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

What Oxford taught me about posh people

unherd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 383 posts

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#161

Post by anoncake »

WalterBright wrote: post #156
anoncake wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No – since wealth has diminishing marginal utility, wealth transfer programs are inherently positive-sum. And freedom is not a system, it's simply the situation of being able to do what you want without being punished. The freedom to steal is a freedom, just one people generally shouldn't have.

> since wealth has diminishing marginal utility, wealth transfer programs are inherently positive-sum Neither claim has foundation. > And freedom is not a system Freedom has many meanings. I made it clear which meaning I refer to, and it isn't the one you're using.

> Neither claim has foundation.

I'm sorry. Did you just claim that getting 1000€ would improve the quality of life of Jeff Bezos, you and me, and a beggar on the street, by an equal amount?

> Freedom has many meanings. I made it clear which meaning I refer to, and it isn't the one you're using.

And yours is very idiosyncratic. And mostly redundant with "market economy", except a market economy doesn't technically require people to be selfish.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#162

Post by mulvya »

WalterBright wrote: post #142
mrpopo wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the US isn't a good example of a country where people have a fair chance at success in life IMO.

The US raised scores of millions of immigrants from poverty to the middle class. Poor people immigrated to the US, people with nothing but a suitcase. The US has seen the most spectacular rise from poverty to wealth ever seen in history. In WW1, for example, the German soldiers knew they had lost when the Americans arrived, well equipped, tall, and fat with food. The Japanese soldiers had a similar reaction when faci…

> In WW2, the US was able to fight two major wars simultaneously, and supply the allies, and move all that stuff overseas. An incredible achievement, only possible from free markets and the wealth produced by them.

The US nationalized many industries during WWII.

From 'U.S. not always averse to nationalization, despite its free-market image'[1]

"In times of war and national emergency, Washington has not hesitated. In 1917, the government seized the railroads to make sure goods, armaments and troops moved smoothly in the interests of national defense during World War I. Bondholders and stockholders were compensated, and railroads were returned to private ownership in 1920, after the war ended.

During World War II, Washington seized dozens of companies including railroads, coal mines and, briefly, the Montgomery Ward department store chain."

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/business/worldbusiness/13...

Edit: this appears to be a definitive account of wartime nationalization.

Industrialists in Olive Drab https://www.amazon.com/Industrialists-Olive-Drab-Operations-...

"the individual most closely involved with this effort, recounts the unique story of Ohly and his compatriots who were charged with the mission of guaranteeing that private companies sustained the vital war production of weapons, munitions, and other materiel needed by America's fighting men and the Allies to achieve victory overseas"

Full PDF: https://history.army.mil/html/books/070/70-32-1/CMH_Pub_70-3...

-------

Rather, it was having access to 1) continent-wide natural resources and 2) no combat theatre domestically which would have disrupted manufacturing, warehousing, transportation, not to mention civilian life and morale.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#163

Post by saiya-jin »

WalterBright wrote: post #142
mrpopo wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the US isn't a good example of a country where people have a fair chance at success in life IMO.

The US raised scores of millions of immigrants from poverty to the middle class. Poor people immigrated to the US, people with nothing but a suitcase. The US has seen the most spectacular rise from poverty to wealth ever seen in history. In WW1, for example, the German soldiers knew they had lost when the Americans arrived, well equipped, tall, and fat with food. The Japanese soldiers had a similar reaction when faci…

That's all nice and rosy but current picture is veering from this away more and more. Class mobility in US is largely a self-perpetuating myth. And US, say compared to Europe is clearly class-based social system where divider is your wealth.

So when you come in poor, you stay relatively poor, and can hope your children will fare better (and most don't).

Your WWI remarks are not correct (any fresh joining recruits would compare well to starved demoralized decimated trench troops). Read some german WWI literature, they didn't care much US specifically joining the fight, it was just more enemies. If Australians would come, it would be the same.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#164

Post by [deleted] »

anoncake wrote: post #149
WalterBright wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't want to improve my own life at the expense of others. That is not what freedom is about. Your comment implies that freedom is a zero-sum system. It most assuredly is not. Under freedom, you (selfishly) prosper by creating value that other people want to give you money for. Stealing is zero-sum, this is not stealing. (Wealth transfer programs are inherently zero-sum, and are unfair.)

No – since wealth has diminishing marginal utility, wealth transfer programs are inherently positive-sum. And freedom is not a system, it's simply the situation of being able to do what you want without being punished. The freedom to steal is a freedom, just one people generally shouldn't have.

