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

Is It Better to Be Poor in Bangladesh or the Mississippi Delta?

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 106 posts

Re: Is It Better to Be Poor in Bangladesh or the Mississippi Delta?

#91

Post by thrownblown »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #86
thrownblown wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Downvote me too. It's ok. All property is theft.

So, where did you steal that computer that you're composing your messages on? Where did you steal your phone? Your car? You sound like you want a world where cars and computers are free. In practice, that would be a world without cars and computers. Or are you only talking about "property" in the sense of real estate? But if the land doesn't (enforceably) belong to me, I'm not going to build anything substantial on i…

>In practice, that would be a world without cars and computers.

I'd gladly trade my computer and phone for a world without private property.

> not even a decent suburban home. I'm not going to build anything but what I absolutely need, because I can lose it.

Maybe if what you built actually contibuted to your community, the community would protect your contributions.

>And I can't get a loan on it, either. This matters.

There is no money to loan to anyone without private property. I don't think this matters in a state of nature.

>So your position makes a nice soundbite, but it doesn't actually work very well in the real world.

This "real world" you speak of isn't working either. Climate change, arguably the worst unintended consequence of private property, is going to end our civilization in the next century. I only say it's the worst, since slavery only really effects humans, climate change impacts all species, not just one race.

Too bad it's our children and grandchildren that are the ones that will realize how selfish we are being.

Re: Is It Better to Be Poor in Bangladesh or the Mississippi Delta?

#92

Post by zeveb »

charles-salvia wrote: post #85
ptaipale wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Looking at America from across the Atlantic, it seems that the American inner cities are making themselves heard by drug trade and a fairly large number of homicides, and rural America now made themselves heard through elections. I kind of find the latter approach more constructive, in fact, even if it resulted in Trump.

It's a bit more complicated. Inner-city populations heavily vote Democrat, along with most densely populated areas. In fact, something like ~80% of Americans live in urban areas (which also includes dense suburbs), and therefore we should expect Democrats to win elections most of the time (even in spite of the fact that some dense sub-urban areas heavily lean Republican). However, this doesn't happen in practice beca…

> However, this doesn't happen in practice because the electoral college system heavily reduces the weight of votes coming from inner-cities and urban areas, and also excludes votes coming from urban areas that lie within a larger, Republican-leaning state.

The Electoral College doesn't 'reduce the weight of votes coming from inner-cities and urban areas'; it allocates votes to states in roughly proportion to population.

Voting by states doesn't just 'exclude votes coming from urban areas that lie within a larger, Republican-leaning state,' but also excludes votes from conservatives living in Democratic states, e.g. California.

> probably most people in Philadelphia voted for Clinton, but their votes were nullified because the state over-all went to Trump.

Their votes weren't nullified any more than the votes of those against Brexit were nullified by those who voted for: it's in the nature of a vote that someone will lose (not be nullified).

I didn't vote for President Trump, but I am glad that we are a federal republic with an Electoral College, not a direct democracy or anything like it. I wish we had more federalism, not less, to include state legislatures appointing senators and electors, and the elimination of the popular vote for president altogether.

Re: Is It Better to Be Poor in Bangladesh or the Mississippi Delta?

#93

Post by thrownblown »

miraj wrote: post #81
chimeracoder wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does Bangladesh have a systemic prescription opiate problem? If you want to talk about the impact of opiates on Bangladeshi poverty today, you should go back much further in history. Bengal opium, being much higher quality than the product found in China and Afghanistan, was the major impetus behind the British annexing the territory back in 1757. They used this monopoly to extract exorbitant taxes from Bengal, cau…

opiate addiction may not be that prevalent in Bangladesh; but from what I understand Methamphetamine (popularly known as 'Yaba') is a significant problem. http://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/crime/2016/12/19/stud... https://news.vice.com/article/yaba-the-madness-drug-is-findi... the history of 'Bengal Opium', especially its production & distribution is indeed a fascinating one. The historical fiction by Amitav Gho…

Thanks for the reading suggestions, I'm pretty intrigued by this topic.

The opioid epidemic is seriously bad here in the US and its negative effects are definitely magnified by the Appalachian malaise that existed before oxycontin.

I mean, they have recently run out of morgue space in South Eastern Ohio (also Appalachean).

Re: Is It Better to Be Poor in Bangladesh or the Mississippi Delta?

#94

Post by AnimalMuppet »

thrownblown wrote: post #91
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, where did you steal that computer that you're composing your messages on? Where did you steal your phone? Your car? You sound like you want a world where cars and computers are free. In practice, that would be a world without cars and computers. Or are you only talking about "property" in the sense of real estate? But if the land doesn't (enforceably) belong to me, I'm not going to build anything substantial on i…

>In practice, that would be a world without cars and computers. I'd gladly trade my computer and phone for a world without private property. > not even a decent suburban home. I'm not going to build anything but what I absolutely need, because I can lose it. Maybe if what you built actually contibuted to your community, the community would protect your contributions. >And I can't get a loan on it, either. This matter…

> I'd gladly trade my computer and phone for a world without private property.

Really? Don't expect very many of us to agree with you...

> There is no money to loan to anyone without private property. I don't think this matters in a state of nature.

Most of us don't want to live in a state of nature, either. I think, if you actually had to do so, even you might decide you don't like it.

