I wish I could upvote this twice.

> Most of “proof” is based on consensus and groupthink dictated by “the experts.”

Ah of course, because the 'experts' are tainted by 'groupthink' any 'rebuttal' made by armchair internet warriors must therefore be absolutely true.

Read the reference articles. All perfectly legit sources. All are examples of how corruptible “The Science” can be.

Maybe that’s not the case with climate? Yet, not a single shared link pointing to science-based proof.

This thread is a perfect example of the type of human behavior that leads to false consensus.

Debt, rather the lack of any via ble means for the US to pay back even a fraction of its debt without having the world's reserve currency.

Yes, theoretically they can always print their way out, but that's just default through inflation and bond yields will correct immediately to account for it.

It's the outcome I expect. It's probably the outcome the US politicians expect, too.

> because that's what the market demands.

Is that true though? People are currently forced to buy gas guzzlers since there are simply no practical and cheap EVs available in the United States. If Chinese EVs were allowed to be sold in the US, it's not a given that people would still prefer ICE cars.

Indeed, the fact that they are banned suggests that the Govt knows that the domestic car industry can't compete with them.

The Nissan Leaf and Chevy Bolt (and Volt) and Fiat e500 don't exist in your narrative? People want their big SUVs, even Tesla sells one or two.

China seems to be either leaving the US behind, or within striking distance in every single technology for the future.

Looking back, I wonder if we will see this period as similar to what the 1957 Suez crisis did to the UK.

Edit: Spelling

yeah … this is my take - Trump has pushed me to get an EV next time, and BYD is already killing it in UK. Only hope for continued EU car industry is to get the UK back in the single market (haha).

It's been discussed multiple times here before. The blunt reality is that

* Almost all of the productivity gains over the past three decades have been captured by the 1%(0.1% really). Rank and file workers (yes that includes tech workers) have seen a very minuscule portion of that. Tech got by for a while because the gains were so large and that for a while, the overall pie expanded faster than the growth in developers.

* The elites used the excess surplus to capture the govt(e.g Citizens United)and ensure favourable policy like being able to socialize losses and privatize profits which resulted in even more of the gains going to them.

* In search of ever increasing profits, the elites also funneled those gains into buying up more and more of the economy starting at the top (P.E driven consolidation) and increasingly moving lower and lower on Maslow's hierarchy (housing, food/farmland, medicine).

The lowest sections of our society started getting squeezed way before(notice where the most support for a promise to return to a 'glorious' past is), but it has now reached a point where even the upper middle class is getting squeezed and can't easily afford basic needs like housing and healthcare.

History shows that these situations are inherently unstable and don't last very long. Unfortunately for the elites, in the extreme cases they don't tend to do well in the aftermath once the proles decide they have had enough.

The best hope is that they voluntarily realize that the situation is untenable.

I know it's implied, but you would be wise to add a /s

Quite a few folks on HN have developed a remarkably thin skin and no longer make the most charitable interpretation.

I refuse to do such things to cater to certain people.

Frankly I don't care whether I get or lose karma points, lol

I guess they had to do the 'voluntary' bit as otherwise they are likely looking at a class action lawsuit claiming blatant age discrimination.

If you are eligible though, I wonder just how 'voluntary' the process actually is, esp if the company tells you that a PIP is coming otherwise (of course in a nice, legally defensible way)

Why the hate? If you believe GP is wrong, then why not outline where you think they are wrong?

HN is one of the few places left where low effort snark is thankfully below the noise floor, please don't destroy that.

Aren't those identical things? Shortage of commodity X, relative to demand, drives up prices for X.

A shortage can also be physical. The fuel you already bought (and possibly paid for) cannot be delivered. Maybe the actual delivery is the issue. Maybe a government confiscated it for other uses. Or maybe the fuel doesn't exist at all, because the refinery didn't have the oil to produce it.