The mistake you're making is confusing confidence for intelligence and insight. Taleb has a few good ideas but most of his writing consists of arguing against strawmen and making invalid assumptions about fields where he lacks any practical experience. It's mainly suckers who admire his writing.
It's totally possible to make a career out of loving books and ideas, and sharing those things with other people in a spirited way: create a YouTube channel. Here are a couple I found at random but there are many more.
Lol that's like saying you can make a career out of your love of playing and releasing music. Sure, get to the end of the line. Or playing games and streaming it. Yes, a few make money that way. But theres a vast vast oversupply of people who would want to do that. You have to be very good, work hard, and be very lucky in addition.
In the 70s, academia in general was still growing so there were opportunities for many of the people who wanted a career in that field. Now that the field is shrinking due to demographic changes the competition has become much more vicious.
That's a different problem. The national networks have standardized APIs. Obviously the content returned will have some variations depending on the original source.
Well now you're shifting the goal posts. There's an enormous difference between having the government buy food for a few poor people (which I support) versus being the single payer for food for everyone.
There's agricultural subsidies that help farmers to nominally ensure that the US doesn't need to import foodstuffs. That practically guarantees that food is available, but it isn't "single payer" in terms of obtaining that food.
That "single payer" for obtaining food is food stamps. You have to be poor, to very poor, to qualify. But you get stamps, you bring to your grocery store, and you get free essentials, paying with food stamps. The market then redeems the food stamps to the government to get paid. And, guess who prices these essential products? Well let's just say that the government is generally rather stingy about it, but markets that sell these essential items are practically required to accept food stamps, even if only to keep products moving so they don't rot on the shelves.
When I was on food stamps there was a long tail where I qualified for a few dollars worth. Always seemed odd.
My understating is the dynamic have changed over time. But for much of its history it was as much about “what are farmers having trouble selling” as it was about “who needs food.”
Buying food for your family is a quintessential market transaction that works great with the government at arm's length. Healthcare.. less so. I'd rather deal with the DMV than a private insurer.
We do. We subsidize agriculture, and virtually everybody gets at least a subsistence level of food. Beyond that level, it's easy to let people decide what they're willing to pay for, because it's based on what they want, and not what they need. Wants are easier for individuals to figure out than needs. Health care is a need.
Why not? What would you want for yourself or your children if you found yourselves destitute and without other people to fall back on? Would you be comfortable with them starving?
Let’s get back to the original point, which is that the motive for profit in healthcare is at odds with the stated goal that everyone should have healthcare by right. Trying to make it about something else is a distraction.
How much would it cost? I could stomach a pretty big tax increase if it meant no children in my home country would ever go to sleep starving again. That seems like a social good to me.
Growth comes from many sources. The supply-side economics wing of the GOP would claim that lower taxes and smaller, less intrusive government will allow for a higher private sector growth rate. There may be some truth to that, although the effects are probably limited compared to the development of disruptive new technologies.
A recent Peter Attia Drive podcast has an interview with Dr. Sanjay Mehta, a radiation oncologist who has recently also started using low-dose radiation to treat arthritis. Empirically the results seem quite encouraging.
Higher housing costs in California are in some sense an artificial manufactured problem. California should mimic Texas by making it easier and cheaper to build more housing. Take approval power away from local governments, and give property owners and developers the right to build pretty much whatever they want wherever they want.
reply