Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It's not as black and white (ex suffering or no suffering).

It's possible there will be much more suffering as a consequence for not acting now - by letting the core problem persist.

It could have major implications that last for decades versus a few years of hardship.

Most complex problems can't be fixed from constantly patching the top surface. They need to be broken down and rebuilt into something better.




For what it's worth, you're 100% spot-on correct.

Don't feel bad that no one else believes it, heh. Throughout history, the world has been literally insane -- this is just another example of an insane view that's spread into popular culture. ("The system is too big to fail" / "Postponing the disaster is better, because the pain will be distributed over a longer period, rather than shocking us all at once" / whatever other crazy, impossible thing.)


The herd (group think) never changes direction unless it has no choice.

We may, individually feel the need to break it all down. But most people don't care or understand. Not until bread cost $250 a loaf. Then the herd stomps it's feet and waves it hands screaming, "OMG what happened? Whose to blame?".

Then something might get done.

The bigger problems are the bankers themselves. Bankers NEVER change unless they have no choice. And our government (the US) had that chance, to force them in a different direction. For one moment Bush and Obama had the chance to really change things. They didn't.

Actually Bush had two chances to shake things up; 9/11 was his other. For one moment, he had the attention of the entire planet. Everyone. And what did he say? "SHOP".




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: