Live data from Hacker News

The high price of mistrust

fs.blog

281–285 of 285 posts

Re: The high price of mistrust

#281
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah... the 50s only look good if you ignore the massive racial, gender and environmental problems. US economy was great with the post-war boom, but there's a reason why there are so many TV shows about the rotten foundations of 50s glam.

No, there are TV shows about that because those who control the media want to make us think the 50's, which by all accounts were comparatively really good, really weren't good at all due to some hidden darkness below the surface. Because otherwise we might start to think double-plus bad thoughts about why so many things have turned to shit. And I mean good for all races - in terms of real-world material and communal…

[deleted]

Re: The high price of mistrust

#282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look back 50 years, not 100 years. We're facing a situation where the standard of living is dropping for the young generation. - huge increase in labor supply: outsourcing, women entering workforce in large numbers - productivity wage-gap: http://www.oecd.org/economy/decoupling-of-wages-from-product... - savings gap between millenials and previous generations: https://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-saving-habits…

> Look back 50 years, not 100 years. This observation is often trotted out, but I'm not sure it's fair. 50 years ago was no picnic, either. We were mired in the Cold War (Vietnam, no less). Nixon was in the White House. There was tons of social unrest (Nixon wrote in his memoirs about the thousands of bomb threats and attempted bombings). Civil rights / racial tensions were extremely high (MLK was assassinated in '68…

There's other possible possible confounding factors, like the rise of mass media and the internet, leaving the gold standard and the growth of the finance, increased beaucratization and corporatization of everything, etc. Hard to know sometimes how all this stuff is related.

But I think it is valid that the parent pointed out that younger generations today feel screwed, that they won't be able to do as well economically or socially as their parents. Many are lonely on the internet, trapped in student loans, and searching for decent jobs. On average they are having to postpone leaving their parents houses, getting married, having kids and buying a house, waiting to do these things until significantly later in life than their parents and grandparents. They've heard about the American Dream and don't feel like they'll have it. And there's a lot of them.

I know that this is not true for everybody, lots of things are better, and it's relative - other people have it worse, etc. But this sentiment is still a thing - a lot of young people feel like they have it worse than their parents and grandparents.

I don't know that debating the details will change their minds.

Re: The high price of mistrust

#283
post #115

The importance of social trust has had a major impact on my belief in the importance of government-guaranteed tax-funded universal healthcare. Before about 2015, I thought it was nice, but not a pressing crisis, but around then, I started to notice things like signs saying "why does my insulin cost more than methadone?" and "why is medical marijuana cheaper than my heart disease medication?". These situations might h…

I agree with you on calling out the moral absurdities in our health care system, and how that is a reflection on our level of social trust. I'd like to see changes, also.

Cynically I would say that politically we have optimized for profit and bureaucracy. Would I be wrong? I'd say that this is because our democracy is imperfect - money, corporations, and corruption are driving too much of our politics.

It's always bothered me that so many people would presume to fix health care at the federal level. For a while Congress has been one of the least trusted institutions in the country. Why do we expect them to fix anything? The Affordable Care Act was anything but that, it did nothing to control costs or fix all the pricing transparency problems. Poor folks get a free yearly visit and screenings but have to pay a few thousand dollar deductible when they are sick (money they typically don't have) before they get any covered care, while the government subsidized insurance premiums go right past the recipients directly into the pockets of the insurance companies.

I'd be more comfortable seeing something like many of the countries in Europe have, price controls on drugs and simple standards set at a national level, with implementation details, tax collection, and administrative details left to the states or provinces.

The states were just starting to innovate before the ACA. Vermont tried single payer. Massachusetts had Romneycare. NY and California we making plans, etc. With the ACA the feds commandeered the whole thing, and didn't do so great a job with it.

I think that the states are in a much better position to fix this, but that the insurance companies and other related incumbents would rather have this controlled from a federal level where they can most easily influence the outcome to be in their favor.

Re: The high price of mistrust

#284
post #264
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems that as systems scale (in size) they tend to become inherently lower-trust. I think the commodity markets (grains, coal, oil, steel, etc) are a significant counterexample: they do use spot checks but by and large run pretty lean on mechanism and rely on trust. Another one is customs enforcement.

I've spent a few years in a couple of bulk commodities, and I'm sorry, but your thought about commodity markets is simply not true in my experience. There are entire webs of institutions and mechanisms that make sure people do not defraud each other. Some keywords - look into Letters of Credit, Bills of Lading, Certificates of Origin, INCOTERMS, and the requirements to make these work (such as inspection certificates…

Thanks for the info based on actual experience!

Re: The high price of mistrust

#285

I appreciate the author's framing of "transaction costs." These costs are often hidden. It seems that as systems scale (in size) they tend to become inherently lower-trust. Consider a physician who makes house calls (not uncommon as recently as a few generations ago, and certainly not incompatible with modern medicine) and a large medical system such as Kaiser Permanente or NHS. The economic benefits of the larger-sc…

One thing of note is that communities that can rely on trust and thus have lower transactional cost overhead should be able to out-compete those that can't rely on trust. An example of this is with the Hasidic jews in NY's diamond district. This is something that Thomas Sowell touches on in a few of his books.

EDIT: Found my note

> What economist William Easterly has called “the radius of trust” varies greatly from group to group and from country to country. Within groups like the Marwaris of India, the Chinese in Southeast Asia, or Hasidic Jews in New York’s diamond industry, transactions involving substantial sums of money can take place without written agreements or recourse to the legal system, giving these groups competitive advantage over other members of their respective societies who cannot safely engage in similar low-cost ways of doing business. Whole nations likewise differ in the levels of honesty. Bicycles can be left parked without locks in Tokyo but doing so in many other countries would be a virtual guarantee that they would be stolen. [1]

[1] "Economic Facts and Fallacies" Thomas Sowell

Post reply on HN