5 ms·

It's really hard to understand that the country is not setting up a nationwide program to get rid of lead paint and fixing the water supply. The payoff would be

It's really hard to understand that the country is not setting up a nationwide program to get rid of lead paint and fixing the water supply. The payoff would be enormous.

Analemma_ 8y ago
Enormous, but diffuse. Governments, and especially democracies, and especially especially the United States have consistently failed miserably at tackling problems with diffuse benefits bit highly visible costs, even when the costs are much lower.
- wwweston 8y ago
  The theory is too narrow here -- not only does this apply to governments, it applies to businesses. Or technical debt and sufficiently large software projects. Or individuals and lifestyle choices. Our reward structures aren't always lined up with optimal responses to current conditions.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - wool_gather 8y ago
    Good point. And people with similar mindsets/POVs tend to be at the top of such large organizations. I think there's just a certain way of being in the world that makes some people inclined to a) want to be in charge, and b) downplay these kinds of diffuse, semi-intangibly-expensive problems. We need better ways of explaining problems to them.
cameldrv 8y ago
There has been a tremendous amount of work and money and success on this. https://www.edf.org/health/interactive-chart-forty-years-sound-policy https://www.edf.org/health/interactive-chart-forty-years-sou...
joncrane 8y ago
There are people who are in a position to do better when the population is intellectually compromised.
ghaff 8y ago
Lead-based paints have been banned for use in housing since 1978. Eliminating existing lead paint--as opposed to just painting over it, which is the default--would involve extremely costly and disruptive mitigation for tens of millions of homes and would probably release more lead into the environment than just leaving it in place. I suspect that it wouldn't even be practical in the case of many older houses.

It's really hard to understand that the country is not setting up a nationwide program to get rid of lead paint and fixing the water supply. The payoff would be enormous.

Analemma_ 8y ago

Enormous, but diffuse. Governments, and especially democracies, and especially especially the United States have consistently failed miserably at tackling problems with diffuse benefits bit highly visible costs, even when the costs are much lower.

wwweston 8y ago
The theory is too narrow here -- not only does this apply to governments, it applies to businesses. Or technical debt and sufficiently large software projects. Or individuals and lifestyle choices. Our reward structures aren't always lined up with optimal responses to current conditions.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- wool_gather 8y ago
  Good point. And people with similar mindsets/POVs tend to be at the top of such large organizations. I think there's just a certain way of being in the world that makes some people inclined to a) want to be in charge, and b) downplay these kinds of diffuse, semi-intangibly-expensive problems. We need better ways of explaining problems to them.

cameldrv 8y ago

There has been a tremendous amount of work and money and success on this. https://www.edf.org/health/interactive-chart-forty-years-sound-policy https://www.edf.org/health/interactive-chart-forty-years-sou...

joncrane 8y ago

There are people who are in a position to do better when the population is intellectually compromised.

ghaff 8y ago

Lead-based paints have been banned for use in housing since 1978. Eliminating existing lead paint--as opposed to just painting over it, which is the default--would involve extremely costly and disruptive mitigation for tens of millions of homes and would probably release more lead into the environment than just leaving it in place. I suspect that it wouldn't even be practical in the case of many older houses.