That's only true if he's actually "your guy". There's an alternative where it's not stupidity that I think more people should be mulling over.
It seems like rage-baiting, polarizing titles and vibe based comments are being upvoted, with no interest in the facts. For example, in this case:
1. The growth of the gold reserve in comparison to US Treasuries have very little to do with growth in gold acquisition, and has everything to do with gold more than doubling in price in a year.
2. To make it even worse, gold has since fluctuated in value, and treasuries overtook gold momentarily just a week ago. These price fluctuations has nothing to do with geopolitics.
3. Central bank buying of gold has been trending down in the last year, down 21% from 2024. So far in 2026 it's been going even lower.
4. Gold owned by central banks was higher than US treasuries in the 90s (this is mentioned in the article at least).
This is a little meta - but the thing that bothers me is that this low quality discussion like in this thread is spreading everywhere with the same mechanism - bring politics and polarization into every place, no matter how tangentially related it is.
See Brexit, and free trade in general.
It's a good way to get "the establishment" to gang up on you and defend something complicated while you present simple but wrong alternatives and promise the world.
I also think he's up for sale (as are all the other similar politicians) to a multitude of buyers, foreign and domestic.
That was bound to backfire at some point or another.
I think you're right that politicians prefer not to defend complicated (and possibly good) policy to the public. But if they choose easy ways out to avoid it (and they do!) then they're to blame too when it collapses. To blame the public for not blindly trusting them won't do.
It may be familiarity breeding contempt but I find members of the British public in particular very myopic in obtaining benefits for 'their group'. There's very little interest in society as a whole.
Politicians simply bend in order not to upset any of the key voting blocs. But you understand that's a selection bias: you wouldn't exist as a successful politician if you didn't do this. All those who go another path are doomed to obscurity.
The issue is that the stupider the politician, the more likely they are unable to understand why their clear, simple answer to the ills of the world is also wrong.
Brexit, whatever is happening in the US, is caused by narcissism (a common trait among politicians) paired with a great deal of stupidity and ineptitude, not only among politicians, but among the populace as well.
It's also kind of neat as a financial MAD instrument, because China obviously can't just get everyone to go into their brokerage and market sell a trillion in USTs so they get a lever to pressure the US with but they can't go nuclear without also vaporising their own value. So it works as a melting ice block on which diplomacy is forced on both sides.
The death of the UST as a reserve instrument would be a catastrophically bad loss, the only silver lining is that the melting ice block might still be enough by the end of this admin that the new admin might have enough to stand on to rebuild it should they realise the value of it.
https://youtu.be/OOW-oSruO80?t=4072
Luke's key point lands at about 1:08:27–1:08:33, where he says that instead of selling treasuries outright (which would draw attention from the American embassy), China can use them as collateral — and the American banks are happy to take it. He then lists what China gets in return: "I'll take Pereus. I'll take that oil field. I'll take that copper mine. I'll take all that gold." He then adds that this works because the incentives align on both sides — the Chinese want to understate their strength, the Americans want to overstate theirs, and the American banks are happy to accept dollar collateral without asking too many questions.
There is a complicated dynamic at play to consider there. Treasuries and the strength of the dollar only matter to wrt international trade, for both China and the US. You have to ask yourself if the value of the dollar went to 0 for that use case, who would be in a worse position, the one that sells dollars to support consumption, or the one that buys them as a tool for trade with 3rd parties?
The problem with this is that a country can only refuse to pay their foreign bonds once. But the buyer can always dump them and scoop them up later for cheap when shit hits the fan.
No, we are taking our advantages and lighting them on fire for no obvious reason. Backing into a rationale doesn’t make it rational. Its Christian nationalism fueling raging narcissism made malignant due to senility. Theres no experts, no adults, no experienced people - they’ve all be fired and replaced with sycophantic photogenic personalities. This is not good, there is no upside, it’s Nero hosting UFC while the empire burns.
