5 ms·

Y'know, I have seen Mr. Kay talk before, and I wouldn't regard him as an idiot. However, he's seemed to have missed the entire point Bill was making. > So what

Y'know, I have seen Mr. Kay talk before, and I wouldn't regard him as an idiot. However, he's seemed to have missed the entire point Bill was making. > So what about China and India? Their recent growth performance has been exceptional, but both are still desperately poor countries by the standards set by Switzerland and Norway. The gap will take many generations to eradicate. Which Bill completely acknowledges? However, he also makes the point that today, China and India are moving up at considerable speed when it comes to income. They have the abject poor still, no one will disagree, but compared to where they were 20 years ago, even the poorest in those countries are much, much better off, and all signs point to it getting better very quickly. > But you do not have to venture far from the centre of Nairobi or Shanghai, and only round the corner in Mumbai, to see sights unimaginable in Norway or Switzerland. The appeal to emotions here wasn't needed, nor was it affective. Not to mention, it still misses the same point: Bill isn't saying that things don't suck currently, he's saying that while they're not great, they're considerably better than they were before and that's an ongoing trend.

old-gregg 13y ago
I think their disagreement stems from the difference in how they define "poor". Gates is certainly right (it just takes a bit of traveling to agree with him) that hungry-and-dying type of poor is rapidly disappearing all over the world. But if you look at living-hand-to-mouth poor, I can understand John's reasoning. Yes, average incomes (productivity) have gone up but you also see how prices on commodities are rapidly raising in the developed countries to make up for that. [1] This makes me wonder if the universal basic income is ever going to work. Look at insane costs of healthcare/education in the US - no doubt caused, in part, by "free money" either through government-assisted programs or employer-sponsored insurance. Perhaps it's an inherent property of capitalism: some things always end up barely within reach of a lower class. [1] Hence the need for things like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index
- bsbechtel 13y ago
  >Perhaps it's an inherent property of capitalism: some things always end up barely within reach of a lower class. I wouldn't say that's true, we just need to figure out ways to produce those things cheaply enough (through automation, other technologies) that everyone can enjoy them. Take a look at agriculture in the US...even the poorest people here have access to (not very healthy) food whereas just under 100 years ago many were starving in the Great Depression. This is because agricultural technology has led us to an abundance of cheap food that everyone can afford at some level or another.
  - old-gregg 13y ago
    Very true, that's why I say "perhaps... some things". While technology may have worked well for food, I just don't see how this can be applied to housing, education, healthcare, legal expenses and taxes [1]: these tend to expand/shrink based on how much money you have and "pin" the poor to a certain "ceiling" of disposable income leading to the perpetual hand-to-mouth cycle despite encouraging growth of metrics like GDP/capita. [1] This BTW may explain why new middle class in emerging economies tends to consist of real estate people, doctors, lawyers and (true in ex-USSR countries) government bureaucrats: they get to benefit from growing GDP first.
    - bsbechtel 13y ago
      I'd say you're just not thinking creatively enough. Manufactured homes significantly reduced the cost of owning a home, and just the other day I saw an article talking about 3D printing homes with concrete and how it could drive the cost down even further. The same goes for the other things you mentioned....flood the market with doctors and healthcare costs would go down, we just need med schools to accept more people instead of limiting their enrollment to drive up tuition fees because they want their school to be prestigious and 'the best'. The poorest people can and deserve access to the many goods the wealthy enjoy, we just haven't figured out the technology and economics in each of these areas yet to do it :-)
