6 ms·

This quote from Munger is what I find most interesting: > I do think, sooner or later, we’ll have an economy back, which will be a moderate economy. It’s quite

This quote from Munger is what I find most interesting: > I do think, sooner or later, we’ll have an economy back, which will be a moderate economy. It’s quite possible that never again—not again in a long time—will we have a level of employment again like we just lost. We may never get that back for all practical purposes. I don’t know. There are roughly 2 ways this could go if what he says actually happens. One is that a lot more people are going to suffer economically because of a lack of employment. The other, which is what I'm hoping for but not expecting, is that we take this opportunity to acknowledge that Keynes was right, and we don't have to work as much as we do. If we can strengthen our social safety net so that being out of work does not necessarily imply falling deeply into poverty (not that being unemployed should necessarily be a great deal, just that folks shouldn't be losing their homes and their health insurance, and should still be able to lead a fairly basic life), then I think this whole crisis might have a silver lining.

jacquesm 7y ago
The whole idea that 'being social' equates to 'socialism', the bogeyman edition is what will stop for instance the United States from adopting a more social agenda. Free - or at least affordable - public healthcare, public transportation, internet access and access to things like clean water should be a basic standard of living for any country that does not want to be labelled 'third world'. Instead, that whole agenda has been hijacked by parties that make it seem as though being nice & normal to your fellow human beings is somehow a bad thing because once upon a time someone else had an ideology that shared the same prefix.
- ctdonath 7y ago
  The USA is effectively 50 countries with different demographics, geography, culture, and needs. Trying to impose any “one size fits all” solution won’t work because it’s not appropriate for a significant number of them.
  - minikites 7y ago
    Where is "access to clean water" (or frankly, anything on the list) not appropriate?
    - pmiller2 7y ago
      I think the charitable interpretation of the comment you're replying to is that we may need ~50 different implementations of "access to clean water," etc.
    - chrisco255 7y ago
      In rural communities, you're most often getting your water from a well. I grew up in an area like this, with a pumped well and septic system. There was no need for public water infrastructure because the density did not necessitate it, and the natural aquifer more than provided for those needs.
      - kelnos 7y ago
        That's fine. Those people have "access to clean water". Any guarantee of such needs to take into account the various ways people obtain clean water, and make sure one exists. It might just be someone noting, "nice, they have a functioning well with plenty of capacity, good to go". If they don't then the government should fix that, either by running a public water system to that location, or drilling a well. If that's "socialism", then I'm all for it. The idea that we shouldn't ensure that everyone has access to clean water in this age is ludicrous, and, frankly, reprehensible.
        chrisco255 7y ago
        Wells and septic systems are often regulated by state and local zoning laws. So, houses are not sellable without these things, as it stands. The initial builder of a house pays for the installation. And then it passes to the next owner as part of the property. Property owners are ultimately responsible. Landlords are responsible for providing clean water in accordance with tenant-landlord law. In U.S. this problem has long been solved. Sometimes you get poor local management like Flint, MI that screws things up. But by and large, solved problem.
- bravo22 7y ago
  The 'ism' is about control, not about benefit. Philosophically I agree that we need a better system the benefits everyone, and I agree with the gist of your comment. However saying we need socialism skips over the most important part of it -- the mechanism to achieve that. That's the hard part that we haven't quite figured out and need to discuss. The current narrative assumes that simply funnelling the money through government for redistribution fixes the problem. It doesn't. It makes things a lot worse.
  - nlfwhulsdhouv 7y ago
    How hard is this honestly... Socialism -- Worker ownership of the means of production. Socialism is not "when the government is big" or "when the government does things". A big federal government is not socialism. Norway is not socialism. Heath care is not socialism. Unions are not socialism. China is not socialism (charitably it's a state-captialist government with the goal of achieving socialism, realistically it's an authoritarian state-capitalist government). Maybe you use a big or authoritarian federal government to try to achieve socialism, but a big federal government is not necessary or sufficient for socialism.
