If true, considering what happened with the jobs report getting someone fired, I wonder how much we can expect to hear about this reliably from the feds?
And if it did, wouldn't any record of it have been completely compromised by now?
How would people find out about something like that anyway? It sounds so made up that's the kind of books that would be banned first if they even existed. That kind of reading could be more shocking than anything!
What do these guys know about the financial world to begin with?
My bad when Morningstar aligns with my observations in the entire article, and over-reacted a bit when I see people flagging related articles and downvoting, when you can't help but notice the pressure to ignore the signs.
I gave you all corrective upvotes but that didn't help much, I guess I just got carried away.
Sorry about that missing /s
In case people are not aware Morningstar has traditionally done some very respectable economic analysis, and this is one of them.
> "47% of Republicans would still vote for Trump even if implicated in Epstein's crimes"
Two things here.
One, I bet it's WAY higher than 47% who would vote for Trump again; it's 47% of Republicans admitting in a survey that they would vote for him again, the rest probably just don't want to admit it out loud.
Two, would you expect something different from Democrats? I wouldn't. I would bet anyone running against Donald Trump would start off with roughly 45% of the vote no matter who they were or what they did. That's just where we're at as a country culturally and politically at the moment.
Most of those persons probably understood "officially implicated" as "subject to yet another spurious allegation".
While the outrage is maximized by reading it as "Would you vote for trump if he confessed to molesting children?" -- I'm confident that question would have gotten a different result.
Or they would say what they've always said when Trump openly does something hideous. "That girl was no angel." "She was asking for it." "Biden and Obama did the same thing but worse." "The facts are a liberal hoax." Which sort of reaction do we have more examples of?
> only going to end the dollar as a reserve currency
Probably not, at least not as a medium of exchange and thus unit of account.
It is likely to deindustrialise America, given tariffs make material inputs more expensive. But Wall Street doesn’t use material inputs; it gains, and with it, so do America’s capital markets. With them, the dollar. (In use. Its value will likely become more volatile. I also expect Treasuries to become less attractive as a long-term store of value.)
> volatile currency and less investment in treasury securities is what a decline in a reserve currency looks like, isn't it?
Not particularly.
Modern currencies segregate their transacting and store-of-value components. Dollar hegemony was established on the basis of store of value strength. It is now maintained through transactional superiority. The historic default was for an exporter to America to have comfort they could keep their excess dollars in Treasuries over the long term. Today, there are a broader set of options for safe assets, depending on one’s views. (There are more securitised assets, period, today than there were in the 1960s.)
Treasuries being defaulted on could undermine the dollar’s reserve status. Treasuries just becoming more volatile, probably not—the relevant buyers hold to maturity.
If true, considering what happened with the jobs report getting someone fired, I wonder how much we can expect to hear about this reliably from the feds?
Relevant Bloomberg article "The BLS Can’t Be Replaced by the Private Sector": https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2025-08-08/the-bl... / https://archive.is/el7mM
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44836414
https://archive.is/8TBva
Related:
It's Beginning to Smell a Lot Like Stagflation
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44835775
That one is flagged, because of course.
Stagflation?
How could that happen?
When has that ever happened before?
And if it did, wouldn't any record of it have been completely compromised by now?
How would people find out about something like that anyway? It sounds so made up that's the kind of books that would be banned first if they even existed. That kind of reading could be more shocking than anything!
What do these guys know about the financial world to begin with?
Is stagflation even still a word?
Why dont you just click links and read?
My bad when Morningstar aligns with my observations in the entire article, and over-reacted a bit when I see people flagging related articles and downvoting, when you can't help but notice the pressure to ignore the signs.
I gave you all corrective upvotes but that didn't help much, I guess I just got carried away.
Sorry about that missing /s
In case people are not aware Morningstar has traditionally done some very respectable economic analysis, and this is one of them.
[flagged]
Disturbing that anyone would knowingly vote into power an individual who abused children.
Makes me reticent to leave my children with other adults, considering there is a very high chance they could be one who voted for said individual.
> "47% of Republicans would still vote for Trump even if implicated in Epstein's crimes"
Two things here.
One, I bet it's WAY higher than 47% who would vote for Trump again; it's 47% of Republicans admitting in a survey that they would vote for him again, the rest probably just don't want to admit it out loud.
Two, would you expect something different from Democrats? I wouldn't. I would bet anyone running against Donald Trump would start off with roughly 45% of the vote no matter who they were or what they did. That's just where we're at as a country culturally and politically at the moment.
Most of those persons probably understood "officially implicated" as "subject to yet another spurious allegation".
While the outrage is maximized by reading it as "Would you vote for trump if he confessed to molesting children?" -- I'm confident that question would have gotten a different result.
Or they would say what they've always said when Trump openly does something hideous. "That girl was no angel." "She was asking for it." "Biden and Obama did the same thing but worse." "The facts are a liberal hoax." Which sort of reaction do we have more examples of?
Unfortunately you are wrong, as every single true fact on this site demonstrates:
https://goppredators.wordpress.com/
Given Trump openly talked about sexual harasment of women and given his has known track record, I doubt it will be different with kids.
The peoples outrages are highly stratetic. Tan suit on democratic president, is massive breach of decorum. Grab them by the pussy is fine.
Had this standard of nuance and thoughtfulness been applied to Pizzagate I might buy this.
[flagged]
> only going to end the dollar as a reserve currency
Probably not, at least not as a medium of exchange and thus unit of account.
It is likely to deindustrialise America, given tariffs make material inputs more expensive. But Wall Street doesn’t use material inputs; it gains, and with it, so do America’s capital markets. With them, the dollar. (In use. Its value will likely become more volatile. I also expect Treasuries to become less attractive as a long-term store of value.)
Sorry for my potential ignorance, didn't you just say "no" then go on to agree with the previous commenter in your explanation?
A volatile currency and less investment in treasury securities is what a decline in a reserve currency looks like, isn't it?
> volatile currency and less investment in treasury securities is what a decline in a reserve currency looks like, isn't it?
Not particularly.
Modern currencies segregate their transacting and store-of-value components. Dollar hegemony was established on the basis of store of value strength. It is now maintained through transactional superiority. The historic default was for an exporter to America to have comfort they could keep their excess dollars in Treasuries over the long term. Today, there are a broader set of options for safe assets, depending on one’s views. (There are more securitised assets, period, today than there were in the 1960s.)
Treasuries being defaulted on could undermine the dollar’s reserve status. Treasuries just becoming more volatile, probably not—the relevant buyers hold to maturity.