7 ms·

This is the opposite of what the article is saying. The economy was getting scary so people headed out on their own. Did you mean to say “when people have nothi

This is the opposite of what the article is saying. The economy was getting scary so people headed out on their own. Did you mean to say “when people have nothing to fall back on”?

baybal2 5y ago
> Did you mean to say “when people have nothing to fall back on”? This is better than sitting doing nothing, starving, and waiting for a handout to come, as happened in many, many countries. My strongest belief is that America needs an economic shock therapy, to spring out of economic lethargy. Lets face it. America is no longer the financial superpower. China is currently world biggest foreign investor, and creditor, and has banks that make Morgan's balance sheet look like pocket change. Betting on banks to lead America's return to prominence is futile. It's akin to trying to wing a card game against a professional card trickster who lives off ripping off casinos. Nor is the dream of service the dream of "service economy" feeding much of the country materialised. You can't earn much FX selling McKinsey consultants, nor are they are much needed around the world, because the world doesn't have American problems.
- reducesuffering 5y ago
  You're exaggerating the bank size difference, ICBC is only 25% larger in assets. If you meant to convey all Chinese banks against just JPM, sure, but that's a silly comparison because there are many more US banks that when also compared in aggregate the % difference is still roughly the same.[0] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_banks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_banks
- otikik 5y ago
  What America needs is the rich stopping buying politicians and gaslighting other Americans, and start paying more taxes.
  - ipatec 5y ago
    why pay more taxes when there's no accountability and responsibility regarding spending? spending needs to get under control before raising taxes is even a thing.
    - defterGoose 5y ago
      Do you agree that "getting the money out of politics" might help your accountability gripe?
      - robertlagrant 5y ago
        The big money (and thus influence) in politics is in the spending of it, not the salaries/donations. And politics without that money is pointless.
        newswasboring 5y ago
        You really think rich people will suddenly start paying taxes because government is more efficient? I don't think that is their gripe. If that was the case thet would not be lobbying for complex tax codes which exempt yachts.
        robertlagrant 5y ago
        > You really think rich people will suddenly start paying taxes because government is more efficient? Erm. I didn't really say anything to do with that.
        nescioquid 5y ago
        When you raise money from donors to win election to an office, those donors effectively become your constituency, rather than the people living in your state or district. Those donors will also offer you strangely sumptuous speaking fees or a lucrative lobbying position after you leave office. If politicians' incentives can be aligned with their constitutional constituencies (not donors), they can make decisions that are actually in the best interest of those they represent, rather than the highest bidder. Are you saying it is simply having some power over the budget that corrupts politicians, and not what they have to do in order to obtain that power that corrupts them?
- roenxi 5y ago
  > My strongest belief is that America needs an economic shock therapy... There is a strand of thinking that turns up sometimes, something like "they will realise their choices are making things worse, then make different choices!". I have not seen that work out well very often. People usually persist in their mistakes with little heed for the results. The correct approach is almost always to move directly in a better direction.
  - HPsquared 5y ago
    It's often the case that reformers (of anything, not just government) lack an understanding of why people are making choices that appear sub-optimal. They make or encourage changes to the visible things, without fixing the underlying hidden causes. Such changes are usually unsustainable.
  - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
    It's the standard eschatological shtick: burn it all down and it'll be better this time around.
- KarlKemp 5y ago
