Are the American people obsolete? | Hacker News Reader

Are the American people obsolete?

salon.com

12 pointsdavid9275 comments

Some interesting observations, but I think the title is poor (I'm not American, I'm not saying this because I feel threatened or insulted). Something reflecting that fact that the US domestic market is waning in importance would be more accurate (but less provocative from an editor's POV).

The EU, taken as a single market, is the largest global market in terms of sheer spending power - it has a bigger population than the US (half a billion plus, vs. 307 million in the US). China is growing rapidly, but is still a very poor country currently. Of course, you cannot treat the EU as a single market in practical terms, because of language differences (even within the same country e.g. Switzerland), different laws and customs. The US, by comparison, is a far more homogenous unit (easier to sell into from a startups' perspective, European startups probably have to go international from day one, which is a big drawback from doing a startup in Europe).

I certainly don't think the American people are becoming obsolete - the world is still very US-centric, for better or worse. Just think, if an article like this came out before the crash of 2008, the author would be branded as an unpatriotic commie.

EDIT: I just read down to the end of the article, and it's mostly bullshit speculation with no supporting evidence for the author's fanciful claims.

In return for receiving a disproportionate amount of the gains from economic growth in a capitalist economy, the rich paid a disproportionate percentage of the taxes needed for public goods and a safety net for the majority.

In return for generating an disproportionate amount of the wealth, you mean. The rest of the article is similar economically-illiterate gibberish.

its allies might have failed to defeat totalitarian empires that would have created a world order hostile to a market economy

It's clear where the sympathies of the author lie.

Many of the people who've done best since Reagan have been rent seekers like dentists, doctors, lawyers, and corporate executives.

So far as business creators and owners are concerned, it's fair to say that the issue of who "created" the wealth of a company like WalMart is a political question. Certainly some of that wealth was created by Sam Walton, but certainly some was created by his workers. It's obviously wrong if Sam gets 0% of the value of WalMart and also wrong if he gets 100% of the value of Wal*Mart -- there's no objectively right answer, only the issue of what different people can "get".

In the current climate, I think wealth is more likely to "trickle up" than trickle down. If Joe Sixpack can afford some beer, I see how that helps the guys at the brewery have jobs and the owner of the brewery make a profit. Now, give the owner of a brewery some cash, and he ~might~ hire a worker, or he ~might~ buy a new Ferrari (creating jobs) or maybe he'll buy an old painting (bid up asset prices), buy real property (bid up asset prices, causing inflation) or buy stocks (bidding up asset prices.) This circle jerk might nominally transfer money to some other rich guy, but it doesn't create jobs, innovation or anything worthwhile.

And jeeze, don't get started on the "taxes discourage the rich from hiring new workers" -- because you can write off anything you pay workers as a business expense.

At the moment I'm thinking about what to do with a lifestyle business -- do I want to hire some new people? Personally, I see higher taxes on my income pushing me towards hiring somebody, growing equity, and pushing any possible taxes I might pay into the future.

because you can write off anything you pay workers as a business expense

That makes no sense - you still need to pay, and the money comes from the payroll budget.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/budget/7847...

As I've seen since the 70's, if you get enough people in the US pissed off, they elect different kinds of people. Given this, it's more likely that the rich (being mobile) will emigrate rather than dealing with the hassle. They can afford the lawyers and other "fees" required to do so.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com