Ask HN: What's your opinion of the "99%" issue?
9 comments
Am I understanding correctly that you consider reading about the occupy wall st. movement an "ordeal"?
If so, I think you tipped your hand and started on an (IMHO) uncivil note by calling it "ordeal".
Anyway, FWIW, I think it's about time Americans woke up to Wall St's rigging of the game in its own favour. When an ordinary homeowner is foreclosed, it's a teaching moment about "personal responsiblity", but banks should be bailed out because ...?
About the only good thing I can say about Wall St. is that entry to the top echelons doesn't seem to be hereditary.
If so, I think you tipped your hand and started on an (IMHO) uncivil note by calling it "ordeal".
Anyway, FWIW, I think it's about time Americans woke up to Wall St's rigging of the game in its own favour. When an ordinary homeowner is foreclosed, it's a teaching moment about "personal responsiblity", but banks should be bailed out because ...?
About the only good thing I can say about Wall St. is that entry to the top echelons doesn't seem to be hereditary.
I can say that I have mixed feelings about it because it is a very grey area. For a lot of people it is about personal responsibility. There were a LOT of people that knew better but instead choose to believe what the "big money" was saying. The catch to that is they owed it to themselves to look closer at their personal situation and asses if they could afford what they were told they could. I myself paid $215000 for a house that is now worth about $140000. If I didn't inform myself before buying the house I could have lost it. Instead I have put myself in the best situation I can. I position myself to never be "upsidedown" just by being careful. I didn't do things that other people can't. I just did my homework. Does it bother me that my house lost a tremendous amount of its value? Hell yes, but I planned for that possiblity.
My point is that for a lot of people they could have been more careful. The other side is that a lot people didn't have the means to know better. They trusted what was happening around them and it cost them. Is that there fault? Maybe, but I fell like saying they shouldn't have trusted anyone is a worse solution.
My point is that for a lot of people they could have been more careful. The other side is that a lot people didn't have the means to know better. They trusted what was happening around them and it cost them. Is that there fault? Maybe, but I fell like saying they shouldn't have trusted anyone is a worse solution.
Am I to understand that you're ok with you and others in your position not being bailed out, but do think that the big banks should be bailed out?
Don't you think the same yardstick that you apply to yourself and others like you should also be used for the big banks.
FWIW, my two cents is that neither individuals nor big banks should be bailed out.
Sorry about the late response. :) Maybe you'll see this.
Don't you think the same yardstick that you apply to yourself and others like you should also be used for the big banks.
FWIW, my two cents is that neither individuals nor big banks should be bailed out.
Sorry about the late response. :) Maybe you'll see this.
Well I have to say that initially I am not for bailing out banks. To be honest, I don't know if it is that simple. From what i understand a big reason for the bailout was to avoid the banks "problems" jumping to companies other than banks. Thus really damaging the economy. For example, just prior to the bailout BoA was about a day or two away from ceasing lending to GE. Not because anything GE did but because the shit hit the fan. In turn GE shareholder that are already scared would panic and GE stock would plummet. Needless to say that given all of the things GE has it's fingers in that trouble would spread elsewhere.
Now, have no idea if that is true, but that is something that makes the bailout less about bailing-out and more about staying afloat. If it was that is what the public should have been told.
To me all of that is speculative unless there is more information available. So unless there is more proof I will take the side that bailing out anyone or anything is usually a bad idea.
Now, have no idea if that is true, but that is something that makes the bailout less about bailing-out and more about staying afloat. If it was that is what the public should have been told.
To me all of that is speculative unless there is more information available. So unless there is more proof I will take the side that bailing out anyone or anything is usually a bad idea.
I keep thinking about this: http://www.miniature-earth.com/
If you have a computer, a roof over your head and enough to eat, you're in the top 3% of the world.
If you have a computer, a roof over your head and enough to eat, you're in the top 3% of the world.
And if you're alive today regardless of where you live, you're probably better off than most humans since the invention of agriculture. So what?
The idea that it's only absolute wealth that should matter completely misses the point. That the typical American or European, et al, literally lives like a king (or better) is beside the point. The economy is not a zero-sum game, sure, but politics certainly is, and unfortunately nothing predicts your political power better than the wealth you've accumulated. So the average person in the first world may live like a king, sure, but he has the influence of a peasant or worse. There is more virtue to an egalitarian society than merely a sense of economic or social justice. They are healthier, more stable, and more democratic.
The idea that it's only absolute wealth that should matter completely misses the point. That the typical American or European, et al, literally lives like a king (or better) is beside the point. The economy is not a zero-sum game, sure, but politics certainly is, and unfortunately nothing predicts your political power better than the wealth you've accumulated. So the average person in the first world may live like a king, sure, but he has the influence of a peasant or worse. There is more virtue to an egalitarian society than merely a sense of economic or social justice. They are healthier, more stable, and more democratic.
Should people just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and stop leaning on others' generosity, or are there serious structural issues with the "American dream"? What can we do about it, if you think it's wrong?
Sure, we can all think of ways where our governments have failed us, but is there something extraordinary to merit such a strong opposition?
I'm extremely curious for all your opinions. Let this be an open discussion: PLEASE be civil and don't downvote comments that you don't agree with.
Thanks! Looking forward to a lively discussion.