The Sucker Complex
itsjoeco.substack.com
itsjoeco.substack.com
Absolutely. Thank you for hitting the nail on the head!
Problem is, the looting can only last so long, until everything has been looted.
I suspect not much longer; if you put some of your wealth someplace undebase-able (say, gold or crypto), there is a chance you will make it to the other side.
See also Atlas Shrugged, where the producers keeping the world afloat ("Atlas") decide to go on strike and hide due to populist politics bleeding them dry of their hard work ("shrugged").
Cryptocurrency is maturing, and that might mean we will see less volatility.
https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/volatility-index/
And gold has also fallen 40% from $1825 in Aug 2011 to $1061 in Nov 2015.
https://www.macrotrends.net/1333/historical-gold-prices-100-...
Crypto currencies are bound to a functioning infrastructure and can be unpredictably volatile. Gold is no currency at all in the sense of a common trade value and this is the essence of it all. No, actually its labor. Labor is the only kind of value and any "worth" (eg money) has to be translatable to that. Crypto and gold is not.
What I mean here concretely is failure/bankruptcy of the current system after people get fed up, and re-emergence/prioritization of institutions of justice and rule of law.
This may be just a dream however. Don't hold your breath.
> Gold is no currency at all in the sense of a common trade value
I don't mind it not being a commonly transacted medium if I can buy and sell it without a lot of fees. For my purposes, even cheap good cars or real estate constitute a store of value, albeit less liquid ones.
> Labor is the only kind of value and any "worth"
Value is in the eye of the beholder. If I value my productivity less than you do yours, I might not accept payment in work.
This is a common true-ish sentence but too vague and in fact inadequate in this topic. The problem lies in how value is measured and this is imo the root of nowadays turmoil.
Ultimately valuable is, what satisfies essential needs (food, shelter, clothing, meds, etc), this is the bottom line. Gold is worthless on its own. Every society revolves around these needs and if not, that society may not last any longer. Only labor provides those values and thus sustains a society but not all members profit from it, "measured", the same way. Income from capital extracts out from labor value. The poor get poorer, while the rich get lazier.
I assume your plan with crypto/gold is to dodge a financial crisis but why should a future society respect the profiteers of the exploitative former? Maybe invest in something that enables labor, eg. land.
People have always had differing values, this is nothing new. When people believe that only x is ultimately valuable, and y is not, It allows for people who understand that people have always valued things differently to exploit that for their own gain.
The people who understand that not all food, all shelter, all clothing, all meds, all land, all x is valued by everyone the same will forever have the upper hand against those who are ultimately convinced of the absoluteness of their values.
crypto and gold can be exchanged for labor products in much the same way that other wealth can be (a house, stocks, bonds) — by first being exchanged for money. what do you mean when you say these things aren’t “translatable” into labor?
If only there was some kind of marketplace where you could make incredible amounts of money with your 100% certain understanding of the future, this would be incredibly useful knowledge!
Alas, it doesn't exist and all there is to do is impotently yell at other people on the internet that they are wrong.
>Labor is the only kind of value
I wonder if we took a survey of professional economists how many would agree with this statement. I'm going to say less then 1%.
For the record: in Antiquity, Atlas doesn't hold the world, but the sky.
See https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2017/02/09/misunderstood-m...
And the former aristocrat from Tsarist Russia shrugged, went to America and made mediocre literature and a widely discredited philosophy.
She’s had a profound positive impact on America, sent countless young men and women into entrepreneurship and wealth creation.
If we had Ayn Rands today, we’d have discontent youth building alternatives instead of throwing tantrums and destroying.
Could entrepeneurs and business leaders be susceptible to mediocre literature and terrible philosophies/ideologies? (Surely not…)
[citation needed]
Can’t debase something that has no base.
Crypto has upper limit on supply (usually) but but no lower limit on demand. It can go to zero tomorrow based on feelings.
Personally, I’m of the view it’s a bad idea to spend time documenting in detail how “our tribes have failed to unite, and it is your tribe’s fault”. It implies a lot of pride, and a willingness to turn a blind eye to all sorts of bad behaviour.
I mean, if you just want to criticise a politician or individual you don’t like - fair enough. You should feel free to make a point how you like. No one should be expected to be pain-stakingly fair in every post or comment.
