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

The Crisis of the Middle Class and American Power

stratfor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 151 posts

Re: The Crisis of the Middle Class and American Power

#91

Post by jdale27 »

sliverstorm wrote: post #82
maratd wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> US has no shortage of zombies who don't think on their won. A human being is at the most juvenile when he encounters a view contrary to his own and ascribes it to stupidity. If only everyone was as enlightened, as educated, as brilliant as he ... then everyone would understand. No. Grow up. I will never be wealthy and I will still continue to vote for a fair tax system. A flat tax system. Because everyone should pa…

I will never be wealthy and I will still continue to vote for a fair tax system. A flat tax system. Because everyone should pay the same, regardless of status or income. Trouble with a flat tax system is the poor can't afford the tax rates the nation's current expenditure would require. It would work O.K. if the expenditure was much lower, but I see no way to get from here to there. Aside from that, I've come to beli…

I am not an economist, but it sounds like you're getting at something similar to the diminishing marginal utility of money. I can't find a good source online that explains this, but the basic idea is that the more money someone has, the less each additional increment is actually worth. For example, a $10,000 raise is a lot more useful to a person that makes $50,000 a year than to one who makes $500,000 a year.

There may be a connection with progressive taxation, in the sense that if money has diminishing marginal utility, then a flat tax on money is actually regressive in terms of utility. So then a progressive tax on money is closer to being "fair" in the sense of being a flatter tax on utility.

Re: The Crisis of the Middle Class and American Power

#92

Post by sliverstorm »

jdale27 wrote: post #91
sliverstorm wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will never be wealthy and I will still continue to vote for a fair tax system. A flat tax system. Because everyone should pay the same, regardless of status or income. Trouble with a flat tax system is the poor can't afford the tax rates the nation's current expenditure would require. It would work O.K. if the expenditure was much lower, but I see no way to get from here to there. Aside from that, I've come to beli…

I am not an economist, but it sounds like you're getting at something similar to the diminishing marginal utility of money. I can't find a good source online that explains this, but the basic idea is that the more money someone has, the less each additional increment is actually worth. For example, a $10,000 raise is a lot more useful to a person that makes $50,000 a year than to one who makes $500,000 a year. There…

Thanks, this ties in to what I was saying very well.

Re: The Crisis of the Middle Class and American Power

#93

Post by rdtsc »

maratd wrote: post #68
rdtsc wrote: post #52

> The expectation of rising real incomes was built into the American culture Ah that's the classic propaganda line: "I am not poor, I am just pre-wealthy." ...So I sure don't want to vote for anything that would jeopardize my wealthy position when I get there. The key in all of this is ability to manipulate the people into believing and voting in a particular way. US has no shortage of zombies who don't think on thei…

> US has no shortage of zombies who don't think on their won. A human being is at the most juvenile when he encounters a view contrary to his own and ascribes it to stupidity. If only everyone was as enlightened, as educated, as brilliant as he ... then everyone would understand. No. Grow up. I will never be wealthy and I will still continue to vote for a fair tax system. A flat tax system. Because everyone should pa…

> I will never be wealthy and I will still continue to vote for a fair tax system.

What makes you think that's fair? I didn't say what is fair or not, you brought that into the discussion. Do you think marginal utility doesn't make sense. Why is linear, percentage based, tax "fair"? Seems rather arbitrary to me.

> I won't always be healthy and I will still continue to vote against a socialist healthcare system. Because everyone should pay for what they use,

Ok except that the world where each individual is isolated and should just get what they need for themselves by paying and nothing more is a fantasy world. Exactly the kind of a situation I was talking about. Turning human lives and their health into a marketable commodity is craziness. Letting emergency services handle terminal heart patients, which would have been managed better by preventive care is insanity. Checking people's accounts before pulling the ambulance to the door is a pretty scary society, and maybe you evaluated it and decided to vote for that, I decide not to. Starting wars just to fuel the military industrial complex, is craziness. Letting old people die of hunger and neglect is craziness.

