This is a horrible idea.
The Panglossianism that will result from this is indicative of the bubble hype which will destroy Silicon Valley, Y-Combinator and Hacker News.
In fact, this is the worst idea I ever heard in my life.
The guidelines aren't asking you to behave like Pangloss and think everything is perfect. It asks if you do have criticism then address it respectfully and constructively.
According to what moral framework are you precisely defining "respectfully" and "constructively"?
There are plenty of examples in the world where bringing up logical, concise, and polite criticism invokes the wrath of a cabal of power-holders and social media demagogues, especially in a world that promotes the postmodern idea of "interpretation, not intent, is reality"
If it helps you can take respectfully to mean "the recipient will not feel angry or attacked due to the message tone" and constructively to mean "the recipient will finish reading the message feeling positive with ways to improve their work or actions".
This reminds me of Javed Iqbal, an American satellite dish repairman who was thrown in jail for allowing Americans access (Hezbollah and supposedly Iran backed) Al-Manar television.
Actually the article from NPR, a station often described as liberal, doesn't seem all that incredulous over it happening when the shoe's on the other foot. Headline: "N.Y. Man Charged with Aiding Hezbollah TV Channel". First sentence: "This past week, the Department of Justice charged a New York City man for aiding a terrorist organization.". Geez, to the average American it starts making it sound like he did something wrong and kind of deserves to be in jail. I guess Iranians feel the same way with their guy.
Why are you making insinuations and apparently quoting, but declining to link a source? The info you quoted is basic headline facts, but you insinuate a bias while seemingly making an effort to stop that part of the evidence.
> Mitnick is a criminal and all the pro-hacking sympathies have been wasted on a very, very undeserving person.
Wow, he hacked into some corporation's computers, that's just so awful. Pacific Bell - a shady monopoly who is granted a monopoly by the government, and in return showers politicians with bribes, I mean donations, and sends our calls and web history off to the NSA for monitoring and permanent storage.
> in reality, the rebels and the intellectually vain are easily co-opted politically
In reality, he has been doing security consultations for corporations, so he has already been co-opted. "The service has offered to sell corporate and government clients high-end 'zero-day' exploits". That doesn't really smell of rebel. Of course, everyone has to grow up and make a living.
I can think of a number of IT companies that were founded in the past 20 years, sold for billions of dollars, or worth billions or even hundreds of billions of dollars, that were founded by ex-hackers, or at least people very associated with the hacker scene and whose first technical hires were ex-hackers. It's mentioned in the tech press, in interviews, in blogs etc. It's easy enough to look up if you want to. I mean, one of YC's founders is rtm, and he was around back in Viaweb days.
It's difficult for me to perceive of a modern working class kid interested in technology today, it seems he has more resources at his disposable (although not many - a dinky Vic 20 booted people right into a programming environment, whereas a kid with an iPad and iPhone today would find it very difficult to program his own device - it is pretty much that definition of an embedded system of a device that can't program itself). Back in the 1980's a working class kid with a Vic 20 and 300 baud modem could only call people locally, call local BBS's, and be stuck with poor computing power.
If he hacked and phreaked, he could call around the country, access teleconferences, call BBS's around the country, access powerful Unix, Vax/VMS etc. systems, access the Internet, access x.25 networks and x.25 chat networks in Europe etc. He could follow the law and accept his straitjacket of being designated by the Relations of Production to be one who works a menial job, and for the privilege of being allowed to work he can kick up his expropriated surplus labor work time to the idle class job creator heirs who own his company. Or he can bend the rules, see new vistas, and somewhere down the line maybe co-found a billion dollar company, or a hundred billion dollar company. Then he, or his apologists like you, can then go around complaining about the kids hacking into his company's computers.
I know nothing of your family, deduce nothing about them and have nothing to say about them.
However younger people often have little or no idea what happened before them. Perhaps among the aunts and uncles of a family, an older brother or sister sacrificed for years working at a dead-end job in order to put a younger brother through college. Then as things work, the younger brother moves across the country has some success, and the older brother is working in a dead-end job. This was the story in "It's A Wonderful Life" 60 years ago and the story wasn't new then.
