Here's your reminder that this is of course a bunch of alarmist nonsense, because as an issuer of currency the United States is incapable of becoming "insolvent."
The authors are from an libertarian extremist think tank that pushes for a balanced budget amendment. If these people got their way, we would immediately solve the problem of people arguing about this on the internet since none of us would be able to afford to own a computer.
Moreover, the great con was to convince people that the US debt is a liability, as though there's someone who is going to come and repo man your country with a truck.
At the macro level, debt is one of the most powerful tools that a government is entrusted to deploy. It's literally how you grow an economy.
Oh c'mon! We know that. Good Lord, if a country's debts were held elsewhere, it'd be the Trump administration trying to repo someone first for Nato money or other some fool reason.
Meanwhile,there are in fact actual, bonafide, tangible problems to financial stupidity you're quip forgot to address.
This assumes that there isn't profound demand destruction caused by the stratospheric energy prices.
Fossil fuels were already an inferior energy source when oil was $60/barrel. Electrification has been moving fast and accelerating, even at the pre-energy crisis prices.
Now? Current events are likely to take fossil fuels out back and give 'em the Old Yeller treatment with surprising speed.
I absolutely agree, _in market driven economies_, fossil fuels are slowly pricing themselves out of relevancy. The issue is that for some reason the US specifically subsidizes their usage keeping them artificially lowly priced.
So, how many billions of newly printed debt is Trump willing to throw at the problem to keep those subsidies up so that he can be sheltered from the scary windmills?
Seems like a big own-goal for the administration to inject an agency which (according to polls[1]) is quite broadly hated into the daily lives of millions.
Politically they're just going from failure (immigration policy broadly considered a failure) to failure (starting a new forever war in the middle east is universally hated) to failure (this).
It's no wonder they're trying to burn the election system to the ground to prevent a fair election from occurring this year. It's the only way they're staying out of jail, especially Tom "cash bribes only" Homan.
Why, Imperial Command Enforcement of course. They're a a bit like Hitler's SA (in fact one of them even dressed the part), the Great Leader sends them wherever he wants something stamped on.
And that you can't print a trillion dollars and have half the country not go to work for a year without pain further down the road. Which was, by the way, a Trump policy... (Not that it was an incorrect one.)
Misinformation, low voter turnout, and an electoral system that massively over-represents people living in areas of low population density and underrepresents those living in areas of high population density.
That’s ignoring any possibility of interference with insecure voting or tallying computers.
Don’t forget racism. This administration got elected in large part because they are openly racist, delivering outcomes at a velocity that ‘Southern’ dog-whistle deniability doesn’t allow for those that do, for whatever reason, want to continue having positive or neutral reputation with those opposed to racism (which includes half of U.S. women, or more if you limit to those younger than 30) while also benefiting personally from racism’s privileges to them and their families.
racism was a minor factor in the 2024 election. Had Harris been white, she still would have lost. She ran a campaign that said nothing about what she as going to do, she only said how evil Trump would be. She lost the election when she was asked on "The View," a Democrat friendly show, if there was anything she would do differently than Biden. There's only one wrong answer to that question ad she gasve, saying not a thing. Had she just said she'd tackle the border and illegal immigration, she'd have had a chance.
Had Biden kept to his word and been one and one, the Democrats would have had a primary and selected a candidate who could have won. (Harris would not have won the nomination in any sort of primary.)
It isn't just "the dem candidate is black and I am racist so I will vote for the republican candidate." Trump and his people going on TV and whipping up racist paranoia about how refugees are eating people's pets and how he is going to get rid of all of the immigrants motivates racists to the polls.
Why voting day isn't a federal holiday is baffling to me. Along with all the weird-ass rules about "registering to vote" and people having to queue for hours in the heat and nobody is allowed to even give them water.
I usually vote a few weeks in advance while grocery shopping, there's a booth set up at the supermarket. I can just walk in with my ID, vote and the vote is sealed in a box until the official day.
