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

“I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 373 posts

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#141

Post by onion2k »

black_puppydog wrote: post #15

I don't agree with the conclusion. We can scale down our economies and still maintain production of essentials by ` `drumroll` ` scaling back shit that nobody needs. Starting with an overblown healthcare admin system in the US, IMHO, but also including less inflammatory non-essential things like yet another range of plastic toys and luxury perfumes and and and. Essentially in this scenario, we should take this as an…

scaling back shit that nobody needs

That's half of Silicon Valley gone then.

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#142

Post by dragonwriter »

101404 wrote: post #64
netsharc wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sane/benovelent governments will probably switch to universal basic income, i.e. go deep into debt and just pay everyone money to live. And no, actually going into debt is not a huge problem, ask Keynes, or what happened in WW2; it was an emergency and governments borrowed and borrowed with no fear.

UBI could be possible in a closed society, but not if you are open for uncontrolled influx of people from outside your society. Because the offer "get free money" is just too good. There was the choice what to focus on, and we decided we wanted uncontrolled immigration. Fair choice, but the consequence is that UBI won't work anymore.

> There was the choice what to focus on, and we decided we wanted uncontrolled immigration.

No, we didn't; US immigration is controlled both numerically and by qualities of immigrants. You may disagree with the choices of controls, but they absolutely exist.

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#143

Post by yiyus »

TuringTest wrote: post #34
9nGQluzmnq3M wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you proposing a centrally planned economy, or how do you intend to ensure that people work only in allowable jobs and produce only acceptable products and services?

There's an alternative model: that people who do nothing productive don't work at all in producing silly products and services, and they can spend their time doing things they enjoy instead. https://harpers.org/archive/1932/10/in-praise-of-idleness/

There are many people who enjoy producing "silly products and services". Eg: many people who are left at home spending time doing what they enjoy will make beer or wine. Some of these beers and wines will be excellent, people will like them, and they will want to pay for them.

I understand the motivations for what you propose, but I do not see how it would work in practice before going into full-authoritarian mode.

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#144

Post by majewsky »

growlist wrote: post #131
robocat wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> scaling back shit that nobody needs The “shit” nobody needs is the main point of living: music, art, science, sharing, pets; the crap you desire versus the essentials. If we only got what we needed to survive (food, shelter) that would be a pointless and depressing life.

Oh come on! Hundreds of minor variations on the 'round blobby SUV with redundant angular surface forms' style; thousands of different variations on 'fat and water emulsified together with a dash of scent' for making your skin softer; fifty gorillion different types of shampoo - 'Because you're worth it!'. I'm all for a Hayek/Friedman approach to the markets, but I think even they would consider above trivialities in…

How exactly does cutting down the number of shampoo brands help fix the Coronavirus crisis? Even if you go from 1000 shampoo variants to maybe a dozen, the amount of shampoo that's produced does not change significantly. The only effect this is going to have is discrimination against minorities with special needs. I have atopic dermatitis and need to buy shampoo at the pharmacy for absurd prices because the regular shampoo brands have cut me out of their audience Pareto-style ("catch 80% of the market with 20% of the effort").

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#145

Post by swagasaurus-rex »

mcsb4 wrote: post #85

I don't understand why we are not trying to interrupt the transmission vectors with masks and hand sanitizer like the Chinese do. They ramped the daily production from 10M to 100M and even advised the use of make-shift masks. The reaction in the west: masks are not protecting 100% and also we don't have any and we are too lazy to produce them, although they are much cheaper than the economic impact covid-19 has. 1. y…

Do masks even work on things as small as viruses?

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#146

Post by badpun »

swagasaurus-rex wrote: post #145
mcsb4 wrote: post #85

I don't understand why we are not trying to interrupt the transmission vectors with masks and hand sanitizer like the Chinese do. They ramped the daily production from 10M to 100M and even advised the use of make-shift masks. The reaction in the west: masks are not protecting 100% and also we don't have any and we are too lazy to produce them, although they are much cheaper than the economic impact covid-19 has. 1. y…

Do masks even work on things as small as viruses?

I'm not an expert, but I believe they stop the droplets, which are vectors for viruses.

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#147

Post by dragonwriter »

ALittleLight wrote: post #91
TuringTest wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an alternative model: that people who do nothing productive don't work at all in producing silly products and services, and they can spend their time doing things they enjoy instead. https://harpers.org/archive/1932/10/in-praise-of-idleness/

Who would choose to spend time working though if they could do whatever they wanted instead without cost?

It's not without cost, you lose the additional income you'd get from working. People making $1,000/month expend extra effort to make more than that when the effort to make $1,000/month is nonzero, so I have no problem thinking people with any kind of opportunity will do so when the effort to make $1,000/month is zero, as they will have a lot more available unexpended effort.

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#148

Post by raxxorrax »

timwaagh wrote: post #128
raxxorrax wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We just have to adopt a different attitude towards fundamental rights. This is talk that really drives up any resistance against sensible health support. And the worst part, the resistance is more or less justified. You don't even know yet if the quarantine worked. We currently have data from countries without it that don't fare any worse. 2 weeks incubation period probably makes the tool worthless, but we don't ha…

I don't think the chinese government is intentionally lying about the data. If we can assume their numbers are trustworthy enough, we can infer their measures were effective. Of course, if it happens it will be a bitter pill to swallow for everyone.

I don't think they are lying, but you simply don't have anything to compare it to yet, which makes current inference a conjecture at best. You can only evaluate the data in comparison to other countries. Maybe they will get hit much harder, but currently the evidence doesn't support that.

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#149

Post by netsharc »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #95
101404 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UBI could be possible in a closed society, but not if you are open for uncontrolled influx of people from outside your society. Because the offer "get free money" is just too good. There was the choice what to focus on, and we decided we wanted uncontrolled immigration. Fair choice, but the consequence is that UBI won't work anymore.

I’m not aware of any place that has a completely open boarder . What are you referring to here?

I guess he's talking about the European/Merkel "we'll grant the Syrians right to stay" to mean completely opening the EU border...

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#150

Post by lbeltrame »

timwaagh wrote: post #137
lbeltrame wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am sure it will be mostly dealt with in a years time. What do you mean exactly? If you mean locking people up in their homes for a whole year, I think this will have not only economic, but also deep social impacts.

Yes there will be deep social and economic impacts. We wont get out of this unscathed. I think that's obvious. No i don't mean locking people in for a year. That measure should be localized and temporary.

The big if at this point (and I say this as one of the locked - but healthy, luckily - people in Italy) is how long you can maintain the lockdown without economic impacts (people unable to work) and especially without social impacts (isolation and lack of human contact).

In particular the latter is important IMO because not everyone can endure being basically closed in their homes for too long.

Post reply on HN