The proposed new Covid relief doesn't hold out much hope for next year, either.
I mean, look, if people can't work temporarily, you can't let that destroy the economy. You have to get them through, and you have to have an economy for them to come back to. But you can also cause problems by building up too much government debt. (I don't know what the right answer is, but I see lots of problems...)
> But you can also cause problems by building up too much government debt.
You probably can, but even with another year of 3T deficit I think the net debt (I can't find good figure on that for the last few years) would be under 100% of GDP, which looking at history doesn't really seem likely to be any kind of giant problem in and of itself, even though gross debt being over 100% seems to be an intuitive scare threshold.
We waste so much money on initiatives and social programs that can be administered much more sensibly and cheaply by local communities. Community leaders can custom-tailor their approach to what their community needs, instead of a blanket, one-size-fits-all nationwide programs that waste money.
Many of them could be run as community charities or even profitable businesses, if national government would just get out of the way and let innovation work its magic!
And I mean well-intentioned, but wasteful programs like:
- libraries (partner with publishers instead!)
- grand-making arts programs
- mandatory Common Core preschools (instilling a dislike of education from a young age!)
- programs for reduced-cost and free lunches (just use surplus food that already exists!)
- community colleges (can be run for profit)
- job retraining programs (we already have technical schools!)
- public health and drug rehab (pharma companies can step-up instead)
- national parks and wildlife preservation (why not let the market decide which ones are worth it?)
Suddenly, we'll have taken a big bite out of our unsustainable debt!
The issue with the US system is that 99% of local actions are unsustainable. Everything is federal or nothing, even at the state level you end up socialising losses and privatising gains. .
Why not just change the system. The US is about the only place on earth with this weird system forcing every town and county and city and state to compete. It doesn't seem to work. No one seems to have designed it, it just turned out like this.
I'm getting bombarded with articles about people fleeing high tax states with out of control, ineffective govts. Can you explain which part isn't working? i've been under the assumption that state competition is one of the best parts about the US.
Well... Healthcare, education, social work and infrastructure are all failing in the US for this specific reason. Don't get me wrong, maybe that's how the US likes it? I'm a brit, it's not my business how you run your country.
I was just saying, when you said these things should be done voluntary by local groups, that doesnt work because it's designed not to because that's how the US is.
It's great for lower taxes and as long as that is the o ly thing that you care about, you're golden!
No, that was deliberate. Governments aren't omniscient. If a government is bad, stupid, or just mistaken in what the right policy is, it's better if that doesn't affect the whole country. And if there's another state right beside it that does better, the first state can see that other policies work better and might get their act together.
But if it was the federal government, it would affect everyone, not just one state. Also, there wouldn't be 50 examples for them to pick the best from. (There are other countries, but their circumstances tend to vary more than the circumstances between states, so it's easier for naysayer to argue that the example doesn't really apply.)
Holy cow, this is the worst list I've ever seen. These are (almost) all things I treasure and I would hate to see abandoned to the wolves. Are you seriously suggesting libraries as wasteful programs and that Pharma companies run drug rehab programs! I can't tell if this is a troll comment or not.
In case it is not just trolling, I suggest you read about the tragedy of the commons:
What led you to believe that I haven't heard of the tragedy of the commons? It's an inescapable little parable that's in the foreword of every intro textbook on economics.
In case you haven't read the wiki page you linked yourself, privatization is exactly the solution to the tragedy of the commons, and illustrating the benefits of private enterprise is exactly why the tragedy of the commons is ever brought up.
Ok, you've convinced me that this isn't a troll account like it originally appeared. Can you elaborate on your proposal to have pharma companies run drug rehab programs and "partner with publishers" rather than have libraries run as they do?
It's really tempting to apply Poe's Law when they propose to let the market decide which national parks are "worth it".
It reads an awful lot like a list of "things that other people need but I don't". It's also a weird mishmash of things that aren't federal and things whose total expenditure is such a tiny percentage of tax dollars that you could zero them out while making a rounding error in your paycheck. Things that actually have large budgets -- the military, social security, roads, primary education, police and fire departments -- are also things that they benefit from.
