3 ms·

> overreact early, quickly and briefly People were worried that overreacting (in particular if the outbreak fizzled out, in which case any reaction would have

by tomp 7y ago

> overreact early, quickly and briefly People were worried that overreacting (in particular if the outbreak fizzled out, in which case any reaction would have been an overreaction) would damage the economy. Personally, I viewed that as a positive - a decently resilient economy would absorb such short-term shocks without any long-term issues. Easiest way to force-create such an economy? Stress tests (c.f. Netflix’s Chaos Monkey). If governments overreacted 1-2 times every year, people (travellers) and companies (supply chains) would get used to occasional flight blockade, border closure, discontinuity and disruption. We’d build a much more anti-fragile world.

SkyMarshal 7y ago
Great idea, 100% agree. Let’s Chaos Monkey all the things, not just Netflix. > Personally, I viewed that as a positive - a decently resilient economy would absorb such short-term shocks without any long-term issues. That’s my sense of it too. The markets may fall in the short term, but as soon as the outbreak is stopped, roughly a month later, the markets will recover most or all of their losses. Politicians so afraid of any stock market fall that they try to minimize the problem instead of treating the root of it are more likely to cause an even bigger market collapse.
- NotSammyHagar 7y ago
  Yes, it's terrible that politicians in the us at least were doing their utmost to say this isn't a real problem because they didn't want to hurt the stock market and impact their re-election changes. But there's another side to testing things to failure in the real world, people can die. There are vulnerable people of every stripe. Unlike me they may barely get enough food, barely be able to pay that apt that depends on people going to a restaurant, barely have a way to get their medical care. Most people aren't as fortunate as us computer programmers. I can get a job in a few days, even with the corona virus, not true of restaurant workers. And even some of us in the "programmer class" are struggling. Some stress testing is good, but how to do it without killing the vulnerable.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    > Some stress testing is good, but how to do it without killing the vulnerable. Less stress, more often. I think regular random border closures or brief, targeted disruptions of small parts of supply chains would do wonders to curb over-JIT-ting of the economy, while not hurting too many people too much. That said, I worry it's too little - it doesn't address head-on the incentives that create vulnerable supply chains.
    - MR4D 7y ago
      We do that (kindof) with airports every time there is a hurricane. Somehow that needs to be woven into a bigger fabric. I wonder if there is a way to create simultaneous small pains randomly. For instance, a hurricane and a cell phone outage would really suck.
    - NotSammyHagar 7y ago
      For the past few years we've had almost random border closures, I hadn't thought of it that way. But they do expose horrors, like the kidnappers that take people away when they are turned away from the us border into a hellhole or organized extortion or we kill you.
kiba 7y ago
I am mostly worried about "crying wolves" too many time that people won't take it seriously.
- tomp 7y ago
  How can you not take “no flights from X country” seriously?

by tomp 7y ago

SkyMarshal 7y ago

Great idea, 100% agree. Let’s Chaos Monkey all the things, not just Netflix. > Personally, I viewed that as a positive - a decently resilient economy would absorb such short-term shocks without any long-term issues. That’s my sense of it too. The markets may fall in the short term, but as soon as the outbreak is stopped, roughly a month later, the markets will recover most or all of their losses. Politicians so afraid of any stock market fall that they try to minimize the problem instead of treating the root of it are more likely to cause an even bigger market collapse.

NotSammyHagar 7y ago
Yes, it's terrible that politicians in the us at least were doing their utmost to say this isn't a real problem because they didn't want to hurt the stock market and impact their re-election changes. But there's another side to testing things to failure in the real world, people can die. There are vulnerable people of every stripe. Unlike me they may barely get enough food, barely be able to pay that apt that depends on people going to a restaurant, barely have a way to get their medical care. Most people aren't as fortunate as us computer programmers. I can get a job in a few days, even with the corona virus, not true of restaurant workers. And even some of us in the "programmer class" are struggling. Some stress testing is good, but how to do it without killing the vulnerable.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > Some stress testing is good, but how to do it without killing the vulnerable. Less stress, more often. I think regular random border closures or brief, targeted disruptions of small parts of supply chains would do wonders to curb over-JIT-ting of the economy, while not hurting too many people too much. That said, I worry it's too little - it doesn't address head-on the incentives that create vulnerable supply chains.
  - MR4D 7y ago
    We do that (kindof) with airports every time there is a hurricane. Somehow that needs to be woven into a bigger fabric. I wonder if there is a way to create simultaneous small pains randomly. For instance, a hurricane and a cell phone outage would really suck.
  - NotSammyHagar 7y ago
    For the past few years we've had almost random border closures, I hadn't thought of it that way. But they do expose horrors, like the kidnappers that take people away when they are turned away from the us border into a hellhole or organized extortion or we kill you.

kiba 7y ago

I am mostly worried about "crying wolves" too many time that people won't take it seriously.

tomp 7y ago
How can you not take “no flights from X country” seriously?