5 ms·

This makes it clear why our current capitalism doesn't work. The ruling class / rich and wealth people and businesses could extract more wealth out of the midd

This makes it clear why our current capitalism doesn't work. The ruling class / rich and wealth people and businesses could extract more wealth out of the middle and lower classes than they do now, if the lower classes were more stable and secure. In the US especially, but nearly everywhere, there are hoards of people trying to lower or eliminate social services, basic science research, etc, with the dog-whistle claim that those things are not necessary and should not be provided by the state or using state funds. This line of thinking is extremely common in conservative circles, where they claim that societal prosperity would come from hurting the poor as much as possible in order to extract the greatest amount of wealth from them. But when you look at statistics like these, it is clear that there is no more wealth to be extracted from the lower classes - they are all just merely trying to survive. Provide UBI or something like it, along with all other things necessary for a strong social net, and watch the rich get even richer while the poor grow into a stronger middle class. It is especially confusing that this outcome seems to be hated by the rich, despite it certainly lifting their wealth. It makes me wonder if much of conservative policy is just as much about hating the poor as it is helping the rich - because conservative policies that hurt the poor are increasingly obviously hurting the rich. I just don't understand why it isn't taken for granted that we need a stable society to make more money over time. That seems clear to me. Many of those in poverty today are there because of the systematic oppression of the poor across America for the last many hundreds of years. Blaming them for it isn't going to help - they aren't even being provided basic education, as that is also being cut in many places in the USA (so how do you expect them to become financially aware, anyway, if they are not taught that growing up in school? Parents raising children in poverty are in no place to teach their own kids financial management skills). To lift people out of poverty we must change our attitudes towards class and capitalism and be more compassionate to create a more stable society.