I didn't include those things because they're either unsolvable (defense spending is an arms race), or the solution is obvious and inevitable. For example, we can save Social Security by phasing out old people.
Meaning, I presume, move the retirement age, rather than moving the life expectancy. OK, that makes some sense.
I'm not sure that "below" is quite correct - when Social Security was started, retirement was 65 and average life expectancy was 67 or 68. I'm pretty sure it wasn't below 65. But still, it was close - not 80 but keeping retirement at 65.
So, yes, that would work. It would make Social Security solvent very well. The second-order effect would probably be to increase unemployment, though, at least if you required it for people who are already retired.
They have moved up the retirement age, but less than the life expectancy has moved.
No, I actually mean proactively pursuing national public health policies that allow all of us to lead fuller, shorter lives. A disproportionate amount of medical spending is incurred in the last three years of the lives of Americans.[1] For many, those last years are spent in pain, or in a hospital, or in a sedated state, at astronomical expense.
Anecdotally, many people will tell you that they wouldn't want to live forever, that mortality is what gives life meaning and urgency. No one wishes to go on...
Honest question- would you feel the same if the life expectancy in your scenario maxed out at your current age?
I've thought about this quite a bit. If you mean to say people would all be rich and have 'the luxe life' but they had to tap out at 30, how many would reach that point and regret their decision?
I don't think that's a fair question. legerdemain is talking about denying medical care late, not killing people early.
For example, if life expectancy was 80, and you stopped offering treatment for cancer and pneumonia at 80. That's significantly different from tapping out at 30, or even 60.
But if we actually did that, then life expectancy would probably drop. So we'd lower the age at which we cut off medical care. Then the life expectancy would probably drop some more.
Mind you, I'm not saying that I agree with legerdemain. I'm just saying that I think that your particular criticism of his idea is off base.
And I don't even mean that. Let's not fantasize about Logan's Run here. If your genetics and physical conditioning will let you reach 120 and stay fit and sharp, more power to you.
You don't have to stop offering treatment. You can selectively incentivize research into proactive and prophylactic interventions. Set a higher bar for quality-adjusted life years late-life treatment should provide before becoming the standard of care.
Or, as the current US administration is signaling, just minimize pandemic precautions with the expectation that the burden of death will fall predominantly to the very old, regardless of the simplistic measures their families remember to take. Can't get to herd immunity without at least some "collateral damage" to the elderly.
Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. An internet forum like HN can't do anything interesting with that—it just turns into tedious, nasty flamewar.
Well we never will be able to tax our way out of it, there isn't enough wealth and you could confiscate all the wealth of every billionaire and fall ridiculously short.
the only out is to restrict spending. We don't actually have to cut anything even though we should. Hope budget increases below inflation as much as possible. Other countries have done it, why can't we? This means that programs that automatic increases built in don't get them if it pushes the budge past the limit.
This is not austerity, this is returning to proper budgeting where we don't use baseline budgeting which is how Congress lies to the American people with claims a program has been reduced.
> Well we never will be able to tax our way out of it, there isn't enough wealth and you could confiscate all the wealth of every billionaire and fall ridiculously short.
Why would you try to pay off the national debt with a one-time wealth tax (whether restricted to billionaires or not)? That would be stupid.
> the only out is to restrict spending.
Or grow the economy over the long term, make service payments, and not worry about a grand payoff because what would even be the point of that?
36 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 42.8 ms ] threadI mean, look, if people can't work temporarily, you can't let that destroy the economy. You have to get them through, and you have to have an economy for them to come back to. But you can also cause problems by building up too much government debt. (I don't know what the right answer is, but I see lots of problems...)
You probably can, but even with another year of 3T deficit I think the net debt (I can't find good figure on that for the last few years) would be under 100% of GDP, which looking at history doesn't really seem likely to be any kind of giant problem in and of itself, even though gross debt being over 100% seems to be an intuitive scare threshold.
