I’ve always been an intense 50:50 on you, Mr. Rippetoe, so that half hurts pretty bad.
As predicted, you miss most everything. I don't live in California any more. I live in Southern Illinois, having retired from that nut house on the Left Coast. Was your Opa a country preacher in Deutschland or the U.S. of A? In any event, you are not him and show an increasing lack of awareness of rural life if you are relying on reports from your forebears and not having had any direct experience yourself. Unless you actually do, and if so, hows about coming clean over what you DO know.
I’ve always been an intense 50:50 on you, Mr. Rippetoe, so that half hurts pretty bad.
Thanks for this, Rip. Lots of good food for thought. Rational, logical conversations were few and far between even before the pandemic. This is a refreshing change from a lot of what I've been hearing lately.
I've pretty much given up trying to converse with people here. If you question the wisdom of shutting everything down, you must be a monster who doesn't give a crap.
Stef hit the nail on the head, IMO, when she said "they just said fuck you. You aren't worth shit."
Also, Rip, you're right about a lot of folks being tired of the response to the situation.
Personally, I am sick of neighbors deciding whether others appear sufficiently panicked enough.
I'm tired of the assumption that if I'm not in a full-blown nail-biting panic then I must not give enough shits.
I'm pissed that I can't take my daughter to a damned park (even though we live together) because the government has caved to pressure to shut everything down vs just cracking down on large groups.
I'm pissed that my neighbors are encouraging each other to call the cops on people who aren't obeying stupid shit like this.
I'm tired of listening to people comparing notes and analyzing the relative effectiveness of their routines for disinfecting after a trip to the grocery store.
Lately, my desire to move to a more remote area (or even off the damned grid entirely) has only increased.
A German wants to play the “you Americans,” game. Priceless. The more you speak, the more you invalidate yourself. Americans are the greatest source of charity on the planet. Honestly, you Germans need to look for another source of information on America besides American celebrities and CNN. Or at the very least, YOU do. Glad to help.
Full disclosure: I am a Taleb fanboy. I bring him up because the Stef's word choices like "asymmetry" reminded me of him and I believe you and him are acquaintances.
I am paraphrasing. So, if I get it wrong, I was not intending to erect a strawman.
This is Taleb on Bloomberg: YouTube
Rip: There are two SEPARATE issues: biological and economic.
NNT: This is a false dichotomy. They are intertwined.
Rip: We should be able to choose our own response and not be forced to act a certain way.
NNT: PRECAUTIONARY decisions do not scale. Collective safety may require excessive individual risk avoidance, even if it conflicts with an individual’s own interests and benefits. It may require an individual to worry about risks that are comparatively insignificant. (From "Ethics of Precaution: Individual and Systemic Risk")
@2:56 (NNT video)
Rip: The data is shit so why are we overreacting?
NNT: The data is shit which is why we should overreact.
If I misquote the specific sentiments of the podcast, I do apologize. I genuinely am interested in your logic because I have had similar reactions at certain times and am trying to reconcile it myself.
How would you counter his argument?
This is mischaracterization of both mine and Taleb's position. They are obviously intertwined, since one caused the other. But it is necessary to assess the effects separately, since bankruptcy and coughing are not equivalent.
Unless we are prepared to live under totalitarianism -- and Taleb does not advocate this -- the assessment of individual risk must be left up to the individual. Some individuals will make bad decisions, as has always been the case. But if the best outcome is only calculated based on case rate and CFR, the aforementioned intertwining with the other aspects of human existence have been ignored.Rip: We should be able to choose our own response and not be forced to act a certain way.
NNT: PRECAUTIONARY decisions do not scale. Collective safety may require excessive individual risk avoidance, even if it conflicts with an individual’s own interests and benefits. It may require an individual to worry about risks that are comparatively insignificant. (From "Ethics of Precaution: Individual and Systemic Risk")
The problem is not with "we." Who provided the shit data, and who is deciding our course of action? Incompetence flows from employees with no skin in the game, and this disaster is a creation of the bureaucrats. At some point, the people who are bearing the brunt of the decisions made by bureaucrats will decide to have some input into the management of their own lives -- the longer this is delayed, the stronger the input will be.@2:56 (NNT video)
Rip: The data is shit so why are we overreacting?
NNT: The data is shit which is why we should overreact.
Is the point of assessing the effects to evaluate cause-and-effect relationship? If so, doesn't the exercise of assessing imply that there were two causes that caused two effects, which we know is not true? The complex interaction between the biological and the economic caused multiple, complex effects. I think that Taleb's idea (not trying to speak for him) is that we are just not capable of making those judgments about a complex system. This means it's an academic exercise at best but, potentially, creating false confidence that you are behaving rationally, at worst, and affecting others.
Even if we based it on more than case rate and CFR, we will never know all the factors. More importantly, since we won't know the interactions between all those factors, precaution is the only thing left (Taleb). I take your point when it comes to individual risk assessment but will suggest that it should include the consequences of your actions on others and what could result in a complex feedback loop that will lead to changes in your individual risk assessment. Again, very hard, if not impossible to do. Which leads us back to precaution.
Fine. Fight back against the bureaucrats but keeping your business and personal doors open (not you) and emboldening others to interact, because of individual liberty, may be part of the bottom of the slippery slope of individual risk assessment that has unintended consequences that come back onto the individual.
First thoughts.
I can accept it if you think that I haven't thought this through or missed your point. I may also misunderstand Taleb. So at a minimum, if people respond about that, I (and others) may be better for it.
Over my head.
The consequences of my actions are complex. Think about the consequences of shutting down my busy restaurant. It's easy to see the effects on my waitstaff. But what about my customers who now have to eat lunch they bring from the house? Shopping and planning must be done in a different way, time must be spent in different ways, i.e. driving to the store instead of walking to the cafe and the attendant risks of driving. What about my food service suppliers, who lost a big account, their employees and family members? What about my son working for me as an assistant manager, a troubled kid finally showing promise after a scrape with the law and borderline depression? His mental health is a concern to me, if not you. Lots and lots and LOTS of things are a concern to me that take precedence over the risk of getting sick. I've been sick before, but I haven't been bankrupt before, with no possibility of fitting back in to a dissolving economy that has been negatively perturbed all the way down to the bases of production. Oil is $20, cattle are under a dollar, machine tools are selling for cost. The government has divided businesses into two categories -- essential and non-essential. How does this change investment decisions for the foreseeable future? All you're thinking about is people getting sick, and the equation has far more variables than this, all of which must be considered.Even if we based it on more than case rate and CFR, we will never know all the factors. More importantly, since we won't know the interactions between all those factors, precaution is the only thing left (Taleb). I take your point when it comes to individual risk assessment but will suggest that it should include the consequences of your actions on others and what could result in a complex feedback loop that will lead to changes in your individual risk assessment. Again, very hard, if not impossible to do. Which leads us back to precaution.
Ultimately, I choose Individual Liberty because I prefer it to being told what to do by my "betters." It's just a personal preference, and it ultimately may be illogical, but that is my choice. You may be different.Fine. Fight back against the bureaucrats but keeping your business and personal doors open (not you) and emboldening others to interact, because of individual liberty, may be part of the bottom of the slippery slope of individual risk assessment that has unintended consequences that come back onto the individual.