Hacker News Reader

> You could never get a Trump or an RFK Jr without these two things.

We've had many of these trust-destroying events in the past, before the Iraq war, but their effects were limited. What we didn't have back then, and what I'd argue brought us Trump and RFK Jr., was a world-wide information-distributing machine and a megaphone in every idiot's (and malevolent foreign actor's) pocket. We're here because anger, belligerence, conspiracies, distrust, hatred, and ignorance are being deliberately spread on Internet platforms by 1. adversaries motivated to destabilize the country and destroy its institutions, and 2. domestic idiots who help to spread it (and make a buck off of its popularity).

I used to think that "platforming everyone" was a noble goal, but we're seeing the results.

I think that's underselling the importance of massive media consolidation and deregulation since the Reagan years in bringing us to where we are today.

If we still had a half-dozen major largely reliable news outlets that may have had some political leanings, but could still be (hah) trusted to largely report truth, rather than crafting narratives to maximize profit, it would have been much harder for the lies to spread.

The myriad effects of deregulation and massive consolidation that have cascaded in the past ~40 years (fewer companies owned by wealthier people, the destruction of local news, the erosion of norms protecting journalistic integrity, etc) are, IMO, very clearly hugely to blame for the modern state of political discourse. I'm not saying the internet didn't have an effect—it could hardly fail to; it's an enormous change in our world overall—but I have a very hard time seeing it as being more detrimental than these changes in how media companies operate.

> If we still had a half-dozen major largely reliable news outlets that may have had some political leanings, but could still be (hah) trusted to largely report truth, rather than crafting narratives to maximize profit, it would have been much harder for the lies to spread.

I think the problem is that what you're describing is no longer a viable business model.

Back when there were only at most a half dozen or so news sources (newspapers and TV stations) in each major market, it didn't make sense for any one of those sources to lean hard left or right because that would only alienate a significant portion of the market.

Today, any given individual has access to thousands of different sources of "news", and everyone chooses to listen to only those sources that confirm their existing opinions. To me, that seems more than sufficient to explain a lot of things, including a lack of widespread agreement on basic facts.

Objective reality is frequently very nuanced, but nuance is a PITA when it comes to comprehension, so people tend to very much avoid it (knowingly or not).

“ The other was the 2008 bank bailouts. The problem isn’t that the state stepped in to avert a depression. The problem is that they did it by handing the very people who caused the crash a bonus and a promotion and then proceeded to reinflate the housing bubble to lock two generations out of home ownership”

What’s interesting about this telling of it is how it reinterprets history. You are complaining about a lack of trust based on, if not an outright lie, an extremely biased narrative. The most obvious missing piece is you don’t mention the auto makers or uaw workers at all. Or that you say “reinflate the housing bubble” instead of “subsidize mortgages on houses that should have been repossessed”. We forced banks that did have proper risk controls to take tarp funds and the attached compensation limits against their will and made money on many of the assets we bought with tarp funds.

There is a trust gap, but it’s not some one way problem of coastal elites selling fables to enrich themselves and the good proletariat being duped. It’s at least as much a story of the populace not using critical reasoning skills to understand multifaceted and nuanced issues, which I suspect is not new.

> subsidize mortgages on houses that should have been repossessed

But that's also not what happened.

What we did is buy back junk assets from banks to keep the banks from going under. The only way it really "subsidized" mortgages is in that it kept banks afloat which allowed them to keep issuing mortgage loans.

People, particularly people that fell for predatory lending, still lost their homes. The people that were mostly aided by the bailout were investors who bought snake oil mortgage backed securities which had fake credit ratings applied to them.

And the reason people take a dim view on this is because it really was only people with significant assets in the first place that saw a benefit from these government interventions. A direct result of the regulation was it became a lot harder for a few years to get a home loan unless you had significant assets behind you.

That's not to say some percentage of these interventions didn't help everyone. It's always messy. But it is saying that a lot of people would have been in a much better situation had the government, instead of bailing out the banks and investors, taken that same money and given it directly to the citizenry. Even the banks and investors would have ultimately been in a better position as people would have ultimately taken that money and spent it on things like their mortgages which they fell behind on.

There were specific mortgage subsidies as part of tarp. For instance the making homes affordable and hardest hit fund programs.

But beyond that if the mortgages had been sold at market prices many of them would have been snapped up by companies that aggressively went after the secured properties. That’s the _natural_ outcome of letting the market action happen. More people would have been put out of their homes.

I’m fairly ambivalent on tarp. I think letting actors take risky actions and get bailed out creates a moral hazard. But that applies to mortgage holders who were over extended and auto workers who get bailed out ahead of other stake holders too. I can see a strong argument that we should have biased that way, but to say we didn’t help “regular” people is just false narrative.

It's a biased narrative, but perception of truth is equivalent to truth when it comes to trust, and multiple factors make this narrative compelling than more nuanced ones

> You could never get a Trump or an RFK Jr without these two things.

Fully agree with the rest but not with this. Pure and simple economic devastation is enough - yes, the Iraq war did a number on y'all... but most countries in Europe didn't join in on that particular shitshow and still got our version of Trump.

Hell I'd say even the 2008 bank bailouts aren't the problem. The uber rich looting the country for all it's worth, that's been a staple of human society, it doesn't mean automated flip to fascism.

IMHO, the true problem rather is that we (i.e. Western countries) allowed unrestricted trade with Asia, in particular China and India - our greedy big corporations swooped in and moved a lot of economic activity providing decent paid jobs of all skill levels there. Production mostly went off to China, service (i.e. callcenters) to India, high-tech to South Korea and especially Taiwan. And there was nothing domestic, other than maybe be a drone in an Amazon warehouse or Walmart (that, in turn, destroyed even more decent paid jobs in small retail!), to provide alternative gainful employment.

That is what destroyed democracy the most - the devastation and the utter ignorance of politicians.

uhh I think various parts of Trump's presidency seem to be tantamount to those things. Jan 6, for instance.

The Jan 6 mob isn't a public institution that ever had any public trust to lose.

I am talking about Trump's handling of it. Both day of and subsequently (e.g. pardoning them because they're "his people.")

Not to mention public officials being fired due to calling it a "mob" as you just did.