Hacker News Reader

> we had to participate in a World War to get out of it

I'm not sure that "participation in a World War" was what got us out of it, nor is that an admissible tool to correct a recession. WWII did kick-start a lot of valuable developments, and it allowed the government to write a lot of checks and take out a lot of loans to inject money into industry, I'll grant.

But I'm curious what you think would have happened had the Nazis not come to power in Germany, and Japan not taken Manchuria.

It's a booster shot of capital first into industry and agriculture, then into the hands of the wives of soldiers, then into the soldier's themselves when they got back.

It's not a great tool at all, I'm not saying it's a good thing, the fact that a war is fantastic for the economy is common knowledge, or at least I thought. It's a shitload of Government spending that's directed from all sides of the political spectrum (mostly) and often isn't questioned at the time, so you get the capital shot without the hangover of the political divide like we have now.

Things are objectively easier when your enemy is as well defined and totally evil as the Nazi's.

That being said, War is really bad for quality of life. Every tank, missile, bullet, could be used to improve a consumer’s life instead. And every life lost, building destroyed, et cet is potential economic assets.

Economics that are good on paper isn’t really the end goal.

I don't disagree, but you asked me how the war got us out. That's how it did.

> Every tank, missile, bullet, could be used to improve a consumer’s life instead

but just because no war happesn doesn't mean that the consumer's life gets improved. THe bullet money would've been spent elsewhere similarly to a war, to benefit the few rich.

the fact that a war is fantastic for the economy is common knowledge, or at least I thought

What?! This is absurd! Common sense should tell you that war is terrible for an economy because lots of valuable assets get destroyed repeatedly.

What you mean is that war is good for GDP because suddenly every last scrap of spare resource is thrown into industrial production, often funded by running up massive debts. But don't make the mistake of confusing the economy for GDP. From a wealth perspective war is about as useful as paying people to dig holes in the ground and immediately fill them back up again. Yes, it pumps your stats around "production" (of holes), but it doesn't create wealth.

Mostly true, except that war does drive scientific and technological advancement, as well as investments in production capacity and resource extraction (basically it is an extreme form of competition that forces you to progress or die).

> the fact that a war is fantastic for the economy is common knowledge

It's pub philosophy, usually based on a very thin understanding of the economic and political conditions of the early 20th century. Unfortunately a lot of people have generalised this 'wisdom' into a broad "what we really need is a good war", as if that war wouldn't devastate pretty much all of the advanced capitalist economies.

World War one and two were some of the only events ever in history the reduce wealth inequality, which otherwise has grown inexorably.

I gathered this from reading 'Capital in the 21st century' by Thomas Piketty

Don't forget the Black Death.

And the fall of the Roman empire.

And the internal revenue act of 1954.

I think it's different this time around.

Student loan debt and healthcare costs are out of control, but the practical difference in quality of life between the rich and average American is smaller than ever. All the money in the world won't make Facebook better, or get you another season of Breaking Bad, or a better iPhone, or a better video game, or faster speed limits.

People aren't going to raise pitchforks because someone has more zeros in their bank account.

It's definitely going to take longer (in fact I think we'd be there already if not for the quality of life) but that only does so much. People now have access to more information than ever and are realizing just how screwed they're getting every single day. I don't think it's unreasonable to say shouldn't we have it better too, not just the wealthy?

You do have it better, including relative to the wealthy. That was the point of my previous comment. The trend shows no signs of changing, so we can expect that to continue.

I think it's worth re-examining if what you're describing is even a problem, and more importantly, if what you would suggest as a fix actually makes anything better other than a sense of "fairness."

They might if all those things go away for them but not for the other guy.

They absolutely will, but I don't see signs of that happening.

Yeah, entertainment options are great if you're poor. This might keep them somewhat complacent. But how about the quality of housing and transportation?

People absolutely will raise pitchforks when they no longer have housing or food. There are many Americans in this situation right now, but they suffer in near-silence. As their numbers swell, we will reach a point where they can no longer be ignored.

The food itself is cheap, but obtaining the food isn't. Consider the poor rural people that need to drive 30+ miles to the grocery store.

