Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,288,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Something I should say more often

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 75 of 515
  1. #1

    Default Something I should say more often

    You guys are absolutely right about how our healthcare system favors entrenched companies in bed with corrupt politicians.
  2. #2
    Do I agree? Yes.

    Do we need a dedicated thread for things Wuf should say more often? Possibly.
  3. #3
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,628
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Something I should say more often:

    Science is not a thing or a place or a group of people or results.
    Science is just how humans figure stuff out.

    Some scientists are not trustworthy, but that is not a reflection on the trustworthiness of science.

    Ironically, most people I meet who are "science deniers" are doing so for good, scientific reasons. They don't trust the appeals to authority. They have been mislead by scientists before. Etc.
    Whereas most people I meet who are science supporters are doing so for the least scientific of reasons. They trust in those appeals to authority. They sweep aside mistakes of the past and flaws in the process.


    This bothers me, and I want people to appreciate this irony in its fullness.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Ironically, most people I meet who are "science deniers" are doing so for good, scientific reasons. They don't trust the appeals to authority. They have been mislead by scientists before. Etc.
    Whereas most people I meet who are science supporters are doing so for the least scientific of reasons. They trust in those appeals to authority. They sweep aside mistakes of the past and flaws in the process.
    A+
  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post

    Ironically, most people I meet who are "science deniers" are doing so for good, scientific reasons. They don't trust the appeals to authority. They have been mislead by scientists before. Etc..
    Yet many of these same people accept the word of a different authority that is telling them to be a science denier, and/or a bible believer.

    I think a big part of the problem could be avoided if people better understood that science can't always give us the answers - sometimes all it can do is quantify the uncertainty. People have a hard time grasping this imo.
  6. #6
    Rules and regulations are a great thing.
  7. #7
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,698
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Last edited by oskar; 03-21-2020 at 07:38 AM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Rules and regulations are a great thing.
    Fuck off. Anarchy for the win.

    After I've built a proper stockpile, though. Not yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  9. #9
    Ironically, most people I meet who are "science deniers" are doing so for good, scientific reasons. They don't trust the appeals to authority. They have been mislead by scientists before. Etc.
    Whereas most people I meet who are science supporters are doing so for the least scientific of reasons. They trust in those appeals to authority. They sweep aside mistakes of the past and flaws in the process
    The people I tend to think of when I see the phrase "science denier" are flat earthers and creationists. These people do not reject science for scientific reasons. It's almost always either paranoia or religion.

    Some climate change deniers might be a little more scientific, because they can at least argue with credibility that what we know about climate change is "common consensus" rather than anything that can be predicted by means of experiment. But these same people should be on the fence, rather than firmly in the "bullshit" camp.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  10. #10
    FTR (I only just realised that the acronym for "for the record" is the same as "flop turn river") I'm on the fence regarding climate change. I do not think we have enough evidence to be certain of the claims we make. I think it's highly probable that humans have an effect on the climate, but I think it's also probable that there's a huge amount of politics involved. I don't believe everything I read on the matter, and digest the figures with a huge amount of skepticism.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Fuck off. Anarchy for the win.

    After I've built a proper stockpile, though. Not yet.
    Tons of rules and regulations in Anarchic forms of society. The difference is who makes them.
  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    FTR (I only just realised that the acronym for "for the record" is the same as "flop turn river") I'm on the fence regarding climate change. I do not think we have enough evidence to be certain of the claims we make. I think it's highly probable that humans have an effect on the climate, but I think it's also probable that there's a huge amount of politics involved. I don't believe everything I read on the matter, and digest the figures with a huge amount of skepticism.
    The geophysics is solid and the temperatures measurements are maybe solid. It's the forecasting where everything falls apart. Nobody knows what the effect of burning carbon will have on the Earth and on society down the road.
  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Tons of rules and regulations in Anarchic forms of society. The difference is who makes them.
    Well, the difference is the consequences of pissing people off. True anarchy means no rules, which means I can get shot for being a twat.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The geophysics is solid and the temperatures measurements are maybe solid. It's the forecasting where everything falls apart. Nobody knows what the effect of burning carbon will have on the Earth and on society down the road.
    The temperature measurements aren't that solid. Our ability to accurately measure the average global temperature has gotten progressively better over time. Truly reliable data is probably only 30-odd years old. It can be really easy to manipulate old data by cherry picking what you consider reliable.

