This Yahoo finance article completely misses the point that Nick makes about people rising up with pitchforks: it will happen suddenly. Historical precedent suggests that some unexpected sequence of events may culminate in massive cultural upheaval.
Nick explains it better than I ever could:
> Many of us think we’re special because “this is America.” We think we’re immune to the same forces that started the Arab Spring—or the French and Russian revolutions, for that matter. I know you fellow .01%ers tend to dismiss this kind of argument; I’ve had many of you tell me to my face I’m completely bonkers. And yes, I know there are many of you who are convinced that because you saw a poor kid with an iPhone that one time, inequality is a fiction.
> Here’s what I say to you: You’re living in a dream world. What everyone wants to believe is that when things reach a tipping point and go from being merely crappy for the masses to dangerous and socially destabilizing, that we’re somehow going to know about that shift ahead of time. Any student of history knows that’s not the way it happens. Revolutions, like bankruptcies, come gradually, and then suddenly. One day, somebody sets himself on fire, then thousands of people are in the streets, and before you know it, the country is burning. And then there’s no time for us to get to the airport and jump on our Gulfstream Vs and fly to New Zealand. That’s the way it always happens. If inequality keeps rising as it has been, eventually it will happen. We will not be able to predict when, and it will be terrible—for everybody. But especially for us.
Might be a subtext here. Consider that there are people (in the general thought-o-sphere, not in the article or on HN) saying that 'poor people are just too lazy to be rich'. Re-read the article.
Some things will stick out, I believe. Particularly: the author says that most people feel the rich should be taxed more but cannot find institutional recourse for their frustrations due to distrust of the government. Most people would conclude that they'd do something else -- the author of the article concludes they'll do nothing.
I'm not claiming to see into the author's mind, but placing ideas in different contexts can help illuminate our own thoughts and have more considered reactions.
> but they are also docile in the face of decline and confused about possible solutions. Hanauer fears mobs heading for the castles of Greenwich and Palo Alto, but America’s disaffected these days are more likely to vent their rage behind closed doors as they shake their fists at Fox News or MSNBC and leave cranky
They are docile, that is true. Slavoj Zizek, which is a madman, pop-psychologist, and I often don't agree with, did say something I agree with in one of this talks and that is the tyranny of democracy. Basically the idea that people are managed, treated and groomed ideologically to vote against their own interests. At the end of the day the system on paper is democratic and people believe they are free and have all the possible choices available to them, people can vote, can impeach, recall senators etc etc. Yet so many end up voting against their own interests. In a certain way he makes the case that countries with officially un-free speech and human right have healthier people (psychologically speaking) because everyone knows that they are not free and often they internalize and understand what they are giving up in exchange for security, bread and shelter.
I think it is very instructive to watch or talk to people who watch Fox News or any conservative show, or perhaps just as likely an another ideological show (leftist or liberal too) and observe how propaganda works. Once you start seeing through it it becomes comical and amusing. But one man's comedy and theater is another man's reality.
Another anecdote came from Chomsky, I think, and it was about how those in power (and this doesn't have to be just money it could be power to regulate or control or police etc) are devout closeted Marxists. Well how so, a lot of them a on the complete opposite spectrum usually? Well the twist is instead of identifying with the working class they just identify with the ruling class and act accordingly -- protect their interests, they understand what owning the means of production is, understand how the labor market works and exploit it, they lobby for legislation in their favor, privatize sectors of what used to be owned and managed by the government -- prisons, etc etc. All of that has to be done concurrently with maintaining ideological control over people.
Egads. Slavoj Žižek is not a madman nor even remotely summons your derogatory term “pop”.
He is one of the most topical and compelling minds in the Continental Philosophy stream.
As any good Continental Philosopher, he highlights the seeming invisible connections between the hegemony of an ideological system and the unfortunate byproducts.
You likely don't agree with him because he is precisely a counterpoint to the Rationalist Noam Chomskys out there.
Note, Rationalist is not an accolade here, but rather a reference to one of the other strains of philosophy.
I have to say, I do like to listen to him but I treat it more as entertainment. Granted I also haven't read many of his serious books. I like he uses examples and jokes, it make for a very interesting listening experience. But a lot links and conclusions seem rather strenuous. Like you know looking at how toilets are designed and infer political bias from it, or you know Sound Of Music is Nazi Propaganda is disguise.
This Yahoo finance article completely misses the point that Nick makes about people rising up with pitchforks: it will happen suddenly. Historical precedent suggests that some unexpected sequence of events may culminate in massive cultural upheaval.
Nick explains it better than I ever could:
> Many of us think we’re special because “this is America.” We think we’re immune to the same forces that started the Arab Spring—or the French and Russian revolutions, for that matter. I know you fellow .01%ers tend to dismiss this kind of argument; I’ve had many of you tell me to my face I’m completely bonkers. And yes, I know there are many of you who are convinced that because you saw a poor kid with an iPhone that one time, inequality is a fiction.
> Here’s what I say to you: You’re living in a dream world. What everyone wants to believe is that when things reach a tipping point and go from being merely crappy for the masses to dangerous and socially destabilizing, that we’re somehow going to know about that shift ahead of time. Any student of history knows that’s not the way it happens. Revolutions, like bankruptcies, come gradually, and then suddenly. One day, somebody sets himself on fire, then thousands of people are in the streets, and before you know it, the country is burning. And then there’s no time for us to get to the airport and jump on our Gulfstream Vs and fly to New Zealand. That’s the way it always happens. If inequality keeps rising as it has been, eventually it will happen. We will not be able to predict when, and it will be terrible—for everybody. But especially for us.