The only out I see is nature helping end this or a total seismic change in Congress and removal from office. Then rebuilding can start and maybe there’s something to salvage. But I doubt it, and I expect the next generations will exist in the rubble of the colosseum.
> Some abstract quasi moralistic reason
What was presented was neither abstract nor moralistic. The argument was one of driving towards a cliff and taking preemptive action before reaching it.
I don't see how any of those descriptions fit what I've said. Also, note, things should indeed not be tougher. A consequence of our economy being so focused on financialization of overseas productivity is that the wealth created from that activity tends to be much more concentrated than that produced from manufacturing, at least historically. Though, who knows if that would hold if onshoring took off in earnest.
> I’d note that it’s not the case the US produces nothing, or that it’s lost its capacity to innovate
Never said either of those things. I only stated that it makes domestic production harder/less profitable. Though, I'd also like to point out that that the largest companies in our economy are wholly dependent on the output of an island with grave geopolitical risks hanging over its head. China could collapse our economy overnight due to unchecked offshoring. That's not quasi, abstract, or moralistic, just a state we've created.
> No, we are taking our advantages and lighting them on fire for no obvious reason. Backing into a rationale doesn’t make it rational. Its Christian nationalism fueling raging narcissism made malignant due to senility.
I mean, I have named several, and all of which were put forth prior to Trump's term starting. I'm not a fan of Trump, but it would seem to me you are creating a narrative for yourself that doesn't fit history.
> Theres no experts, no adults, no experienced people - they’ve all be fired and replaced with sycophantic photogenic personalities.
I think Bessent is pretty good.
> This is not good, there is no upside, it’s Nero hosting UFC while the empire burns. The only out I see is nature helping end this or a total seismic change in Congress and removal from office. Then rebuilding can start and maybe there’s something to salvage. But I doubt it, and I expect the next generations will exist in the rubble of the colosseum.
Idk about rubble, but corruption does need to be curbed IMO. The current administration has not been good for the rule of law, in spirit. I do think some level of that is unavoidable however, as the judicial branch and executive branches have been sucking power from the legislature for going on 50 years, which also needs correcting.
He knows he is lying and he knows he is harming the economy and people in it. But, that does not matter to him.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by greed.
Even if you disagree, Trump's policies have not been effective at anything, apart from creating headlines.
These same headlines have secondary negative effects for the US, like hurting international tourism.
Just make them unemployable. Setup an effective employment eligibility system, and require that employers verify the workers in the system before any payment over $100. Collect biometrics from workers and verify against IRS records. Employers that flout this get fines of 10x wages paid, up to N% of revenue, and maybe jailtime for owners and managers that knowingly violate.
What we have in the U.S. is a bunch of people and politicians loudly decrying illegal immigration and illegal employment, but enjoying the fruits of that illegal employment while paying a fraction of what legal workers would have to be paid.
There's huge appetite for a police state against the little guy, and no appetite for that same police state against business owners and managers.
1) We pretend to have an income tax but then make it work like a consumption tax in practice. Ordinary people put earnings in excess of spending in a 401k and defer the tax until they want to spend the money. Rich people defer capital gains indefinitely until they want to spend the money. It's an income tax on paper but a consumption tax in practice, and doing it that way is much more complicated than just using a consumption tax.
2) We pretend to have a progressive income tax, but then impose benefits phase outs that fully cancel out the difference in marginal rates between the poor and the rich. Convert the benefits to cash and eliminate the phase outs and you get something which is equally if not more progressive, significantly more efficient and dramatically less complicated.
So, you can throw all of that out and replace it with a flat rate consumption tax and a UBI and it would be as close to a Pareto optimal improvement as anything in politics ever is.
Which also makes a huge amount of headway against the illegal immigration problem, because another disadvantage of pretending to have an income tax is that it effectively subsidizes anyone paying people under the table since then they're not paying the tax. Whereas if people working under the table still have to pay the consumption tax on everything they buy, and they also don't receive the UBI because they're not lawful residents, they'd be at a disadvantage relative to ordinary citizens, instead of the existing system where breaking the rules makes you better off.