    But yeah this is an ongoing experiment. We can't do small scale experiments to test our hypotheses, so this isn't what we normally consider science... confirming theories as best we can by rigorous testing.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The temperature measurements aren't that solid. Our ability to accurately measure the average global temperature has gotten progressively better over time. Truly reliable data is probably only 30-odd years old. It can be really easy to manipulate old data by cherry picking what you consider reliable.
    I'm sympathetic to this point. The probability that the temperature data is not accurate is a bit higher than people think. If you held a gun to my head, I'd probably say its mostly accurate, but it's not like I'm super confident in that opinion.
  16. #16
    There are two things that could solve this:

    Better science communicators.

    And a better educated populous that can absorb a simplified, yet still nuanced reading of the science.
  17. #17
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,628
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Can't really blame people shouting from the rooftops for not being heard, IMO.

    There are some really epic science communicators out there.
    (Niel DeGrasse Tyson, Sean Carrol, Bill Nye, etc., and dozens of excellent YouTube channels.)

    I think the greater issue isn't great science communicators, but the media not putting them center stage very much.
    Which is probably because ratings.
    Which is probably because "the people" don't care about science, only technology.

    I.e. people don't care about theoretical advancements or the minutia of how data is acquired and analyzed. They care about the impact on their lives. That opens the door for people to scam them into whatever they want. The impact on your life of climate change is significant and unpleasant. It's not a new microwave, it's a mandate for a new standard of self-discipline. People don't want new self-discipline, and so they look for flaws in the science. But they don't know science, so they'll listen to anyone who sounds like they know science that tells them they don't have to have new self-discipline.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    The impact on your life of climate change is significant and unpleasant.
    What is that impact?

    (Niel DeGrasse Tyson, Sean Carrol, Bill Nye, etc., and dozens of excellent YouTube channels.)
    I like Sean Carrol, haven't seen him say anything misinforming.
  19. #19
    It's possible the best of all the bad options right now (economically) is that the government should send weekly checks to every person employed at a business that the government forced closed.
  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    It's possible the best of all the bad options right now (economically) is that the government should send weekly checks to every person employed at a business that the government forced closed.
    Means testing fails outside of crises. It's a foolish self imposed roadblock during a crisis.
  21. #21
    Indeed.
  22. #22
    The 2nd Amendment might stop the old way of governments committing genocide, but maybe it won't stop a new way.
  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    It's possible the best of all the bad options right now (economically) is that the government should send weekly checks to every person employed at a business that the government forced closed.
    This is basically our strategy. Govt has pledged to cover 80% of wages up to £2500 (approx $3000) to stop businesses laying off their staff. Assuming an average of £2000 each for 30 million people over three months, that's £180b. A financial package to support the self employed is yet to be announced. If we can keep the economic cost under a trillion, we're doing well. That's around half our GDP.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  24. #24
    Universal Basic Income might have some viability even if it resulted in millions of additional unemployed. The Pareto principle is a real phenomenon in everything. As long as the economy is sufficiently privately owned, high achievers will probably still achieve highly even if doing so harder and even if low achievers achieve lower and low-middle achievers achieve less. UBI could also create positive social/economic disruption, resulting in new types of goods and services. It would make the most common kinds of labor and human capital skills less viable, but it could possibly create some new areas too.
  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This is basically our strategy. Govt has pledged to cover 80% of wages up to £2500 (approx $3000) to stop businesses laying off their staff. Assuming an average of £2000 each for 30 million people over three months, that's £180b. A financial package to support the self employed is yet to be announced. If we can keep the economic cost under a trillion, we're doing well. That's around half our GDP.
    I like how this functions somewhat like a test. I'll be watching difference in outcome between UK and US.
  26. #26
    "Experts" are so frequently disastrously wrong that I instinctively research their opinions before assuming they're right.
  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Universal Basic Income might have some viability even if it resulted in millions of additional unemployed. The Pareto principle is a real phenomenon in everything. As long as the economy is sufficiently privately owned, high achievers will probably still achieve highly even if doing so harder and even if low achievers achieve lower and low-middle achievers achieve less. UBI could also create positive social/economic disruption, resulting in new types of goods and services. It would make the most common kinds of labor and human capital skills less viable, but it could possibly create some new areas too.