But if you want a grand narrative that includes, say, 10 examples of bad behaviour, demonstrate some thinking has taken place. Include 2 or 3 examples from whoever you consider to be your tribe. Don’t act like all the problems are other people.
What position of power are looters in?
That was another lie the author hoped to slip through.
Well yes, and that is what is corrupt. Neither son of the Vice President nor son of the President should be a position of power, but they have in fact proved to be so.
Where is the outrage over the Trump administration's rollback of consumer protection regulations that protect students from shady practices by for-profit colleges? Students are promised significant income growth, but are actually roped into poorly staffed courses, significant debt, and questionable career advancement.
Instead, the author bangs on about eviction protection for people laid off during the pandemic.
The author bemoans '90% of all charges against rioters and looters' being dropped in the aftermath of the George Floyd protests, but links to a news article that only indicates that approximately 90% of all protest related charges were dropped across several jurisdictions. The vast majority of protestors were not engaged in looting or violent acts that would amount to rioting.
However, the author curiously ignores the fact that the vast majority of people that stormed the Capitol building in the hope of preventing the peaceful transfer of power managed to get off with misdemeanours.
Not even to mention that the former President's one-time Svengali, Steve Bannon, suckered Trump's own supporters out of 5 million dollars that he had pledged to use to construct a wall to keep out Mexicans; only to be pardoned for his troubles.
I think it's fair to say that political affiliation coloured this article.
Were there any errors of fact in what I said? Or did you take issue with my analysis of those facts?
Do you think degree mills provide a net public good?
Was everybody arrested for protesting after the death of George Floyd actually involved in rioting and looting?
Do you believe the incursion into the Capitol Building was performed by Antifa?
Was Steve Bannon not convicted of wire fraud and money laundering?
That said, I didn’t have any significant issue with the takeaways in the article and don’t expect every instance of the phenomenon described to make the list.
The lazy response is to say that lawful business is within the rules of our society. But that only worked when there was still a social check on the specifics of business activities, and the amount of meta activity was small. Once accumulation of money became the success metric itself, it ceased to be useful one. And at this point we're long past it - the hard truth is that empty fraudsters like Michael Milken, Bernie Madoff, and Donald Trump aren't crass deviant outliers but rather the bedrock of our mainstream culture.
The article even uncritically throws out at the end "This only gets worse if we do something crazy like forgive massive amounts of debt, whether it’s student or mortgage", while completely ignoring what happened in 2008! 2008 wasn't straight "forgiveness" per se because the "loans were repaid" (this is likely what keeps the author's cognitive dissonance intact), but artificially low interest loans to prop up investment banks that would have otherwise gone bankrupt is a morally-bankrupt giveaway larger than any "student loan forgiveness" or "flash mob looting" could ever be. Especially considering that if anyone is able to model their future financial position, it should have been investment banks! But as usual, it's the kids^h^h^h^hplebs who are wrong.
Now I personally am still a believer in market economies, and I generally think that looking to the government to supply many services is essentially giving up. But I also believe it is horribly dishonest to advocate this position without continually acknowledging how much the government has wantonly distorted the "economy" for many decades (at least since getting off the gold standard), essentially making Wall Street an insider-benefiting Potemkin Village. At this point anybody talking about needing to respect "the market" while not directing that focus onto government monetary policy (hello no-debate little-media-coverage multi-trillion-dollar March 2020 stonk market bailout with commercial bond buying continuing to this day) or regulatory givewaway to big business, is themselves part of this problem right alongside "Pelosi".
Totally lost me in the last paragraph.
Can't everyone agree that these role models already exist? They're just hard to name because they don't do anything outrageous to steal our attention. The problem isn't that we don't know how to act properly -- the problem isn't that we need role models. The problem is that there's no reason to follow their lead.
The solution is nothing short of punishment of these people and enforcement of the law. The problem is the bad people.
> one that is guilty of malfeasance
“Malfeasor” is not listed.
I have yet to meet a completely good or completely bad person. Most people I’ve ever met are both at different times and in different situations. Is a single mother stealing baby formula to feed her child a bad person? An addict breaking into cars to feed an addiction?
People in desperate situations do desperate things, and I think we can all agree that the legal system is applied rather unevenly to those without the resources to appear sympathetic in court (who also tend to be more desperate than the average person). We effectively criminalize being poor, so I’m not sure more criminal laws or more police will help that problem.