Housing and transportation are both localized issues that are almost entirely concentrated in urban areas. They are problems, but are only indirectly related to wealth inequality anyway. Bigger problems are NIMBYs, excessive regulations protecting skylines / ocean views, etc. Transportation sucks for the wealthy, too.

It is not the case that we have a growing epidemic of people without housing or food as a result of income inequality.

We do have a growing number of people unable to find housing they can afford in the place they want to live, but that's not the same thing.

36% of households rent, and rent has been increasing in most places. What happens when there's a big job-killing recession?

The same thing people with a mortgage payment do.

And we do have public housing for those that can't.

When was the last time you applied for public housing? It isn't just a "fallback" for society when the economic structure falters. Even people in public housing struggle to keep eligible by showing certain proofs of PT income.

We're getting a little off-track here.

The parent claim was that a high percentage of renters implies an increase in unemployment would leave many homeless, which might increase civil unrest toward rioting aimed at the wealthy.

I'm saying the vast majority of renters would be in the same boat as mortgagers, which is that they won't lose their jobs. Of the minority that do, they may miss or be late on some payments, but ultimately recover and continue living there as they find another job or make other arrangements. The number who would legitimately become penniless and forced to move is small, and we have public housing available for those affected.

You understand there's a huge backlog for public housing right? You don't just show up asking for an apartment

I don't doubt it in certain areas.

Still we're getting pretty derailed. I'm responding to your comment which was a speculative question.

Peak unemployment rate during the 2008 recession was 10%. So that's 3.6% of Americans renting and out of work. Many will miss payments and then resume after finding a new one. Or maybe there are two earners living there and they can cut in other areas until a new job is found.

Some will find cheaper apartments, and some will move in with family.

So, no, I don't think that'll be the spark for the next revolution.

The average American who "owns a home" moves every 7 years last time I checked. We are a nation of itinerants. Equity investments give better returns apart from political windfalls.

Rent decreases because the demand curve shift?

"We do have a growing number of people unable to find housing they can afford in the place they want to live, but that's not the same thing."

Correct - it is not the same thing at all.

Housing that you can easily afford in places that you would prefer to live (aesthetic, convenience, life-script, etc.) is a fantastic luxury that has no place in a discussion of "rights".

>People absolutely will raise pitchforks when they no longer have housing or food.

No they won't, they'll sell the pitchforks so they can buy their next meal and a particularly roomy cardboard box.

Modern history suggests there will be riots. See: Arab Spring, Mexican Tortilla Riots, the current and ongoing riots in Venezuela, etc. Since 2007, some dozen or more countries have suffered from riots caused by famine and rising food prices.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%9308_world_food_pri...

The US is lucky enough to be somewhat insulated from these by virtue of being rich. But we can't guarantee that will always be the case.

There are many Americans in this situation right now,

Do you have sources for this? Bonus points if it's something updated regularly that I can bookmark.

Great question. The USDA tracks this information. https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=849...

A snippet from the summary:

> The prevalence of food insecurity varied considerably from State to State, ranging from 8.7 percent in Hawaii to 18.7 percent in Mississippi in 2014-16. (Data for 3 years were combined to provide more reliable State-level statistics.

In other words, almost 1 in 5 Mississippi households lacked enough food to feed the entire family at some point in 2016. For the nation as a whole, it's still 1 in 8 household.

>"There are many Americans in this situation right now, but they suffer in near-silence. As their numbers swell, we will reach a point where they can no longer be ignored."

Honest question...how are you defining this silence? Social media and the internet have seemingly given a voice to everyone who wants it. The challenge is standing out from the crowd and making sure you have a way to do so when what you say is against the best interests of the platforms you are saying it on or the people who have vested interests in those platforms.

You have to add to quality of life also factors like feeling secure about one's future or having opportunity. When you consider these then quality of life for poor people is not very good.

Sometimes. Those are very subjective factors that could involve a lot of personal decisions and responsibility. Even if they should be measured for quality of life, cultural factors are probably more relevant than how many dollars are in someone else's bank account.

It's so strange how people think the main thing wrong with poverty is lack of material goods or entertainment.

Nobody said that.

Maybe you didn't. But I see people assuming that all the time, talking about how the poor don't have it so bad now that they can afford phones etc.

