Live data from Hacker News

David Simon: 'There are now two Americas. My country is a horror show'

theguardian.com

111–120 of 373 posts

Re: David Simon: 'There are now two Americas. My country is a horror show'

#111
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? If anything, we've seen how people can corrupt and ruin any system/society. When many people say "capitalism has failed us" they really mean our politicians have failed us by allowing corporations to run the government. That's not a failure of capitalism, that's our failure because we've let our elected representatives do this to us.

Because it's based on the idea of exponential growth. Exponential growth is not sustainable without exponential growing access to resources.

Instead of regurgitating an old chestnut: "thermodynamic limits impose a cap to energy growth lest we cook ourselves. I’m not talking about global warming, CO2 build-up, etc. I’m talking about radiating the spent energy into space."("Exponential Economist Meets Finite Physicist", http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-...)

Essentially, even if we have exponential growing access to resources, we'll still be facing earth BBQ circa 2400.

Re: David Simon: 'There are now two Americas. My country is a horror show'

#112

The US as it exists today simply is not capitalist . The Great Depression and 19th-century industrial slums can reasonably be blamed on capitalism. American problems today cannot. This isn't the fallacy of "no true Scotsman". It's just simple arithmetic. Look at a pie chart of GDP. About 40% of it is outright owned by the government (public spending). Another 40% of it is nominally private, but is extremely heavily r…

I accept your beef about zoning codes, but the government should have some say on safety standards, don't you think?

Re: David Simon: 'There are now two Americas. My country is a horror show'

#113
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that the market will solve such things as environmental concerns, as our racial divides, as our class distinctions, our problems with educating and incorporating one generation of workers into the economy after the other when that economy is changing Is this idea actually being implemented anywhere? Isn't education, even in the US, almost wholly sponsored by the government? People talk about student loans bu…

In Sweden private for profit schools and schools run by the municipalities compete with each other. All of them are funded by the tax payers and they get a certain amount of money for every student. The system is a disaster, with a lot of for profit schools slashing costs to maximize profits regardless of what the consequences are for the students. And that's just one of the many failures of the system. Basically, th…

>You have to some how get the markets to stop chasing profits

There is another solution. You could set up the markets so that the way to maximize profits is to create the best solution. For example, imagine if we had a perfect measure of student outcome. You could make the school's pay dependent on their outcome, then the market will find a way to maximize the f(outcome)/cost.

Re: David Simon: 'There are now two Americas. My country is a horror show'

#114
post #61

Very good speech and an important national dialog to spark. I'd like to call attention to one thing though: "I don't believe that a state-run economy can be as viable as market capitalism in producing mass wealth." This demonstrates a basic confusion that we Americans have about ourselves, even most "lefties" and "libertarians": The false belief that we live in a free market economy. The truth is, the state plays a m…

The 2012 US GDP was 15.68 trillion. The 2012 Federal government expenditures were 3.54 trillion. Right off the top, the Federal government accounts for 22.6% of the economic activity in the country. Depending on how you measure, you can quibble with this exact choice of numbers, but no matter how you fiddle you're not getting out of the Federal government being a huge part of the economy directly. State and local governments still not counted in that number.

The Federal government also controls the Federal interest rate and its centralized currency directly. It extensively regulates every major financial industry; to the extent that this fails to produce sufficient "regulation" for a liberal's purposes, it is, generally speaking, not for lack of statutory power, and a concerned liberal should probably be looking at the (almost always) liberals exercising the statutory power, rather than complaining about the few people whose meager voices suggest that perhaps the power shouldn't exist at all, lost in the sea of those screaming for more.

Indeed, it extensively regulates every major industry. It produces thousands of pages of new regulations every year. It taxes nearly every economic transaction. You can't hardly do anything without the government being involved. It already engages in huge wealth transfers every which way (even some really crazy stupid ones, like Obamacare's transfers from the young and healthy to the on-average wealthier older crowd).

This is not necessarily and automatically a bad thing. I'm just mentioning this stuff to show that the idea that we live in some sort of libertarian nightmare is ludicrous nonsense. The state has the power already, today. It's not theoretical, it's a done deal. If you don't like the outcome we're experiencing, take it up with the State.

