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

61–70 of 279 posts

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

#61

Post by kristofferR »

arethuza wrote: post #44
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…

The UK seems to having similar problems - so I don't think it is related to the specifics of the constitution/democratic system.

The UK also has first-past-the-post though.

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

#62

Post by DarkKomunalec »

arethuza wrote: post #44
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…

The UK seems to having similar problems - so I don't think it is related to the specifics of the constitution/democratic system.

But the UK also has a first past the post system.

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

#63

Post by stult »

jhbadger wrote: post #34
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 nothing in the Constitution about political parties, two or otherwise. In fact, the initial idea at the time was that the US wasn't going to have political parties and that voters would focus on individuals instead.

The parent comment was referring to mathematical properties of the voting system itself which tend to give rise to a two party system almost automatically (specifically, the combination of a first past the post voting system and single-representative districts)[1]. The Founders were not aware of these effects and could not compensate for them, so their vision of a party-free democracy did not prove relevant to how the system actually functions in practice.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

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

#64

Post by jstanley »

324343245 wrote: post #15
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…

> 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…

Globalism isn't an "attempt" to do anything. It's just markets naturally tending towards efficiency.

> but if you're part of rural America you're getting hit very hard by globalism.

i.e. if you're part of rural America, you're being out-competed by superior market participants located in poorer countries.

It's not that unfair. It would be much more unfair to apply protectionist policies to subsidise the rural Americans at the expense of the truly-impoverished people in poorer countries.

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

#65

Post by ptaipale »

phkahler wrote: post #27
iaskwhy wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cold war wasn't such a lame thing. As a third-worlder (Finland), I'm quite happy that the US was there to help with the "cool kids".

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

#66

Post by tom_mellior »

jhbadger wrote: post #34
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 nothing in the Constitution about political parties, two or otherwise. In fact, the initial idea at the time was that the US wasn't going to have political parties and that voters would focus on individuals instead.

Whether or not the Constitution says anything about political parties, it establishes a "winner takes it all" voting system that has the effect described above. The Republican party should long ago have split into a loony Tea Party fraction and a conservative fraction, and half of the Democrats would politically be more at home in the Green party.

But these things are not realistic with a first-past-the-post system, so there are two large, internally divided, dysfunctional parties that "represent" a lot of people whose voices are ultimately not heard and whose interests are not represented by anyone.

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

#67

Post by flerchin »

Karellen wrote: post #48
ptaipale wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that we can once again be reminded that there is only one thing that is worse for poor nations than being exploited by global capitalism. It's that poor nations are not exploited by global capitalism. Then you can look up TED talks by Hans Rosling, and the follow-up reports for UN millennium development goals.

Can you give a few examples of poor nations that are not being exploited by global capitalism?

Zimbabwe, Venezuela, North Korea.

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

#68

Post by raverbashing »

jameshart wrote: post #30
324343245 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

India and China beg to differ

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

#69

Post by ptaipale »

Karellen wrote: post #48
ptaipale wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that we can once again be reminded that there is only one thing that is worse for poor nations than being exploited by global capitalism. It's that poor nations are not exploited by global capitalism. Then you can look up TED talks by Hans Rosling, and the follow-up reports for UN millennium development goals.

Can you give a few examples of poor nations that are not being exploited by global capitalism?

Zimbabwe, North Korea. And of course many poor African nations where global capitalism doesn't operate that much and which are therefore largely in a subsistence economy.

Venezuela wasn't a poor nation to start with, but is becoming one in its urge to fight global capitalism.

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

#70

Post by unityByFreedom »

phkahler wrote: post #19
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 think most of the division in US politics comes from the way representatives are influenced. By co-locating them all in Washington we enable destructive lobbying while keeping them away from the people they are supposed to represent. The party system is also destructive - I advocate against any legal recognition of political parties and against campaign ads funded by anyone outside the state a person is running in.…

> By co-locating them all in Washington we enable destructive lobbying while keeping them away from the people they are supposed to represent

Representatives do spend time in their own states. They also need a central place to meet. No country or system does this differently.

> The party system is also destructive - I advocate against any legal recognition of political parties and against campaign ads funded by anyone outside the state a person is running in.

I think rolling back Citizens United, which allowed corporations to donate unlimited amounts to candidates' [unaffiliated] campaigns, would be a big practical step in this direction.

Post reply on HN