would say that, within that implication, it would be understood that corruption is not a problem that is being solved in that transfer of power)