However, it seems your point us that you fundamentally agree with OPs central thesis, but that you can’t believe someone politically aligned differently than you can have possibly made that argument.
Does Trumps pushing of executive privilege and his profits on his hotels touch the type of corruption that Clinton represents in this email? https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12659
My vote in 2016 was a single-issue vote against involvement in a war in Syria. I feel totally vindicated 5 years later. If being antiwar is bad, I don’t want to be right.
The Pauls have fallen meekly in line behind Trump, like all their, er, colleagues.
Be it January 6th or the riots and looting we have seen for the past two years. Both sides have figures in their parties that are advocating for this madness and normalizing it.
I am a bit of a patriot who is pretty intent on leaving the world better than how I found it. I help people. I try to set good examples. This whole behavior of the right and left has left me thinking they are both morally bankrupt.
I disagree with the article. I do not feel like a sucker. I just feel all of this extremism is really sad and depressing.
John Lewis's "good trouble"
and
"If we don't get (X), then we need to burn it down!"
and
Also the bizarre stuff where jurors in the Rittenhouse trial were being stalked by an NBC journalist who claimed he was illegally stalking the jurors under company orders (NBC then lawyered up and denies this).
All three of these instances were widely reported at the time and I remember them. They all reak of an authoritarian willingness to trample our traditions and rule of law.
> On the morning of Aug. 25, national correspondent Omar Jimenez was reporting live on a second night of unrest that had followed the police shooting of Jacob Blake. As Jimenez stood in front of a raging fire, the chyron at the bottom of the screen read, "FIERY BUT MOSTLY PEACEFUL PROTESTS AFTER POLICE SHOOTING."
Tribalism allows such outrages to be celebrated. I guarantee there are tribalists here now who are comfortable rationalizing and excusing the violence, looting, arson, terrorism and trespass.
First, they ignore you ...
My way of handling it is to not participate and to set a better example for good citizens to follow.
When (X) became part of the internet hate machine last year, I put a filter on my home networks and self hosted search engines that essentially erased their partisan poison from existence.
Using the internet should feel like visiting a library. It shouldn't be an endless firehose of advertisement and partisan hatred.
It isn't enough to see the flaws of one side, you need to step back and see the whole picture. Both sides are frothing at the mouth for their brand of authoritarianism.
If you really did that then I tip my hat to you, that is a boss move!
> Using the internet should feel like visiting a library. It shouldn't be an endless firehose of advertisement and partisan hatred.
Ideally, but that's not possible in the world we live in. I am cynical about the hatred and the editorial spin applied to the propaganda that masquerades as news.
In my mind, everyone in media is a paid actor trying to push some agenda and are otherwise empty suits.
If our culture, money, and institutions are based on trust, then the last 5 years of media have run that trust out to the bitter end. The trust is reduced to the notion that "they wouldn't do that". 'That' being egregious awful things. Once 'that' becomes actual in the majority of minds, we're sunk.
Context:
I am essentially making a hobby of rebuilding my family's filtered version of the internet, leveraging the same powers as the tech giants.
With my setup, instead of promoting partisan hate, the front ends for search and internet access in my home send us in the direction of improving our focus, improving our connection with our own cultural history, and promoting content that reminds us of the great scientists and inventors that made our world possible...
Why expose my children to content that tells them to hate themself or others? Why expose them to areas of the internet full of foreign disinfo agents and their useful idiots? How about give them the experience I had in the 1990s... Freedom from the noise.
Would be a nice little business if you could publish a domain or subsite blacklist that I could subscribe to and somehow plug into my kids' and my browsers to add at least a little friction to their browsing. I'm of the same mind as you, I think, in that you shouldn't allow negativity and hate into your brain or else it will take over. You are taking it to another level by promoting human advancements and nobility.
The 90's internet was special, I agree.
The clear intent from the author here is to make the reader feel like they too should have gone looting. This implies, to me, that the author perhaps doesn't have a particularly strong moral compass of their own because my honest answer is:
"My cousin is incredibly stupid and lucky that they got away with this, I'm glad I didn't join them because even getting away with it I would hate myself. I'm concerned my cousin thinks this behaviour is ok, think it's time to dial back the contact with them"
I absolutely don't feel: damn I should have gone looting too.
maybe
"I'm concerned my cousin thinks this behaviour is ok, think it's time to consider what the relationship is worth to me, and if its important, attempt to influence better behaviors otherwise dial back contact with them"
instead
IDK, I would say that the intent of this kind of writing it so make the reader feel a kind of "righteous anger" response; you know the visceral kind that damps down on slow rational analysis of the argument presented. Propagandising.