matthewmacleod 8y ago
I’m not entirely sure why you’ve been downvoted, because this also seems intuitively obvious to me. A long-term stable society, with a controlled income and wealth gap, seems to be in the general long-term best interests of everybody, rich and poor alike.
- vkou 8y ago
  This is good for the rich in the long term (Because it avoids violent revolutions), but bad in the short term (What are the odds there's going to be a revolution next week? Pretty low!)
cabaalis 8y ago
I am and know many conservatives. I don't see any "poor hate," though I don't argue it doesn't exist. Rather, it seems conservatives get upset at the idea of an unlevel playing field, i.e. creating policies that favor one group over another. Well-intentioned as any given policy may be, we are opposed to crafting government rules or benefits that apply to one set of people and not another.
- MisterTea 8y ago
  > Well-intentioned as any given policy may be, we are opposed to crafting government rules or benefits that apply to one set of people and not another. Conservatives talk about poor people as if it's a permanent attribute that can't be changed like "race". Poor is a tangible attribute. The programs which you fear so much are there to help people change that attribute. But I get the feeling that many of the so-called conservatives use poor as a euphemism for undesirable people they don't want to see get ahead or mingle with. Why else would you refuse a helping hand to someone in need?
  - gremlinsinc 8y ago
    What I find ironic (as an exmormon/ex-christian now semi-agnostic person -- I still quasi believe there could be some sort of afterlife but the bible is dead to me.) is that those on the 'christian right' are more prone to push out the poor and neglect them those who are on the left more anxious to help and alleviate their pain points. -- I've known humanists, secular buddhists, atheists, and agnostics with bigger hearts and more care for the poor than the majority of God-fearing people regardless of faith. One reason I stopped believing is because of all the hypocrisy I'd hear. Go to church on Sunday, leaders of the church officially deny supporting a political agenda, then they go about instituting anti-gay propaganda and fighting against legalizing marriage, or legalizing medical marijuana. Heck the LDS church is trying to ban the ability to record someone (like a Bishop) without them knowing, because they're afraid of the backlash they themselves might have (and so far are having with recent events). Yet, I still admire Jesus and what he taught... the sad thing is.. there's no Jesus in most of America or they'd be fighting to cure the sick and the poor, they'd want universal healthcare and guaranteed basic income. Even Jesus forgave the Harlot and welcomed her at his table, so why not forgive the drug addict and give them a home regardless? I say make GBI require you spend it on rent/mortgage -- to receive it you can't be homeless - you must have a physical address and only one check per address + x amount per person living in house, --maybe 2k per house/apartment, 500 per adult/child extra living therein. This even helps the economy as poor people are most likely to spend the money locally instead of squirrel it away in a trust fund or investment. If I had GBI, I'd quit my day job and finally launch a side-business or go freelance full-time, but I work 60 hours a week on salary for 80k as a developer because I have to pay the bills and my wife stays home with the kids. I could really use that money personally to just float by when freelance dries up, or my side project fails, and I start building the next one.
djtriptych 8y ago
upvoted. HN seems to have a silent conservative majority in posts like this =/
- tomhoward 8y ago
  https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Hostile%20media%20effect&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Hostile%20media%20effect&sort=... Given its size, the HN audience's ideology should fit a normal distribution just like the rest of society, but adjusted for the fact that it selects for people who work in tech. A "silent conservative majority" is unlikely on that basis.
  - djtriptych 8y ago
    active conservative minority overall. a silent majority is still possible when restricting to "posts like this", not the community at large.
dv_dt 8y ago
The Shock Doctrine [1] described that idea that the rich could undertake disasters of various types in order to push unpopular policy in their wake. I don't think it was ever updated to the 2008 recession, but the bailout of the banks via buying poorly performing securities via quantitative easing follows that though with the same effect. The fed bought risky bank mortgage securities, while still allowing mortgage loan servicing continue to collect on loans and real estate parcels (and equity value) of individuals who didn't get a bail out - and now whatever survived will be sold back to the banks. Even if not intentional, it's a question of financial buffers. The extremely wealthy can weather recession and do even better by buying distressed assets from any who don't have the buffer which they hold. It's not the absolute numbers of the wealth, it's the amount of growth in control of assets that matter in this model. Without the right public policy, the wealthy win on the backs of the poor on the downswing and upswing of the broad economy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine I wonder what happens when we swing into recession and there is nothing left to take.
- gowld 8y ago
  Examples of Shock doctrine in practice: Using tax leins to steal real estate: https://live.washingtonpost.com/tax-lien-investigation.html https://live.washingtonpost.com/tax-lien-investigation.html Bail fees convert civilians into prisoner-slaves: https://brooklynbailfund.org/our-results/ https://brooklynbailfund.org/our-results/
