Ok I'll do it your way.
Total value of the US stock market is 34 trillion.
If one death is caused by a $10Million loss (citation needed) then at a
fairly conservative 1million American deaths nets you 10 trillion in
paper losses before you have equality.
I mean this doesn't really seem plausible given the dow(used as a proxy
for total market) has grown by ~25% in one year several times without
spontaneously creating life, it doesn't seem all that plausible it going
down by the same amount would lead to near a million deaths. It also
seems like a million dead people would show up in the news.
Further to that looking at data for death rates, 2002 had the dow shrink
by 16% (after 3 consecutive -ve years, near 50% reduction) but had a
lower death rate (8.5 per 100,000) than 1999 where it again had a 25%
growth (8.9)
2008 had a 33% reduction in the dow, also correlated with the lowest
death rate since the 50s of 8.1
So I'm going to say the assertion that the stock market has any
significant relation to deaths is wrong.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/death-rate
https://www.macrotrends.net/1319/dow-jones-100-year-historical-chart
Indeed I haven't actually done the maths on it but it looks at first
impressions that bear markets correlate with a reduction (or more rapid
reduction) in the death rate. I won't swear to that, just how the graphs
look to my eye.
(S&P500 is similar to the dow, dow was just the first I grabbed)
Am I thinking better now?
On 26/3/20 9:19 pm, David Summers wrote:
OK, well you're upset and not thinking very well. I hope you and yours get better soon, and wish you the best.
Let's game this out. Currently, poor people are running out of food. Maybe they can stretch it for a few months. Corona virus will be here for 18 months even in the case of magic level vaccines. I'll point out here that we have vaccines for the flu, and we still lose 100,000 per year to it in the US alone. None of the poor will survive 18 months without work. You can say we will just give them free food - OK, now you are enslaving the farmers, because they have to work for that food and because no one else is allowed to work, they can't get anything in return. In humans, this will lead to fewer farmers, etc. We cannot shut society down for long enough to stop the virus - even after 18 months, the virus will still be here.
Given that, what should we do? That is the question, and it has little to do with stock options. Social distancing while still working is probably the best scenario. Maybe some jobs are now gone forever - bars, dance clubs, cruise ships, etc. But others can adapt (much larger spacing in restaurants, more isolation of older people, etc.)
Don't assume that people that think differently than you are evil. That will just lead to war, which you won't win. (You think Trump is bad? Who do you think is elected after the intellectuals keep the working poor and middle class out of a job for 18 months? That is exactly how Hitler got elected.)
Thanks!
-David Summers
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 10:42 PM Jake Anderson <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
It's complicated because people don't typically enjoy being left
to die in their fluids over the course of a few weeks to protect
stock options. Despite assurances by those with said stock options
that it's really better for society this way.
I understand maths too, I also understand how at these levels you
can make statistics say pretty much anything you want to so it's
very important to see who is saying them. Further I know enough
about the science of economics to know that it's half made up and
a lot of the rest is guesswork. Not the best basis for making life
and death predictions on IMO.
If you want a purely rational economic argument then nobody over
60 with a net worth less than the likely cost of treatment should
be treated. When you run out of money you die. Also insurance
should be suspended for people unlikely to recover to preserve the
funds for young healthy people and the owners of insurance companies.
Why do we even have healthcare for people over 60? Their grand
kids are typically grown enough not to need extended family
daycare. Yet these people consume the majority of healthcare
costs. They are just a burden on the economically viable young
people.
That's not the world I want to live in.
On 26/3/20 6:29 pm, David Summers wrote:
You are under no obligation to spend any money to save my life.
Society is marginally better off if you save my life spending
$100k. Society is worse off if you spend $100m to save my life.
Why is this complicated? I am not evil because I understand math.
The reality was there before the math, the math merely describes
it. Emotive reasoning does not change reality.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020, 9:24 PM Jake Anderson
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I guess the equations are different in America than the rest
of the world.
So much freedom.
Should we kill you if I can prove it's good for the economy too?
On 26/3/20 6:08 pm, David Summers wrote:
Speaking very roughly, for every $1-10 M lost someone dies.
They die because we couldn't get the cancer treatment, or
the process wasn't as safe as it could be, etc. So by wiping
out a trillion dollars, long term you have kill 100k to 1m
people unless we dig ourselves out.
Money is life people. Technology, even medical technology,
doesn't matter without the money to deploy it. And money is
not something that can be arbitrarily created or stolen.
Theft and printing money destroys it, rather than create it.
Basic economics.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020, 8:58 PM Jake Anderson
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Sorry dad, trumps stockmarket portfolio is going down so
you need to die.
On 26/3/20 4:22 pm, roxanna Mason wrote:
Today one week later:
657 infections, 12 deaths, 43 recovered.
Were's the age vs deaths data? If it's
disproportionately the elderly and health
compromised then maybe its time to get back to work and
let herd immunity do its job.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 3:23 PM Henry Spencer
<hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 10:26 AM ken mason
<laserpro1234@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:laserpro1234@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> Observation: One of the largest population
> country with the lowest infection rate is
India -
> Over a billion people with only 244 infected 5
> deaths 20 received. Why?
India and Pakistan are now both on lockdown,
desperately hoping to flatten
the peak enough that their limited medical
resources can more-or-less
cope. It hasn't been done particularly skillfully
in either country, and
they've got big problems with very large numbers of
poor people who don't
have enough safety margin to handle being out of
work for weeks, but
they're trying.
Henry