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

You can fool some of the people, all of the time

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 229 posts

Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time

#211

Post by P_I_Staker »

kbutler wrote: post #185
lucian1900 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So well they can't afford homes, health care or even food? Despite working more than full time?

And cable TV and air conditioning? "For example, in 2005, 63.7% of those living in poverty had cable or satellite television. In some cases the report even said that people currently living in poverty were actually better off than middle class people of the recent past. For example, in 2005, 78.3% of households living in poverty had air conditioning, whereas in 1970, 36.0% of all households had air conditioning." htt…

I don't know, some of these things can be attributed to the falling cost of technology and culture. Air conditioners are seen as necessary, instead of a luxury. It may never have even occurred to some people that they should prioritize affording money for one. Poor people could probably afford smartphones too when they first came out, but they only became common when everyone had one, and costs came down. Personally, I don't think quality of life is measured by air conditioning and cable TV either.

Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time

#212

Post by disintegore »

PavlovsCat wrote: post #206
disintegore wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll invoke him if he's relevant. It is possible for both the government and the private sector to be corrupted, especially if the latter exerts corrupting pressure on the former.

> I'll invoke him if he's relevant. No, you're trying to speak for him. Consent to, say, physical assault being illegal, is a whole different ball game than manufactured consent to the Vietnam War, and all that is entailed in this wishy-washy stuff about "consent" in this context. Not to mention "democracy reacting by force to protest" -- as opposed to what, exactly? Non-democracies? Companies? People clicking button…

Get off your high horse. Chomsky speaks for himself. We interpret his words differently.

I still don't see the obvious difference between consenting to "typical" law enforcement (read: "physical assault being illegal") and consenting to imperialistic wars all over the globe. In both cases the government employs its monopoly on legal violence and is empowered to do so by our consent.

Of course the distinction between reasonable law enforcement and horrible wars of aggression is obvious, but when the exact same mechanism used to manufacture consent for the latter is also used to manufacture consent for the systematic oppression of racial minorities through law enforcement, it absolutely is not.

> Obviously, but the private sector isn't "corrupt" when it's a tyranny, that's the best it can hope to be.

Is the officially accepted purpose of a private enterprise specifically and exclusively to create wealth for its owners, or have we just resigned ourselves to that reality? Isn't this supposed to be the most effective mode of production?

Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time

#213

Post by kbutler »

P_I_Staker wrote: post #211
kbutler wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And cable TV and air conditioning? "For example, in 2005, 63.7% of those living in poverty had cable or satellite television. In some cases the report even said that people currently living in poverty were actually better off than middle class people of the recent past. For example, in 2005, 78.3% of households living in poverty had air conditioning, whereas in 1970, 36.0% of all households had air conditioning." htt…

I don't know, some of these things can be attributed to the falling cost of technology and culture. Air conditioners are seen as necessary, instead of a luxury. It may never have even occurred to some people that they should prioritize affording money for one. Poor people could probably afford smartphones too when they first came out, but they only became common when everyone had one, and costs came down. Personally,…

Yes - real cost (cost in hours worked) of necessities, and even former luxuries, has declined dramatically, and standard of living for the poor has increased dramatically. That's the point.

If you go to Mexico, you'll see people living in much hotter conditions without air conditioning (but they still have satellite TV).

Cable TV and air conditioning show the shifting standard of living that represents "poor" in the united states, and illustrate that a large percentage of "poor" definitely have the necessities (shelter in particular), as opposed to the "absolute poverty" who lack basic necessities of food/shelter/access to health care.

Quality of life is a different question, and very difficult to measure.

Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time

#214

Post by xelxebar »

randcraw wrote: post #107

I think the rise of lies has little to do with humans being hardwired to resolve questions using emotions over reason. We prefer lies because we want a complex world to be simple, predictable, and manageable. Obviously it's not, so the only way that powerless people can believe their lives aren't spinning out of control is for authority figures to tell them what they want to hear: 1) every problem is simple and 2) a…

Have you tried applying the logic of that idea to the idea itself? Seems to suggest that the rise of lies might not be so tidily explainable.

In general, I'm wary of ideas that are self-referentially unstable in the above way.

/2cents

Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time

#215

Post by abathur »

kbutler wrote: post #109
claudeganon wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in the US, I think you’re mistaking controlled opposition in the form of a pseudo-left Democratic Party for things alternating. Post 1970s, the ideological continuity between the two parties (austerity for the people, largesse for the military, corporations, and ruling class) is quite obvious, but obfuscated in public discourse through various culture wars.

That is counterfactual. Since the 1970s, military spending has decreased as a percentage of government spending and as a percent of GDP, while "for the people" spending - social security, healthcare, etc. - have risen dramatically in both measures. See http://metrocosm.com/history-of-us-taxes/ and scroll down to the spending breakdown.

Can you clarify which statements in the parent you're asserting are counter-factual?