I don't disagree that we should be deporting people faster, but this is not the way to accomplish that goal at all. Nor should we be building huge detention facilities. We should be making the process go smoother and faster, not holding people.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_in_the_second_Trum...
Counting deportations alone does not count people who decide not to come at all.
Also, note that I did not say that we should necessarily be deporting more people. I am actually pretty neutral on illegal immigration. But I am trying to address the question of what is good for the country, which is a different thing from what my personal preferences are.
What was the point of sending ICE, a "domestic" agency, to the Winter Olympics, or letting them take over duties from the TSA? What does an "Immigration and Customs Enforcement" agency have anything to do at a foreign country? What's the point of the Secret Service then?
All you need to do to fix illegal immigration is to go after the employers. You know, actually enforce the laws. Streamline it. Declare it a national emergency and put more onerous requirements on businesses to verify legal status. Send ICE to businesses to investigate them instead of kidnapping people.
You'll probably find out pretty quickly that agriculture is extremely dependent on illegal labour, but so be it. Bring it into the light and have an actual debate. The current approach is all for show, or at worst, intimidation.
Taking on long term debt at or below the risk free rate _is the point._ It didn't devalue the currency because the global economy was structured around buying that debt. You just need to not jeopardize that second point.
As soon as Congress realized they'd been handed a deficit-free budget they went about spending with wild abandon.
And anyway, since that guy we've had two presidents over three terms where the other party controlled the presidency and they didn't and they certainly didn't break the pattern.
Let me ask you this: If you wanted to vote for a guy (or gal) who was serious about reducing the deficit instead of someone who doesn't care as long as the wheels don't come off during his term, who would you vote for?
It should be possible to reduce Medicare costs significantly by going after healthcare costs in general, i.e. create a ton of new medical residency slots and train a lot of new doctors, and make the healthcare companies actually compete with each other. The AMA and healthcare companies are going to fight you hard.
We currently make large social security payments to affluent retirees who paid in less than we're paying them out. We could reform the system to cost less, i.e. not pay out as much to people who don't need the money. The AARP isn't going to like it.
The DoD budget is pretty big and a lot of it is waste or corruption. But to do this well you have to be good at identifying which parts, you still can't eliminate all of it because some of it is pretty important, and this one is the smallest of the three. And the defense contractors will try to stop you.
To make a meaningful dent in the deficit you would have to do at least two of those but no one is willing to do any of them.
Me, I'd cut everything. Right now, when interest rates are relatively low, we're spending more to service the debt than we're spending on defense. This isn't a problem we can address with half measures.
With foreigners and hedge funds less prone to buy US debt right now it's going to be quite interesting to see what will happen.
This admin's shortcomings don't need to be listed, anyone with eyes can see. I will just remind you about Biden's "minor incursions" comment, that opened to the door to invasion of Ukraine...
I'm fully conscious of tectonic plates shifting and creating huge change and the need for response. But, again, none of what we've seen the current admin engaged in has been inevitable.
And no, comparing to Biden will not do here. I couldn't care less really about which side is in power (except when there is significant spillover like now). I'm outside of the USA. But I have never seen anything so ridiculous as the current "strategic" choices of the current admin.
Look at them countries sending food, cars, machinery for pieces of paper. They taking advantage of us!
Here's a world gold council (i know...) review/survey of central banks gold holdings from mid 2025 (https://www.gold.org/goldhub/research/central-bank-gold-rese...). It notes that gold purchases (by mass) have been elevated going back to ~2023.
Gold prices have also been on an upward trajectory ever since 2023 (https://goldprice.org/gold-price-history.html)
Whatever is happening now is bigger than actions over the last year.
It is the fiat currency debasement via unlimited money printing that makes the gold chart go up.
Imagine being in Zimbabwe or Weimar Germany and watching your stock portfolio and gold going up...
