Current Events > the moral dilemma between choosing economy over nation's health

(+) Yeah! (+)

if you bail out the economy and end the shutdowns, the worst that will happen to the people is death

if you don't and continue the shutdown, the worst that will happen to the people is that a handful of billionaires won't be able to have a few summer trips in the hamptons

tbh i dont see this as a dilemma. businesses that can't survive a shutdown means that the employees get more stake in the business and/or receive pensions early because the business has to go through bankruptcy first before they start firing employees

https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/1248323677898366978

he can elaborate on this better than i can tbqh
---

That video is gold and that guest is a straight pimp.

---

Unfortunately there is one huge caveat, some fields of work will just completely screw employees on retirement and cut wages if the business would see a drop in profits. It's already happening with a lot of hospital workers, nurses working overtime but their base rate of pay got nuked because the hospital "can't afford it" by which I mean investors and the board.

---

The same people would cry socialism if you tried to get everyone healthcare during this pandemic. Saying it was 'no fault of their own' would be scoffed at.

---

gunplagirl posted...

Unfortunately there is one huge caveat, some fields of work will just completely screw employees on retirement and cut wages if the business would see a drop in profits. It's already happening with a lot of hospital workers, nurses working overtime but their base rate of pay got nuked because the hospital "can't afford it" by which I mean investors and the board.

Even if youre working full time right now it doesnt mean pay across the board with regular employees hasnt been cut already to keep higher profit churning.

---

645AR posted...

if you don't and continue the shutdown, the worst that will happen to the people is that a handful of billionaires won't be able to have a few summer trips in the hamptons

This is a really, really overly-simplistic take. Assuming worst-possible consequences, eg global recession you know damn well (well, assuming you aren't the troll everyone thinks you are) that this is not the worst that will happen.

---

Were the markets actually free, this would never have been a dilemma.

ASithLord7 posted...

This is a really, really overly-simplistic take. Assuming worst-possible consequences, eg global recession you know damn well (well, assuming you aren't the troll everyone thinks you are) that this is not the worst that will happen.

hmmm, i wonder if theres something the government can do in order to help its people in times of need. maybe universal basic income?

they should call it UBI
---

645AR posted...

hmmm, i wonder if theres something the government can do in order to help its people in times of need. maybe universal basic income?

they should call it UBI

How would a country afford that?

---

IdiotMachine posted...

How would a country afford that?

Obviously by just printing more money.

It's not just economy though. Economy isn't a code word for rich people. Idk if you know this but there are people who will end up dying as a result of the economy closing down. People can't work. Hell people can't go to the doctor that could potentially have cancer to get checked out over this. I have cystic fibrosis and I can't even make an appointment. Luckily my health is fine so I'm ok.

But rent and the cost of living even for poor people in cities is high. 1200 ain't enough and landlords aren't gonna just suspend rent forever. Everything is gonna slow down and that'll effect people's well being too. Idk why that's just discounted. You can't just shut shit down like this until a vaccine is made. It's completely impractical and isn't warranted with such a low kill percentage.

I mean and this argument is dumb. We don't shut down the economy for the flu. And 60k people die every year from that. Why the reaction over this? It's not airborne so they say so it doesn't spread as easily as the flu does. I just don't really see what the end game here is. The only people who benefit are government figures and big wall street people who will buy stuff for cheap when stocks are down so when they finally and so graciously let us sheep do shit again they'll reap the benefits.

---

This is an overly simplistic take.

Take David Chang, famous restauranter. Hes one of your elite class right?

Hes still a multi millionaire. It's his 800 hourly wage staff workers who just got laid off who are paying the price. 800 people who were living paycheck to paycheck and now dont have a paycheck.

Ultimately and as always, it's the most vulnerable people who are being hurt the worst.

---

IdiotMachine posted...

How would a country afford that?

maybe by stop bailing out fragile companies that cant survive on their own and less funding towards flexing our testosterone at conflict countries
---

Esrac posted...

Obviously by just printing more money.

I have $150,100,100,000,001 in Zimbabwe money that illustrates why this is a bad idea.

Hell I want to import pallets of Venezuelan bolivars just to have them.

645AR posted...

maybe by stop bailing out fragile companies that cant survive on their own and less funding towards flexing our testosterone at conflict countries

Okay, so if the $2 trillion CARES Act goes straight to the 328 million people, that's "only" $6100/person... How could a country afford to give everyone, say, $20k/year?

---

There has always been a trade-off between the economy and public health even well before coronavirus.

