Twilight of the elites

What Hacker News says

1. paganelFeb 2020
   > This all fits the claim of the French geographer Christophe Guilluy about his own country in his 2016 book The Twilight of the Elites: Prosperity, the Periphery, and the Future of France.

   +1 for Christophe Guilluy's book, it's really eye-opening, even more so considering that he wrote/published it even before the "gilets jaunes" movement started.

   Not sure there's a solution for this "periphery" problem, but I see it in my parts of the world (Eastern-European country and EU member), it certainly is present in France and I suppose in other Western European countries, and according to the article is also a real problem in the US.

   Show morethread
2. acjohnson55Apr 2018
   I feel pretty similarly.

   I recommend this book so much that I feel like a shill, but if you haven't read Twilight of the Elites, you'd probably like it even more than I did :)

   One point it makes that resonates strongly with me is that our society is structured to heap extra resources on those who already have in abundance and neglect those with unrealized potential. To say nothing of those who we think lack potential in the first place, we we often treat as subhuman.

   When it comes to democracy, I actually don't think a paramount principle. I think human rights, accountability, some form of consent, and private enterprise are critical, but these don't strictly imply literal democracy.

   Show morethread
3. acjohnson55May 2017
   Most people would probably call my views "liberal", and I think that's a funny way of characterizing the liberal viewpoint. I, for one, am deeply distrustful of what we call meritocracy in this country.

   For one thing, we project the merit of parents (or lack thereof) onto their children. We do this in how we allow massive intergenerational transfers of wealth. But also, as you point out, the schools a child can attend are very dependent on who their parents are.

   In Chris Hayes' excellent book, Twilight of the Elites [1], he rejects meritocracy. Not only does he reject it in practice, for reasons like those I presented, but he also rejects it even in theory. He suggests that the idea of showering people with resources that show promise is an affront to the concept that every human being has fundamental value and that all should be invested in.

   Liberals, broadly speaking, do love schools. But I don't think that's for lack of concern about other issues of social justice! Perhaps you mean economic liberals (e.g. classical liberals and neoliberals)?

   [1] http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Elites-America-After-Meritocr...

   Show morethread
4. FuturebotJul 2016
   Start with these:

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality#Effects

   http://rooseveltinstitute.org/stiglitz-why-inequality-matter...

   http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21640316-children-ric...

   Also read "Twilight of the Elites" to learn about how inequality leads to greater "vertical social distance" and how the government now largely reflects the interests of those at the top (http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oli...)

   Show morethread
5. FuturebotJun 2016
   This is probably the best thing Greenwald has ever written. Everyone in (or interested in) media, politics, government, academia, etc. should read it carefully and with a wide open mind. Grappling with this piece, its linked pieces, and Twilight of the Elites should be something that is now done in earnest; this is a chance for elites in other troubled western countries to work on getting ahead of the problem, as they failed to do previously, before it really gets out of hand.

   The status quo is a failure, and continued denial will only lead us down an ever-darker road. We need a new way.

   Show morethread
6. FuturebotJan 2016
   Those aren't the only two choices. The west, and even many in the east, are made up of mixed economies. Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Germany, and many others are extremely successful mixed economies by most measures (see OECD stats to start.) In the US, the mix is currently wildly out of whack; it needs to move back towards broadly shared prosperity, rather than the oligarchy we have now. That means higher taxes on the wealthy, better social programs, redistribution, and all the rest.

   Read "Twilight of the Elites." Few are arguing for zero inequality; even anti-inequality crusaders acknowledge there will always be some inequality. It depends on how much, and what that affords the society. The amount we have now is wildly out of balance. We have models that work better in the world, and even in America's past, and should look to those.

   No one is arguing for communism anymore (the implications of the poster higher up notwithstanding), except those that are largely irrelevant to the debate.

   Show morethread