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

MIT economist believes U.S. is shifting to be more similar to developing nations

theintellectualist.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 279 posts

Re: MIT economist believes U.S. is shifting to be more similar to developing nations

#11

Post by celticninja »

JohnGB wrote: post #8
tom_wills wrote: post #3

That's not what 'third-world' means... we're still part of NATO

The general usage of "third-world" has changed over time to be focused more on development than on whether a country was pro-USA or pro-Soviet. If one were to hold to the original meaning of "third-world", then one would have to class Namibia and Angola as "first-world" countries while classing Switzerland, Ireland, Sweden, and Finland as "third world". Something that clearly goes against the current general usage of…

They are better described as developing nations however I agree that people tend to understand that third world means this, rather than the political definition.

Re: MIT economist believes U.S. is shifting to be more similar to developing nations

#12

Post by unityByFreedom »

kristofferR wrote: post #2

Am I wrong in attributing/connecting most of Americas problems with its flawed constitution/democratic system? The first version of something is rarely the best version, and while the US constitution contained a lot of fantastic elements and freedoms that every educated American knows about, it also contained a democratic system (first past the post/two party system) that is mathematically bound to breed divisiveness…

> while the US constitution contained a lot of fantastic elements and freedoms that every educated American knows about, it also contained a democratic system (first past the post/two party system) that is mathematically bound to breed divisiveness.

Disagreement is a human condition, not a democratic one. Democracy is just a way to let some ideas win some of the time.

There isn't a system in the world that's freed people from disagreement. Humans like disagreement. We want to be creative, original, and unique at times. That requires setting your own path.

Re: MIT economist believes U.S. is shifting to be more similar to developing nations

#13

Post by iaskwhy »

tom_wills wrote: post #3

That's not what 'third-world' means... we're still part of NATO

I wasn't aware of the original meaning. From Wikipedia[0]: "The term "Third World" arose during the Cold War to define countries that remained non-aligned with either NATO or the Communist Bloc. The United States, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Western European nations and their allies represented the First World, while the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and their allies represented the Second World. This terminology provided a way of broadly categorizing the nations of the Earth into three groups based on political and economic divisions."

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World

Re: MIT economist believes U.S. is shifting to be more similar to developing nations

#14

Post by MichaelBurge »

kristofferR wrote: post #2

Am I wrong in attributing/connecting most of Americas problems with its flawed constitution/democratic system? The first version of something is rarely the best version, and while the US constitution contained a lot of fantastic elements and freedoms that every educated American knows about, it also contained a democratic system (first past the post/two party system) that is mathematically bound to breed divisiveness…

> it also contained a democratic system (first past the post/two party system) that is mathematically bound to breed divisiveness.

It doesn't have anything about parties in it at all, and leaves it up to the states to decide how to choose their electors. If California or any other state wanted a different system, it could decide to use ranked choice voting right now just like Maine chose last election.

Re: MIT economist believes U.S. is shifting to be more similar to developing nations

#15

Post by 324343245 »

kristofferR wrote: post #2

Am I wrong in attributing/connecting most of Americas problems with its flawed constitution/democratic system? The first version of something is rarely the best version, and while the US constitution contained a lot of fantastic elements and freedoms that every educated American knows about, it also contained a democratic system (first past the post/two party system) that is mathematically bound to breed divisiveness…

> Am I wrong in attributing/connecting most of Americas problems with its flawed constitution/democratic system?

Almost certainly. The US was doing fine for most of the 20th century.

Globalism is what has brought wages down. Globalism combines the economies of the richest countries with the economies of the poorest in an attempt to "help" poor countries. As rich countries and poor countries combine economies, they move toward economic-equilibrium, which means the people from the poor country get brought out of poverty at the expense of the people in the rich countries. This is fine for the "1%" on the coasts of the united states, but if you're part of rural America you're getting hit very hard by globalism.

Re: MIT economist believes U.S. is shifting to be more similar to developing nations

#16

Post by lyschoening »

MichaelBurge wrote: post #14
kristofferR wrote: post #2

Am I wrong in attributing/connecting most of Americas problems with its flawed constitution/democratic system? The first version of something is rarely the best version, and while the US constitution contained a lot of fantastic elements and freedoms that every educated American knows about, it also contained a democratic system (first past the post/two party system) that is mathematically bound to breed divisiveness…

> it also contained a democratic system (first past the post/two party system) that is mathematically bound to breed divisiveness. It doesn't have anything about parties in it at all, and leaves it up to the states to decide how to choose their electors. If California or any other state wanted a different system, it could decide to use ranked choice voting right now just like Maine chose last election.

That could make a difference in the House, but not in the Senate.

Re: MIT economist believes U.S. is shifting to be more similar to developing nations

#17

Post by 324343245 »

Notice how things start to get worse and worse as globalism progresses? Things were great in the 90's, then we signed NAFTA and that's when everything started going to shit.

Globalism is what has brought wages down. Globalism combines the economies of the richest countries with the economies of the poorest in an attempt to "help" poor countries. As rich countries and poor countries combine economies, they move toward economic-equilibrium, which means the people from the poor country get brought out of poverty at the expense of the people in the rich countries. This is fine for the "1%" on the coasts of the united states, but if you're part of rural America you're getting hit very hard by globalism.

Re: MIT economist believes U.S. is shifting to be more similar to developing nations

#18

Post by davewritescode »

nirav72 wrote: post #6

I'm thinking MIT economists haven't lived in a third world. (I was born in one) The U.S is not even remotely close to being a third-world or will be one anytime soon.

No, but this is a certainly hallmark of unstable governments. The big difference between Mexico and Canada is a strong middle class. Happy people who can feed their families and educate their children tend to stay quiet and go about their lives without stirring the pot. Once you've completely lost faith in government, why not look the other way when a drug cartel sets up shop in your town?

Re: MIT economist believes U.S. is shifting to be more similar to developing nations

#19

Post by phkahler »

kristofferR wrote: post #2

Am I wrong in attributing/connecting most of Americas problems with its flawed constitution/democratic system? The first version of something is rarely the best version, and while the US constitution contained a lot of fantastic elements and freedoms that every educated American knows about, it also contained a democratic system (first past the post/two party system) that is mathematically bound to breed divisiveness…

I think most of the division in US politics comes from the way representatives are influenced. By co-locating them all in Washington we enable destructive lobbying while keeping them away from the people they are supposed to represent. The party system is also destructive - I advocate against any legal recognition of political parties and against campaign ads funded by anyone outside the state a person is running in. These issues will not be addressed by the people in power though because they are part of the structures that need to be eliminated.

Re: MIT economist believes U.S. is shifting to be more similar to developing nations

#20

Post by jasonlfunk »

kristofferR wrote: post #2

Am I wrong in attributing/connecting most of Americas problems with its flawed constitution/democratic system? The first version of something is rarely the best version, and while the US constitution contained a lot of fantastic elements and freedoms that every educated American knows about, it also contained a democratic system (first past the post/two party system) that is mathematically bound to breed divisiveness…

The constitution we have now isn't the first version. It was created with the ability to be changed with the process of amendments. We have 27 of them so far. More could be added to change the voting system or whatever else, if there was political will to do so; but currently there isn't.

(And this is ignoring the idea of the judiciary reading into the constitution new rights that weren't there to begin with.)

Post reply on HN