American Economics Thread

[chgough34]

Yup, that's all congress does. Blah blah blah blah blah, and the US started so far ahead of China a couple of decades ago China couldn't see America's dust and now China's 15 years ahead. That's like Congress getting negative things done with all the talking.

Even assuming the validity of the ITIF’s findings (it’s pretty obvious that its thinly veiled lobbying - and you are mischaracterizing it anyway -
“Overall, analysts assess that China likely stands 10 to 15 years ahead of the United States in its ability to deploy fourth-generation nuclear reactors at scale” -

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

), none of what you said cuts against that this law (and several dozen others) cuts against the notion that Congress is incapable of passing reforms, or that Chinas growth has been bog-standard capital deepening and technological catch-up (hence, the slowing growth rate as gdppc has increased). Nor does it cut against the fact US-specific factors limiting nuclear power deployment have now been vaporized by the bill making the ITIF’s study conclusions already outdated - even assuming they were valid good faith estimates in the first place. (the NRC’s safety-ism, longer permitting wait times, various environmental reviews, etc)

The first thing that comes up is Reuters. That's specialist now? LOL Blah blah blah, "I'm an American talking about not talking!" Keep falling behind.

Reuters is a newswire. Of course they would cover it. And that Reuters and its band of copycats, as well as a handful of broadsheets cover the story on Page 17 doesn’t cut against the statement that it’s garnering much public interest - which is limited to headlines and tv.

No, everything you said is meaningless while paycheck to paycheck numebrs are everything despite minor differences in definition because financially healthy individuals (like the Chinese people talking to you on this forum) cannot be defined as paycheck to paycheck by any definition. You are trying wipe the slate clean for minor differences like whether anorexia is a BMI cutoff of 15.2 or 15.4; we're talking about sumos here.

No one can plausibly be said to be living paycheck to paycheck if they have savings (if they live paycheck to paycheck solely on labor income, they would still have savings from capital income/interest on deposits). Bank deposits and retail money market fund have grown substantially and the net worth (even excluding home equity) of households is positive - all of which would substantially argue against a completely textual interpretation of “paycheck to paycheck”. There’s also fairly substantial evidence definitions of “paycheck to paycheck” mean “after my savings in both liquid (checkings/savings/taxable brokerage) and illiquid (home equity/retirement accounts) forms and after my expenses, I have no money” which is tautological

 

[doggydogdo]

Even assuming the validity of the ITIF’s findings (it’s pretty obvious that its thinly veiled lobbying - and you are mischaracterizing it anyway -
“Overall, analysts assess that China likely stands 10 to 15 years ahead of the United States in its ability to deploy fourth-generation nuclear reactors at scale” -

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

)

Why do you assume ITIF's findings are fake in the first place, you shouldn't just dismiss research that you don't like. Also, what do you mean by "ability to deploy"? The ability to deploy green energy faster and cheaper is literally the goal.

 

[gelgoog]

For such an US fan he sure doesn't have a clue about what "innovation" is.
It is basically making something available and possibly pervasive.
The US historically has not treated inventors particularly well. Try reading about Nikola Tesla for example.
It is all about getting a product into the market. And the US is failing here. The US used to pride themselves in marketing the inventions of others. But now it is China's time.

 

[manqiangrexue]

Even assuming the validity of the ITIF’s findings (it’s pretty obvious that its thinly veiled lobbying - and you are mischaracterizing it anyway -
“Overall, analysts assess that China likely stands 10 to 15 years ahead of the United States in its ability to deploy fourth-generation nuclear reactors at scale” -

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

), none of what you said cuts against that this law (and several dozen others) cuts against the notion that Congress is incapable of passing reforms, or that Chinas growth has been bog-standard capital deepening and technological catch-up (hence, the slowing growth rate as gdppc has increased). Nor does it cut against the fact US-specific factors limiting nuclear power deployment have now been vaporized by the bill making the ITIF’s study conclusions already outdated - even assuming they were valid good faith estimates in the first place. (the NRC’s safety-ism, longer permitting wait times, various environmental reviews, etc)

Once again with the same comparison of your incessant babbling about the threshold of anorexia being a BMI either 15.2 or 15.4 when we're talking about sumos. What would this article say if it were comparing China's nuclear technology against America's right after WWII? Now in 2024, what does it say? That is the uselessness of your Congress. Your details are worthless amidst this big picture backdrop.

Reuters is a newswire. Of course they would cover it. And that Reuters and its band of copycats

Quick to throw your own media under the bus, aren't you? Like a crab tossing its limb and running away. But hey, Reuters is bigger than anything you've ever done.

, as well as a handful of broadsheets cover the story on Page 17

No, there's no 17 pages; it's a headline in itself. That's page 1. In order to demonstrate to an American the mathematical difference between 17 and 1 on a level that he can relate to, we go to the test question: If you paid for 17 grams of fentenyl, but the dealer only gave you 1 gram, would you happily walk away or start a gunfight?

Oh, did you do the Googling for that title or did you forgo that altogether knowing you wouldn't like the results?

doesn’t cut against the statement that it’s garnering much public interest - which is limited to headlines and tv.

Limited to headlines and tv? What else is there? Government satelite beamed subliminal messaging into your brain when you sleep?

No one can plausibly be said to be living paycheck to paycheck if they have savings (if they live paycheck to paycheck solely on labor income, they would still have savings from capital income/interest on deposits). Bank deposits and retail money market fund have grown substantially and the net worth (even excluding home equity) of households is positive - all of which would substantially argue against a completely textual interpretation of “paycheck to paycheck”. There’s also fairly substantial evidence definitions of “paycheck to paycheck” mean “after my savings in both liquid (checkings/savings/taxable brokerage) and illiquid (home equity/retirement accounts) forms and after my expenses, I have no money” which is tautological

Blah blah blah, anorexia bmi 15.2 or 15.4? I guess if we can't all agree then anorexia doesn't exist! LOL Big picture:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[siegecrossbow]

One important use case for augmented reality glasses — QR scanners for grocery prices. Why no one has thought of this?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[chgough34]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

wow, must be all that household paycheck to paycheck living that’s causing them to save large amounts of money

 

[Heresy]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

wow, must be all that household paycheck to paycheck living that’s causing them to save large amounts of money

How many people in America actually have a 401k? Do you even live in the United States? Pointing to a 401k as if though it was somehow representative of actual average Americans shows just how you don't understand context. You cherry-pick facts to support a narrative and agenda without realizing that the cherry-pick facts make your argument look silly because you don't understand the context of the country that you're 'Rah-Rahing'.

Do us all a favor and sod off to Reddit.

 

[chgough34]

Once again with the same comparison of your incessant babbling about the threshold of anorexia being a BMI either 15.2 or 15.4 when we're talking about sumos. What would this article say if it were comparing China's nuclear technology against America's right after WWII? Now in 2024, what does it say?

Technological catch-up is easier than pushing the technological frontier; the least surprising thing ever. It’s mildly revealing, imo, that you condition US competency on being able to maintain a perpetual lead over a country with 4x US population in everything (expecting the U.S. to be hyper-competent in everything, forever, and substantially better than every foreign policymaker is one helluva null hypothesis - where did that null come from, if I may ask?)

That is the uselessness of your Congress. Your details are worthless amidst this big picture backdrop.

Congress is useless because a country with no technology and no physical capital is able to converge to 1/6th the U.S. GDPPC level after 4 decades of intensive catch-up? Sure thing lol.

This is mainly besides the point - the point was Congress is able to pass large technocratic reforms (as they just did) and that is obviously contradictory to a claim that Washington/DC/Congress is hopelessly deadlocked when they clearly are not.

Quick to throw your own media under the bus, aren't you? Like a crab tossing its limb and running away. But hey, Reuters is bigger than anything you've ever done.

No, not really. It is once again, definitional. Reuters is a newswire since regional broadcasters and newspapers cannot afford national correspondents so they buy coverage of federal politics form newswires (the regionals are literally copying coverage from Reuters).

No, there's no 17 pages; it's a headline in itself. That's page 1.

All pages have headlines lmao.

Oh, did you do the Googling for that title or did you forgo that altogether knowing you wouldn't like the results?

It was literally an act of Congress. Expecting zero coverage is ridiculous for an act of Congress with substantial macroeconomic effects. But there isn’t going to be broad public opinion on it either way unless it is on Page A1 of a newspaper of record or it garners substantial TV coverage through broadcasts/mentions during prime time (neither happened wrt the nuclear energy bill). Hence, broadly under the radar.

Blah blah blah, anorexia bmi 15.2 or 15.4? I guess if we can't all agree then anorexia doesn't exist! LOL Big picture:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Once again - asking people whether they are living paycheck to paycheck is not useful when no one has a consistent meaning of what it actually means. And even if taken literally that individuals spend all of their household labor income and save none of it - that itself doesn’t necessarily indicate financial distress because capital income is a thing that provides substantial revenue to many households and because often, substantial discretionary spending is due to voluntary choices and household confidence in the future - which if those polls are to be taken literally - is what it points to once disaggregated by income -

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[chgough34]

How many people in America actually have a 401k?

54% of the population has a defined contribution retirement account, not necessarily a 401(k) since those are only for corporate employees as opposed to say, nonprofit 403(b)s -

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

add to that the ~15% of the population that works for the public sector and whom overwhelmingly have access to a pension (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.)

and add to that lower income individuals who will see full income replacement in retirement from social security and thus don’t need to save anything.

combined together: yeah - it paints a combined very good picture.

Pointing to a 401k as if though it was somehow representative of actual average Americans shows just how you don't understand context.

Well, given half of the population has a 401K or similar ERISA DC plan and Congress passed the SECURE 2.0 Act which increased lower income employee eligibility for 401Ks (which would opt-in poorer, more adversely selected, lower savings groups into the 401K account holder mix) and even with all of that, the 401K savings rate went up, clearly cuts against the hypothesis that households are literally living paycheck to paycheck (to be taken at literal face value of course)

 

[Heresy]

Once again - asking people whether they are living paycheck to paycheck is not useful when no one has a consistent meaning of what it actually means. And even if taken literally that individuals spend all of their household labor income and save none of it - that itself doesn’t necessarily indicate financial distress because capital income is a thing that provides substantial revenue to many households and because often, substantial discretionary spending is due to voluntary choices and household confidence in the future - which if those polls are to be taken literally - is what it points to once disaggregated by income -

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I feel like self-awareness is almost happening. That is if you were genetically capable of intellectual honesty, which we all know you're not, Sleepy.