    There's a strange injustice intuition that kicks in when UBI is talked about. People instinctively feel there's something wrong with people getting something for nothing. But as you said, it seems likely high achievers will still achieve, mid achievers might be a little less productive, and low achievers will play video games-- and the jobs that tended to be filled by low achievers will be automated. If a mid achiever and high achiever's life is essentially the same and overall productivity is essentially the same or increased, what's the issue?

    random thought: UBI combined with a 100% inheritance tax (and closing all the loopholes) could be an interesting setup. If you know that your child will never truly want for any necessities, then what is the purpose of leaving them an inheritance aside from vanity? In 1000 years people may well look back at generational wealth the way we look at hereditary monarchies.
  28. #28
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,628
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    What is that impact?
    Everything suggested on the consumer level is drop in the ocean stuff - i.e. BS.
    I mean, it's good to conserve energy, but it's not the consumer level where the impact is, it's the industrial level.
    The cost of big industry going green is significant, and that's about as much as we know, because we have to know the legal standards in order to speculate the cost of change.

    Ultimately, the impact on consumers is going to be paying more for all goods and services, such that companies can afford to do business in a manner that doesn't pollute at catastrophic levels.

    You'd know better than I what it does economically for those costs to increase.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  29. #29
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,628
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    I'm in favor of UBI.

    I think people are a bit fanatical when it comes to "lazy people wont work" attitudes. Or, "No one will work if you feed and house them for free."

    Is that why you work? To meet some bare minimum of physical needs?
    You've never sought a raise? or sought to improve your value to your job in some other way to increase your pay?
    Even though you could already make ends meet with your current pay?

    Does anyone do that?

    I would work if I just needed the money, but I have spent many years making it so that I can work where I enjoy the job in a way that makes the money irrelevant.

    I think if you take away the fetters of needing to meet basic needs, you unleash people to be creative with their time. That can have good and bad outcomes, but it sure feels like the most American way to move forward in an age of automation.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post

    random thought: UBI combined with a 100% inheritance tax (and closing all the loopholes) could be an interesting setup. If you know that your child will never truly want for any necessities, then what is the purpose of leaving them an inheritance aside from vanity? In 1000 years people may well look back at generational wealth the way we look at hereditary monarchies.
    I agree that eventually generational wealth will become a thing of the past. It mostly has already. After 3 or 4 generations, nearly all generational wealth has disappeared. Anecdote: my family was possibly the wealthiest in all of Washington about 100 years ago, but my grandparents' generation wasted literally all of it. Such loss of generational wealth is extremely common once the generation that didn't earn it has it.


    The main drawback to inheritance tax I know of is how it incentivizes consumption (profligately).

    Generally we'd want things that incentivize greater savings and investment. We discuss welfare and social programs ultimately because people don't save; instead they spend (profligately). Taxes on savings come in all sorts of types, and they can be thought of as penalizing good behavior to reward bad behavior.
  31. #31
    In a crazy turn of events, I might support wiping out student loan debt. Why?

    Markets would hate it and the economy would suffer.

    BUT

    It could very well put the nail in the coffin of this government-infused waste, and we'd be MUCH better off several years down the road where college loan demand is no longer so bloated.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 03-22-2020 at 10:45 PM.
  32. #32
    Wait, why would demand drop? If there's a precedent of forgiveness, wouldn't it increase?
  33. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I agree that eventually generational wealth will become a thing of the past. It mostly has already. After 3 or 4 generations, nearly all generational wealth has disappeared. Anecdote: my family was possibly the wealthiest in all of Washington about 100 years ago, but my grandparents' generation wasted literally all of it. Such loss of generational wealth is extremely common once the generation that didn't earn it has it.


    The main drawback to inheritance tax I know of is how it incentivizes consumption (profligately).

    Generally we'd want things that incentivize greater savings and investment. We discuss welfare and social programs ultimately because people don't save; instead they spend (profligately). Taxes on savings come in all sorts of types, and they can be thought of as penalizing good behavior to reward bad behavior.
    Good points. It's really hard to know how things would shake out with something as drastic as UBI, similar to how it's hard to know exactly how the shockwaves from Covid shutdown will ripple through the economy. I think what we do know is that if we don't do something, if we just keep on with business as usual, shit ain't gonna be peachy.
  34. #34
    I should have said "the equilibrium quantity demanded" instead of "demand". They're two different things.