The parent seems to assert:

1. the parties function as controlled opposition

2. the Democratic Party is pseudo-left

3. after the 1970s, the two parties have had ideological continuity

4. one example of this ideological continuity includes some (preference for? belief in? rhetorical advocation of?) austerity* "for the people"

5. another example of this ideological continuity includes largesse (i.e., generosity) "for the military, corporations, and ruling class"

6. the ideological continuity is obvious, but obfuscated in public discourse through various culture wars

* I'm not clear on what definition(s) of austerity the parent has in mind here. This could be the general pol/econ definition, but the direct contrast with largesse makes me wonder if the more general "severity" definition is also important.

Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time

#216

Post by mrmuagi »

magoghm wrote: post #101
CPLX wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The relevant word isn’t “force” it’s “consent”. All forms of government to some extent or another have to maintain a monopoly on legal violence and use force. The distinction with democracy is that the government secures and maintains the consent of those being governed.

I was born in a Democracy. Democracy was forced upon me. I never gave my consent. Note: I'm not talking about whether Democracy is good or bad, just about my "consent". edit: fixed typo

> I was born in a Democracy. Democracy was forced upon me. I never gave my consent.

You were born without your consent too, therein lies the rub.

Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time

#217

Post by slg »

kbutler wrote: post #210
slg wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with OPs entire point and certainly wouldn't use such extreme language, but I also don't think you can dispute that point while only looking at spending like you did in your response.

Spending trends were sufficient to refute the OPs assertion. To go deeper, take spending (here's another link - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/04/what-does-t... basically 65% of federal spending is now for social welfare, rising from about 5% of GDP in 1970 to 15% of GDP in 2016) and add in who pays the majority of taxes (the top 20% pay almost 70% of taxes https://www.pgpf.org/budget-basics/who-pays-t…

To reiterate and clarify the point from my original comment, you need to ask why and to what effect spending is done. The population of the US is much older and much unhealthier today than it was in 1970 and healthcare is more expensive. So increased spending on healthcare doesn't necessarily prove an increase in commitment to serve the people and can instead simply be a result of rising costs.

Also that Wikipedia link you included conveniently doesn't start until the very late 70s just after the top rate saw a huge drop from the levels established in the post-depression era.

Lastly you need to factor in growing income inequality in these numbers. It is possible for the top tax bracket to collectively pay both a higher share of taxes in both percentage and absolute dollars while each individual person in that tax bracket sees their tax rate decrease.

Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time

#218

Post by kbutler »

kbutler wrote: post #210
slg wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with OPs entire point and certainly wouldn't use such extreme language, but I also don't think you can dispute that point while only looking at spending like you did in your response.

Spending trends were sufficient to refute the OPs assertion. To go deeper, take spending (here's another link - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/04/what-does-t... basically 65% of federal spending is now for social welfare, rising from about 5% of GDP in 1970 to 15% of GDP in 2016) and add in who pays the majority of taxes (the top 20% pay almost 70% of taxes https://www.pgpf.org/budget-basics/who-pays-t…

If I used to give 5% of income and now I give 15% of income, my commitment has increased, even if the need has also increased. 5% GDP to 15% GDP shows a pretty dramatic increase in commitment, especially with the economic growth in that time frame.

OP asserted "Post 1970s", so starting in the late 1970s is the appropriate starting point (quibbling?).

The progressivity rate link above was tax rate, not percentage of taxes paid.

Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time

#219

Post by slg »

kbutler wrote: post #218
kbutler wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spending trends were sufficient to refute the OPs assertion. To go deeper, take spending (here's another link - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/04/what-does-t... basically 65% of federal spending is now for social welfare, rising from about 5% of GDP in 1970 to 15% of GDP in 2016) and add in who pays the majority of taxes (the top 20% pay almost 70% of taxes https://www.pgpf.org/budget-basics/who-pays-t…

If I used to give 5% of income and now I give 15% of income, my commitment has increased, even if the need has also increased. 5% GDP to 15% GDP shows a pretty dramatic increase in commitment, especially with the economic growth in that time frame. OP asserted "Post 1970s", so starting in the late 1970s is the appropriate starting point (quibbling?). The progressivity rate link above was tax rate, not percentage of t…

Let's say I paid $500 per month in rent a decade ago and today I pay $1500 in rent. What does that say about the quality of my home today compared to the quality of my home a decade ago? It says nothing because there are countless other details being ignored in that equation.

OP's point was that a change was made during the 1970s. You therefore need to look at the period before the 1970s and compare it to after the 1970s. You were just looking at the time period after the largest change in the top marginal tax rate was already made. Here[1] is the top marginal tax rate during a larger time frame.

[1] - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Historical_Marginal_...

Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time

#220

Post by leppr »

aglavine wrote: post #199
leppr wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you positive western democratic republics don't murder and/or start wars for profit ? Last I heard the USA's army and secret services were pretty active. What's different about their armies and ours ? I mean when was the last time citizens of a democratic republic gave their input on what assassination to carry out or war to wage ? There is definitely a point about overt, extreme abuse against their own citizens…

A lot of differences: - No eternal leaders. - Freedom of expression - Separation of powers that limit each other

Apart from "No eternal leaders", I don't think these are specifically attributable to representative democracy.
Post reply on HN