steveeq1

So you already do things like this for, say, rap music. Right?

This book lists a lot of them: https://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Power-Negotiating-15th-Annive...

I encourage every entrepeneur to read this, because you'll see them time-and-time again. Most of the tactics are used to "get what you want", as they say, but also making the other side convinved they "won". Where they presumably come back and do it again to you. It relies on cheap psychological tactics. As a business-owner, 100% of the salesmen I dealt with used these same tactics. Identifying the tactic and calling it out usually neutralizes the tactic with the salesmen.

But as an arbitrary example, anchoring numbers. They'll show you an insanely expensive first solution. And then later lead you to a merely overpriced-solution. But the second ones seems "cheap" because they are judging it from perspective of the first price solution.

I've read many books on "selling" and I've also been a business owner for 12-years and dealt with salesmen quite heavily during this period. I know all the tactics, in other words. And I've never met a single sales person within those 12-years that did not resort to dirty tricks.

Not. A. Single. One.

I've read many books on "selling" and I've also been a business owner for 12-years and dealt with salesmen quite heavily during this period. I know all the tactics, in other words. And I've never met a single sales person within those 12-years that did not resort to dirty tricks.

Not. A. Single. One.

Whenever someone tells me they're a salesmen for a living, I think of things like this.

Better explanation: the fed is buying securities.

And what if the self-driving cars end up causing fewer deaths than human drivers?

But some economic tradeoffs are viable. For instance, 35,000 people will die every year as tradeoff for the convenience for driving.

Young people can "die" from this in the same sense that they can also "die" from the flu. But the infection fatality rate is extremely low. Hell, we can start with the military, they are in great shape.

But my reasoning is that "condemning thousands of people to die" is the wrong way to look at it. You can look at it as "saving a million lives". Hell, by making driving legal "we are condemning 35,000 people to die every year". At a certain point, certain tradeoffs become reasonable.

Physical distancing is a costly measure. It would be economically cheaper for the young and healthy to self-infect and then self-quarantine. Their chances of dying or even hospitalization is basically a rounding error in that demographic. That way, they can't spread it to other people. Herd immunity should be accelerated, not decelerated.

The evidence so far seems to show that there is immunity to it after recovery (as well as the rest of the corona viruses). Immunity is not permanent, it last 6-18 months from what I understand.

Physical distancing is another alternative but is enormously expensive to the economy.

If that were true, then we'll have herd immunity in a month.

I can't believe I'm the only person who sees this.

What about hyperinflation?

Or maybe it was a false positive.

yes, the same one.

No, the media tends to report the most sensationalized numbers, not the most accurate numbers. I rely on World Health Organization type stuff, not "the news".

And hence, the availability bias.

No it's not, the infection fatality rate keeps going down. This is just media hype and the risks are being overblown due to the many biases in human judgment (availabiltiy bias, survivorship bias, social bias, etc).

For the vast majority of corona viruses cases, it is, in fact "not too bad".

There is survivorship bias in the media reports. Mild cases don't get reported because it's bland, common, and everyday. The ones that cause death DO get reported because it's clickbait basically. This biases the population to overestimate the risk from this.

Worst possible place you can go? Even the hospital? Even a homeless shelter?

So much this. And I wish people would understand this concept. We are going to get hyperinflation now, US dollars will become worthless soon, and the social safety net will disappear. This is going to cause a lot more societal grief than corona.

It's not "statistically irrelevent", but the risk is being overblown. There's a lot of availability bias being introduced by the media right now.

It is temporary hysteria. Remember 'swine flu'? The infection fatality rate ended up being like 10x better than what the media initially reported.

This is availability bias. Because you hear it in the news so much, whenever you have some weird pain in the body, the bias make you think "covid-19".

I'm not saying you don't have it, but I'm saying your mind is making it seem much more likely than it actually is.

I know, it's amazing to me the number of people that are blowing the risk way out of proportion. I think there is a degree of "survivorship bias" in the news. People who get covid-19 and have a mild case dont get reported because it's bland and everyday.

Isn't it obvious this will lead to hyperinflation? I am BAFFLED why this isn't being reported on cnn or whatever. All I see is corona virus. The sad thing is is that there will probably be more lives lost to hyperinflation than covid-19.

welcome to china.

Survivorship bias.

That stimulus bill is going to cause hyperinflation.

I seriously doubt cars cause a "racial divide" in any reasonable way.

As for whether I think it's a "reasonable tradeoff". I don't know, but maybe because it's not brought up as controversial by society. This is not a good reason, I suppose, but I haven't really thought about it. I guess I'm mindlessly mimicing the ethics of people around me.