Then they have kids - the better-off ones go to a private prep school, the ones of the guy who sacrificed go to public schools. The children don't even know everything about how one brother sacrificed his potentiality and even to some extent his children's potentiality for the other brother. Some kids go to Ivy League schools, have great financial success, and develop a conceited attitude. The sacrificer's kids might not even be able to go to college.
If you look at the Forbes 400 richest list with tech CEO's, we see Bill Gates, who was born with a million dollar trust fund, Larry Page, whose father was a professor, Mark Zuckerberg, who went to Phillips Exeter Academy etc. These are are all white, male people born on third base, or at least second base. You look at Silicon Valley CEO's and you see people whose success was shaped to a large extent before they were born. Why have they succeeded whereas some black kid, whose family moved from Mississippi to Oakland in 1947, did not? Or maybe some Ohlone's whose families "owned" large tracts of lands in the Bay Area before whites came and stole it?
It's a self-serving narrative that people succeed solely due to initiative, hard work, flexibility etc. Are white males from upper middle class families the only people who possess these traits? Of course for the self-serving narrative to be tautological, there will always be murmurs among those people that that is so. Of course once in a while a white woman from an upper class familiy will slip through, or someone from a wealthy Brahmin immigrant family, but that should go without saying.
If one brother sacrifices in a family so that another can have success, the successful person will often have a wife and kids with a vain attitude that they're better than the sacrificer and his family. The repayment for the sacrifice is contempt that they're now better than the sacrificer, and that the poorer family has some innate flaws, are uncouth and so forth. If they feel some resentment toward that, they go on HN and whine how their family resents them driving around in a flashy sports car. The only real excuse the golden child has is he has no knowledge of what went on in the years before he was born.
I know a few (computer-interested) people who went to expensive private prep schools as their families are rich. They really live in a complete bubble. In the documentary "Born Rich", one of the rich kids talks about how much of a bubble his parents live in when he introduced his normal, middle class friend to them and they ask him "where did you summer last year?" This is certainly the case, these people have no idea how the average American worker lives. It's kind of like Mitt Romney, whose father was a CEO and who went to the exclusive Cranbrook prep school blathering on how 47% of Americans are dependents who see themselves as victims. Americans were smart enough to throw him to the curb. These people who are born to the manor, and who live off the wealth they expropriate from the workers who create that wealth, are ever increasingly disconnected from the real world and reality. Why shouldn't they hold themselves in ever high regard? Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette did in the years before they wer
That is an interesting point, though not really applicable to my family as far as I know (yes, my father had it harder then my cousin or myself, as I think most parents do, but as for siblings, not really) My close and extended family were always middle class. We all went to public school/college (namely since around here it is usually better than private ones). Yes, we had a lot of advantages over other folks, but not really over other people in the family. We were also very close before the 'money starter to pour'. Christmas, new years, any family member birthday, we all gathered, we celebrated, etc. When the money difference became apparent, most of that stopped. The joyful times were pretty much replaced with small talk on the times we get together.
And I agree with most of your ideas, and while I don't know the lives of Gates, Page, etc, and I have no idea how they treated their family/friends, it seems you have an idea (maybe true, I don't know, but it isn't my experience) that as people go up the ladder, they change their attitudes ('develop a conceited attitude' and 'will often have a wife and kids with a vain attitude' or 'now better than the sacrificer'). Again, I'm talking about what I saw here, but it is usually the opposite (maybe cultural differences make it so), but you see a much more humble and giving attitude with people that have reached a good level of success than the ones that haven't. The ones that do reach, usually appreciate all the hard work their parents did to give them the opportunities they have (I do every day), but the ones that didn't usually blame everyone about their problems, but give no thanks/props to the ones that have helped them. Quick example, I've worked for a startup a while ago with one main investor (basically, he was footing the bill for everything until there were revenues). He is one of the richest guys in Portugal, and when I had some personal problems and I mentioned I needed 3-4 months unpaid leave due to that, the only thing he told me: "Go, go take care of things, don't worry about coming until things are good with you", and kept paying me the salary for those 4 months. Didn't ask for a single thing, nothing.
What I'm trying to say is that maybe I have had a different experience with successful people than you, but in this corner of the world, humbleness and a giving attitude are much more prevalent when you go up the ladder than when you don't, and it is hard to find people at the bottom (Even close friends) that don't resent you for that.
Same disclaimer as firstOrder. Throwing another opinion into the ring:
My immediate thoughts revolved around:
> 5k rolex
> 250k euro car
> tries to help people
> throws parties for them
> lets them use his pool
This could be seen as someone in a position of power, and someone happy to let other people know that. No judgement on anyone for rewarding themselves materially for their success. It's just not the same as sharing a box of doughnuts with your family and them then being ungrateful behind your back. It's more akin to showing people how many doughnuts you have, letting them touch them, compliment you on your good taste, but not letting anyone eat them. Just because you don't eat them in front of them doesn't mean it's not antagonising. Aware of how weak that analogy just got.
It would take an absolute buddhist monk of a person to not indulge in toy-buying, I can't imagine the self-control it would take, but I think that's the only solution to not end up with the comments. Can you imagine people making negative comments if the FU-money-guy gave 90% of his cash to charitable causes? No reason why he should, but it puts his current situation in contrast.
> We also live a decent life (near the beach, pool, etc)
> we invite everyone to spend some time with us for free in the summer (saving them 1000's in holiday rentals and food)
> We never show off
You're definitely not showing off directly, I'm sure you would never mean to, but I do think by virtue of you raising your living conditions up (way) above those of your peers (I'm assuming) and then thinking you're doing them a favour by sharing it with them, the net effect is the same.
As an alternative idea to saving them 1000s in rentals and food, you could just rent a modestly-priced house together on neutral territory. Especially if you're starting to think people are taking your generosity for granted.
Maybe that is the difference... I don't see as doing them a favour, I see it as sharing it with them...
If you have a 250k car, you aren't going to buy one for each of your friends, sure, but if any of them calls you asking to take it for a ride or a couple days, he has no problems giving them the keys, I honestly don't know what else you can do to not make them resent you. He lets his friends have parties in his house (gives them the keys) when he is out on business so they have a nice place to party.
As for us, we open the doors of our house to anyone (Family and friends). We live in a very desirable place, where most people pay in the 1000's to vacation there for a week or two, we open our house for them to stay there if they want (they do). This is while I'm working, so we aren't really talking about doing a vacation together. It's AirBnB for free if you want to call it that. We give them keys, they are free to do whatever they want. Eat our food. Basically as if it was their own holiday home. Again, not exactly sure what can be done to not be resented for it. I guess don't invite anyone there, don't talk about the house, don't say nothing so people think we live in the projects?
As for giving money, I know for sure, even as a percentage, both me and my cousin give much more than at least all of our family members (not sure about friends as it is something I don't talk with them about). He financially supports an orphanage (20+ kids) by himself along with other charitable works he has over there. As for us, we give to Watsi, support various children as well, among other things (UNICEF, local charitable organisation that work with poor families with newborns), and one of the reasons we are trying to save up money is to be able to create and support an halfway house in our future. The amazing thing is, I wrote about the charitable aspects on my previous post, and I deleted it since it seemed like bragging. I had no problem with the rest, since that to me, specially when we really do try to share with our close family and friends our successes, it is a matter of joy.
This is what I mean though. I think people with a bit more success don't mind sharing their stuff (in Portugal), but even so, it seems people take it the wrong way, and resent them for it. Do we resent pg and others that share their resources/time/money with ycombinator startups? No! We admire and are happy they do, but it seems as soon as it is closer to home, the resentment does come up.
your viewpoint is the correct one. wealthy people who share their material things are not showing off, they're being generous. it's a liability to share your real estate and vehicles.
it takes a real bitter person to resent someone for sharing. yeah sure i can theoretically empathize with that viewpoint but it just feels wrong. it's just pedestrian, petty human hatred.
> If you're itching to start something new, why chase the nth iteration of a company already serving the young, privileged, liberal jetsetter?
Because those are the projects which angels and VCs bankroll. Because those are the people who have disposable cash.
