66 pointsby momentmaker3 hours ago9 comments
  • g42gregorya few seconds ago
    Is this some sort of a paid advertising piece, to make you feel better about inflation, lack of affordable medical care, lack of affordable housing, lack of jobs for recent graduates, etc...?

    "Life is much better in 2026. We live healthier, richer, and longer lives, with better medicine and more self-determination." - I can't speak for 1926, but compared to 1980s or 1960s, this is so patently not true. The US population is much sicker and more obese, as one example. People are not starving, but at the cost of eating "manufactured" foods that will make them sick in 20 - 40 yrs. And so on. I don't see a lot of happy faces on the streets of America.

  • bryanlarsenan hour ago
    You're a 26 year old in 1926. You're part of what history would later call the Greatest Generation. You will suffer through both the Great Depression and World War II. Perhaps due to those experiences, you will be the only generation that votes more left as you age.
    • dctoedtan hour ago
      If you were born in 1900 you probably are at the tail end of the Lost Generation — the Greatest Generation is considered to be those born between 1901 and 1927.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greatest_Generation

      • bryanlarsen28 minutes ago
        Lost Generation describes those who experienced WW1. Given that he turned 18 in 1918 it's certainly possible he enlisted or was drafted. The article implies he didn't join WW1. It's that experience rather than his exact birthday that would categorize him into Lost vs Greatest IMO.
  • UncleOxidant41 minutes ago
    I read Sinclair Lewis' Babbit last year and it was kind of depressing how little has changed since 1922. The political climate (at least as portrayed in the novel) seemed eerily similar to now. Maybe we continually go through oscillations.
    • abirch31 minutes ago
      I'm shocked how much the average American knows about how things work. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. I'm not surprised how quickly Americans are giving up their liberty.
      • dgellow21 minutes ago
        Did you mean to say “how little”?
  • davoneusan hour ago
    Great article. Just reminds me of how much societies resemble a pendulum; swinging from one extreme to the other. And of course you have the problem that some people want to freeze it mid-swing, or worse tear the damn thing down completely.
    • dgellow18 minutes ago
      I’m really not sure, if you look at things before the 20th century it’s difficult to see a pendulum swing pattern. That works relatively well between the 20th and 21st centuries, but I don’t think we can see it as a general rule. It’s also pretty dependent on the region you look at, and movements you decide to take in consideration or filter out. There is just so much room for biases, it’s easy finding a pattern because that’s what our brains are good at doing, but it doesn’t mean it is predictive of anything

      That being said, this video from Three Arrows (aka Dan Arrows) “America coming Weimar moment” has interesting things to say on that specific comparison: https://youtu.be/CFDDf48nj9g

    • piva0023 minutes ago
      I discovered the pendulum of social movements after reading Bertrand Russell's "The Ancestry of Fascism" at a relative young age (~16 years old), it only really made sense after my 30s though.

      It required me watching, experiencing how things I had considered settled and humanity was over them started to turn back: the rise of fascistic tendencies in different societies, anti-intellectualism, etc. things that as a teenager/young adult I never considered could become societal issues again.

  • fierycatnetan hour ago
    Still reading the article but it reminds me that I need to watch Metropolis now, I think it came out in 1928 or so.
  • pfdietzan hour ago
    So, we're about to have Great Depression 2 and WW3? Fun.
    • 16 minutes ago
      undefined
    • Avicebronan hour ago
      Sometimes I wish Strauss–Howe theory hadn't been hijacked. It seems noteworthy how similar (cyclical?) things are even if it's a coincidence..
    • UncleOxidantan hour ago
      We're kind of already having the WW3 part.
      • pfdietz32 minutes ago
        Not even close, unfortunately. WW3 would be massively worse than what we have now.
        • dgellow9 minutes ago
          Unfortunately?!?!?!
      • wqaatwt28 minutes ago
        More like Cold War 2
    • stackghostan hour ago
      It has felt inevitable to me for a few years now. The market != the economy but a major crash can still trigger a credit crunch that will materially affect regular people. Look at the insane valuations on some of these companies. They can't continue forever.

