Obama Announces $2B Fund for Startups • Hacker News Board

Re: Obama Announces $2B Fund for Startups

#161

Post by Retric » Sat, Dec 10, 2011, 10:34 PM UTC

anamax wrote: post #123

Retric wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US and Canadian government spend the same amount per person on healthcare but Canada has universal health care. On average the US and Canadian healthcare systems provide vary similar outcomes on average. So, clearly more government involvement is an option. But, so is less the US could save a ridiculous amount of money if we could stop wasting it on end of life care that proves little to no benefit. Healthcare is…

> The US and Canadian government spend the same amount per person on healthcare but Canada has universal health care. As does the US, it just doesn't go by that name. Yes, there is free healthcare in the US. It isn't unlimited and you can buy better, but the same is true of Canada. However, I'll note that the US govt directly pays for about half of US healthcare (employees, etc.). If US govt healthcare will be so goo…

why isn't it?

Because in the vast majority of cases the US government does not provide heath care it provides heath insurance. The only large scale government healthcare in the US is the VA which costs a lot less than the rest of the US healthcare system because they pay for the doctors directly and cut out a lot of middle men that drive up costs everywhere else in the US system. They also have more leverage when it comes to malpractice and doctor pay etc.

Now, your rhetorical idea that prices can drop 10% the first year and 10% the second would probably not be far off the mark. (Just compare VA costs with the average hospital etc.) But, in the end it's only going to save around 40% because until we see some real automation there is only so much costs you can cut before quality is impacted.

Re: Obama Announces $2B Fund for Startups

#162

Post by maaku » Sat, Dec 10, 2011, 10:45 PM UTC

thmcmahon wrote: post #68

rbanffy wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just as a side note, you really don't want an executive branch that can do that (fixing the immigration and patent systems). edit: sorry if it didn't end up as clear as it should

Works OK for countries with parliamentary democracies.

No, that's how a dictatorship works, not a parliamentary democracy. The prime minister/head of state may set policy, but it's still subject to an up/down vote in the parliament. In all cases I can think of, a prime minister can't unilaterally make such drastic changes without (parliamentary) referendum.

The U.S.'s federated system just makes it more explicit what's going on.

Re: Obama Announces $2B Fund for Startups

#163

Post by saryant » Sat, Dec 10, 2011, 11:30 PM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #103

saryant wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A college education is one of the few properties that can’t be repossessed in the event of bankruptcy.

Neither can $15k in credit-card debt racked up eating at fancy restaurants, yet that is dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Fair enough, but the value of a fancy meal is quickly lost. Comparatively, the value of a college education lasts forever.

Re: Obama Announces $2B Fund for Startups

#164

Post by anigbrowl » Sun, Dec 11, 2011, 3:23 AM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #143

anigbrowl wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually not, because their commenting system uses flash so you can't search for/link to individual comments. As you can see from a simple Google search, though, I am far from the first to make the comparison: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=...

All the examples on the first page of google (except maybe for the youtube and facebook links - didn't bother reading those) consist of proponents of increased Mexican immigration stupidly comparing a proposed border fence to the Berlin wall. However, I'll admit that I've also seen proponents of secure borders making Berlin wall comparisons under one circumstance. Often proponents of increased Mexican immigration cla…

We just had a candidate that flamed out in the race for the GOP nomination speak with approval of an electrified fence. I have never claimed this to be the majority position on the right (it isn't; about 40% of GOPers support restriction ist policies), but if you think immigration restrictionists aren't in love with the idea of walling off the border you're in denial.

