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

131–140 of 143 posts

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#131

Post by zarkov99 »

cafard wrote: post #130
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.

A draft cannot be made practical and fair unless you are going to have an Army of 1945 proportions. Otherwise, you might need one in ten draft-age men, and the business of choosing which becomes even more open to manipulation.

You do not think a truly random selection process could be implemented with integrity?

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#132

Post by wait-a-minute »

zarkov99 wrote: post #44
klez wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are reasons the draft can be a good idea. When the military is only voluntary you get a military with specific ideas about foreign policy and how you see the enemy, whoever they are. If you introduce the draft you have a more heterogenous military.

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.

Or we could, you know, just go to school and work and interact with one another the way we already do. Rather than trying to force people to give up years of their short lives via a draft.

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#133

Post by trentnix »

Zardoz84 wrote: post #123
trentnix wrote: post #42

We in the USA live in the most gilded time in history, partially thanks to free markets and all the reasons the author bemoans. All income levels experience a level of prosperity without equal. Our poor are obese, unemployment is low, and the access to career altering knowledge and skills has never been better. A dip in the economy is overdue yet here we are, still experiencing a historic period of growth and economi…

Reading you, makes evident that you not are in lower class. Needing loans, and keep on debt for a very long time, to study on a university, isn't "easy access to career altering knowledge". Add an injust healthcare system, that can bankrupt anyone in the lower class.

Evident huh? Your HN must have features mine doesn't.

"Add an injust healthcare system, that can bankrupt anyone in the lower class."

Nice word salad - full of garnish and color that ultimately provides little nutrition.

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#134

Post by trentnix »

adreamingsoul wrote: post #46
trentnix wrote: post #42

We in the USA live in the most gilded time in history, partially thanks to free markets and all the reasons the author bemoans. All income levels experience a level of prosperity without equal. Our poor are obese, unemployment is low, and the access to career altering knowledge and skills has never been better. A dip in the economy is overdue yet here we are, still experiencing a historic period of growth and economi…

So what’s your point?

Forget it, Donny, you're out of your element!

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#135

Post by zarkov99 »

wait-a-minute wrote: post #132
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.

Or we could, you know, just go to school and work and interact with one another the way we already do. Rather than trying to force people to give up years of their short lives via a draft.

Which school? Do you think the inner city kid goes to school with the Palo Alto kid? The Appalachian kid? The son of illegal alliens? We live in bubbles and we wonder why we can't make sense of each others realities.

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#136

Post by gojomo »

umadon wrote: post #127
gojomo wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So can all the other forms of welfare.

No, not all. For example not a positive right to healthcare. UBI is transparently an attempt to redistribute tax income to private companies such that no opportunity for profit stays with or is limited by government. UBI would mean no more Medicare stipulations, no more existing conditions protections. Just your ten grand a year or whatever and a bunch of private companies who have what you need, at whatever price th…

Good point; after posting I wished I'd said "...cash welfare", because of course in-kind transfers of goods and services would be immune to any amount of inflation.

Indexing the UBI amount to some basket-of-subsistence-consumption could likely address this concern.

(The handling of existing-conditions is a regulatory issue orthogonal from UBI. I'd prefer a UBI replace all "income-supporting" programs – including things like food stamps and housing vouchers – and also obviate many rules premised on the idea that the threat-of-privation captures people in bad jobs/relationships. But "structure-of-market" or "acceptable offerings" or "required minimum standards" regulations are a separate matter.)

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#137

Post by Nasrudith »

zarkov99 wrote: post #44
klez wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are reasons the draft can be a good idea. When the military is only voluntary you get a military with specific ideas about foreign policy and how you see the enemy, whoever they are. If you introduce the draft you have a more heterogenous military.

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.

Seriously what is with people thinking the draft will somehow be a great unifer or that it is an appropriate propagator of values? Veterans were lynched for wearing their uniform. The Kennedys lost family in wars and yet JFK started the Vietnam war.

I think we should just accept that the hypocritical institution is dead after Vietnam and stop trying to use it for power fantasies over society or advocacy - its only function is to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory as it makes reasonable ideas grossly unreasonable.

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#138

Post by Nasrudith »

spodek wrote: post #79
klez wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are reasons the draft can be a good idea. When the military is only voluntary you get a military with specific ideas about foreign policy and how you see the enemy, whoever they are. If you introduce the draft you have a more heterogenous military.

I propose a civilian service academy and civilian service, which would achieve most of a draft's goals without the military. American infrastructure could use it, among other benefits. I talk about it in episode 138 in my podcast: http://joshuaspodek.com/guests/rants-raves-monologues-volume... . General McChrystal wrote about it in Time Magazine: Every American Should Serve For One Year https://time.com/4824366/year-…

That is oxymoronic - the purpose of the draft is to have military warm bodies without having to pay or get volunteers.

Infastructure work's limitations are based on funding and skilled labor - not a mass of gruntwork.

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#140

Post by sprafa »

HSO wrote: post #102
otakucode wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not see why experimentation is impossible if we are in a position where there literally is no alternative other than doing 'experiments' except refusing to address the results and change tactics except under extreme political pressure. Things like 'we believe if taxes are lowered on businesses, it will result in them hiring more workers', after it has been tried for 30 years and has resoundingly shown to be a co…

It's obvious why: there are too many confounding variables to run experiments on macroeconomically relevant scales. This is analogous to why econometrics is bullshit: lack of stationarity in the real world. This is amplified by nonlinearities in the system. So even if things today were broadly comparable to, say, the 1990s (and they're emphatically not), what if there was this little thing somewhere (like an obscure…

Behavioural economics has predictive power, so I tend to think of it as scientific
Post reply on HN