    - bravo22 7y ago
      Except you can't really have such a thing as a large group of people have an equal say in control of anything, c.f. democracy. It is the mechanics that are the issue. If you are talking about workers being "shareholders" then that's still capitalism. The reason government comes into play in socialism is because you still need decision makers and decision makers concentrate power. You have a democracy today that is basically turning into an oligarchy, and the belief is that by some magic if we transferred control of "means of production" to workers this would change. Ok, divide Amazon's shares across its workers. What have you changed? Who comes up with the list of options for them to choose from? What happens to their stock aka "control" once they leave the company? There are a million tiny details which when you work through show you why it is not workable and at best you end up back here today. The fundamental problem we are dealing with is allocation of resources, and the masses not being sufficiently informed to make decisions. Until you solve that problem every system you put in place corrupts, some worse than others and some with few mechanisms for correction and recovery.
- pmiller2 7y ago
  I know. People have this idea that "socialism is when the government does stuff," if you'll excuse me in referencing a meme. They think Scandinavia is socialist because it has those things, but it is not: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Iceland are really social democracies. That is, they're capitalist countries with strong regulation and a social safety net. I'm not entirely sure whether full on socialism will ever happen in the US short of total collapse and reconstruction, but we can certainly take steps toward social democracy. Unfortunately, the major parties in power don't want to do that, instead pushing forward their laissez-faire neoliberal agenda. The real problem here is first past the post voting, and the way election law is structured to keep the 2 major parties in power. We need to get rid of first past the post and reform election law before we can make any real changes.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    And, annoyingly, that requires those parties to lose at least one election so they are incentivized more strongly than ever before to cast the current system in concrete. It pretty much guarantees the see-saw two party system for the foreseeable future. Imagining how America would look under a coalition government is an interesting exercise.
- jsanford9292 7y ago
  I think we focus too much on the "should"s and not enough on the mechanisms that make things like public healthcare, public transpo, etc. a reality. Obviously these standards of living cost money. Great. Which is why we have taxes. Great. And in order to have tax revenue, we need productive companies/citizens. Great. So we need to focus on keeping tax revenue high enough to afford healthcare for all including those who can't work or decide not to work. This means keeping the tax rate high enough (Democrats tend to emphasize this). This also means keeping the taxable base high (Republicans tend to emphasize this). These two things are a balance because if taxes are too high, the taxable base (companies/citizens) moves elsewhere. We've seen this at a country/company level and a state/citizen level recently. And if taxes are too low, we cannot afford to provide essential services. Saying that we "should" have this or that without consideration of the delicate balance of how we pay for it seems shortsighted to me. And I know people here are smart, so let's consider the full breadth of the topic and not oversimplify.
minikites 7y ago
I have a pessimistic view about this aspect of the future and I think your first option is vastly more likely. We have too many people who have their entire self worth wrapped up in their employment, too many people who look down on the very concept of being unemployed (i.e. "Protestant work ethic"), and in the USA, racial divisions complicating the matter tremendously. The best I can hope for is a reduction in the number of people who open a conversation with a stranger with "So, what do you do for a living?" as if that's the most important or interesting question to ask someone.
bob33212 7y ago
I think the general public is open to the idea of taking care of folks who lost their jobs. The problem is drawing the line. If a taxi company goes bankrupt a lot of folks would expect the taxi drivers to start driving for Uber. If ESPN has to layoff some staff how long should they get help? Should they be expected to look for tangential jobs?
