alt Hacker News> I'm sure you could say the same for healthcare & education
Yes. In fact, every developed country already does.
> you just removed profit from ~40% of GDP
Is the point of society to maximize profit all the time at the expense of other things, or to provide a good life for people and ensure their basic needs are met?
> provides more than a one sided benefit masquerading as having no downside implications
Of course there are downsides. Rich people will be less rich. Lower class people won’t be so easy to exploit. People will be happier and more content, so there will be less crime and less people in prison.
The fact you prioritize profits over people is both illuminating and horrific. What a terrible place you must live in.
Like it or not it is the reality of the United States. It would be a huge shock to the system but I don’t disagree with you entirely that it wouldn’t help close the wealth gap. I just don’t trust our politicians here to implement a change like this without making it worse.
I’m arguing for not just making one single law that X must be profit free as an entire industry without considering anything else. The government here would not provide housing. It would not invest in hospitals. It would not build universities. It would just ban them from being profitable and we’d all suffer because of the lack of supply that results. I think the difference here is I’m thinking if the practical implications of how it would be executed and you’re imagining some hypothetical scenario when it’s executed well. The fact other nations do it isn’t reassuring to me, precisely because we have proven time and time again that we will flat out refuse to look outward for ideas that are effective. We have to put our own stamp on it and mess it up, or just do nothing.