No one hates the “both sides” argument by itself… they hate lazy arguments. This one is resignation wrapped in pseudo-neutrality. Post-WWII America hit 106%, Japan peaked over 260% … neither had runaway inflation. Policy choices and productive investment matter far more than arbitrary debt thresholds. Reducing GDP growth entirely to energy production is wrong. Since 1990, U.S. energy use per GDP dollar dropped 60% while the economy grew. Productivity gains, innovation, and structural shifts toward services drive modern growth. And of course, energy is important for tomorrow, but we are abandoning the future of energy technology to China. Healthcare reform doesn’t require mass layoffs. Germany and France spend 40–50% less per capita while covering everyone … by eliminating waste and negotiating prices, not cutting workers. Universal coverage actually requires more healthcare workers. If you mean cutting administrators wastes, that’s often a goal of reform. “No amount of policies will fix this” is an escape hatch. If debt is your biggest concern, the 1990s proved federal budgets can be balanced through policy. We’ve seen it work. Historically, presidents avoid direct market manipulation. Now we’re seeing massive tariffs with selective political relief … a shock to global systems. Past experiments like Nixon’s wage freezes or Trump’s earlier tariffs pale compared to this scope and timing. This is the most sweeping real-time experiment in global market manipulation ever attempted … hitting multiple economies while supply chains remain fragile from COVID. If executed perfectly, maybe damage stays contained. If not, stagflation could be mild compared to what’s coming. We survived one black swan inflation event with COVID. Now we're creating another deliberately. That's not "both sides failing" … it's one person's policy choice creating measurable risk while you use the both-sides argument to defend it.
I noticed the republican narrative has changed now from promising lower prices to now higher prices are necessary so suck it up.
I see the Japan comparison frequently — it’s a poor comparison; apples and oranges. They are almost polar opposites. Also, we are not talking about hyperinflation. The United States will not see hyperinflation; however, 4–5% inflation will become the new norm. I did not attribute GDP growth entirely to energy nor would I make a strong correlation. GDP is measured on a monthly basis, whereas energy growth is measured annually, or at best semi-decadal. But to the point, 60% is TERRIBLE. We should be seeing 200–300%, not –60%. Energy consumption itself is not bad — it’s the emissions we should be concerned about. The US and China have the highest energy consumption. Africa has one of the lowest. That is the correlation. At this point, we don’t have a fuel problem; we have a supply/demand issue. Nationally, there is low demand, so the private sector will not build out excess generation. However, new demand is driven locally and often requires an abundance of energy. Our energy sector is a mess. This is way off base. I don’t care what other countries are doing or what we have been doing for the past 100 years. If automation can reduce 75% of the cost, 50% of the workforce, and improve quality 100%, then this is what we should do. We don’t keep a workforce simply because we are afraid they are unemployable. That is completely ridiculous. That is not the way it works. And no, we have not seen it work — the .com bubble busted that. We have seen reasonable politicians balance the budget for a couple of years. The United States can’t be the powerhouse of the world while cutting indefinitely. GDP must outpace debt over the long term. Debt is not necessarily bad, but bad debt is terrible. And we have A LOT of bad debt. I predict we will never fall below 100% again. This isn’t doom and gloom but the end of an 80-year era of easy money. The upcoming generations will have to work harder and smarter. The United States will erode its global dominance, and being a US president will mean having to share the world with all the other countries instead of ruling over them. The more socialistic programs we expand or implement for the lazy and/or uninformed will only accelerate this process.
Japan isn’t apples-to-oranges ... it’s exactly the scenario you’re describing. You claim debt-to-GDP over 100% makes inflation uncontrollable, then dismiss the country that’s run 200%+ debt for decades without sustained inflation as irrelevant. That’s cherry-picking data to fit your conclusion. Your energy argument contradicts itself. You deny linking GDP growth entirely to energy, then immediately criticize 60% efficiency gains as “TERRIBLE” and demand 200–300% improvements with zero evidence. Efficiency gains ... producing more economic value per unit of energy ... are literally how modern economies grow. Then you scatter through emissions, Africa, and supply/demand without connecting any of it to your original point. On healthcare: “If automation can reduce costs 75%” is speculative. Meanwhile, proven systems already deliver better outcomes at half the cost through policy, not mass layoffs (or automation or AI). Automation should enhance these models, not replace the human elements healthcare fundamentally requires. The 1990s surplus wasn’t luck ... it was sustained policy producing measurable results until deliberate reversals. Bubbles don’t erase successful fiscal management any more than recessions erase all economic growth. Your “inevitable decline” framing is the real escape hatch here. Claiming nothing can work while predicting permanent stagnation isn’t analysis ... it’s fatalism dressed as realism. If you’re right that we face generational challenges, that makes smart policy more crucial, not pointless.
Was in Trader Joe's last night and talked to the manager about wine prices. He said they were going to try and hold the price of 2-3 of their more popular imports, but expected all other non-domestic wines to go up substantially or not be available. Even the domestic stuff will go up some as many US winemakers prefer French barrels and can't get by without cork from Portugal.
Those programs were like 70-90 years ago. Our current form of near-sighted capitalism really went down hill in the 80s when a guy like Jack Welch was able to make 750 million gutting GE for short term profits leaving it a shell of it's former self and not dealing with the aftermath years down the road. The counter to this has been tech stocks that were allowed to go unprofitable for years while they built monopoly power, but that seemed like a weird blip. I haven't seen much long term thinking in the corporate world since the second internet tech boom. Now that I think about it, AI is also following this trend. So it seems hyped tech is able to muster long term thinking and capital.
Sure that's the easy answer, but protein, fat and fiber make you feel more satiated than carbs. And if you look at labels, everything seems to have sneaky extra carbs added. And the cheap addictive foods (chips, sodas, etc) are all carbs.
youre basically stating nutrient dense calories are far superior to energy dense calories. He is stating excessive consumption of nutrient dense calories eventually become energy dense calories so regardless, over consumption is bad. You both are talking past each other..
Yes. I got his point and agreed, but again it's an oversimplification. I'll have to agree with @Os Trigonum for once that a calorie is a calorie is bad advice. If you eat a steak, green beans, carrots and a banana, you're going to feel full longer than if you eat the same calories with Doritos and ice cream. That first meal takes much longer to digest and the energy it produces gets spread out of a longer period of time. One of the reasons keto works is because it's hard to over eat when you are eating protein all day. AFAIK these new diet drugs work because they slow down digestion and you feel full all the time. A high fiber and protein diet will do the same thing naturally.
You guys are putting a ton of words in my mouth lol, like 9 calories per gram’s worth. The only thing I’d argue over in the great macro wars is that I think saturated fat is problematic for heart disease. The nutritionist I respect and the cardiologist I’ve spoken to feel very confident in that, so I take it serious, personally. I’ve seen keto advocates acknowledge the saturated fat problem and subvert it by just recommending statins. Im not trying to be right, I don’t feel any type of pride or superiority in nutrition takes, I just genuinely want people like @Os Trigonum to live a long healthy life because I want someone to call a dipshit moron in the D&D 20 years from now.
Most companies have not raised their prices yet because of TACO. Now they realize that the tariffs are permanent, they are raising their prices. Christmas is going to be eye opening.
