5 ms·

>2008 crash to protect older people I had no idea they had audited the age of the bankers who caused that mess. Only one I'm aware of was https://en.wikipedia

by Zenst 7y ago

>2008 crash to protect older people I had no idea they had audited the age of the bankers who caused that mess. Only one I'm aware of was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Leeson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Leeson who brought down an entire bank at the age of 25. As for your darwinistic-eugenics as an old person, sure I'm happy with that, but the question is - would you be happy with that when your older and somebody else's kids suggests the same thing. Not that easy to answer. But whatever age people are, the penchant to begrudge the age groups above them to varying degrees and reasons tends to be strong, at least until they reach their 40's. At least that is what I have observed from many years of experience of many age ranges. > In an ideal world we would not need to make choices like this, but the choice is real and we can't fumble it. I suspect the film Logan's Run would be worth a watch if you have not seen it. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074812/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074812/ Oh I'd also add, we have not seen results of sterility post infection - that data might change your perspective if we end up finding out that the chances of becoming sterile due to infection of this are high. Which is still an unknown and not to be ruled out.

twblalock 7y ago
I'd rather you be serious and address the very real trade-offs of shutting down one of the world's largest economies for a long period of time. We cannot pretend there won't be consequences.
- Zenst 7y ago
  I'm not very good at putting a price upon human life, for that is exactly what the equation is. Still, once you put a price upon a life, you find yourself more open to other equations in which you have that variable and then you start reducing the value of that variable. It's a slippery slope.
  - twblalock 7y ago
    I don't want to put a price on life either, but that doesn't mean there is not a price. The decisions we make now will affect everyone, not just those who die. My point is that we can't avoid the trade-offs. We cannot pretend that saving the lives of sick people does not affect other lives. Our society is not having that discussion, but is focused on saving as many lives as possible. Not enough attention is being paid to the other side of that trade-off.
    - Zenst 7y ago
      Of course there is a trade-off - why do you think that aircraft are still flying right now. Things didn't stop instantly and in many avenues, have still not stopped. What is an economy, the generation and circulation of money. Then offset with humans and they reproduce and circulate. However, whilst not all economic aspects are equal, human life is. Hence you will see essential aspects of the economy maintained and less essential will either ride it out, evolve or expire - including what may well be, older businesses as well as young ones. let us not forget, some businesses are very dynamic and volatile at the best of times, restaurants being the classic example. Casualties of human life and economic are inevitable and with that, each country has a different plan, though mostly stimulus and loans. However, fear has and will do more damage to the economy than this virus and if you do not have shutdowns, that fear will only rise - so yes it is a fine balance with much minutia.
    - carapace 7y ago
      There is a fundamental difference between money and blood. Save the lives! Deal with the paperwork later.
      - TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
        There’s always a cost-benefit analysis to be made. Generally speaking: health insurers will prefer to pay for procedures for those who will get the most benefit from them.
        surewhynat 7y ago
        Look, do your analysis to find out what it cost, but under no circumstance should anyone be saying savings lives isn't, "worth it" Health insurers are hugely part of the problem in America and should not be looked up to, as an example for how to behave in a crisis. Other countries have figured it out how to take care of each other as a decent society.
      - threatofrain 7y ago
        For both individuals and governments isn't the line between blood and money terribly thin? Obamacare is such a transfer of money into life. Every other decision in government is a tradeoff between money and life.
  - solatic 7y ago
    Your inability to put a price on human life is precisely what is leading you to discount future lives. Economic downturns lead to deaths of despair - long-term unemployment causes spikes in suicides, drug overdoses, even domestic terrorism brought on by a potent mixture of sheer nihilism and depression. Just because it's more difficult to count those future lives (more likely to be young) against a current model - who are you to discount them?
    - surewhynat 7y ago
      You're basically saying, a) should we care less today and let the virus spread more? OR b) should we care less in the future and let the poor bastards dope themselves to death? Perhaps the solution is: Save as many people as you can today then, and when there is an economic downturn we should do a better job helping people get off drugs by talking to them and treating them, helping develop new markets, reaching out to young poor communities. I feel like half of your problems listed are solved by hiring more therapists and psychiatrists. It sounds more like America has a lack of caring for it's people rather than anything else.
      - solatic 7y ago
        > You're basically saying, a) should we care less today and let the virus spread more? OR b) should we care less in the future and let the poor bastards dope themselves to death? I think this is a really callous way of putting it, and it's only valid if you accede to the empathetic framing. The point of my original comment is to show that there is an econometric argument against the empathetic framing, even for one intended to allow empathy to dictate their opinion. > I feel like half of your problems listed are solved by hiring more therapists and psychiatrists. Part of any rational decision process asks about the costs of the different options. The cost of this economic recession will be high; the cost of improving mental health infrastructure would have been much lower. > Perhaps the solution is: Save as many people as you can today then, and when there is an economic downturn we should do a better job helping people get off drugs by talking to them and treating them, helping develop new markets, reaching out to young poor communities. Why decide to pay both costs when only one needed to be paid?
  - threatofrain 7y ago
    Not putting a price on life simply means someone else will do it for you. It's a dirty job, and someone is doing it to make society run, even if we don't have to think about how the sausage is made.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
Cyph0n 7y ago
You don’t get it: letting old people die will just magically solve all of our problems! Parents? Grandparents? Who needs them! They’re just a strain on the economy. /s
- Zenst 7y ago
  I'm sure if they remake Logan's Run( they probably will) That would make a great tagline for the market of today.

by Zenst 7y ago

twblalock 7y ago

I'd rather you be serious and address the very real trade-offs of shutting down one of the world's largest economies for a long period of time. We cannot pretend there won't be consequences.

