4 ms·

I don't agree here. There's the economy as we know it, which might crash/malfunction but then there is the Real Life™. It might seem that the two are very inter

I don't agree here. There's the economy as we know it, which might crash/malfunction but then there is the Real Life™. It might seem that the two are very interconnected and society cannot function without a healthy banking system. Reality however proves different. Let's take a look at Iran, a country under heavy financial and commercial sanctions (for quite a few years), partially at war, with widespread riots brewing up until just one month ago and with little control over the virus's spread. Life goes on, people still eat, speak to each other and most continue their day to day activities. Same goes for Venezuela or Lebanon. Sure, some people will need to adjust from selling derivatives to more 'core' activities, but the world will not end. The social system is more resilient than it looks. EDIT From a longer-term/big picture point of view, I think it would be healthy to debunk this 'myth' that somehow the world cannot survive a big bank going bust. Let's not mistake preserving status quo for a functioning society as a way going forward.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
I feel like you've lost the thread here. Real Life™ is the part of the economy that's being shut down; over a billion people are no longer allowed to go to a cafe or speak to friends or continue their day to day activities. The concern isn't that an extended shutdown will be bad for Goldman Sachs, but that it will make ongoing life intolerable and resuming normal life impossible.
- samsonradu 7y ago
  I think everyone agrees (govs included) that this situation is temporary. As soon as the balance inclines the other way as in less damaging overall to actually let the virus spread than current lockdown, the restrictions would be lifted. Why would people not resume life? We need to get the timing right, how much we can bend the curve without causing more harm. A matter of choosing the lesser evil.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    I broadly agree with what you're saying, but I also agree with the original comment that the right timing is necessarily within the next six weeks. So when Cuomo goes up and says "two, three, four months", or when governments impose indefinite stay-at-home orders that need to be specifically revoked, that worries me.
    - samsonradu 7y ago
      Indeed, I've also seen some scary declarations. I was thinking if it wouldn't have been better to be more upfront about the planning fe.: Guys, we either let things run as usual and wait for the virus to spread - and it will spread and damage the economy + the health system to an unknown degree - or we do our best for a while to delay things until we get better prepared to handle the ills. Emphasise on 'our best' because if we don't then the lockdown will be both bad and useless. We got your back through fiscal stimulus during this time. As soon as we see that the lockdown causes more harm than it solves we will obviously lift it and try other measures. EDIT What I meant with Real Life™ is that I believe it cannot be shut down, it can only be changed. Sure, as we speak, people can't have 3$ Starbucks drinks but will still go to the park (groups of 2 max) and have a chat while walking/running.
      - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
        Some parts of real life are non-negotiable. There will certainly be changes we can and should tolerate. But rules which forbid me from hosting a small dinner party, shopping for non-essentials, or driving down to give my mom a hug are below the minimum requirements of a healthy life and can’t be fully mitigated.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago

I feel like you've lost the thread here. Real Life™ is the part of the economy that's being shut down; over a billion people are no longer allowed to go to a cafe or speak to friends or continue their day to day activities. The concern isn't that an extended shutdown will be bad for Goldman Sachs, but that it will make ongoing life intolerable and resuming normal life impossible.

samsonradu 7y ago
I think everyone agrees (govs included) that this situation is temporary. As soon as the balance inclines the other way as in less damaging overall to actually let the virus spread than current lockdown, the restrictions would be lifted. Why would people not resume life? We need to get the timing right, how much we can bend the curve without causing more harm. A matter of choosing the lesser evil.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  I broadly agree with what you're saying, but I also agree with the original comment that the right timing is necessarily within the next six weeks. So when Cuomo goes up and says "two, three, four months", or when governments impose indefinite stay-at-home orders that need to be specifically revoked, that worries me.
  - samsonradu 7y ago
    Indeed, I've also seen some scary declarations. I was thinking if it wouldn't have been better to be more upfront about the planning fe.: Guys, we either let things run as usual and wait for the virus to spread - and it will spread and damage the economy + the health system to an unknown degree - or we do our best for a while to delay things until we get better prepared to handle the ills. Emphasise on 'our best' because if we don't then the lockdown will be both bad and useless. We got your back through fiscal stimulus during this time. As soon as we see that the lockdown causes more harm than it solves we will obviously lift it and try other measures. EDIT What I meant with Real Life™ is that I believe it cannot be shut down, it can only be changed. Sure, as we speak, people can't have 3$ Starbucks drinks but will still go to the park (groups of 2 max) and have a chat while walking/running.
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      Some parts of real life are non-negotiable. There will certainly be changes we can and should tolerate. But rules which forbid me from hosting a small dinner party, shopping for non-essentials, or driving down to give my mom a hug are below the minimum requirements of a healthy life and can’t be fully mitigated.