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

Economic costs of war

watson.brown.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–618 of 618 posts

Re: Economic costs of war

#611

Post by dougmwne »

secondaryacct wrote: post #257
dougmwne wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can this be so damn expensive? That's 1,000 a month for every single adult and child in the USA. We must be seriously mismanaging our healthcare.

In France where I was raised and China where I raise my kids, which both have affordable good quality health care, we tend to say it's due to economy of scale. We negociate national prices with indian labs, we manufacture at planned cost locally, we use the school system in synergy with healthcare to do preventive vaccination, dental, eye and ear care, we work hard on conflict of interest between doctors and drug sel…

Interesting perspective, and thanks! Per your last point, it's basically correct, but more like an involuntary loan. Upfront payment is never required, but a debt always results. If you were to arrive unconscious at a hospital after an accident, they would save your life and you could wake up to a bill that was more than your net worth. No person with any sense and assets to protect would go without health insurance. The poor just avoid the debt collectors as long as they can.

Re: Economic costs of war

#612

Post by random314 »

mc32 wrote: post #494
DSingularity wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The western democracies are so pure and noble. Definitely not colonizing, dictator supporting, or war mongering countries.

Apparently you have some advice for the State Department about how to stabilize a place that has lacked stability for centuries, I bet they could use some advice about now.

https://chomsky.info/fateful02/

Re: Economic costs of war

#613

Post by CRConrad »

rayiner wrote: post #472
heresie-dabord wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A nation has to work out its own problems for itself. This point being raised, it is time for the US to spend money on education to support its own democracy.

The U.S. spends among the most on education of any developed country, both in absolute terms and a percentage of GDP. Our education spending is over 6% of GDP: https://waterpedia.wiki/image/education-spending-share-gdp-s... . All of the people involved in these foreign war debacles were highly pedigreed. (Fun fact: the President of Afghanistan, who fled Kabul yesterday, is an Ivy League-educated professor who "litera…

> The U.S. spends among the most on education of any developed country, both in absolute terms and a percentage of GDP.

Just like it does with health care... And apparently, it's just as effective in education.

Re: Economic costs of war

#614

Post by robomartin »

poorjohnmacafee wrote: post #606
robomartin wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Point is entrepreneurs should focus on direct temperature manipulation at this point if we really want to solve the problem. While I appreciate your perspective, the hard and cold reality of the situation is that it is illusory to think we can affect something of this magnitude. Not only is it a planetary scale problem, it is also something that, just from the standpoint of conservation of energy, is impossible for…

I don't disagree with you and strongly agree we're having the wrong conversations. But in the spirit of thinking... 2 questions for you... What is impossible about direct temperature manipulation schemes? I'm referring to proposals like building reflectors to directly lower the earth's temperature. There's nothing in principle preventing this from directly cooling the planet. Also, what do you know about the physics…

> What is impossible about direct temperature manipulation schemes? I'm referring to proposals like building reflectors to directly lower the earth's temperature. There's nothing in principle preventing this from directly cooling the planet.

I don't think anyone can name even one project of non-trivial scale that successfully controlled a natural environment. I am talking about something of the scale of a small to mid island. Something that might give support for a project hundreds of thousand, millions, tens of millions of times larger.

Wanting to control anything at a planetary scale is pure hubris. C'mon. As I like to say, if we listen to the fools pushing these ideas we are far more likely to kill all life on earth than to save it.

And then there are truly perplexing every-day things that provide further proof that controlling anything is hopeless. Our town is going through and repaving a bunch of streets and avenues. There's nothing --absolutely nothing-- wrong with them. I've lived here over 30 year. The streets are damn-near perfect.

Just a block from my house, they tore-up about half a mile out of this avenue and replaced it with a black tar covering. Black as can be. The prior surface was mid gray. I used to take walks down that avenue. Not any more. The heat emanating from the black surface is impossible to describe. Every single street being repaved is getting the black tar treatment. How can we possibly hope to improve anything at a planetary scale when we fuck up neighborhoods just by repaving streets.

Re: Economic costs of war

#615

Post by hollerith »

watwut wrote: post #529
mc32 wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cultural aspect is critical and people have overlooked in many places. The Optimism for Russia after the fall of the USSR, Ukraine and Afghanistan, Libya, etc. Places with no democratic foundation or tradition but plagued by corruption. It needs to grow over decades organically for the people to get used to the idea and the institutions, for example, like in Hong-Kong. Singapore is another example and they yet do…

Germany had no democratic tradition either, it was corrupt too. And, as someone else said, many former USSR countries are doing quite well with their new democracies. The factors are way more complicated then just that.

>Germany had no democratic tradition either

Germany differs from Afghanistan in having had centuries of experience with bureaucratic society, e.g., implementing the world's first welfare state in the 1870s.

Re: Economic costs of war

#616

Post by selimthegrim »

rayiner wrote: post #472
heresie-dabord wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A nation has to work out its own problems for itself. This point being raised, it is time for the US to spend money on education to support its own democracy.

The U.S. spends among the most on education of any developed country, both in absolute terms and a percentage of GDP. Our education spending is over 6% of GDP: https://waterpedia.wiki/image/education-spending-share-gdp-s... . All of the people involved in these foreign war debacles were highly pedigreed. (Fun fact: the President of Afghanistan, who fled Kabul yesterday, is an Ivy League-educated professor who "litera…

>Our own country has a thousand-year head start on Afghanistan in terms of civilization

Way to ignore Bactria there, Khwarezmia, Kanishka, Mes Aynak, Mundigak, the Indo-Greeks. Do better. You should be ashamed.

Re: Economic costs of war

#617

Post by issa »

smegger001 wrote: post #450
issa wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is the fundamental fallacy in this whole situation. "Taliban" and "Afghans" are not two separate groups.

one is a radical armed violent subset of the other. in the same way that the klu kluk klan are american but America isn't the klan.

It is a fraught comparison, but I would like to think that the Taliban has MUCH broader support in Afghanistan than the KKK does in the US.

Re: Economic costs of war

#618

Post by mrleinad »

oh_sigh wrote: post #466
mrleinad wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everyone has to use it, private and public systems can coexist, as it works in many countries.

Sure, but would you consider 30% coverage from the government to be "universal healthcare"? Because that's what you get for $900B/yr. And we already have a public/private mix of healthcare with medicare/medicaid/ACA/workplace offered healthcare. That system, today, covers 90% of the population.

I'm not so clear on how that works in the states.

Here in Argentina you have a public system that everyone can use. Now, if you want, you can pay for private healthcare and use that if you think it's better, but the public system is still available even then, and there are no limits to what it covers.

The public system doesn't care if you can pay it or not, or even if you're a national or a foreigner. Just walk in, show some ID, and you can use it.

Post reply on HN