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

The deep roots of modern resentment

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 123 posts

Re: The deep roots of modern resentment

#81

Post by TeMPOraL »

stinkytaco wrote: post #41
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my perspective, the issue is less that the critics decline to offer alternative realistic solutions, but rather that they seek to repackage discredited and harmful solutions (like supply-side economics) as being the correct fix if only it gets implemented correctly and without opposition meddling. This line of argument is also often used to whitewash Communism by saying things along the line of: "Communism would w…

Perhaps part of the problem is our desire to bundle solutions into grand theories, like supply-side economics or Marxism? I agree that we can beat a horse over and over again until there's nothing left to see, but small changes are how the world actually works. I can say "lowering taxes on producers of x can stimulate growth" or "increased public investment in industry y will resolve the problems it currently experie…

Yes, I think it's a big part of the problem. Packaging things together and discussing them as ideologies, instead of stripping them to components and evaluating each component on its merits.

Re: The deep roots of modern resentment

#82

Post by martincmartin »

rdtsc wrote: post #44

Interestingly it was specifically leftist thinkers and personalities who have been against globalization as promoted by free-market capitalism. That might seems shocking in light of recent election rhetoric. https://chomsky.info/secrets03/ --- About half of what are called US exports to Mexico are intrafirm transfers of this sort. They don’t enter the Mexican market, and there’s no meaningful sense in which they’re e…

The Economist has previously mused that the old distinction between "left" and "right" isn't as relevant any more. Instead, the extreemes on both the left and right have a lot in common, they're both "drawbridge up:" don't like free trade or open borders.

Re: The deep roots of modern resentment

#83

Post by TeMPOraL »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #53
crdoconnor wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communism's "discreditation" was the result of a decades long propaganda campaign and their descent into authoritarianism which isn't all that different to that which many capitalist countries went through (or some are currently going through). You hear plenty of "well, capitalism would work fine too if it were just implemented correctly". That's exactly as stupid.

First point, yes on propaganda, but the failure of the Soviet Union had more to do with the inherent limitations of central planning than Marxist communism. That doesn't mean communism is a broken ideology, but rather that by attempting to refine the designs of failed communist states risks going back on the same path, instead of envisioning a new model for a community-focused ideology (in a way different from capita…

> inherent limitations of central planning

I wonder about those. I have this thought on the back of my head - now that we have ubiquitous light-speed communication and a big surplus of computing power, couldn't doing central planning via algorithms and automated systems offset some of the "inherent limitations" you mention?

(Honest question, I'm not advocating for communist revolution or anything; just looking for viable alternatives to organizing economy by recursive zero-sum games.)

Re: The deep roots of modern resentment

#84

Post by martincmartin »

Animats wrote: post #75

It's our fault, in tech. We've created a world where there's no good role for anyone with an IQ below 100. That's half the population. This is a new thing in history. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, there were more smart people than jobs for them. Strength and robustness were more valued than brainpower. That lasted well into the 20th century. The big change started during WWII. For the first time, war started to…

Then how do you explain earlier bouts of populism, like Huey Long? Liberalism has had its challengers ever since it existed.

Re: The deep roots of modern resentment

#85

Post by camikazeg »

ue_ wrote: post #78
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First point, yes on propaganda, but the failure of the Soviet Union had more to do with the inherent limitations of central planning than Marxist communism. That doesn't mean communism is a broken ideology, but rather that by attempting to refine the designs of failed communist states risks going back on the same path, instead of envisioning a new model for a community-focused ideology (in a way different from capita…

There are various new approaches to central planning that may be of interest, such as those in Towards a New Socialism by W. Paul Cockshott. I don't think central planning is necessarily something bad, and there are certainly sufficient alternatives from both inside and outside Communism. Many Communists such as myself are not attached to one method or another. The idea that some period of authoritarianism is require…

If communism could just be boiled down to "laborers own the means of production" then what stops that from happening within capitalism?

What prevents people from banding together to create factories that they then work in, for example?

Re: The deep roots of modern resentment

#86

Post by bduerst »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #80
bduerst wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coincidentally, housing prices (buy/rent) are income-elastic and one of the criticisms of a blanket UBI, not just minimum wage.

