>rebuilding a flawed, false global economy: one which actively transfers wealth from the poor to the rich, from the sick to the healthy
This is self-righteous 'leftist' moralizing of the worst kind.
The global economy is not flawed. It is the way it is. Human interests, interaction, history and habits are stronger than any amateur Marxist can imagine.
You think world is unfair? Probably. However, the pathetic attempts to seek high moral ground are futile. You have seen how One Laptop Per Child faired in real life. You should also remember that there are tons and tons of used computer equipment and especially mobile phones imported into Africa and other poor countries every day. This used equipment is imported for money and put to use immediately. Some of this technology is affecting how farmers in distant African villages are managing their harvest sales, for example.
This is globalisation. It may sound humiliating (used clothes, used phones etc) but it is wonderful, vibrant, living global economic organism which will show some interesting emergent qualities in our lifetime. Who would imagine South East Asia growing the way it does today?
You may see some surprises from Africa too. And no, it would be not because some guilt-ridden guy has shown us, the masses, what to do. Some of the worst damage to third world economies are done by Western donors.
So, basically, my advice to the author: stop preaching the need to change this cruel world and go make something that people want to buy.
I am a libertarian capitalist, and I agree there has been a government-inspired (Fed-inspired, really) transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.
Let's say you are a smart hacker and I offer you this "deal": you put in $15K, I will lend you $150-300K at very low interest rates, which you can invest as you see fit. The gains (minus the low interest paid) are yours, and in the meantime you can also charge me reasonable expenses. If you fail, you get to walk away, with no personal liability. Will you take this deal?
That was the deal private equity, hedge funds got from the Fed & the banks (aided and abetted by the Fed). In good years, they took great money home. In bad times, many of them go bust, with no personal consequence to themselves.
End result: societal transfer of wealth, from the poor/middle-class to the wealthy. This is not a consequence of a free market. The original sin is the easy credit, supplied to the financially well-connected.
It is funny how now hedge funds and bankers take all the blame, even though millions of 'common people' speculated recklessly in real estate and picked up up enormous debts without any second thought.
The Fed has tried to avoid post-2000 recession and to stimulate general consumption by keeping low interest rates (and not objecting to the tax cuts). This was obviously politically motivated and not very smart as we now see. It did result in a credit bubble. But to claim that it was done to benefit a few 'well-connected' financiers is populism to my opinion. It was done to avoid discontent among people. To appease the masses, so to say...
Interestingly, it is the capitalists who are suffering now, as their equity is eroded by inflation, weak dollar and the bear stock market. The average Joe just defaults on his debts and walks away from his 3 year old house. His creditors take the loss. So it is actually a wealth transfer from the rich to the poor.
Hm... I though 'fake money' had something to do with social network valuations... If so, Marc indeed should know everything about that.
Anyway, I just wanted to say a word in defence of poor hedge fund managers. Some members of this forum will get rich enough to use their services (or become one of them -- like Peter Thiel). Recycling populist cliches about evil bankers and globalisation is soo like... Reddit? ;)
Yeah, the investors (hedge funds, pe) don't have to bear the downside of their investment but they get to keep all the upside. Which gives them an incentive to be really risky with their investments.
The Fed has been hesitant to make them face the downside of their decisions, and that needs to slowly change (without causing a panic/crash)
Now come on, just because some outdated computing hardware is shipped to Africa, everything is peachy?? I agree that "the poor to rich, sick to healthy" is moralist and simplistic, but it doesn't make the opposite true. There are injustices in the world, some of which we probably actively contribute to without being aware of it.
Maybe more transparency would be one thing where web startups could help (ie tracking of goods from production to consumption, giving consumers the choice to consume "fair" goods - and I am aware that "fair" is not always "fair").
Are you sure that the "hardware for Africa" thing is not just a scheme to avoid recycling costs, btw.? (I don't know, just asking).
Comments
>rebuilding a flawed, false global economy: one which actively transfers wealth from the poor to the rich, from the sick to the healthy
This is self-righteous 'leftist' moralizing of the worst kind.