baby 8y ago
I can’t believe you’re getting downvoted so much for that. Socialism fear is still very real.
- BigChiefSmokem 8y ago
  Hello to Peter Thiel and the rest of the angry bunch.
extesy 8y ago
Isn't this similar to a prisoner's dilemma but on a large scale? If the society is optimizing for a global maximum then the few individuals would be better off by being selfish and optimizing for a local maximum.
Chyzwar 8y ago
The US is incredibly rich country. Every second teenager is carrying iPhone worth more than yearly income in a large portion of the world. It is all thanks to capitalism. Problem is that most US population is not educated/smart and easy to manipulate into crazy consumption. UBI will not fix it, it will make it worse. Even putting more money into education is not really a clear solution. You need to understand that middle class is gone. Beside 2-5% of highly specialised STEM workers everyone else job is already subsidized.
- gerdesj 8y ago
  Every second teenager is carrying iPhone - are you sure? [Citation needed] Problem is that most US population is not educated/smart and easy to manipulate into crazy consumption - conspicuous consumption: a fault that can be levied far wider than just the US. The US has a well documented and understood education system and their unis are respected across the world. You need to understand that middle class is gone. - Wot? 2-5% of highly specialised STEM workers everyone else job is already subsidized. - On the face of it, an economy cannot function like that. Are you saying that the 2-5% are subsidising the other 95-98%? (You write in English extremely well but you quite consistently miss the indef/def. articles out. For example: the US is an incredible ... an iPhone ... the yearly ... The problem is ... most of the US population ... the middle class)
  - gerdesj 8y ago
    Cool beans. I now have all the information I need. Thank you kids.
  - Chyzwar 8y ago
    > Every second teenager is carrying iPhone - are you sure? [Citation needed] There is 70 millions of iPhone sold in last 4 years in US. If you include other high-end phones it makes teenager/adults to carry half the year of work in Pakistan and year of work in Madagascar. https://www.statista.com/statistics/242269/apple-iphone-in-the-usa-sales-since-2nd-quarter-2007/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/242269/apple-iphone-in-t... > The US has a well documented and understood education system and their unis are respected across the world. It is highly specialized and makes most US educated people clueless outside their niche. > Are you saying that the 2-5% are subsidising the other 95-98%? Yes. Most non-technology work is now cost centre.
AnimalMuppet 8y ago
I have yet to see a UBI proposal that provided non-trivial amounts of money and yet was not simply financially impossible. For example, there are over 300M (300,000,000) people in the US. To provide $1000 per year would require $300B. But that's less than $100/month. If you're homeless, that might be enough that you don't starve. But it's not enough that you can go to a doctor and eat. It's sure not enough that you can pay rent so you can get off the street. If you make it $1000/month, now it's enough money to actually help people. But it also costs $3 trillion a year. That's twice the current Federal budget. So either taxes have to be three times as high, or they have to be twice as high while we eliminate every other thing that the Federal government currently does. I don't think raising taxes to that level is possible, politically. The usual answer to this objection is that the government can simply print money. Yes, they can. So could Venezuela's, but that didn't work out very well... I think the solution is going to have to come from a change in society, not from a change in government programs. I think the rich are more often blissfully ignorant than they are evil oppressors. Things may start to change when the rich actually know some poor people, and can see the way society's structure looks through their eyes - when they can feel the pain it causes to people that they know.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  "If you make it $1000/month, now it's enough money to actually help people. But it also costs $3 trillion a year. That's twice the current Federal budget." The 2015 Federal Budget (I guess the last time we actually had and official one) was about $3.8 trillion dollars. The budget President Obama submitted on 2016 for fiscal year 2017 was about $4.2 trillion.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    I stand corrected. I had $1.5T in my mind for some reason. Still, $3T more would be a pretty large increase. And there's exactly zero chance that a corresponding $3T would be cut somewhere else...
    - arebop 8y ago
dragonwriter 8y ago
> This makes it clear why our current capitalism doesn't work. The ruling class / rich and wealth people and businesses could extract more wealth out of the middle and lower classes than they do now, if the lower classes were more stable and secure. The goal is not to maximize wealth, but to maximize power over others. Insecurity in the working class does not increase the maximum extractable wealth for the capitalists, but it does increase the power that the capitalists can exert over the working classes because security creates the practical freedom to not knuckle under.
eanzenberg 8y ago
Capitalism is the primary reason we're out of medieval times, thank you very much.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Capitalism is the primary reason we're out of medieval times Opponents of capitalism (on the Left, at any rate) see it, yes, as progress over feudalism, but just not the end of such progress.

