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

Why Governments Fail

persuasion.community

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 128 posts

Re: Why Governments Fail

#51

Post by AshamedCaptain »

oddmiral wrote: post #3

Every organisation has 3 major stages: newborn, mature, and old. When competition is present, old organizations are eaten by newborn organizations. Government is monopoly, so no competition, thus old organization must die first.

> old organizations are eaten by newborn organizations

I would argue that what happens in practice is newborn organizations are eaten by old organizations. In fact, startups are being born these days with the express purpose of being eaten by a multinational.

There is no competition whatsoever between the old mammoths and the new things, and in fact it is the exception rather than the rule to see an "old mammoth company" disappear, fail, or be eaten.

Re: Why Governments Fail

#52

Post by fabbari »

Something about the statement 'So inequality is not the problem, poverty is the problem' is wrong. I can't quite put my finger on it -- it sounds along the lines of 'So falling from the 20th floor is not the problem, hitting the sidewalk is the problem'.

Can someone explain me to myself?

Re: Why Governments Fail

#53

Post by ssivark »

fabbari wrote: post #52

Something about the statement 'So inequality is not the problem, poverty is the problem' is wrong. I can't quite put my finger on it -- it sounds along the lines of 'So falling from the 20th floor is not the problem, hitting the sidewalk is the problem'. Can someone explain me to myself?

Nice analogy. I think that Tyler Cowen statement is a symptom of Procrustean thinking from someone who starts reasoning not with an understanding of how humans are, but starts “logically” from the principles of economics and how humans ought to be per the economics rule book.

IMHO, (too much) inequality is fundamentally a problem because respective people’s power/influence in a market society (which we’re tending to) is proportional to their wealth — and that is intrinsically incompatible with the notion of participative democracy.

Re: Why Governments Fail

#54

Post by vagrantJin »

Eh. Not be disrespectful of the talk but the US excelled in the one thing it excels at more than most. Money. Raising enough money to buy vaccines en-masse. That was to be expected. The parts that didn't need money, ie closing down key sectors of public life, restricting freedoms of civilians in state of crisis, wearing masks, social distancing led to one of the most atrocious response to a pandemic this side of the past century. Even Central African ebola outbreaks are generally well contained (Reasonably) and those governments really don't have the money to invest in science and medicine as the US. Other than that tid bit I disagree with, the talk really doesnt talk about state-craft how I imagined they would, more focused on specific examples and instances. Trees in the forest if you will but a great talk to listen to while doing some work!

Really enjoyed it.

Re: Why Governments Fail

#55

Post by dillondoyle »

paulpauper wrote: post #42

>Cowen: There's been a decline in entrepreneurship, a decline in the rate of innovation, a decline in people moving across the country. People are bringing up their children in highly paranoid ways. Just general risk aversion is going up quite strongly. yeah it's hard to be risk-taking when you aren't a tenured professor, I suppose. Moving is expensive and time consuming. Tyler says this same line in every interview,…

Still need money to own stock. Huge % of Americans are food insecure let alone able to put money into Robinhood.

I do think there is some underlying insight here in terms of risk ability.

From my view a lack of safety net, healthcare specifically tied to employment, is a big reason people can't afford to take those risks like you mention.

I wonder if there is further research? hard to control..

One counter argument I found this pdf has some hard stat examples despite our failings US still leads entrepreneurship:

- expect to start new business US 16.4, UK 11.1, France 17.2 - 3 Month new business US 8.9, UK 5.1, France 3.1 - France slightly wins survival .8, UK US tied .7

Towards the end of the article, he seems to argue GDP lifts all boats?

But the Fed seems to acknowledge that they specifically took their 'foot off the gas' because inflation was #1 priority, and that black and brown Americans were not actually 'lifted.'

Monetary policy alone isn't enough because so many Americans don't own the means (stock) nor the land (seems basically free infinite money driving up housing and valuations).