Personally I can't help but observe that we keep giving more power to fewer people under the rubric of "better government", and, lo and behold, our society has ever more power and wealth concentrating in fewer and fewer hands. Why, oh why ever could it be? Somehow some people manage to convince themselves this is all the libertarian's fault. I'd suggest looking at the people who keep putting more and more power in fewer and fewer people's hands and then acting all confused about the outcome where more power ends up in fewer people's hands. There might be a connection there. We might want to consider, you know, not doing that more if we don't like the outcome we're getting.

Much of the reason why I am a libertarian is that I actually think it's a good thing for society, in precisely the ways that David Simon is complaining about. With the bloated Federal government taking all the power, the government not only doesn't solve "the problem", for whatever problem we're talking about, but it also often prevents you from solving the problem. It can do this either legally, where it claims for itself exclusively the power to solve the problem, followed by it either doing nothing or doing the wrong thing, or perhaps more poisonously, it convinces you that it is its responsibility to solve the problem, followed again by not doing so or doing the wrong thing.

A couple of days ago I happened to flip by the Canadian Broadcasting Channel's news hour, and there was this guy standing in front of a children's playground, complaining that the city wasn't taking care of it. Scattered on the playground were about 30-40 bagged piles of doggy-doo-doo. It otherwise appeared to be a fine playground; it was modern, the paint was cared for, the swings were all there, it did not show obvious wear. He's standing there talking to the reporter and complaining that their part of the city needs more money. My crazy, socially-evil, society-hating, collective-despising libertarian anwser was "Dude, in the amount of time you spent complaining to the reporter, you could have just cleaned up the playground." Seriously, all that was wrong with it appeared to be scattered piles of, and again I emphasize, bagged doggie-doo. This is how the government can corrode away the very social consciousness that people so desparately try to use governments to create. Yeah, it's a small example, but it happens everywhere, for all kinds of things.

(Yes, I realize that cleaning it would then mean the guy couldn't complain, so he's putting on a show. I further realize that it's really quite likely that the doggie-doo receptable probably had all the doggie doo piled up in an somewhat unsanitary pile, and the guy probably deliberately scattered it before the video shoot, because really, scattered bagged doggie poo is a rather unlikely scenario. However, I'd suggest this just further emphasizes the point I was trying to make here. You can't create "social responsibility" by telling everyone that somebody in $GOVERNMENT is going to take care of "it". You create the exact opposite. If you want more social responsibility you need less government.)

Re: David Simon: 'There are now two Americas. My country is a horror show'

#115
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that the market will solve such things as environmental concerns, as our racial divides, as our class distinctions, our problems with educating and incorporating one generation of workers into the economy after the other when that economy is changing Is this idea actually being implemented anywhere? Isn't education, even in the US, almost wholly sponsored by the government? People talk about student loans bu…

In Sweden private for profit schools and schools run by the municipalities compete with each other. All of them are funded by the tax payers and they get a certain amount of money for every student. The system is a disaster, with a lot of for profit schools slashing costs to maximize profits regardless of what the consequences are for the students. And that's just one of the many failures of the system. Basically, th…

>> In Sweden private for profit schools and schools run by the municipalities compete with each other. All of them are funded by the tax payers and they get a certain amount of money for every student.

How the hell can a school be "private", while being funded by taxpayers?

Re: David Simon: 'There are now two Americas. My country is a horror show'

#116

It's really a shame that more people don't actually read 'Capital,' or at least the first three chapters of Capital I. While I ultimately disagree with Marx, I think he does a much, much better job of analyzing the problems we have than most people. Hence Simon's distinction between 'diagnostician' and 'clinician.' It was Lenin and Mao that really tried to be the clinicians, anyway. It's a Sunday, if you've got some…

I don't agree with Simon's claim that because Marx provided no clear clinical treatment it should cause one to not call themselves a Marxist. Marxism is the science of analyzing socioeconomic relations.

