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

The Case for Degrowth

lrb.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 332 posts

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#281

Post by pauldenton »

roflyear wrote: post #259
ETH_start wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean Japan has a much lower crime rate than the US, and no massive opioid epidemic, huge homeless camps in the middle of major cities or elderly Asian people being randomly assaulted on the streets like the US does, so I don't know why it should follow in the footsteps of the US. The US should set an example that others want to follow.

I doubt Japan has a lower crime rate. You would have to look past just reported numbers. The US arrests a lot of people and Japan only pursues crimes they can solve 100% due to political reasons.

What political reasons would exist in Japan, that do not exist in America to keep reported crime down

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#282

Post by WalterBright »

Mordisquitos wrote: post #192
WalterBright wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The free market produces goods and services at less cost for everything else, why would health care be any different?

Because healthcare as a service does not come even close to satisfy the conditions required for perfect competition. Without going too much in detail, the "customers" cannot have perfect information regarding the treatment or course of action that's most convenient for them at a given moment, and they cannot freely decide when (or often whether) to make use of the service or not— "It's probably best I get appendiciti…

The free market does not require perfect competition nor perfect information at all. Imperfect information, for example, is called "risk", and risk is factored into every price.

Besides, why would you think socialist medicine would provide perfect information?

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#283

Post by WalterBright »

tremon wrote: post #206
WalterBright wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The free market produces goods and services at less cost for everything else, why would health care be any different?

The unregulated free market mostly produces goods and services at less cost for the producer, which huge external costs to everything else.

Really? Why then are communist countries the most polluted?

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#284

Post by WalterBright »

Kbelicius wrote: post #174
WalterBright wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The free market produces goods and services at less cost for everything else, why would health care be any different?

Maybe because often when you need it you can't take the time to shop around like you can with TV and cars.

Very little of health care is delivered through a trip to the emergency room.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#285

Post by WalterBright »

selfhoster11 wrote: post #218
WalterBright wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The American health care system before the 1960s. And also: "How American Health Care Killed My Father" https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-ame... compares the free market section of the health care system with the rest of it.

OK, but... the 1960s were literally 60 years ago. The world looks very different, and so does healthcare. Is it really comparable?

Is economics different from the 1960s?

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#286

Post by pauldenton »

kaashif wrote: post #228
patrick451 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're describing is a ponzi scheme.

The phrase "Ponzi scheme" is misused so much it has become meaningless. A Ponzi scheme is a very specific type of fraud. Ever-increasing immigration to sustain a >1 worker-to-retiree ratio is more like a pyramid scheme, but one that will take decades or maybe a century to really stop working.

It is not a pyramid scheme either though.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#287

Post by WalterBright »

actually_a_dog wrote: post #198
WalterBright wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If countries don't want a brain drain, perhaps they should adopt more of the policies of countries their brains are escaping to.

Did you seriously just tell entire countries "have you tried not being poor?"

People complain when the US takes over a country and tries to fix it. So yeah, it's up to the citizens.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#288

Post by WalterBright »

im_dario wrote: post #243
WalterBright wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free market health care is far cheaper than socialized health care.

Some studies suggest that a single-payer system (thus socialized) is more cost-effective than the current free market in the USA: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo... . Also, social benefits like protection against medical bankruptcy, universal coverage, and others are known to have a net positive impact.

The current medical system in the US is not remotely free market.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#289

Post by WalterBright »

jinjin2 wrote: post #236
WalterBright wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free market health care is far cheaper than socialized health care.

That does not seem to match up with current reality. At least not if the US is to be the example for free market health care. Looking at the stats it is by far the most expensive compared with pretty much any socialized health care in the world (and with worse outcomes): https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy-vs-health...

The US medical system is not remotely free market. Obamacare, for example.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#290

Post by WalterBright »

jacquesm wrote: post #171
WalterBright wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The free market produces goods and services at less cost for everything else, why would health care be any different?

Because health is quite literally priceless.

So is food. But every country that tried socialist food production reaped famine.
Post reply on HN