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

Thomas Sowell interview

city-journal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 457 posts

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#441

Post by googthrowaway42 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #440
googthrowaway42 wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's nothing utopian about universal healthcare and that's firmly established by now Universal healthcare necessarily means rationing of healthcare resources. Universal healthcare does not mean that every person who has an ailment gets treated. A market naturally matches supply (healthcare infrastructure) and demand (sick people). When you remove the market it's up to government to do this matching process which…

> A market naturally matches supply (healthcare infrastructure) and demand (sick people). Even ignoring that healthcare lacks the factors that approximate the rational choice model’s information requirements well enough for it decisions in that space in a market to even reflect average net utility well, a market matches supply with money; it matches to need only to the extent that willingness to pay is driven only by…

> it matches to need only to the extent that willingness to pay is driven only by expected personal utility

How else would you define need? The alternative involves some third party that determines need aka rationing.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#442

Post by dragonwriter »

googthrowaway42 wrote: post #441
dragonwriter wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A market naturally matches supply (healthcare infrastructure) and demand (sick people). Even ignoring that healthcare lacks the factors that approximate the rational choice model’s information requirements well enough for it decisions in that space in a market to even reflect average net utility well, a market matches supply with money; it matches to need only to the extent that willingness to pay is driven only by…

> it matches to need only to the extent that willingness to pay is driven only by expected personal utility How else would you define need? The alternative involves some third party that determines need aka rationing.

> > it matches to need only to the extent that willingness to pay is driven only by expected personal utility

> How else would you define need?

The question seems odd and seems to likely to be driven by a misunderstanding of the quoted material, so I'll try to reexplain what I intended in a way which I hope resolves the question.

Expected net utility given complete information of the consequences of a decision is the only plausible definition of need.

It doesn't, however correspond in any particular way (even ignoring the information problems that are enormous in healthcare) to the number of tokens one is willing to exchange for a thing in the market compared to other participants unless the quantity of tokens available to each participant is the same.

When the tokens are money and the context is a real capitalist society, that's decidedly far from the case.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#443

Post by dllthomas »

dragonwriter wrote: post #442
googthrowaway42 wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it matches to need only to the extent that willingness to pay is driven only by expected personal utility How else would you define need? The alternative involves some third party that determines need aka rationing.

> > it matches to need only to the extent that willingness to pay is driven only by expected personal utility > How else would you define need? The question seems odd and seems to likely to be driven by a misunderstanding of the quoted material, so I'll try to reexplain what I intended in a way which I hope resolves the question. Expected net utility given complete information of the consequences of a decision is the…

This rests on an assumption that utility is comparable between individuals, which isn't present in all theories.

"How much would you pay for it" clearly is comparable between individuals, but (IMO) declaring that doing so defines the proper outcome is circular and/or verges on the naturalistic fallacy.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#444

Post by jahaja »

googthrowaway42 wrote: post #439
jahaja wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but if you ignore existing facts and reality around the western world just too parrot some libertarian free market bullshit you're clearly far too deep into dogma.

It's not dogma it's just logic. Finite resource, no market, means rationing. Why is that dogmatic? This has nothing to do with libertarian ideals, it's just a logical almost tautological statement. Not every person under a universal healthcare system gets the treatment they want when they want it. Are you disputing that?

> Not every person under a universal healthcare system gets the treatment they want when they want it. Are you disputing that?

It's an irrelevant distraction. What's important is not to deprive people of care to such an extent that 71k people dies every year in a country fully capable of providing universal healthcare. You're using dogma to justify that. What you're calling "get the treatment they want" is just to allow rich people to get priority.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#445

Post by googthrowaway42 »

jahaja wrote: post #444
googthrowaway42 wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not dogma it's just logic. Finite resource, no market, means rationing. Why is that dogmatic? This has nothing to do with libertarian ideals, it's just a logical almost tautological statement. Not every person under a universal healthcare system gets the treatment they want when they want it. Are you disputing that?

> Not every person under a universal healthcare system gets the treatment they want when they want it. Are you disputing that? It's an irrelevant distraction. What's important is not to deprive people of care to such an extent that 71k people dies every year in a country fully capable of providing universal healthcare. You're using dogma to justify that. What you're calling "get the treatment they want" is just to al…

> You're using dogma to justify that.

I'm not using dogma at all, let alone using it to "justify" anything. It simply is how it is. There is no panacea. You're totally captured by a utopian vision which is why you can't comprehend that.

Even countries with universal healthcare can't provide healthcare services to everyone who needs it or wants it. Healthcare resources are finite. No amount of arguing on your part will change that.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#446

Post by [deleted] »

dllthomas wrote: post #443
dragonwriter wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > it matches to need only to the extent that willingness to pay is driven only by expected personal utility > How else would you define need? The question seems odd and seems to likely to be driven by a misunderstanding of the quoted material, so I'll try to reexplain what I intended in a way which I hope resolves the question. Expected net utility given complete information of the consequences of a decision is the…

This rests on an assumption that utility is comparable between individuals, which isn't present in all theories. "How much would you pay for it" clearly is comparable between individuals, but (IMO) declaring that doing so defines the proper outcome is circular and/or verges on the naturalistic fallacy.

[deleted]

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#447

Post by googthrowaway42 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #442
googthrowaway42 wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it matches to need only to the extent that willingness to pay is driven only by expected personal utility How else would you define need? The alternative involves some third party that determines need aka rationing.

