US Election 2020

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
42,279
For now, they cant cant do it indefinitely. Italy will start having shortages in the next few weeks, you just haven't heard about it on the new yet ;)
I doubt that could be kept secret. Way, way too many people involved.

Unhappy438 said:
The same thing that will happen if there is no supply chains, you get to the point where you've gotta roll the dice anyway.
But there are supply chains, and you've not really provided any reason why they would randomly just evaporate.

The lockdown already doesn't apply to those working in essential services like food supply chains. So what would 'opening things up again' make any difference to that?
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
23,589
Market failure is a real and important phenomenon that shouldn’t be overlooked. We also shouldn’t overlook government failure, as well. Importantly, we need to be very clear about the problems that create government failure.

It likely cannot be fixed by electing or appointing “better” people or by giving regulatory agencies like the FDA bigger budgets. Their failures are a product of their incentives, not their intentions–and until their incentives change, we can expect to see a recurring pattern of government failure.
https://www.aier.org/article/the-anatomy-of-government-failure-in-a-pandemic/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
 

TysonRoux

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
7,678
How would you change the incentives? I agree that is the root of most problematic economic behaviour
Very unlikely that we'll see others do what the South Koreans did at the time of their countries crisis.


Koreans give up their gold to help their country

South Korea has exported the first shipment of 300 kilograms of gold collected in a public campaign to help the country out of its economic crisis. The nationwide campaign - led by large business groups including Daewoo, Samsung and Hyundai - began on January 5, and involved ordinary Koreans donating personal gold treasures, which have been melted down into ingots ready for sale on the international markets. Kate Liang looks at the phenomenon of public self-sacrifice to save an economy in trouble:

It's an extraordinary sight: South Koreans queuing for hours to donate their best-loved treasures in a gesture of support for their beleaguered economy.

Housewives gave up their wedding rings; athletes donated medals and trophies; many gave away gold "luck" keys, a traditional present on the opening of a new business or a 60th birthday.
 

Unhappy438

Honorary Master
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
19,811
I doubt that could be kept secret. Way, way too many people involved.
Its not being kept secret, it hasnt happened yet, it will though if left for long enough.

But there are supply chains, and you've not really provided any reason why they would randomly just evaporate.

The lockdown already doesn't apply to those working in essential services like food supply chains. So what would 'opening things up again' make any difference to that?
I actually have provided a reason and the industry i work in is very closely related to this so im not talking bs. We already have supply issues because some of our suppliers wont remain open. We are going to limp through the next three weeks where a large portion of the staff cant get to work because transportation is shut down. It will work for three week sure, three months? Not a chance.
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
42,279
Its not being kept secret, it hasnt happened yet, it will though if left for long enough.



I actually have provided a reason and the industry i work in is very closely related to this so im not talking bs. We already have supply issues because some of our suppliers wont remain open. We are going to limp through the next three weeks where a large portion of the staff cant get to work because transportation is shut down. It will work for three week sure, three months? Not a chance.
I guess it depends on the country, as all these lockdowns are different, but in NZ it works like this:


Transport is open for anyone in essential services, and as it applies to food:

Any entity involved in the supply, delivery, distribution and sale of food, beverage and other key consumer goods essential for maintaining the wellbeing of people. This includes the online sales and contactless delivery of alcohol.

Any entity involved in the packaging, production and processing of food and beverage products, whether for domestic consumption or export

Any entity involved in relevant support services, such as food safety and verification, inspection or associated laboratory services, food safety and biosecurity functions
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
23,589
How would you change the incentives? I agree that is the root of most problematic economic behaviour
You can only mitigate the damage from perverse incentives from regulations.

First step is to realise that regulators have incentives like everyone else. They are not neutral to all sides.

Second step is to make regulations voluntary as much as possible. That attaches a market value to said regulation.

Just to tangent to what a makes a good or a bad regulation.

Good regulations make market transactions easier to perform (so think about a regulation that defines a kilogram and how much easier that makes doing business).
Or something like requiring a written contract for rental agreements.

Bad regulations prevent legitimate business from taking place and create more perverse incentives(Think Boing and the 323 Max). Same thing is happening with testing kits.

Good regulations are also kept up to date as society changes. Bad regulations are usually ones that are old and out of date.

Good regulations are also quantifiable, in that you can measure how well it is working.

