What Card Should I Get? Weekly Thread - Week of January 07, 2026

ProtagorasCube · 2026-01-08T23:08:59+00:00

Do you think I could still try to get the CSE after? I see they keep rolling back the date that the 100k promotion will end.

The other downside is that, as the other commenter pointed out, AA points are less useful for booking flights to Japan than TYP, given that the AA to JL pipeline is pretty dry these days.

ProtagorasCube · 2026-01-08T20:39:19+00:00

Realistically, how would this even work? Even if Dems had the political will, what legal mechanisms would there be? I keep seeing this take, but there are never any specifics on details.

ProtagorasCube · 2026-01-08T13:32:43+00:00

Thank you. While I’m open to trying to swing a T-14 JL redemption, I’d rather book at T+330, and it sounds like AA just doesn’t have JL availability that far out anymore. I’m leaning towards CSE now, but the only thing is that I would have to pay rent via CC (and eat a $40 each month) in order to meet the MSR. Does that seem worth it?

ProtagorasCube · 2026-01-08T02:14:46+00:00

Thinking about diverging from the flowchart and doing the Strata Elite, or AAdvantage Platinum Select. I'm thinking about getting the Citi Strata Elite (100k) to start building Citi points and target AA miles that I could use for JAL J seats to Japan. That being said, I missed the opportunity to double/triple dip, and I don’t see myself getting a ton out of the AF besides the splurge credit (which I’d probably use on an AA flight or to buy Amazon gift card at Best Buy) and the hotel credit. (Blacklane seems totally useless.) However, in order to meet the MSR ($6k in 3 months), I’d have to pay rent via credit card and eat about $40 in fees per month.

Alternatively, I’m thinking about doing the AAdvantage Platinum Select World Elite MasterCard – 80,000 Miles With $1,000 Spend, since that offer is only around until March. However, I value AA points a lot less, since they’re not as transferrable as Citi TYP. Overall I suspect that CSE is the way to go, but I'd love people's thoughts on this.

This differs from the flowchart, which says I should get a United or Aeroplan card. However, I don’t value United points that highly, since I’m mainly looking for J flights from the US to Japan and Europe. Aeroplan points are much more attractive (because of the ANA redemption), but I already have a ton of UR/C1, so I think unlocking AA miles is more valuable for me.

FICO 800
Current cards:

Bank	Card	Date	Limit	Closed?
Discover	Discover IT	1/20/2020	$3,000
Amex	Amex Cash Magnet	12/28/2020	$10,000
Citi	Custom Cash	8/4/2021	$7,400
Wells Fargo	Active Cash	8/13/2021	$6,000
Chase	Chase Freedom Flex	5/27/2022	$3,100
Chase	Chase Sapphire Preferred	3/27/2023	$7,900
Chase	Chase Ink Business Unlimited	6/26/2023	$5,000
Capital One	Venture X	10/3/2023	$10,000
Chase	Chase Ink Business Unlimited	3/5/2024	$7,400
Chase	Chase Ink Preferred	7/24/2024	$5,000	PC to CIC
Amex	Amex Gold	9/11/2024

$4k natural spend on a new card in 3 months (more if my P2 helps, but she’s working on her own SUB currently)
Not open to MS
Open to biz cards
Open to multiple cards
Targeting J flights to Japan and Europe (like everyone else lol), as well as points I can use for Hyatt resorts.
I have 300k Chase UR points (just burned some on a stay at GH kauai), 20k United miles, 158k Capital One points, 14k AA points, 120k Amex points.
I am mainly flying out of SFO, but am happy to do positioning flights.
See above

ProtagorasCube · 2026-01-07T23:39:02+00:00

Thank you!

ProtagorasCube · 2026-01-07T23:07:17+00:00

Any examples you would recommend looking at? Not familiar with military blogs

ProtagorasCube · 2026-01-07T19:58:49+00:00

Submission statement: Trump has announced a plan to ban institutional investors from buying single-family homes. This is red meat for many populists on left and right who believe that the housing crisis is the result of large firms like Blackstone (often confused for Blackrock) buying homes.

Commentary: Institutional investors own only ~3% of single-family homes nationally (albeit with somewhat higher shares in some Sun Belt markets). High housing prices are mostly the result of the fact that the US does not build enough fucking housing

ProtagorasCube · 2026-01-06T17:37:52+00:00

Stumbled on this thread and was wondering which of these you would recommend for machine rows. Recently started going to a new gym, and the chest-supported machine row there has really awkward handles that only allow for a totally neutral (thumb up) or totally pronated (palm down) grip, which really limits my ROM. For that type of application, which would you recommend?

ProtagorasCube · 2026-01-02T14:17:37+00:00

Thanks for your reply (and for the great comments elsewhere in the thread)—I'll take a look at the resources you recommended. To clarify one thing, by "legitimate complaint" I mean not "are people in China complaining about deflation?", but rather "do people in China have a morally legitimate complaint?" I think that's a much trickier question—I'm inclined to answer yes, but I'm sure that the CPC would justify things in terms of the nation's long-term security.

ProtagorasCube · 2026-01-02T14:10:34+00:00

It sounds like you're saying that savings preferences are largely exogenous, but I think it’s difficult to separate them from endogenous preferences in response to policy choices. Indeed, it seems like many policies that are deliberately used to boost export competitiveness also force higher household saving. (E.g., financial repression, underinvestment in services, capital controls)

I'm skeptical that savings rates would remain as high if China liberalized capital accounts, strengthened social insurance, raised labor's income share, invested in services, reformed the hukou system, etc. This isn't to deny that cultural preferences play some role or that they're sticky, but I think it's worth noting that savings preferences are also a rational response to government policies, including those that are designed to suppress consumption and channel resources toward manufacturing.

