Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality

news.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 262 posts

Re: Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality

#211

Post by and0 »

edblarney wrote: post #198
and0 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a wildly revisionist view of US influence on the Middle East. For starters, you're assuming that the US government and it's intelligence agencies always understand the actual consequences of their actions and are always successful, which is hilariously false. So instability is a frequently unintended result of meddling in foreign affairs, despite our intentions. And the idea that all these nations would be "t…

"For starters, you're assuming that the US government and it's intelligence agencies always understand the actual consequences of their actions and are always successful" I didn't assume that at all. In fact, I'd agree with that assessment. But the purpose of US involvement in the M/E is not to 'destabilize' - it's the opposite. Even out of pure self-interest - the US gains from a stable M/E not a 'unstable one'. If…

Yes, the US would prefer a stable Middle East, but only a stable Middle East that serves US interests sufficiently. And they'll destabilize states that don't play into this. Notice how Saudi Arabia, the example you pointed out, is a horrible place to live?

(Also, how is pointing out your ignorance of the subject at hand ad hominem?)

Your posts reek of libertarian sentiment, which is based on looking at issues as simply as possible. Terrorists commit terror because they chose to in that specific moment, ignoring the X years of history and events shaped that moment. Everyone is 100% responsible for their own situation, no matter what.

You obviously had no interest in looking seriously at the ME or approaching the subject in anything resembling good faith. I knew that when I first commented, but your first post hit a certain nerve. Only the powerful thrive in the simple, just-world position you're promoting, and it's becoming more apparent how bleak a future that is.

Re: Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality

#212

Post by AndrewKemendo »

208Gi wrote: post #159
jasim wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's another reason for unions to become defunct over time, as explained by Steve Bruce in his book Sociology: A Very Short Introduction. "Any kind of group activity requires organization. But as soon as one starts to organize one creates a division within the movement between the organized and the organizers, between ordinary members and officials. The latter quickly acquire knowledge and expertise that set them a…

"But as soon as one starts to organize one creates a division within the movement between the organized and the organizers, between ordinary members and officials. The officials begin to derive personal satisfaction from their place in the organization and seek ways of consolidating it." There have always been unions that organized in a manner that avoids this situation. (The CNT, the IWW, the Zapatistas (1990s) and,…

The surest case against a capably Anarchist existence is it's lack of efficacy in the face of powerful organizations.

It's unfortunate because there is so much to love about Anarchism.

Re: Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality

#213

Post by timthelion »

bloomca wrote: post #10

I don't really think that their conclusions are very honest. They provide only extraordinary situations, which are not usual by any measure. Masses during (and some time after, for like ~1 generation) such events are much less demanding, and they unite to survive (I can think that a lot of damaged countries after WWII built very successful industries, sometimes from scratch). What I think can really affect violence,…

I don't know if you are correct about the violence being done mostly by the poorest. The most violent person I have ever met was the "cousin?" of a Kyrgyzstani diplomat. Hardly a poor person. He had a gang of fellow Kyrgystaners who beat a lot of people up at a school I went to, and they never got punished due to his political relations. They even ruptured the testicle of one man, which meant serious time in the hospital and potential infertility! My feeling is that this was not caused by poverty, but rather by a macho culture which saw violence as being something to be proud of. I think that there is a similar thing in the US, with gun toting "pro-rancher" types being very violent people, despite them not being poor. I do however, think that there is a correlation between poverty and risky violence. Poor people are more likely to commit a crime that could get them sent to jail. So the gun toting pro-rancher type might torture an animal, or spray it with bullets from a machine gun, they won't kill humans as often, because they don't want to lose their wealth. A black guy from the hood, however, who is no more violent and probably much less evil than the gun toting rancher, might commit a crime with a gun that could get him sent to prison for life because he has so much less to lose.

Re: Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality

#214

Post by mlmlmasd »

noam87 wrote: post #202
208Gi wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But as soon as one starts to organize one creates a division within the movement between the organized and the organizers, between ordinary members and officials. The officials begin to derive personal satisfaction from their place in the organization and seek ways of consolidating it." There have always been unions that organized in a manner that avoids this situation. (The CNT, the IWW, the Zapatistas (1990s) and,…

How do you avoid this division between organiser and organised, at a large scale? (thousands, millions of people)

There are so many ways. The Zapatistas have tens of thousands of members/supporters.

