Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It's a bit of a stretch to call this juxtaposition of topics, with absolutely zero analysis of how they're connected, honest:

> we tax hardworking Americans mightily to finance global security. On the financial side, the reserve function of the dollar has caused persistent currency distortions and contributed, along with other countries’ unfair barriers to trade, to unsustainable trade deficits.

Money is fungible between these two concerns. The excess demand for USD is a source of revenue for our economic empire, realized by the continual monetary inflation without nearly as much corresponding price inflation. Some of that monetary inflation has been used by the government (~"deficit spending"), but the sheer majority has been getting dumped into the financial industry to bid up existing assets as a handout to the rich. That is what has left the American worker high and dry - near complete inability for the US government to use that already-centralized revenue to help wider society, due to a political movement based around fake austerity.

The article continues on using the passive voice to describe multiple things that the US government could have put a stop to any time it wanted, framed as if they were being done to us by other countries. For example:

> in the years running up to the 2008 crash, China along with many foreign financial institutions, increased their holdings of U.S. mortgage debt, which helped fuel the housing bubble, forcing hundreds of billions of dollars of credit into the housing sector without regard as to whether the investments made sense

Obviously if the government had set interest rates higher rather than lower, there would have been fewer mortgage bonds to buy and the dollars would have had to go elsewhere. I don't know if this pattern is deliberate or just an inevitable result of the bizzarro framing where having the world reserve currency is asserted to be a liability, but either way it is most certainly not honest.



(relatively)

I call this kind of nonsense that can be seen through at a glance an 'relatively honest lie'

those lines you quoted are nonsense that can be totally ignored without misunderstanding his point, those lines are like something as "get schwifty"

> Second, they can get schwifty by opening their markets and buying more from America

> Fifth, they could simply write checks to Treasury that help us get schwifty


SMH, the mental contortions people will go through to rationalize and whitewash the actions of this administration. You're either honest or you're not. There's no such thing as honest if people just read every third sentence and invent their own meanings for the rest. That's called dishonest.

But even accepting your point for the sake of discussion, he is "honestly" doing what? Begging? How is that a good thing?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: