4 ms·

100 years ago the richest man in the world could die from a simple infection because there were no such thing as antibiotics. People take for granted so many t

100 years ago the richest man in the world could die from a simple infection because there were no such thing as antibiotics. People take for granted so many things we have in the modern world, they want some form of utopia right now. Perfect is the enemy of good

bogle 8y ago
10 years from now the richest man in the world could die from a simple infection because there will be no such thing as antibiotics. A possible future with some basis in our current situation. As the financial world has it, past performance is no guarantee of future returns. It would be foolish to take for granted anything we have now which is why we should keep watching where things are possibly going, evaluate the risks, and take action to correct where we may be going wrong.
CamTin 8y ago
And now the poorest man in the world will die from the same infection because he can't afford the antibiotics, or has no access to a doctor who can prescribe them to him. What's the difference between something existing but being impossibly expensive vs not existing at all, except for the ultra rich?
- tossaccount123 8y ago
  Except all stats on infant mortality, life expectancy, etc show that's not true. US and Europe have dumped over a trillion dollars in foreign aid to africa alone, 9x more than the Marshall plan post WWII.
- b_tterc_p 8y ago
  When you say ultra rich, you really mean not third world country poor.
  - CamTin 8y ago
    That's true for penicillin, but what about more exotic medical procedures? "Socialized" medicine is railed against for "rationing" but all markets have rationing as well. The whole point of a market is to ration resources to those most willing and able to pay. But yes. In general the line that matters is "Can I afford it?". If it doesn't exist, the answer is no for everbody. If it does exist, and has a price tag on it, the answer is no for some people and yes for others. The "no"s in the latter situation are pretty much in the same situation as they were before the good existed.
  - neolefty 8y ago
    One thing that Factfulness does is take a more nuanced look at wealth. Rosling makes 4 categories of prosperity — the majority of which by population are in the middle, neither ultra-rich nor ultra-poor. Something he wrote that helped me understand: From the point of view of the wealthiest societies, everyone else looks poor. But there's a huge difference — in quality of life — between subsistence-poor and bike-to-the-market poor. In the second category, your children are probably going to finish high school and have a chance at professional careers. In the first category you're one injury or bad harvest away from disaster.
- macspoofing 8y ago
  >What's the difference between something existing but being impossibly expensive vs not existing at all, except for the ultra rich? Are you arguing that access to healthcare for the global poor isn't the best it has ever been and hasn't been getting better every year? Because we know that's the case.

bogle 8y ago

10 years from now the richest man in the world could die from a simple infection because there will be no such thing as antibiotics. A possible future with some basis in our current situation. As the financial world has it, past performance is no guarantee of future returns. It would be foolish to take for granted anything we have now which is why we should keep watching where things are possibly going, evaluate the risks, and take action to correct where we may be going wrong.

CamTin 8y ago

And now the poorest man in the world will die from the same infection because he can't afford the antibiotics, or has no access to a doctor who can prescribe them to him. What's the difference between something existing but being impossibly expensive vs not existing at all, except for the ultra rich?

tossaccount123 8y ago
Except all stats on infant mortality, life expectancy, etc show that's not true. US and Europe have dumped over a trillion dollars in foreign aid to africa alone, 9x more than the Marshall plan post WWII.
b_tterc_p 8y ago
When you say ultra rich, you really mean not third world country poor.
- CamTin 8y ago
  That's true for penicillin, but what about more exotic medical procedures? "Socialized" medicine is railed against for "rationing" but all markets have rationing as well. The whole point of a market is to ration resources to those most willing and able to pay. But yes. In general the line that matters is "Can I afford it?". If it doesn't exist, the answer is no for everbody. If it does exist, and has a price tag on it, the answer is no for some people and yes for others. The "no"s in the latter situation are pretty much in the same situation as they were before the good existed.
- neolefty 8y ago
  One thing that Factfulness does is take a more nuanced look at wealth. Rosling makes 4 categories of prosperity — the majority of which by population are in the middle, neither ultra-rich nor ultra-poor. Something he wrote that helped me understand: From the point of view of the wealthiest societies, everyone else looks poor. But there's a huge difference — in quality of life — between subsistence-poor and bike-to-the-market poor. In the second category, your children are probably going to finish high school and have a chance at professional careers. In the first category you're one injury or bad harvest away from disaster.
macspoofing 8y ago
>What's the difference between something existing but being impossibly expensive vs not existing at all, except for the ultra rich? Are you arguing that access to healthcare for the global poor isn't the best it has ever been and hasn't been getting better every year? Because we know that's the case.