Re: Is It Better to Be Poor in Bangladesh or the Mississippi Delta?

#95

Post by criddell »

gerpsh wrote: post #83
criddell wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people have genuine smiles but own less That's a great observation. I think it's hard to argue that someone happy in their life is not successful just because they haven't advanced economically.

This Onion article really nails this point: http://www.theonion.com/article/unambitious-loser-with-happy...

> Husmer is unlikely to change at this point, and may in fact remain a good-natured and highly fulfilled layabout for the rest of his life.

Great link. The Onion rarely disappoints.

Re: Is It Better to Be Poor in Bangladesh or the Mississippi Delta?

#96

Post by ptaipale »

InitialLastName wrote: post #88
charles-salvia wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bit more complicated. Inner-city populations heavily vote Democrat, along with most densely populated areas. In fact, something like ~80% of Americans live in urban areas (which also includes dense suburbs), and therefore we should expect Democrats to win elections most of the time (even in spite of the fact that some dense sub-urban areas heavily lean Republican). However, this doesn't happen in practice beca…

It doesn't help when voter suppression efforts make access to voting rights prohibitive to people in cities, especially the poor. 4 hour lines to vote (because there are fewer polling places) are painful even when your livelihood isn't on the line.

That's is something I don't understand: how come these cities cannot arrange enough polling stations? After all, if they're Democrat majority, it would be in interests of Democrat-elected local officials to arrange enough polling places.

(Another thing I have a hard time understanding is that Americans allow people to vote even if they have no ID. Over here, it's a basic requirement for democracy that only those vote who have the right to vote, and they each vote only once.)

Re: Is It Better to Be Poor in Bangladesh or the Mississippi Delta?

#97

Post by ptaipale »

charles-salvia wrote: post #85
ptaipale wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Looking at America from across the Atlantic, it seems that the American inner cities are making themselves heard by drug trade and a fairly large number of homicides, and rural America now made themselves heard through elections. I kind of find the latter approach more constructive, in fact, even if it resulted in Trump.

It's a bit more complicated. Inner-city populations heavily vote Democrat, along with most densely populated areas. In fact, something like ~80% of Americans live in urban areas (which also includes dense suburbs), and therefore we should expect Democrats to win elections most of the time (even in spite of the fact that some dense sub-urban areas heavily lean Republican). However, this doesn't happen in practice beca…

Of course I know it's complicated; I was making a simplification to express a point. The violence in cities wouldn't make me want to give the violent more voice in making decisions, rather to the contrary.

And the votes of those who are second-past-the-post are not "nullified"; they just didn't win. We have a different system (d'Hondt) and it has its drawbacks as well.

Re: Is It Better to Be Poor in Bangladesh or the Mississippi Delta?

#98

Post by mmsimanga »

xyzzy4 wrote: post #8

The poor in Bangladesh are at least allowed to have shelter in slums. Anywhere in the US it would be highly illegal and violate many regulations.

I agree with your post, perhaps the word slums didn't sit well with some people. If I were to rephrase it I would say, 'The poor in Bangladesh are at least allowed to build shelters without approval from city/building councils."

Sometime ago on HN, there was the story of the Canadian gentleman who built his house. His crime was that he didn't use wood stamped by inspectors. It was found that he used wood far superior to what was required.

Back home, people make their own bricks. South Africa is more advanced than other African countries. The poor here do not make their own bricks. There too many laws and the laws are enforced.

Re: Is It Better to Be Poor in Bangladesh or the Mississippi Delta?

#99

Post by exolymph »

throwanem wrote: post #45
exolymph wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The distinction is that slavery is actually bad — a human rights atrocity with centuries of fallout — whereas globalization is (according to the liberal worldview ) good. I mostly share the liberal worldview.

That's an interesting distinction. On its face it suggests that some human rights atrocities are more morally acceptable than others, but I can't imagine how such a reading might be accurate to fact.

What part of my comment suggests "that some human rights atrocities are more morally acceptable than others"?

Re: Is It Better to Be Poor in Bangladesh or the Mississippi Delta?

#100

Post by Retric »

com2kid wrote: post #42
mmsimanga wrote: post #18

I was born in an African village, literally in a mud hut. I spent the first 9 years of my life in a village. The town I grew up in wasn't far from the village so I spent holidays in the village too. I now work in IT and try keep up with the latest frameworks. That is I am not concerned with starving to death and I have health insurance. If I compare my upbringing with my daughter's, there is nothing to compare. We wa…

> Here is the interesting thing, none of us ever had to see an occupational therapist to help us with our hand eye co-ordination. Falling out of a tree was enough incentive to figure it out on your own. Survivorship bias. I have poor eyesight, no amount of practice would ever allow me to throw a spear and hit a wild animal. Heck with lots of occupational therapy as a kid, I can kinda-sorta catch a ball. On a good day…

Good vision is less necessary for hunting than you might think. One common hunting role is simply to walk though an area while making a lot of noise. Abstractly large numbers of people have poor vision in large part because our ancestors could get by with poor vision. Traps and fishing are other examples with minimal requirements in terms of vision.

Remember, hunter gathers don't need to read tiny text, or the pattern of bark on a tree. So, even what we think of as poor vision was actually often 'good enough'.

Post reply on HN