    > but the practical difference in quality of life between the rich and average American is smaller than ever.

The top 1% live a decade longer on average than the bottom 1%. The gap is increasing over time. [1]

In 2015, 52,404 dies in the US from drug overdoses. 33,091 involved opioids. Opioid use is higher among lower-income people. [2]

Suicide is also higher among lower income.

[1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4866586/

[2]: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm655051e1.htm

I wouldn't say life expectancy is the best statistic, though. Not all poor people necessarily make bad decisions, but people who make bad decisions over the course of their lives undoubtedly are more likely to be poor. When our top killers are direct results of obesity, it's hard to argue better wealth redistribution would result in fewer cheeseburgers eaten or cigarettes smoked.

Your opiod and suicide statistics are similarly correlative with no indication of being causal.

That's not to say it isn't a valid case against my statement you quoted, but I think it's missing the original context. I was responding to someone claiming we're likely to see an uprising if wealth inequality continues. That poorer people tend to make worse decisions that ultimately result in poorer outcomes does suggest a lower quality of life, but not that can be fairly blamed on richer people.

You are sadly wrong and your examples show your parochialism.

I don't enjoy moving picture fictions, recorded edited entertainment or packaged food. I went to Harvard and live in DC getting everything live and in person 24/7. I do not drive any cars and live on parks and zoos taxpayer dollars keep safe and manicure.

I worked with Steve Crocker and Brad Cox, so I am no luddite. Last I knew Crocker was on the board of a local theater group and also prefers his life live in person.

Authentic pleasures are almost impossible to get in suburban "modern" life where priests called "Therapists" charge hourly for confession and charlatans called "Teachers" do the same for scriptural studies. Our doctors are the lowest performing in the developed world.

The peculiar imaginations of rusting commodities, factory fake foods and delusional fictions are meritorious goes with American accents and propaganda.

Income inequality and lack of social mobility don't lead to widespread violent revolution unless you add in famine.

Just because you'll never be able to afford floor seats doesn't mean you're going to attack the people that can. If you don't have food for your children, though, and you don't see another way - that's a lot more likely.

You're missing a few classic violent revolutions in that logic, the NAZI party, Mao (he created a famine and kept power...) Stalin, Pol Pot (also made famine, not created by it).

People really get triggered by real or perceived injustice. It seems to be one of those common human instincts. Being downtrodden with lack of opportunity while others are born to the manor can get people going.

The Nazi party wasn't a violent revolution, and Mao came to power in part through widespread famine and war.

Creating famine doesn't always generate a violent and widespread revolution, that wasn't my point. Inequality on its own, without other types of degradation or the growing desperation that famine brings has sparked no such revolutions.

>>Income inequality and lack of social mobility don't lead to widespread violent revolution unless you add in famine.

The term 'Income inequality' in developed economies can almost always be translated to one word: 'Envy'.

> eventually all their money isn't going to keep the pitchforks at bay.

I wonder if it will. This is where drone and automation tech can get scary.

Particularly combining drones with less than lethal tech could be super dangerous for our society. And I say less than lethal as it is a huge step to straight out attack and main people. But imagine something like the LA riots again. I suspect many people wouldn't be OK if some drones with paintball and tasers were sent to 'calm the fray' and zap a few nasty looters type thing. As long as it was controlling some 'evil few'. Then the evil few starts to expand...much like surveillance today. So if we ever see this style of scenario in our lifetime I feel people should use all political clout to stop it in its tracks. It could take society in a really bad direction and I dont doubt some people will look to take this route.

Rich people aren't pushing for it. There assets appreciate without any effort. This is the tricky part. There is a point where you are so rich that your assets itself just make money for you.

By definition the "wealthy" have always controlled the "vast share of assets and capital" in the world.

How could it be anything but?

The reality is that the "poor" in developed countries live better then 99.9999% of all humans have ever lived on this planet.

You disagree? Well consider this then...just very-short-90-years-ago, the 16 year-old son of the most powerful man on Earth died from a blister on his foot he got while playing tennis on the White House lawn.

We should all stop looking at the glass being half-empty.

Be careful where you point that analogy.

In that case, if we take away 99% of what the wealthy own, they'll still be better off then 99.99999% of all humans that have ever lived on the planet.

