5 ms·

The pragmatic views of Trump are more in line with Nietzsche's philosophy. There is a very small elite group that create wealth. Taxing the successful and givin

The pragmatic views of Trump are more in line with Nietzsche's philosophy. There is a very small elite group that create wealth. Taxing the successful and giving out free stuff for votes seems to be the default position of the intelligentsia of the age. Nice read though, well constructed

nickthemagicman 8y ago
That's false. Wealth is created by needs of the market that's why markets with strong middle class do so well. Any random rich person can fill those needs. It's not some brilliant vision they have. As a matter of fact most new tech wealth... Google Uber Facebook Apple Microsoft... all of their founders came from the middle class. If your idea was true then 3rd world countries where the rich have vast wealth and cheap resources would have the best economies. Your armchair supply side trickle down economic theory doesn't hold up. You should question what you hear on conservative news outlets.
- bhouston 8y ago
  He is arguing that Nietzsche`s ideas seem to be more like Trumps than otherwise. It doesn`t mean that Trump is right.
- hydrox24 8y ago
  I don't know that it's fair to simply say his statement is false. The problem with your reductio ad absurdum is that the rich in such countries do not create wealth. Their economies are aptly described as crony-capitalism for this reason. It's a redistribution of sovereign wealth (resources) rather than the creation of wealth. Your argument more broadly is that wealth is created by the needs of the market. But I think that you cannot ascribe it to any particular one of the things you listed. Regardless of who determines those needs, someone also needs to fulfill such needs. On top of someone to fulfill the needs, you need capital to fund the venture too. Thus, you end up with a small number of very rich people who use their capital to fuel wealth creation. I don't know that the full thrust of the parent is correct, but he's not totally wrong either. You may need a middle class, but you need the other classes, however transient, as well.
  - nickthemagicman 8y ago
    So it appears you're supporting my point. Youre saying that idea makers need capital and the rich have the capitol. And that the rich...create the wealth by investing capitol? The makers create both the value and the wealth as I see it. What the makers need is just capitol...capitol the rich are hoarding in their clammy pocketbooks. It seems rich people are an completely interchangable obstacle to obtain capitol. 8 houses and a private jet that could be funding makers that provide value to the human race. I don't see the purpose the rich serve other than an obstacle.
- api 8y ago
  Both views are right, and more. Wealth is created by a large number of workers under leadership by a smaller number of inventors and managers but neither is able to do anything without demand. Demand requires a strong middle class. Aligning those three groups through a set of compromises is the American System, or at least the postwar one that created the greatest explosion of wealth in human history. Look up wages vs productivity. We have an almost exact date for the collapse of that system: 1971-1974. What happened? I don't know. There are many candidates: the Nixon Shock (end of Bretton Woods), the opening of outsourcing as a way to break labor (and thus the middle class) allowing the upper classes to economically "defect," the rise of automation, or something else.
  - peter_retief 8y ago
    People seem to struggle staring truth in the eye, I guess thats what Nietzsche meant by if you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you
- peter_retief 8y ago
  You make no sense, rather just keep quiet
  - dang 8y ago
    Posting like this will get you banned here regardless of how much sense another comment makes. Please don't do this again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - peter_retief 8y ago
      sure, sorry
  - nickthemagicman 8y ago
    I mean, supply side vs demand side economics. What's your preference?
    - peter_retief 8y ago
      To stay on point the debate is more about Nietzsche than economics, but yes demand side would define supply side. However there can be a core group of creative innovators that create new wealth from nothing, that's exciting for me. I didn't mean to be rude its just how I speak ;)
      - nickthemagicman 8y ago
        No worries sir! I'm similar. I've been a little rough with my tone before and Dang checked me a little bit. Yeah right on. It's a complicated argument with both sides right to some degree. I'm just not a fan of pure trickle down Ann Rayndian economics. It feels like it's leaving alot of important details out of the equation. I don't believe in wealth creators. I believe in an ecosystem of human beings where some have the luck and/or opportunity to fill certain needs at a certain point in time of the ecosystem to make more resources. Neitzsche's argument seems sufficiently abstract that in can be interpreted to apply to what ever group of people you want.
coldtea 8y ago
>There is a very small elite group that create wealth. There is a very small elite group that through inheritance from robber barons, family connections, fraud, luck, favoritism, and several other reasons came into prominence. Wealth is created by those working for them (without workers they'd create shit, not to mention die in a week, because they can't even tie their own shoes), and from those creating new technological innovations, which are very seldom the same who benefit financially from them (and, again, without whom, those elites would create jack-shit). Then there's the market -- the middle class of buyers, themselves hard working people -- without whom there would also be zero wealth for the elites. Atlas shrugged, but he's an entitled jerk, who has others carrying the globe for him while he takes the credit.

nickthemagicman 8y ago

That's false. Wealth is created by needs of the market that's why markets with strong middle class do so well. Any random rich person can fill those needs. It's not some brilliant vision they have. As a matter of fact most new tech wealth... Google Uber Facebook Apple Microsoft... all of their founders came from the middle class. If your idea was true then 3rd world countries where the rich have vast wealth and cheap resources would have the best economies. Your armchair supply side trickle down economic theory doesn't hold up. You should question what you hear on conservative news outlets.

bhouston 8y ago
He is arguing that Nietzsche`s ideas seem to be more like Trumps than otherwise. It doesn`t mean that Trump is right.
hydrox24 8y ago
I don't know that it's fair to simply say his statement is false. The problem with your reductio ad absurdum is that the rich in such countries do not create wealth. Their economies are aptly described as crony-capitalism for this reason. It's a redistribution of sovereign wealth (resources) rather than the creation of wealth. Your argument more broadly is that wealth is created by the needs of the market. But I think that you cannot ascribe it to any particular one of the things you listed. Regardless of who determines those needs, someone also needs to fulfill such needs. On top of someone to fulfill the needs, you need capital to fund the venture too. Thus, you end up with a small number of very rich people who use their capital to fuel wealth creation. I don't know that the full thrust of the parent is correct, but he's not totally wrong either. You may need a middle class, but you need the other classes, however transient, as well.
- nickthemagicman 8y ago
  So it appears you're supporting my point. Youre saying that idea makers need capital and the rich have the capitol. And that the rich...create the wealth by investing capitol? The makers create both the value and the wealth as I see it. What the makers need is just capitol...capitol the rich are hoarding in their clammy pocketbooks. It seems rich people are an completely interchangable obstacle to obtain capitol. 8 houses and a private jet that could be funding makers that provide value to the human race. I don't see the purpose the rich serve other than an obstacle.
api 8y ago
Both views are right, and more. Wealth is created by a large number of workers under leadership by a smaller number of inventors and managers but neither is able to do anything without demand. Demand requires a strong middle class. Aligning those three groups through a set of compromises is the American System, or at least the postwar one that created the greatest explosion of wealth in human history. Look up wages vs productivity. We have an almost exact date for the collapse of that system: 1971-1974. What happened? I don't know. There are many candidates: the Nixon Shock (end of Bretton Woods), the opening of outsourcing as a way to break labor (and thus the middle class) allowing the upper classes to economically "defect," the rise of automation, or something else.
- peter_retief 8y ago
  People seem to struggle staring truth in the eye, I guess thats what Nietzsche meant by if you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you
peter_retief 8y ago
You make no sense, rather just keep quiet
- dang 8y ago
  Posting like this will get you banned here regardless of how much sense another comment makes. Please don't do this again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - peter_retief 8y ago
    sure, sorry
- nickthemagicman 8y ago
  I mean, supply side vs demand side economics. What's your preference?
  - peter_retief 8y ago
    To stay on point the debate is more about Nietzsche than economics, but yes demand side would define supply side. However there can be a core group of creative innovators that create new wealth from nothing, that's exciting for me. I didn't mean to be rude its just how I speak ;)
    - nickthemagicman 8y ago
      No worries sir! I'm similar. I've been a little rough with my tone before and Dang checked me a little bit. Yeah right on. It's a complicated argument with both sides right to some degree. I'm just not a fan of pure trickle down Ann Rayndian economics. It feels like it's leaving alot of important details out of the equation. I don't believe in wealth creators. I believe in an ecosystem of human beings where some have the luck and/or opportunity to fill certain needs at a certain point in time of the ecosystem to make more resources. Neitzsche's argument seems sufficiently abstract that in can be interpreted to apply to what ever group of people you want.

coldtea 8y ago

>There is a very small elite group that create wealth. There is a very small elite group that through inheritance from robber barons, family connections, fraud, luck, favoritism, and several other reasons came into prominence. Wealth is created by those working for them (without workers they'd create shit, not to mention die in a week, because they can't even tie their own shoes), and from those creating new technological innovations, which are very seldom the same who benefit financially from them (and, again, without whom, those elites would create jack-shit). Then there's the market -- the middle class of buyers, themselves hard working people -- without whom there would also be zero wealth for the elites. Atlas shrugged, but he's an entitled jerk, who has others carrying the globe for him while he takes the credit.