What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922) • Hacker News Board

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#421

Post by thegrimmest » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 6:55 PM UTC

wbsss4412 wrote: post #417

thegrimmest wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe it's possible to have a state whose powers and authority are fundamentally limited. I also believe that was the original intention of US. I agree taxes must be levied. I just disagree it's legitimate to levy them for most of what they are spent on today. If I ask myself "what should the state be allowed to do?", it's basically answered by "what would I be comfortable holding a gun to someone's head for?". T…

You would hold a gun to someone’s head over petty theft or the violation of a contractual agreement?

> over petty theft

Yes, I'd have no problem shooting a thief, especially in defence of my primary food supply.

> violation of a contractual agreement

I'd have no problem holding a gun to someone's head in order to extract what compensation is due to me under a lawful agreement.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#422

Post by wbsss4412 » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 6:56 PM UTC

thegrimmest wrote: post #400

wbsss4412 wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If interference with private transactions is fundamentally authoritarian, I still don’t understand how you see any sort of state as compatible with liberty. Yes yes, “keeping the peace” but how is such an authority deemed to be legitimate? Who gets to define due process? How are they funded if not by taxation? At the end of the day I don’t understand how you aren’t just an anarchist.

The state is compatible with liberty in so far as it acts to secure the liberty of its citizens. Again, liberty here meaning, basically, freedom from violence by other people. A state which acts to protect its citizens liberty is legitimate (in my view) regardless of how its members come to authority. Democracy (in one form or another) seems to be the least-worst option for administering this state (defining the proc…

You just said that interference with private transactions was by definition a violation of liberty, so any outside action of the state would be at best a violation of liberty to secure liberty, somehow. Which, is somewhat nonsensical. There is no well defined liberty math.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#423

Post by Brendinooo » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 6:56 PM UTC

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #215

Brendinooo wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get what you're saying, but I think I disagree. Ordering on Amazon from your phone is a much faster experience that reaches more products, but it is an analogue to mailing in an order from the Sears catalog. I don't think there's an 1822 analogue to the Sears catalog. And the quote was about "surprise". I don't think it'd be a complete shock to see that the world got more connected, ordering became easier, deliveri…

>Put differently, a lot of "0 to 1" stuff had happened by 1922. How much of that 0-1 is stuff that existed in some niche or experimental capacity prior to 1822 but simply became possible at scale? We had writing for millennia but the printing press changed the world. We've had steel for millennia but the Bessemer process changed the world. We've always been able to send information long distances but digital communic…

I don't think I disagree with your point, I just think that your point doesn't speak to the "who would be more surprised" question. And, thinking about it, maybe 0-1 wasn't a good way for me to make that case.

To order something from Amazon from your toilet, you need

- indoor plumbing

- computing

- electricity

- industrialized mass production

- global connectivity

- global transportation network

Someone in 1922 could imagine a telephone in a bathroom that could be used to contact a Sears-like company to order a mass-produced product and have it delivered from a faraway place.

In 1822 you barely have the idea of industrialization and electricity, let alone anything else. "Write a letter from your cesspit to have a product from St. Louis delivered to New York, but your letter is instantly delivered instead of taking six weeks, production is faster and cheaper than your local craftsman (it's not being made to order!), and instead of taking six weeks to ship it, it takes two days (2022) or a week(?) (1922)." It's not just that the same kind of thing is happening at a grander scale, it requires a fundamental reorientation of how you'd think about consuming products.

So yeah, Amazon's scale in 2022 is astronomically greater than Sears's in 1922 and that is significant, but they share way more fundamentals than 1822 and 1922 did.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#424

Post by vkou » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 6:56 PM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #396

VirusNewbie wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inflationary monetary policy is wealth transfer into the upper class without most people realizing it. Wealth, be it institutions or individuals, will always push for central banking as it entrenches their power.

Is this really the case? Inflation favors debtors over creditors, the upper class tends to be the latter not the former. While it is the case that the value of savings goes down, the lower class are much less likely to save.

It's not the case, but people keep wringing their hands about how inflation robs the poor of the ~$500 they have in their savings accounts, while ignoring how much it helps the middle-class mortgage owner who is in fixed-rate debt for a million dollars.

They get away with it because they don't make the distinction between price inflation and asset inflation. The cost of bread doubling is a huge problem for the poor, but means little to everyone else. The cost of assets doubling doesn't matter to the poor, because they have never, and will never save enough money to buy assets. The cost of assets doubling matters greatly against a yuppie who is trying to buy a home. The cost of assets doubling matters greatly in favor of someone who bought a home last week.

