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

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

theintellectualist.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 279 posts

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

#51

Post by adrianN »

kristofferR wrote: post #2

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 agree that first past the post is stupid, but the strong divide between Repulicans and Democrats seems to be fairly recent.[1] They used to vote less along party lines. So maybe the rise of mass media is to blame?

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....

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

#52

Post by herbst »

czechdeveloper wrote: post #7
tom_wills wrote: post #3

That's not what 'third-world' means... we're still part of NATO

But it's how it's used now. But yes, it's not in original meaning of a word. But based on original meaning Switzerland is third world country which also does not sound right.

On the other side swiss people seem aware of that and don't use the term so loosely like everyone else.

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

#53

Post by kristofferR »

vorotato wrote: post #31
kristofferR wrote: post #2

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…

Ah but you're assuming that the problem is not enough wealth when actually America is incredibly wealthy. The problem isn't the democratic system, it's income inequality.

How did I even imply that the problem is the America doesn't have enough wealth? My comment didn't touch on anything of the sort.

My point was actually this: In a better democracy the people who believed income inequality was a big problem would vote for the "Bernie Sanders Party" instead of being forced to vote for Clinton. Let's say that just 20% voted for the BSP while 31% voted for the Hillary Party.

They would be forced to govern together, and create the best solutions in order to retain or grow their parties. The constantly changing dynamic between all the different parties would in turn lead to better solutions for the voters instead of the current solution in the US - where people on the left are practically forced to vote democratic and the people on the right are forced to vote republican, no matter the job performance.

Since the US forces people into camps based on ideology instead of the delivered results, the results suffer while the ideological conflict is enhanced.

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

#54

Post by H4CK3RM4N »

xg15 wrote: post #40
H4CK3RM4N wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> societies would be best served by an educated aristocracy And what goals and principles would that aristorcracy govern by? Who is deciding about the goals and who makes sure they are actually enacted? What if said leaders decide that, in order to combat overpopulation, parts of the "surplus class" need to be removed? The reason many people migrated to the US centuries ago was to get away from aristorcracy. So how d…

How do you propose ensuring a democracy doesn't fail? In the first passage I linked, hereditary aristocracy is referred to as "the worst of all governments", it suggests that "the wisest should govern the many", and Rousseau even acknowledges that aristtocracy "demands others which are peculiar to itself; for instance, moderation on the side of the rich and contentment on that of the poor".

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

#55

Post by pmorici »

kristofferR wrote: post #2

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…

Two party system isn't in the constitution. If you go back and look at us history politics have always had periods that look nutty and disfunctional.

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

#56

Post by oblio »

324343245 wrote: post #21
nunez wrote: 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?

Developed ones.

A more serious answer: each country has impoverished neighborhoods. The difference between developed countries and developing ones is the magnitude of the impoverished neighborhoods.

So far I haven't seen any really big slums in Germany, for example.

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

#57

Post by jacobush »

thaiphanvevo wrote: post #46
324343245 wrote: post #17

Notice how things start to get worse and worse as globalism progresses? Things were great in the 90's, then we signed NAFTA and that's when everything started going to shit. 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 move toward…

I disagree. I think America started experiencing problems after 9/11 when they went into two expensive and unnecessary wars. Stop invading other countries and you guys can start rebuilding your own!

What if ... it's both?

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

#58

Post by adamnemecek »

kristofferR wrote: post #2

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…

There's also a cultural aspect. E.g. Note how people in the us don't protest much, much to their detriment.

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

#59

Post by abalashov »

nunez wrote: 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.

I am not sure how a country becomes a Third World country _de jure_. Does it apply for membership in the Third World, sign a treaty to join the coterie of developing economies? Does the Supreme Court rule in a landmark case brought to it to finally settle the country's global status?

Could this be a case of "I don't think that word means what you think it means"? :-)

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

#60

Post by jstewartmobile »

kristofferR wrote: post #2

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…

Our problem is the rural/urban split, and how the rural areas have a much more powerful per-person sway over policy and election outcomes.

Two senators per state is pretty kick-ass if you live in North Dakota.

Post reply on HN