      As for WW3, well, there's a diaper-wearing senile old man, with an inferiority complex to boot, in charge of a nuclear arsenal and major conventional forces.

      • esseph26 minutes ago
        And a rapid increase in construction for new Chinese nuclear launch silos and actual underground nuclear testing.

        Things are getting spicy.

      • UncleOxidant28 minutes ago
        I think there's a compelling case to be made that WW3 started in 2014 when Putin invaded Crimea.
        • bryanlarsen25 minutes ago
          If so, we haven't hit the equivalent of Sept 1 1939 yet. That's when WW2 is generally considered to have started, but residents of Manchuria, Austria and the Sudetenland probably consider it to have started earlier.
          • soperja minute ago
            It's only considered to have started then because that's when France and Britain declared war on Germany, and that's who wrote the history books.
        • soperj3 minutes ago
          Putin started before that in 2008 when he invaded Georgia and no one said anything.
        • esseph23 minutes ago
          China supplying weapons to Iran and Russia. North Korea sending troops to Russia to fight in Ukraine, and along with Russia, conducting hybrid warfare across Europe and the United States. The US sending weapons to Ukraine and other EU allies. SOF from MANY countries operating in conflict zones and deep inside China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran.

          The only thing that hasn't really happened is a full economic mobilization. And Russia... may be close to that.

      • miroljuban hour ago
        > As for WW3, well, there's a diaper-wearing senile old man, with an inferiority complex to boot, in charge of a nuclear arsenal and major conventional forces.

        How naive one must be to consider this NPC as the biggest threat to human kind since the dawn of man.

        It's not that single person who threatens the world, it's the complete American elite and the whole American society who push for wars and more wars, and the current NPC of the day in the office is just their tool.

        • II2II4 minutes ago
          > It's not that single person who threatens the world

          The question is: is he enabling them, or are they enabling him? I suppose it could be working in both directions. That said: while the "elite" were problematic before his second rise to power, they were also more constrained.

          I also have some question as to who the elite are? Certain individuals are more prominent these days, while others have faded in the background. While it may feel good to apply a singular label to the wealthy (or any other group we disagree with), they are not a single ideological entity. It's probably more beneficial to align ourselves with those who agree with us, rather than alienating them based upon a metric that is only tangentially related to their values.

        • pfdietz31 minutes ago
          It sometimes is a single person. Consider the failed beer hall demagogue who wrecked a nation, a continent, and nearly a world.
          • UncleOxidant25 minutes ago
            To both of your points: the beer hall demagogue wouldn't have gotten to Chancellor if the German elites hadn't decided that he really couldn't do that much damage and we may as well let him be chancellor to quiet down his followers. Even after the putsch, he got a very light sentence because the judge was sympathetic with his right-wing cause. You're both right to some extent. A huge amount of damage was done by one man, but he got to where he did because the German elites thought that he might be useful to their cause.
            • pfdietz22 minutes ago
              All events have multiple causes. But history turned on what he did, and would have been very different otherwise.
        • stackghost18 minutes ago
          >It's not that single person who threatens the world, it's the complete American elite and the whole American society who push for wars and more wars, and the current NPC of the day in the office is just their tool.

          I agree that Americans themselves are the root cause. Americans as a society are deeply, pathologically unwell and Trump is entirely their fault. I have no sympathy for any of them.

          But only one person is the commander in chief of the US military, and the checks and balances that are supposed to keep him in control are not functioning.

  • ck2an hour ago
    yeah but America 1926 didn't have a billion dollars a day being extracted from the economy by a totally useless war (that is going to start again in 60 days)

    or a President extracting billions from his own government for a plane, golf, inexplicable illegal destruction and renovations to national sites

    the government was also not purposely imploding academia, science and medicine

    there are also now over a THOUSAND billionaires "silo-ing" their wealth, barely paying any taxes and trying to eliminate the cost of employing anybody

    we cannot recover this decade, maybe not even next century, and that assumes this horror show doesn't have a "part 2"

    • Schiendelmanan hour ago
      You might be surprised to hear that wealth concentration was worse a hundred years ago than it is now. It's very easy to assume otherwise when the numbers are so much larger now across the board.

      https://americanbusinesshistory.org/superwealth-a-historical...