Incorrect. Physical scarcity matters, but it’s not the main driver. Gold’s price is far more sensitive to interest rates, dollar strength, sentiment and fear, speculative flows.
The stability it’s historically shown was mostly the result of fixed monetary systems, and those are long gone.
because you are getting paycheck in fiat, you are psychologically programmed to think of fiat as something stable, and Gold as volatile.
while in reality prices expressed in Gold ounces remained fairly stable for example: https://i.redd.it/1b5mfrqkxxef1.jpeg
That said, I agree that e.g. gold under a regime where most things for sale are priced in gold is more stable than gold as a novelty investment under a fiat currency regime.
When things are priced in gold, most of the demand for gold comes from the fact that it's useful as currency. All of the phenomena we have now still exist, and they disturb the price, but they're small effects compared to the demand for currency.
In the fiat regime, that source of demand is gone. All of the same random effects still push the price of gold around, but because the price is so much lower (due to much lower demand), the price swings are wilder.
Those are only relevant on a shorter timescale; on a long timescale gold's held its value extremely well. The price of a loaf of bread in gold now is still similar to what it was in the Roman Empire 2000 years ago.
Barely keeping up with inflation is not the win you think it is.
It's like witnessing a self-decapitation.
People always exaggerate the impact of geopolitical things, because it feels like the biggest thing ever, especially when you're relatively young. But in reality we're always onto nonsense after nonsense. Countries have the wisdom and view to appreciate this, and so respond to geopolitical stuff (in action, not rhetoric) far more gradually than people do. They're certainly not going to just dump all their dollar reserves because of a single misguided war or even misguided president, or they'd have been gone long ago.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_currency#Global_curren...
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system#Nixon_sho...
Don't take my word for it. Listen to Mark Carney at Davos.
This is the main reason that things are different. Most presidents were reasonable in their hegemony, and Trump's naked aggression makes everyone to hedge against US.
And the competence of departments is crucial for the well functioning of the country, services high and low. (Diplomacy, war, and education to electricity and roads).
In my view it's both that the State Department, for example, is less competent than before, and that the administration is less likely to listen to the experts and Department officers than before.
(I'm not american.)
> That had short to mid-term positive impacts and long-term catastrophic ones, as is the typical strategy in modern times.
Is the catastrophe still coming from the 70s to now? 50 years later? This is the most repeated quip that makes no sense. Same with companies, everyone just repeats "omg they only care about short term" and then years after years the company trots on.
But I guess it's easy to say since the defense is "oh just wait". As if the online commenter is able to see N+1 moves more than whoever they comment about, but that person just simply cannot. Like come on.
They don’t care if American supremacy is lost or if the dollar crashes or if the national debt becomes a crisis. As long as they have their wealth. The public is being decapitated, not them.
You have to take account of warring internal factions.
Single party media outlets like News Corp, Sinclair, Euronews, and so many others have broken that system entirely.
My test to see if someone is a shill/moron is to simply ask them to say one obvious bad thing about "their side." If they cannot, it becomes clear that they are not worth listening to.
It turns out that progressives are just as easily fooled as any other group, by a slick turn of phrase. For example, "Genocide Joe."
I once thought my group was more thoughtful. But, it turns out that ALL of us are easily programmed meat machines.
Voted for Obama, he totally messed up with Russia and Crimea.
I could go on, and on. I believe that the only -ism I can believe in is fallibilism.
And most traditional news is conservative now.
The idea that the mainstream media was ever leftest was always wrong, but these days its absolutely laughable and yet a lot of people still parrot this like it is the truth.
if American political system allows President to do that and allows such President to be elected, than such system deserves to die.
America has produced 70 times more stock market wealth if you look only at companies created within the last 50 years than the EU. And this is not all paper wealth. If you look at technological sophistication, whether that's frontier AI models, leading-edge pharmaceutical drugs, total amount of compute, or the space industry, the U.S. has grown its lead over the EU over the last 50 years.
