101–110 of 116 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He predicted in 1998 that the internet would cease having an economic impact by 2005 and that it would be no greater than fax machines The future is hard to predict. Using that as a reason to discount a Nobel-prize economist's economics-related work sounds like a gap in logic.
If economists can't predict the future then what good are they?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The US is not in a real danger of becoming an authoritarian state So you're saying democrats are lying? They say that may happen by the next election, so at least 50% of the population believes this is possible. Moreover, from the point of view of foreign policy the US is already an authoritarian state. People have no say on weather to start or stop a war, anymore than the Russians have.
> So you're saying democrats are lying? They are not lying. Trump is literally saying that he's going to use the military to suppress his opponents, after all. I just happen to think that the US has far more resilience built into its political system than it seems. E.g. Project 2025 is terrible and if it's implemented, it'll result in pure hell for the regular people. But a hypothetical Trump administration won't be…
Well, if this is true then democrats are lying. They pretend the US can be transformed into a dictatorship if Trump is elected.
But the real point is that in terms of foreign policy the US is already a nondemocratic state, because both parties support non-ending wars and are financed by the MIC. The voters don't matter anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So you're saying democrats are lying? They are not lying. Trump is literally saying that he's going to use the military to suppress his opponents, after all. I just happen to think that the US has far more resilience built into its political system than it seems. E.g. Project 2025 is terrible and if it's implemented, it'll result in pure hell for the regular people. But a hypothetical Trump administration won't be…
> I just happen to think that the US has far more resilience Well, if this is true then democrats are lying. They pretend the US can be transformed into a dictatorship if Trump is elected. But the real point is that in terms of foreign policy the US is already a nondemocratic state, because both parties support non-ending wars and are financed by the MIC. The voters don't matter anymore.
I think you are lying.
Absolutely chuffed to hear that Daren Acemoglu (one of my fav econ writers), Simon Johnson and Robinson won the Nobel memorial prize. Acemoglu has been a brilliant and prolific econ writer, and I enjoy his exposition. Many have commented on his "Why Nations Fail", and rightly so. More recently, he also wrote "Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity". I'm more interested in his th…
Yeah no shit. It’s going to spike them down hard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I see the rest of the world becoming more similar to China than the other way around, unfortunately. I hope they enjoy the mediocrity that comes with state-dominated economies. > The US is already a pseudo-Soviet state economically. Maybe I'm blind, but I have no idea how someone looks at the USA and concludes this.
Extremely inequality that keeps increasing, political movements that try to change this are killed in the crib, a dying empire. Just because the Central Comittee is called Blackrock, doesn't mean the American economy is not being more and more centrally planned. Free Enterprise is dying. I mean economically, the political system is still "free" (less and less), it's not a dictatorship (yet).
Of course, you'll mention BlackRock, the never-ending boogeyman for people with little economic knowledge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Taiwan is literally an independent country, although they promote a policy of strategic vagueness about this in hopes that it will discourage China from launching an invasion. The arguments China makes for its ownership of Taiwan are no more defensible, and arguably less, than Portugal's justifications for maintaining ownership of Goa.
It is not a country, just ask the united nations, for example. The US likes to pretend it is, but it won't happen.
Does Taiwan have its own military? Yes.
Does it issue its own passports? Yes.
Do you have to have their visa to land there? Yes.
That's a country.
And you, sir, on this thread, sound more like a propagandist than someone trying to have an actual conversation. You're not here to converse, to listen, but only to trumpet your talking points. That's not what HN is for, and you've been here long enough to know it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I just happen to think that the US has far more resilience Well, if this is true then democrats are lying. They pretend the US can be transformed into a dictatorship if Trump is elected. But the real point is that in terms of foreign policy the US is already a nondemocratic state, because both parties support non-ending wars and are financed by the MIC. The voters don't matter anymore.
> Well, if this is true then democrats are lying. They pretend the US can be transformed into a dictatorship if Trump is elected. I think you are lying.
I strongly recommend Acemoglu, Robinson classic book "Why Nations Fail" https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/d... It's very accessible, no economics background required. Along with Krugman and Kahneman, one of the few economics scholars that take the time to write a book for layman.
While the above is informed by the UK's constitutional arrangement, the 8 principles are near universal when considering nations that have or aim for The Rule of Law.
The principles are:
(1) The law must be accessible and so far as possible intelligible, clear and predictable.
(2) Questions of legal right and liability should ordinarily be resolved by application of the law and not the exercise of discretion.
(3) The laws of the land should apply equally to all, save to the extent that objective differences justify differentiation.
(4) Ministers and public officers at all levels must exercise the powers conferred on them in good faith, fairly, for the purpose for which the powers were conferred, without exceeding the limits of such powers and not unreasonably.
(5) The law must afford adequate protection of fundamental human rights.
(6) Means must be provided for resolving, without prohibitive cost or inordinate delay, bona fide civil disputes which the parties themselves are unable to resolve.
(7) The adjudicative procedures provided by the state should be fair.
(8) The rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law.
The "Nobel Prize in Economics" was not one of the original ones endowed by Alfred Nobel. As the name implies, it was created by a bank. Is there any reason Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk can't endow a Prize in Computer Science? That would end the controversy about whether AI is "Physics."
The "Nobel Prize in Economics" was not one of the original ones endowed by Alfred Nobel. As the name implies, it was created by a bank. Is there any reason Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk can't endow a Prize in Computer Science? That would end the controversy about whether AI is "Physics."
Not being the original does not make it any less meaningful. Repeating the same "Not real Nobel" spiel every time Nobel price in Economics is discussed as it is some kind of refutation is silly. >Is there any reason Yes there is. Nobel committee has accepted Nobel in economics as one of the Nobel prices. Its in their website, in their documents and its given out in the same ceremony in Stockholm. Laureates are select…