Here's a blog post by Bret Devereaux with an examination of why that theory is specious:

https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-mirage-...

It feels like we're seeing a bit of a turn in things... we'll see.

I was struck yesterday by reading Huey Long's "Share Our Wealth" proposals from the 1930s in the midst of the Great Depression.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share_Our_Wealth#Proposed_legi...

One characteristic of democracy is that it is ever-rewritten by those who strive to change it and vote. (Also, occasionally assassination, in Long's case)

Today we are dominated by weak men afraid of what a greater mass of weak men might say about them or accuse them of.

The lion doesn't concern itself with the opinion of sheep.

Historians fairly uniformly think that this adage is trash.

The quote is bullshit. It is not consistent woth observable reality where population under pressure breaks up.

There would be abundance if the trillionaires were happy with 5% returns and invested in housing instead of gambling (and being bailed out eventually) on "Super Intelligence".

Plus I don’t think history plays this a-to-b. Counter examples are out there, Ottoman empire, Assyrian empire, Spartans.

Yeah, the quote comes across as the rich + elites upset that the poors want government programs too.

>> The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

> Sounds like total bullshit.

You're right. It more like an avg of 118 years (median 73), not 200, depending on what you mean by "greatest" ofc. The Ancient Romans, US, and Dutch pulling that average up and 1/3 of historically modern continuing democracies having a short lifespan being founded around WW2, pulling it down.

The Roman Empire was not stable for an uninterrupted period of time. It's conceptually called a single state for simplicity, because such a large period of time and area of land naturally had instability (less than current Europe, granted). The Roman Empire democratic government lasted about 487 years before falling into autocratic rule.

[delayed]

The president effectively does because of Veto. They inly cant control the most bipartisan aspects which is very limited today.

Who cares if you’re impressed when you’ve fallen for propaganda (I guess maybe politicians care).

“No budget that runs at a deficit is acceptable”

Why not? Deficits can be healthy and safe when they’re managed. Literally most persons, businesses, and governments use debt. It helps manage purchases over time, and it’s an inflationary hedge.

The idea that “any deficit is bad” was literally pushed as propaganda to make you fatalistic about managing the deficit. As said, one party raises it, one party lowers it, and the party that raises it claims that lowering it to anything but zero is “just as bad” as their runaway debt growth. Propaganda.

That is an amazingly flawed idea. By that reasoning, only a neutral budget is acceptable, and a positive debt surplus a boon. Unfortunately, the opposite is empirically true: the only places running total budget surpluses tend to be undemocratic shitholes because they need to promise nothing and do not rely upon the consent of the governed to loan them savings and pay them taxes.

That is quite beside the point that sovereign debt is considered one of the safest places to store savings and by diminishing the stockpile of debt with a budget in surplus one is diminishing the economy’s ability to save at a low risk level.

If you keep shrinking it then eventually it will go away. The only reason it hasn’t gone to zero is that the shrinking keeps getting interrupted.

Well, the goal is not to impress HN user bigstrat2003. The goal is to have a government and country that continue to function. A fiscal deficit by itself is not a bad thing, and I suspect you would have an extraordinarily difficult time coming up with coherent arguments to the contrary.

1. They’re unable to get enough support to pass more taxes (yet), so “balancing the budget” after republicans lower them on the rich would mean killing people by cutting services.

2. The vast majority of our spending is not discretionary, anyway. You can’t refinance social security.

3. Democrats held the executive for the past two recession recoveries, and spent accordingly at the advice of new school economists. Which worked both times, BTW.

4. The government’s budget is not like a household budget — a deficit isn’t necessarily a terrible thing. Obviously the current situation is absurd, but we should also avoid simplifying complex matters of state like libertarians do with ethics just to avoid hard conversations.

[dead]

[flagged]

The pattern is extremely clear. During my lifetime, the deficit had increased under Republican presidents and decreased under Democrats. This has held steady for decades. That’s the more important thing than the question of exactly why one of them managed to get it to zero one time.

The mental gymnastics one must do to believe in what they write is unbelievable. The answer lies right in front and you skipped over it with grace.

Obama inherited a housing crisis and two wars.

Biden had to deal the tail end of a pandemic and the financial fallout of that.

Not saying both couldn't have done much better on the budget but, if you compare them to Bush and Trump, they honestly do look quite competent.

Both reduced the deficit substantially during their time in office.

Please check out my startup, SmartHorn. We have integrated superintelligence technology into a "Smart Shoehorn" that will collect data and provide recommendations to footwear purchasers at the point of sale. Think of it like Pocket for the shoe or boot buyer. Use to increase profits, provide discounts to loyal customers, or increase profits.

Thanks I agree its very relevant to a lot of things too especially societal/political paradigms that will never end without a gigantic shift that is AI. Glad you can see through the noise and understand that too

Just a friendly reminder, mainly for your own safety.

Remember to call it SI ("Super Intelligence"), not AI otherwise you make yourself enemy of the United States of America.