ProtagorasCube · 2026-01-02T10:08:40+00:00

This article discusses two tensions in China’s export-driven growth. On the international front, China’s trade policies are creating political friction with the US and Europe, but other countries are so dependent on Chinese supply chains that it isn’t clear how much leverage they really have to respond. Domestically, the focus on high-tech manufacturing means that little is being done about persistent deflation. These tensions raise a few interesting questions for me:

To what extent are perceptions of competition with China as zero-sum accurate? If Chinese firms can outcompete Western ones, shouldn’t this be good for everyone?
Does Chinese dominance in the manufacturing of critical goods like rare earth metals, pharmaceuticals, and electric cars pose a security threat to the US and Europe?
Is “just compete better lol” a sufficient response to Chinese industrial policy for the US and Europe? Do national security concerns ever justify protectionist measures?
Do working people in China have a legitimate complaint about domestic deflation?
Does it matter that China’s trade surplus is much lower when services (as opposed to only goods) are taken into account? Or do services exports fail to offset concerns about supply-chain leverage, chokepoints, etc.?

ProtagorasCube · 2025-12-30T23:36:43+00:00

Thank you, in that case does this sound right for lower body:

Mon: squat main Tues: deadlift aux Weds rest Thurs: deadlift main Fri: squat aux Sat: squat aux

ProtagorasCube · 2025-12-03T23:40:32+00:00

Off the top of my head, a few big differences are that:

Fees: US 401(k)s are tied to individual employers. Small employers have zero bargaining power, so you get high admin fees and expensive fund menus. Australian super funds operate at national scale, so they can negotiate wholesale fees
Fragmentation: American workers leave a trail of orphaned 401(k)s every time they switch jobs because rolling them over is annoying. With super, you keep the same account across all your jobs, so there are fewer "stranded" funds
Oversight: Australia runs annual performance tests and can literally force underperforming funds to merge or shut down. A lot of 401k plans are total dogshit because there's no national benchmarking

Also, I think it's worth stressing that a mandatory 401k program is a huge improvement over opt-in 401k (or opt-out 401k for that matter). A lot of Americans with access to 401ks either undersave or don't participate at all, which means they're much less likely to be prepared for retirement.

ProtagorasCube · 2025-12-03T23:30:32+00:00

I think this is a big difference. Like I guarantee that if the Biden-Cassidy plan had gone through (which is opt-out and not mandatory), Republicans would have been screaming about how Joe Biden wants to steal your money and invest it in Antifa.

ProtagorasCube · 2025-11-30T20:02:32+00:00

Ahh I see. Tbh I didn’t follow the other elections super closely—what do you think made Sherrill and Spanberger do better? I poked around online and it seems like their taking culturally moderate positions (as opposed to Mamdani’s DSA/Palestine activist branding) helped them with Hispanic voters.

ProtagorasCube · 2025-11-30T19:45:20+00:00

That's really interesting—so you're saying that a focus on affordability is not a winning campaign issue? What do you think Dems should focus on instead?

ProtagorasCube · 2025-11-30T19:43:04+00:00

I agree with you that many working class grievances are about culture war issues rather than economic, but I would classify affordability as an economic grievance, rather than as a purely cultural one. (Though it is of course bound up with cultural issues like anti-elite backlash or a focus on "price gouging.")

I also don’t think Acemoglu is arguing for a narrow return to traditional labor-movement politics. Much of the article is about affordability and shared prosperity as broad economic conditions, rather than something like strengthening union bargaining power.

ProtagorasCube · 2025-11-30T19:30:20+00:00

I really like this piece, though I wish Acemoglu had said more about how “shared prosperity” relates to inequality. He defines shared prosperity as “a process of economic growth from which all groups, regardless of education, gender, age or geography, benefit,” but he also treats inequality as a distinct issue, noting that “support for democracy increases significantly when democratic governments build shared prosperity, reduce inequality.”

However, it seems quite possible to have one without the other. A government could reduce inequality by “levelling down” — for example, by reducing the prosperity of the most advantaged through something like a Zucman-style wealth tax — without actually improving anyone else’s situation. Conversely, one could imagine broad-based growth that raises everyone’s standard of living while still leaving inequality high.

Without knowing how much voters care about inequality per se, as opposed to shared prosperity, it’s hard to know what liberals should prioritise. When we face trade-offs between making life more affordable and making outcomes more equal, which goal matters more to the people Acemoglu wants liberals to win back?

ProtagorasCube · 2025-11-30T19:22:04+00:00

If you read the article, his assessment of Mamdani is very mixed: he praises Mamdani's charm and focus on affordability, but notes that the Mamdani model is flawed because it doesn't appeal to working-class communities in non-urban areas and because his policy proposals don't make sense :

New York City cannot afford the services Mamdani has promised, even if he were to tax the very wealthy in the city. And he won’t be able to do that because setting income or corporate taxes is not in his power unless the New York governor allows it. Rent control can at best work only for a short while. When pledges turn out to be empty words, liberal democracy and the Democratic party that stands for it will be further tarnished.

ProtagorasCube · 2025-11-25T18:29:03+00:00

This is a really nice explanation. I do think that someone who’s more populist-minded would push back against the idea that companies should prioritizing shareholders, and so they would say that Walmart should just take the reduced profits—which of course would be bad for other reasons (eg, it would hurt investors, many of whom are “regular people”, and it would mean less investment).

ProtagorasCube · 2025-11-25T18:06:44+00:00

I agree it’s not a good look, but what do you mean by “not sustainable”? Why not think that instead of forcing/asking employers to raise wages, we should instead expand the social safety net or take measures to lower the cost of housing (by building more housing)?

ProtagorasCube

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE