

Notes from Ha-Joon Chang’s Lecture at NYU - 3d3mon
http://10tonfunk.tumblr.com/post/4052159020/notes-from-ha-joon-changs-lecture-at-nyu-on-23-things

======
microarchitect
For me the most insightful parts were the quotes about progress in developing
countries.

> The reason this (entrepreneurship in developing countries) > doesn’t result
> in wealth is entrepreneurship is rarely an > individual event now, if it
> ever was. You need social > infrastructure; corporate, legal and financial
> systems.

I read this as saying that the whole system needs to change for development to
really happen. Unfortunately, a number of rich and powerful vested interests,
want to and are able to preserve the status quo quite successfully.

------
snitko
Oh yeah, I read the book. It is really insightful and interesting. After I
finished it though, I decided to read something of the opposite point view, of
the free-market economists (I would recommend "Economy In One Lesson" by Henry
Hazlitt). It's very simple to fall into the trap of "oh, this mans knows what
he's talking about" unless you compare. Actually, the more you read, the less
sure you are about things.

For example, Hazlitt shows how inflation, even if not too high, is harmful for
the economy and basically his arguments did not seem weaker - which confuses
me even more. One thing Ha-Joon Chang does really good when arguing is showing
a lot of statistics. That is definitely a very strong point of this book which
even the most ingenious free-market economists would find difficult to stand.

------
maratd
Can someone please explain to me why a site that is primarily preoccupied with
entrepreneurship is filled with socialists? People start ventures to make
money. To create disproportionate wealth. Are you people just compensating for
your internal selfish desires that you can't come to terms with? Genuinely
curious.

~~~
RuadhanMc
Having a healthy skepticism towards capitalism and the "free market" does not
make you a socialist. I'm equally skeptical about rampant socialism. The
answer is in the middle somewhere. An ideologically impure position perhaps,
but a pragmatic one none the less.

Being an entrepreneur isn't incompatible with social capitalism. Just because
you want to start a business and earn buckets of money yourself, doesn't mean
that you must be against a social safety net. Why would it?

~~~
maratd
_Being an entrepreneur isn't incompatible with social capitalism._

You're right, it isn't. And, of course, nothing is stopping a pacifist from
joining the military. After all, he can get a desk job. What I want to know is
_why_.

Certain personality types are attracted to specific ideologies and in turn,
specific careers. Why is somebody who is fascinated with wealth redistribution
and income equality spend his time on a site which is devoted to the _exact
opposite_ on a personal level?

Simply drawing a dividing line between society and the self is not an answer.
Most people have a congruent perspective when it comes social policy and their
personal policy.

Why are these people different?

~~~
RuadhanMc
My guess is that the people who frequent Hacker News are mostly not attached
to one extreme ideology or the other. They like the creative freedom and
empowerment that a capitalist society brings, but also the knowledge that if
they fall on hard times then there is a safety net that keeps them off the
streets. Remember, we can't all be winners all of the time, sometimes bad
stuff happens to good people. Smart people know this.

Life isn't black and white and ideologies don't need to be either.

~~~
maratd
_They like the creative freedom and empowerment that a capitalist society
brings, but also the knowledge that if they fall on hard times then there is a
safety net that keeps them off the streets. Remember, we can't all be winners
all of the time, sometimes bad stuff happens to good people._

I understand now. That's the key.

Just my two cents, but it looks to me like there are two types of
entrepreneurs. Those who believe in themselves completely and those who
believe in luck to some extent.

If you believe in yourself completely, any failure stems from yourself and can
be corrected. No need for a safety net, just correct the error and keep going.

Luck, on the other hand, is not something that can be controlled. It just
happens or it doesn't, requiring a safety net in case it doesn't happen.

Makes sense to me now. Thank you.

------
PostOnce
"George W. Bush: “The problem with the French is they don’t have a word for
entrepreneurship.”"

see: <http://www.snopes.com/quotes/bush.asp>

Things like this make me question the veracity of every other statement in the
article.

~~~
kitsune_
It's not possible to deduce where this comes from:

a) the talk / book b) added by the blog author

On top of that, even if it was from talk, you don't know whether it was added
in jest or in earnest..

------
lurchpop
oh man, i wish that George Bush quote were true.

------
EarthLaunch
This is a pathetic article and I'm ashamed to see it on a news site I respect.
This leftist ideology is HN's Achilles heel.

~~~
utoku
My leftist friends think I am a hardcore capitalist. My rightist friends think
I am an irrevocable socialist or communist. They don't put me in the middle
ground.

Hackers like to point out the flaws in all kinds of systems. So be prepared to
be ashamed at least some of the time. Some people just like to think about how
to improve the systems.

~~~
EarthLaunch
The middle ground between right and wrong is wrong. Anyway, neither of those
alternatives is right.

I like hackers who point out flaws in any system, but this article does not do
that.