This is a really uncharitable interpretation.
See [1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/01/28/report-transparency-int...
Also, it might be hard for them to mention the strongest examples of brazen corruption in leadership without being accused of being political, so I don't blame the author for using the even-handed examples drawn from all quarters -- which does make it easier to characterize as cherry-picked noise -- when the thesis of the article is that leadership, a necessarily tiny fraction of the 1% in the public spotlight, are growing increasingly shameless.
But the author well could have mentioned certain boundary-pushing, prosecution-taunting illegality by political actors in the United States, including actions rescued only by equally brazen presidential pardons -- actions in the public sphere that are almost without precedent.
Those kinds of actions, so few in terms of data points, could be characterized as 'noise' for their rareness, but the author's thesis (which seems sufficiently plausible not to be discounted out of hand) is that extremely brazen action by different kinds of leadership are at least leading indicators of institutional inability to deal with corruption and wrongdoing, preceding spillover into society at large -- and that maybe, due to the outsized impact that leaders have on society, those actions have an element of influence or causation.
Well, a thesis like that doesn't, to me, mark the author as being morally dubious himself for having it.
If a society is getting more corrupt, over the short-term, (see [1] for proof that at least some well-informed people think this one is), then an increasing number of individual members of society will be corrupted.
The author simply draws an obvious corollary that we may not have considered: hey, reader -- we are among those members of society. We should assume that we can, and will, be influenced if corruption increases, or if we're exposed to very public and visible examples of it.
That may be uncomfortable to consider, but I'm glad the author helped us consider it. Is it really only other people, other people's children and families, who are corrupted if they live and grow in a society in which corruption is on the rise?
(It's clearly an opinion piece, and I'm not sure how HN-ish it is, but it doesn't seem like a particularly trashy one to me)
This dude had to cherry pick harder than an industrial farm machine so that he could all but ignore the elephants in the room.
As we can see from the title, what matters is not the actual stats, but what people perceive. So if the system works silently and fails loudly, people are going to think it is more broken than it actually is.
That fact doesn't somehow make the author wrong. People don't check the rigorous studies of corruption to decide whether or not they should feel like a sucker.
What he's saying is we have established rules that are there to protect a sometimes vague notion of fairness, and when people break the rules or enter a grey zone without punishment, it seems to move the line of what is acceptable, in a way that makes fools of people who thought they understood the rules.
I have a lot of sympathy for his ideas. All those examples are corrosive, and I've been around a few people on the same fringes. Ultimately bad behaviour will push out for behaviour, because it's a lot easier to get money and status that way.
Exactly this. A system that incentivizes bad behavior and fails to protect/reward moral people exerts pressure on those with good morals.
Morals may stop you from repeating such behavior at first, but if it becomes a key to getting ahead then you can bet those morals will be slowly chipped away.
When you know who you are, and are confident in your values, then no amount of pressure from the outside world can make you bend a knee.
That's not to say I'm there yet. I'm still a wishy-washy moral and ideological coward, but I'm slowly building my foundation through good role models (mainly old books from Russia).
The Russian monks are one example of moral fortitude. Whether or not their morals are agreeable, they certainly are unwavering.
Another would be Diogenes.
You should read about the Asch experiments. Unfortunately the majority of people are very likely to succumb to social pressure and to conform.
Perhaps replicating the experiment with adults in the 40+ age bracket would yield different results.
I would also like to see this experiment replicated in different countries. The cultural aspect of moral strength cannot be stressed enough (itself a form of peer pressure). But at that point, should we differentiate between morality achieved through individual action vs. morality achieved through one's environment?
However, there were a few notable "malcontents" that went against this grain, in spite of the zeitgeist of their time, and the workings of the people around them.
Reading through old non-fiction accounts by Soviet dissidents (mostly lambasting their society), I cannot help but feel there are parallels between their struggle, and ours.
I don't have the temperament for it; and just like you I can live my life to the best of my ability, winging it with the best of intentions.
However, after seeing how there are others out there who "push the envelope," and go far and beyond this, I cannot stop myself from feeling emulous.