  Services and manufacturing are fungible and the rest of your tough guy act is even less convincing. Bill Gates, Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk all came from at least upper-middle class background. None of them was ever at risk of starvation. The carrot-and-stick approach to motivation works–in an extremely small band of human experience. But as it works in that band, which is the lower middle class, it draws people in from both sides: those richer ease up a bit, those immediately below put in an extra hour. That's why it's sort of the default experience. It's also a "winnable struggle" so it makes for good stories and is overrepresented in film and literature. But, once you leave that narrow band, other forces are clearly at work. If inflicting pain on homeless people worked to motivate them to successfully get off the streets, there wouldn't be any homeless people. Because life on the streets sucks. If you think they are "lazy", have you ever toyed with the idea of just quitting and checking out an underpass with a good view? No...? But you do have a vague idea what laziness is? So then: that's not it.
  - zpeti 5y ago
    How about Brian Chesky (son of social workers), Marc Andreesen (son of seed factory worker), or just Jeff bezos with a pretty shitty family background: At the time of Bezos' birth, his mother was a 17-year-old high school student and his father was 19 years old.[18] After completing high school despite challenging conditions, Jacklyn attended night school while bringing Bezos along as a baby.[19] After his parents divorced, his mother married Cuban immigrant Miguel "Mike" Bezos in April 1968.[20] Shortly after the wedding, Mike adopted four-year-old Bezos, whose surname was then legally changed from Jorgensen to Bezos.[21] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos We can all pick examples to fit our narratives
    - fragmede 5y ago
      How does Bezos' background disprove the notion that homeless people aren't homeless because they're lazy? That if only we made life just a little more horrible for them, that they would realize being homeless sucks, stop being lazy, and just go get one of those job things, and then pull themselves up by their bootstraps. (A feat which is literally impossible, mind you)
- ak217 5y ago
  > America needs an economic shock therapy It's hard to overstate just how bad the track record of "economic shock therapy" strategies is. Tens of millions of people have died, and hundreds of millions more lost their basic freedoms, because leaders thought they could "shock therapy" their way out of economic problems.
cheriot 5y ago
I mean the extended unemployment and stimulus checks gave a some people room to try new things. A lot of people struggled, but there's a reason some are reluctant to return to their shitty old jobs.
- hirako2000 5y ago
  How much was the stimulus check for an average income employee ?
  - NationalPark 5y ago
    The median US income is about $30k, so most people were eligible for some if not all the money. But everyone (that was laid off) was eligible for the $600 per week unemployment benefit, and the expanded child tax credit also provided a lot of cash. Child poverty in the US was cut in half by some metrics over the last year - these were very impactful programs for most people.
cehrlich 5y ago
People who have a lot can afford to gamble. People who have a little can’t afford to gamble. People who have nothing can’t afford not to gamble.
- zpeti 5y ago
  So why are the majority of entrepreneurs in their 20s? Why doesn't the rate of entrepreneurship increase with age?
  - HPsquared 5y ago
    They're the ones with nothing, I guess.
  - input_sh 5y ago
    Cause it gets more difficult to gamble when you have a child to support. You're more likely to look for a cushy job when it's not just your life at stake.
  - andyferris 5y ago
    Kids means you are less free to gamble?
    - panxyh 5y ago
      Yes.
    - Frost1x 5y ago
      In my perspective, yes. A child has needs and there's a baseline cost in resources to supply those needs, not just material needs like food, clothing, shelter but more integible needs like time with their parent. As a parent you have responsibility to meet that baseline and should do so with as little risk as possible to provide stability for the child who is dependent on you and has no other options. If you can meet all their needs, then whatever you have in excess certainly can be gambled if it can improve both of your odds, but only beyond that baseline threshold. That resource threshold for a parent is going to be higher than for a single person in the same situation, so you inherently have less resources to gamble than someone without a kid. I would consider less resources as being less free to take unneeded risk, although it really just means you have less you can risk not that you have less ability to risk (unless of course you're already at or below that child's baseline needs where you're making sacrifices of your own needs for them). You could make further sacrifices on your own needs to gamble if that doesn't effect the child but chances are, it's going to effect both of you. Theres an absolute magnitude of wealth/resources one needs to exceed before they start playing the capital gamble gamble, at least when your risk has significant effects on someone else, especially your own child.

This is the opposite of what the article is saying. The economy was getting scary so people headed out on their own. Did you mean to say “when people have nothing to fall back on”?

baybal2 5y ago

> Did you mean to say “when people have nothing to fall back on”? This is better than sitting doing nothing, starving, and waiting for a handout to come, as happened in many, many countries. My strongest belief is that America needs an economic shock therapy, to spring out of economic lethargy. Lets face it. America is no longer the financial superpower. China is currently world biggest foreign investor, and creditor, and has banks that make Morgan's balance sheet look like pocket change. Betting on banks to lead America's return to prominence is futile. It's akin to trying to wing a card game against a professional card trickster who lives off ripping off casinos. Nor is the dream of service the dream of "service economy" feeding much of the country materialised. You can't earn much FX selling McKinsey consultants, nor are they are much needed around the world, because the world doesn't have American problems.

reducesuffering 5y ago
You're exaggerating the bank size difference, ICBC is only 25% larger in assets. If you meant to convey all Chinese banks against just JPM, sure, but that's a silly comparison because there are many more US banks that when also compared in aggregate the % difference is still roughly the same.[0] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_banks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_banks
otikik 5y ago
What America needs is the rich stopping buying politicians and gaslighting other Americans, and start paying more taxes.
- ipatec 5y ago
  why pay more taxes when there's no accountability and responsibility regarding spending? spending needs to get under control before raising taxes is even a thing.
  - defterGoose 5y ago
    Do you agree that "getting the money out of politics" might help your accountability gripe?
    - robertlagrant 5y ago
      The big money (and thus influence) in politics is in the spending of it, not the salaries/donations. And politics without that money is pointless.
      - newswasboring 5y ago
        You really think rich people will suddenly start paying taxes because government is more efficient? I don't think that is their gripe. If that was the case thet would not be lobbying for complex tax codes which exempt yachts.
        robertlagrant 5y ago
        > You really think rich people will suddenly start paying taxes because government is more efficient? Erm. I didn't really say anything to do with that.
      - nescioquid 5y ago
        When you raise money from donors to win election to an office, those donors effectively become your constituency, rather than the people living in your state or district. Those donors will also offer you strangely sumptuous speaking fees or a lucrative lobbying position after you leave office. If politicians' incentives can be aligned with their constitutional constituencies (not donors), they can make decisions that are actually in the best interest of those they represent, rather than the highest bidder. Are you saying it is simply having some power over the budget that corrupts politicians, and not what they have to do in order to obtain that power that corrupts them?
roenxi 5y ago
> My strongest belief is that America needs an economic shock therapy... There is a strand of thinking that turns up sometimes, something like "they will realise their choices are making things worse, then make different choices!". I have not seen that work out well very often. People usually persist in their mistakes with little heed for the results. The correct approach is almost always to move directly in a better direction.
- HPsquared 5y ago
  It's often the case that reformers (of anything, not just government) lack an understanding of why people are making choices that appear sub-optimal. They make or encourage changes to the visible things, without fixing the underlying hidden causes. Such changes are usually unsustainable.
- Karrot_Kream 5y ago
  It's the standard eschatological shtick: burn it all down and it'll be better this time around.
KarlKemp 5y ago
Services and manufacturing are fungible and the rest of your tough guy act is even less convincing. Bill Gates, Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk all came from at least upper-middle class background. None of them was ever at risk of starvation. The carrot-and-stick approach to motivation works–in an extremely small band of human experience. But as it works in that band, which is the lower middle class, it draws people in from both sides: those richer ease up a bit, those immediately below put in an extra hour. That's why it's sort of the default experience. It's also a "winnable struggle" so it makes for good stories and is overrepresented in film and literature. But, once you leave that narrow band, other forces are clearly at work. If inflicting pain on homeless people worked to motivate them to successfully get off the streets, there wouldn't be any homeless people. Because life on the streets sucks. If you think they are "lazy", have you ever toyed with the idea of just quitting and checking out an underpass with a good view? No...? But you do have a vague idea what laziness is? So then: that's not it.
- zpeti 5y ago
  How about Brian Chesky (son of social workers), Marc Andreesen (son of seed factory worker), or just Jeff bezos with a pretty shitty family background: At the time of Bezos' birth, his mother was a 17-year-old high school student and his father was 19 years old.[18] After completing high school despite challenging conditions, Jacklyn attended night school while bringing Bezos along as a baby.[19] After his parents divorced, his mother married Cuban immigrant Miguel "Mike" Bezos in April 1968.[20] Shortly after the wedding, Mike adopted four-year-old Bezos, whose surname was then legally changed from Jorgensen to Bezos.[21] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos We can all pick examples to fit our narratives
  - fragmede 5y ago
    How does Bezos' background disprove the notion that homeless people aren't homeless because they're lazy? That if only we made life just a little more horrible for them, that they would realize being homeless sucks, stop being lazy, and just go get one of those job things, and then pull themselves up by their bootstraps. (A feat which is literally impossible, mind you)
ak217 5y ago
> America needs an economic shock therapy It's hard to overstate just how bad the track record of "economic shock therapy" strategies is. Tens of millions of people have died, and hundreds of millions more lost their basic freedoms, because leaders thought they could "shock therapy" their way out of economic problems.

cheriot 5y ago

I mean the extended unemployment and stimulus checks gave a some people room to try new things. A lot of people struggled, but there's a reason some are reluctant to return to their shitty old jobs.

hirako2000 5y ago
How much was the stimulus check for an average income employee ?
- NationalPark 5y ago
  The median US income is about $30k, so most people were eligible for some if not all the money. But everyone (that was laid off) was eligible for the $600 per week unemployment benefit, and the expanded child tax credit also provided a lot of cash. Child poverty in the US was cut in half by some metrics over the last year - these were very impactful programs for most people.

cehrlich 5y ago

People who have a lot can afford to gamble. People who have a little can’t afford to gamble. People who have nothing can’t afford not to gamble.

zpeti 5y ago
So why are the majority of entrepreneurs in their 20s? Why doesn't the rate of entrepreneurship increase with age?
- HPsquared 5y ago
  They're the ones with nothing, I guess.
- input_sh 5y ago
  Cause it gets more difficult to gamble when you have a child to support. You're more likely to look for a cushy job when it's not just your life at stake.
- andyferris 5y ago
  Kids means you are less free to gamble?
  - panxyh 5y ago
    Yes.
  - Frost1x 5y ago
    In my perspective, yes. A child has needs and there's a baseline cost in resources to supply those needs, not just material needs like food, clothing, shelter but more integible needs like time with their parent. As a parent you have responsibility to meet that baseline and should do so with as little risk as possible to provide stability for the child who is dependent on you and has no other options. If you can meet all their needs, then whatever you have in excess certainly can be gambled if it can improve both of your odds, but only beyond that baseline threshold. That resource threshold for a parent is going to be higher than for a single person in the same situation, so you inherently have less resources to gamble than someone without a kid. I would consider less resources as being less free to take unneeded risk, although it really just means you have less you can risk not that you have less ability to risk (unless of course you're already at or below that child's baseline needs where you're making sacrifices of your own needs for them). You could make further sacrifices on your own needs to gamble if that doesn't effect the child but chances are, it's going to effect both of you. Theres an absolute magnitude of wealth/resources one needs to exceed before they start playing the capital gamble gamble, at least when your risk has significant effects on someone else, especially your own child.