←back to thread

122 points throw0101b | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
exiguus ◴[] No.44443255[source]
I see some parallels to Curtis Yarvin and the Boys that follow his philosophy. The funny part, with all this boys is, that they do not recognise, that there utopia e.g. new society/state, does not work without the current society that sponsors them.

Basically, the same with some global corporations, which literally suck society dry (infrastructure, resources, education, labour, health system) and give almost nothing back (except for a few workers and too few taxes). I think the American dream is over. It's an empty shell that's all about making a nice life for yourself at the expense of others.

replies(4): >>44443482 #>>44443697 #>>44443747 #>>44445202 #
a4isms ◴[] No.44443747[source]
> I think the American dream is over.

“The reason they call it The American Dream is that you have to be asleep to believe it.”

—George Carlin (1937 - 2008)

replies(2): >>44443790 #>>44471826 #
PicassoCTs ◴[] No.44443790[source]
It got real, only because a - at the time seemingly viable alternative reared its head. So, ironically, the system that won the system-competition we call the cold war, only works- when under stress in systemic competition.
replies(2): >>44444098 #>>44444475 #
xphos ◴[] No.44444475[source]
I think we are mixing up timelines here the rent seeking and financializing happens in 1981 onward not starting at 1991 when the USSR dissolves

There is just not any real accountability to the next generation of stock holders its classic optimizing toward the local minimum and is why some many private equity firms annihilate companies and sell them for parts. We use to have unions than Regan eliminate tons of union power and bars the governments union's from arguing. We have structural barriers in existing laws against sector wide unions, so the remaining unions have no incentive to build competitive sectors just competitive wages without respect to economics.

I think companies have just pushed and pushed for labor laws that favor larger companies and players. That hollowing of the rule set has dropped a bomb in companies optimization functions. You cannot choose not to do stock buy backs now because the stock holders complain and leave for a someone more willing to inflate assets. If you want the clearest picture look at Intel they spent tremendously on stock buy backs because it was good for investors and let there RnD budget cratered when compared to its competitors. They basically aren't a respectable company anymore but those stock investors aren't destroyed they moved to Nvidia and Apple.

replies(1): >>44447583 #
pseudocomposer ◴[] No.44447583{3}[source]
But why did the USSR dissolve? A lot of it had to do with citizens’ dissatisfaction with what was available in the Soviet economy, compared to media images of what was available in the 80s-early 90s American economy. And, well, the fact that their government was, in fact, quite democratic, reflecting the wishes of the people.

But again… a lot of these images American prosperity of the 80s were caused by marketing, and corporate structures like Jack Welch’s, which were ultimately unsustainable (per the whole conversation here).

Basically: Soviet citizens saw we could have bananas year round. But they never saw the conditions of people living in banana republics, or really even of the American poor of the time.

replies(2): >>44447875 #>>44450700 #
1. xphos ◴[] No.44447875{4}[source]
Yeah I'd argue Jack Welch didn't create that value rather he found a way to extract from the corporate mines and give to shareholders and himself very effectively. It has caused the collapse of some but not all those corporate mines. GE is a good example that maximized shareholder value until the shareholders left and there was nothing left for the company.

I also wouldn't read to heavily into the USSR collapsing because they saw rich American's they saw that for the entire history of USSR. USSR is complex it honestly worked for people for a little bit during the war (the ones that lived but they did live) but when the pressure of WW2 dropped the optimization functions all went haywire, the same way they were haywire before the war see Ukraine famine 1933. War is a strong optimization function for economies because the cruff is drained but not a constraint you want to live under long term. I am not trying to cheerlead the USSR but I think this is just not really a good metaphor for comparing economies and needs much fine examination to really get into.