Or I can walk like 1km to the nearest school, again show my ID, vote and go home.
If I had to "register to vote", I'd most likely forget it or not bother to do it.
In the US, this is a partisan issue. The left benefits from higher turnout and the right gets less traction. States with Republican leadership and vaguely competitive elections are doing their best to make it harder to vote.
> an electoral system that massively over-represents people living in areas of low population density and underrepresents those living in areas of high population density
We need paper ballots because people can understand them. Election conspiracy theories are becoming a problem. Having a counting process that people can understand and trust is a feature.
Paper ballots that we almost never bother manually checking against the insecure digital tallies unless there’s a very close race or explicit challenge to the count.
Nearly every state routinely does statistical audits of voting machines compared with paper records.
People hate to hear this but: statistics work. You can randomly sample a portion (say, 2% to 5%) of ballots and have effective certainty about how much fraud or error there is in your voting system.
Conspiratorial thinking can't be fixed with additional facts. There is no set of facts that conclusively establish any claim to someone who is already committed not to believing the claim.
A common property of conspiracies is that any evidence is evidence of the conspiracy. Not enough data produces "what are they hiding" stuff. More data produces deliberate misunderstandings of the data to justify the conspiracy. We saw this very clearly with covid. When public health agencies were less transparant it was evidence of an evil coverup. When public agencies were more transparant about limitations or things they didn't fully understand it was evidence that public health efforts didn't work.
You could blame the backing of the richest oligarchs in the world, you could blame a morally bankrupt culture amongst a large chunk of the electorate, but at the end of the day it was a very tight race and there was a global wave of incumbent losses[1], regardless of the incumbent party's position.
Between 2021 and 2024 the world went on a rollercoaster ride. Pandemic economic stimulus made everyone feel rich in 2021, and then harsh monetary tightening led to everyone feeling like their world was collapsing in 2024. They punished whoever was in charge at the time.
Because the Democrats tried to run Biden again, despite the obvious-to-everybody signs of decline and unfitness. Then, when that became impossible to ignore, they anointed Harris. (Thereby overturning the results of the primaries, which created bad memories from the previous two campaigns.) Then Harris said that she wouldn't do anything different from Biden, despite people being tired of Biden.
And because the electorate had kind of forgotten what Trump was like, because they'd just spent four years seeing what Biden was like. There was a bunch of stuff that Biden (or at least his people) did that didn't really resonate with voters, and a bunch of them voted for "not that".
The other thing they did wrong was, they were a year late in prosecuting Trump. Trump managed to delay things out to the point that the campaign (and then the office) protected him. I don't know if Democrats delayed deliberately, so that the prosecutions would be damaging Trump as the campaign season started, but if so, they were well-paid for that bit of attempted chicanery.
Democrats funded, armed and protected a live-streamed genocide so horrific that roughly a third of their own hard-core base (Biden 2020 voters) couldn't bring themselves to vote for Harris, even in a close race against Trump [0].
There are other reasons Dems lost, also important. Still, genocide remains the blazing neon-red 12-ton elephant in the room. And there seems to be absolutely no sign of owning that fact, which means that no lessons will be learned or policies changed.
However, it still points to the fact that Harris lost millions of votes due to her support for arming Israel.
And, even for the people who voted Harris there was a distinct lack of enthusiasm - directly because of Gaza.
> Even among Biden 2020 voters who did vote for Harris in battleground states, voters by a seven-to-one margin say they would have been more enthusiastic in their support if Harris “pledged to break from President Biden's policy toward Gaza by promising to withhold additional weapons to Israel” rather than less enthusiastic.
> More enthusiastic - 35%
> Less enthusiastic - 5%
All the richest sociopaths in SV have latched onto the meme that democracy and (their) freedom (to do whatever they want to the lower classes) aren't compatible, and these people bought control of the algorithms that are currently brainwashing anyone within eyeshot of a screen.
I mostly feel bad for job losses due to AI, but I won't shed a tear for journalists who make a living spreading misinformation about the results of research.
> They found that the risk of heart attack and stroke jumped in those that paused GLP-1 treatments for as little as six months, compared to those who continued taking the medication.
(Emphasis mine) The 'jumped' would more correctly say 'tended to revert to baseline' if you just had a basic LLM summarize this study for you...but then that wouldn't drive clicks and shares on your article.
A few critical items beyond oil are also now in short supply:
Fertilizer, which is kind of important right now since it's springtime and farmers are planting crops around the world.
Plastic, without which modern hospitals can't operate.
Aluminum.
The list goes on, this was the dumbest war in our lifetimes but it's the culmination of a lot of previous stupidity that made it all possible.
The people who started this war are authoritarians and, let's be honest, straight up criminals, who did it to entrench their grip on their own domestic politics.
The sentiment I see is more like, "Are war crimes, mass deaths, a global depression, and maybe WWIII really worth keeping the earlier crimes of Trump and Netanyahu out of the headlines?"
Even if there's plenty of supply, this is still a major supply chain disruption that will have ripple effects. Combine this with all the other major supply chain disruptions.
This might only raise costs a few percent. Yet for some firms that were just barely keeping their heads above water with the tightened monetary policy, and the tariffs, and now spikes in energy prices, this will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
I agree this is a major disruption, but I don't agree it's the plastic portion to worry about.
Oil, fertilizer, helium. These are the things I'm most worried about especially for their knock-on effects. Fertilizer is going to have a long tail. Like, don't expect a food spike this year, but expect prices on food to go wild next year. That alone is going to majorly effect everything worldwide.
It's not price, it's availability. You construction will slam to a halt. Plumber neighbour is now hiring security dogs for his supply yard as they now have to deal with theft of pvc and PE pipe, in addition to tweakers going after copper.
I'm convinced that the Japanese government is terrified of EVs because all the small and medium-sized businesses which support the Japanese auto industry will be absolutely gutted when vehicles contain drastically fewer parts.
That, and Japan is deeply screwed if they go all-in on EVs and then China decides they shouldn't be allowed access to any more rare earths.
> China decides they shouldn't be allowed access to any more rare earths
This is a common misunderstanding. There are plenty of alternative locations to mine rare earth minerals, particularly Australia. China cornered the market because it's a high pollution low margin business. If geopolitical concerns cut off access to Chinese sources, alternatives will be developed.
Mining isn't the only bottleneck with rare earths. There also the processing, which is an industry China has monopolized through sustained investments over decades. They have also improved processing efficiency through investments in technology. It's going to take a while for anyone else to catch up.
> There also the processing, which is an industry China has monopolized through sustained investments over decades.
I don't think this is the right way to characterize it. China invested when other countries didn't, but they didn't monopolize the market, they have no moat beyond expertise and some tech advancement that could be replicated easily enough. The only moat they have is related perseverance and other countries simply not wanting to put the work in.
I think they do have a moat because they dominate the supply chain not just in the raw material and processing but also in some of the actual technical experience, i.e. the experience of running such processing facilities, and also a monopoly on making the equipment that you need to build such a facility. They put export controls on those equipment and restricted their citizens who work in the rare earths industry from traveling aboard.
Basically, if we want to replicate what they did, we will have to do it mostly from scratch -- Japan and Australia has done some of the work already so it's not totally from scratch. It's obviously not impossible but it could take almost a decade for us to do that.
That said, I don't think this should be enough for Japan to stop investing in EVs. If Japanese car makers are really worried about this then they can build their plants in the US and leverage any deal the US has with China on real earths. They've already starting importing Japanese cars made in India and the US back to Japan so that's an established practice. Then once they've secured their own supplies they can make the EVs in Japan too. I think OP's point about the suppliers have more merit as a reason why Japan might not want to develop EVs.