Works great if you find this magic perfection. But in all likelihood you will not. You will be shaped by the biases of your upbringing and experiences that will put blinders on you. More so you will stick to your convictions with the justification of morality on your side, even when that is not the case.
That everything is essentially predetermined by my genetics, and how my environment has affected their expression; and that my free will and choices are just an elaborate illusion played by my biology.
But something in my biology is telling me to strive for something more.
But I think the combination of a social environment where none of your peers have that thought, and being too young/not trained to think critically results in large groups of people just following their animalistic instincts.
This little phrase touches on the mismatch between your view and the article. What Joe is arguing is that if people get repeated evidence that it isn't luck, that it is a routine occurrence, then they will shift their view.
At some point, if you see stuff like that happen a few times, you'll have your faith that it is stupid tested. There isn't a natural - or even moral - law saying people can't loot. It all comes down to social standards and law. A society that allows looting is pretty stupid though, it is really destructive.
He is complaining that the absence of the application of the rule of law leads very easily to the elimination of society, because lots of people do not wish to just be suckers.
It is hard to be a sucker.
In year 7 of the company we got pinged for a random HMRC PAYE audit, we passed (with a couple of minor infractions that we simply didnt realise about - like buying bacon sandwiches for your staff every Friday is actually taxable) but it was still pretty stressful. If we had done half the stuff people had suggested we do because “everyone does it” we would have had a much worse time in that audit.
Yeh I have self employed friends and other directors who may or may not be as buttoned down as they should be and I’m sure they will be fine but I’m not wired that way and it’s treated me pretty well in life so far.
I hear from many people that my opinion of them matters to them a lot, that they follow my lead, that they loved working for me, that they think “what would Simon do here?” which is worth way more to me than skirting some rules for an advantage at the cost of my credibility, integrity and self respect.
you have to mentally remove this paragraph from your story. the scenario is that there are zero repercussions for failing the audit. you might think that it’s irrelevant to you, but the fact you bring it up shows it had at least some impact on you. maybe not enough to impact your actions today, but there’s a large spectrum here where the difference between enforcement or no enforcement is significant enough to impact the behavior of a slightly different person or of your own behavior in a slightly different scenario.
If let's say, you are an employee of a company in a not-so-ethical market, and everybody around you acts unethically, then you have no way of playing against the market: you will either be fired for not doing your job, or you could call everyone on it, but no one will help you.
There's the other point to be made: if everyone around you acts unethically, then maybe it's your standards that are too high? Or maybe you are just delusional in your thinking about what "ethical" actually means.
That isn't right, but it is a feeling. It's a feeling I dismiss. But, still, if it's a feeling I feel then I imagine it's a feeling others feel and I imagine that not everybody dismisses it either.
Corruption of that kind happens very, very slowly.
Yeah, that was my takeaway too. I have never watched looters on TV and wished I were there with them looting.
Serial rapist, murderer never caught? Does not make me think, hmmm, why not me?
The whole article is kind of creepy.
You've never seen some slimey techbro that knows 10% of what you do technically go on to make million on a more or less worthless app/product/etc? Knowing that what they sold was basically snake oil and now they will never have to work again while you trudge along for the rest of your life "doing the right thing"?
If so, you are basically a saint if you have not considered the grifter path.
Or whatever similar situation applies to you. I doubt you are the type who would benefit greatly in social status by having a bunch of new sneakers like the example was.
The point of the article is we're making grifting more profitable than honest work, and this is a pattern I've been noticing for since I've been alive. Strange only now folks seem to be noticing.
The other point you made was "fear of getting caught" which is simply not a part of the calculation for many in some cities any longer. This part is rapidly eroding into a joke in many communities, and lets just say most do not share your moral and ethical compass but do (so far) share a fear of getting caught.
Then it is the norm.
The author, I read, has more of a commentary than an argument.
If it's a commentary, then discussion stops there because it's preloaded with bias.
If it's meta, then we're working with inflammatory language like "sucker" which ignores the moral nuance of the subject matter.
The... "looting" that the author is referring to is equivalent to bumping a car when trying to parallel park.
I'm really trying to wrap my head around your comment.