Sounds like great grounds to grab some torches and pitchforks. They don't even really need all that money.

> They don't even really need all that money.

This. It's not even about that they have it better, it's that they have it so ludicrously, needlessly better. They're just running up the score at this point.

What was Bezo's last milestone? 90 billion? What the fuck do you even do with 90 billion dollars?

Why does that matter, on its face?

You notice how no one complains about Elon Musk pouring his billions into solar, electric cars, and rockets, or about the Gates family trying to solve disease in developing nations?

No one really cares if someone has billions of dollars if that money is doing some good. The problem comes when they're just hoarding it while people around them suffer from problems that are solvable with a little investment. That money didn't just appear in their bank account. They made it on top of a society and economy that enabled that wealth. No one is an island, even if they're rich enough to buy one.

Sure, so you believe that people have a duty to put money to use, and not using money is the issue, because people earn money in an environment where other people enable them to?

I don't really agree with that. If the money went bad, sure; that'd be depriving people of resources uselessly. But a big part of the reason we have currency in the first place is because it's a store of value and doesn't degrade quickly.

The justification based on the idea that they didn't create their wealth in a vacuum is an odd one to me. If I buy an axe that someone else made, use a road someone else paved and then chop down and dismantle a tree to sell the wood- do I owe others? The person making the axe was paid for it in a mutually acceptable exchange. The person paving the road was also paid to do so, and didn't likely do it with the idea that payment would come in part from the commerce others would use the road to partake in.

If you steal wealth from others or borrow it, sure - they have a say on what happens with it. If you become wealthy by providing goods or services that others pay for and then hoarding the money you receive, I don't think you owe your community more because of it.

I believe it's in your best interest to pay more taxes because a larger percentage of tax goes to protecting your property, but as long as you pay your tax I don't think you owe it to anyone to solve their problems for them. It's a good thing to do, but not an obligation.

Besides, it's not like people who are 'hoarding' money are keeping piles of dollar bills in a safe. They're investing it in something.

They are investing it into capital that they hope will provide them with an even larger percentage of our society's wealth.

>>What the fuck do you even do with 90 billion dollars?

Why should you care? Its not like they take your money and give it to him. He earned it all himself.

And besides why do you think you should get to have a say in how much he should be allowed to keep?

Sure, they would still be better off. How did that improvement happen, though, and how do we continue improving? Going the route of Venezuela doesn't seem the best idea to me.

>and we had to participate in a World War to get out of it).

I think it wasn't participating in WW2 that got the US out of the depression, so much as everywhere else being completely fucked by war, with the USA being basically the holder of the best production setup at the end of the war, and therefore able to export an absolute fuckton of product to help Europe et al rebuild.

I suspect that if USA never joined the war, it would actually be better off today economically, since WW2 would have proceeded regardless.

The US never had a choice about joining the war or not. I know that we knew in advance about Pearl Harbor and I know that the US had already decided to join the war which precipitated specific aggression from the Axis powers against the US but there was no choice. Japan or Germany or both would have eventually come into conflict with the US due to any interests of one or more of the parties.

I disagree. The US took the political stance as being neutral to appease the citizens, the population was for isolationism, while simultaneously changing imports/exports to drive the Japanese to attack us. The political elite wanted war, we were doing everything against the Japanese to start a war other than declare war. We put in place an oil embargo against the Japanese which forced them to attack, they knew with this embargo we were acting against our neutral stance and therefore wanted to destroy any chance of us joining the war, at least within a reasonable timeframe. Which is why they sunk our fleet at Pearl Harbor. The Japanese underestimated our ability to produce warships as well as the timeline we were able to enter the war.

"I suspect that if USA never joined the war, it would actually be better off today economically, since WW2 would have proceeded regardless."

Let me emphatically state that I am very much against waging war.

With that out of the way, I must point out that the position the United States carved out for itself at the conclusion of WWII was such that it enjoyed absolutely unprecedented levels of autonomy and control over, basically, the entire world.

It's really quite unbelievable how much of the worlds political and economic institutions were aligned directly with the interests of the US. Without question the economic benefits of that alignment are far and away beyond any possible position we could have had after not participating.