      • ck2an hour ago
        yes almost all americans now have running water and indoor toilets

        except we have more homeless than ever so they don't even have that

        with taxes slashed for billionaires and safety-nets for food and healthcare being destroyed, we are actually headed back to 1926 on purpose

        • WillAdams35 minutes ago
          The definition of homeless was quite different at that time --- note that there was an entire class of people defined as hobos/migrant workers who began the year helping out with cutting lumber and harvesting maple sugar in the winter, then working south to help with the planting of truck crops (lettuce, spinach, broccoli, peas...) in the spring, pruning fruit trees and harvesting early crops in the summer, then in the fall helping with the harvests and picking cotton and so forth, then helping to plant cover crops and so forth and moving north to repeat the process.

          Louis L'Amour writes on this a bit in his wonderful book:

          https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/828165.Education_of_a...

          • andy9923 minutes ago
            The people that are homeless now would have been institutionalized or dead back then.
        • Schiendelman18 minutes ago
          I did a quick check, and the HUD point-in-time counts show the rate of homelessness was dropping slowly from 21.5 per 10000 in 2007 (the first year of a national standard), to around 17.5 per 10000 in 2020, then rose in 2023-2024 up to 22.9, and in 2025 was back down to 21.9. During the Great Depression this rose up to 100-200 per 10,000.

          Keep in mind that "more homeless than ever" (and I would prefer "more people experiencing homelessness than ever") may be technically true, but per capita we've seen a post-covid bump that's likely already back to 2007 levels. Without understanding the trends I wouldn't predict what happens next.

          I've done some research to try to help you understand more - can I ask you to think about your frame and beliefs and consider changing them?

        • copper-float42 minutes ago
          Feels like a bit of a dramatization.
  • jmyeetan hour ago
    I an a completely unabashed leftist who has been "radicalized" (if you call free school lunches "radical", which apparently it is in modern America) by seeing the rapidly accelerating wealth and income inequality since 2008. I mean it really kciked off in the 1970s but the effects post-2008 became impossible to ignore.

    In the spirit of all models are wroong but some models are useful and that generational politics is overly reductive (which it is), I still see the Millenials as the new Lost Generation. The original Lost Generation were born 1883 to 1900. They came of age in the devastation of WW1 and the Spanish flu. What happened after 2008 was that all the entry-level jobs disappeared. Millenials had taken and continued to take on massive student debt and otherwise "do the right thing" yet found there were limited opportunities at the end of that pipeline. Baby boomers still had a stranglehold on academic and they both refused to quit or die (something which is still true). This is where the trope of the college educated millenial barista came from.

    Obama's presidency was a massive lost opportunity to correct some of this. It directly led to Trump being elected (over Hilary "more of the same" Clinton). Trump, for all his many, many faults, talked to the rising anger in young people at the lack of opportunity, the possibility that they'd never own a house or have a good-paying job or they'd have a family. The disillusionment and anger has only grown.

    So, as a leftist, the irony is that I get shit on constantly for essentially trying to preserve the current system by those people who like the current system but are contributing towards us bouldering towards war and revolution. Because those are the ultimate form of wealth redistribution [1] and become increasingly inevitable as material conditions worsen.

    Even more ironic, many of those same people fetishize the 1950s where the top marginal tax rate was 91%, the CEO-to-median-wage ratio was a fraction of what it is now and the corporate tax rate was 40-50%. But then came along the likes of McKinsey who justified greed witht he patina of executives being "underpaid" [2] and then the social destruction of Nixon, Reagan and Clinton.