I have worked with the Chinese REE industry, and we've often bumped heads and shared ideas together with them and I can confidently tell you, the Chinese don't use anything novel that has not been established in Western science already. What they do have is executing rarely-used techniques confidently at scale, but all of that is already often published in the West. The only reason the West hasn't done it is because these techniques are less profitable, and, surprise, the CCP actually forces processors to minimize ecological damage, which further bumps up the costs to the point only large-scale players can exist making such lower profits. You'll often find them using some obscure process alteration that was published minutely in the West.
As an addendum, companies in the REE Sinosphere are often encouraged by the CCP to exchange ideas with each other quite often, while Western companies often lock them behind proprietary patents and competition. While both systems have their pros and cons, the former allows for faster process proliferation (and a lower profit incentive for the innovator).
> the Chinese don't use anything novel that has not been established in Western science already
Like they say: in theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice, they aren't.
It's all well and good to have knowledge of the techniques, or to even have published or created them. But applying them successfully, working out all the kinks, and streamlining everything to become profitable doesn't happen overnight.
I have no doubt alternate sources can exist, but not without significant time and effort.
> my experience with theory is that it includes time and effort considerations
I would never disagree with you here. But the point is that the time and effort you spend on theory doesn't translate to time and effort spent on practice.
What I mean is that since the peak of American REE in the 1970s and 1980s(?) a lot of the engineers who have working knowledge are retired. There's nothing theoretical we can't dig up but I think there will need to be a number of years for the US to catch up in terms of craft knowledge or "metis" (as Dan Wang likes to call it) and processing equipment and plants.
Maybe I'm wrong. I gained my knowledge second-hand/third-hand from books and podcasts so I would defer to you to your actual experience and observations about Chinese REE. What is your estimate on how long it would take the West to catch to at least supply some of the rare earth components and what the real barriers might be? Would love to hear your take on this.
Thanks for sharing your observations. I had no idea about the minutiae of that industry, i.e. the ecological control and its effects on the industry.
No, you're right. China, and even India and Russia, also do not have the same talent problem of the West, in that there is an undersupply of engineers, especially in the geological, processing and chemical sectors. In the US, the average age of the chemical process engineer was touching 50 a few years back. The average age of a process safety engineer is well past 50. While Russia and India lose their technical talent to brain drain, the Chinese govt has done quite a lot in trying to reverse that.
The real barriers are talent and the regulation vs profit motive balance. What I mentioned in my previous comment was effectively an effect of the intersection of the two - you can't find novel ways of processing harmful substances without having the technical talent to find these out in the first place, nor without giving them a free reign after deprioritizing profit.
Let's take arsenic for instance, a substance that's a harmful byproduct arising out of most mining operations. We already have the technology in the West to lock away arsenic into glass, but a.) apart from the big ones, most companies are unaware of them, and b.) even if they were aware of it, the tech is a significant line item that shies investors and companies away from investing into it.
> What is your estimate on how long it would take the West to catch to at least supply some of the rare earth components and what the real barriers might be?
Never. Yes, there are a few companies still engaged in trying to secure REE supply (Glencore being the most notable), but due to Western regulatory and policy limbo, the answer is never. For this to change, you need regulators open to experimentations and a concerted effort by the government in trying to reestablish REE independence, both in extraction and in processing, but I have yet to see either happening. It's telling when frankly the US is the country in the West most likely to catch up still, but the gap is deeper than the Darien Gap .
>they have no moat beyond expertise and some tech advancement that could be replicated easily enough
Moat is decades of process / tactic knowledge built by disproportionate amount of talent on geologic formations others didn't invest in. Right now they generate 15x mining graduates, university of mining tech alone enrolls more than all US mining programs combined. Then you throw all that into a mining city like Batou with 3 million people running vertically integrated operation. That's ecosystem scale with compounded advantages beyond "wanting" to put work in, it maybe scale on PRC has demonstrated ability to produce.