I was just reading an article on a conservative web site, actually one run by Ben Horowitz's father ( http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/cbs-colbert-and... ). It talks about how TV doesn't care about older viewers, rural viewers, and increasingly only cares about young professionals on both coasts, and how television programming is being focused on such people. Not sure how true it is but it makes sense.
Audre Lorde once said that the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house, and capitalism is not going to solve the fundamental contradictions of capitalism, other than by imploding, as so many economic systems before have done (feudalism, slavery, primitive communism).
Also, anyone who has done work organizing working class people knows the solution is not for a genius from MIT to swoop in with some corporation to try to fix problems wrought by corporations. You see what is possible and organize around that. The American white working class once had power, and it chose to send bombers north of the Yalu river, support a war in Vietnam, on and on up to modern day with Obama's support of the Honduran's military overthrow of Honduras's democracy etc. The AFL-CIO saw it's steepest decline under someone who never worked or ran a union, but was involved undermining foreign unions in cahoots with the CIA and American big business. And on and on. Now they go down to fundamentalist churches and watch Fox News as they age, and slowly become a minority in their own country. Empowering white, blue collar Americans gave us No Gun Ri and My Lai. Thanks, I'll pass. I'm glad to see the sun setting on the white American working class.
Yeah, as someone who qualifies as privileged having grown up firmly middle-class and blessed with computers and the interest to learn them since the 80s, I am not incredibly inclined to channel my entrepreneurial spirit into something unfundable to satisfy the moral call of an ex-Goldman MIT graduate on a guilt trip. Put simply, I can not move the needle through self-sacrifice. That doesn't mean I don't have ethics and integrity about what I choose to do, but just that I'm not fool enough to believe I can solve (eg) poor single mothers' problems in this country with an app.
The problems are not going to be solved until culturally we come to a common understanding about what the concentration of wealth is actually doing to the country, so the zeitgeist can move past this sort of ra-ra Fox News pro-corporate anti-socialist propaganda that millions of people believe on principle because it appeals emotionally to their rugged individualist values, but actually only serves as an idealogical wedge to distract the proletariat while the oligarchs continue with business as usual lining their pockets behind the scenes.
I have personal experience with this from working with multiple single mothers while working retail as a starving student and the most effective way to get single mothers out of poverty is to get rid of the single part of their description. Patching the symptoms temporarily didn't seem to help much.
I'm not talking about some retroactive guilt shaming idiocy or a very niche dating website (although I've seen that work...) just from personal observation one chick and one kid in one apartment is just doomed, absolutely doomed, but you get three of them in a house having each others back and watching each others kids when they have to, and they get somewhere, at least better than the one trying to go it alone. And from direct personal observation, usually way the heck too much interpersonal "reality TV show" class of drama. Maybe the key is fixing the drama, somehow.
I know this sounds hideously 2009-ish but a social network for single moms is probably not the worst idea ever. Once you organize them, your list of three problems kind of takes care of itself.
Precisely that: a way to pool resources plus a bridge loan to cover a year of mortgage payments that are now her sole responsibility following a divorce.
Unemployment is one of the pillars that capitalism is built on, it is a structural necessity for profits to exist, so any efforts to relieve it via reform are doomed to failure. Structural unemployment did not exist in Europe prior to Europe moving from feudalism to capitalism several centuries ago - structural unemployment is a creation of capitalism. One need only pick up the Wall Street Journal or Businessweek during times of low unemployment - there is great fear that unemployment is getting "too low", meaning everyone who wants a job can get a job. Since the purpose of capitalism is to generate profits for rentiers, this makes sense.
The schemes mentioned here and being floated about in Slate and the like are done in anticipation of how to respond to a sudden, massive increase in unemployment for low-skilled workers in response to advances in things like AI. These schemes wouldn't contradict what I said before, because they would be due to an economic shift where the lever of unemployment for low skilled workers would mean less, since the increased quantity of unemployed would change the quality of what unemployment is. The threat of sudden mass unemployment would mean less to increasing profits, and could potentially cause social unrest. Like Larry Page's grandfather wandering around a GM plant with a weapon in his hand during the Flint sit-down strike.
It's obvious that structural unemployment is a creation of capitalism, as it did not exist in centuries past. From reading the business press's fears of unemployment getting too low, it should be obvious that big business feels unemployment is an essential pillar of what they need to keep the system running as they wish. Despite this history and current expression of views, people seem to be blind to the reality that not only is the government not interested in helping unemployed people, but that it is actively promoting unemployment, and will fight and do anything to keep structural unemployment in place. It's not an accident trying to be fixed, the existence of ~0% unemployment is what would be seen as the accident, and any levers to throw some of those people out of work would (and have been) utilized. While this is the reality, the standard corporated owned and sponsored hegemonic press is of course oblivious to all of this. Unemployment isn't an accident government is trying to fix, when unemployment gets "too low" business and government actively work to increase unemployment among happily employed people.
> what about the fact that 170 people died in Homs on July 19th? any mention about those "Atrocious Actions"? no. antisemite.
One reason to mention what is going on in Gaza and not in Syria is that US voters/taxpayers are financing, directly or indirectly, what is going on in Gaza. The Ron Reiter's of the world want me as a worker and taxpayer to bankroll his country. Then if I have a critical word for what his country does with the money, say I do something outrageous in his mind like quote what the head of the UN says about it, then I'm an anti-semite.
Shut down AIPAC and stop having them tax my money to send to Israel, and my criticism of Israel will subside. These people bite the hand that feeds them.
The author is the president of the American Enterprise Insititute. AEI's board are the CEO's of ExxonMobil, Dow Chemical etc. Including the CEO of Enron until he was ousted. They are bankrolled by Ford, GE, Chrysler, AT&T etc.
What is his message to us?
"when money becomes an end in itself, it can bring misery"..."People who rate materialistic goals like wealth as top personal priorities are significantly likelier to be more anxious, more depressed"..."the moral snares of materialism"..."it requires a deep skepticism of our own basic desires"
The majority shareholders of the companies bankrolling his institute own the lion's share of this country's stocks, bonds and other assets, and are continually at war with the workers in the company's they own so that a larger lion's share of money coming in goes to profits and not wages.
So of course in this zero-sum game, the parasitical side is going to tell the workers, the wealth creating side, that they should not be too concerned with money, that wealth isn't everything, that uneasy lay the head that wears the crown, and all this other nonsense. They used to have priests and reverends dress up these ideas with superstitious mumbo-jumbo, but nowadays more people are smart enough to see through that BS ( although he does talk about "Saint" Paul, the Dalai Lama, Buddha, the Love of God ).
This crook is so full of hubris, he wants to lecture me on how to live a better life - that being that I should ask for a smaller piece of the pie that I work to create, and perhaps instead dwell on "the strength to love others - [...] God", the thoughts of "Saint" Paul and other nonsense.
Why doesn't he tell his contributors to stop employing psychologists and Madison Avenue to try to figure out how best to create conspicuous consumption so that people will buy the commodities they're pumping out. The advertising business is one of the biggest forces out there trying to tell people life is more enjoyable if certain commodities are purchased, and he is at the center of that world. He likes quoting the bible? Try Matthew 7:
"Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
Since I have seen much of the advice in this article help me live a happier life the conclusion I draw is that the author, and likely many of the CEOs running these companies are likely unhappy and un-fullfilled and that they are missing any wisdom in this piece as much as their employees may be.
He even claims in the article that it is not politically motivated, that it holds regardless of political affiliation (materialism in that case). But given his conservative background, and the fact that what he has 'found' (I haven't checked whatever sources there are for myself) seems to perhaps promote a tempered, conservative life#, I am not so sure that he is completely without political bias in this piece.
#Though that is debatable. You don't have to be a conservative or a liberal to come to your own conclusion that leading a life where you try to temper your immediate desires and seek stability (see: monogamy mentioned in the article) for yourself. Political affiliation is only about what you tell others to do. But this is an opinion article where the author is explicitly promoting a specific way of life, so it might be politically motivated.
Someone telling me I need the strength to love God is not someone who is making a rational argument to counter. I can't even conceive of how to address the "argument" that I'm weak because I don't love this deity who he seems to be high on.
There is no argument to address. He is not someone with an AEI hat on talking about monetary policy or trade agreements or so forth, he is jabbering on about how I should live my life, what my values should be, dressed up with a lot of superstitious hokum.
This article goes over much of what happens, but seems to have missed the point of things.
It talks about how the mango went to some backwoods provinces of China - probably not electrified, where a farmer would be considered well-off if they owned a single animal - and how some had superstitious thoughts about it. How is that any different than the uproar we see in the rural US about biology and Darwin being taught in schools, since it contradicts some bizarre superstitions they have out there? In 2009 one of these rural religious types shot dead Dr. George Tiller in Kansas, as Bill O'Reilly and others were on the radio and television talking about how Tiller was the tool of the Devil. 1960s China is played up as being all crazy in this article, in contrast to what I assume would be a sane, modern US. The reality is rural idiocy, class resentments and so forth exist in both places at both times.
I also think the point about the mangoes is missed. It would be like saying an American flag displayed in a political demonstration was worshipped, or some doves let free during a peace demonstration were worshipped, or the CND peace symbol displayed during an anti-war demonstration was worshipped. The mangoes represented an end to much of the strife of the Cultural Revolution, and were understood as such. Most of the militant students were sent off to live in the countryside for a year or two, to cool them down and get them acquainted with the realities of the country. The mangoes represented peace, an end of strife, most people in Beijing understood it in this way, and did see them as a positive symbol. This either escaped the writer, or they are writing the same kind of propaganda they're accusing the Chinese of writing.
It's fair to say, though, that Americans do worship the American flag with a religious fervor, to an extent other countries don't do. A kid who disrespects it isn't going to be taken to the countryside and shot by vigilantes, but he might very well be beaten up in the schoolyard. Because freedom and the troops.
Politicized symbols usually end up used as a substitute for the things they actually are supposed to signify, not as something that merely accompanies the signified. Here the mangos might've symbolized peace and unity of the country, but in fact they were a tool to rebuild the power of a totalitarian, murderous ruler who was responsible for the destruction of countless lives and cultural artifacts.
> It would be like saying an American flag displayed in a political demonstration was worshipped, or some doves let free during a peace demonstration were worshipped
Good points. But it is worshipped if not more so. "Can't let the flag touch the ground". That is just one such thing. Other things are worshipped and revered at the same level -- the Constitution. For large swathes of this country Constitution is not too far from the 10 Commandments. They go hand in hand. Founding Fathers might as well have halos around their heads instead of wigs.
The flag and those things is pretty close to the mango. The mango is funny to us now, it wasn't funny for them locally. I would guess Constitution worship or large religiousness in US is probably just as funny to other Western 1st world countries.
> How is that any different than the uproar we see in the rural US about biology and Darwin
But it is not. Nobody said it was. Just because they had crazy cargo cult worship of a mango doesn't mean we don't have irrational crazies thinking earth was made by some sky daddy 5k years ago who then planted dinosaur bones, along with fake C-14 backdating, to "test" us. There are hundreds of thousands of people who believe that.
They are not on HN, not in your circle of friends. But they vote and have purchasing power, make decisions about our future as well. That is very scary.
Heck it would have a lot better to just have them believe in a magic mango. It would probably be a lot safer.
I suspect you've missed the point - it's about how during an unusual period of China's history, amidst extreme pressure and confusion, a random item took on incredible and I intended significance.
The American flag is a bad comparison - it does have a fixed meaning, it is intentionally imbued with significance that is widely recognized.
The religious example similarly bad. You're talking about people who already have a strong set if beliefs that are being directly challenged - not randomly assigning meaning to meaningless gifts.
I think we can manage to discuss China without it being an attack on China, or without trying to bring up comparisons with the US to 'balance the scales'
To me, the article plays this as slightly humorous and kitschy, whereas your comment makes it seem much darker, especially with the Dr. Tiller comparison. One thing you get wrong is, this began among workers at Tsinghua University, not rural dirt farmers. So if this be idiocy (and that seems uncharitable at best to me) it is urban and not rural in character.
> To me, the article plays this as slightly humorous and kitschy,
It was all like that until you get to the end and find out that people (with at least on specific example) were _killed_ over making a disparaging remark about the "mango". Others were punished for not holding it "reverently" enough.