    Equilibrium quantity demanded of loans would fall because the supply of loans would fall. Supply of loans would fall because they would be viewed as riskier and lenders would lend at higher interest rates when they do lend.
  35. #35
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,241
    Location
    Finding my game
    Wait what? Wiping out student debt would be done by telling the banks you ain't getting shit? Not by the government paying the debt? Are you sure?
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  36. #36
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,628
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    The worst student loans to get away from are the gov't loans. If you declare bankruptcy at any time, non-gov't loans can be included in the resolution, but your gov't student loans cannot be.
    They're a more permanent and unforgiving type of loan, and of course, they're the most reliably easy loans to get approved, so most students use them.

    It's a bit of a racket, IMO, but I needed the money they were offering and I accepted the terms of their loan, so I'm stuck with it.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  37. #37
    Student loans are interest-free here. Obviously inflation is factored, but that's all.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  38. #38
    I cannot imagine the banks being made to absorb the cost of forgiving student loans, especially since they fund the politicians who run the gov't so heavily. I would think the idea involves either only forgiving loans specifically from the government, or forgiving all loans and the gov't reimburses the banks. There's no way the gov't makes the banks take the hit imo.
  39. #39
    I have to agree with poop there. Fuck me these are strange times.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  40. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Wait what? Wiping out student debt would be done by telling the banks you ain't getting shit? Not by the government paying the debt? Are you sure?
    Good point.

    In that case, a primary effect would be markets would expect future taxes to be higher in order to pay for the govt debt payments. The effect would be downward pressure on the economy.

    Supply of student loans (from private lenders) would probably increase too, because they'd be viewed as less risky since the govt would have precedence on "bailing them out".

    Interesting related topic: the above effect is one of the biggest known issues of government acting in markets. It is thought to have greatly contributed to economic failures in the past (and will do so in the future).

    Example: leading up to the 2008 crisis, government backed a bunch of loans that banks thought were too risky to make themselves. But when the government backed them, that risk vanished, and banks then loaded their balance sheets with loans that were no longer risky to them (but were risky to the economy).
  41. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    The worst student loans to get away from are the gov't loans. If you declare bankruptcy at any time, non-gov't loans can be included in the resolution, but your gov't student loans cannot be.
    They're a more permanent and unforgiving type of loan, and of course, they're the most reliably easy loans to get approved, so most students use them.

    It's a bit of a racket, IMO, but I needed the money they were offering and I accepted the terms of their loan, so I'm stuck with it.
    You're 100% right. This government "assistance" is encouraging debt, and the economy is taking on greater risk because of it. Same thing that government programs caused in the risky asset problem that contributed to the Great Recession.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 03-24-2020 at 04:41 PM.
  42. #42
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,241
    Location
    Finding my game
    What would happen if the government stopped issuing or backing up student loans?

    Btw hope we don't need to demote it to The Fairly Big Recession.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  43. #43
    There would be fewer loans and subsequently fewer people opting to go to college.

    Colleges would probably enter a period of healthy competition, where they have to produce better results than they currently do.

    It would likely be an internal crisis for colleges, associated employees, and suppliers of college goods. <<<---- Some of those would get the short end of the stick even if the net effect was positive for the country as a whole.
  44. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Btw hope we don't need to demote it to The Fairly Big Recession.
    Indeed. We could be looking at negative month to month real growth numbers that dwarf the worst in 2009 by one order of magnitude.

    Fortunately, it looks like we could be bottoming out right now. We've had 3 days of positive inflation expectations growth, which in my opinion is the best predictor of where the economy is heading. 3 days does not make a lasting trend though. Inflation expectations could fall again tomorrow.
  45. #45
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,241
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    There would be fewer loans and subsequently fewer people opting to go to college.

    Colleges would probably enter a period of healthy competition, where they have to produce better results than they currently do.

    It would likely be an internal crisis for colleges, associated employees, and suppliers of college goods. <<<---- Some of those would get the short end of the stick even if the net effect was positive for the country as a whole.
    Sounds logical. What would it mean for people from different backgrounds seeking higher education?
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  46. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Sounds logical. What would it mean for people from different backgrounds seeking higher education?
    There would be fewer people seeking higher education (because the cost to do so would be higher). Prospective students would be those who believe that the value they expect to get from the form of education outweighs not doing it.

    There would be people on the margin, who with easy-to-get or cheap loans might opt to go to college, BUT with hard-to-get or higher cost loans would prefer to do something else.

    Under these conditions, people opting for college would probably on average have higher scores, clearer views of why they're going to college and how it will help them, etc..

