Economics really sucks at accounting for the value of human life. I remember there was a study on the financial impacts that smokers have on society. The idea going in was that smokers would get health issues which would cause a financial drain on societies which pay for people’s healthcare. The study actually found that smokers weren’t a drain at all. Smokers tended to die quickly, meaning no chronic health treatments. More importantly, they died young. Meaning they didn’t cash in their government pensions. Governments were essentially profiting off smokers. The study did another analysis, this time putting in a fake number for the “value of life” and the result was as expected. Smoking is a negative because it kills people.
there is also famous ford pinto scandal, where ford pinto would sometime catch fire during relatively small rear-end collisions, ford knew about the problem, the change in design would cost $15.30 per car, yet ford decided it is cheaper to let few people die and deal with the consequences.
Economics is a tool, and yes of course you can get different conclusions based on different assumptions. Doesn’t mean economics is bad, just means it is being used in different ways and for different purposes. Same with statistics. assumpsions are important.
The economy is a fake religion we made up to explain the psychology of mass amounts of peoples spending habits. Then we put everybody’s money into 401ks bcz it was cheaper than pensions, and told them if the economy does bad they don’t get to retire.
![Jurassic [Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal]](https://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/1729111734-20241016.png){kind=link}
Economics really sucks at accounting for the value of human life. I remember there was a study on the financial impacts that smokers have on society. The idea going in was that smokers would get health issues which would cause a financial drain on societies which pay for people’s healthcare. The study actually found that smokers weren’t a drain at all. Smokers tended to die quickly, meaning no chronic health treatments. More importantly, they died young. Meaning they didn’t cash in their government pensions. Governments were essentially profiting off smokers. The study did another analysis, this time putting in a fake number for the “value of life” and the result was as expected. Smoking is a negative because it kills people.
you may be thinking about this study: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Finance_Balance_of_Smoking_in_the_Czech_Republic
there is also famous ford pinto scandal, where ford pinto would sometime catch fire during relatively small rear-end collisions, ford knew about the problem, the change in design would cost $15.30 per car, yet ford decided it is cheaper to let few people die and deal with the consequences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimshaw_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
Economics is a tool, and yes of course you can get different conclusions based on different assumptions. Doesn’t mean economics is bad, just means it is being used in different ways and for different purposes. Same with statistics. assumpsions are important.
The economy is a fake religion we made up to explain the psychology of mass amounts of peoples spending habits. Then we put everybody’s money into 401ks bcz it was cheaper than pensions, and told them if the economy does bad they don’t get to retire.
deleted by creator