We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't
Many commenters respond to the claim that “we could fix everything if we just coordinated better” by arguing that real-world obstacles like conflicting incentives, costs, and deep value disagreements make most problems much harder than they look from a high level. Using examples from healthcare, fiber-to-the-home, voting systems, and even microwave “popcorn buttons,” they debate whether capitalism or state intervention is better at aligning incentives, how much blame should go to “coordination failures” versus genuine technical and social complexity, and whether proposed fixes are actually politically or economically feasible. Overall, the thread circles around the idea that having a theoretical solution is very different from having one that works with existing institutions, human behavior, and trade‑offs.
Capitalism, incentives, and externalities
- Many agree capitalism is excellent at lowering costs and driving certain kinds of progress (e.g., cheap microwaves) but bad at handling externalities and long‑term public goods.
- Some argue problems like shoddy “popcorn buttons” or fragile USB cables are predictable outcomes of profit‑maximizing incentives and consumer myopia.
- Others counter that “race to the bottom” is also why most tech is affordable at all, and that targeted tools (Pigovian taxes, cap‑and‑trade) are better than broad anti‑capitalist fixes.
- Debate over whether privatization worsens the “tragedy of the commons” or can be part of the solution, with references to historical commons, forestry, fisheries, and Ostrom’s work.
Healthcare, price signals, and socialized systems
- One camp insists market prices are the best resource allocator and warns against government‑run healthcare lacking true price mechanisms.
- Critics reply that healthcare demand isn’t like normal elastic markets; survival needs distort choices, so some public provision is necessary.
- Several note the US already spends more public money per capita on healthcare than many countries with universal systems, yet has worse coverage.
- Strong skepticism toward the article’s implied claim that “socialized healthcare would cure cancer”; commenters point out existing socialized systems haven’t done so and that cancer remains a deep scientific, not just incentive, problem.
“We could fix everything” vs real‑world complexity
- Many see the essay as naively high‑modernist: assuming solutions are obvious and blocked only by stupidity, selfishness, or bad coordination.
- Others say mapping out “we could, if not for X” is still useful to identify the next obstacle (political, institutional, incentive‑based).
- Recurrent theme: if a solution only works in a political or social reality we don’t have, it’s not a real solution yet.
- Several invoke the idea that large‑scale societies inevitably run into scaling problems beyond what tribal analogies capture.
Infrastructure, housing, and public goods
- On fiber‑to‑the‑home, some argue cost is the real bottleneck; others point to huge past subsidies to ISPs that didn’t deliver promised coverage.
- Debate over whether universal fiber is worth large public expenditure and how to structure revenue models.
- Homelessness and housing: some argue it’s “simple” (build housing, tax land values); others say political economy and entrenched interests make that very non‑simple in practice.
Software, security, and engineering governance
- Mixed views on whether software quality/QA is actually worse now; some note fewer crashes, others point to ransomware and huge attack surfaces.
- Capability‑based security is discussed as a good but non‑magical pattern; disagreement over how much it would “solve” security.
- Proposals surface for licensing software engineers like civil engineers; critics warn this may add bureaucracy, scapegoating, and risk‑averse stagnation without fixing systemic issues.