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

81–90 of 279 posts

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

#81

Post by kristofferR »

xg15 wrote: post #23
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…

Not a US citizen, but my understanding is that the two-party system is not mandated by the constitution, or even encouraged. It's something that developed on top of it, as a consequence of some bad rules (first-past-the-post as you say) but also other factors (campaign financing) Because the beneficiaries of the system get to make the rules, there is also a push to change regulations more and more to favor the two-pa…

Your first and your last sentence contradicts each other, in my view. The reason why it doesn't make sense to vote for the greens is the system laid out in the constitution.

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

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

#82

Post by golergka »

jacobush wrote: post #50
golergka wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Notice how things start to get worse and worse as globalism progresses? Not for the actual third world countries. I completely agree with your description of the facts on the ground, just completely disagree with what you consider 'bad' or 'good'. Everybody's talking about US' inequality problem like US is a closed system. It's insane. US elites are _world_ elites, and inequality should be considered in the world s…

Wait what? So because there are even poorer people on the other sides of the ponds, some of which might actually benefit in some tangential way from globalism, it's OK for the 0.01 % to rob their closest neighbours blind?

> to rob

That's a pretty strong claim you have here. Can you back it up? As far as I see, the 'closest neighbours' are in the ditch because they now compete with workers from other continents, and turns out that these workers are ready to do the same work for less.

If I used to pay you money for your work, but then found someone else that would do that for half a price, I'm not robbing you. If anything, it's you who's been robbing the other dude before I started working with him.

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

#83

Post by raverbashing »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #28
nirav72 wrote: post #6

I'm thinking MIT economists haven't lived in a third world. (I was born in one) The U.S is not even remotely close to being a third-world or will be one anytime soon.

I've seen places in Mississippi, Arkansas and West Virginia that looked every bit as third world as rural Philippines/Vietnam. What the US lacks is urban poverty in the form of shantytowns. This is because unlike most third world nations, we quickly raze them when and find excuses to incarcerate the people who live there. If we were more permissive, we'd certainly have them too.

Rural does not mean poor/3rd world

In the same way there's a lot of wealthy places in let's say Mexico City and other capitals of 3rd world countries

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

#84

Post by Kaizyn »

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…

First of all, it is a republic and not a democracy. The difference is quite important. Secondly, to attribute the problems to the constitution is mistaken. That founding document is the only thing standing in the way of a complete and total disaster for the country.

Nearly all the problems can be traced back to where politicians are ignoring the constitution in part or in full and thereby eroding the public protections built into the republic.

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

#85

Post by burn_cycle »

abalashov wrote: post #59
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"? :-)

I would say that America in its current state is more simillar to one of the BRICS nations. It has levels of poverty/wealth disparity that will be familiar to anyone who has spent enough time in South Africa or Brazil but simply do not exist in most parts of western Europe.

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

#86

Post by maxerickson »

realo wrote: post #75
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

Flint has a bunch of abandoned housing.

It's sort of the opposite of a favela, people left housing behind because of the lack of economic opportunity (whereas a favela is people dealing with poor housing in order to seek economic opportunity).

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

#87

Post by ricw »

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…

Whilst your point is true, you're wrong in thinking it is a zero sum game. It certainly isn't. In stark contrast to the USA, it has largely been a win-win situation in Europe for blue collar workers.

What has been devastating for the mid-west is that the exporting of jobs was politically and financially supported. Companies would receive subsidies to "globalise".

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

#88

Post by wtbob »

jstewartmobile wrote: post #60
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.

Our problem is the cities, and how they have many more people. Representation in proportion to population is pretty kick-ass if you live in New York.

It's a little less kick-ass if you live in North Dakota, and wonder why a few coastal congressmen are able to pass laws which interfere with your lifestyle.

More seriously, our problem is a metastasised federal government. Very little should actually be a federal issue (read the enumerated powers of the United States in the Constitution!), and yet almost everything now is. As a result, every issue becomes winner-take-all: the entire country must comply with me, or the entire country must comply with you. There's no room to allow Massachusetts to go wrong and right in its ways, and to allow North Dakota to go wrong and right in its ways.

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

#89

Post by joelrunyon »

raverbashing wrote: post #83
CuriouslyC wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen places in Mississippi, Arkansas and West Virginia that looked every bit as third world as rural Philippines/Vietnam. What the US lacks is urban poverty in the form of shantytowns. This is because unlike most third world nations, we quickly raze them when and find excuses to incarcerate the people who live there. If we were more permissive, we'd certainly have them too.

Rural does not mean poor/3rd world In the same way there's a lot of wealthy places in let's say Mexico City and other capitals of 3rd world countries

3rd world means non-NATO aligned states (or communist aligned states).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World

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

#90

Post by joelrunyon »

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.

As I stated above:

3rd world means non-NATO aligned states (or communist aligned states).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World

Unless the US turns communist, it can not be a 3rd world country.

Post reply on HN