[deleted]

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#165

Post by cr1895 »

WalterBright wrote: post #131
djrobstep wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> the Nordics prove that they are genuinely better places to live economically speaking The Nordics live atop an ocean of oil they sell that provides 20% of their GDP. This is hardly a situation other countries can replicate. P.S. I want to spend a summer sometime touring Norway and its astonishing beauty.

Only Norway is lavishing in the oil wealth of an immense sovereign fund. Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and the others are not so heavily influenced by oil. You can't generalize Norway to the rest of them.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#166

Post by aspaceman »

varispeed wrote: post #20
vletal wrote: post #4

My life goal was to attend one of these elite universities. I desired to work at companies such as Google or Apple. After graduating from the Czech Technical University I realized that 1. I am much less special then I thought 2. There is much more hard working focused average people then the few talented superstars, both usually achieving the same 3. Surprisingly many of the exceptionally smart people in my social bu…

Regarding 6. sometimes companies, especially start-ups hire those people not for their abilities, but to be able to tell investors they hire top uni educated workforce. They are more for PR than actual work. Sometimes it is frustrating, if they get paid the same as people who actually do work.

"All our quants come from Ivy League schools like MIT" is a similar play in finance.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#167

Post by notahacker »

iratic0 wrote: post #15
osrec wrote: post #9

As someone who was also raised in the North of England, went to a state school, and also ended up going to Oxford, this article is spot on. It took me a while to realise that the state educated people were often the more talented ones (they've not had anything handed to them on a plate), and our lack of poshness was actually something to be proud of - not something to feel inferior about!

Also comp educated and went to Oxford. I feel like in the last 5 years or so it's become "uncool" to be posh. Feel like this has been instigated by (in the West) Brexit and Trump bringing the Establishment down a notch.

Inverse snobbery (finding "posh" accents hilarious and assuming posh people are vain, a bit stupid and overreliant on their parents) has been around for a lot longer than that in the UK, including amongst middle class people living in the Home Counties! As has posh people downplaying their background or making self-deprecating jokes about it.

Wouldn't have thought many people would associate Trump's brash noveau-rich American stereotype act with the English Establishment, and Brexit actually made some Old Etonians popular in parts of the country that historically had very little time for them.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#168

Post by evgen »

pnutjam wrote: post #72
pm90 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you may have a misunderstanding of how the US education system works. There are lots of scholarships and financial aid opportunities accessible for students that need them. Most “Elite State Schools” also have some kind of programs that give preference to bright students from their own state. E.g. University of Texas gives an automatic admission to the top 7% of Texas high school graduates. In state tuition i…

Surprisingly, Texas is a real outlier here. Most states have some last resort college you can attend, but it's usually a community college, or AS degree institution. UT Austin is a really good school from what I hear.

UT-Austin has an enrollment of 40K in a state with almost 350,000 high school grads in 2021. It is in no way a 'last resort' college and is in fact at the top of the UT system in terms of exclusivity and admission requirements. There are a variety of other UT campuses around the state with lower admission requirements and a similarly lower academic ranking. You are correct that Texas is an outlier though, it has one of the lowest graduation rates in the country.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#169

Post by chcknsammich »

anoncake wrote: post #161
WalterBright wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> since wealth has diminishing marginal utility, wealth transfer programs are inherently positive-sum Neither claim has foundation. > And freedom is not a system Freedom has many meanings. I made it clear which meaning I refer to, and it isn't the one you're using.

> Neither claim has foundation. I'm sorry. Did you just claim that getting 1000€ would improve the quality of life of Jeff Bezos, you and me, and a beggar on the street, by an equal amount? > Freedom has many meanings. I made it clear which meaning I refer to, and it isn't the one you're using. And yours is very idiosyncratic. And mostly redundant with "market economy", except a market economy doesn't technically req…

> I'm sorry. Did you just claim that getting 1000€ would improve the quality of life of Jeff Bezos, you and me, and a beggar on the street, by an equal amount?

Jeff Bezos does not buy bread with every incremental thousand dollars. He builds institutions that provide bread for a cent cheaper to millions of people.

The assumption that you can equate these utilities is exactly the fallacy that caused so many to starve in Russia and China. Markets coordinate capital for the betterment of people at large.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#170

Post by redis_mlc »

TchoBeer wrote: post #116
WalterBright wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Work, life, and social structure is extremely unfair It's always going to be unfair. Attempts to fix it always result in some other unfairness. The real thing that works is freedom, i.e. not having the law artificially holding you back. Instead of being consumed by envy of others, you can make your own life better.

That sounds rather defeatist. Is it impossible to make work, life, or social structure more fair? I doubt you think that.

[dead]
Post reply on HN