It's because the EU has largely fixated itself on reducing wealth inequality by punishing those who succeed. It's safety-maximalist approach to private industrial action has also hamstringed industry — see Germany closing all 17 of its nuclear power plants. The US doesn't really need to do much except not sabotage itself to maintain its lead. Like in all nations, laissez-faire (French for "leave it alone") allows the private sector to do the rest.
They sell close to 0. Europe made a conscious decision to not limit the reach of the infinite margin US companies.
The deal was we buy your fancy services and expensive war toys, but you keep us safe.
America forgot its obligation. Hence the deal is off.
Now VW is making war machines and Airbus is building AI infra.
It's actually because America pivoted[1] from manufacturing to higher-margin services (financial, tech[2]), and generations of American Diplomats had negotiated trade deals that ensure American services are never shut-out or hobbled in most countries. American companies won't look so special,or be nearly as profitable, once they lose their default status that allow them to siphon money from all over the globe -including Europe
1. https://americanbusinesshistory.org/2022-updated-largest-com...
2. Silicon valley caught lightning in a bottle. Other American locales repeatedly tried and failed to replicate it - so it rules out American legislative attitudes as the vital ingredient.
The fact that the tech industry concentrated in Silicon Valley is simply due to network effects. Regardless of which locale became the Schelling point for U.S.-based technology companies, that locale would have succeeded, because of the national economic policy it operated inside of.
US voters were so worried that South America would come to them, that they have become the worst of South America.
this is what trump is doing: selling America short
And before you get too excited, this "news" from the World Gold Council. A consortium of gold mining corporations. Clearly it's a pump article "have you bought gold yet? everyone else is! why not you!?!?"
And why is it worth 3x?
But S&P500 is not?
It's not like we've suddenly found new and exciting uses for gold though. The reason the price has gone up is because the demand for it has gone up, and the reason why demand has gone up is because people want an alternative to U.S bonds. A bunch of pump articles wouldn't be enough to lead to a 3x price increase.
Are you saying that the price of gold just spontaneously went up?
From over hear it seems like the age of Pax Americana is over, and gold at ~$4,600 is one of the results.
Ofc those with an incentive of higher priced gold will tell to buy gold. Only time will tell if they were right.
1. Euro-denominated interest rate derivatives (IRD) overtook US dollar-denominated contracts in the over-the-counter (OTC) market for the first time in history and the scale of the crossover is staggering.
2. EUR Real Effective Exchange Rate (REER) which measures actual purchasing power (not nominal price) is going in the opposite direction of USD real purchasing power (RTWEXBGS). 2025/2026 is the largest divergence in history: 10 percentage points in a year.
3. US treasuries is no longer a number 1 foreign reserve asset. EUR reserves grew 2.5x faster than USD reserves when measured in its own absolute terms.
Unlike the Eurozone which maintains a fiscally responsible budget with reasonable debt and a trade surplus, there is simply no foreseeable fix to the problem of ballooning US debt and trade deficits. Nothing can fix the US budget mess.
Anyone who is paying attention to the numbers would certainly have more confidence in EUR over USD.
Meanwhile the video fades more and more every few years, you can barely even make out faces and objects in the frames now. But it’s happened so slowly that he never really realized that it was happening all along
People in the UK still think they are the #1 superpower today
States can't issue their own currency, they're all going wherever the nation goes on this one.
Of course they can. You're pointing out that federal law currently prohibits it? I already understood that to be the case when I made my point.
> they're all going wherever the nation goes on this one.
Unless they all collectively decide on a different course of action. The constitution was left amendable. It has been done several times already. A simple option is to repeal the 17th and to return to a state assembly controlled federal senate.
The core feature of the senate that makes it so indefensible is how it assigns power to states, not people. That relationship cannot be amended, per article 5 of the us constitution.
What's "indefensible" about this?
And you can amend how the body is elected; hell, you can amend how the president is elected. Also Article V provides for a state "constitutional convention" as a process for initiating changes, bypassing both the Senate and the House.
ps im talking about real persons here, not corporations
Source: https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/gold-reserves
