Live data from Hacker News

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

theintellectualist.co

21–30 of 279 posts

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

#21
post #4

While I don't think the US is, de jure, a third-world country, I completely believe that it is, de facto, for many. I am on my way back from Memphis and onto Detroit, and both of these cities and their home states have plenty of areas that look unbelievably impoverished. Based on what I've seen from my years of traveling the country, it would not surprise me if most of the country had this problem. It's really sad.

What countries don't have any impoverished neighborhoods?

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

#22
post #5

The facts are piling up to support this view. However I don't see it as mere regression, insofar as time doesn't flow backwards, and it is still quite unfair to developing countries to say their condition is 'as good' as that of even lower-class US citizens. It looks more to me, as I had somewhat theorized a decade ago, as the emergence of a 'new medieval age' politically and economically. The US being one of the mos…

Middle class people in developing countries, e.g. Small business owners, have much better quality of life than the lower class US. Much more likely to have emotional healthy families, low cost of living allow high rate of savings, can afford electronics and broadband internet, support family of 3-5 kids with good enough tertiary education, and maybe even a car. Compare that to some of the places in the US riddled with drug addictions...

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

#23

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…

Not a US citizen, but my understanding is that the two-party system is not mandated by the constitution, or even encouraged. It's something that developed on top of it, as a consequence of some bad rules (first-past-the-post as you say) but also other factors (campaign financing)

Because the beneficiaries of the system get to make the rules, there is also a push to change regulations more and more to favor the two-party system.

There are other parties (e.g. greens) it just doesn't make any practical sense to vote for them.

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

#24

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 feel like this is a more general symptom of attempting to apply a democracy where every citizen's is valued equally in a very large population. At some point, it's simply impossible to have a whole population which is both properly educated and able to voice it's opinion. This line of reasoning is a large part of the reason that Rousseau suggested that societies would be best served by an educated aristocracy[1].

America has an aristocracy emerging in it's political/business class, but it still attempts to have every voice heard in elections, and as a result you'll always have people who feel hardly done by attempting to rebel against the status quo.

I'm also going go take the opportunity to share CGP Grey's videos on First Past the Post voting[2] and the electoral college[3], and the issues with those. He also has videos directly the electoral college, without his opinions, if you need some background[4].

[1]http://www.bartleby.com/168/305.html

[2]http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/the-problems-with-first-past-the...

[3]http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/the-trouble-with-the-electoral-c...

[4]http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/how-the-electoral-college-works....

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

#26
How long until we see favelas in the US? Low income areas completely devoid of economic opportunity, more or less ceded by local municipalities, with lawless informal economies and virtually no basic city services? Or do we already have them by another name?

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

#27
post #13

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 provid…

Wow, that's really lame. It's like dividing middle school into the "cool kids" the "delinquents" and everyone else. If you're not part of a faction though you're a "third world" loner.

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

#28
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.

I've seen places in Mississippi, Arkansas and West Virginia that looked every bit as third world as rural Philippines/Vietnam.

What the US lacks is urban poverty in the form of shantytowns. This is because unlike most third world nations, we quickly raze them when and find excuses to incarcerate the people who live there. If we were more permissive, we'd certainly have them too.

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

#29

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 feel like this is a more general symptom of attempting to apply a democracy where every citizen's is valued equally in a very large population. At some point, it's simply impossible to have a whole population which is both properly educated and able to voice it's opinion. This line of reasoning is a large part of the reason that Rousseau suggested that societies would be best served by an educated aristocracy[1]. A…

> At some point, it's simply impossible to have a whole population which is both properly educated and able to voice it's opinion

Are, it's impossible to have that at all points. The point is to strive for it, not achieve perfection.

If we don't strive, then with people like DeVos in charge of federal funding, public schools will be gutted and the problem worsens.

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

#30

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 mo…

The idea that globalism is an attempt to 'help' poor countries needs evidence to support it - I think there are plenty of ways in which globalism has benefitted wealthy countries at the expense of poor ones. In fact, the idea that globalism is 'an attempt' to do something, i.e. a conscious agenda to change the world, rather than just something which just emerged out of commercial activity, also seems a bit of a leap.
Post reply on HN