Yippy? YIPPY?!?

This is just cope. Someone is making a fantasy story to make themselves feel better. Literally nothing in this is true.

The US cant just suddenly develop manufacturing in a few months of tariffs. The US also cant just produce raw materials out of thin air. Wages have stagnated because congress wont raise the minimum wage, meanwhile they have had no problem raising their own wages while the economy boomed. No trickle down here.

AI is currently taking away people’s jobs. People replaced by AI cant easily be retrained because education in the US is unaffordable. The republicans are further dismantling education and oversight which will allow more predatory colleges to prosper while universities will be defunded.

Republicans and Trump have no strategy here.

 

Lerner is apparently just posting garbage. By garbage I mean that it is just social media garbage that Google never looks at since no Google search I tried found anything on the web besides Lerner's post. So ask yourself where did Lerner dig up this stuff? Pure nonsense garbage is my conclusion.

 

It was posted on LinkedIn.
The nice thing is time always reveals what is junk and what is not.
So time will show.
Revisiting older posts shows a lot..
Saying something is “junk” just because it was posted on LinkedIn is like ignoring a good idea because it was written on a napkin.
Sure, LinkedIn has its share of fluff—but it also surfaces important discussions about work, innovation, and the future of our economy.
For those quick to dismiss this post as “junk,” I’d challenge you to pause and consider the broader message:
it’s not just about Trump, it’s about strategy—and whether the U.S. is positioning itself to lead or lag in the next industrial revolution.
We can disagree on the political figure involved, but let’s not ignore the core points:
The shift from physical to digital manufacturing is real. AI, robotics, and autonomous systems are redefining global economic power. Ignoring that is a luxury we can't afford.

Middle-class resilience matters. Revitalizing domestic production—whether in microchips or machine learning—could be key to restoring wage growth and job security in tech-driven forms.
Global competitiveness requires us to rethink dependency on fragile supply chains. The pandemic exposed those vulnerabilities; reshoring some capabilities is common sense, not extremism.
No one is saying tariffs alone are a silver bullet. But dismissing any attempt to rethink trade, tech, and sovereignty as “regressive” oversimplifies a very complex future we’re all headed toward.

Let’s debate the policy details, sure. But calling this vision “junk” misses the point: The next wave of American strength won’t come from nostalgia—it’ll come from strategically integrating AI, tech, and national resilience.

 

We don’t need time to tell us what is a good or bad source of information. We know already that social media is an extremely unreliable source of information. Of course that assumes we want to read reliable sources of information rather than searching for information that may or may not be true but that already agrees with what you WANT to believe. For me unreliable information means garbage. For you it’s different.

 

I see your perspective ( why you use we?), but I think it’s worth drawing a distinction between platform and content.

Yes, social media can be unreliable—but so can cable news, newspapers, and even peer-reviewed journals at times.
What matters is the substance of the information, the reasoning behind it, and whether it's open to scrutiny.
Dismissing something outright because of where it’s posted doesn’t encourage critical thinking—it shuts it down.

It’s also a bit unfair to suggest that people are only looking for info that confirms what they want to believe.
Many of us are actively seeking conversation, debate, and perspective—even when it challenges our views.

Labeling someone else’s interest in a topic as “garbage” simply because you don’t like the format or platform doesn’t raise the level of discourse.
I’d much rather have a good-faith discussion about the merits of a position than just trade insults over sources.

 

What we are doing now is having a discussion. Having a discussion is something different from reading information. Social media is notoriously unreliable. You took a post from a social media discussion and used it as a source of information. That is spreading garbage. That is not having a discussion. Comparing social media to reliable sources is silly. Since you don't see any difference between having a discussion and sharing information, or the difference between unreliability of social media and a reliable source of information I'm just wasting my time even discussing this.

 

Actually, I do see the difference between discussion and sourcing information—but I also recognize that discussions often begin with information, whether it comes from books, articles, or yes, even social media posts.
You’re right that social media isn't inherently reliable—but that doesn’t mean every idea shared there is garbage.
That’s an overgeneralization. Critical thinking isn’t about judging the source blindly, as some do; it’s about evaluating the content on its own merits.
Even unreliable platforms can host thought-provoking arguments. Dismissing a post just because it appears on LinkedIn, for example, ignores what’s actually being said.

Ironically, what we’re doing right now is what thoughtful people do with all kinds of information—we debate, question, and test it.

Also, calling a discussion “garbage” the moment it comes from a source you don’t like isn't critical thinking—it’s filtering the world through personal bias.
If anything, it shuts down real dialogue.

If you really believe it's a waste of time, you're welcome to move on—but if you’re genuinely interested in exchanging ideas, I’m here for that.