matthewmacleod 8y ago

I’m not entirely sure why you’ve been downvoted, because this also seems intuitively obvious to me. A long-term stable society, with a controlled income and wealth gap, seems to be in the general long-term best interests of everybody, rich and poor alike.

vkou 8y ago
This is good for the rich in the long term (Because it avoids violent revolutions), but bad in the short term (What are the odds there's going to be a revolution next week? Pretty low!)

cabaalis 8y ago

I am and know many conservatives. I don't see any "poor hate," though I don't argue it doesn't exist. Rather, it seems conservatives get upset at the idea of an unlevel playing field, i.e. creating policies that favor one group over another. Well-intentioned as any given policy may be, we are opposed to crafting government rules or benefits that apply to one set of people and not another.

MisterTea 8y ago
> Well-intentioned as any given policy may be, we are opposed to crafting government rules or benefits that apply to one set of people and not another. Conservatives talk about poor people as if it's a permanent attribute that can't be changed like "race". Poor is a tangible attribute. The programs which you fear so much are there to help people change that attribute. But I get the feeling that many of the so-called conservatives use poor as a euphemism for undesirable people they don't want to see get ahead or mingle with. Why else would you refuse a helping hand to someone in need?
- gremlinsinc 8y ago
  What I find ironic (as an exmormon/ex-christian now semi-agnostic person -- I still quasi believe there could be some sort of afterlife but the bible is dead to me.) is that those on the 'christian right' are more prone to push out the poor and neglect them those who are on the left more anxious to help and alleviate their pain points. -- I've known humanists, secular buddhists, atheists, and agnostics with bigger hearts and more care for the poor than the majority of God-fearing people regardless of faith. One reason I stopped believing is because of all the hypocrisy I'd hear. Go to church on Sunday, leaders of the church officially deny supporting a political agenda, then they go about instituting anti-gay propaganda and fighting against legalizing marriage, or legalizing medical marijuana. Heck the LDS church is trying to ban the ability to record someone (like a Bishop) without them knowing, because they're afraid of the backlash they themselves might have (and so far are having with recent events). Yet, I still admire Jesus and what he taught... the sad thing is.. there's no Jesus in most of America or they'd be fighting to cure the sick and the poor, they'd want universal healthcare and guaranteed basic income. Even Jesus forgave the Harlot and welcomed her at his table, so why not forgive the drug addict and give them a home regardless? I say make GBI require you spend it on rent/mortgage -- to receive it you can't be homeless - you must have a physical address and only one check per address + x amount per person living in house, --maybe 2k per house/apartment, 500 per adult/child extra living therein. This even helps the economy as poor people are most likely to spend the money locally instead of squirrel it away in a trust fund or investment. If I had GBI, I'd quit my day job and finally launch a side-business or go freelance full-time, but I work 60 hours a week on salary for 80k as a developer because I have to pay the bills and my wife stays home with the kids. I could really use that money personally to just float by when freelance dries up, or my side project fails, and I start building the next one.

djtriptych 8y ago

upvoted. HN seems to have a silent conservative majority in posts like this =/

tomhoward 8y ago
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Hostile%20media%20effect&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Hostile%20media%20effect&sort=... Given its size, the HN audience's ideology should fit a normal distribution just like the rest of society, but adjusted for the fact that it selects for people who work in tech. A "silent conservative majority" is unlikely on that basis.
- djtriptych 8y ago
  active conservative minority overall. a silent majority is still possible when restricting to "posts like this", not the community at large.

dv_dt 8y ago

The Shock Doctrine [1] described that idea that the rich could undertake disasters of various types in order to push unpopular policy in their wake. I don't think it was ever updated to the 2008 recession, but the bailout of the banks via buying poorly performing securities via quantitative easing follows that though with the same effect. The fed bought risky bank mortgage securities, while still allowing mortgage loan servicing continue to collect on loans and real estate parcels (and equity value) of individuals who didn't get a bail out - and now whatever survived will be sold back to the banks. Even if not intentional, it's a question of financial buffers. The extremely wealthy can weather recession and do even better by buying distressed assets from any who don't have the buffer which they hold. It's not the absolute numbers of the wealth, it's the amount of growth in control of assets that matter in this model. Without the right public policy, the wealthy win on the backs of the poor on the downswing and upswing of the broad economy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine I wonder what happens when we swing into recession and there is nothing left to take.

gowld 8y ago
Examples of Shock doctrine in practice: Using tax leins to steal real estate: https://live.washingtonpost.com/tax-lien-investigation.html https://live.washingtonpost.com/tax-lien-investigation.html Bail fees convert civilians into prisoner-slaves: https://brooklynbailfund.org/our-results/ https://brooklynbailfund.org/our-results/

baby 8y ago

I can’t believe you’re getting downvoted so much for that. Socialism fear is still very real.

BigChiefSmokem 8y ago
Hello to Peter Thiel and the rest of the angry bunch.

extesy 8y ago

Isn't this similar to a prisoner's dilemma but on a large scale? If the society is optimizing for a global maximum then the few individuals would be better off by being selfish and optimizing for a local maximum.

