Hacker News Reader

Comment by curiousgeorgio | Hacker News Reader

Perhaps this should be viewed as just more evidence that in many cases, private enterprise tends to be more productive than government-sponsored initiatives.

Granted, that may not always be the case (China being a counterexample here), but one must also be aware of the costs (in terms of freedom) that are associated with government control of such a large portion of citizens' lives and the means of production. If that's what you happen to prefer, you're free to move to a nation that embraces communism. You might fare better in a pandemic, but you might also get locked up (or worse) for saying something that your government doesn't agree with.

As for me, I prefer capitalism and the freedom it gives us to either hoard wealth or (as Gates demonstrates) do tremendous good - not by force, but out of genuine altruism. I'd bet on the success of a Gates-sponsored healthcare solution over a government-sponsored one any day of the week.

View on HN

>I'd bet on the success of a Gates-sponsored healthcare solution over a government-sponsored one any day of the week.

So you'd bet that the US is going to deal with the pandemic more effectively than China has? That doesn't seem likely at the moment.

> So you'd bet that the US is going to deal with the pandemic more effectively than China has?

No, that's not what I said.

So Gates is not actually going to do anything to help with this pandemic? If so, how is he an example of the effectiveness of private enterprise as compared to government?

> So Gates is not actually going to do anything to help with this pandemic?

Again, not what I said. Contributing resources and expertise is not an all-or-nothing scenario. Each dollar spent by Gates fighting COVID-19 will (in my opinion) be significantly more productive than each dollar spent by the US government. But that doesn't mean he's the only force participating in the fight, nor is his contribution insignificant.

If you have an argument to make, please make it, but I'd ask you politely to refrain from straw man arguments or insisting on false dichotomies.

>I'd bet on the success of a Gates-sponsored healthcare solution over a government-sponsored one any day of the week.

This doesn't sound like you are talking about dollar-for-dollar effectiveness.

Nor does it make sense to suggest that people move to Communist countries, if that's what you meant.

Be effective, do you mean by imprisoning and silencing physicians, insisting they had things under control, allowing 11m people to continue with new year, mass celebrations, allowing out of country travel, silencing Taiwanese doctors complaints to the WHO and strong arming the WHO to declare, as late as January 14, 2020 that it is not passable thru human to human transmission?

“Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China,” the WHO tweeted.

No, I just mean that China has had more success than, say, Italy in stopping the spread of the disease.

> As for me, I prefer capitalism and the freedom it gives us to either hoard wealth or (as Gates demonstrates) do tremendous good

Who is "us" here? Surely you don't think a significant portion of the world population can choose to hoard wealth.

As an American, the freedom is mine (as it is for other US citizens) to do what I choose with the money I earn, regardless of the amount. Wealth is relative, after all.

Is it though? I don't know about stats in the US, but I'd be surprised if the majority of the people earned enough money to choose what to do with it after basic human expenses. Unless you count surviving as a choice, but at that point anything is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com