---

Can't believe only the rich get hurt by a poor economy.

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

I have $150,100,100,000,001 in Zimbabwe money that illustrates why this is a bad idea.

Hell I want to import pallets of Venezuelan bolivars just to have them.

hey you know what venezuela and zimbabwe dont have?

the fucking global infrastructure and hold on trade and other valuable commodities other nations rely on

which is why inflation = bad is a myth. in a vaccum yes. for countries with a vast competitive edge? lolno.
---

ITT only a handful of billionaires run every single business in america and pensions are still a thing.

---

645AR posted...

inflation = bad is a myth

Inflation isn't bad. Hyperinflation is a goddamn disaster.

TomNook20 posted...

ITT only a handful of billionaires run every single business in america and pensions are still a thing.

you do realize that practically 90% of companies in america are a duopoly right
---

645AR posted...

you do realize that practically 90% of companies in america are a duopoly right

the greater problem is how much of the economy is a monopsomy.

645AR posted...

you do realize that practically 90% of companies in america are a duopoly right

90% of companies are a duopoly? That sentence doesn't make sense, but I think I understand what you're trying to say. Citation needed.

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Inflation isn't bad. Hyperinflation is a goddamn disaster.

again, in a vaccum. it has never been actually tested against countries with such a major global hold on other countries trade and infrastructure

theoretically if the entire world was one global nation, printing money would not be bad at all. hyperinflation wouldnt change a damn thing. and right now we're in a world where globally 95% of it is influenced by either the US, china, russia, the UK/EU, and to a lesser extent japan. five countries, big whoop, all who are going through the same shit as us. hyperinflation literally puts a small dent in our global positioning over anyone else, if at all.
---

TomNook20 posted...

90% of companies are a duopoly? That sentence doesn't make sense, but I think I understand what you're trying to say. Citation needed.

part of*
---

Thrusting millions into poverty is not good for a nation's health as well.

---

Kolibri X posted...

Thrusting millions into poverty is not good for a nation's health as well.

who would be doing that? im pretty sure thats what UBI is for
---

645AR posted...

it has never been actually tested against countries with such a major global hold on other countries trade and infrastructure

You do remember the Soviet Union, right?

Questionmarktarius posted...

You do remember the Soviet Union, right?

i do remember era of dictatorship in an age where the internet wasnt invented yes

i dont see how that applies now when people dont have to rotate a rotary phone to make deals with other countries and/or use morse code to contact them

comparing the soviet union today is like comparing rome to 1700s britain

we are in two totally different stratospheres of both technology and competitive advantage over the entire world. five or six powers could theoretically never give a shit about the rest of the world and they would be fine. hyperflation wouldnt change shit
---

645AR posted...

i do remember era of dictatorship in an age where the internet wasnt invented yes

China, though.

Wow, a CEO who actually believes in a free market in America and not just a welfare state for corporations and the rich. Wish they had more of those.

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

China, though.

who has the entire world by the balls because of their exports

i dont recall the US ever giving a shit if the USSR could offer snow and coal at low prices
---

645AR posted...

who would be doing that? im pretty sure thats what UBI is for

That would be the government shutting down business and forcing "non-essential" people onto the streets.

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

China, though.

---

645AR posted...

who has the entire world by the balls because of their exports

i dont recall the US ever giving a shit if the USSR could offer snow and coal at low prices

The US traded with the USSR for most of the Cold War. Some periods more so than others.

---

Kolibri X posted...

That would be the government shutting down business and forcing "non-essential" people onto the streets.

UBI wouldnt do that you should look it up
---

Only a dilemma for people that don't have morals

---

645AR posted...

UBI wouldnt do that you should look it up

but, where does it come from?
Just inventing money leads to pallets of bolivars.

ssjevot posted...

The US traded with the USSR for most of the Cold War. Some periods more so than others.

never to the extent of chinas trade with the rest of the world including us. we manufactured a shit ton domestically for most of the 20th century, moreso than most other countries.

china can get away with what its doing because they benefit from controlling so much of the global market. if they didnt have this amount of significance they would fail too just like the power hungry dictatorships behind them
---

ssjevot posted...

Wow, a CEO who actually believes in a free market in America and not just a welfare state for corporations and the rich. Wish they had more of those.

Same guy regreted helping Facebook become the monster it's become. Seems like an alright guy. He's a billionaire himself which helps give weight to his words.


---

ssjevot posted...

