2 ms·

It's refreshing to see some left-wing economic nonsense on HN instead of the right-wing economic nonsense that usually makes the front page (where's the hyper-i

It's refreshing to see some left-wing economic nonsense on HN instead of the right-wing economic nonsense that usually makes the front page (where's the hyper-inflation you promised me? oh, you meant next year. of course. of course.) Anyway, arguments aside (I'm not convinced he truly understands comparative advantage), isn't the relative decline of America something we want? I can't be the only one who wants to live in a world where wealth is distributed more equally among nations. 55 million people in China make less than $125 a year (the official "low income" line). How about we let them get to $125 a month before we start worrying about the rise of China and the decline of America? I'm assuming he means relative decline and not absolute decline. To posit absolute decline would be just bonkers.

Helianthus16 16y ago
Well... it might not be bonkers, but if you're positing absolute decline then not a lot of what we say is going to matter.
arethuza 16y ago
Out of interest, why do you interpret it as "left-wing" - is anything that is critical of the current state of the US economy automatically "left-wing"?
- davidmathers 16y ago
  As a rule of thumb I'd say that pretty much any essay that contains the word "structure" is written by a leftist, no matter what the subject. Macroeconomics as a concept is basically leftist, as is focus on/awareness of society, social issues, systems based thinking, promotion of rationality or rational order, and suspicion of trade and natural order. Most of the right-wing crank economics that gets written (and sadly shows up on the HN front page) consists of direct attacks on macro policy and/or fiat currency (i.e. social money, not "hard" money). Rule of thumb: if you're reading a sky-is-falling essay and it contains the words "fed", "federal reserve", "gold", or "inflation" the author is a right-wing nutjob. Macro/social thinking and policy is either dangerous or immoral. Or useless and ineffective. Because, you know, "there's no such thing as society."
  - arethuza 16y ago
    "there's no such thing as society." I'd forgotten that Thatcher quote. However, when you see it in context it really doesn't look that bad: http://briandeer.com/social/thatcher-society.htm http://briandeer.com/social/thatcher-society.htm

Helianthus16 16y ago

Well... it might not be bonkers, but if you're positing absolute decline then not a lot of what we say is going to matter.

arethuza 16y ago

Out of interest, why do you interpret it as "left-wing" - is anything that is critical of the current state of the US economy automatically "left-wing"?

davidmathers 16y ago
As a rule of thumb I'd say that pretty much any essay that contains the word "structure" is written by a leftist, no matter what the subject. Macroeconomics as a concept is basically leftist, as is focus on/awareness of society, social issues, systems based thinking, promotion of rationality or rational order, and suspicion of trade and natural order. Most of the right-wing crank economics that gets written (and sadly shows up on the HN front page) consists of direct attacks on macro policy and/or fiat currency (i.e. social money, not "hard" money). Rule of thumb: if you're reading a sky-is-falling essay and it contains the words "fed", "federal reserve", "gold", or "inflation" the author is a right-wing nutjob. Macro/social thinking and policy is either dangerous or immoral. Or useless and ineffective. Because, you know, "there's no such thing as society."
- arethuza 16y ago
  "there's no such thing as society." I'd forgotten that Thatcher quote. However, when you see it in context it really doesn't look that bad: http://briandeer.com/social/thatcher-society.htm http://briandeer.com/social/thatcher-society.htm