I think maybe he isn’t incentivized to get it this time bc the fiscal situation is so confused and dysfunctional? But I don’t feel satisfied with that answer, bc so many people don’t get it.
-
-
Replying to @diviacaroline
hm, so let's assume he cares about saving NY lives -- maybe imperfectly, but enough that he's one of the more active governors. He should expect that if supplies purchasing was nationally centralized he'd be *less* likely to get ventilators to his state, right?
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @diviacaroline
the missing intuition is "I want to have the option to pay EXTRA to make SURE I'm first in line to get the good thing"
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @diviacaroline
That was a "missing intuition" for me too; it took me a bit to get it.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @diviacaroline
I have, of course, paid extra to get a more convenient, faster, more reliable, or nicer thing; but I might have an intuition that this is Bad, or a thing to only do for impulse purchases.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin
I think an underrated strategy is to pay more to reliably get a thing at all, when there isn’t a good substitute, and when that thing is a critical part of your plan.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @diviacaroline
yeah, that may just not be a super available heuristic. "We don't have any and won't have any for weeks." "Ok what if I paid you more?" The latter *should* be an obvious possibility but maybe isn't.
4 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @diviacaroline
also similarly: it was a revelation to me, in Getting To Yes, that you should be (selfishly) HAPPY when you learn something your counterparty really wants -- because you can CHARGE HIM A TON FOR IT.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @diviacaroline
there's a non-trade intuition, "you should be (selfishly) disappointed when you find out your counterparty really wants something...because the more he wants it, the more you're obligated to give it to him."
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @diviacaroline
this non-trade intuition (if you understand somebody's wants, you'll have to accommodate them) probably makes people subconsciously reluctant to learn about other people's perspectives.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes
The situation in which I won't get my goods if I pay the "normal" price, but I will if I pay a high price, is the situation where I have learned my counterparty *really wants more money*.
-
-
Replying to @s_r_constantin @diviacaroline
I should (under trade assumptions) eagerly want to be able to *find out* if you're holding out for a higher price, and I should want to have the *option* to pay your price without anybody stopping me.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @diviacaroline
One way this can go wrong is if you aren't *aware* that "no" sometimes means "no, unless you grease my palm." but I *seriously* doubt a career politician doesn't understand that many things are negotiable.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.