Re: Obama Announces $2B Fund for Startups

#165

Post by anigbrowl » Sun, Dec 11, 2011, 5:20 AM UTC

abracat1 wrote: post #142

mlinksva wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Apartheid was concerned with the area people lived in the same country (in this area it might be seen as unjust - since people had citizenship to the country." I use the term Apartheid advisedly. I do not regard place of birth a legitimate discriminator any more than I do race. As for the "poorest of the poor", they live in poor countries. Again, I do not see the relatively poor of wealthy countries as being more wo…

Part 2. Your article also states that: > However, it is a far from perfect analogue. Bryan Caplan cites evidence that immigrants to the U.S. commit crimes at a far lower rate than U.S. citizens. So? This is expected! It shows the success of current immigration policies. The current policy is to only let the best of the best into the country (i.e. Those without criminal records and who has at least a degree in a techn…

The current policy is to only let the best of the best into the country (i.e. Those without criminal records and who has at least a degree in a technical field/ or doctor).

That is most certainly not current US immigration policy, which explicitly provides priority for family connections. Technical qualifications are a secondary factor and a modest advantage only for employer-applied visas. The vast bulk of visa applications are family-based.

The blog post makes no argument that th crime rate of immigrants would still be lower if this barrier and selection would be removed (it would not!).

[citation needed]

Usage of the word Apartheid in your link is bogus! The word Apartheid is only used in order to evoke white guilt.

Oh FFS. I have no guilt about being white but if you're going to argue that apartheid was in any sense a fair system then you're welcome to it.

Re: Obama Announces $2B Fund for Startups

#166

Post by abracat1 » Sun, Dec 11, 2011, 6:55 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #165

abracat1 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part 2. Your article also states that: > However, it is a far from perfect analogue. Bryan Caplan cites evidence that immigrants to the U.S. commit crimes at a far lower rate than U.S. citizens. So? This is expected! It shows the success of current immigration policies. The current policy is to only let the best of the best into the country (i.e. Those without criminal records and who has at least a degree in a techn…

The current policy is to only let the best of the best into the country (i.e. Those without criminal records and who has at least a degree in a technical field/ or doctor). That is most certainly not current US immigration policy, which explicitly provides priority for family connections. Technical qualifications are a secondary factor and a modest advantage only for employer-applied visas. The vast bulk of visa appl…

> That is most certainly not current US immigration policy, which explicitly provides priority for family connections.

That is true. But the person who broughthif family over, how did he get here? Because he is skilled and already at the top of his field! So, a skilled person bringing over his family or an American whi brings over his foreign wife is already at the top of society.

I myself looked at immigration (chiefly yo USA, Ireland and Britain) - almost impossible for me to do if I didn't have an advanced degree.

> [citation needed]

You are willing to believe an unfounded assertian of the nlog post, yet evidence of countries with more liberal policies you ignore?

I stated the example of South Africa with an open border. In many Nordic countries with a liberal immigration policy, crime by immigrants is much higher (finland, sweden, etc...).

> i have no guilt about being white...

Yet the premise of article is that the world is divided into rich white people and poor black/asian people and the reason for that is "International Apartheid".

So according o the article, if a person supports rational immigration policies, he is a racist who supports global apartheid.

Perhaps you did not comphrehend the article or you feel the same - hence no need for white guilt since you support open borders.

> if you are going to argue...

I am not arguing that Apartheid was a fair system (it was not). Yet the world is a lot more nuanced than good/bad black/white.

South Africa is an extremely complex country (11 national languages, four capital cities, traditional leadeship, two Europen populations, massive inequality between black and white, rich black and poor black, inequality between urban and rural, more people on welfare (13 million) than tax payers (<5 million), probably more illegal immigrants than white people, more HIV+ people than tax payers, etc...). An incredibly complex (and interesting) country that you describe in terms of a black white world view.

Re: Obama Announces $2B Fund for Startups

#167

Post by yummyfajitas » Sun, Dec 11, 2011, 2:41 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #164

yummyfajitas wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the examples on the first page of google (except maybe for the youtube and facebook links - didn't bother reading those) consist of proponents of increased Mexican immigration stupidly comparing a proposed border fence to the Berlin wall. However, I'll admit that I've also seen proponents of secure borders making Berlin wall comparisons under one circumstance. Often proponents of increased Mexican immigration cla…

We just had a candidate that flamed out in the race for the GOP nomination speak with approval of an electrified fence. I have never claimed this to be the majority position on the right (it isn't; about 40% of GOPers support restriction ist policies), but if you think immigration restrictionists aren't in love with the idea of walling off the border you're in denial.