Re: David Simon: 'There are now two Americas. My country is a horror show'

#117
post #28
post #6

This is a remarkably sensible speech. The idea that the market will solve such things as environmental concerns, as our racial divides, as our class distinctions, our problems with educating and incorporating one generation of workers into the economy after the other when that economy is changing; the idea that the market is going to heed all of the human concerns and still maximise profit is juvenile. It's a juvenil…

The libertarian and anti-government sentiments aren't saying that we shouldn't be all in this together, but that we shouldn't be forced to be all in this together. That difference is what the entire argument is about. Few people are saying saying "let's not do this" for some value of "this", they're saying "let's not force everyone to do this". That's a very profound difference, it's why having the government make an…

There is a simple way to address the libertarian argument, IF that argument is honestly about being "forced" to act as a group: Devolve political power until you start being able to say "we" enough of the time to act together.

If you can't agree there is such a viable grouping that enables consensual government action, that's anarcho-capitalism, not libertarianism.

Big nation states make big mistakes, like multi-trillion dollar wars. Smaller governmental groupings are not capable of mistakes on that scale.

The world also needs more diversity of social, economic, and legal systems - the opposite of the monoculture of IP laws treaties like TPP want to create.

Re: David Simon: 'There are now two Americas. My country is a horror show'

#118
post #50
post #6

This is a remarkably sensible speech. The idea that the market will solve such things as environmental concerns, as our racial divides, as our class distinctions, our problems with educating and incorporating one generation of workers into the economy after the other when that economy is changing; the idea that the market is going to heed all of the human concerns and still maximise profit is juvenile. It's a juvenil…

> The question - and only question - should be what David Simon asks: are we all in this together or are we not? To me, the answer is blindingly obvious. It's demonstrated by what societies are flourishing - with high economic and social equality, healthy democratic government, protected personal liberties, well-cared-for populaces, and resilient economies - and what societies aren't. And the blindingly obvious answe…

Then don't look at different countries but at the evolution of inequality in a particular country. The rise of inequality in the US since the 1980's is an indictment of the current system. Here's an animated map showing this evolution:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/19/w...

And this article has a chart illustrating the inverse relationship between inequality and well-being in the US:

http://aeon.co/magazine/living-together/peter-turchin-wealth...

Re: David Simon: 'There are now two Americas. My country is a horror show'

#119
post #57
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That argument is tiresome. Many libertarians want to enforce a very particular and ahistorical version of property rights, one dictated from above and with a studied blindness for the reason we've invented the group of rights we think of as property. They want to subject everyone to a society where state violence is used for and only on behalf of people who in the past were granted monopoly access to some material go…

One might say that socialists want to enforce an oft repeated history of slavery and theft.

Or one could stop looking to the extreme as an inevitability in either case.

Re: David Simon: 'There are now two Americas. My country is a horror show'

#120
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with you wholeheartedly on the political front, but I'm right with you on what we're actually debating. Hearing fellow liberals claim that conservatives want the poor and disadvantaged to suffer is like hearing conservatives say that liberals just want to take money from the rich and give it to people who don't deserve it. Both arguments are shitty, and both either imply that the speaker isn't listening or…

Here's the thing you don't understand: Yes, conservatives do want the poor to suffer, because they think the poor are poor because they're too lazy to work hard and overcome their poverty. Making them suffer is the only way to make them contribute to society, in their view. Also, yes, as a liberal, I do want to take money from the rich and give it to people who don't deserve it. That is exactly what I want to do. Wha…

One of the most honest comments in the entire thread. The problem is, both sides don't want to admit this. The conservatives because it makes them out to be assholes (and they'd never win another election again). The liberals because they think they'll lose the argument if they say they want income redistribution--everyone will jump on them and call them (unfairly) socialists or communists (yes, I know they're different), and they whither under such attacks.

Fundamentally, conservatives are people that are angry someone is getting something for nothing, and liberals are people that want to help the least privileged among us.

Until we can all come to terms with this, and logically come to terms with the idea that raising up the poor to a certain standard helps everyone, we're doomed.

Post reply on HN