But good news Fed seems to have changed, will now use race and income equity as a policy factor for the future.

https://www.enterpriseresearch.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017...

Re: Why Governments Fail

#56

Post by throwawayboise »

ryandrake wrote: post #17
yosito wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do we really want to build our society to survive viruses with the fewest causalities or are there perhaps higher ideals (freedom, self determiniation) that we should aspire to? I don't see why these have to be mutually exclusive goals. Arguably, there are better ways to get an entire society to cooperate toward a goal without resorting to authoritarianism. This sort of societal engineering is demonstrated in relig…

I don't understand the whole "freedom" argument against basic public health and safety guidance. Almost everyone wears their seatbelt in a car and doesn't complain about how their freedoms are being taken away in the name of safety. So why is this not the same with masks and distancing? Why is it that people think refusing to wear a mask transforms them into Braveheart, fighting for freedom against oppression? Sensib…

Because masks were promoted as protecting others, not the wearer. This didn't recognize that people put their own needs ahead of others. Seat belts can protect me in an accident. So I wear them. With masks, (especially if I am young and not at much risk) I think "if someone is afraid of the virus, they can just stay home, why do I need to change what I do?"

Re: Why Governments Fail

#57

Post by pradn »

paulpauper wrote: post #42

>Cowen: There's been a decline in entrepreneurship, a decline in the rate of innovation, a decline in people moving across the country. People are bringing up their children in highly paranoid ways. Just general risk aversion is going up quite strongly. yeah it's hard to be risk-taking when you aren't a tenured professor, I suppose. Moving is expensive and time consuming. Tyler says this same line in every interview,…

The crypto/wallstreetbets world shows there is some extreme risk-taking at the margins. But this is not the sort that's important, I think. The rate of entrepreneurship is declining in the US, perhaps due to higher corporate concentration or the cost of not having regular benefits (healthcare primarily). The effect of such a decline is much more pronounced when multiplied by the hundreds of thousands of communities that small businesses like restaurants impact.

Re: Why Governments Fail

#58

Post by lordloki »

fabbari wrote: post #52

Something about the statement 'So inequality is not the problem, poverty is the problem' is wrong. I can't quite put my finger on it -- it sounds along the lines of 'So falling from the 20th floor is not the problem, hitting the sidewalk is the problem'. Can someone explain me to myself?

I don't think that's a good analogy for the statement given. I think a better analogy would be "the difference between your floor and the top floor isn't the problem, falling out the window is the problem."

Re: Why Governments Fail

#59

Post by drummer »

Persuasion is mind manipulation. It seems like the intentions of this group are good, but you know what they say about the road to hell. In any case, governments fail because they are founded on corruption, that is, the belief in authority outside of the individual. Which is basically slavery. Such a corrupt system that goes against the universal right to life will always fail.

Re: Why Governments Fail

#60

Post by pessimizer »

slibhb wrote: post #30
mcculley wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the U.S. government failed. We should have implemented testing at scale immediately, found the infected, and paid them to stay home. While this would have cost a lot of money, it would have been less than the PPP and stimulus efforts.

I think this implies a historicist perspective. In other words, you tacitly demand that the government tell the future and act accordingly. Well obviously the government can't do that. I think "failure" should be a question of incompetent administration. That is, once a policy is decided, how well or poorly was it carried out? It may be that the government failed at carrying out mass testing.

> In other words, you tacitly demand that the government tell the future and act accordingly.

This is a common excuse about every bad plan after the fact; that the critics are expecting decisionmakers to have been psychic. It scrupulously ignores that the critics were offering the same critique at the time.

It scrupulously ignores anything specific to the problem being discussed. It's the "no one could have known" or the "it's easy to be a backseat driver" defense.

> I think "failure" should be a question of incompetent administration. That is, once a policy is decided, how well or poorly was it carried out?

All people with responsibility agree with you, which is why they carefully avoid formulating a policy.

Post reply on HN