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

We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

erikmcclure.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 421 posts

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#121

Post by throwaway290 »

WalterBright wrote: post #71
toomuchtodo wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We still lost with nothing to show for it but debt for generations, millions of unnecessary deaths, and the TSA. Enjoy the debt service, “support the troops,” and millimeter wave backscatter scans without your shoes.

The US hasn't been invaded since 1942. That's what we have to show for it.

Your first sentence is correct but I don't think the second tracks. US is surrounded by massive bodies of water and has no land border with a hostile nation. Invading it is not very practical. The tendency of civilian population to carry weapons may be a bigger deterrent to invasion.

It can sound cheeky but perhaps the biggest thing you have to show for it is overall more free and less murdery world thanks to people wanting to prosper and stuff. Going to war is suddenly unappealing (unless you are very small and have nothing to lose, but then you do less damage comparatively).

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#122

Post by EMIRELADERO »

WalterBright wrote: post #64
EMIRELADERO wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because, unlike what classical-liberal economic theory stipulates, human beings aren't inherently selfish. People can succeed under a system and still acknowledge it is a bad one for a big part of the population.

> human beings aren't inherently selfish Of course they are. I am, you are, everybody is.

I recommend you read Humankind by Rutger Bregman. It disputes this notion, successfully in my opinion.

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#123

Post by eru »

EMIRELADERO wrote: post #115
eru wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Economics doesn't stipulate selfishness anymore than physics requires cows to be spherical creatures that live in a vacuum.

Not "economics", but classical-liberal and neoliberal ones (Austrian and Chicago school)

No, they don't stipulate that.

They just assume that you have preferences and want to satisfy them. Those preferences can include 'earn as much money as possible', but they can also include 'feed starving children in the orphanage across the street'. The theory doesn't really care about the exact shape of your preferences.

It's a useful shorthand to assume that economic actors want to maximize profit, because that allows them to spend money on almost any other goal they have (like feeding the orphans). But economics can still help us understand why more people want to be teachers, even if the pay is low, than programmers or prostitutes or truck drivers in oil boom counties.

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#124

Post by bruce511 »

travisjungroth wrote: post #98

If your solution would work except for some reason, then you don’t actually have a solution . A drill that works in space except for all that vacuum and radiation isn’t actually a space drill. It’s a space drill for some alternate reality, meaning the one you’re not actually in. You haven’t solved the problem. You’re not as good of a problem solver as you think you are, sorry. Stop acting like you’ve solved it. You h…

I hear your point - if humans are part of the problem then an effective solution has to allow for humans in the loop.

I'd extend that thought to be more narrow though. Local human political and economic factors need to be allowed for.

So, for example, a medical solution will be different in a country that practices medicine for profit over those places where medicine is non profit.

Equally the "can't build nuclear energy" problem us solved in places where public opinion counts for nothing, and environmental concerns are, um, less concerning. [1]

If one focuses on the profit motive though, then the article is correct (it seems to be written for a US context) - we mostly don't fix the problem because someone is profiting immensely from the problem existing.

[1] avoiding for the moment the merits of said concerns, which -may- be over-described for other political reasons.

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#125

Post by defrost »

panick21_ wrote: post #106
EMIRELADERO wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because, unlike what classical-liberal economic theory stipulates, human beings aren't inherently selfish. People can succeed under a system and still acknowledge it is a bad one for a big part of the population.

> Because, unlike what classical-liberal economic theory stipulates, human beings aren't inherently selfish. If you actually knew anything about the history of classical liberalism you wouldn't perpetuate this nonsensical stereotype. Classical Liberalism is not the same as Objectivism.

A core classic liberal belief, arguably the core belief, is that nothing should stand in the way of individuals being able to secure their own economic self-interest.

To be sure this does not stipulate that all actors be selfish, merely that no penalty should inhibit selfishness.

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#126

Post by panick21_ »

josephg wrote: post #34
oatmeal1 wrote: post #4

It's ironic for him to suggest government-run healthcare when it doesn't benefit from the #1 best coordinator of resources on the planet - price. He accidentally highlights the reason we have so many coordination failures - smart people with little wisdom think they can solve every problem, using other people's money, with no consequences for their failure. Not everyone should get free college, and not every house sh…

As I understand it, the US government pays more per capita for healthcare than any other rich country. And Americans don't even get free healthcare in return. I'm not sure what the solution is either, but the status quo ain't it. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2... > Health spending per person in the U.S. was nearly two times higher than in the closest country, Germany, and four times high…

Any idea that the US is a even any kind of approximation of a free market is ridiculous. Any study of the history of US health care makes this quite clear.

That not to see that such a system would be better then some other systems, we don't really have good evidence as no major country has developed this way. There were some early interesting developments for patterns of care in the US before the current system became the dominate re-enforced system.

Its also not really clear if the US switched system to something like those countries, that it could achieve the same costs. Such a reorganization would be monumental in scale requiring an US bureaucracy of a scale only matched by the US Armed Forces.

Its not a problem I would want to be in charge of solving.

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#127

Post by EMIRELADERO »

eru wrote: post #123
EMIRELADERO wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not "economics", but classical-liberal and neoliberal ones (Austrian and Chicago school)

No, they don't stipulate that. They just assume that you have preferences and want to satisfy them. Those preferences can include 'earn as much money as possible', but they can also include 'feed starving children in the orphanage across the street'. The theory doesn't really care about the exact shape of your preferences. It's a useful shorthand to assume that economic actors want to maximize profit, because that al…

This commenter put it better than I ever could, so I'll respond with that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38838746

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#129

Post by throwaway290 »

maxbond wrote: post #118
throwaway290 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Terrorist attacks are defendable against. But anyway, you don't need to defend against terrorist attacks as much if you convincingly show terrorists you can come to their home and blow it up if they try.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the strategy of terrorists. They are looking to provoke a violent overreaction in order to radicalize the populace. It is a response to our ability to blow them up, and not one we have developed an antidote for.

Sure, but those rich elites themselves like to live well and somehow it turns out they when it comes to their own they really don't like to die or see their big prosperous families die. You can't rule radicalized impoverished populations if you yourself are dead. Letting them see that their target can retaliate in this way is not cheap.

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#130

Post by MostlyStable »

On this topic (and, in my opinion, a much better article), one might be interested in Meditations on Moloch[0] by Scott Alexander. The moral is: fixing things is actually really hard even when you know how to do it.

[0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

Post reply on HN