Live data from Hacker News

A 400-year story of progress – How America became the world’s biggest economy

economist.com

241–250 of 252 posts

Re: A 400-year story of progress – How America became the world’s biggest economy

#241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where's the jingoism in that article? The thread was a good excuse to get the hate on. If the OP would like to make accurate and measured claims, then we could have a discussion. Ain't that a tad bit thin-skinned? If you consider this "hate" then boy ain't you lucky that you are no German. As a German, the only thing most people know about the country or culture pretty much boils down to "Oh Hitler and you killed m…

I just don't believe that US as a whole is really so unaware of its past. I grew up in Texas public schools and we learned about the Trail of Tears, Japanese internment camps, Jim Crow, etc. We're very aware of a very dark history. If the US was really such an intolerant and unrepentant place, you wouldn't even have a debate about race. By and large we are a society that acknowledges wrongs and tries to fix them, eve…

Awareness ain't everything, case in point: Millions of neo-Nazis are aware that the Holocaust happened, that still didn't and doesn't change a thing about their beliefs.

That's because it's about more than merely "being aware", it's also about taking responsibility and learning a lesson and sadly it looks like that hasn't really happened in the US yet, exemplified by statements like this one:

> If the US was really such an intolerant and unrepentant place, you wouldn't even have a debate about race.

It's funny how you think that's something positive when it's anything but. It's the year 2017, that's probably a couple of decades too late for a "race debate" which isn't even a debate at all.

What happened in Charlottesville wasn't a "debate", it was a show of force by the US American far-right, which only acts so emboldened because the US never really dealt with its race issues besides "being aware" of them and acting decades too late, Charlottesville was the result of this half-arsed behavior and I fear it won't be the only nor the last one.

> If it appears from the outside that the US sees itself in Hollywood good vs evil terms, everyone does.

The difference being that the US has such a massive and far-reaching cultural influence that the "good guy" tale ain't only influencing US Americans in their patriotism, it basically ends up brainwashing large parts of foreign populations.

Of course, Merkel believes she is on the right side, so did Hitler, so did Raegan, so did Stalin. The difference being: Merkel is at least aware that this ain't always true, due to cultural history, the same doesn't apply to the US to the same degree if at all.

The US, as a country, never has acknowledged or atoned for any "national shame", that's why "US patriots" feel so comfortable bathing in their ultra-nationalism while being hilariously unaware of how fanatic it makes them.

Yes, there are Germans who consider their own culture superior to others, the difference being: It's not socially accepted in Germany at all, people like that are usually considered bigots. This is because we Germans are not only aware of our past mistakes, we take responsibility by trying not to repeat them.

And one of the mistakes Germans made was following unfettered fanatism in the form of patriotism. Patriotism and national pride had both been major driving elements for the Nazis taking over power and being able to commit their crimes.

In that regard, the US shares many similarities with the Third Reich, more than most people would like to admit. Way too many US Americans are complicit in their countries crimes as they rather indulge in their patriotism about being "Number One" in "everything".

> US media at the same time is very ready to criticize such absurdities (see World Police, or modern political humor which is huge worldwide - Stewart, Colbert, Oliver).

I'm sure Colbert and Oliver have just as much international reach and influence as Hollywood blockbuster movies like Black Hawk Down, American Sniper, Top Gun or even Casablanca, which have been shaping world opinions about the US for decades.

> It's just annoying to hear people from outside cultures try and shrink down a nation of 50 mini-nations and 300 million people into some kind of comprehensive worldview. It's not reality.

The US ain't "50 mini-nations", the cultural, linguistical and geographical differences just don't support a statement like that. There's also a reason these states are United because they share "some kind of comprehensive worldview", which at its most basic level starts with the "American Dream" and at the extreme ends results with "America Number 1, America First" fanatics.

> I assume other countries aren't perfect places, but I'm not on French and German message boards telling Germans how they're just thieves and murderers and that's why they have been successful.

Excuse my naivety, but to me, this ain't a "US American message board", I rarely think in such terms when I'm surfing online, to me, it's foremost an English language message board devoid of any national connection. There are lots of international topics and people around here, just because somebody speaks English, or a board uses it as its language, does not make them US American.