    College graduates would stand out more than they do now. Today, as you know, there's that whole stigma of how a college degree matters less than it used to. That's true, probably because of lowered standards contributed to by policy that subsidize college more. The degree still matters a lot, just less so than it used to.
  47. #47
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,628
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    IDK but every university I know of is currently holding all courses online, so we'll see what the students think of that arrangement as the next school years start. I expect we'll see a lot of people realize that they were digging their heels in at something that is a very good economic compromise. I mean, I think you can teach a lot of courses perfectly effectively with online interactions (especially live study groups - like office hours). It's only subjects that really require a hands-on approach that necessitate a classroom.

    After that, it's up to human psychology. Do students prefer courses at home, or courses (and life) on a campus. The cost difference will be significant, but the quality of the education could be quite similar. After all, we have an entire nation renowned for its excellent educators forced to do it, now. We're going to see the real strengths and weaknesses of college-level education happening off campuses.

    It'll be interesting to see what next school year looks like.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  48. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    IDK but every university I know of is currently holding all courses online, so we'll see what the students think of that arrangement as the next school years start. I expect we'll see a lot of people realize that they were digging their heels in at something that is a very good economic compromise. I mean, I think you can teach a lot of courses perfectly effectively with online interactions (especially live study groups - like office hours). It's only subjects that really require a hands-on approach that necessitate a classroom.

    After that, it's up to human psychology. Do students prefer courses at home, or courses (and life) on a campus. The cost difference will be significant, but the quality of the education could be quite similar. After all, we have an entire nation renowned for its excellent educators forced to do it, now. We're going to see the real strengths and weaknesses of college-level education happening off campuses.

    It'll be interesting to see what next school year looks like.
    I completely agree that there are likely to be major directional changes on this.

    It'll be interesting to watch.
  49. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Wait what? Wiping out student debt would be done by telling the banks you ain't getting shit? Not by the government paying the debt? Are you sure?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    In that case, a primary effect would be markets would expect future taxes to be higher in order to pay for the govt debt payments. The effect would be downward pressure on the economy.
    I should add to this.

    There would ALSO be upward pressure on the economy from all the people who no longer owe so much in loans. Some might even say that the new debt in form of expected future taxes (bad for economy) would be offset by the reduced debt of borrowers (good for the economy). Nobody can measure the offset, so we can't know for sure.

    But there is one thing that does inform what the net effect of this proposed debt payment would be:

    Incentives.

    We seem to get the best sense of how a policy will increase or decrease costs by what behavior that policy encourages.
  50. #50
    Here's something that makes Bernie better than every Governor of every state that has shut down businesses.

    He would at least be very vocal about how every single person whom the government forcibly removed from the economy over the virus concerns are to immediately be sent weekly checks. It's the only fair way to play.

    The least of all the reasonable things state governments could do is suspend taxes, but they can't even do that. It's a racket. They need the juice. They NEVER save when times are good, and the PEOPLE are always the first to get fucked when times are bad.
  51. #51
    We don't treat the government of China like it is evil because the country doesn't conduct physical war invasions.
  52. #52
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,241
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    We don't treat the government of China like it is evil because the country doesn't conduct physical war invasions.
    True, we do it because of the cyber war invasions.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  53. #53
    The atypical level of danger from COVID-19 appears to be heavily based on poor lifestyle decisions.
  54. #54
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,628
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    What's poor about Tom Hanks' lifestyle decisions?
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  55. #55
    Haha. I think he's suggesting that if you die from it, it's cause you did something to put yourself in a high risk group.

    Like, you know, getting old.
  56. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    What's poor about Tom Hanks' lifestyle decisions?
    Castaway?
  57. #57
    Corona has high comorbidity with some conditions heavily influenced by what people do.

    Will the 2020s decade be the one where we start being allowed to talk about poor lifestyle decisions again?
  58. #58
    Yes, sure, if you smoke three packs a day for fifty years your chance of survival is much less than if you don't for fifty years. But, simply being healthy doesn't ensure you survive it. Plenty of documented cases of people living healthy lifestyles being cut down. Young people too.
  59. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    simply being healthy doesn't ensure you survive it. Plenty of documented cases of people living healthy lifestyles being cut down. Young people too.
    That is correct.
  60. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Yes, sure, if you smoke three packs a day for fifty years your chance of survival is much less than if you don't for fifty years. But, simply being healthy doesn't ensure you survive it. Plenty of documented cases of people living healthy lifestyles being cut down. Young people too.
    Whoa, wait, come on... Yes, very healthy people can die from this, just as healthy young people, who don't do uppers, do have heart attacks. It's just extremely rare.