- mattwad 7y ago
  If helping some people that don't need it gets us to fix the issue for ones in need, who cares if a few people get extra help? Somehow, the Republican party, which uses this argument all the time, is fine with helping millionaires get millions in tax breaks when trying to help buttress the economy, then why do we care if some individual gets unneccessary food stamps? We have never just tried safety nets, because the conversations is too worried about what abuse COULD happen. But it's only about abuse by the little guy; no one cares about the tax loop holes being abused by people that don't need it in the first place.
  - bob33212 7y ago
    I totally agree. Some of the same people who roll they eyes at homeless people asking for change and fire employees for a couple weeks of low productivity are the same people who are now taking free money from the government without any guilt.
    - jsanford9292 7y ago
      Sometimes I wish we could pick a US state and turn it into this vision. Social safety net for all, free healthcare for all, no loopholes for the rich. There are so many people who would like to see how this plays out. And more importantly, the expectation of the outcome varies WILDLY from smart person to smart person. Personally, I believe this state would be bankrupt in a matter of years, companies that produce tax revenue would move elsewhere, and moral hazard for those who don't feel like working would rear its head in ways not seen since the USSR.
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
> we take this opportunity to acknowledge that Keynes was right, and we don't have to work as much as we do. That isn't what Kenyes said. He said that in a recession/depression the government should spend more than it takes in, and the rest of the time it should spend less. So, if that equates to working less during a recession, we're going to have to work more during the good times. But as for working less in general: If we want all this stuff, we have to produce all this stuff. Printing money, or even government spending, doesn't make stuff magically appear. We still have to make it.
- teachrdan 7y ago
  You're right about Keynes' general approach to handling a recession or depression, but OP is referring to Keynes' theory that people would be working only 15 hours a week by now: https://www.npr.org/2015/08/13/432122637/keynes-predicted-we-would-be-working-15-hour-weeks-why-was-he-so-wrong https://www.npr.org/2015/08/13/432122637/keynes-predicted-we...
  - gowld 7y ago
    Keybes's mistake is ignoring that people have personal interest in acquiring more wealth, and businesses prefer the efficiency of fewer longer-hour workers in the absence of regulatory distortions like "health benefits required only if working 30+ hrs per week)
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    Ah. Then Keynes did say that, and I was in error. But my criticism of the idea still stands, even if Keynes said it. The question becomes, do we really want to have all this stuff? Then we have to work hard enough to produce all this stuff. Or, do we want to not work so hard? Then we're going to have less stuff to enjoy with our free time.
- mattnewton 7y ago
  Keynes wrote a lot of things about economics, not just about government spending. Keynes also wrote about a possible 15 hour work week. From http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf “... What can we reasonably expect the level of our economic life to be a hundred years hence? What are the economic possibilities for our grandchildren? ... All this means in the long run that mankind is solving its economic problem. I would predict that the standard of life in progressive countries one hundred years hence will be between four and eight times as high as it is to-day. There would be nothing surprising in this even in the light of our present knowledge. It would not be foolish to contemplate the possibility of afar greater progress still. ... For many ages to come the old Adam will be so strong in us that everybody will need to do some work if he is to be contented. We shall do more things for ourselves than is usual with the rich to-day, only too glad to have small duties and tasks and routines. But beyond this, we shall endeavour to spread the bread thin on the butter-to make what work there is still to be done to be as widely shared as possible. Three-hour shifts or a fifteen-hour week may put off the problem for a great while. For three hours a day is quite enough to satisfy the old Adam in most of us! ... Of course there will still be many people with intense, unsatisfied purposiveness who will blindly pursue wealth-unless they can find some plausible substitute. But the rest of us will no longer be under any obligation to applaud and encourage them. “
Press2forEN 7y ago