Re: A 400-year story of progress – How America became the world’s biggest economy

#242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just don't believe that US as a whole is really so unaware of its past. I grew up in Texas public schools and we learned about the Trail of Tears, Japanese internment camps, Jim Crow, etc. We're very aware of a very dark history. If the US was really such an intolerant and unrepentant place, you wouldn't even have a debate about race. By and large we are a society that acknowledges wrongs and tries to fix them, eve…

Awareness ain't everything, case in point: Millions of neo-Nazis are aware that the Holocaust happened, that still didn't and doesn't change a thing about their beliefs. That's because it's about more than merely "being aware", it's also about taking responsibility and learning a lesson and sadly it looks like that hasn't really happened in the US yet, exemplified by statements like this one: > If the US was really s…

I think we're both emphasizing different things and that comes from a different background. I don't really disagree with much of what you are saying, I just don't see them to the same degree as you, and that's probably because of that different experience making it impossible for us to understand each other.

I'm not happy with everything my country does, I'm not happy with everything they've done. There's a lot of progress that needs to be made but at the same time progress is being made and has been made. There are horrific as well as laudable things my native culture/country has done. We have a lot to teach others as well as learn from others, and we as a culture would do well to find respectful ways to interact with other cultures in the world, because ultimately we're human and we have shared interests.

That's what I believe generally, and I believe that above statement is true or should be true of every culture. You're free to disagree.

Re: A 400-year story of progress – How America became the world’s biggest economy

#243
post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no fan of imperialism. However, I think trying to paint Churchill as an evil man rather than an elected PM who inherited a half-millenia of imperial legacy at one of the most pivotal moments in human history is a long shot at best. You can believe what you want about the predictability of WWII. From an armchair in 2017, it's easy to predict how things play out from 1919 onward. The difference between Churchill an…

>>The difference between Churchill and Hitler is that Churchill didn't slaughter millions of people and subvert half the globe to totalitarian dictatorship. He did precisely that. Britain has inflicted more damage to humanity, with its imperialistic policies than even a fraction of Nazism did. Britain was for all practical purposes was a far more evil force than Nazism would have ever been. >>That supplies and shipme…

It is certainly and unambiguously possible to charge Britain with imperialist policies without claiming that they're worse than the Nazis were. Like, there is a difference of kind in there that I feel you're eliding.

Re: A 400-year story of progress – How America became the world’s biggest economy

#244
post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>The difference between Churchill and Hitler is that Churchill didn't slaughter millions of people and subvert half the globe to totalitarian dictatorship. He did precisely that. Britain has inflicted more damage to humanity, with its imperialistic policies than even a fraction of Nazism did. Britain was for all practical purposes was a far more evil force than Nazism would have ever been. >>That supplies and shipme…

Given the choice of living under British colonialism or Nazis...you would choose Nazis? I reckon you should study fascism a little more closely. The closest parallel we have today of what a Nazi regime would be like is North Korea.

>>Given the choice of living under British colonialism or Nazis...you would choose Nazis?

I would chose neither. Why are you assuming the Indian people chose a european power over them?

Re: A 400-year story of progress – How America became the world’s biggest economy

#245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Cretaceous was a thing. The atmosphere had about as much CO2 as it could hold. There were lots of animals. We're headed back to it. Extinction scale events have been "a thing" in Earth's history for as long as Earth's been around [0], as you note we are very likely in the middle of another one right now [1] The big difference this time being: Previous ones most certainly had not been man-made, this one has a ve…

You're probably thinking of the "Great Filter" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter

Wasn't that Great Filter even tho it might qualify as a Great Filter, I managed to find the paper [0], it's about applying the "Principle of Mediocrity".

[0] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journa...