The global economy is not flawed. It is the way it is. Human interests, interaction, history and habits are stronger than any amateur Marxist can imagine.
You think world is unfair? Probably. However, the pathetic attempts to seek high moral ground are futile. You have seen how One Laptop Per Child faired in real life. You should also remember that there are tons and tons of used computer equipment and especially mobile phones imported into Africa and other poor countries every day. This used equipment is imported for money and put to use immediately. Some of this technology is affecting how farmers in distant African villages are managing their harvest sales, for example.
This is globalisation. It may sound humiliating (used clothes, used phones etc) but it is wonderful, vibrant, living global economic organism which will show some interesting emergent qualities in our lifetime. Who would imagine South East Asia growing the way it does today?
You may see some surprises from Africa too. And no, it would be not because some guilt-ridden guy has shown us, the masses, what to do. Some of the worst damage to third world economies are done by Western donors.
So, basically, my advice to the author: stop preaching the need to change this cruel world and go make something that people want to buy.
I am a libertarian capitalist, and I agree there has been a government-inspired (Fed-inspired, really) transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.
Let's say you are a smart hacker and I offer you this "deal": you put in $15K, I will lend you $150-300K at very low interest rates, which you can invest as you see fit. The gains (minus the low interest paid) are yours, and in the meantime you can also charge me reasonable expenses. If you fail, you get to walk away, with no personal liability. Will you take this deal?
That was the deal private equity, hedge funds got from the Fed & the banks (aided and abetted by the Fed). In good years, they took great money home. In bad times, many of them go bust, with no personal consequence to themselves.
End result: societal transfer of wealth, from the poor/middle-class to the wealthy. This is not a consequence of a free market. The original sin is the easy credit, supplied to the financially well-connected.
It is funny how now hedge funds and bankers take all the blame, even though millions of 'common people' speculated recklessly in real estate and picked up up enormous debts without any second thought.
The Fed has tried to avoid post-2000 recession and to stimulate general consumption by keeping low interest rates (and not objecting to the tax cuts). This was obviously politically motivated and not very smart as we now see. It did result in a credit bubble. But to claim that it was done to benefit a few 'well-connected' financiers is populism to my opinion. It was done to avoid discontent among people. To appease the masses, so to say...
Interestingly, it is the capitalists who are suffering now, as their equity is eroded by inflation, weak dollar and the bear stock market. The average Joe just defaults on his debts and walks away from his 3 year old house. His creditors take the loss. So it is actually a wealth transfer from the rich to the poor.
>it is the capitalists who are suffering now
lol
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0803/gallery.bea...
1gor, you're douching up this thread.
That's fake money. As Marc Andreesen pointed out, U.S. taxpayers paid the Bear Stearns CEO $60M in cash, directly:
http://blog.pmarca.com/2008/03/congratulations.html
PEACE
Hm... I though 'fake money' had something to do with social network valuations... If so, Marc indeed should know everything about that.
Anyway, I just wanted to say a word in defence of poor hedge fund managers. Some members of this forum will get rich enough to use their services (or become one of them -- like Peter Thiel). Recycling populist cliches about evil bankers and globalisation is soo like... Reddit? ;)
Yeah, the investors (hedge funds, pe) don't have to bear the downside of their investment but they get to keep all the upside. Which gives them an incentive to be really risky with their investments.
The Fed has been hesitant to make them face the downside of their decisions, and that needs to slowly change (without causing a panic/crash)
Now come on, just because some outdated computing hardware is shipped to Africa, everything is peachy?? I agree that "the poor to rich, sick to healthy" is moralist and simplistic, but it doesn't make the opposite true. There are injustices in the world, some of which we probably actively contribute to without being aware of it.
Maybe more transparency would be one thing where web startups could help (ie tracking of goods from production to consumption, giving consumers the choice to consume "fair" goods - and I am aware that "fair" is not always "fair").
Are you sure that the "hardware for Africa" thing is not just a scheme to avoid recycling costs, btw.? (I don't know, just asking).
This is self-righteous libertarian moralizing, though certainly not of the worst kind.