*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[CoccoBill]

Here's where I'd disagree. The social effects of death on one's loved ones' happiness can't be quantified. Sure, you can say they take two weeks off work and that costs the economy X dollars, but you can't actually put a figure on their suffering.

Wouldn't there be a range of reactions with confidence intervals?

Within a utilitarian perspective, it's pretty much impossible to quantify certain outcomes in terms of overall good.

Pretty much or absolutely? I'm not arguing it's easy or feasible.

And when you guys argue insurance companies or other businesses already do these equations, well that's because they don't give a shit about the people who are dying. If you made it the CEO's or chief economist's wife who was going to get it, they'd put down their calculators pretty fast imo.

Absolutely, but doesn't change the facts.

Arguing with engineers when you're a theorist sucks.

[Poopadoop]

Wouldn't there be a range of reactions with confidence intervals?

Sure, you can assume there's a range of reactions between 1= completely devastated and 10 = being happy they're gone I guess.

But your data aren't on any sensible linear scale that could be analysed. And even if they were, how do you convert them to a dollar value?

[CoccoBill]

Sure, you can assume there's a range of reactions between 1= completely devastated and 10 = being happy they're gone I guess.

But your data aren't on any sensible linear scale that could be analysed. And even if they were, how do you convert them to a dollar value?

It is not about whether I can, it is about why wouldn't it be possible in theory. Our reactions, especially on a societal scale should be pretty predictable.

You're trying to find if there are any use cases where our current understanding wouldn't enable us to accurately price every possible eventuality. Sure, there's plenty, far more than workable scenarios. That doesn't mean though that there wouldn't already be many practical scenarios where it could be applied, and imo nothing to suggest any of them are somehow unknowable and indescribable.

[Poopadoop]

It is not about whether I can, it is about why wouldn't it be possible in theory. Our reactions, especially on a societal scale should be pretty predictable.

To me, this is like looking for an equation to show how many meters a kilogram is worth. They're just not translatable.

The only way life and money become translatable is if you take the human element out of the life's value.

[boost]

To me, this is like looking for an equation to show how many meters a kilogram is worth. They're just not translatable.

The only way life and money become translatable is if you take the human element out of the life's value.

We need to allocate resources. Surely you understand triage. Typically that's done in a much more ad hoc way, which is better than not at all, but don't you think it would be better if, for example, combat medics had triage training based on the work of some egg heads whose goal is to save as many lives as possible?

[Poopadoop]

We need to allocate resources. Surely you understand triage. Typically that's done in a much more ad hoc way, which is better than not at all, but don't you think it would be better if, for example, combat medics had triage training based on the work of some egg heads whose goal is to save as many lives as possible?

In triage, you try to tend to the most urgent cases first. Afaik, it doesn't go much deeper than that. I suppose if they figure there's only a 10% chance this guy will live even if we give him our last three pints of blood, versus give it to three other guys who each have a 50% chance of living if they get one pint each, yeah ldo you do the latter. They probably do similar kinds of calculations in hospitals as a matter of routine - short on antibiotics? well fuck let's use it to save the mother of three in her twenties instead of the 80 year old guy.

What I'm talking about is related to the current situation - we're not crawling around trying to find enough to eat because of social distancing, we're short on toilet paper. Even if there is ultimately a global depression resulting from measures to combat an epidemic, hardly any of us will die from it. So it's not a choice of sacrificing a few million lives now to save several million later. Its a choice between saving lives versus giving people a higher standard of living (still probably better than their parents' had, for that matter), after having them watch loved ones die.

If we didn't take measures to manage a pandemic, I think the population would be much more pissed than they might be now (I mean the population in general, not the CEO of Boeing).

[CoccoBill]

To me, this is like looking for an equation to show how many meters a kilogram is worth. They're just not translatable.

Most things look like that to me before I understand them. Would you agree for example, that the range of reactions of people losing a loved one is more severe then them losing $10? If you do, would you also agree, that for some, not all, the range of reactions might be more severe for losing everything they have? If you do, we have a tangible piece of information about how some people value life. We can keep adding examples (a lot smarter and more efficient ones) and keep getting more data that can be applied to solve problems, step by step getting to closer and closer approximations of The Truth[tm].

We don't need to know whether Trump's life is worth $4.50 or $4.55 to use this information to do all sorts of things, and obviously not just death but all human interactions, feelings, achievements, whatever. You may "feel" like it's wrong, have an emotional response against doing any of that, but I don't see any logical reason why it's categorically impossible.

[Poopadoop]

Would you agree for example, that the range of reactions of people losing a loved one is more severe then them losing $10? If you do, would you also agree, that for some, not all, the range of reactions might be more severe for losing everything they have? If you do, we have a tangible piece of information about how some people value life. We can keep adding examples (a lot smarter and more efficient ones) and keep getting more data that can be applied to solve problems, step by step getting to closer and closer approximations of The Truth[tm].

...is this not trying to find an equation where life = dollars x something?

[CoccoBill]

...is this not trying to find an equation where life = dollars x something?

Not really, it's trying to demonstrate it could be done in principle, since you asked. If the value in some cases equals infinity, that's perfectly fine.

[boost]

Sure, you can assume there's a range of reactions between 1= completely devastated and 10 = being happy they're gone I guess.

But your data aren't on any sensible linear scale that could be analysed. And even if they were, how do you convert them to a dollar value?

Of course it's impossible to have a all encompassing model. That model would require more energy than is present in the universe. What we can do is do our best to model these things, and in doing so we can better approach the best answers to tough questions.

Honestly, I think a big problem with economics when applied to this sort of thing is that those attracted to the field probably skew towards the sociopathic(not using this as a pejorative) end of the spectrum. And so more empathetic points of view aren't modeled.