Hacker News Reader

Comment by nebula8804 | Hacker News Reader

I am starting to think this is a sign of a big weakness in the American system. These half baked actions are evident in health care, security, and all other categories. I think it has to do with the fact that there are so many parties acting in bad faith that it is hard to get comprehensive legislation that addresses the problem as a whole vs just piecemeal bits and pieces because that is all that can be pushed through. I don't know what the solution to this is other than a complete reset of the system (which itself would require the existing system to produce and pass)

View on HN

Of course a spoon makes a crappy can opener if you try and use it for that job.

Institutions get designed around their mandate. If you're trying to run a school system you wouldn't invent a court. If you were trying to deal with violations of law you wouldn't create a school board.

The federal government's mandate was to manage issues that arise between states and each other, between states and other countries and to a lesser extent, to prevent the states from violating the rights of their inhabitants and its architecture reflects that mandate. Over the years the federal government has expanded in scope far beyond the types of issues it was designed with the intent of managing. Expecting that system to provide decisive action on issues that are outside of what the system was designed for is unrealistic.

Agreed. Your comment reminds me of this great quote:

“Simple, clear purpose and principles give rise to complex and intelligent behavior. Complex rules and regulations give rise to simple and stupid behavior.”

– Dee Hock

The hubris of creating complex rules to outsmart a problem leads to the creation of yet more complex rules to solve its own shortcomings.

The problem is that you can't ram down income redistribution schemes in places like New York without watching all the income earners move to another state. No rational person is going to subject themselves to being robbed like that, they will leave (like I did with NYC). The key is to do it at a national level so you can shove it down everyones throats concurrently and give them no way to escape your shitty systems. Then you can appeal to your larger base of voters who are benefiting from stealing from a smaller number of people who are providing all of the resources, or a least until the government runs out of other peoples money to use as bribes.

I'm not convinced that's as true as you think it is. Sure, some people will move, but presumably people have reasons other than the tax rate that they want to live in a place like New York and so, presumably, they will stay as long as they value those things more than lower taxes.

I'm sure there is the equivalent of a laffer curve by which intangibles are valued subjectively like that. At some point of government overreach people leave... and they are leaving in droves.

I always assume that people who make blanket statements like this imagine they're actually providing real value, and that they're one of the few doing so.

This is a joke. Let's assume you have a technology that doubles productivity. Two guys work 20 hours each or one guy works 40 hours and the other one does not. In the first scenario nobody complains that they are the bread winner. In the second scenario, the bread winner complains about a problem he himself caused by hogging the entire 40 hour work week. I am assuming that the economy isn't growing by the way.

Nobody in power is willing to make the necessary unpopular decisions because the voting system discourages this.

Yes, voters simultaneously want benefits and low taxes. And this is how you do it, give the benefit subject to numerous qualifying conditions, and make it a loan, so cash flow is not affected today and hence tax impact is low.

See defined benefit pensions, higher education loans, military benefits, 401k/employer health plan tax benefits. All of these things could have middlemen removed, but they remain to obfuscate costs and who is getting how much of the benefit.

Maybe every 25 years or so the legislature and president should all be given final terms all at once, meaning they can’t serve in similar roles again.

This would give an opportunity for hard decisions to be made, but it’d also discourage anyone new from running in the years up to it. It’d be interesting to see what would happen.

> which itself would require the existing system to produce and pass

or a revolution

Reply on news.ycombinator.com