      - kiba 13y ago
        Manufactured homes significantly reduced the cost of owning a home, and just the other day I saw an article talking about 3D printing homes with concrete and how it could drive the cost down even further. The problem is the cost of land, not the manufacturing of homes, per se.
- specialist 13y ago
  "Look at insane costs of healthcare/education in the US - no doubt caused, in part, by "free money" either through government-assisted programs or employer-sponsored insurance." Huh? Even with the modest ACA reforms implemented to date, the growth of healthcare costs has already slowed down. First time since the 90s. Medicare, which is most akin to single payer in other countries, is the most efficient guarantor (highest medical loss ratio). Long term cost reduction requires extending Medicare to all and embracing the capitation model. Bonus points for resuming prior levels government funded basic R&D. Tuition costs are rising as subsidies have been removed and student loans have been privatized. The combination created a bubble. Which happens often enough when deregulation and privatization co-occurs, that my hunch is it's casual. So while universal basic income may prove to lead to inflation, your two examples do not support that argument.
  - mattmcknight 13y ago
    "Even with the modest ACA reforms implemented to date, the growth of healthcare costs has already slowed down." It's sort of hard to parse what you are saying, but the growth in spending (not costs) went down before the enacting of PPACA. This is likely due to the recession, and something of a counterpoint to those that claim healthcare is subject to inelastic demand. Having the highest medical loss ratio is not equivalent to being the most efficient, as many services do not warrant claims. Capitation is inferior to market pricing in many ways and not "required" to reduce costs. Another solution is to force providers to charge a single posted price to all consumers, instead of practicing price discrimination. This achieves the purported benefit of single payer, while still allowing for people to choose how much they want to spend on medical services. Tuition costs rose as subsidies increased. Without subsidies, they couldn't have risen. This created a bubble, which often happens when the government provides price insensitive support to markets. I am not saying that these are the only answers, but you seem awfully sure of some counterfactuals...
    - specialist 13y ago
      "Capitation is inferior to market pricing in many ways and not "required" to reduce costs." Don't confuse markets with incentives. "Another solution is to force providers to charge a single posted price to all consumers, instead of practicing price discrimination." Not mutually exclusive. "This achieves the purported benefit of single payer, while still allowing for people to choose how much they want to spend on medical services." Until there's price collusion, an oligarchy, natural monopoly. In other words, the exact situation we had with the "free market". (The healthcare exchanges have introduced competition.) "Tuition costs rose as subsidies increased." What subsidies? State funding for higher ed has fallen thru the floor. Given the current trend, most public universities will be 100% tuition funded in a few years. "you seem awfully sure of some counterfactuals" You mean reality? I worked in healthcare and now higher ed. I'm reasonably sure I know the score.
tn13 13y ago
When it comes to development rhetoric I think it is totally influenced by western thought. India is poor by western standards no doubt. But if India is poor and malnourished then how come its population continues to explode ? We need to realize that what people think of "prosperity" may not be same everywhere.
- Kluny 13y ago
  I'm not sure which way you're trying to argue, but Bill Gates's letter also did a great job of explaining why poor and undernourished populations continue to explode. The short version is that when each child has a low chance of surviving to adulthood, parents have more to hedge the chance the one of their offspring will make it. In addition, in poor countries where adults can't count on social security, they have children instead of a retirement policy.

