Ask HN: Are we in the Gilded Age II, and should it be reigned in?
Is this period of big capitalist boom, lagging legislation, billionaire playground, defined and legitimate enough to be called the Siliconized Age / Gilded Age II?
(I.e. do people consider it to be a real, parallel phenomenon)
And should it be curbed with legislation, anti-competition commissions etc.? Or is the common and long term good such that we shouldn't stifle this boom period prematurely?
Just an Ask HN to see what opinions are.
8 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 35.8 ms ] threadShould we curb it? HN people are likely to be getting paid to support it (I am) so opinions here are not objective. For me, sure, I got mine already, burn it down. For younger people the choice is surely murkier.
My fear about curbing it is that we seem to lack a collective understanding of pernicious root causes, or even a majority viewpoint, in part because the forces you describe have so thoroughly perfected the art of influencing public discourse.
It also seems to be one of the few (non-war) ways to research & kick start an industry that has an extremely high barrier to entry.
Flight, rocketry, railroads, steam, telegraph, physics breakthroughs, etc.: All arguably required big capitalist periods and/or escalating conflict in to get their start (not to entirely dismiss government initiatives, nor innovations made during lean times).
So I am equally wary, and partly because this is how we can most peacefully 'plant trees that future generations can sit under'. Those trees might just never exist if we don't go all-in at some point.
Having said that, I would support certain anti-competition breakups.
Some CEOs or VPs hold this appeal as well, telling the middle managers to stuff it while the workers cheer.
But on the ground, I would be considered an enemy of the billionaires. SMEs and large corps would benefit, but billionaires and trillionaire mega corps would sacrifice a lot.
The progressive income taxes I implemented would probably seem absurd to most HN readers (negative at the bottom, ridiculously high at the top) The inheritance taxes: same. Corporation taxes: same. I would propose that X is forced to sell to the US gov (unless large changes are implemented), which would seem absurd to even most centrists and many leftists. (If it's indeed a town square, then we will make it a proper town square). I would force breakup of most of the largest companies in very specific ways (and think it's feasible, without sacrificing a nation's competitiveness and productivity).
My idealistic stance is that the very top can effectively be curtailed while letting the innovation and big business continue either undisturbed or empowered. I.e. it is not 'have my cake and eat it too', but 'There are two tiers of elites to deal with in very different ways'. Remove the billionaire playground, keep the capitalist innovation.
Not a partisan issue. The only thing--and not without risk--that seems likely to affect the collapsing political architecture is https://conventionofstates.com/