6 ms·

Just-in-time manufacturing, increased global trade and offshoring of manufacturing capabilities, incentive to downplay the severity of outbreaks to avoid scarin

by csb6 7y ago

Just-in-time manufacturing, increased global trade and offshoring of manufacturing capabilities, incentive to downplay the severity of outbreaks to avoid scaring the stock market. All of these things have played a role on making responses harder.

marcinzm 7y ago
>incentive to downplay the severity of outbreaks to avoid scaring the stock market The Soviets sure were caring about their stock market when Chernobyl happened. Don't confuse generic human nature with capitalism.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  You don’t have to go that far back. The Communist Party of China seemed equally motivated to conceal this outbreak.
  - JadeNB 7y ago
    Standard reminder that the communist party of China is communist only in name; it's more "technically not capitalist": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_market_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_market_economy .
    - AmericanChopper 7y ago
      This is rather No True Scotsman. A lot of people say the same thing about every failed socialist state from the 20th century too. China is primarily a planned economy, and means of production are primarily controlled “by the people” (really by the central authority which claims to represent them). It has allowed a restricted level of market activity, and a restricted level of private property (though the party retains a significant level of control over said activity). The same could be said for every socialist state in history. If you follow this line of reasoning, either every nation in the history of the world is socialist, or there has never been a true socialist country. Neither of those conclusions are reasonable, obviously.
      - JadeNB 7y ago
        I was going to point out that there's a common phrase "Chinese capitalism" but there was never a common phrase "Soviet capitalism", but Google proved me wrong. I guess I'll defer to the judgement of people with actual economic knowledge.
        AmericanChopper 7y ago
        If you consider the abolition of private property, and the central planning of the economy to be the core aspects of a socialist society (which is a rather uncontroversial, though incomplete definition), and the exact opposite of that to be full property rights, and full free market, then you won’t find a single organised society that fits into either of those buckets. All socialist societies throughout history have allowed for some level of property rights, and all have had some level of market economy. Conversely, any society that could be described as capitalist has had restrictions on private property (at a minimum, through taxation, though there’s lot of other ways too), and have had restrictions on free market activity (again at a minimum, through regulation). To say that any of the socialist governments that emerged in the 20th century are not truly socialist is a quintessential No True Scotsman fallacy, and the same reasoning would be equally valid for making the (equally fallacious) argument that there are no true capitalist or free market societies.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
- csb6 7y ago
  I’m not really sure what you’re getting at. If what you’re saying is that capitalism is a failed, dysfunctional, self-harming system like that of the late USSR, then I would agree with you. It is true that other systems can be bad. This does not make our current economic system less bad and the blood sacrifices to the stock market less insane.
  - marcinzm 7y ago
    When all systems end up looking the same maybe the issue isn't the system but the common human element.
    - csb6 7y ago
      Maybe the issue is that any system can collapse and become dysfunctional, and that we should admit when ours has become one. Other nations have openly and honestly dealt with this as a national health crisis from the beginning. Better things are possible; more systems exist besides the late USSR and our current system.
      - marcinzm 7y ago
        >Other nations have openly and honestly dealt with this as a national health crisis from the beginning. Nations with capitalistic economic systems which makes me wonder what your point is again.
duxup 7y ago
Isn't much of this simply ... logical choices in business and / or human nature? I'm not convinced that people panic buying toilet paper is solved because some other non capitalism like system was selected ... and someone randomly chose to storing mass quantities of TP in a warehouse for decades because someones might one day panic buy TP. As for downplaying things ... we've already seen that done for a variety of reasons across the board in many nations.
- csb6 7y ago
  In a country with a functioning government and economy, the entire nation would mobilize and respond to the health crisis intelligently and with the advice of health experts. The U.S. government delayed doing so for fear of making the stock market go down, and in fact several U.S. senators used their briefings to reallocate their investments in remote work companies, much like the advice in the article, rather than preparing a response to help their constituents. Would people not panic buy toilet paper in a functioning economy? They probably still would, but the response wouldn’t be “how can we get the Dow Jones average up” it would be “how can we save people’s lives.” This is the moral and necessary thing a functioning society would try to do.
  - duxup 7y ago
    > The U.S. government delayed doing so for fear of making the stock market go down I suspect it is more that the leadership in the White House is simply incompetent. If they believed the threat was real it doesn't take more than a few days to dump your stocks and then take action, not months. I don't really buy that narrative. As for mobilizing to produce a thing, I'm not sure that's a thing anyone is automatically good at. The history of nations trying to mobilize to do a thing that isn't their core competency is one of high efficiency and costs.
  - marcinzm 7y ago
    >In a country with a functioning government and economy, the entire nation would mobilize and respond to the health crisis intelligently and with the advice of health experts. That's got little to do with government or economy but rather with culture. South Korea and Japan reacted decently well due to a collectivist culture. Countries with more independence driven cultures did less well as everyone went out for themselves.

by csb6 7y ago

marcinzm 7y ago

>incentive to downplay the severity of outbreaks to avoid scaring the stock market The Soviets sure were caring about their stock market when Chernobyl happened. Don't confuse generic human nature with capitalism.

