MIT economist believes U.S. is shifting to be more similar to developing nations

Another story about the same person and topic that I found insightful: &quot;America is Regressing into a Developing Nation for Most People&quot; - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ineteconomics.org&#x2F;perspectives&#x2F;blog&#x2F;america-is-regressing-into-a-developing-nation-for-most-people" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ineteconomics.org&#x2F;perspectives&#x2F;blog&#x2F;america-is-r...</a><p>I have visited the US most years out of the last 5-10, including a trip through 25ish US states a couple of years ago. It&#x27;s easy to get the impression that competing interests maintain a problematic or worsening status quo - infrastructure that has to be OK until it collapses because no one wants to prioritise the money to fix it (many roads in California are shocking). A voting system (as mentioned by @kristofferR) that makes it difficult for a viable third party to emerge. Health, education, private prison industries, etc.<p>There are parts of the United States that feel like they are struggling to survive - including areas that are quite eye-opening like Bombay Beach and Wonder Valley.<p>In Australia, we see lobbying groups dictate terms increasingly often too and I don&#x27;t know that our country is better for it.

I&#x27;m thinking MIT economists haven&#x27;t lived in a third world. (I was born in one) The U.S is not even remotely close to being a third-world or will be one anytime soon.

Has any one actually read this book, and can confirm how substantive it is?<p>You see a post with a title like, &quot;<i>Study by MIT Economist: U.S. Has Regressed to a Third-World Nation for Most</i>&quot;, and you naively assume that the link will take you to... a study. By an MIT Economist. With actual data, about how the average or mean American has recently crossed some number of economic metric thresholds.<p>Instead, it&#x27;s a book review. Really just a collection of mushy factoids (e.g. social mobility is lower today than it was just after WWII)... and political talking points worthy of a Facebook or Reddit comment (e.g. rich people are awful, and putting criminals in jail is racist).<p>Is the actual book a bit more data-oriented, or is the whole thing just ideological comfort food?

I don&#x27;t buy it. The last election saw relatively wealthy cities voting to increase taxes, increase equity, and make life better for the poor. And rural areas voting the opposite way with national identity, lower taxes, and lower community spending being their important things.<p>This is very different from third world nations where the middle class wants lower taxes and the poor vote for more spending but don&#x27;t succeed.

Am I wrong in attributing&#x2F;connecting most of Americas problems with its flawed constitution&#x2F;democratic system?<p>The first version of something is rarely the best version, and while the US constitution contained a lot of fantastic elements and freedoms that every educated American knows about, it also contained a democratic system (first past the post&#x2F;two party system) that is mathematically bound to breed divisiveness. [1] [2]<p>Since the American system forces people into two camps&#x2F;parties based on ideology instead of the delivered results, the results suffer while the ideological conflict is enhanced.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Duverger%27s_law" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Duverger%27s_law</a>

It&#x27;s capitalism continuing to return to its &quot;normal&quot; after the exceptional post-WWII era where strong unions, social democracy, and the threat of the USSR forced generous accomodations for the working class at home while a large stable and rapidly developing economic sphere ensured a few decades of prosperity.<p>But an abnormal period, and we are now returning to the normality of capitalism described by critics like Marx or Dickens over 100 years ago.<p>The distinction between &quot;developing&quot; and &quot;developed&quot; is a dubious distinction anyways especially now. &quot;Developing&quot; implies that liberal capitalism has a linear narrative towards something (presumably something that looks like &quot;the west&quot;). There&#x27;s a lot of hubris in that statement, and I don&#x27;t think it is supported by any evidence.

How long until we see favelas in the US? Low income areas completely devoid of economic opportunity, more or less ceded by local municipalities, with lawless informal economies and virtually no basic city services? Or do we already have them by another name?

The facts are piling up to support this view. However I don&#x27;t see it as mere regression, insofar as time doesn&#x27;t flow backwards, and it is still quite unfair to developing countries to say their condition is &#x27;as good&#x27; as that of even lower-class US citizens.<p>It looks more to me, as I had somewhat theorized a decade ago, as the emergence of a &#x27;new medieval age&#x27; politically and economically. The US being one of the most advanced countries on earth, it seems quite logical that they would pave the way forward towards new social orders in this century. Sadly not a desirable change, but history is made of ups and downs in quality of life.

The difference being, here we don&#x27;t let the commoners engage in bribery, it is only reserved for the higher levels, and even then measures are taken to conceal the nature of the transactions. In many developing countries, everyone gives and receives bribes for many things. It is acceptable (and there are limits). I think it&#x27;s healthy, if the system is corrupt, everyone should be able to exploit its corruption.

While I don&#x27;t think the US is, de jure, a third-world country, I completely believe that it is, de facto, for many. I am on my way back from Memphis and onto Detroit, and both of these cities and their home states have plenty of areas that look unbelievably impoverished. Based on what I&#x27;ve seen from my years of traveling the country, it would not surprise me if most of the country had this problem. It&#x27;s really sad.

<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.newstatesman.com&#x2F;politics&#x2F;elections&#x2F;2017&#x2F;05&#x2F;french-fracture" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.newstatesman.com&#x2F;politics&#x2F;elections&#x2F;2017&#x2F;05&#x2F;frenc...</a> This article comes from a french&#x2F;european side but it is the most insightful take on current economic and social developments that i have read.

Another article on the same book, &quot;Escaping Poverty Requires Almost 20 Years With Nearly Nothing Going Wrong&quot;, <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theatlantic.com&#x2F;business&#x2F;archive&#x2F;2017&#x2F;04&#x2F;economic-inequality&#x2F;524610&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theatlantic.com&#x2F;business&#x2F;archive&#x2F;2017&#x2F;04&#x2F;economi...</a>

Is this just happening in the US or is it also happening across many other &quot;Western&#x2F;European&quot; nations? I wonder if it is isolated or widespread in part because there will be some equalization as other developing nations rise -- like China and India.

And I&#x27;m afraid that Europe is shifting to be more similar to the US...

Everything must start again anew,<p>Everything just goes that way my friend,<p>Every king knows it to be true,<p>That every kingdom must one day come to an end,<p><pre><code> - Ben Howard, Everything</code></pre>

You mean a banana republic?

I definitely support paying more taxes to improve the infrastructure&#x2F;rural areas of the country, but I also start to think that maybe the country is just too big.<p>Are there any countries that are nearly this large that have a consistent quality of infrastructure for everyone? I live in a large city and it seems that even we have trouble maintaining up our roads&#x2F;bridges&#x2F;grid&#x2F;telecom systems and we pay a lot of state taxes comparatively — I can&#x27;t imagine how a much larger, less dense, less wealthy area filled with people staunchly against taxes could even begin to keep up.

developing is good no? rich and developing should be a goal

That&#x27;s not what &#x27;third-world&#x27; means... we&#x27;re still part of NATO