Hacker News Reader

Comment by neves | Hacker News Reader

USA culture has this idolatry for the Rich that looks like what the aristocracy always did: my "beloved" king, the kind princess... Like the philanthropy of the robber barons that made them respectable, but when they are still alive.

I prefer the French approach to take care of aristocrats.

View on HN

> America is the wealthiest nation on Earth, but its people are mainly poor, and poor Americans are urged to hate themselves. To quote the American humorist Kin Hubbard, 'It ain’t no disgrace to be poor, but it might as well be.' It is in fact a crime for an American to be poor, even though America is a nation of poor. Every other nation has folk traditions of men who were poor but extremely wise and virtuous, and therefore more estimable than anyone with power and gold. No such tales are told by the American poor. They mock themselves and glorify their betters. The meanest eating or drinking establishment, owned by a man who is himself poor, is very likely to have a sign on its wall asking this cruel question: 'if you’re so smart, why ain’t you rich?' There will also be an American flag no larger than a child’s hand – glued to a lollipop stick and flying from the cash register.

> Americans, like human beings everywhere, believe many things that are obviously untrue. Their most destructive untruth is that it is very easy for any American to make money. They will not acknowledge how in fact hard money is to come by, and, therefore, those who have no money blame and blame and blame themselves. This inward blame has been a treasure for the rich and powerful, who have had to do less for their poor, publicly and privately, than any other ruling class since, say Napoleonic times. Many novelties have come from America. The most startling of these, a thing without precedent, is a mass of undignified poor. They do not love one another because they do not love themselves.

~ Kurt Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse-Five

In 388 BC, Aristophanes tackled the question, "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" Society has evolved since then, but not drastically. I find his perspective "compelling" :-)

The French Revolution led to quite poor results for those fortunate enough to survive it. You might prefer the approach, but I doubt you’d enjoy the aftermath.

? Have you ever even opened a history book? Is this sarcasm?

I am not being sarcastic. The revolution and subsequent wars caused extremely high casualty rates among French men, while the country isolated itself from international trade, and suffered negative economic consequences.

Have you held the nations that stayed aristocratic and the havoc they caused next to france? Getting rid of parasitic waterhead bodies of government is always a pro birthong pains included.

PS : Those wars started because the assembled aristocracy of f europe jumped the reforming nation.

Big part the French Revolution is not by chance called “la Terreur”.

You can acknowledge that the values the revolution promoted are good, aristocratic rule needed reform, while still being clear that revolutions are not a peaceful thing, especially not for poor or marginalised groups. 50.000 people executed is quite some birthing pains…

> Those wars started because the assembled aristocracy of f europe jumped the reforming nation.

And you think this helps your argument?

I think he means to say that had the other European nations not declared war on France with all the grand coalitions, the casualty rate wouldn’t be what it was.

I think that is partially true.

Even without that, the execution rate in the Reign of Terror was appalling and I doubt it's something the initial commenter would want to live through. Revolutions only sound good idealistically but are very difficult to pull off, most even fail.

Can’t replay the counter factual, but for those that lived it, there were regrets… and most reasoned there was a better way about the changing of power.

Also, it’s not like it was all happy republicanism after the terror, there was a new elite replacing the old (Napoleons) and he was a petty noble anyway, plenty of the aristocracy stuck around, and said emperor did his best to marry into Europe’s aristocracy. Seems a bit like musical chairs, don’t you think? Plenty of France was still royalist too anyway after it all. I don’t think the narrative is so clear, except everyone realized you can’t beat down your peasants too hard.

Even Peter the Great, traveling through France in the 1700s, wondered how long the wealth disparity could last, having seen Versailles and the peasants from the road.

peter the great gave a shit about the peasants , like all Russian zhars, russians had cholera as main source of death till the communists did take over. thats drink from the place you shit in savagery ,those aristocrats did less then nothing and deserved to be purged for dysfunctionality alone . You can not romanticize backwardness just because the front fell of the anti democratic progressive priest caste in the west. Those guys didn't built a thing either besides a caste system .

The problem with the French revolution was that the radicals moved too far, too fast, in the social reform. Their economics werent the issue, it was the total disregard for any religious or traditional culture and the factionalism that doomed the revolutionaries.