I never disputed that many people want to secure the border. I disputed that "people who want to militarize the border with Mexico [...] explicitly hold[...] it [the Berlin wall] up as a model."

Re: Obama Announces $2B Fund for Startups

#168

Post by anamax » Mon, Dec 12, 2011, 2:55 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #157

anamax wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regulation is one solution to market failures. No. Regulation CAN be a solution to market failures. However, it is absurd to think that regulation necessarily solves market failures. > The Clean Air Act, for example, has been extremely successful at addressing the negative externalities created by air pollution. It's always interesting when an economic argument ignores either costs or benefits. While the clean air…

> It's always interesting when an economic argument ignores either costs or benefits. While the clean air act provided benefits, that doesn't imply that we couldn't have gotten the benefits for less, let alone that every regulation in the face of claimed "market failure", or even actual externalities, is a good idea. There are several studies showing the huge benefits of the CAA relative to its costs. Banning leaded…

> There are several studies showing the huge benefits of the CAA relative to its costs.

Yes, but that wasn't the question.

> Banning leaded gasoline alone was a net $16 billion/year benefit.

The last time this came up, someone cited a study claiming that the CAA was responsible for 1/6th of the US economy. While I agree that there were net benefits, the 1/6th claim is absurd.

While every one of these "studies" claims to be conservative, I've never seen one that actually is.

Moreover, as with the space program, we may have gone through a "golden age" wrt certain kinds of regulation, where the small things might work but the big ones are one disaster after another. (That's not unexpected - we started with the low-hanging fruit.) Note that the acid-rain regulation is one of the disasters. (Yes, there was a problem, but the regulation was overkill.)

Re: Obama Announces $2B Fund for Startups

#169

Post by chrisbennet » Mon, Dec 12, 2011, 8:35 AM UTC

HilbertSpace wrote: post #149

gammarator wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have missed the recent story [1] from Bloomberg that the Fed made 7.7 TRILLION dollars--10x TARP, and half of the US GDP--available to banks at 0.01 interest. They used that money to buy Treasuries--ie, loaned the money back to the government at interest, earning an estimated $13 billion in profit. So yes, they were able to pay back TARP pretty easily. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-f…

Yes, the Fed did 'quantitative easing' which is obscure nonsense for they printed some money and gave it to the banks. The bank stockholders should thank the Fed. Actually the taxpayers should own the banks and slowly sell them back to private investors as the economy recovers. When Greenspan did such money printing, he called it "rebuilding the balance sheets". A 'secret' is that the large banks are creatures of the…

That post is a pearl. Thanks.

Re: Obama Announces $2B Fund for Startups

#170

Post by anamax » Mon, Dec 12, 2011, 5:56 PM UTC

scarmig wrote: post #156

anamax wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US and Canadian government spend the same amount per person on healthcare but Canada has universal health care. As does the US, it just doesn't go by that name. Yes, there is free healthcare in the US. It isn't unlimited and you can buy better, but the same is true of Canada. However, I'll note that the US govt directly pays for about half of US healthcare (employees, etc.). If US govt healthcare will be so goo…

Going to the emergency room when you're on the brink of death doesn't count as "free healthcare," no matter how many times they beat their chest claiming it is. Emergency room healthcare is significantly more expensive than getting your blood pressure checked every couple of months. The right to healthcare isn't something that only applies to the emergency room.

> Going to the emergency room when you're on the brink of death doesn't count as "free healthcare,"

So?

You're ignoring medicaid and the free clinics that are in many areas. Medicaid is especially interesting because the vast majority of the "poor uninsured" are eligible and get signed up as soon as they actually need care.

Both programs are fairly well publicized, so it's interesting that you mentioned emergency care as if it's the only option.

And there's a third option which is less well known. With the possible exception of much of Alaska (due to population density), every county has a public hospital that provides free healthcare.