Chyzwar 8y ago

The US is incredibly rich country. Every second teenager is carrying iPhone worth more than yearly income in a large portion of the world. It is all thanks to capitalism. Problem is that most US population is not educated/smart and easy to manipulate into crazy consumption. UBI will not fix it, it will make it worse. Even putting more money into education is not really a clear solution. You need to understand that middle class is gone. Beside 2-5% of highly specialised STEM workers everyone else job is already subsidized.

gerdesj 8y ago
Every second teenager is carrying iPhone - are you sure? [Citation needed] Problem is that most US population is not educated/smart and easy to manipulate into crazy consumption - conspicuous consumption: a fault that can be levied far wider than just the US. The US has a well documented and understood education system and their unis are respected across the world. You need to understand that middle class is gone. - Wot? 2-5% of highly specialised STEM workers everyone else job is already subsidized. - On the face of it, an economy cannot function like that. Are you saying that the 2-5% are subsidising the other 95-98%? (You write in English extremely well but you quite consistently miss the indef/def. articles out. For example: the US is an incredible ... an iPhone ... the yearly ... The problem is ... most of the US population ... the middle class)
- gerdesj 8y ago
  Cool beans. I now have all the information I need. Thank you kids.
- Chyzwar 8y ago
  > Every second teenager is carrying iPhone - are you sure? [Citation needed] There is 70 millions of iPhone sold in last 4 years in US. If you include other high-end phones it makes teenager/adults to carry half the year of work in Pakistan and year of work in Madagascar. https://www.statista.com/statistics/242269/apple-iphone-in-the-usa-sales-since-2nd-quarter-2007/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/242269/apple-iphone-in-t... > The US has a well documented and understood education system and their unis are respected across the world. It is highly specialized and makes most US educated people clueless outside their niche. > Are you saying that the 2-5% are subsidising the other 95-98%? Yes. Most non-technology work is now cost centre.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

I have yet to see a UBI proposal that provided non-trivial amounts of money and yet was not simply financially impossible. For example, there are over 300M (300,000,000) people in the US. To provide $1000 per year would require $300B. But that's less than $100/month. If you're homeless, that might be enough that you don't starve. But it's not enough that you can go to a doctor and eat. It's sure not enough that you can pay rent so you can get off the street. If you make it $1000/month, now it's enough money to actually help people. But it also costs $3 trillion a year. That's twice the current Federal budget. So either taxes have to be three times as high, or they have to be twice as high while we eliminate every other thing that the Federal government currently does. I don't think raising taxes to that level is possible, politically. The usual answer to this objection is that the government can simply print money. Yes, they can. So could Venezuela's, but that didn't work out very well... I think the solution is going to have to come from a change in society, not from a change in government programs. I think the rich are more often blissfully ignorant than they are evil oppressors. Things may start to change when the rich actually know some poor people, and can see the way society's structure looks through their eyes - when they can feel the pain it causes to people that they know.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
"If you make it $1000/month, now it's enough money to actually help people. But it also costs $3 trillion a year. That's twice the current Federal budget." The 2015 Federal Budget (I guess the last time we actually had and official one) was about $3.8 trillion dollars. The budget President Obama submitted on 2016 for fiscal year 2017 was about $4.2 trillion.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  I stand corrected. I had $1.5T in my mind for some reason. Still, $3T more would be a pretty large increase. And there's exactly zero chance that a corresponding $3T would be cut somewhere else...
  - arebop 8y ago

dragonwriter 8y ago

> This makes it clear why our current capitalism doesn't work. The ruling class / rich and wealth people and businesses could extract more wealth out of the middle and lower classes than they do now, if the lower classes were more stable and secure. The goal is not to maximize wealth, but to maximize power over others. Insecurity in the working class does not increase the maximum extractable wealth for the capitalists, but it does increase the power that the capitalists can exert over the working classes because security creates the practical freedom to not knuckle under.

eanzenberg 8y ago

Capitalism is the primary reason we're out of medieval times, thank you very much.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Capitalism is the primary reason we're out of medieval times Opponents of capitalism (on the Left, at any rate) see it, yes, as progress over feudalism, but just not the end of such progress.