9 ms·

The re-election is the real surprise for me. G.W. Bush was wrong, you can be fooled twice.

by grim_io 10d ago

k12sosse 10d ago
But don't worry, now you can't get fooled again.
dismalaf 10d ago
> re-election is the real surprise for me It's interesting that it's a surprise to you, that such information bubbles exist. A great sage named Bill Clinton once said, "It's the economy, stupid!". And economic performance of the US though Trump's first term was pretty good. Crushes most of the OECD and certainly all of the large OECD countries. Plus of course Biden/Kamala ran a terrible second campaign, with the whole covering up the fact Biden is senile thing...
- jghn 10d ago
  Given the GOP doesn't even bother covering up the Trump is senile thing, perhaps the Dems could have tried the same tactic.
- watwut 10d ago
  But it is not the economy. Economy is an excuse, a cover. It is appeal of the feelings those ideas generate.
- PorciiVorbesc 10d ago
  >And economic performance of the US though Trump's first term was pretty good. Depends on your definition of "the economy". The Trump administration, like many before it and much of HN, defines "the economy" as only being the performance of the asset and stock appreciation for the existing assset holders("forget the Epstein files, the DOW is over 50,000" - Pam Bondi). While most working class people, like me and many others, define "the economy" as being how much month they have left at the end of their paycheck, after they paid for rent, bills and groceries, if they even have a job anymore and haven't been part of some mass layoff and are applying for jobs and getting rejected. For those people, "the economy" is very much NOT GOOD right now. "The economy" amazing if you own tonnes of F500 stocks and real estate though. Not if otherwise.
  - dismalaf 10d ago
    Here's a chart to visualize: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=US-EU-CA&start=2016 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?location... My definition of the economy is the actual definition lol.
    - ozlikethewizard 10d ago
      GDP per capita is not an effective measure of the economic quality of the average person though. If growth is centralised in the hands of the few, then sure per capita goes up but most peoples access to increased wealth does not. Look at something like HDI instead, US actually down over the past ~decade: https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/human-development-index#/indicies/HDI https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/human-development-index#/in...
      - dismalaf 10d ago
        The "standard of living" component of HDI is literally GNI per capita PPP (basically the same thing as GDP per capita, with a few minor adjustments). The other components are just life expectancy and educational attainment. The educational attainment one is interesting, all the countries at the top have free post-secondary... Does a PhD do more for the nation than an entrepreneur who creates a unicorn and hires 10k engineers? Also life expectancy is a lagging indicator...
        PorciiVorbesc 10d ago
        >Does a PhD do more for the nation than an entrepreneur who creates a unicorn and hires 10k engineers? As someone from an EU country which has an oversupply of PhDs, says, definitely not. I'd much rather have more entrepreneurs and job opportunism than more broke PhDs with fancy degrees.
    - PorciiVorbesc 10d ago
      Whose "actual definition" is that? Which authority established the the "actual definition" is in the name of all of us? At the end of the day, definitions are irrelevant, what matters is majority voter perception. GDP/capita don't matter if majority of voters perceive themselves as poor. And GDP/capita is a poor metric since it doesn't account for inequality differences of wealth accumulation. Like if your economy has a few ultra wealthy Elon Musks, Jeff Bezos, Larry Elissons, Jenson Huangs and and tens of thousands of broke homeless people, then the average GPD per capita is more than fine. My and many other peoples' definition, is how many people can find decent paying jobs right now, and how much they can afford after paying rent and bills. They don't care about the stock market, as that's just the playground of the top 10% of asset holders(including HN), not of the majority working class.
charlieyu1 10d ago
Does anyone actually think Kamala would win? This is probably the most lopsided win for a while.
- BLKNSLVR 10d ago
  I thought Kamala would win. I guess I overestimated the discipline of the US population, or underestimated the intellectual laziness. But I guess that's what happens when you think you've been on top for long enough.

The re-election is the real surprise for me. G.W. Bush was wrong, you can be fooled twice.

by grim_io 10d ago

The re-election is the real surprise for me. G.W. Bush was wrong, you can be fooled twice.

k12sosse 10d ago

But don't worry, now you can't get fooled again.

dismalaf 10d ago

> re-election is the real surprise for me It's interesting that it's a surprise to you, that such information bubbles exist. A great sage named Bill Clinton once said, "It's the economy, stupid!". And economic performance of the US though Trump's first term was pretty good. Crushes most of the OECD and certainly all of the large OECD countries. Plus of course Biden/Kamala ran a terrible second campaign, with the whole covering up the fact Biden is senile thing...

jghn 10d ago
Given the GOP doesn't even bother covering up the Trump is senile thing, perhaps the Dems could have tried the same tactic.
watwut 10d ago
But it is not the economy. Economy is an excuse, a cover. It is appeal of the feelings those ideas generate.
PorciiVorbesc 10d ago
>And economic performance of the US though Trump's first term was pretty good. Depends on your definition of "the economy". The Trump administration, like many before it and much of HN, defines "the economy" as only being the performance of the asset and stock appreciation for the existing assset holders("forget the Epstein files, the DOW is over 50,000" - Pam Bondi). While most working class people, like me and many others, define "the economy" as being how much month they have left at the end of their paycheck, after they paid for rent, bills and groceries, if they even have a job anymore and haven't been part of some mass layoff and are applying for jobs and getting rejected. For those people, "the economy" is very much NOT GOOD right now. "The economy" amazing if you own tonnes of F500 stocks and real estate though. Not if otherwise.
- dismalaf 10d ago
  Here's a chart to visualize: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=US-EU-CA&start=2016 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?location... My definition of the economy is the actual definition lol.
  - ozlikethewizard 10d ago
    GDP per capita is not an effective measure of the economic quality of the average person though. If growth is centralised in the hands of the few, then sure per capita goes up but most peoples access to increased wealth does not. Look at something like HDI instead, US actually down over the past ~decade: https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/human-development-index#/indicies/HDI https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/human-development-index#/in...
    - dismalaf 10d ago
      The "standard of living" component of HDI is literally GNI per capita PPP (basically the same thing as GDP per capita, with a few minor adjustments). The other components are just life expectancy and educational attainment. The educational attainment one is interesting, all the countries at the top have free post-secondary... Does a PhD do more for the nation than an entrepreneur who creates a unicorn and hires 10k engineers? Also life expectancy is a lagging indicator...
      - PorciiVorbesc 10d ago
        >Does a PhD do more for the nation than an entrepreneur who creates a unicorn and hires 10k engineers? As someone from an EU country which has an oversupply of PhDs, says, definitely not. I'd much rather have more entrepreneurs and job opportunism than more broke PhDs with fancy degrees.
  - PorciiVorbesc 10d ago
    Whose "actual definition" is that? Which authority established the the "actual definition" is in the name of all of us? At the end of the day, definitions are irrelevant, what matters is majority voter perception. GDP/capita don't matter if majority of voters perceive themselves as poor. And GDP/capita is a poor metric since it doesn't account for inequality differences of wealth accumulation. Like if your economy has a few ultra wealthy Elon Musks, Jeff Bezos, Larry Elissons, Jenson Huangs and and tens of thousands of broke homeless people, then the average GPD per capita is more than fine. My and many other peoples' definition, is how many people can find decent paying jobs right now, and how much they can afford after paying rent and bills. They don't care about the stock market, as that's just the playground of the top 10% of asset holders(including HN), not of the majority working class.

charlieyu1 10d ago

Does anyone actually think Kamala would win? This is probably the most lopsided win for a while.

BLKNSLVR 10d ago
I thought Kamala would win. I guess I overestimated the discipline of the US population, or underestimated the intellectual laziness. But I guess that's what happens when you think you've been on top for long enough.