Among the many problems with that idea is that no one agrees on the definition of a "fairly basic life." One leader's definition will be different from another, so we're ever at the mercy of gaining/losing benefits at the whim of (at least in the US) a distant and isolated ruling class.
- gowld 7y ago
  US can have state and local welfare systems, so not necessarily distant and isolated.
- pmiller2 7y ago
  At this point, anything is an improvement. But, the minimum should certainly include the "basic needs" of physiological needs and at least partial fulfilment of safety needs, which are at the bottom of Maslow's heirarchy [0]. --- [0]: https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html
hogFeast 7y ago
Countries with larger safety nets have basically similar levels of absolute poverty to the US (it is kind of tricky because most of those countries in the former are also far far smaller, and have very different population density/growth/migration patterns). And btw...yes, in other countries if you lose your job you can lose your house...this is true everywhere (and the US already has a public health system that is 50-75% of most of Europe)...that is kind of how mortgages and debt work. Saying that you wish you could just repudiate all your debt is very American (ironically, given that you seem to hold a non-American view of govt). The most effective way to move people out of poverty is to create jobs. Whatever system you have, the only way it goes wrong (as it did for Europe through most of the 90/2000s) is when you cannot create jobs. There is no other option. America has got it 95% right. And the main issue in the US is: are people willing to accept significant intervention into their working life from the govt? Are people willing to accept living in a society that is run for large corporations (it is funny that most Americans think they live there already, not even close)? Can the US bring immigration down significantly? Can the economy still function with lower immigration? Can the US still function with high prices of basic goods? The answer to almost all of those questions is no. America has a system that suits America...that is why they have it (and btw, if you talk to social policy academics from the countries with higher social safety nets, they will tell you the same thing). Maybe this is controversial now but it is far easier to suggest that we should tear everything down than work out how to make progress with something that is mostly working.
- nlfwhulsdhouv 7y ago
  I have lived in a country with universal healthcare. Never have I had more government intervention into my life than living in the US. Never have I been so worried about my civil rights being infringed than in the US. Never have I felt more controlled by large corporations in daily life. What does this have to do with immigration? The US already has a restrictive (and arcane) immigration system. You've just thrown an assortment of right-wing talking points together. > social policy academics from the countries with higher social safety nets, they will tell you the same thing You pulled this straight from your ass.
  - 7y ago
chrisco255 7y ago
Speculating on the future is difficult. However, I disagree with Munger on this point if we're to start manufacturing in the United States once again, we're going to have to retool our economy and retrain people who were in the services industry to work in an industrial capacity. That's going to take some time, and surely American-based firms will take advantage of automation, but there's still a substantial amount of manual labor in factories.
bloomberg2020 7y ago
We don’t have to work that hard for a comfortable life, and the gaudy material life the west has is not owed by laws of science or man. It’s taken as we can see by the bailout machinations We don’t need grocery stores full of customized flavored drinks. Fill them with raw ingredients and let people distract themselves inventing customization at home Same with clothing stores. But we let a minority buy their way in, making us do the real creative work to prop them up We extended government into our lives by creating corps and HR and letting the Corp owners then collude on the HR rules to our detriment in a society that claims to loath big government And this community tacitly agrees with it by founding companies! Americans go on about big government interference but that’s exactly what you defend by creating a market for one size fits all rules to filter into our lives at scale Local communities can police themselves. We don’t need to curve our agency to what will get us a job We need to get away from traditional values like “if I’m going to buy in, I expect a return on investment.” Ok but many of us out here never invited you to play. Yet their demands of being rich are protected by all? How’s that any different than them saying they shouldn’t have to spend money if they don’t want to?