It's like:
1. Something might happen. The outcome could be good or bad.
2. You wait for the outcome.
3. If it's good, you won! If it's bad, you lost. Depending purely on the outcome, you feel good or bad.
Whereas a more engineer-y way to view things is:
1. Something might happen. The outcome could be good or bad.
2. You base your decision - you choose it in advance - based on the odds of the outcome.
3. It's too strong to say "the outcome doesn't matter," but assuming you calculated the odds correctly, there's no regret: the right choice according to the odds is the right choice, period.
I'll say this: Even if I was a criminal, I would never choose to do something where I got arrested, on the slim chance that the charges would be dropped or expunged.
So in this example - even if I was a professional bad guy! - I would still tell my cousin he made the wrong choice. He chose very poor odds in doing something that got him arrested, and the fact that he came out ahead this one time doesn't change that.
Yes, that's the worst thing Trump got away with, sarcasm off.
How these obvious Trumpists make it to the top of Hackernews shows once again that the nerds really aren't alright anymore.
I don’t watch Fox News, so I have no idea what they say about her. I do know that when I read what she actually writes she sounds like a disingenuous liar.
As a point of calibration, if I were to point out that she cynically lied about her Native American heritage, would you also respond by telling me that’s a Fox News talking point? Because, again, while I can imagine what Fox News has to say about it, I know better what I am able to conclude all on my own.
Now, look, it’s tantamount to a schoolyard spat. I’m not saying it needs to mean anything more than that. But evaluating it as a spat, most people who read that exchange come away thinking he won it.
It’s called a zipper merge. Per the state of Minnesota, doing so
Reduces differences in speeds between two lanes Reduces the overall length of traffic backup by as much as 40 percent Reduces congestion on freeway interchanges Creates a sense of fairness and equity that all lanes are moving at the same rate
And I’m also pretty sure he means when there’s one exit lane that’s really backed up and somebody in the non-exiting lane next to it that’s not backed up drives right up to the last minute and merges in, thereby “cutting the line”.
Not the same thing IMO, although I am very frequently guilty of the latter!
If I see that happening a few times, what I'll do is move along in sync with the other lane leaving space ahead of me where the lane ends.
Yep.
First, this entry tries to conflate student loan forgiveness with a potpourri of ethical issues. It is not similar to the other examples.
It is reasonable to question the structure of US policy toward student loan programs. They are predatory compared with those of other nations.
If the US comes to terms with this problem, and major restructuring is done, is debt forgiveness on loans that are no longer even possible to get some massive psychological burden?
It seems more like sour grapes of having to run your own loans through bad policy.
The psychological fallout will be immense if an entire generation who have had their lives destroyed by and are still on the hook for these loans sees everyone else go to school for free, relatively or in fact.
Nonetheless, skimming the Wikipedia article, seems the G.I. Bill may have greatly benefited the country.
> Sadly I had to pay my own way through college
Without qualifiers, there’s nothing inherently wrong with this. It becomes wrong when “pay my own way” means “convinced when I was still a child by all the adults around me to take out a predatory loan I have no hope of ever repaying.”
Hyperbole to sell austerity
I do think you have a case to feel aggrieved, but at the end of the day you can choose to be someone who lives up to your standards or not. Getting upset about it is as much a choice as anything else you do.
In the Newsom case, his opponent was someone claiming it was all a bunch of nonsense and if elected he'd do away with all restrictions immediately, so not a very strong vote for the person who's upset that he didn't take the whole thing seriously enough.
I would guess many voters don't want to vote for someone they saw as a lunatic, even if he acts in a way that's very consistent with his own beliefs. Exit polling showed coronavirus was a big issue for voters and they didn’t think Newsom went far enough.
Using an example from a commentor above, the woman who steals baby formula so her child can survive. My philosophy can hold the idea that stealing is wrong but that it is justified if a life will be lost due to the failings of the wealthy and greater society to have put that person in that difficult situation.
That's not hypocritical, that is a philosophy that allows for nuance.
Good article, but not sure about this conclusion.
You don't need a few role model, you just need rules that applies to everyone, ref: Singapore. Nobody has a moral compass? No problem, just pretend you have one while there, or else.
There's often good intentions behind these things, but the argument made here is, I think, an important one to think about.
This wouldn't be a large issue if nobody had known - even if the state had overpaid by half a billion, that's not even a day's worth of money. However, since it came out, there has been a massive loss of trust in politicians and public institutions. Those who doubted before now saw proof that it's all just a scheme, and others just lost a lot of trust.
