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

India’s elites have a ferocious sense of entitlement

newint.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 251 posts

Re: India’s elites have a ferocious sense of entitlement

#131

Post by philwelch »

walshemj wrote: post #119
javert wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think "old money" really "drives the country" in the US. Although that is probably also a bit of an overstatement in Europe as well, this issue is really one of the major historical distinctions between the US and Europe.

oh I don't know America likes to think it doent have a class system but look at the Bushes old money also Bill Gates fits into this class where as say Larry Ellison doesn't

Just because there are old-money families doesn't mean they're a major part of the class system. Larry Ellison doesn't have fewer privileges than Bill Gates. The Clintons don't have fewer privileges than the Bushes.

Re: India’s elites have a ferocious sense of entitlement

#132

Post by rayiner »

wilfra wrote: post #66
16s wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every part of America I have ever been in would not tolerate that. It's illegal.

It may not be as bad as some countries where you can just pay the cops but the rich and well connected in America definitely play by a different set of rules, especially with regard to punishment. Example: a rich old woman in my hometown was drunk in the morning and ran over a guy riding a bicycle and killed him. She ended up getting probation. Not a day in jail. Put a poor minority behind the wheel of that car and t…

That's race/age not wealth. If it had been a young, rich, black guy in an Escalade what do you think a jury would have done?

Re: India’s elites have a ferocious sense of entitlement

#133

Post by dalke »

pekk wrote: post #102
trhtrsh wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, and selling "personal advertising space" on the sides of libraries, and "putting a price on social status" are perhaps the only way to achieve some measure of equality. (Almost) everyone craves social status. Let people earn it in healthy ways, by their contributions , not their accumulations ; don't envy their Jaguars, be dismissive of them. And don't resent people who contribute because "yeah, they should h…

Why would it be wrong to expect people to contribute back to the society which has enriched them?

I think you've misread trhtrsh. 'Let people earn it in healthy ways, by their contributions, not their accumulations.'

This view is that rich people should only be respected for their contributions "back to the society which has enriched them." Not for their ability to acquire and hold $100+ million.

I believe also that the point about 'selling "personal advertising space" on the sides of libraries' is meant to include the Carnegie libraries. Some 2,509 were built between 1883 and 1929. It coincided with a big increase in interest in town planning and personal enrichment.

I think the Carnegie libraries example highlights possible limitations to trhtrsh's optimistic views of philanthropy. The libraries were successful in part because of the Carnegie Formula. For example, towns had to "demonstrate the need for a public library" and "annually provide ten percent of the cost of the library's construction to support its operation."

This was chosen instead of, say, an endowed institution because "an endowed institution is liable to become the prey of a clique. The public ceases to take interest in it, or, rather, never acquires interest in it. The rule has been violated which requires the recipients to help themselves. Everything has been done for the community instead of its being only helped to help itself." (I'm cribbing directly from Wikipedia for these quotes.)

That observation from 150 years still rings true today. Some types of philanthropy aren't good for the society. Any sort of "social status" must bear that in mind. Alas, social status is not easy to define, and mistakes or problems caused by a case of bad philanthropy may easily be misattributed.

Re: India’s elites have a ferocious sense of entitlement

#134

Post by mjn »

dalke wrote: post #133
pekk wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would it be wrong to expect people to contribute back to the society which has enriched them?

I think you've misread trhtrsh. 'Let people earn it in healthy ways, by their contributions, not their accumulations.' This view is that rich people should only be respected for their contributions "back to the society which has enriched them." Not for their ability to acquire and hold $100+ million. I believe also that the point about 'selling "personal advertising space" on the sides of libraries' is meant to inclu…

I agree it's tricky to get right. The art world is one example where some philanthropic spending is arguably for the public benefit, but other philanthropic spending has arguably fallen "the prey of a clique".

I wasn't thinking in my comment upthread as systemically, though, in terms of whether philanthropy or, say, taxation, is a better way to tackle inequality. I actually lean a bit towards the latter myself, and am skeptical of whether very wealthy people are actually good at directing large philanthropic projects on average.

I was thinking more small-scale at just a cultural level, like the anecdotes this article is describing. The article paints a picture of some wealthy people in a certain set of circumstances who are quite dismissive of poor people, even contemptuous towards them. But in other circumstances, it's seen as one of the rewards of wealth that you can act as a sort of magnanimous benefactor, gracious servant of the public. Whatever causes that cultural difference strikes me as interesting. One guess is that it relates to whether wealthy people feel some sense of community with poorer people in the same area, so they gain something socially from being a town's benefactor, because the poorer people they're helping out are in the same social circles. But I imagine that's only one aspect.

