Hacker News Reader

Comment by dnautics | Hacker News Reader

"this will alleviate personal devastation"

Will it? Or will it just push it out over time? Or something else completely? Can you say with certainty that more people won't die of despair if we give people money? Does it depend on doing something a certain way? Are there some ways of doing things better than others? How much depends on the effectiveness policymakers (politicians) versus implementors (bureaucrats)?

I don't think we can say for certain "doing nothing" is categorically worse than "doing something".

View on HN

Agreed. You can't just dump money into citizens' pockets with no expectation of return. Giving an engine gas doesn't make the engine more efficient at using the gas, it just let's us get to the next mechanic. And that's what we need, good mechanics. So how do we spend our money, buying enough gas to get part way to our goal, or spend the money on the mechanics to make our engine efficient enough so we can get to our goal with less gas than we need?

You can't just dump money into citizens' pockets with no expectation of return. Giving an engine gas doesn't make the engine more efficient at using the gas

Maybe the point isn't to generate a financial return or increase the efficiency of the "engine." Maybe the point is simply to prevent hypothetical deaths resulting from "economic devastation." Maybe the car engine just needs enough gas to make it to the next gas station, not extensive re-engineering.

> to prevent economic devastation

> Just needs enough gas for the next station

You don't prevent economic devastation by feeding a broken system all the resources, you prevent it by fixing the broken system.

Edit: here's an example. I joined new work and their documentation was a complete mess. I could have saved time immediately and stuck to their busted structure, just shoving documents wherever similar documents existed, but instead I overhauled the entire structure and content, saving everyone time in the long run.

Guess which option works better.

I agree with your statements when applied to situations that extend beyond the short-term. I was referring to the immediate threat of deaths resulting from present or nearly-present economic circumstances.

My point was simply that we have more than enough resources, even at our worst, to keep people's basic needs met. I'm not saying that keeping people alive will prevent economic devastation, just that preventing economic devastation is not a necessary precondition for keeping people alive.

>I was referring to the immediate threat of deaths resulting from present or nearly-present economic circumstances.

Are the hospitals not treating people in immediate threat of dying? Is California not housing the homeless in hotels? Is there not an extensive support network?

I don't think this virus and "short term" work together.

> My point was simply that we have more than enough resources

Who is "we" in this case? Because the State of California is in massive debt as far as I can tell, and they're still drowning in problems.

I guess I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. What are you suggesting?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com