Hacker News Reader

Comment by dokein | Hacker News Reader

After reading the original article linked within the slate re-reporting bullshit:

It’s a sad indictment of Tom and Kate, not capitalism. They both make decent money — significantly more than their parents. They both have graduate level education.

I get that humans do not make perfect decisions and there are systems controls that are needed to counteract predatory behavior. But this particular story is Tom and Kate’s failure alone. The slate title is the same “we are all victims” bullshit that seems particularly present in the media these days.

View on HN

Sorry, no, I don't think so. Not when you place people within an economic system/environment that's designed to take advantage of their natural weaknesses. Yes, if Tom and Kate had been smarter and/or more disciplined they would have been okay. But it's not reasonable to expect the majority of people to be able to outsmart the system, when the system is designed to outsmart the average person.

This is more or less the topic of Robert Shiller's excellent "Phishing for Phools": https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2015/09/17/you-have... These sorts of deceptions are endemic to a capitalist system, need to be curbed somehow or things will go off the rails, as they pretty much have in U.S. economy.

In many other eras these two would be dead. Can you imagine a couple farmers in the 1200s with planning this shitty?

Instead, modern society has provided Tom and Kate with stable upbringings, solid graduate-level education, good jobs, readily accessible resources, and even a mini bail-out of their own.

I get that this is an outlier case, and am not arguing that this story supports libertarianism. But surely this story is not by itself an argument AGAINST capitalism.

If Tom and Kate can’t be expected to exercise even a modicum of agency and self-control, then most people are just automatons in dire need of a nanny state ruled by a philosopher-king.

I didn't suppose you were arguing for libertarianism; why would you suppose I was arguing for a "nanny state ruled by a philosopher king"? I would say that the story of Tom and Kate (taken together with millions of similar, if less extreme stories, as well as, e.g., many other different types of exploitation described in Shiller's book) _does_ stand as an argument against unrestrained, laissez faire capitalism.

The fact is that unrestrained capitalism breeds opportunities for businesses that tend to exploit people's natural foibles. There are ways to prevent this (e.g., intelligent regulation) within the capitalist system. See, e.g., Shiller's book.

> ...it's not reasonable to expect the majority of people to be able to outsmart the system...

"Our kids are used to sushi."

Their problem isn't being outsmarted by the system. Their problem is feeling entitled to a lifestyle they can't afford.

And where do you think this entitlement comes from? Not from a system that is designed to make them feel they have these kinds of entitlements?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com