So if you want how regulations should be structured, the following should help.
1) Regulations should always err on the side of freedom. So they should be difficult to write and get into law, but easy to remove.
Good regulations will bubble up through the miasma, whilst bad ones are low hanging fruit for politicians.
2) If a regulation cannot be quantified to some measureable outcome, then it needs to be temporary. That errs heavily on the side of freedom as well.
3) I would also set a regulatory budget of how many regulations can be in force at one time. Measured in words. It would be weird, but it would incentivise very clearly worded regulations, and it would force regulators to prioritize regulations.
 

AlmightyBender

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
4,376
You can only mitigate the damage from perverse incentives from regulations.

First step is to realise that regulators have incentives like everyone else. They are not neutral to all sides.

Second step is to make regulations voluntary as much as possible. That attaches a market value to said regulation.

Just to tangent to what a makes a good or a bad regulation.

Good regulations make market transactions easier to perform (so think about a regulation that defines a kilogram and how much easier that makes doing business).
Or something like requiring a written contract for rental agreements.

Bad regulations prevent legitimate business from taking place and create more perverse incentives(Think Boing and the 323 Max). Same thing is happening with testing kits.

Good regulations are also kept up to date as society changes. Bad regulations are usually ones that are old and out of date.

Good regulations are also quantifiable, in that you can measure how well it is working.

So if you want how regulations should be structured, the following should help.
1) Regulations should always err on the side of freedom. So they should be difficult to write and get into law, but easy to remove.
Good regulations will bubble up through the miasma, whilst bad ones are low hanging fruit for politicians.
2) If a regulation cannot be quantified to some measureable outcome, then it needs to be temporary. That errs heavily on the side of freedom as well.
3) I would also set a regulatory budget of how many regulations can be in force at one time. Measured in words. It would be weird, but it would incentivise very clearly worded regulations, and it would force regulators to prioritize regulations.
Ok apply that to the FDA right now. What are their current adverse incentives and what would you suggest specifically to align their incentives to what you think are the right ones?
 

Unhappy438

Honorary Master
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
19,811
I guess it depends on the country, as all these lockdowns are different, but in NZ it works like this:

Transport is open for anyone in essential services, and as it applies to food:
Then its not really a lock down and probably going to prove rather ineffective.
 

lumeer

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
1,455
This evenings comedy show started late.

Dr. Fauci is still there, ......surprised.
I'm watching it too. Trump is starting to lose his temper. It's becoming almost a game: rattle Trump by asking him an awkward question, and watch him lose it.
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
42,279
Then its not really a lock down and probably going to prove rather ineffective.
Of course it is. There's nothing inconsistent between having a lockdown for the vast majority of the country but keeping essential services available.

Otherwise what you're describing isn't happening anywhere and so the economy isn't really closed down, either.
 

Unhappy438

Honorary Master
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
19,811
Of course it is. There's nothing inconsistent between having a lockdown for the vast majority of the country but keeping essential services available.

Otherwise what you're describing isn't happening anywhere and so the economy isn't really closed down, either.
Public transport is probably the number one spread. Keeping that going is rather pointless in trying to diminish spread. Rather do a full lock down for a shorter period than half arsed measures which wont really help. I also don't think you realise the supply chain on certain industries. Take a simple item like bread for example, its not an over exaggeration to suggest it requires roughly 40 different companies for that item to reach the consumers hands.
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
42,279
Public transport is probably the number one spread. Keeping that going is rather pointless in trying to diminish spread. Rather do a full lock down for a shorter period than half arsed measures which wont really help. I also don't think you realise the supply chain on certain industries. Take a simple item like bread for example, its not an over exaggeration to suggest it requires roughly 40 different companies for that item to reach the consumers hands.
PT is only available for people who are working in essential services or for those who need to access essential services. How do you propose to get around that problem if you close down a lot of people's only way to get around?
 

Unhappy438

Honorary Master
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
19,811
PT is only available for people who are working in essential services or for those who need to access essential services. How do you propose to get around that problem if you close down a lot of people's only way to get around?
These are the inherit problems with the lock downs, vastly increase chances of infecting all your essential service workers through the transportation system. Or do a shorter lock down where transportation system is non existent. This is the balancing act i was talking about.
 

AlmightyBender

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
4,376
These are the inherit problems with the lock downs, vastly increase chances of infecting all your essential service workers through the transportation system. Or do a shorter lock down where transportation system is non existent. This is the balancing act i was talking about.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. These okes have to play the "what do I do to minimize casualties long term" game as well as the "do I inflict the peak pain sooner or later" game.

For society I don't see a clear win scenario. Only how severe the loss will be. Tough times.

And then you have Trump playing the "How can I make this about me and who cares about the plebs" game. What a chop.
 
Top