We'll have to see whether anything happens beyond the accused promising to donate the proceeds, but I'm not holding my breath.
the examples he gives are weak. For example, Trump's hotels saw an increase in business after he became president. Is this a surprise or a bad thing, given all the media coverage he got? Of all the things we can fault trump on, is this the most damning, which was not even under his control?
Seriously, what type of person is willing to run for office under these expectations? I don’t see a long line of Mother Theresa’s seeking office. People willing to accept the conditions of running for office are most likely so desperate for power that they are willing to do anything like upend their financial lives and submit to invasive and potentially embarrassing scrutiny. Are these the type of people we want to lead a country?
Why would you want to hide the corruption of the system to maintain it? Isn't that corrupt in itself?
I have this vague notion that this was less of a problem 30-50 years ago and people would be punished or more against doing this kind of thing just by way of culture and ethics, but I can't verify if that's true or not, or just the sense you get from movies and tv. I feel like every time people got away with things, the entire society slipped a bit and little by little it eventually eroded to where we are today, where it feels like we are hitting that exponential growth on the curve for societal shittiness.
There always seemed to be a notion of "that person can't do that and get away with it, it'll be all over the news" and that would ruin them or get them punished, but it feels like the last few years people have just called the bluff on that and taken it to it's extreme conclusion and can get away with saying or doing anything and it doesn't matter if it's reported on, people will just go "I can't believe they said or did that" and nothing happens or changes (It just got normalized). The smart cheaters took this as an invitation to get away with things more frequently and openly now realizing there are very few repercussions. The only punishment seems to be for a small scale person or business that's really only serving a local community. I guess there is no larger sense of community anymore?
Do role models exist or have any power to inspire or do they have to become something they aren't just so they can be big enough to be seen for their message? Perhaps in a world where there were only like 30-100 tv channels and no YouTube and shitty internet it was easier because there was really only so few options of who you get to see and they were more curated, but now anyone can be seen and the algorithms will just optimize you into something you maybe curiously or accidentally clicked on and take you into (and trap you in) your own tribe, healthy or not. It just feels like there is no way to dig society out of it's direction as all the holdouts will eventually give in or their children will. Why is every future sci-fi dystopian pretty much? You take today to it's logical conclusion.
Just an alternative theory.
the third option: broadly exposed, and also condemned. there’s no reason that increased exposure has to decrease condemnation. in many cases, it transforms condemnation into a more insightful view: as society has had increasingly honest views into addiction, we understand it better and are able to replace the “addicts are bad people” myth with a proper understanding of behavior and human psychology. every person knows that they’re taking a risk when using oxycontin for an extended period of time and can take the necessary precautions as a result. this wasn’t true when we covered the whole complex truth with a blanket. the blanket only ever slowed us down in our effort to understand and address the real problems.
We get that things aren't perfect, but being afraid helps nobody.
It's fine to vent to the world, but I think the "publish" button can wait.
The most recent phenomenon of this kind I can recall was people lying to vaccination centers about having medical conditions that would help them skip the line ahead of everybody else. I was and still am vehemently opposed to lying about that, despite having been told numerous times that the government would have just thrown the doses away if nobody used them up by lying about their status. Again, you were made to feel a sucker.
No different in most first world countries
Not nearly as radicalising as a debt-laden permanent underclass.
And this just assumes debt comes from living beyond one's means, ignoring complexities like historical or systemic unfairness in how it's sometimes created and inherited. Investing in education to escape debt cycle is good for people and economies. It's so often subsidised because it generally pays for itself many times over. But when it doesn't, allowing it to deepen the cycle just keeps people in debt and suppresses economic growth.
The productive carrying the less productive is an ancient problem. They usually feel like suckers until they learn it's for the good of the society that sustains them.
But risk externality is a good point. Maybe one that needs addressing with a return to reasonable regulation, reigning in speculation/predatory lending, Glass-Steagall etc.
Chris Christie Closed New Jersey's State Beaches — And Then Went To The Beach
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/07/03/535335917...
I think the layer that gets left out is the abuse of power in these situations. If someone is unable to pay their rent and they get public assistance, I don't think that's getting off with bad behavior; that's a policy decision put into effect. If Nancy Pelosi is benefitting from insider trading because of her ability to steer and change governmental policy, that is abuse.
