Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Epa095 225 days ago
I see it as a middle of the road statement to say that government should work for its constituents, and help ensure that they get basic nessesities like shelter, food, schooling and health care (yes, I know that this is already controversial).

Using the market is well and fine, but if it for some reason does not work it's the government's job to find a solution which works. Think about how things are handled in emergencies. The neutral thing is to find a solution, not be married to some ideological ball and chain saying that THAT particular necessity must be solved in one particular way no matter what.

When that is said I don't live in NYC, idk how the food desert situation is there. But I have heard enough stories from credible sources that I would be surprised if it's all made up.
1 comments
fastball 225 days ago
The problem with the idea that it is the government's job to ensure "necessities" is that the list of what is a "necessity" only ever gets larger – it never shrinks.
link
Epa095 225 days ago
I think if you go to Scandinavia or the UK you will find the opposite. Housing is an example of a field where the government was much more active pre the 80s. Idk if the US has had the same development, but it is certainly not a global truth that it only goes one way.
link
fastball 225 days ago
Yes when you run out of money the actual interventions invariably shrink, but AFAICT the expectation has not changed.
link
Epa095 225 days ago
The expectation certainly has changed. Do you not remember Thatcher?

Housing as mentioned above. There was also a time the railway was a obvious public responsibility. Similarly for airlines (Scandinavian Airlines, British Airways). Telephone companies(British Telecom, Telenor), mail (Royal Mail), gas (Gas Act 1948), iron and steel (Iron and Steel Act 1967), and electric production ( Electricity Act 1947).

If anything it is rather opposite, the moment something is privatised it's hard to get it under public control again. But even if you don't agree with that it should certainly be clear that removing something from the public sector is both possible and has happened to a large degree.

link