It led to dictatorship and itself was a super bloody dictatorships. The regime it replaced was failing, corrupt etc. But the revolution was not "make us free and happy" kind of event. It was "and now we are going to go through really really bad times" kind of event.

Strange response, heard of the Reign of Terror? This helped Napoleon rise to power and after he was overthrown, they simply went back to kings. It didn't really solve anything.

America's attitude towards the rich is heavily qualified gratitude. Rich people tend to create lots of wealth. It's hard to argue Microsoft hasn't made America better. Same with Google, FB, etc.

But the rich are most likely to support effective political solutions (and be politely ignored).

Rich people have, in general, made America a better country, and there's a certain deference because of that.

But this isn't blind stupidity. The Sackler family is as unloved as the Manson family. But even folks who built their wealth in questionable ways (the Kennedys) tend to make America a better place.

I saw a video on Youtube where an American asked a Belgian where the "new money" families lived. The Belgian said "what are you talking about, there is no new money." Most Americans react in horror to that idea.

> But even folks who built their wealth in questionable ways (the Kennedys) tend to make America a better place.

I dispute that strongly. How has the Walton family made America a better place? I'd say they've made it a much worse place. Similarly, Zuck hasn't "made America a better place". I'm not sure you can argue that Gates and Microsoft have.

This sounds like the same trickle down economics BS that we've been fed for decades now.

Walmart has arguable built the most efficient grocery logistic in existence giving the whole country access to cheap fresh food with minimal spoilage

so what? it came at the expense of thousands of small businesses, destroyed hundreds of towns, and is one of the largest transfers of wealth in US history

all to serve us up cheap garbage

You forget the massive benefit to everyone who shops there. It wrecked small businesses because the prices were lower for the same things.

So people were goi g hungry before Walmart came along? No, Walmart destroyed the local economies and so now people can only afford to shop at Walmart.

Yes, people quite literally did go hungry or got far worse food.

The local economies were shit before Walmart. There just happened to be a handful of small business owners that did well squeezing their community.

If Walmart didn’t offer better product/price ratios, nobody would have shopped there.

The only real benefit is to the owners of Walmart though. Their food is not healthier, and their business impact is not better for local economies than what came before.

You can't have food that is at the same time cheap, healthy and at your doorstep. You can have two of them. Walmart gets you cheap and nearby. If you want healthy and nearby, go to Whole Foods and be prepared to stretch your wallet. Not everyone can afford it though.

You’re missing the point that Walmart destroyed all the other small local grocery options and other small stores that used to exist.

So yeah, TODAY all you have is Walmart garbage or expensive Whole Foods (in same places)

I don't think the stores that used to exist had the same or superior choice of goods and the same prices as Walmart did. I mean there might be some that did, but they persist even in the presence of Walmart - I have several Walmarts within 15 min drive of me, and still know a bunch of local grocery stores and specialized shops that still do fine. But I am not sure why "local store" is inherently superior to Walmart unless it does something better, or how it will be able to deliver on the all three.

Their food is absolutely cheaper for the same health value as comparable grocery stores. Walmart was amazing for low income families in small cities and rural areas.

> Walmart was amazing for low income families in small cities and rural areas.

stop drinking the corporate Kool-Aid, my friend

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/12/walmart-pr...

> In the 10 years after a Walmart Supercenter opened in a given community, the average household in that community experienced a 6 percent decline in yearly income—equivalent to about $5,000 a year in 2024 dollars—compared with households that didn’t have a Walmart open near them. Low-income, young, and less-educated workers suffered the largest losses.

> They calculate that poverty increases by about 8 percent in places where a Walmart opens relative to places without one even when factoring in the most optimistic cost-savings scenarios.

All that research indicates is that Walmart isn’t a good place to work. It doesn’t say anything about how much is saves you by shopping there.

I saw this first hand when Walmart showed up in my small city in the 90s. Everyone saved enormous amounts of money, complained about shopping there, and avoided working there because the pay was shit.

If you were low income and had a job outside of Walmart retail competition space, Walmart was a godsend. Think teachers, construction workers, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com