Many of them could be run as community charities or even profitable businesses, if national government would just get out of the way and let innovation work its magic!
And I mean well-intentioned, but wasteful programs like:
- libraries (partner with publishers instead!)
- grand-making arts programs
- mandatory Common Core preschools (instilling a dislike of education from a young age!)
- programs for reduced-cost and free lunches (just use surplus food that already exists!)
- community colleges (can be run for profit)
- job retraining programs (we already have technical schools!)
- public health and drug rehab (pharma companies can step-up instead)
- national parks and wildlife preservation (why not let the market decide which ones are worth it?)
Suddenly, we'll have taken a big bite out of our unsustainable debt!
I was just saying, when you said these things should be done voluntary by local groups, that doesnt work because it's designed not to because that's how the US is.
It's great for lower taxes and as long as that is the o ly thing that you care about, you're golden!
But if it was the federal government, it would affect everyone, not just one state. Also, there wouldn't be 50 examples for them to pick the best from. (There are other countries, but their circumstances tend to vary more than the circumstances between states, so it's easier for naysayer to argue that the example doesn't really apply.)
In case it is not just trolling, I suggest you read about the tragedy of the commons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
In case you haven't read the wiki page you linked yourself, privatization is exactly the solution to the tragedy of the commons, and illustrating the benefits of private enterprise is exactly why the tragedy of the commons is ever brought up.
It reads an awful lot like a list of "things that other people need but I don't". It's also a weird mishmash of things that aren't federal and things whose total expenditure is such a tiny percentage of tax dollars that you could zero them out while making a rounding error in your paycheck. Things that actually have large budgets -- the military, social security, roads, primary education, police and fire departments -- are also things that they benefit from.
I presume you don't mean either of those, but I'm at a loss to tell what you do mean. What exactly do you have in mind?
I'm not sure that "below" is quite correct - when Social Security was started, retirement was 65 and average life expectancy was 67 or 68. I'm pretty sure it wasn't below 65. But still, it was close - not 80 but keeping retirement at 65.
So, yes, that would work. It would make Social Security solvent very well. The second-order effect would probably be to increase unemployment, though, at least if you required it for people who are already retired.
They have moved up the retirement age, but less than the life expectancy has moved.
Anecdotally, many people will tell you that they wouldn't want to live forever, that mortality is what gives life meaning and urgency. No one wishes to go on...
[1] https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2017....
I've thought about this quite a bit. If you mean to say people would all be rich and have 'the luxe life' but they had to tap out at 30, how many would reach that point and regret their decision?
For example, if life expectancy was 80, and you stopped offering treatment for cancer and pneumonia at 80. That's significantly different from tapping out at 30, or even 60.
But if we actually did that, then life expectancy would probably drop. So we'd lower the age at which we cut off medical care. Then the life expectancy would probably drop some more.
Mind you, I'm not saying that I agree with legerdemain. I'm just saying that I think that your particular criticism of his idea is off base.
You don't have to stop offering treatment. You can selectively incentivize research into proactive and prophylactic interventions. Set a higher bar for quality-adjusted life years late-life treatment should provide before becoming the standard of care.
Or, as the current US administration is signaling, just minimize pandemic precautions with the expectation that the burden of death will fall predominantly to the very old, regardless of the simplistic measures their families remember to take. Can't get to herd immunity without at least some "collateral damage" to the elderly.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
the only out is to restrict spending. We don't actually have to cut anything even though we should. Hope budget increases below inflation as much as possible. Other countries have done it, why can't we? This means that programs that automatic increases built in don't get them if it pushes the budge past the limit.
This is not austerity, this is returning to proper budgeting where we don't use baseline budgeting which is how Congress lies to the American people with claims a program has been reduced.
Why would you try to pay off the national debt with a one-time wealth tax (whether restricted to billionaires or not)? That would be stupid.
> the only out is to restrict spending.
Or grow the economy over the long term, make service payments, and not worry about a grand payoff because what would even be the point of that?