Re: India’s elites have a ferocious sense of entitlement

#135

Post by tomkarlo »

redcircle wrote: post #56
jimrandomh wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You know what these people call themselves? Middle class. They refuse to acknowledge that they are wealthy. No, they've got it right. The distinction between middle class and lower class is entirely about wealth, but the distinction between middle class and upper class is not. Wealth is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for being upper class; the distinguishing features are flexibility and power, not money.…

I agree: upper class isn't about wealth. So much of it is about culture (in the sense that culture breeds character traits). And the ambition to obtain wealth in the middle class breeds character traits that impose a barrier for entering the upper class.

This is what folks in the upper class like to believe so they can feel like there's more separating them from the middle class than just money. It's also a comfort to believe that even if you end up bankrupt, you're still "upper class". (And often, that people who are new money and richer than you are somehow not "upper class.")

Make a million dollars a year, and you can go to all the charity balls and opera galas you want. And your kids can go to whatever prep school you want to send them to. That tells me it's about your wallet, not where your parents went to school.

Re: India’s elites have a ferocious sense of entitlement

#136

Post by tomkarlo »

trhtrsh wrote: post #72
16s wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every part of America I have ever been in would not tolerate that. It's illegal.

Of course it's illegal, and most people couldn't escape consequences. But the upper class can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy#Chappaquiddick_inci...

I'd like to think we've gotten better about it in the last 35 years. If nothing else, the national media would be less likely to keep quiet.

Re: India’s elites have a ferocious sense of entitlement

#137

Post by duck »

sk5t wrote: post #97
davidroberts wrote: post #74

This does not just apply in India. A long time ago, I had a job soliciting donations door to door in the US. We did all we could to avoid the rich neighborhoods and actively sought out the poor minority neighborhoods. People in those neighborhoods with only two dollars would give one to help others. In the rich neighborhoods, they would call the police the moment they saw you. If I ever had to have a heart attack in…

I don't think it's that the rich don't want to help, but they are accustomed to fending off people trying to take their money. Deal with it often enough and everyone looks like a swindler--it's a bit like the experience of moving to the big city, and learning that it's better to brush off 100% of the people on the street who have a sob story, just need bus or subway fare, or claim to have gotten their car towed. Also…

There has been numerous studies that show the rich give far less than the poor to charities, so this doesn't back up your claim at all.

Re: India’s elites have a ferocious sense of entitlement

#138

Post by spikels »

thrownaway2424 wrote: post #114
16s wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every part of America I have ever been in would not tolerate that. It's illegal.

Whatever one does in America, in a car, is not a crime, even if a dozen people die. http://www.streetsblog.org/2013/04/08/immune-from-prosecutio... As a bicyclist, I can tell you as a matter of personal experience that Americans do in fact run bicyclists off the road frequently. I have never heard of such things being prosecuted, even when the cyclists were seriously injured, or when their bike is ruined. Now, why do…

I appears you have not heard about the man sentenced to 10+ years in prison for hitting and injuring a bicyclist in Healdsburg, CA (about 70 miles north of San Francisco). The article also mentions two other ongoing prosecutions of drivers for hitting bicyclists in the same area.

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20121130/ARTICLES/12113...

Re: India’s elites have a ferocious sense of entitlement

#139

Post by corporalagumbo »

Confusion wrote: post #76

Nietzsche and The Last Psychiatrist[1] would have a field day with this. The article tells a story we love to believe: we may be poorer than the people the article talks about, but we are nicer, more empathic, better people. We love to believe it, because it makes us feel good about ourselves and provides a sense of justice: nobody has it all and if someone has more of one thing, he will have less of something else.…

I definitely agree with you that the current socioeconomic system is suboptimal, and rife with perverse incentives and loopholes. It can be fixed though.

Re: India’s elites have a ferocious sense of entitlement

#140

Post by linvin »

hypertexthero wrote: post #54

Questioner: What do you think of Indians? Krishnamurti: That is really an innocent question, is it not? To see facts without opinion is one thing, but to have opinions about facts is totally another. It is one thing just to see the fact that a whole people are caught in superstition, but quite another to see that fact and condemn it. Opinions are not important, because I will have one opinion, you will have another,…

Krishnamurti truly gives all the tools to free oneself of the very root of culture.

Indians are also known to be highly tolerant of different types of behaviours; they usually believe that this world is "maya" - a virtual reality. Depending on one's own predicament, they will create and experience their realities. All this comes from the core Indian philosophy, and those who have read Krishnamurti, know that he very well represents that philosophy.

While this view may not mean all Indians are philosophical; I would say, it may be higher % wise than other cultures. Even the most popular religious channels and their gurus hold extremely engaging philosophical discussions - very different from other cultures.

Post reply on HN