Live data from Hacker News

Are We Living in the Roaring 20s?

awealthofcommonsense.com

81–90 of 112 posts

Re: Are We Living in the Roaring 20s?

#81
post #33
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Catch-22. If you sign off on postmodern culture, you loose. If you argue over talking points of postmodern culture, you loose.

> If you sign off on postmodern culture, you loose. In what way? To take OP's examples, in what way do I lose when OnlyFans exists, or when people are able to change their gender if they wish to?

As in you loose agains „the elites“. IMO the current dopamine and consumption driven culture only benefits a very small slice of the society. While externalized costs ruin many lives. Mental and physical health is going down the drain and nobody cares. E.g. obesity pandemic, drugs abuse and so on. People don't abuse junk food because of happiness and content. And yet we all end up paying, at least in countries with state health insurance :)

We as a society are at a loss when people think OnlyFans is a viable career path. Or a hobby, which is even worse. OF is the same as prostitution. Vast majority (if not all) people end up there for very sad reasons and we as a society should strive to eliminate it. Normalizing such abuse of the vulnerable is even worse.

Many cases of gender „change“ are similar symptoms of long running abuse we as a society normalize. E.g. trans athletes. Or over-sexualized display of how some people envision what it is to be a woman.

Re: Are We Living in the Roaring 20s?

#82
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define “older generations”: https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/ Those in their 30s right now are the biggest proportion. And 20 or 30 years ago, that population pyramid was even more tilted towards people in their 0 to 30s (obviously).

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/05/2020-census-u...

Your link is about rate of growth of population, your claim is about population.

The basis of your first paragraph will be true in the future, but is not yet (unless you define 30s and 40s as old).

The thing that makes the dynamic in your argument true is that young people do not (or cannot) vote and participate in the political process as much as old people can.

We have people who can no longer produce, but want to consume (and their potential beneficiaries) on one side, and on the other we have people can produce. The former group need to collect rent from the latter group, otherwise they offer nothing to the latter group in exchange for their production.

Which is funny when I see young people advocate for income taxes, when they should be advocating for property/inheritance taxes.

Re: Are We Living in the Roaring 20s?

#83
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Birth rates in the US have been below replacement levels for some time now. This means we will need more immigrants to sustain the never ending growth capitalism demands.

The stock market may demand never ending growth, to keep generating positive returns. But how does capitalism itself (private ownership of production) demand never ending growth, any more than a planned economy would?

> But how does capitalism itself (private ownership of production) demand never ending growth

If rich people own the world and growth = investment returns = how rich people get paid for being rich, do you think they want it to stop? Or will they (and the system they own) do anything to keep it going?

There's a reason why the moralizing lore of capitalism always happens at the bottom of an S curve even though most economic sectors spend most of the time at the top of an S curve. At the bottom of an S curve, a new investment frontier has opened up. By foregoing consumption today and investing, we can enable more/faster/better consumption tomorrow. Investors get part of the windfall, consumers get part of the windfall, everyone wins. However, at the top of an S curve, capital is plentiful and investment opportunities are scarce. The value of investment / foregoing consumption drops to nearly 0, and in practice probably goes slightly negative due to hope springing eternal / boondoggle chasing. That's all ok, the accounting will assign credit and blame in the end, but it's a huge problem if you are rich enough that you obtain your money by investing rather than by working. Suddenly, your source of income (sorry, capital gains, wouldn't want the IRS to tax you like a pleb) has gone away. If there is nothing to invest in, how do you get paid for investing? What to do?

Answer: pull any and every lever to get the growth train going again. But what if the growth is low quality? Doesn't matter. You are here to get paid, not to generate quality growth. Does it cause inflation? Not on your assets -- doesn't matter. Does it cause housing to become unaffordable? Doesn't matter. Does it cause imperial conflict when the overseas growth markets don't like your terms? Doesn't matter. As far as our economy is concerned, the important thing is that the people who literally own our economy get paid, all else is secondary.