    I more interesting response would be: would it even matter? The way this virus spreads, if everyone was in tip top shape, it doesn't seem unlikely that it would overwhelm the healthcare system just the same. Meaning, while it's likely a healthier population would decrease the death rate, it's not clear that it would significantly decrease the number of patients who need ICU beds.
  61. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Whoa, wait, come on...
    I said 'people with a healthy lifestyle aren't as susceptible to CV as people who arent healthy, but it's not the sole determinant of outcome' What is controversial about that?


    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    would it even matter? The way this virus spreads, if everyone was in tip top shape, it doesn't seem unlikely that it would overwhelm the healthcare system just the same. Meaning, while it's likely a healthier population would decrease the death rate, it's not clear that it would significantly decrease the number of patients who need ICU beds.
    I agree with all this, so I'm not sure what we're supposed to be arguing about.
  62. #62
    I think you strawmanned wuf.

    Wuf: Lifestyle choices are a determining factor.

    Poop: young health people get it and die too.

    It's a non sequitur

    I agree with all this, so I'm not sure what we're supposed to be arguing about.


    That's my response to wuf, one which actually interacts with his query
  63. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    I think you strawmanned wuf.

    Wuf: Lifestyle choices are a determining factor.

    Poop: young health people get it and die too.
    Well, maybe. But given he's been on the side of keeping the economy running, I took his comment to imply that the people who die from CV are generally the ones who deserve it, and we shouldn't worry about them.

    Could be wrong though. Happy to hear a clarification.
  64. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Well, maybe. But given he's been on the side of keeping the economy running, I took his comment to imply that the people who die from CV are generally the ones who deserve it, and we shouldn't worry about them.

    Could be wrong though. Happy to hear a clarification.
    Ah, well, that does make more sense. I took his comment in isolation.
  65. #65
    Nobody deserves to die from this horrible virus.

    If we can avoid many kinds of undeserved deaths in the future, it might include double checking some of our lifestyle decisions.
  66. #66
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,628
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    What counts as "good" lifestyle is hard to pin down.

    Freedom to make "bad" lifestyle choices is just freedom.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  67. #67
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,241
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    What counts as "good" lifestyle is hard to pin down.

    Freedom to make "bad" lifestyle choices is just freedom.
    Only if the medical bill isn't paid by the society. IMO everyone should be taken care of, but if that's the case there needs to be some say on how big a burden people aim to become.
  68. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Only if the medical bill isn't paid by the society. IMO everyone should be taken care of, but if that's the case there needs to be some say on how big a burden people aim to become.
    We already sort of do this though. There's sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco, for example. The latest talk is to have a tax on sugar, aka a fatso tax. I'd be ok with that.
  69. #69
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,241
    Location
    Finding my game
    Yeah we absolutely do, just meant that while I sympathize with the idea of personal freedom there, the healthcare bill falling on society isn't optimal.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  70. #70
    Another strategy is to make it legal to not have to pay for others' poor health decisions.
  71. #71
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,241
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Another strategy is to make it legal to not have to pay for others' poor health decisions.
    Exactly, but I'd prefer the government to take care of those that haven't made the bad decisions but still need help. I don't think there are any easy answers here.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  72. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    I don't think there are any easy answers here.
    I LOL'd. Because you're absolutely right.
  73. #73
    Not that into Melania.

    Big-ups to Donald for robbing the cradle on that one, but she ain't my type.

    Not into Ivanka either, really. I dig her style though.
  74. #74
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,628
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    You mean the immigrant wife?

    Damn immigrants!

    You know she chain migrated her parents, too?

    Double damn!
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  75. #75
    Economists are deeply unreliable. It's no wonder the field garners no respect from the public. It doesn't deserve respect.

    Example:

    Most economists tout the benefits of trade. They're not wrong in a fundamental sense, but they act as if because trade is basically great, it's always great and we can measure how great it is.

    Well, look at how many of the masks purchased from China are dysfunctional. Trade models DO NOT adjust for that, nor for the millions of other unknowns.

    Economics remains best treated as holistic philosophy. Mainstream economists have to go back to basics.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •