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

71–80 of 279 posts

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

#71

Post by makosdv »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #29
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…

> 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.

The vast majority of education funding comes from the states, so cutting federal funding won't really have much impact.

"That means the Federal contribution to elementary and secondary education is about 8 percent" - https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html

It really makes me wonder what we need the Department of Education for...

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

#72

Post by jlebrech »

fiatpandas wrote: post #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?

Ghettos, the projects?

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

#73

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

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

#74

Post by jameshart »

ptaipale wrote: post #39
jameshart wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

right - there have been massive improvements in poverty in developing countries as a result of globalization. But that doesn't mean that Rosling-style improvements in life outcomes for people in the poorest nations were a goal of globalization; just a side effect. And benefits have accrued to wealthy nations too - cheap gas, cheap electronic devices, expanding investment markets. If policy supporting globalization had a goal it was probably more driven by those outcomes.

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

#75

Post by realo »

fiatpandas wrote: post #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?

Not quite there yet... but ...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint,_Michigan

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

#77

Post by maxerickson »

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?

North Korea and Cuba have been pretty well isolated from capitalism.

You could also look at countries in Africa that don't have extensive resource extraction (compared to those that do).

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

#78

Post by anovikov »

danieltillett wrote: post #47
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…

This is a bit of a hobby horse of mine, but the reason is the number of elected representatives has not kept pace with the population growth. When the USA was founded there were about 20,000 electors per representatives and now in some seats there are over a million. If you want representation you need to be able to meet and talk to your rep - more importantly they need to be able to acquire your vote without the nee…

How about starting from the other side? Decreasing the number of electors to be more the way it was when USA was founded? So people with no income earning property ('passive income' as it is called here), do not vote? Before 1820s, they didn't.

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

#79

Post by MayeulC »

iaskwhy wrote: post #13
tom_wills wrote: post #3

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…

I personally always thought "third world" had more or less the same meaning as "third estate". That is, the "commoners"; or the ones left out of the global elite; and I have yet to find anything that credibly proves that it doesn't come from there. On the upside; that meaning is the one usually associated with it, in my experience.

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

#80

Post by bhouston »

Is this just happening in the US or is it also happening across many other "Western/European" nations? I wonder if it is isolated or widespread in part because there will be some equalization as other developing nations rise -- like China and India.
Post reply on HN