It sounds like I'm being picky about the examples here, but I think the part that rang the most true was about holding people in the positions of leadership responsible, much like the author's Navy Seal friend telling his AOIC's to lead by example. If the people in charge get away with something, and I'm way less publicly visible than they are, what's to stop me from trying?
Jimmy Carter was a good president in an unfavorable period.
Doesn't the fact he was convicted and received widespread ridicule everywhere disprove the author's point.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/26/arts/television/jussie-sm...
This is a bit institutionalized, for example, with housing prices. Anecdotally, I know people who make great salaries but can't manage to save up for a place close to work. I was part of that for years until my bitcoin investment solved that problem quick.
The point is that if anything is a moral hazard that encourages avoiding being a sucker, it's this.
* I don't have clear examples
The darker spin is that there are now mortals and gods, and us mortals should be content with our lot and not look up at Olympus even as they cheat and loot us. Corruption, inequality, moral decay.. which one comes first?
My answer is to be the change you wish to see in the world, which will of course be quickly dismissed as cliche or moralizing. But hey it feels better than calling myself a sucker and joining the looters.
As an example, Americans are hostages to your incredibly inefficient health care system. Not only is reasonable discussion of public health outside your overton window, the reason it stays outside is the instant clamour of voices saying "free stuff is bad and you are bad for advocating it".
The only way to get access to reasonable care seems to be either military service or full employment. The rest of the world is incredulous that losing your job means losing access to healthcare.
That truly strange conception of "freedom" americans are always so afraid of losing is a massive illusion for the majority of a population deathly afraid of the financial ramifications of a health crisis.
Yet you have no functional way of talking about it, because of the sleight of hand discourse exemplified by the article.
I truly feel sorry for americans at this point.
Just because welfare cheats exist doesn't make welfare bad. The vast majority of recipients were worthy.
We also need to get rid of the outrage culture that prevents the smooth process of law and order.
In corrupted countries such people are getting killed.
The first example given is about Hunter Biden selling art. So he's not an artist, he's the son of the sitting president, and he manages to sell things for a good price, that mainstream critics don't find interesting or beautiful ("widely panned art show")... Good for him!
Yes, it's quite obvious that some of the buyers are trying to get political favors; but that doesn't mean they will get them! The author just sounds envious.
Corruption isn't only about who avoids punishment, but also who is the target of punishment. In highly corrupt environments you will often find complex and often contradictory rules, that produce a default state of guilt. The only way to avoid punishment is to participate in the corruption.
You're being naive. Nobody is buying the art, people are buying influence and laundering money. The man isn't selling art, the man is selling influence, and potentially other things. He splashes paint on a canvas to legitimize it for the accountant.
I don't think the point is that the US should jail more people, I think the point is that when lots of people see others getting away with stuff, some of them start to try to do it too, and you have a snowballing societal collapse.
My driving instructor always told me to behave selfishly, because "courteous" driving (flashing lights, slowing down, waiting for someone to emerge etc) is unpredictable by comparison! Courteous driving becomes its own form of aggression when another driver misunderstands.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vavV0Q94MhA&ab_channel=TheDC...
From the article:
> My congressman, Tom Malinowski was actively trading stocks and options during the pandemic, shorting stocks and then not disclosing his trades by trade disclosure deadlines. He won his election in a squeaker and disclosed his trades shortly thereafter, but remains a congressman.
Amazing that he takes that list of bad behavior and concludes that “and that’s bad because it means that normal people will do much worse things”.
Well at least normal people can’t do things like start wars.
This is grotesque. There's a pandemic on. Many people had their industries destroyed. Of course they need a hand. While there are parts that are good points about the hypocrisy of power, this is childish.
> For a long time, people didn’t feel like suckers for acting ethically, they felt honorable.
> Some notable exceptions to this, and their starkness really highlights how rare these cases are:
> …
> All that is required to beat this, honestly, is a few people serving as positive role models with transparency and not abusing their authority.
Sure, he cites some examples (and there are many more) but in my experience people everywhere try to do the right thing (and if they didn’t, nothing would work, which most people understand intuitively). And I say this having lived not just in wealthy countries but poor ones too (I’m an old fart).
Also, his examples are dubious: “flash mobs killing people”, really?
If it’s bad news it’s news (maybe I should learn about a possible threat). If it’s routine good news it’s not newsworthy. The author should put down the remote and go outside.