NOTE: I'm not nearly as anti-capitalist as you might think. Capitalism is the best system for bringing the maximum amount of resources to bear on new frontiers. In a world that seems to be winner-take-all in so many respects, this may be the horse you want to bet on. Still, almost all of the Big Problems in the world today can be traced directly back to our economic structure. This is not an indictment: it would be true of any economic structure. Still, the question remains of whether what we do is worthwhile and how much we want to do to file down the sharp edges. IMO, it is worthwhile, but we should do more to file down the edges. YMMV.

Re: Are We Living in the Roaring 20s?

#84

The evidence offered is that the economy is doing well, people are traveling, and there is some technological innovation happening. As though that were unique. He then dismisses certain other, less convenient evidence, like consumer sentiment, and simply doesn't bring up any other changes in the macroeconomic climate over the last 100 years. I would like to know what about the balance of evidence is unique enough to…

I don't know what the author of the article is drinking. Me and most of my relatives are in a significantly worse financial position since 2020. Wage growth has hardly matched the wild pace of inflation. Saving money is much harder. Decent jobs are hard to come by. It feels like an erosion of the middle class.

[flagged]

Re: Are We Living in the Roaring 20s?

#85
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately it's not just contrarianism, the American right wing loves Russia now.

I see some fringe russophiles on both left and right wing, both here in europe and in US. But in 99% of cases it's „I hate my government, so I just believe in opposite if what they say“. The only sincere love for actual Russia is Stalin-adoring tankies. But that's what.. the 0.00001%?

Sure, but tankies miiiight be 1% of the left while the Russophilia is pretty strong in the entire alt-right, which is like 40% of the right. The problems are similar in nature but different in scale.

Re: Are We Living in the Roaring 20s?

#86

The evidence offered is that the economy is doing well, people are traveling, and there is some technological innovation happening. As though that were unique. He then dismisses certain other, less convenient evidence, like consumer sentiment, and simply doesn't bring up any other changes in the macroeconomic climate over the last 100 years. I would like to know what about the balance of evidence is unique enough to…

> Otherwise, this sounds a little like a kind of numerology where similarly numbered years must resemble each other. Even if history repeats in cycles for some astrological reason, why would it repeat in a 100 years cycle? Why not a 67 years cycle?

For another viewpoint, this is based around "human lifespan" cycles: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generat...

Re: Are We Living in the Roaring 20s?

#87

No, I don't think nice round numbers like 20 or 100 years show a pattern. I like to think more in terms of generations: 15 to 30 years. I can't predict the future. Please take my 30 year time-line idea as numerology where similarly numbered years must resemble each other. It's broken into a decade each of boom-bust-war: 1890 boom "Klondike Gold Rush" 1900 bust "Panic of 1901" 1910 war WW1 1920 boom "Roaring" 1930 bus…

You may be interested in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generat...

Re: Are We Living in the Roaring 20s?

#88
post #33
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Catch-22. If you sign off on postmodern culture, you loose. If you argue over talking points of postmodern culture, you loose.

> If you sign off on postmodern culture, you loose. In what way? To take OP's examples, in what way do I lose when OnlyFans exists, or when people are able to change their gender if they wish to?

[flagged]

Re: Are We Living in the Roaring 20s?

#89
post #88
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you sign off on postmodern culture, you loose. In what way? To take OP's examples, in what way do I lose when OnlyFans exists, or when people are able to change their gender if they wish to?

[flagged]

it always bums me out to see inflammatory comments like this on hn. also you're wrong and dumb and all that

Re: Are We Living in the Roaring 20s?

#90
post #88
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you sign off on postmodern culture, you loose. In what way? To take OP's examples, in what way do I lose when OnlyFans exists, or when people are able to change their gender if they wish to?

[flagged]

Can you elaborate? Have there been a spate of attacks in bathrooms from transgendered folks that I've missed?

They are, of course, still single-gender spaces. What exactly is lost when losing a single-sex space while keeping it to a single gender?

Post reply on HN