Wow, a CEO who actually believes in a free market in America and not just a welfare state for corporations and the rich. Wish they had more of those.

I'm not sure a free market could work in reality--there's no real history of one. Even without government intervention, those with enough capital can and most likely will manipulate the market, and I don't know if I'd consider that a free market (at least not an equally free market, which I think is the idea).

---

This topic epitomizes the simple-minded approach some people take. Equating economic concerns with uber-wealth. People who talk as if the only harm that's happening is billionaires having to sell one of their yachts.

Meanwhile the pandemic is also causing many paycheck-to-paycheck people to lose jobs, health insurance, health CARE, housing itself, and means of income. The economy is not just the billionaires having to sell one of their yachts (although it'd make it much easier to just dismiss if that were true). People should think more critically about this because it's not a simple issue that can be boiled down to a single-sentence statement.

There is no clean and simple way to fix everything. It's already ugly and it's going to keep being ugly for a while

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

but, where does it come from?
Just inventing money leads to pallets of bolivars.

maybe you should look back in the topic and stop comparing former dictatorships with no comparative holding on the rest of the globes infrastructure to the US
---

Wetterdew posted...

There is no clean and simple way to fix everything.

There is, but it's brutal and not very nice: Accept that most covid-19 cases are minor, and let the disaster of everyone else just happen.

Wetterdew posted...

This topic epitomizes the simple-minded approach some people take. Equating economic concerns with uber-wealth. People who talk as if the only harm that's happening is billionaires having to sell one of their yachts.

Meanwhile the pandemic is also causing many paycheck-to-paycheck people to lose jobs, health insurance, health CARE, housing itself, and means of income.

id argue this has a lot more to do with the failed system the US has as a safety net for its people when compared to other nations. because in more progressive and "boogie man SOCIALIST BAD" countries in europe, they're not really seeming to have this same issue we are when it comes to this garbage

its almost as if im arguing to change the system we have in place now as opposed to remaining status quo and letting the people suffer. and that literally starts with stopping giving a shit about wall street and other massive companies
---

645AR posted...

never to the extent of chinas trade with the rest of the world including us. we manufactured a shit ton domestically for most of the 20th century, moreso than most other countries.

china can get away with what its doing because they benefit from controlling so much of the global market. if they didnt have this amount of significance they would fail too just like the power hungry dictatorships behind them

Yeah, the Soviet Union was pursuing a self-reliance policy and until the late 80s their market was too closed off to make it worth investing in for Americans companies. China has basically been running a state capitalist economy, highly similar to the historical "fascist" economies where foreign companies are forced to cooperate with a domestic partner for access and the state provides unlimited support for domestic companies. It's hard for the more free market economies to compete with China because none of them have market regulations too such an extent to protect from foreign companies and none of them are as intimately entangled with the government. Although American companies and politicians play off each other and have a very effective lobbying system to give corporations what they want, China skips all that but essentially having governments and corporations married to each other from the start. The Chinese government is almost entirely millionaires and billionaires not due to some kind of bribery scheme, but because they are largely the primary stakeholders of many of the biggest companies.

---

645AR posted...

who has the entire world by the balls because of their exports

i dont recall the US ever giving a shit if the USSR could offer snow and coal at low prices

It's a lot more complicated than just exports. China has a lot of money in US bonds, and the US, as well as other countries, have set up tons of factories there. It's a symbiotic relationship, a somewhat unhealthy one, but the US and China are pretty much tied like dominoes at this point--if one falls so does the other.

---

645AR posted...

UBI wouldnt do that you should look it up

No country has that. You're not being realistic at all and haven't given much thought about the consequences of these actions. You think only the rich will suffer. Thats just beyond exceptional.

---

645AR posted...

the failed system the US has as a safety net

The US even has a safety net?

645AR posted...

id argue this has a lot more to do with the failed system the US has as a safety net for its people when compared to other nations. because in more progressive and "boogie man SOCIALIST BAD" countries in europe, they're not really seeming to have this same issue we are when it comes to this garbage

its almost as if im arguing to change the system we have in place now as opposed to remaining status quo and letting the people suffer. and that literally starts with stopping giving a shit about wall street and other massive companies

In America people thinking government doing stuff is socialism. Then they convince people the safety net should be for corporations not for citizens. In the rest of the developed world they think the social safety net should primarily be for citizens and they don't think socialism is welfare state capitalism (many also have socialist parties so they are explicitly reminded that socialists are actually opposed to welfare state capitalism).

---