Notes from Ha-Joon Chang’s Lecture at NYU | Hacker News Reader

Notes from Ha-Joon Chang’s Lecture at NYU

10tonfunk.tumblr.com

20 points3d3mon19 comments

For me the most insightful parts were the quotes about progress in developing countries.

> The reason this (entrepreneurship in developing countries) > doesn’t result in wealth is entrepreneurship is rarely an > individual event now, if it ever was. You need social > infrastructure; corporate, legal and financial systems.

I read this as saying that the whole system needs to change for development to really happen. Unfortunately, a number of rich and powerful vested interests, want to and are able to preserve the status quo quite successfully.

Oh yeah, I read the book. It is really insightful and interesting. After I finished it though, I decided to read something of the opposite point view, of the free-market economists (I would recommend "Economy In One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt). It's very simple to fall into the trap of "oh, this mans knows what he's talking about" unless you compare. Actually, the more you read, the less sure you are about things.

For example, Hazlitt shows how inflation, even if not too high, is harmful for the economy and basically his arguments did not seem weaker - which confuses me even more. One thing Ha-Joon Chang does really good when arguing is showing a lot of statistics. That is definitely a very strong point of this book which even the most ingenious free-market economists would find difficult to stand.

Can someone please explain to me why a site that is primarily preoccupied with entrepreneurship is filled with socialists? People start ventures to make money. To create disproportionate wealth. Are you people just compensating for your internal selfish desires that you can't come to terms with? Genuinely curious.

Having a healthy skepticism towards capitalism and the "free market" does not make you a socialist. I'm equally skeptical about rampant socialism. The answer is in the middle somewhere. An ideologically impure position perhaps, but a pragmatic one none the less.

Being an entrepreneur isn't incompatible with social capitalism. Just because you want to start a business and earn buckets of money yourself, doesn't mean that you must be against a social safety net. Why would it?

Being an entrepreneur isn't incompatible with social capitalism.

You're right, it isn't. And, of course, nothing is stopping a pacifist from joining the military. After all, he can get a desk job. What I want to know is why.

Certain personality types are attracted to specific ideologies and in turn, specific careers. Why is somebody who is fascinated with wealth redistribution and income equality spend his time on a site which is devoted to the exact opposite on a personal level?

Simply drawing a dividing line between society and the self is not an answer. Most people have a congruent perspective when it comes social policy and their personal policy.

Why are these people different?

My guess is that the people who frequent Hacker News are mostly not attached to one extreme ideology or the other. They like the creative freedom and empowerment that a capitalist society brings, but also the knowledge that if they fall on hard times then there is a safety net that keeps them off the streets. Remember, we can't all be winners all of the time, sometimes bad stuff happens to good people. Smart people know this.

Life isn't black and white and ideologies don't need to be either.

They like the creative freedom and empowerment that a capitalist society brings, but also the knowledge that if they fall on hard times then there is a safety net that keeps them off the streets. Remember, we can't all be winners all of the time, sometimes bad stuff happens to good people.

I understand now. That's the key.

Just my two cents, but it looks to me like there are two types of entrepreneurs. Those who believe in themselves completely and those who believe in luck to some extent.

If you believe in yourself completely, any failure stems from yourself and can be corrected. No need for a safety net, just correct the error and keep going.

Luck, on the other hand, is not something that can be controlled. It just happens or it doesn't, requiring a safety net in case it doesn't happen.

Makes sense to me now. Thank you.

"George W. Bush: “The problem with the French is they don’t have a word for entrepreneurship.”"

see: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/bush.asp

Things like this make me question the veracity of every other statement in the article.

It's not possible to deduce where this comes from:

a) the talk / book b) added by the blog author

On top of that, even if it was from talk, you don't know whether it was added in jest or in earnest..

oh man, i wish that George Bush quote were true.

This is a pathetic article and I'm ashamed to see it on a news site I respect. This leftist ideology is HN's Achilles heel.

My leftist friends think I am a hardcore capitalist. My rightist friends think I am an irrevocable socialist or communist. They don't put me in the middle ground.

Hackers like to point out the flaws in all kinds of systems. So be prepared to be ashamed at least some of the time. Some people just like to think about how to improve the systems.

The middle ground between right and wrong is wrong. Anyway, neither of those alternatives is right.

I like hackers who point out flaws in any system, but this article does not do that.

Just like communism, capitalism is mainly a lofty idea which breaks down as soon as it is confronted with reality. This is true for every sociological model, including capitalism. Just like "real socialism" there is the de facto "real capitalism" which clashes with the theoretical model proposed by the theoreticians and its proponents.

Communism is a terrible idea, not a lofty one. Capitalism is a lofty idea that is misunderstood both in theory and practice.

I didn't use "lofty" with a qualititative judgement about the morality of communism. "lofty" has a Germanic origin, "luft", which means "air". It can be used to describe idealistic but unrealistic endevaours or ideas. One man's idealist is another man's tyrant.

"Capitalism is a lofty idea that is misunderstood both in theory and practice." - what does that even mean? It definitely doesn't say much in my opinion.

Capitalism can be defined in many ways. If you attack capitalism you first have to define which definition of capitalism you mean.

Now, there certainly exists a public discourse about what capitalism is and means. Certain definitions are loudly being trumpeted from the roof tops. As someone with an advertisement background, I can assure you that the form of delivery and the presentation of a message usually clash with its intentended meaning. This is not about conspiracies, it's the modus operandi of people. How often are you truly open and honest in your daily interactions with other people? How often do you lie?

In this regard, a-Joon Chang’s talk would probably have been pretty interesting, because it seems to analyse certain assumptions and notions that inevitably come up when people talk about capitalism, especially in a western context.

A true believer in communism would also say that it is misunderstood in both theory and practice.

True, that guy is so far out. The poor aren't responsible for production, they can afford more than a needle and a hammer.

When was the last time a poor person build a railroad, a factory or a library?

Edit: cleaned up.

Sarcasm is useless for real discussions; I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com