Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 143 posts

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#81

Post by votepaunchy »

trentnix wrote: post #77
Ozzie_osman wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you are absolutely right. Thank God we don't have famines, but that's a really low bar to strive for as humanity. People only being able to afford food and a lifestyle that lead to obesity and a whole host of other health problems is still pretty bad, imo.

Nonsense. It's a really big deal . It's probably the greatest accomplishment in all of human history. But to concede a point, there's no finish line in the race to improve human health and experience.

Perhaps second or third to the vast reductions in maternal/infant death and from communicable diseases. Likewise, still work to be done.

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#82

Post by defertoreptar »

sprafa wrote: post #24
gojomo wrote: post #8

Applebaum tries to finger "elfin libertarian" Milton Friedman as "the most important figure". But the specific policies he attributes to Friedman don't seem so bad: * end the draft, replace with well-paid all-volunteer military * let international exchange rates vary * evaluate regulations based on the cost-to-save-a-life Does Applebaum want to bring back the draft? Put exchange rates back under direct political cont…

Friedman also defended a negative income tax which essentially was a form of UBI.

Within that context, negative income tax was sought to replace welfare, social security, Medicaid, etc. Is that the case with UBI?

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#83

Post by zarkov99 »

gonzo41 wrote: post #71
zarkov99 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. A draft would also force Americans of all backgrounds to interact with each other in an environment that builds cohesion. It would also give even the most powerful of Americans skin in the game when it comes to starting wars.

This only works if there isn't an out for folk with bone spurs.

How widespread were those sort of shenanigans back when the draft was on, do you know?

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#84

Post by pintxo »

zarkov99 wrote: post #83
gonzo41 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This only works if there isn't an out for folk with bone spurs.

How widespread were those sort of shenanigans back when the draft was on, do you know?

Wasn’t the last president who has served bush senior? This would mean it‘s rather common in some circles.

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#85

Post by pintxo »

goatinaboat wrote: post #65
tomrod wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe parent commentator was making a claim to lack of philosophical diversity, and that a voluntary military is more prone to prefer war over diplomacy. I see the margin the parent commentator is trying to make, but feel it misses people who join the military to obtain gainful employment, get education, or numerous other reasons.

a voluntary military is more prone to prefer war over diplomacy. The military gets no say - wars are declared, or not, by elected politicians. What you say is only true in countries where the military runs the government.

I never saw it as „the military“ being more prone. But rather the general public. As in a voluntary military, they (their families) are likely not involved with the military personally. While having the draft ensures most everyone will be - on a family level - impacted by a war or peace decision.

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#86

Post by Ozzie_osman »

trentnix wrote: post #77
Ozzie_osman wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you are absolutely right. Thank God we don't have famines, but that's a really low bar to strive for as humanity. People only being able to afford food and a lifestyle that lead to obesity and a whole host of other health problems is still pretty bad, imo.

Nonsense. It's a really big deal . It's probably the greatest accomplishment in all of human history. But to concede a point, there's no finish line in the race to improve human health and experience.

I do agree it's a huge deal. I think my bigger source of disagreement was pointing to things like obesity as a sign of prosperity.

I guess everything is relative. Obesity is relatively better than famine. But overall, the article is arguing that many things are getting worse recently, which I think is true. Despite improvements in science, technology, productivity, and economic growth, groups of people are facing lower affordability of basic needs. Whether or not economists are to blame is another matter.

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#87

Post by jwatt »

dcolkitt wrote: post #60

For those who believe that economics has never done anything useful or benefits the common man, here's a small counterclaim. The widespread adoption of index funds was absolutely an outgrowth of academic financial economics. In particular the efficient market hypothesis and CAPM theories, as well as empirical research studying the (lack of) performance of active investment managers. In the US alone, index funds now m…

It no doubt benefits individual investors, but if index funds were to swallow up the market the main benefit of capitalism - the efficient allocation of capital - would at some point arguably be destroyed. That raises the question of whether/when a centrally planned economy would start to outperform such a passive system?

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#88

Post by gojomo »

defertoreptar wrote: post #82
sprafa wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Friedman also defended a negative income tax which essentially was a form of UBI.

Within that context, negative income tax was sought to replace welfare, social security, Medicaid, etc. Is that the case with UBI?

Many UBI supporters still view one of its main benefits the simplification & unified replacement of all such programs.

Now, those programs are complicated, involve a lot of overhead, often underutilized, and create unintentional disincentives to work when the "marginal tax rate" (in taxes or lost benefits) sometimes goes over 100%. Offering a simple & big-enough UBI instead can fix all that.

(A UBI can also replace minimum-wage laws and most if not all unemployment insurance. And perhaps, many workplace regulations, because a citizenry where everyone can say "this job sucks, I'm outta here" can be a better check on abuses than the current system of compliance-surveillance, regulatory-fines, and court-cases.)

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#89

Post by krilly »

trentnix wrote: post #61
Ozzie_osman wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poor being obese is not a sign of prosperity. There are many countries that are not prosperous at all with obesity problems. Obesity can be due to genetics, lack of access to healthy food or time for recreation, etc. High unemployment doesn't mean much if real wages are dropping for most people and necessities like housing or Healthcare are becoming less affordable even for those employed. I agree that there are peop…

Once upon a time being poor absolutely meant being hungry. No more. That is an utterly remarkable change and is unprecedented in all of human history. And so many wizards of smart assured the people of their time that population growth was going to lead to famine. They were dead-ass wrong.

I think we can all agree This is due to technological advancement, not economics, which is what we are discussing

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#90

Post by goatinaboat »

naasking wrote: post #66
colek42 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What specific kind of military do you get? The US military I was a part of was the most diverse group of men and women I have ever worked with in just any metric you can find.

Diverse on many metrics I'm sure, except probably economic class.

Western militaries for hundreds of years have been working class soldiers and upper or at least upper-middle class officers. The middle-middle class is very underrepresented. This is true even today.
Post reply on HN