Did anyone compile a list of ways to handle this problem? I'm all for UBI, but this feels like a show-stopper, and I don't know of any workaround.

Not that I know of. Traditionally it has been handled by attaching spending restrictions to the income assistance - e.g. food stamps, medicare, unemployment, student loans, etc.

Re: The deep roots of modern resentment

#87

Post by dragonwriter »

martincmartin wrote: post #82
rdtsc wrote: post #44

Interestingly it was specifically leftist thinkers and personalities who have been against globalization as promoted by free-market capitalism. That might seems shocking in light of recent election rhetoric. https://chomsky.info/secrets03/ --- About half of what are called US exports to Mexico are intrafirm transfers of this sort. They don’t enter the Mexican market, and there’s no meaningful sense in which they’re e…

The Economist has previously mused that the old distinction between "left" and "right" isn't as relevant any more. Instead, the extreemes on both the left and right have a lot in common, they're both "drawbridge up:" don't like free trade or open borders.

Authoritarians associated (at least by rhetoric) with both the left (e.g., Leninist) and right (e.g., Fascist) aren't exactly new, and they look pretty similar in practice whatever the distinctions in their rhetoric.

But, even so, the left and right opposition to neoliberal trade is not the same (the opponents on the left tends to favor trade, but oppose trade without common labor and environmental protections, those on the right tend to oppose both trade and labor and environmental protections.)

Similarly, while almost everyone opposes "open borders" (an idea with narrow support which is mostly heard as a right-wing label for any immigration that they oppose), the left and right tend to be very far apart on what they prefer as the direction of change from status quo immigration policies.

Re: The deep roots of modern resentment

#88

Post by steamer25 »

dandare wrote: post #74
droopyEyelids wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly disagree. But I think i understand where you're coming from, because instead of 'alternatives' the answer is to stop doing many of our western liberal behaviors. The alternative to a campaign of drone warfare is to not do the campaign. The alternative to regime change and overthrow of democratically elected governments is to treat the nation as a sovereign nation, and not overthrow their government. The al…

You have actually illustrated 90% of the problem - none of the the above represents liberal behaviour but rather the very opposite. Liberal fight such behaviour, these things happen DESPITE OF liberalism. You have just validate my post.

Depends on your definition of 'liberalism'.

Classical liberalism was synonymous with libertarianism, minarchy, etc.

The modern colloquial usage is closer to meaning left-wing statism (as distinguished from 'conservative' or right-wing statism).

Re: The deep roots of modern resentment

#89

Post by adrienne »

crdoconnor wrote: post #61
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First point, yes on propaganda, but the failure of the Soviet Union had more to do with the inherent limitations of central planning than Marxist communism. That doesn't mean communism is a broken ideology, but rather that by attempting to refine the designs of failed communist states risks going back on the same path, instead of envisioning a new model for a community-focused ideology (in a way different from capita…

>the failure of the Soviet Union had more to do with the inherent limitations of central planning than Marxist communism Between 1917 and 1950 they grew at a staggering pace. From agricultural backwater to first space power. That isn't an economic failure in any way. After the 1950s they tried to re-gear the economy to producing things like fridges and, of course, for consumer items it wasn't nearly as effective. In…

It is so fucking predictable that you're getting downvoted to hell for your smart comments.

Re: The deep roots of modern resentment

#90

Post by tim333 »

crdoconnor wrote: post #42
compiler-guy wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is another criticism, not an alternative proposal. Please give an alternative proposal.

Raise the minimum wage to $20/hour. Watch as "serious economists" lie about: * All of the jobs that will actually not disappear. * All of the prices that will actually not rise (by much). And try really really hard to pretend that: * Raising the minimum wage doesn't channel profits into the pockets of workers. What surprises me isn't that they lie. What surprises me is that people continue to believe them.

>Raise the minimum wage to $20/hour. Watch as "serious economists" lie

appears a bit of a strawman argument. Googling "$20 minimum wage" the only thing on page one is an article explaining the obvious that people would lose jobs if you did. http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/02/20/why-shouldnt-we...

Post reply on HN