    It took FDR in the 1930s to repair the damage of 1920s pro-business slavishness of Coolidge and Mellon. And let's not forget there was an attempted coup in 1933 [3]. But you see the same messages (as the author notes) in the 1920s of lower taxes, destroying unions and being pro-big business. Sound familiar?

    [1]: https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2017/01/stanford-historian...

    [2]: https://observer.com/2013/08/the-godfather-of-ceo-megapay-mc...

    [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

    • sanguinesphinxan hour ago
      > talked to the rising anger in young people at the lack of opportunity, the possibility that they'd never own a house or have a good-paying job or they'd have a family. The disillusionment and anger has only grown.

      This should be the absolutely only thing that Democrats talk about. Every single day, with a big graph and call in number, so people can call in to say if this was fixed for them or not. And if it's not fixed, they should outline steps on how it gets fixed that day. It's insane they aren't using this opportunity.

      • kQq9oHeAz6wLLS40 minutes ago
        > It's insane they aren't using this opportunity.

        Instead they're taking the opportunity to be insane. But the faithful are not allowed to admit that.

    • Spooky2312 minutes ago
      Personally, I think GenX are the lost. (I'm a late GenX) Our colleages took the brunt of the global war on terror, and because we entered the workforce at the peak boomer pivot away from the pre-Internet era of business those of us that were in the corporate/government workforce were basically stuck waiting for people to die to move up. We're the people who got computers and internet in a way that neither our elders or children understand.

      The millennials are the recipients of the great dumbing down. They get the inherit the wealth of their parents and grandparents, just in time for it to be inflated away to nothing.

  • axpy906an hour ago
    No offense but outside of money does the US have anything going for it?
    • artisinalan hour ago
      Natural parks.

      Tasty drinkable water from the tap in nearly the entire country. Being able to flush toilet paper. Free toilets almost everywhere.

      Being a country for 250 years is also quite an achievement.

      I’m European and have witnessed many wars on my continent in my lifetime. A childhood friend was shot down with a Russian surface to air missile.

      • 2muchtimean hour ago
        The water is drinkable but in many places not what I would call tasty.
        • artisinal22 minutes ago
          Water tastes pretty gross in coastal Spain. In countries like Albania I wouldn’t even drink it at all. On Greek islands it is safe but everyone buys water from the stores.

          Due to the age of many places in Europe there is also still a lot of copper pipe used for tap water. Not deadly but also not very healthy. In Amsterdam over 20 percent of homes have copper pipes.

    • jandrewrogersan hour ago
      The best geography of any country by a large margin and a non-ethnic culture that believes anything is possible and celebrates the ambition to try.

      The money is largely a side effect of these two things.

      • wqaatwt22 minutes ago
        Europe probably has the “best geography” and the climate, though?

        Coastal California is probably one of the nicest places on earth but generally US is quite harsh.

        • dgellow2 minutes ago
          The US has pretty much all the possible biomes within its borders. Even active volcanoes
        • derektank7 minutes ago
          You can’t have the best geography if you share a land border with an expansionist power, as Europe does with Russia.
    • dgellow4 minutes ago
      Some of the most interesting cities in the world, NYC is so interesting and full of subcultures and energy.
    • fluidcruft40 minutes ago
      The Mississippi river. Few understand what an advantage that river is.
      • derektank6 minutes ago
        And that’s in spite of the fact that we’ve in some ways crippled it with the Jones Act
    • AnimalMuppet36 minutes ago
      Freedom to say (almost) anything, publicly, including criticism of the elite and powerful.

      Freedom to do, to create a business with far fewer roadblocks than in, say, Europe.

      Freedom to go, to travel anywhere in a really large country, with no borders or restrictions.

      Yeah, you can quote me all the caveats. They're there; I don't deny them. But: Freedom to say, freedom to do, and freedom to go. Those are really big deals.

    • kQq9oHeAz6wLLS43 minutes ago
      Ask those returning home from world cup visits. They'll be in the best position to compare to their home country.
    • mindwork10 minutes ago
      [dead]