> > it matches to need only to the extent that willingness to pay is driven only by expected personal utility > How else would you define need? The question seems odd and seems to likely to be driven by a misunderstanding of the quoted material, so I'll try to reexplain what I intended in a way which I hope resolves the question. Expected net utility given complete information of the consequences of a decision is the…

> Expected net utility given complete information of the consequences of a decision is the only plausible definition of need.

This doesn't exist in real life so it's almost laughable to talk about it like it's an actual thing. People don't have "Expected net utility" functions that spit out a number (denominated in what?) when faced with some choice.

> It doesn't, however correspond in any particular way (even ignoring the information problems that are enormous in healthcare) to the number of tokens one is willing to exchange for a thing in the market compared to other participants unless the quantity of tokens available to each participant is the same.

1) Even if everyone had the same amount of tokens at some time t different people have different values and thus would allocate their tokens differently to different things as they saw fit, not to mention there are other circumstances that people have in their life that are beyond cash reserves (having a house, having a car, having a family, having a pet, having a passion for art collection, etc). They would be allocating their tokens in accordance with this hierarchy since they need to reserve their tokens for other priorities in their life.

2) There's no way to even quantify "needs" across people without some market/pricing function unless you have some third party quantifying or ranking the needs of everyone but I already mentioned that. This is what universal healthcare does where some bureaucratic apparatus determines, quantifies, and ranks the needs of patients and allocates healthcare resources.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#448

Post by jahaja »

googthrowaway42 wrote: post #445
jahaja wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not every person under a universal healthcare system gets the treatment they want when they want it. Are you disputing that? It's an irrelevant distraction. What's important is not to deprive people of care to such an extent that 71k people dies every year in a country fully capable of providing universal healthcare. You're using dogma to justify that. What you're calling "get the treatment they want" is just to al…

> You're using dogma to justify that. I'm not using dogma at all, let alone using it to "justify" anything. It simply is how it is. There is no panacea. You're totally captured by a utopian vision which is why you can't comprehend that. Even countries with universal healthcare can't provide healthcare services to everyone who needs it or wants it. Healthcare resources are finite. No amount of arguing on your part wil…

You are very careful about which parts of each message you like to answer aren't you?

I haven't argued that healthcare resources aren't finite. But what kind of pointless argument is that? "Housing is finite", "Clothing is finite", "Food is finite". Well, yes? But what kinds of housing are plentiful and what kinds of housing are not? And what need kind of housing is needed to make sure people doesn't die of exposure, even the poor? What's utopian about not having 71k people per year die due to lack of healthcare coverage? Do you think all of these 71k would end up on some brain surgery queue and die anyway?

You're just making pointless statements without any depth. Dilettante.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#449

Post by googthrowaway42 »

jahaja wrote: post #448
googthrowaway42 wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're using dogma to justify that. I'm not using dogma at all, let alone using it to "justify" anything. It simply is how it is. There is no panacea. You're totally captured by a utopian vision which is why you can't comprehend that. Even countries with universal healthcare can't provide healthcare services to everyone who needs it or wants it. Healthcare resources are finite. No amount of arguing on your part wil…

You are very careful about which parts of each message you like to answer aren't you? I haven't argued that healthcare resources aren't finite. But what kind of pointless argument is that? "Housing is finite", "Clothing is finite", "Food is finite". Well, yes? But what kinds of housing are plentiful and what kinds of housing are not? And what need kind of housing is needed to make sure people doesn't die of exposure,…

> But what kinds of housing are plentiful and what kinds of housing are not?

Certain types of housing are plentiful and some are more scarce depending on what homebuyers want at some price and homebuilders can build at some price.

> And what need kind of housing is needed to make sure people doesn't die of exposure, even the poor?

Again even if you were able to determine that (which you aren't, given that most of these people are severely drug addicted or mentally ill, homelessness is more complicated than just people not having a home), how are you going to convince or force people to build these houses that you (Supreme Decider of America) determine to be necessary?

> You're just making pointless statements without any depth

I'm actually making very pointed arguments that fundamentally invalidate your whole world view. That's why it's upsetting to you.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#450

Post by jahaja »

googthrowaway42 wrote: post #449
jahaja wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are very careful about which parts of each message you like to answer aren't you? I haven't argued that healthcare resources aren't finite. But what kind of pointless argument is that? "Housing is finite", "Clothing is finite", "Food is finite". Well, yes? But what kinds of housing are plentiful and what kinds of housing are not? And what need kind of housing is needed to make sure people doesn't die of exposure,…

> But what kinds of housing are plentiful and what kinds of housing are not? Certain types of housing are plentiful and some are more scarce depending on what homebuyers want at some price and homebuilders can build at some price. > And what need kind of housing is needed to make sure people doesn't die of exposure, even the poor? Again even if you were able to determine that (which you aren't, given that most of the…

> how are you going to convince or force people to build these houses that you (Supreme Decider of America)

In Sweden we had a government agency that both identified the need (not rocket science) and government building corporations that actually built the houses.

> I'm actually making very pointed arguments that fundamentally invalidate your whole world view.

It must be handy to be so ignorant and yet so cocksure. That's so arrogant that I'm starting to think you're actually trolling.

Post reply on HN