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

The Economy

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 270 posts

Re: The Economy

#111

Post by zo1 »

moblahbl4hblah wrote: post #12
klunger wrote: post #7

He just suggested a basic income for everybody. I just wanted to point this out in case people missed it when skimming.

A basic income is a great idea...it would also be a good idea to completely remove the profit motive from health care. A social safety net that includes a living wage, guaranteed higher education, and retirement is completely possible if you don't spend so much on defense and intelligence.

Ah yes, the old "it'll work, we just need more money, promise!". We've been hearing that one since the beginning of the democratic form of governance. Guess you haven't looked at the recent graphs of US budget spending, otherwise you would have figured out that "more money" doesn't necessarily solve the problem.

Hint: Most, if not all, the additional money gets eaten up by newly created bureaucracy.

Re: The Economy

#112

Post by nkohari »

thenmar wrote: post #72
snowwrestler wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguing about terminology is a great way to avoid arguing about tough fiscal realities.

I think it's worth mentioning. Propagandistic terms such as "entitlements" frustrate discussion and make it even more difficult to communicate. It belittles and trivializes the opinion that poor people are entitled to things like healthcare or food, making people who hold that opinion unwilling to discuss it.

Politicians can't refer to social programs as "welfare" because it carries a negative connotation, and people on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will be uncomfortable with being grouped with those on SNAP. They also can't refer to them as "social programs" because it's three short letters away from "socialism."

The use of the word "entitlements" is a lot like how socially left-leaning people are now more commonly referred to as "progressives" rather than "liberals."

Re: The Economy

#113

Post by ef4 »

johnward wrote: post #23
moblahbl4hblah wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A basic income is a great idea...it would also be a good idea to completely remove the profit motive from health care. A social safety net that includes a living wage, guaranteed higher education, and retirement is completely possible if you don't spend so much on defense and intelligence.

I'm no economist but at some point aren't we going to become so productive that there won't be enough need for workers. Are we maybe at that point now? If every single person wanted to work there would not be enough jobs to support that. So what happens in the future? Some people have jobs and are rich while the rest are in poverty and can't eat? I don't think society could function with that many people not having a…

This same argument has been repeated for literally centuries now, and it always turns out wrong in the long run.

Imagine if we could run the entire world economy with only 5% of the workers. Pandemonium? No, it has already happened before. Agriculture was the whole economy, the rest was rounding error. Virtually all workers worked in agriculture. Now we produce all that and much more with something less than 5% of the workforce.

Having no more work to do necessarily means that everybody already has everything they want. It's not a meaningful risk.

Most of already do work so esoteric that our ancestors wouldn't possibly believe you could base a real economy around it. Yet here we are. Our descendants will do things that similarly boggle us.

Re: The Economy

#114

Post by ahoy »

gautambay wrote: post #43
sama wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

oops, i accidentally published an earlier draft. i added a bit more of my thinking here--my sense is that it would probably lead to less waste than current systems. i'm also not sure it's the right approach, but i haven't heard any better ideas yet.

i prefer universal essential services (healthcare, education, etc.) over a guaranteed basic income. with basic income, you run the risk that the receivers spend it on shiny objects (especially in an economy like ours with rampant consumerism) instead of things that benefit them and their families long-term. of course, what constitutes "essential services" can be the subject of a lengthy debate.

The counter to that is that I understand what services and goods are essential to me better than the government does (or anyone that isn't me, for that matter). If the goal is to do the most good with the least waste, basic income is probably better than a hodgepodge of universal services.

That said, I'm all for either or a combination of approaches. Anything to catch the US up with the rest of the developed world socially.

Re: The Economy

#115

Post by ahoy »

gautambay wrote: post #43
sama wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

oops, i accidentally published an earlier draft. i added a bit more of my thinking here--my sense is that it would probably lead to less waste than current systems. i'm also not sure it's the right approach, but i haven't heard any better ideas yet.

i prefer universal essential services (healthcare, education, etc.) over a guaranteed basic income. with basic income, you run the risk that the receivers spend it on shiny objects (especially in an economy like ours with rampant consumerism) instead of things that benefit them and their families long-term. of course, what constitutes "essential services" can be the subject of a lengthy debate.