Between shallow kiddy pool and Mariana Trencth in terms of ease of replication, I wouldn't lean towards kiddy pool. I don't think "right way to characterize" their lead is "no moat" beyond... all the things that are actually, in fact very deep moats, as if any country can persevere their way to replicate decades of work and execute industrial policy of a 3 million large city dedicated to mining/rees.
I surmise, PRC will build out EUV (technical problem) and produce them at scale before west+co meaningfully tackles HREEs supply chain (technical and regulatory and industrial problem).
> they have no moat beyond expertise and some tech advancement that could be replicated easily enough
Incorrect, de facto, the only firms invested heavily in the rare earth refineries technology are Chinese for the last 20-30 years. Their moats are as deep as TSMC moats so to say.
Processing is the thing china does, you don't really mine rare earths, they are in many areas. Sure there are substrates it's easier to extract from, but the massive pollution of the processing that china was willing to accept when others were not that allowed them to corner the market. It can be done more cleanly, the US has some processing for strategic reasons (not enough though), but doing it clean is _very_ expensive.
Lets hope the people modifying plants to concentrate elements make work.
As I understand it, some of these processes also require a sufficiently large industrial base to be even remotely economical due to a reliance on industrial 'byproduct' (for want of a better word). Because of this, some of these processes are not something that can be quickly stood up in isolation over a few years. It would take concerted large scale planning over a long time period - something the Chinese system of government is almost uniquely capable of.
Japan is also particularly well positioned because China had used rare earths against them first in 2014. Since then they've created basically a strategic rare earths reserve and done research on how to build some components without them. It's not an absolute solution but between this and future development in friendlier nations, I don't think the rare earth risk is as acute for Japanese automakers.
I do think the original point about lower complexity vehicles being a threat to the suppliers has some merits though. Germany faces a very similar dilemma and made similar decisions.
There are also non rare earth magnets being explored. Niron - Iron nitride - magnets and ultrasonic compaction and other tech that wasn't feasible a while back are now becoming very practical. Japan could probably get to a dominant place with a solid research program, it'd give them a huge advantage for EVs and other motors.
Ford: It recorded a loss of $1.2 billion in EBIT in the third quarter on its EVs, bringing its losses on the segment for the first three quarters of 2024 to $3.7 billion
Honda: Honda to Write Off $15.7 Billion as EV Winter Arrives.
> I'm convinced that the Japanese government is terrified of EVs because all the small and medium-sized businesses which support the Japanese auto industry will be absolutely gutted when vehicles contain drastically fewer parts.
For what it's worth, this theory is blown up by hydrogen based vehicles, which Japan has gone heavily in on. Yes, slightly more parts than an EV, but not a ton. And the drivetrain is electric.
It really shows the bias in Honda’s management here. They’ve also spent years trying to develop and promote their hydrogen fuel cell cars and it’s just as much of a failure as their EV division yet they aren’t axing that golden child.
That's a fundamental misunderstanding of why they're going in on hydrogen so hard - it's something they can generate domestically and without geopolitical implications.
If there is a war with china or in the middle east, hydrogen vehicles are somewhat immune to oil or rare earth spikes.
They will likely never roll out hydrogen power in any large capacity but the capability will be there if they need it
They can also generate electricity domestically. In fact, that is much, much, much, much easier then producing hydrogen.
Its an idiots version of geoplitics to bet on hydrogen just because you can produce it from electricity.
Because factually speaking nobody produces it from electricity, and its never competitive. So it would never be used by most people over natural gas produced hydrogen.
> hydrogen vehicles are somewhat immune to oil or rare earth spikes.
They would not be immune to rare earth anymore then EVs. In fact, it requires more complex supply chains an more exposure to more stuff.
> but the capability will be there if they need it
No it isn't. They do not have the capability to role it out. Producing a few prototype vehicles an a few fuel stations isn't really relevant to the question of can you produce 10 million of them, and fuel them reliably and cheaply. And Japan has no capability to do that.