> You don't believe what I believe? That's fine. But how dare you ascribe my beliefs to ignorance?

I dare because it seems at least some of your beliefs are crazy and are hurting not only yourself in the long run but others. Maybe you'll say that you don't care about others, and it shouldn't matter what happens to them, and I say that's crazy as well.

Re: The Crisis of the Middle Class and American Power

#94

Post by ucee054 »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #6
CleanedStar wrote: post #3

When Karl Marx wrote Capital in 1867, he said capitalism would never be able to get rid of credit bubbles, financial crises, high unemployment etc. He said that over time the problems would get worse and worse with greater and greater financial crises. Here we are about a century and a half later and you just have to look at the housing bubble, the bank crisis, TARP and the government bailout, unemployment in the US…

Anyone who thinks that the recent financial crisis is due to a fundamental failing of the free market just has not been paying attention, or has an ideological ax to grind. The latest economic crises are mostly the result of bad government policies and excessive government debt.

This is such bullshit.

When AIG and Lehman went down, the crisis had already hit. That's what was meant by "financial crisis". The government actions to abilout AIG only happened after. So you have your timelines backwards.

And the NINJA mortgage issuers (like Goldman's Countrywide) weren't issuing dodgy mortgages because the government was taking on the risk, they were doing it because they could offload the risk to chumps like AIG and Lehman.

Pure systemic free-market failure. Basically the banks were trusted to regulate themselves, and the risk controls all over New York, Frankfurt and London were pants. If we still had the heavy regulations of the 1970s, none of it would have happened.

Re: The Crisis of the Middle Class and American Power

#95

Post by anigbrowl »

yk wrote: post #72
anigbrowl wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically workers create $240 of wealth every eight hour work day, but are only paid $200 a day. But workers don't create that much wealth in a day by themselves; they need plant and material to create the product or service that is sold. The buildings they work in, the machinery that they use, the raw material they consume, are equally important inputs to production and it is these which are supplied by the capitali…

So the buildings get paid? Marx did work under the assumption of the "Labor theory of value" [1], which states that only labor adds value to raw products, and that only humans are paid. So the price of a consumer product may be broken down into labor costs, raw material, R&D, long term investments etc. But each of the non labor points can be broken up further and in the end you end with only labor. 19th century econo…

No, the person who invested in the building and bought the machinery and raw material gets reimbursed and paid the opportunity cost of their investment, aka normal profits (as opposed to economic profits). I think the labor theory of value is one of Marx's main errors; it sort of works for agriculture because food does actually grow out of the ground, land was owned without being built, and in the 19th century the vast bulk of the expense involved was labor based, but this didn't translate well to industrial production at all.

Re: The Crisis of the Middle Class and American Power

#96

Post by ucee054 »

martinced wrote: post #26
CleanedStar wrote: post #3

When Karl Marx wrote Capital in 1867, he said capitalism would never be able to get rid of credit bubbles, financial crises, high unemployment etc. He said that over time the problems would get worse and worse with greater and greater financial crises. Here we are about a century and a half later and you just have to look at the housing bubble, the bank crisis, TARP and the government bailout, unemployment in the US…

Because socialism or communism works so much better right? People are especially envious of the great freedom people in North Korea are enjoying? Same as Cuba? Venezuela? Argentina? (wanna change your currency to another one in Argentina to hedge yourself against a very strong inflation? you can't, because the socialist state won't let you do that) What's next after Karl Marx? That the homophobic racist murderer that…

You really can't tell the difference between socialism and communism?

socialism = Norway, communism = North Korea

So you think Norway and North Korea are identical?

Or are you under the delusion that Norway is badly managed? Do you think people get dragged to the Gulag there?

You better shut off the Fox News and go read a book.