The counter to that is that I understand what services and goods are essential to me better than the government does (or anyone that isn't me, for that matter). If the goal is to do the most good with the least waste, basic income is probably better than a hodgepodge of universal services.

That said, I'm all for either or a combination of approaches. Anything to catch the US up with the rest of the developed world socially.

Re: The Economy

#116

Post by sachinag »

sama wrote: post #33
tdees40 wrote: post #24

I'm not clear on how any of this will lead to a recession. Why will high Debt-to-GDP or government spending send the economy into a recession? Q1 GDP numbers were clearly affected by dismal weather (although still bad), but labor markets are improving markedly, and there are reasons for optimism. I don't see this as a very convincing bear case. For the bull case, see this post, from a guy who's been right about every…

i am a bull. i just think that we should talk about what the problems are. ignoring them is not a good way to fix them.

Debt to GDP isn't a problem: http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers/worki... (very widely circulated paper, given that they lowered the boom on Reinhart/Rogoff)

Re: The Economy

#117

Post by penguindev »

pkaler wrote: post #110

Almost any argument that relies on GDP numbers to back up its claim is specious at best. For example, you could have a tornado destroy a town and the disaster recovery spending would increase GDP. You could build a teleportation device that puts all delivery drivers out of work. GDP would decrease but there would be an overall increase in wealth and quality of life. Thinking about economics through the lens of GDP is…

Yep. Heart attacks, perpetual 'diabetes treatment', borrowing a million (or a trillion) dollars you can't pay back and spending it, promising unrealistic pension benefits, and depleting natural resources (wood, water, energy, overfishing, selling your seed corn), fighting losing wars (is there ever a winner?), paying other people to raise your kids, all grow "gee-dee-pee'.

Re: The Economy

#118

Post by anigbrowl »

tdees40 wrote: post #24

I'm not clear on how any of this will lead to a recession. Why will high Debt-to-GDP or government spending send the economy into a recession? Q1 GDP numbers were clearly affected by dismal weather (although still bad), but labor markets are improving markedly, and there are reasons for optimism. I don't see this as a very convincing bear case. For the bull case, see this post, from a guy who's been right about every…

Quite. It's entirely rational for the government o maximize borrowing when interest rates are low, because treasuries are fixed-income securities, whose coupon (regular payment of interest to bondholders) does not fluctuate with the interest rate. Now if rates go up and borrowing does not fall, that would be a huge problem. But when rates are historically low it's completely rational to load up with as much debt as you can carry if the economic gain > the interest payment. My main beef with governance (by both the parties rather than one alone) of the last few years is that we didn't borrow enough and what we did borrow was mostly spent on transfer payments, instead of a massive (and necessary) overhaul of our infrastructure that would have created more employment and arguably had a greater money multiplier effect even at sub-optimal levels of economic efficiency.

Re: The Economy

#119

Post by marincounty »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #87
klunger wrote: post #7

He just suggested a basic income for everybody. I just wanted to point this out in case people missed it when skimming.

I'm wondering at point do we stop relying on the government to provide us with everything we need. What happens when we have too many unfunded liabilities and the government runs out of money and all the millions of people who suddenly depend on government from everything from medical care, income, employment, and other forms of support? All you have to do is take a good, hard look at countries like Greece and Argent…

When the government stops making it illegial, or charging fees for---Living. If Jesus Christ reappeared; what would his first few days look like? He couldn't fish without a license. He couldn't hunt without a license. He couldn't light a fire without a permit. He couldn't sleep unless in a sanctified Homeless Shelter. He would probally get a loitering ticket while preaching to the masses, or worse-- thrown in jail over inciting a riot? So, we live in a society where government regulates pretty much everything we do; until they back off--they need to help the people who can't "work" in their system. (God--please forgive me, I was just trying to make a point. I didn't use your name in vain.)
Post reply on HN