Inflation sucks for you if you earn minimum wage, because half the country thinks that raising the minimum wage to keep up with inflation means will bring about the apocalypse. Inflation doesn't matter much to you if you're in a high-demand industry, with wages rising to match it. Inflation sucks for you if you're not working, but doesn't matter to you if you are, and there's a labour shortage, which increases your wage bargaining power.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#425

Post by krupan » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 6:57 PM UTC

galangalalgol wrote: post #356

krupan wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could try keto chow. They started with the Soylent recipe and made it carb free (if you don't count fiber as carbs). https://www.ketochow.xyz/

I'm not against carbs, I just like macro ratios more like the earlier versions. Lots of carbs and polyunsaturated oils are in the literature as triglyceride boosters. If they offered a version with the fish oil back in and the old protein ratios I'd be interested, especially if the replaced the rice protein with the collagen or fish meal from the bait fish the oil came from. At least as sustainable as giant fields of…

There are several other Soylent mods out there. Super Body Fuel, Huel, and Tsogo are a few others I tried. Not a drink, but Meal Squares and Greenbelly Meals are a similar idea too. No idea if any of them meet your needs. I think there was a website that had a huge list of meal replacements.

(Edit typo fix)

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#426

Post by thegrimmest » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 6:58 PM UTC

wbsss4412 wrote: post #422

thegrimmest wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The state is compatible with liberty in so far as it acts to secure the liberty of its citizens. Again, liberty here meaning, basically, freedom from violence by other people. A state which acts to protect its citizens liberty is legitimate (in my view) regardless of how its members come to authority. Democracy (in one form or another) seems to be the least-worst option for administering this state (defining the proc…

You just said that interference with private transactions was by definition a violation of liberty, so any outside action of the state would be at best a violation of liberty to secure liberty, somehow. Which, is somewhat nonsensical. There is no well defined liberty math.

> a violation of liberty to secure liberty

You've pretty much got it. These are the only legitimate violations of liberty. Doesn't seem nonsensical to me.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#427

Post by krupan » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 7:01 PM UTC

I was just laughing at the idea of glassed in cities with all our gas powered cars with my wife, but then I realized that if the cities were well ventilated/filtered that could result in an air quality improvement for a lot of places

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#428

Post by mwint » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 7:01 PM UTC

tlholaday wrote: post #256

mwint wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And you have to sell your car to a Black man if he wants to buy it from you. Never thought about this before: Suppose I’m Black, respond to a Craigslist ad for a $10k car for sale by owner, and am refused for my skin color. What law do I or the state prosecute the seller under? Most of the anti-discrimination laws I know of apply to companies, usually companies with more than N employees.

> What law do I or the state prosecute the seller under? Start your research with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-196... - looks like this is all about employment, and even then only applies to those employing more than N employees:

> The term "employer" means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees [...]

I suppose the root of my question is this: Where is the law stating that an individual cannot act with prejudice against another individual, outside of an employment context? I've always assumed such a law exists, but never asked exactly where it is.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#429

Post by msikora » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 7:06 PM UTC

scottLobster wrote: post #165

jollybean wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 1922 only 5% of people went to University - now 50% go on to post secondary which is largely due to cost and opportunity. Only about 50% finished HS - now it's 95%. Doctors were not very affordable by anyone - now it's >90%. Most people didn't have running water and electricity yet now it's almost 100%. The only thing that's not as nice as 'real estate' - housing was cheap, but the houses were crap, and often you…

All of those facts are meaningless without context. Higher education is far more necessary for even a middle class existence than it was in 1922, and the middle class is getting less and less affordable. One of my grandfathers worked a family farm. My dad was able to grind his way out of the lower classes by working at Friendly's and other odd jobs to pay for college (up to and including his PhD). My father in law's…

USA is pretty dystopian. I'm an immigrant from the EU, and like most of us here I work in tech where the wages and benefits are very good (wages quite a bit better than even the richer EU countries and benefits on par I would say). But for the lower middle class and below it absolutely sucks in the US compared to most other countries with similar levels of development...

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#430

Post by Retric » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 7:08 PM UTC

scottLobster wrote: post #264

Retric wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 1922s “middle class” experience is affordable for a most Americans today. As in shelter with heat, phone service, and electric lights but no appliances, no car, minimal access to effective healthcare etc. Upward mobility is still available and just as rare. The health, intelligence, and drive that allowed someone in 1922 to better themselves are the same things that still allow someone to better themselves in 2022.…

So? A middle class experience from 1622 is also affordable for most Americans today, and now we don't have to worry about raids from the natives! Clearly we have no right to complain /s I'm not arguing things are equivalent to 1922 on an absolute scale, but on a relative scale they're closer than they were in the recent past. The prosperity of the previous century has shifted the goal posts for what defines upper, mi…

A higher percentage of Americans are going to collage in 2020. They are also graduating with more debt, so is it more or less affordable? That’s a more complex question than it might appear as students are in many cases choosing a very expensive education when more economical options are available.

It’s similar to how new cars in 2020 are both substantially more expensive on average but also of vastly higher quality. In both cases the cheapest options represent a tiny slice of the overall market suggesting cost is generally less an imposition by outside forces than a choice.