jacquesm 7y ago

The whole idea that 'being social' equates to 'socialism', the bogeyman edition is what will stop for instance the United States from adopting a more social agenda. Free - or at least affordable - public healthcare, public transportation, internet access and access to things like clean water should be a basic standard of living for any country that does not want to be labelled 'third world'. Instead, that whole agenda has been hijacked by parties that make it seem as though being nice & normal to your fellow human beings is somehow a bad thing because once upon a time someone else had an ideology that shared the same prefix.

ctdonath 7y ago
The USA is effectively 50 countries with different demographics, geography, culture, and needs. Trying to impose any “one size fits all” solution won’t work because it’s not appropriate for a significant number of them.
- minikites 7y ago
  Where is "access to clean water" (or frankly, anything on the list) not appropriate?
  - pmiller2 7y ago
    I think the charitable interpretation of the comment you're replying to is that we may need ~50 different implementations of "access to clean water," etc.
  - chrisco255 7y ago
    In rural communities, you're most often getting your water from a well. I grew up in an area like this, with a pumped well and septic system. There was no need for public water infrastructure because the density did not necessitate it, and the natural aquifer more than provided for those needs.
    - kelnos 7y ago
      That's fine. Those people have "access to clean water". Any guarantee of such needs to take into account the various ways people obtain clean water, and make sure one exists. It might just be someone noting, "nice, they have a functioning well with plenty of capacity, good to go". If they don't then the government should fix that, either by running a public water system to that location, or drilling a well. If that's "socialism", then I'm all for it. The idea that we shouldn't ensure that everyone has access to clean water in this age is ludicrous, and, frankly, reprehensible.
      - chrisco255 7y ago
        Wells and septic systems are often regulated by state and local zoning laws. So, houses are not sellable without these things, as it stands. The initial builder of a house pays for the installation. And then it passes to the next owner as part of the property. Property owners are ultimately responsible. Landlords are responsible for providing clean water in accordance with tenant-landlord law. In U.S. this problem has long been solved. Sometimes you get poor local management like Flint, MI that screws things up. But by and large, solved problem.
bravo22 7y ago
The 'ism' is about control, not about benefit. Philosophically I agree that we need a better system the benefits everyone, and I agree with the gist of your comment. However saying we need socialism skips over the most important part of it -- the mechanism to achieve that. That's the hard part that we haven't quite figured out and need to discuss. The current narrative assumes that simply funnelling the money through government for redistribution fixes the problem. It doesn't. It makes things a lot worse.
- nlfwhulsdhouv 7y ago
  How hard is this honestly... Socialism -- Worker ownership of the means of production. Socialism is not "when the government is big" or "when the government does things". A big federal government is not socialism. Norway is not socialism. Heath care is not socialism. Unions are not socialism. China is not socialism (charitably it's a state-captialist government with the goal of achieving socialism, realistically it's an authoritarian state-capitalist government). Maybe you use a big or authoritarian federal government to try to achieve socialism, but a big federal government is not necessary or sufficient for socialism.
  - bravo22 7y ago
    Except you can't really have such a thing as a large group of people have an equal say in control of anything, c.f. democracy. It is the mechanics that are the issue. If you are talking about workers being "shareholders" then that's still capitalism. The reason government comes into play in socialism is because you still need decision makers and decision makers concentrate power. You have a democracy today that is basically turning into an oligarchy, and the belief is that by some magic if we transferred control of "means of production" to workers this would change. Ok, divide Amazon's shares across its workers. What have you changed? Who comes up with the list of options for them to choose from? What happens to their stock aka "control" once they leave the company? There are a million tiny details which when you work through show you why it is not workable and at best you end up back here today. The fundamental problem we are dealing with is allocation of resources, and the masses not being sufficiently informed to make decisions. Until you solve that problem every system you put in place corrupts, some worse than others and some with few mechanisms for correction and recovery.
pmiller2 7y ago
I know. People have this idea that "socialism is when the government does stuff," if you'll excuse me in referencing a meme. They think Scandinavia is socialist because it has those things, but it is not: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Iceland are really social democracies. That is, they're capitalist countries with strong regulation and a social safety net. I'm not entirely sure whether full on socialism will ever happen in the US short of total collapse and reconstruction, but we can certainly take steps toward social democracy. Unfortunately, the major parties in power don't want to do that, instead pushing forward their laissez-faire neoliberal agenda. The real problem here is first past the post voting, and the way election law is structured to keep the 2 major parties in power. We need to get rid of first past the post and reform election law before we can make any real changes.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  And, annoyingly, that requires those parties to lose at least one election so they are incentivized more strongly than ever before to cast the current system in concrete. It pretty much guarantees the see-saw two party system for the foreseeable future. Imagining how America would look under a coalition government is an interesting exercise.
jsanford9292 7y ago
I think we focus too much on the "should"s and not enough on the mechanisms that make things like public healthcare, public transpo, etc. a reality. Obviously these standards of living cost money. Great. Which is why we have taxes. Great. And in order to have tax revenue, we need productive companies/citizens. Great. So we need to focus on keeping tax revenue high enough to afford healthcare for all including those who can't work or decide not to work. This means keeping the tax rate high enough (Democrats tend to emphasize this). This also means keeping the taxable base high (Republicans tend to emphasize this). These two things are a balance because if taxes are too high, the taxable base (companies/citizens) moves elsewhere. We've seen this at a country/company level and a state/citizen level recently. And if taxes are too low, we cannot afford to provide essential services. Saying that we "should" have this or that without consideration of the delicate balance of how we pay for it seems shortsighted to me. And I know people here are smart, so let's consider the full breadth of the topic and not oversimplify.