old-gregg 13y ago

I think their disagreement stems from the difference in how they define "poor". Gates is certainly right (it just takes a bit of traveling to agree with him) that hungry-and-dying type of poor is rapidly disappearing all over the world. But if you look at living-hand-to-mouth poor, I can understand John's reasoning. Yes, average incomes (productivity) have gone up but you also see how prices on commodities are rapidly raising in the developed countries to make up for that. [1] This makes me wonder if the universal basic income is ever going to work. Look at insane costs of healthcare/education in the US - no doubt caused, in part, by "free money" either through government-assisted programs or employer-sponsored insurance. Perhaps it's an inherent property of capitalism: some things always end up barely within reach of a lower class. [1] Hence the need for things like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index

bsbechtel 13y ago
>Perhaps it's an inherent property of capitalism: some things always end up barely within reach of a lower class. I wouldn't say that's true, we just need to figure out ways to produce those things cheaply enough (through automation, other technologies) that everyone can enjoy them. Take a look at agriculture in the US...even the poorest people here have access to (not very healthy) food whereas just under 100 years ago many were starving in the Great Depression. This is because agricultural technology has led us to an abundance of cheap food that everyone can afford at some level or another.
- old-gregg 13y ago
  Very true, that's why I say "perhaps... some things". While technology may have worked well for food, I just don't see how this can be applied to housing, education, healthcare, legal expenses and taxes [1]: these tend to expand/shrink based on how much money you have and "pin" the poor to a certain "ceiling" of disposable income leading to the perpetual hand-to-mouth cycle despite encouraging growth of metrics like GDP/capita. [1] This BTW may explain why new middle class in emerging economies tends to consist of real estate people, doctors, lawyers and (true in ex-USSR countries) government bureaucrats: they get to benefit from growing GDP first.
  - bsbechtel 13y ago
    I'd say you're just not thinking creatively enough. Manufactured homes significantly reduced the cost of owning a home, and just the other day I saw an article talking about 3D printing homes with concrete and how it could drive the cost down even further. The same goes for the other things you mentioned....flood the market with doctors and healthcare costs would go down, we just need med schools to accept more people instead of limiting their enrollment to drive up tuition fees because they want their school to be prestigious and 'the best'. The poorest people can and deserve access to the many goods the wealthy enjoy, we just haven't figured out the technology and economics in each of these areas yet to do it :-)
    - kiba 13y ago
      Manufactured homes significantly reduced the cost of owning a home, and just the other day I saw an article talking about 3D printing homes with concrete and how it could drive the cost down even further. The problem is the cost of land, not the manufacturing of homes, per se.
specialist 13y ago
"Look at insane costs of healthcare/education in the US - no doubt caused, in part, by "free money" either through government-assisted programs or employer-sponsored insurance." Huh? Even with the modest ACA reforms implemented to date, the growth of healthcare costs has already slowed down. First time since the 90s. Medicare, which is most akin to single payer in other countries, is the most efficient guarantor (highest medical loss ratio). Long term cost reduction requires extending Medicare to all and embracing the capitation model. Bonus points for resuming prior levels government funded basic R&D. Tuition costs are rising as subsidies have been removed and student loans have been privatized. The combination created a bubble. Which happens often enough when deregulation and privatization co-occurs, that my hunch is it's casual. So while universal basic income may prove to lead to inflation, your two examples do not support that argument.
- mattmcknight 13y ago
  "Even with the modest ACA reforms implemented to date, the growth of healthcare costs has already slowed down." It's sort of hard to parse what you are saying, but the growth in spending (not costs) went down before the enacting of PPACA. This is likely due to the recession, and something of a counterpoint to those that claim healthcare is subject to inelastic demand. Having the highest medical loss ratio is not equivalent to being the most efficient, as many services do not warrant claims. Capitation is inferior to market pricing in many ways and not "required" to reduce costs. Another solution is to force providers to charge a single posted price to all consumers, instead of practicing price discrimination. This achieves the purported benefit of single payer, while still allowing for people to choose how much they want to spend on medical services. Tuition costs rose as subsidies increased. Without subsidies, they couldn't have risen. This created a bubble, which often happens when the government provides price insensitive support to markets. I am not saying that these are the only answers, but you seem awfully sure of some counterfactuals...
  - specialist 13y ago
    "Capitation is inferior to market pricing in many ways and not "required" to reduce costs." Don't confuse markets with incentives. "Another solution is to force providers to charge a single posted price to all consumers, instead of practicing price discrimination." Not mutually exclusive. "This achieves the purported benefit of single payer, while still allowing for people to choose how much they want to spend on medical services." Until there's price collusion, an oligarchy, natural monopoly. In other words, the exact situation we had with the "free market". (The healthcare exchanges have introduced competition.) "Tuition costs rose as subsidies increased." What subsidies? State funding for higher ed has fallen thru the floor. Given the current trend, most public universities will be 100% tuition funded in a few years. "you seem awfully sure of some counterfactuals" You mean reality? I worked in healthcare and now higher ed. I'm reasonably sure I know the score.

tn13 13y ago

When it comes to development rhetoric I think it is totally influenced by western thought. India is poor by western standards no doubt. But if India is poor and malnourished then how come its population continues to explode ? We need to realize that what people think of "prosperity" may not be same everywhere.

Kluny 13y ago
I'm not sure which way you're trying to argue, but Bill Gates's letter also did a great job of explaining why poor and undernourished populations continue to explode. The short version is that when each child has a low chance of surviving to adulthood, parents have more to hedge the chance the one of their offspring will make it. In addition, in poor countries where adults can't count on social security, they have children instead of a retirement policy.