Re: The Crisis of the Middle Class and American Power

#97

Post by anigbrowl »

malandrew wrote: post #45
anigbrowl wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically workers create $240 of wealth every eight hour work day, but are only paid $200 a day. But workers don't create that much wealth in a day by themselves; they need plant and material to create the product or service that is sold. The buildings they work in, the machinery that they use, the raw material they consume, are equally important inputs to production and it is these which are supplied by the capitali…

Yes and no. Of the $40 the worker is shorted, a portion goes to the capitalist and a portion goes to the buildings they work in, the machinery they use and the raw material they consume. The benefits of those things accrue to the capitalist even though it was finance with the value created by the labor of the worker. Only the upfront costs to begin a business are attributable to the capitalist. All the growth of that…

Agreed. but I would argue that a) the upfront costs to begin the business are significant, b) the benefits also accrue to the workers insofar as a growing business provides ongoing employment, and c) the marshaling of work is itself a form of work. It's not like you just tell 200 workers to turn up somewhere and production/distribution/sales happens automatically.

Re: The Crisis of the Middle Class and American Power

#98

Post by ucee054 »

tolmasky wrote: post #48
Fluda3 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find HN to be quite rich, in both content and discussions about said content. I don't post because I usually don't have anything significant to add to the conversation. I have to say though, your comment deeply disturbs me. Those weren't poisonous words. And I highly doubt that his comment, which seems quite informative, comes from his "dreams of a world made of slaves". I can tell you're American. Constantly when…

I assure you that your "burden" of having to "constantly" listen to Americans educate you about socialism is more than outweighed by people like you assuming we are all one homogeneous mass that behaves that way ("I can tell you're American" followed by a lecture about the "blow your mind" level of intolerance and hatred here, as if that is uniquely American) I wonder how you maintain the cognitive dissonance that so…

Sorry no that's an obvious Americanism (American right-ism).

Nobody else on the planet says SOCIALISM with the Bill O'Reilly sneer and think that's a debate-ender.

Try to imagine a Chinese or a Frenchman saying that. Doesn't work. That's because in other countries "socialism" isn't a swear word.

Re: The Crisis of the Middle Class and American Power

#99

Post by rdtsc »

vor_ wrote: post #83
rdtsc wrote: post #52

> The expectation of rising real incomes was built into the American culture Ah that's the classic propaganda line: "I am not poor, I am just pre-wealthy." ...So I sure don't want to vote for anything that would jeopardize my wealthy position when I get there. The key in all of this is ability to manipulate the people into believing and voting in a particular way. US has no shortage of zombies who don't think on thei…

Calling people names because they disagree with a progressive tax structure or mandated health insurance isn't a convincing argument for your side. There are arguments to be made for and against these policies. In fact, it would be helpful for you to recognize that you are simply one side of a two-sided issue, each side of which believes they are obviously correct and that the other side is too uneducated to know how…

From a rational point of view I can understand how someone with a high income is against a progressive tax structure. How someone how has millions of dollars stashed in an account votes against a socialized basic care. I don't understand why someone living on government's check, and having poor health due to a financial inability to go the doctor, is voting against it. That is the issue.

The problem I am describing is people being manipulated to vote against their own interest. Religious, fears, fake promises are all used effectively by those in power to recruit and manipulate others to do their bidding for them. That is what is scary.

Re: The Crisis of the Middle Class and American Power

#100

Post by anigbrowl »

pjzedalis wrote: post #17
tsotha wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much of Marx's critiques of capitalism make some sense. The problem is nobody has come up with a better system for lifting people out of poverty.

Why does capitalism have to lift anyone out of poverty? The opportunity to own assets and control your own production sometimes provides the means to do so. Just because enough impoverished people are not becoming rich per year does not mean capitalism is not working as intended.

Why does capitalism have to lift anyone out of poverty?

Because poor people tend to get sick of their lot and revolt sooner or later. It's been a problem for monarchs through the ages.

Post reply on HN