minikites 7y ago

I have a pessimistic view about this aspect of the future and I think your first option is vastly more likely. We have too many people who have their entire self worth wrapped up in their employment, too many people who look down on the very concept of being unemployed (i.e. "Protestant work ethic"), and in the USA, racial divisions complicating the matter tremendously. The best I can hope for is a reduction in the number of people who open a conversation with a stranger with "So, what do you do for a living?" as if that's the most important or interesting question to ask someone.

bob33212 7y ago

I think the general public is open to the idea of taking care of folks who lost their jobs. The problem is drawing the line. If a taxi company goes bankrupt a lot of folks would expect the taxi drivers to start driving for Uber. If ESPN has to layoff some staff how long should they get help? Should they be expected to look for tangential jobs?

mattwad 7y ago
If helping some people that don't need it gets us to fix the issue for ones in need, who cares if a few people get extra help? Somehow, the Republican party, which uses this argument all the time, is fine with helping millionaires get millions in tax breaks when trying to help buttress the economy, then why do we care if some individual gets unneccessary food stamps? We have never just tried safety nets, because the conversations is too worried about what abuse COULD happen. But it's only about abuse by the little guy; no one cares about the tax loop holes being abused by people that don't need it in the first place.
- bob33212 7y ago
  I totally agree. Some of the same people who roll they eyes at homeless people asking for change and fire employees for a couple weeks of low productivity are the same people who are now taking free money from the government without any guilt.
  - jsanford9292 7y ago
    Sometimes I wish we could pick a US state and turn it into this vision. Social safety net for all, free healthcare for all, no loopholes for the rich. There are so many people who would like to see how this plays out. And more importantly, the expectation of the outcome varies WILDLY from smart person to smart person. Personally, I believe this state would be bankrupt in a matter of years, companies that produce tax revenue would move elsewhere, and moral hazard for those who don't feel like working would rear its head in ways not seen since the USSR.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

> we take this opportunity to acknowledge that Keynes was right, and we don't have to work as much as we do. That isn't what Kenyes said. He said that in a recession/depression the government should spend more than it takes in, and the rest of the time it should spend less. So, if that equates to working less during a recession, we're going to have to work more during the good times. But as for working less in general: If we want all this stuff, we have to produce all this stuff. Printing money, or even government spending, doesn't make stuff magically appear. We still have to make it.

teachrdan 7y ago
You're right about Keynes' general approach to handling a recession or depression, but OP is referring to Keynes' theory that people would be working only 15 hours a week by now: https://www.npr.org/2015/08/13/432122637/keynes-predicted-we-would-be-working-15-hour-weeks-why-was-he-so-wrong https://www.npr.org/2015/08/13/432122637/keynes-predicted-we...
- gowld 7y ago
  Keybes's mistake is ignoring that people have personal interest in acquiring more wealth, and businesses prefer the efficiency of fewer longer-hour workers in the absence of regulatory distortions like "health benefits required only if working 30+ hrs per week)
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  Ah. Then Keynes did say that, and I was in error. But my criticism of the idea still stands, even if Keynes said it. The question becomes, do we really want to have all this stuff? Then we have to work hard enough to produce all this stuff. Or, do we want to not work so hard? Then we're going to have less stuff to enjoy with our free time.
mattnewton 7y ago
Keynes wrote a lot of things about economics, not just about government spending. Keynes also wrote about a possible 15 hour work week. From http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf “... What can we reasonably expect the level of our economic life to be a hundred years hence? What are the economic possibilities for our grandchildren? ... All this means in the long run that mankind is solving its economic problem. I would predict that the standard of life in progressive countries one hundred years hence will be between four and eight times as high as it is to-day. There would be nothing surprising in this even in the light of our present knowledge. It would not be foolish to contemplate the possibility of afar greater progress still. ... For many ages to come the old Adam will be so strong in us that everybody will need to do some work if he is to be contented. We shall do more things for ourselves than is usual with the rich to-day, only too glad to have small duties and tasks and routines. But beyond this, we shall endeavour to spread the bread thin on the butter-to make what work there is still to be done to be as widely shared as possible. Three-hour shifts or a fifteen-hour week may put off the problem for a great while. For three hours a day is quite enough to satisfy the old Adam in most of us! ... Of course there will still be many people with intense, unsatisfied purposiveness who will blindly pursue wealth-unless they can find some plausible substitute. But the rest of us will no longer be under any obligation to applaud and encourage them. “

Press2forEN 7y ago

Among the many problems with that idea is that no one agrees on the definition of a "fairly basic life." One leader's definition will be different from another, so we're ever at the mercy of gaining/losing benefits at the whim of (at least in the US) a distant and isolated ruling class.

gowld 7y ago
US can have state and local welfare systems, so not necessarily distant and isolated.
pmiller2 7y ago
At this point, anything is an improvement. But, the minimum should certainly include the "basic needs" of physiological needs and at least partial fulfilment of safety needs, which are at the bottom of Maslow's heirarchy [0]. --- [0]: https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html

hogFeast 7y ago

Countries with larger safety nets have basically similar levels of absolute poverty to the US (it is kind of tricky because most of those countries in the former are also far far smaller, and have very different population density/growth/migration patterns). And btw...yes, in other countries if you lose your job you can lose your house...this is true everywhere (and the US already has a public health system that is 50-75% of most of Europe)...that is kind of how mortgages and debt work. Saying that you wish you could just repudiate all your debt is very American (ironically, given that you seem to hold a non-American view of govt). The most effective way to move people out of poverty is to create jobs. Whatever system you have, the only way it goes wrong (as it did for Europe through most of the 90/2000s) is when you cannot create jobs. There is no other option. America has got it 95% right. And the main issue in the US is: are people willing to accept significant intervention into their working life from the govt? Are people willing to accept living in a society that is run for large corporations (it is funny that most Americans think they live there already, not even close)? Can the US bring immigration down significantly? Can the economy still function with lower immigration? Can the US still function with high prices of basic goods? The answer to almost all of those questions is no. America has a system that suits America...that is why they have it (and btw, if you talk to social policy academics from the countries with higher social safety nets, they will tell you the same thing). Maybe this is controversial now but it is far easier to suggest that we should tear everything down than work out how to make progress with something that is mostly working.

nlfwhulsdhouv 7y ago
I have lived in a country with universal healthcare. Never have I had more government intervention into my life than living in the US. Never have I been so worried about my civil rights being infringed than in the US. Never have I felt more controlled by large corporations in daily life. What does this have to do with immigration? The US already has a restrictive (and arcane) immigration system. You've just thrown an assortment of right-wing talking points together. > social policy academics from the countries with higher social safety nets, they will tell you the same thing You pulled this straight from your ass.
- 7y ago

chrisco255 7y ago

Speculating on the future is difficult. However, I disagree with Munger on this point if we're to start manufacturing in the United States once again, we're going to have to retool our economy and retrain people who were in the services industry to work in an industrial capacity. That's going to take some time, and surely American-based firms will take advantage of automation, but there's still a substantial amount of manual labor in factories.

bloomberg2020 7y ago

We don’t have to work that hard for a comfortable life, and the gaudy material life the west has is not owed by laws of science or man. It’s taken as we can see by the bailout machinations We don’t need grocery stores full of customized flavored drinks. Fill them with raw ingredients and let people distract themselves inventing customization at home Same with clothing stores. But we let a minority buy their way in, making us do the real creative work to prop them up We extended government into our lives by creating corps and HR and letting the Corp owners then collude on the HR rules to our detriment in a society that claims to loath big government And this community tacitly agrees with it by founding companies! Americans go on about big government interference but that’s exactly what you defend by creating a market for one size fits all rules to filter into our lives at scale Local communities can police themselves. We don’t need to curve our agency to what will get us a job We need to get away from traditional values like “if I’m going to buy in, I expect a return on investment.” Ok but many of us out here never invited you to play. Yet their demands of being rich are protected by all? How’s that any different than them saying they shouldn’t have to spend money if they don’t want to?