AmericanChopper 7y ago
You don’t have to go that far back. The Communist Party of China seemed equally motivated to conceal this outbreak.
- JadeNB 7y ago
  Standard reminder that the communist party of China is communist only in name; it's more "technically not capitalist": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_market_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_market_economy .
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    This is rather No True Scotsman. A lot of people say the same thing about every failed socialist state from the 20th century too. China is primarily a planned economy, and means of production are primarily controlled “by the people” (really by the central authority which claims to represent them). It has allowed a restricted level of market activity, and a restricted level of private property (though the party retains a significant level of control over said activity). The same could be said for every socialist state in history. If you follow this line of reasoning, either every nation in the history of the world is socialist, or there has never been a true socialist country. Neither of those conclusions are reasonable, obviously.
    - JadeNB 7y ago
      I was going to point out that there's a common phrase "Chinese capitalism" but there was never a common phrase "Soviet capitalism", but Google proved me wrong. I guess I'll defer to the judgement of people with actual economic knowledge.
      - AmericanChopper 7y ago
        If you consider the abolition of private property, and the central planning of the economy to be the core aspects of a socialist society (which is a rather uncontroversial, though incomplete definition), and the exact opposite of that to be full property rights, and full free market, then you won’t find a single organised society that fits into either of those buckets. All socialist societies throughout history have allowed for some level of property rights, and all have had some level of market economy. Conversely, any society that could be described as capitalist has had restrictions on private property (at a minimum, through taxation, though there’s lot of other ways too), and have had restrictions on free market activity (again at a minimum, through regulation). To say that any of the socialist governments that emerged in the 20th century are not truly socialist is a quintessential No True Scotsman fallacy, and the same reasoning would be equally valid for making the (equally fallacious) argument that there are no true capitalist or free market societies.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
csb6 7y ago
I’m not really sure what you’re getting at. If what you’re saying is that capitalism is a failed, dysfunctional, self-harming system like that of the late USSR, then I would agree with you. It is true that other systems can be bad. This does not make our current economic system less bad and the blood sacrifices to the stock market less insane.
- marcinzm 7y ago
  When all systems end up looking the same maybe the issue isn't the system but the common human element.
  - csb6 7y ago
    Maybe the issue is that any system can collapse and become dysfunctional, and that we should admit when ours has become one. Other nations have openly and honestly dealt with this as a national health crisis from the beginning. Better things are possible; more systems exist besides the late USSR and our current system.
    - marcinzm 7y ago
      >Other nations have openly and honestly dealt with this as a national health crisis from the beginning. Nations with capitalistic economic systems which makes me wonder what your point is again.

duxup 7y ago

Isn't much of this simply ... logical choices in business and / or human nature? I'm not convinced that people panic buying toilet paper is solved because some other non capitalism like system was selected ... and someone randomly chose to storing mass quantities of TP in a warehouse for decades because someones might one day panic buy TP. As for downplaying things ... we've already seen that done for a variety of reasons across the board in many nations.

csb6 7y ago
In a country with a functioning government and economy, the entire nation would mobilize and respond to the health crisis intelligently and with the advice of health experts. The U.S. government delayed doing so for fear of making the stock market go down, and in fact several U.S. senators used their briefings to reallocate their investments in remote work companies, much like the advice in the article, rather than preparing a response to help their constituents. Would people not panic buy toilet paper in a functioning economy? They probably still would, but the response wouldn’t be “how can we get the Dow Jones average up” it would be “how can we save people’s lives.” This is the moral and necessary thing a functioning society would try to do.
- duxup 7y ago
  > The U.S. government delayed doing so for fear of making the stock market go down I suspect it is more that the leadership in the White House is simply incompetent. If they believed the threat was real it doesn't take more than a few days to dump your stocks and then take action, not months. I don't really buy that narrative. As for mobilizing to produce a thing, I'm not sure that's a thing anyone is automatically good at. The history of nations trying to mobilize to do a thing that isn't their core competency is one of high efficiency and costs.
- marcinzm 7y ago
  >In a country with a functioning government and economy, the entire nation would mobilize and respond to the health crisis intelligently and with the advice of health experts. That's got little to do with government or economy but rather with culture. South Korea and Japan reacted decently well due to a collectivist culture. Countries with more independence driven cultures did less well as everyone went out for themselves.