If we get into an actual shooting war with China, I don't think there's enough hydrogen generating facilities to make much of a difference. If maybe 20% of vehicles on the road were using hydrogen, maybe?
Considering how much money and effort both Toyota and Honda have poured into trying to kick start a hydrogen economy over the past decade and a half, and how much EV technology was evolved over the same time span, would it not make more sense to switch to the technology that actually is proven and actually has consumer demand for?
It's not like they're switching all that military hardware to hydrogen too.
Japan can't solve all of its energy woes, but it can ease it a lot by restarting all the nuclear reactors they shut down after Fukushima, and to be fair, they've been trying [0], but stuff breaks after not having been used in over a decade.
Is there a place somewhere in the world where Hydrogen powered passenger vehicles are a success? I know that the one Hydrogen filling station here in Australia's Capital City has shut down after opening with great fanfare a few years ago. And the approximately 20 or so Hydrogen cars it supplied are no longer being used.
I just looked it up for Germany[0] and there were a whopping 3 (0.0%) new hydrogen fuel cell cars registered in Februrary 2026. Even LPG cars were more with 397 registered.
For comparison 21.9% were BEVs, 11.5% Plugin hybrids, ~51% pure petrol or non plug-in hybrid, and 14.8% Diesel.
They have not gone heavely in on hydrogen based vehicles. They have talked about it a lot, and given some subsidies, but nothing so major as to make any impact at all.
Also, they invested in in hydrogen internal combustion engines just as much.
Japan is the only other country besides China and Korea that produces magnets of high quality (higher in fact than the Chinese), they just don't do the volume. But there is absolutely no doubt that they could scale up if they wanted to.
They're just more expensive, but not even that much.
India is looking to produce 6000 tonnes of NdFeB magnets per year with the first batch coming out in mid 2026. This is great news because India has large rare earth reserves and are producing using the full supply chain of ore to oxide to magnets. 6000 tonnes is like 3% of the global supply but that’s not bad for year one.
They manufacture the magnets, but they don't produce the rare earths themselves. They're still getting something like 60-70% of their supply from China.
Right, and that 20-30% drop took them fifteen years. That's not exactly the blink of an eye, they're still looking at many decades to fully wean themselves off Chinese sources.
Toyota just had three large EV announcements and they are putting large incentives on some of them. Feels like they're serious about it and with so many others exiting the EV market lately they may have timed it well.
> all the small and medium-sized businesses which support the Japanese auto industry will be absolutely gutted when vehicles contain drastically fewer parts.
EVs have lots of the same parts as an ICEV - the differences are engine and power systems, fuel tank, transmission... Most of the car is still there. There is a lot of churn - lead-acid is out, fuel injection, sensors are different and sense different things, and so on, but it's still a car.
I've read that the Japanese electrical grid would be hard to upgrade to charge lots of electric vehicles, and that somewhat explains their enthusiasm for hydrogen.
I live in Japan and IMHO the problem is that it is an extremely conservative and risk averse country, "if it ain't broke don't fix it" taken to the extreme. They had a period of innovation after WW2 out of necessity, but after the bubble crash of 1990 they reverted back to their old selves.
Japan is just being the usual USA vassal. Since now China absolutely dominates EV and batteries, they rather align themselves with the oil-thirsty war monger.
To clarify: in a number of states a Real ID doesn't include a citizenship indicator, and a Real ID in those states is not sufficient identification for voting purposes.
For the majority of existing Real IDs, they will not be valid proof of eligibility to vote.[1]
> While your REAL ID would count as a photo ID when voting, in only a few states would it be considered proof of citizenship. Only five states — Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Vermont and Washington — offer the type of enhanced REAL IDs that explicitly indicate U.S. citizenship.
> Outside of those states, you would need another document to prove you were born in the U.S.
The authors are from an libertarian extremist think tank that pushes for a balanced budget amendment. If these people got their way, we would immediately solve the problem of people arguing about this on the internet since none of us would be able to afford to own a computer.
reply