amylene

I wouldn’t so much consider this childish, as I would consider it criminal. You may feel justified in doing it, but don’t fool yourself: this would be theft.

Isn’t this a result of good governance, ie no stock buybacks?

That’s the wrong question. The right one is whether the economic downturn would be worse if we had a multiple amount of deaths.

Additionally, we have saved lives (and animal lives) by shutting down parts of the economy. That should be included as a silver lining to the whole thing.

The other side of the argument is also just an opinion. What’s your point?

The way I read it is that we have no reason to think the economic drop would be less severe if we didn’t have a shutdown. This is because people dying could hurt the economy just as much, if not more.

It is assuming facts not in evidence to suggest the economy would be better off with more deaths but less of a lockdown.

This is how PowerBI, from Microsoft, works. It copies the data into local RAM (or on a cloud machine that also runs the dataviz)

There are other options of actions he could have taken that wouldn’t have involved shutting borders. Over the years, as well as not making obviously false statements, starting in late January. Those falsities created a republican resistance to the necessary actions, making it some sort of misguided windmill tilt about freedom.

Further, the entire culture he created — don’t speak truth to power, or you will be fired - is also responsible for the late actions and poor preparedness of the administration.

That is a charitable view of private equity - that it improves margins without hurting operations.

Another explanation lies in reputation mining. Think of it like doing something profitable but unsustainable.

Curious what kind of experience or data sources you base your first graph on — the Pareto principle piece makes sense. But isn’t it possible the very end of the tail is still profitable, albeit less so, than the head?

Matt Levine has a good take from a few weeks ago. Basically he argues the buybacks were the only sensible play, if you were the airlines.

I’m on a 2 year contract with Comcast and getting 600 down for $60. You might give them a call to see if they can lower your rate.

Or, it could spur some necessity is the mother of invention innovation for deployment.

Or a million other things could happen.

I am asking that you change your “would” to “could” to properly reflect the uncertainty.

We have a tendency to want to convince people of our views, which gets in the way of making our views more correct. This is challenging to fight, but necessary to learn.

I can’t correct other peoples flawed thinking. But I can avoid reacting to it when that reaction makes my thinking worse.

Just because someone does something I don’t like doesn’t mean I should base my viewpoint around rejecting theirs.

Our best guesses are the best we can do. Are you familiar with the research around the bias bias? Or the fact that smart people tend to be more subject to biases?

Yes, certainty in future economic projections is delusional, but it’s a delusion that is well received by society. Humans prefer confidence over competence, and abhor uncertainty. Right now, we have a lot of uncertainty.

Super interesting, thanks for replying!

So you are aware that your estimate is biased because of your other beliefs, but you don’t try to fix that? Mind if I ask why?

Why do you believe that vehicle quality is related to anything else? This seems like halo effect bias.