Zenst 7y ago
I'm not very good at putting a price upon human life, for that is exactly what the equation is. Still, once you put a price upon a life, you find yourself more open to other equations in which you have that variable and then you start reducing the value of that variable. It's a slippery slope.
- twblalock 7y ago
  I don't want to put a price on life either, but that doesn't mean there is not a price. The decisions we make now will affect everyone, not just those who die. My point is that we can't avoid the trade-offs. We cannot pretend that saving the lives of sick people does not affect other lives. Our society is not having that discussion, but is focused on saving as many lives as possible. Not enough attention is being paid to the other side of that trade-off.
  - Zenst 7y ago
    Of course there is a trade-off - why do you think that aircraft are still flying right now. Things didn't stop instantly and in many avenues, have still not stopped. What is an economy, the generation and circulation of money. Then offset with humans and they reproduce and circulate. However, whilst not all economic aspects are equal, human life is. Hence you will see essential aspects of the economy maintained and less essential will either ride it out, evolve or expire - including what may well be, older businesses as well as young ones. let us not forget, some businesses are very dynamic and volatile at the best of times, restaurants being the classic example. Casualties of human life and economic are inevitable and with that, each country has a different plan, though mostly stimulus and loans. However, fear has and will do more damage to the economy than this virus and if you do not have shutdowns, that fear will only rise - so yes it is a fine balance with much minutia.
  - carapace 7y ago
    There is a fundamental difference between money and blood. Save the lives! Deal with the paperwork later.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
      There’s always a cost-benefit analysis to be made. Generally speaking: health insurers will prefer to pay for procedures for those who will get the most benefit from them.
      - surewhynat 7y ago
        Look, do your analysis to find out what it cost, but under no circumstance should anyone be saying savings lives isn't, "worth it" Health insurers are hugely part of the problem in America and should not be looked up to, as an example for how to behave in a crisis. Other countries have figured it out how to take care of each other as a decent society.
    - threatofrain 7y ago
      For both individuals and governments isn't the line between blood and money terribly thin? Obamacare is such a transfer of money into life. Every other decision in government is a tradeoff between money and life.
- solatic 7y ago
  Your inability to put a price on human life is precisely what is leading you to discount future lives. Economic downturns lead to deaths of despair - long-term unemployment causes spikes in suicides, drug overdoses, even domestic terrorism brought on by a potent mixture of sheer nihilism and depression. Just because it's more difficult to count those future lives (more likely to be young) against a current model - who are you to discount them?
  - surewhynat 7y ago
    You're basically saying, a) should we care less today and let the virus spread more? OR b) should we care less in the future and let the poor bastards dope themselves to death? Perhaps the solution is: Save as many people as you can today then, and when there is an economic downturn we should do a better job helping people get off drugs by talking to them and treating them, helping develop new markets, reaching out to young poor communities. I feel like half of your problems listed are solved by hiring more therapists and psychiatrists. It sounds more like America has a lack of caring for it's people rather than anything else.
    - solatic 7y ago
      > You're basically saying, a) should we care less today and let the virus spread more? OR b) should we care less in the future and let the poor bastards dope themselves to death? I think this is a really callous way of putting it, and it's only valid if you accede to the empathetic framing. The point of my original comment is to show that there is an econometric argument against the empathetic framing, even for one intended to allow empathy to dictate their opinion. > I feel like half of your problems listed are solved by hiring more therapists and psychiatrists. Part of any rational decision process asks about the costs of the different options. The cost of this economic recession will be high; the cost of improving mental health infrastructure would have been much lower. > Perhaps the solution is: Save as many people as you can today then, and when there is an economic downturn we should do a better job helping people get off drugs by talking to them and treating them, helping develop new markets, reaching out to young poor communities. Why decide to pay both costs when only one needed to be paid?
- threatofrain 7y ago
  Not putting a price on life simply means someone else will do it for you. It's a dirty job, and someone is doing it to make society run, even if we don't have to think about how the sausage is made.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

Cyph0n 7y ago

You don’t get it: letting old people die will just magically solve all of our problems! Parents? Grandparents? Who needs them! They’re just a strain on the economy. /s

Zenst 7y ago
I'm sure if they remake Logan's Run( they probably will) That would make a great tagline for the market of today.