Re: A 400-year story of progress – How America became the world’s biggest economy

#246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Plunder is a silly excuse. It's really isn't. "Colonial plunder" isn't a horde of soldiers rampaging through your country taking your gold and women. Colonial plunder is generations upon generations of domestic industry killed by high taxes to favor imports from the ruling country, turning peasants into serfs bonded to the land to pay taxes, exploiting and inflaming pre-existing class, caste, and religious differen…

I don't think colonial plunder remotely explains Latin America. Also, why aren't plunderer Spain and Portugal super-wealthy? (Incidentally, the degree of "colonial plunder" in Latin America varies a great deal, from genocidal in Mexico, to practically none in Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, but economic performance of the entire region has been lackluster, with the exception of Argentina between the 1880s and the 1930s.)…

> Also, why aren't plunderer Spain and Portugal super-wealthy?

Well they're not exactly poor either. They're still considered first-world, advanced nations. And they've had some "bad ideas" like, military rule, since the end of colonialism. Seems like their past plunder has insulated them somewhat from these missteps.

> Since the Industrial Revolution I think we've had these amazing growth stories: UK, US, Germany, Argentina...Many others had less spectacular but steady growth rates (think Australia, Canada, France, ...).

Right but the thing all these countries have in common: they weren't under the colonial yoke during the Industrial Revolution like India was (Argentina attained independence in 1816, for example). India wasn't allowed to have an Industrial Revolution; it was suppressed by British tax and trade policies. Don't you think that's at least a partial explanation for why India's behind today?

Post WW2 Japan, Germany don't count: they still had most of their pre-war population and memory of being a prosperous society. South Korea benefited from generous US aid (and still does, in terms of military aid). The US was highly incentivized to help SK as much as possible because they feared it turning communist. India, at the time of Independence, hadn't been a prosperous nation for at least 200 years; the educated, skilled class was tiny.

> Capitalism inarguably is at least neither bad nor terrible -- I would argue it's awesome, and that it's not even an idea, but rather what results when you have freedom (which _is_ an idea, and a very good one at that), but I'm willing to let you have the last word (for this post's threads anyways) to the contrary provided you're willing to tell me how it is worse than Peronism or Maoism, or even just comparable to either

I'm with you all the way there. I never contested the benefits of capitalism for a country; it has a much better track record than Peronism or Maoism. The evidence shows it's been great for poverty reduction. But, and I keep coming back to this, India didn't have the opportunity to determine its own economic policy until only 70 years ago. And we ended up with a socialist for our first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. Arguably he earned the right to be the Prime Minister by being the most prominent freedom struggle leader after Mahatma Gandhi and he was accordingly popular, no matter his economic policies. You can't legislate for randomness like that.

> My thesis here is that some ideas are bad, and some are _terrible_, and others are at least not bad enough to crush the human creative spirit.

To me it seems like there's two ways for good ideas to take hold: the people have the freedom to choose their leaders, can recognize good ideas and choose accordingly, or the government isn't democratic but the leadership is "enlightened" and focused on national development over personal enrichment (or at least makes development a priority).

In India's case it had a government focused on enriching Britain till 1947. Afterwards voters simply voted for the most popular guy (sort of like George Washington) who happened to be a socialist who espoused five-year plans and centrally-planned growth. Remember, at the time, those ideas hadn't been completely discredited. And this may be slightly controversial but, lacking any sort of democratic or political culture, and having a low level of education on average, voters may simply not have known "good" ideas from "bad". As a counterpoint, he US didn't initially have universal suffrage: only white property-owning males could vote. This, while unfair, ensured that voters were educated, somewhat prosperous, and invested in growth rather than populist handouts. Whereas by the time India attained independence, universal suffrage was expected of any democracy.

Also an important factor: the nation isn't acted upon by negative external forces. Chile, Argentina, Guatemala (to name just 3 South American underachievers) have suffered from foreign countries (I won't name which ones but it's easy to find on Wikipedia) financing military coups and assassinations against socialist leaders and socialist governments. You can argue all you want that a socialist government isn't good for growth but any democratically-elected government has more legitimacy than a military junta.

There's so many factors that can blunt the impact of good ideas or ensure they never take root.

> To me all of this is blindingly obvious. Again, the Argentine example is instructive, as it is one of the fantastic growth stories, but one that ended poorly when bad ideas were applied. China is another great example, with the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution being calamitous, with the rape of Nanking and the Opium wars not all that far in the past, yet it rose up when Deng Xiaoping put an end to the Maoist nonsense and brought a good enough measure of individual freedom (at least to trade) back into the picture, and then China bloomed.

And what I'm saying is history is far more random than that. What if Mao had been replaced by someone with even worse ideas? What if they'd gone to a liberal democracy immediately rather than a government laser-focused on development at the cost of everything else?

Re: A 400-year story of progress – How America became the world’s biggest economy

#247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At any rate, there is no other nation or point in time prior to the 20th century that you can pretend those values even exist. These "values" existed all over the world back then, driven by a scientific movement we aptly named "scientific racism" these days. You know, a whole section of science busy trying to explain why some humans are just so much "better" than other humans based on their skin color, size of the…

Do you know how scathingly critical the French and English were of each other for centuries? At one point, France and England participated in a hundred year war. Europe was engaged in intra-racial international war for hundreds if not thousands of years. Nations and tribes on every continent battled each other with fierce brutality. Look at how the Japanese conquered the Chinese during WWII. When I look at world hist…

> Do you know how scathingly critical the French and English were of each other for centuries?

Which was exactly my point, it was the de-facto standard for the longest time and one of the major factors for colonialization, that went on until the Third Reich and at that point, most of humanity decided: "Nope, don't want anything like that anymore".

That still didn't excuse the Third Reich or their crimes, it still serves as a "negative example" and will most likely do so for the foreseeable future. In that regard you are vastly underestimating the importance of the Nürnberg trials in the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its influence on the world community.

> The idea of world peace and equality in general was laughable until nuclear proliferation made total war among the world powers suicidal somewhere around the mid 20th century.

Nuclear proliferation mostly impacts governments behavior imho you are overestimating its impact on social progress and people generally becoming more accepting.

Factors like globalization and the Internet play a way bigger role in facilitating understanding between different people, it's also helpful to have a generally accepted standard of "Universal human rights", applying to every human being regardless of ethnicity or nationality.

MAD, with it's attached red scare, only generated generations of paranoid and distrustful people whos paranoid fear rules most of their worldviews, in some cases to this day.

Re: A 400-year story of progress – How America became the world’s biggest economy

#248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Awareness ain't everything, case in point: Millions of neo-Nazis are aware that the Holocaust happened, that still didn't and doesn't change a thing about their beliefs. That's because it's about more than merely "being aware", it's also about taking responsibility and learning a lesson and sadly it looks like that hasn't really happened in the US yet, exemplified by statements like this one: > If the US was really s…

I think we're both emphasizing different things and that comes from a different background. I don't really disagree with much of what you are saying, I just don't see them to the same degree as you, and that's probably because of that different experience making it impossible for us to understand each other. I'm not happy with everything my country does, I'm not happy with everything they've done. There's a lot of pr…

> I just don't see them to the same degree as you, and that's probably because of that different experience making it impossible for us to understand each other.

Sadly that might be true to a certain extent, but that shouldn't stop us from still trying to understand each other. Imho we've managed, at least, a little bit of that, have a good one!

Re: A 400-year story of progress – How America became the world’s biggest economy

#249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I write about a possible future where communities of people purchase robots that do most of the work they need for survival, and they otherwise live a simpler non-consumerist life. I’d like to make this a reality. http://tlalexander.com/sanctuary/

What's better about your future than the exact same future except humans do the work and the robots are just disembodied AIs who teach the humans how to be useful?

In the future you describe, humans continue to be treated as tools to be used by others. In the future I describe, people are not exploited for their labor but are free to follow their own desires.

Or more succinctly, in my future people don’t have to work.

Re: A 400-year story of progress – How America became the world’s biggest economy

#250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's better about your future than the exact same future except humans do the work and the robots are just disembodied AIs who teach the humans how to be useful?

In the future you describe, humans continue to be treated as tools to be used by others. In the future I describe, people are not exploited for their labor but are free to follow their own desires. Or more succinctly, in my future people don’t have to work.

Not all work involves people being treated like tools. Much work involves people being treated like magicians.

By finding "someone else" to treat like a tool (a robot) you are not only solving the wrong problem, you are keeping yourself stuck in the mindset that allows the problem to persist.

Post reply on HN