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

Re: Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality

#215

Post by MrBuddyCasino »

badsock wrote: post #148
snappyTertle wrote: post #46

Inequality is not inherently a bad thing. People should be compensated for the value they produce. Profits are a signal of how much people value what is produced. For example, people love iPhones, it no surprise that Apple is the most valuable company in the world. What causes resentment between classes is lack of mobility. This, IMO, is caused by government regulations and a banking system that hurts the middle clas…

If this were true then social mobility would be very low in countries like Germany where the government is more involved, compared to the USA. Yet the opposite is true. The government improving the lives of children through subsidies and high-quality universal education is the most direct means of breaking the link between your own fortunes and those of the family you were (through no fault or efforts of your own) bo…

Germany is one of the countries with the lowest social mobility. Although being poor sucks less than in the US, poor people are likely to stay poor.

Re: Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality

#216

Post by openasocket »

munificent wrote: post #203
openasocket wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the trend is generally downward, not a bunch of sharp decreases that would indicate being caused by a specific short-term event. Also many of these wars were pretty localized, so we should see the drops and inequality in the immediate area and a reduced effect elsewhere.

> But the trend is generally downward, not a bunch of sharp decreases that would indicate being caused by a specific short-term event. Many of these are not short term events. You have a several years-long war, with a rise in conflict before it and a gradual repair and rebuild afterwards. There are enough of them that I wouldn't be surprised if the overall graph was smooth. > Also many of these wars were pretty local…

That's a valid explanation for how wars could cause the trends in inequality, but without further evidence this is a specious argument. It also doesn't explain regional variations in income inequality. Look at the list of countries by income inequality: there isn't really a correlation between income inequality and "war-iness".

I think wars can increase equality, but they are far from the only cause.

Re: Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality

#217

Post by digi_owl »

akurtzhs wrote: post #187
digi_owl wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that his thinking didn't turn militant until he was jailed and tortured by the Egyptian government. That at the time had backing of USA, and thus trained by the CIA.

His Wikipedia article disagrees with this, saying "Upset that Nasser would not enforce a government based on Islamic ideology, Qutb and other Brotherhood members orchestrated a plot to assassinate the Egyptian president in 1954. The attempt was foiled and Qutb was jailed soon afterwards;"

I guess someone will have to take that up with Adam Curtis...

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

Re: Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality

#218

Post by digi_owl »

timthelion wrote: post #207
edblarney wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Often times it is in the interest of certain capitalists to get our government to engage in imperialism, or destabilize certain regions, which helps lead to the awful conditions for some people in the Middle East, and I think this helps pave the way to religious extremism." This is patently false. The US - and 'capitalists' do not want 'destabilization' - over and above all they want 'stability'. Case and point: Sau…

I think that instability is surprisingly good for capitalists, however, I don't know if they "want" that instability. I live in Prague, and the instability and corruption following the fall of the iron curtain made many people very rich. It also allowed many western capitalists to buy assets in this country for very cheep prices. Right next to my house there used to be a park. Now there is an office building there. T…

I suspect it depends on the kind of capitalist you are dealing with, industrial or financial.

Because while it seems financial capitalists thrive on instability, because this allows them to extract arbitrage, industrial capitalists are more likely to have their supply lines and similar disrupted.

Re: Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality

#219

Post by digi_owl »

edblarney wrote: post #166
sigmaprimus wrote: post #80

I love reading the comments on stories like this and consider these comments to be a bellwether as to the current state of inequality in our society. Unfortunately I tend to consider myself one who exists on the lower part of the wealth distribution logarithm within the western world, globally it's a different story. Just as anyone tweeting on their smart phone or tablet claiming to be part of the 99% might want to r…

"Could it be that the rise in terror incedents recently may in fact be caused by this inequality and not just radical religious zealots? " The prosperity of nations is not a zero sum game. Many of those 'terrorist nations' have ample natural resources, in the way of Oil - and would be prosperous, glorious civilizations were it not for their totalitarian means, and total lack of intelligent social organization. The US…

> Many of those 'terrorist nations' have ample natural resources, in the way of Oil - and would be prosperous, glorious civilizations were it not for their totalitarian means, and total lack of intelligent social organization.

And a worrying number of them turned out that way thanks to outside meddling in internal affairs...

Re: Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality

#220

Post by legodt »

Torgo wrote: post #189
legodt wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what is the line? Neo-nazis don't respond to debate or rationality. What line do they have to cross for violence to become acceptable for you? Because, clearly, actively calling for and organizing a group centered around my death and the death of my community isn't enough

That's not what he did or said, and your inability or refusal to recognize that is why a lot of people are against you trying to create a moral justification for mob attacks. You don't get to decide that for yourself because you live in a society where you gain benefits from designating sole authority to enact violence to the state. If you engage in violence, then the state will in turn give you what you deserve. Eve…

>That's not what he did or said,

He had repeatedly called for an ethnic cleansing of America. And now his buddy, Steve bannon is in the white house. The state has a monopoly on violence, and they aren't on our side

Post reply on HN