7 ms·

I would argue that the article highlights the biggest problem of the West. It used to be a society of strong independent and happy individuals, capitalizing on

I would argue that the article highlights the biggest problem of the West. It used to be a society of strong independent and happy individuals, capitalizing on their strengths and trading with each other in search of prosperity. We traded it in for a steady paycheck in exchange for mindlessly fulfilling standardized corporate jobs, and are now surprised that the human ambition got redirected from finding ways to create new value to bashing someone who seemingly got a patch of greener grass. I think, the way out is understanding that the current divisive ways the society is going are doomed, and that we all have a common problem to solve, and sweeping such discussions under the rug will only delay this outcome.

shadowgovt 5y ago
Division isn't stable but it often precedes change. The status quo hasn't served everyone, and the first part of improving a status quo is to make the case it cannot stand. When one does, division occurs.
ketzo 5y ago
So, to be clear: "end of barter system" -> "steady paychecks" -> "death of innovation in the West" -> "bitter people seek to create division" That is an absolutely wild series of logical leaps and generalizations, each sorely needing any kind of evidence or even intuitive explanation.
- john_moscow 5y ago
  Nope, "low interest rate policies + lack of antitrust enforcement" -> "mergers, buyouts, fewer small businesses" -> "fewer economic roles involving decision making" -> "fewer social ladders through hard work" -> "fewer push for education + general unhappiness" -> "bitter people looking for scapegoats"
foobarian 5y ago
In North America at least, I think this century will be the first time it has really run out of "unoccupied" land to grow into. Other parts of the world have been in this steady state for many centuries; it remains to be seen how the equilibrium will manifest here and where it will lead.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  In terms of sovereign territory, I guess you're right, but if you want to go live somewhere with no neighbors, there are plenty of places in America and Canada where you can do that.
  - foobarian 5y ago
    Right, sovereign territory. Could you imagine the Homestead Act happening today? I am floored by how crazy that time period was.
telesilla 5y ago
>used to be a society of strong independent and happy individuals, capitalizing on their strengths and trading with each other in search of prosperity (if this were even the reality) that excluded those who didn't fit the perception of who deserved such independence or happiness
mananaysiempre 5y ago
I’m not sure this idyllic West ever actually existed, or if it did, that it wasn’t inherently transient. (Genuinely not sure, not trying to make an unequivocal disagreement sound more palatable.) As in, the spirit of entrepreneurship and personal liberty did exist and wonderful things were built, but the most likely life for someone born in the advanced part of Western Europe or the US between say 1830 and 1930 seems to have been to slave away at a single factory for the entirety of your life, hardly ever encountering any money fit for general circulation, living in housing hardly worth the name amidst typhus and tuberculosis. “Social democracy” seems to entail a creeping illiberalism, and I’m not sure what we admire was anything but a brief period after the start of the former but before the onset of the latter. Yet it also solved a real problem and, indeed, is the best currently-known solution to it. Am I ever unhappy about that.

shadowgovt 5y ago

Division isn't stable but it often precedes change. The status quo hasn't served everyone, and the first part of improving a status quo is to make the case it cannot stand. When one does, division occurs.

ketzo 5y ago

So, to be clear: "end of barter system" -> "steady paychecks" -> "death of innovation in the West" -> "bitter people seek to create division" That is an absolutely wild series of logical leaps and generalizations, each sorely needing any kind of evidence or even intuitive explanation.

john_moscow 5y ago
Nope, "low interest rate policies + lack of antitrust enforcement" -> "mergers, buyouts, fewer small businesses" -> "fewer economic roles involving decision making" -> "fewer social ladders through hard work" -> "fewer push for education + general unhappiness" -> "bitter people looking for scapegoats"

foobarian 5y ago

In North America at least, I think this century will be the first time it has really run out of "unoccupied" land to grow into. Other parts of the world have been in this steady state for many centuries; it remains to be seen how the equilibrium will manifest here and where it will lead.

throwawayboise 5y ago
In terms of sovereign territory, I guess you're right, but if you want to go live somewhere with no neighbors, there are plenty of places in America and Canada where you can do that.
- foobarian 5y ago
  Right, sovereign territory. Could you imagine the Homestead Act happening today? I am floored by how crazy that time period was.

telesilla 5y ago

>used to be a society of strong independent and happy individuals, capitalizing on their strengths and trading with each other in search of prosperity (if this were even the reality) that excluded those who didn't fit the perception of who deserved such independence or happiness

mananaysiempre 5y ago

I’m not sure this idyllic West ever actually existed, or if it did, that it wasn’t inherently transient. (Genuinely not sure, not trying to make an unequivocal disagreement sound more palatable.) As in, the spirit of entrepreneurship and personal liberty did exist and wonderful things were built, but the most likely life for someone born in the advanced part of Western Europe or the US between say 1830 and 1930 seems to have been to slave away at a single factory for the entirety of your life, hardly ever encountering any money fit for general circulation, living in housing hardly worth the name amidst typhus and tuberculosis. “Social democracy” seems to entail a creeping illiberalism, and I’m not sure what we admire was anything but a brief period after the start of the former but before the onset of the latter. Yet it also solved a real problem and, indeed, is the best currently-known solution to it. Am I ever unhappy about that.