It sounds funny now it wasn't funny then though.
Idiocy started as urban but it was then pushed and taken advantage of. They built mugs and products with mangoes on it. It wasn't just a local fad.
Yes it seems incongruous to assume that factory workers were likely to be rural, or even that any reader of TFA would be likely to make that mistaken assumption. I'd hazard that few enough American factory workers would have had much contact with mangoes in 1968, so GP comment is doubly bizarre.
Dogma has penetrated very deep. If you read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations", the invisible hand is something that intervenes in markets to prevent free trade among merchants from different nations.
Nowadays, 99% of the time people use his term the exact opposite way. They say it is a hand that gently guides merchants from different nations to trade with one another within a free market, and that such thing. They have twisted his term to mean the exact opposite of how Smith intended it.
> If you read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations", the invisible hand is something that intervenes in markets to prevent free trade among merchants from different nations.
I don't see how that's the opposite interpretation from the modern usage. It just seems like the modern usage is a generalization of Smith's usage. In The Wealth of Nations, Smith seems to be saying that an individual favoring domestic industry over foreign industry for purely personal gain tends to be good for domestic industry and society, and perhaps even for foreign industry. The generalized interpretation that people use today is that individuals seeking purely personal gain can result in a market that self-regulates and benefits society. What is the contradiction you're referring to?
Also, in The Wealth of Nations, Smith does describe the more general concept of market self-regulation, though in that section he does not use the phrase "invisible hand." In his earlier book "The Theory of Moral Sentiments," Smith uses the phrase "invisible hand" to refer to the phenomenon that rich people tend to provide livelihoods to the people working for them, not out of altruism, but for personal gain, which is another special case of the general concept of market self-regulation.
Disclaimer: I haven't actually read Smith straight through. I've just read various articles about Smith, and excerpts of his work. I might be missing a lot of context (and please inform me if that's the case), although my general impression of his usage of this phrase is in line with Wikipedia's summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand.
No, Smith used the term "invisible hand" more generically to describe how the actions of individuals when optimizing for themselves can produce outcomes that may be optimal for greater purposes. In The Wealth of Nations, he uses it to refer to the way in which the actions of domestic businessmen support domestic industry in the best possible way (as though orchestrated by an invisible hand).[1]
In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith says that the actions of the wealthy produce beneficial effects for all of society, as though guided by an invisible hand. This idea is commonly referred to as the "trickle-down effect" today.[2]
In modern economics the term is mostly used to refer to the way in which markets tend to self-regulate,[3] and it's known as THE invisible hand, which is a bit unfortunate since it's such a vague metaphor that it can easily be used to refer to almost any gestalt concept.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations#Book_IV:...
"As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." (Book 4, Chapter 2)
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand#Other_uses_of_t...
"The rich … consume little more than the poor, and in spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity, though they mean only their own conveniency, though the sole end which they propose from the labours of all the thousands whom they employ, be the gratification of their own vain and insatiable desires, they divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species."
[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand
You quote exactly what I am talking about from Wealth of Nations. How is the "support of domestic to that of foreign industry" free trade in modern parlance? That is protectionism. Your paraphrase echoes what I am saying as well. The modern conception of the invisible hand is not one which leads to tariffs and protectionism, but international free trade. This is the opposite of what he said though.
Could you expand on that? Technological progress has been less about increasing the gross amount of stuff the rich consume than the type. And for most things the poor get that stuff too, just later. iPhones, better, safer, more fuel efficient cars, flat screen TVs, , healthcare innovations etc.
Rich people do have nicer stuff but to a surprising extent they just have different stuff. An awful lot of that is zero sum social status signalling, like living in a richer area, or drinking wine, not beer, or gritting your teeth and congratulating your colleague on their kid getting into Princeton, when yours got into Duke.
I'd actually be really surprised if consumption inequality hasn't gone down since the fifties for most physical goods and services.
Perhaps the definition changed because the invisible hand he described isn't so invisible. It's usually government intervention / foreign trade policy, and it's anything but invisible!
So continues the descent of HN...