4 ms·

"I pity the poor sod who is incarcerated" There are literally billions of people on the planet right now incarcerated in their homes. The economy is a patient

by jariel 7y ago

"I pity the poor sod who is incarcerated" There are literally billions of people on the planet right now incarcerated in their homes. The economy is a patient whose heart has stopped pumping - we've injected Trillions in liquidity to hold off 'total death' and even that aid will only hold out for several more weeks. The 'system is collapsing' very, very quickly. The numbers are off the charts like anything we've seen before, all the buzzers in the cockpit are going off at once. 'Contact Tracing' more like chemotherapy, until there's a cure or vaccine, the South Korean model is basically the only example we can expect to try to follow. Edit: I should add, I don't care about 'the economy' as an arbitrary thing, I don't care about investors or 'the stock market'. But 'the economy' is made up of very real things, like your job, whatever you do - and it's all going down like dominos. The headlines talking abut x% reduction in GDP etc, - those are the 'don't panic it will be ok numbers'. When >80% of the population is staying at home, the system as a whole cannot move forward - it's an 'existential decline' just 'some lower amount of GDP'. It's going to be cataclysmic and will be very, very difficult for the community at large, life-threatening in many circumstances. The population at large I think has a visceral sensitivity to 'pandemic' - we've all seen the film, we know what 'getting Covid' means to us. But the notion of the economy going down like a house of cards is more intangible to most people, so it's less of a populist issue, but it should be. Korean style contact-tracing looks different in that light.

paulryanrogers 7y ago
How much of the economy is truly essential to living? Tourism is great but I can live without the old way of doing it. Widget production and selling has diminishing returns, even for pleasure. Perhaps a social-distancing-world is incompatible with consumerist capitalism. Yet I hope for all the suffering from the virus and lockdowns we'll at least gain a new perspective on life and work. Edit: forgot 'world'
- lonelappde 7y ago
  Without the government providing free food and healthcare, consumer capitalism is all we have to sustain ourselves. It's easier to give freedom pursuit of property than to give out property directly.
  - dleslie 7y ago
    o.O I have family that live most of the year in self-sustaining collectivist communities in the jungles of Peru. I wouldn't choose that life, but there's definitely alternatives to consumer capitalism. Cuba, despite _generations_ of _severe_ trade sanctions is a good example of this.
  - paulryanrogers 7y ago
    Capitalism doesn't have to be totally focused on unsustainable consumption. With healthy and un-captured regulation (protecting people not companies from their competition) markets can still do much good. We don't have to live in a survival of the fittest economy.
- jariel 7y ago
  "How much of the economy is truly essential to living? Tourism is great" That's fine, but this is the wrong way to think about it in the short run. >>>> You can over time reorganize our economy along many different lines but you can't do it quickly, and often not even organically. There are much deeper, more systematic issues you'd have to get at in trying to address such things, particularly with respect to property ownership, etc - and these are hugely existential questions. You're going to be telling 100 of millions they're going to lose on all that they've worked on for their entire lives etc. Like changing the rules mid-game. >>>>> This is not an academic discussion - the world is burning down. Every piece of the economy is interconnected. Large downturns in some areas radically affect others. The economy is a dynamic equilibrium that only has so much capacity for shifting around. 'Tourism' is a huge part of the economy (a few points) and if that goes, then you see the cost of social services go up dramatically, unemployment, consumption goes down. It's not just the 'resorts and hotels' it's all the subsidiary businesses. They all go down. Airlines generally operate on thinner margins - if tourism goes, then airlines go down for sure. There is no alternative but government takeover / Chapter 11 / restructure - or total collapse of airlines. Sales drop for aircraft, Boeing lays off and cancels new plans. That's restaurants, hotels, construction, real estate, manufacturing, massive supply chain - all down. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Central Banks around the world are printing money like it doesn't matter, balance sheets are exploding to the point wherein normal conditions we would have nations declare bankruptcy. It's clear that people generally have no idea what's happening in our systems. This is not 'a recession' ... we're facing 'total implosion' unless we act responsibly.
  - paulryanrogers 7y ago
    > You're going to be telling 100 of millions they're going to lose on all that they've worked on for their entire lives etc. Does it have to be this way? Why not put certain things like rent, utilities, mortgage payments on pause--even if just for those on furlough? I realize those who are heavily leveraged may suffer, like airlines who bought back stocks instead of maintaining a war chest. And ultimately I agree that lockdown isn't practical in the long term.
    - 7y ago
dleslie 7y ago
Incarceration is knowing you cannot move two steps to the left without being severely punished. Social distancing is an inconvenience; it is not incarceration.
- jariel 7y ago
  Why would you try to split hairs about the editorialization of a word ... and then provide a totally false definition of the term? There are no forms of general incarceration wherein 'moving two steps will get you punished'. But it's beside the point: Billions of people are forcibly confined to areas and activities in the most blindingly and openly transgression of 'liberty' in the history of civilization. If I go and visit my mother - if I go pick up a frame for that painting - if I walk down the street with a friend - I face an $800 fine and actual 'classical' incarceration. This is considerably more aggressive than marshall law in many ways. To ignore this while at the same time making 'pre Coronavirus' arguments about 'contract tracing and privacy' is deeply unwise. Obviously privacy matters, obviously we have to be worried about the state gaining too much influence whilst using the calamity as an excuse.

by jariel 7y ago

paulryanrogers 7y ago

How much of the economy is truly essential to living? Tourism is great but I can live without the old way of doing it. Widget production and selling has diminishing returns, even for pleasure. Perhaps a social-distancing-world is incompatible with consumerist capitalism. Yet I hope for all the suffering from the virus and lockdowns we'll at least gain a new perspective on life and work. Edit: forgot 'world'

lonelappde 7y ago
Without the government providing free food and healthcare, consumer capitalism is all we have to sustain ourselves. It's easier to give freedom pursuit of property than to give out property directly.
- dleslie 7y ago
  o.O I have family that live most of the year in self-sustaining collectivist communities in the jungles of Peru. I wouldn't choose that life, but there's definitely alternatives to consumer capitalism. Cuba, despite _generations_ of _severe_ trade sanctions is a good example of this.
- paulryanrogers 7y ago
  Capitalism doesn't have to be totally focused on unsustainable consumption. With healthy and un-captured regulation (protecting people not companies from their competition) markets can still do much good. We don't have to live in a survival of the fittest economy.
jariel 7y ago
"How much of the economy is truly essential to living? Tourism is great" That's fine, but this is the wrong way to think about it in the short run. >>>> You can over time reorganize our economy along many different lines but you can't do it quickly, and often not even organically. There are much deeper, more systematic issues you'd have to get at in trying to address such things, particularly with respect to property ownership, etc - and these are hugely existential questions. You're going to be telling 100 of millions they're going to lose on all that they've worked on for their entire lives etc. Like changing the rules mid-game. >>>>> This is not an academic discussion - the world is burning down. Every piece of the economy is interconnected. Large downturns in some areas radically affect others. The economy is a dynamic equilibrium that only has so much capacity for shifting around. 'Tourism' is a huge part of the economy (a few points) and if that goes, then you see the cost of social services go up dramatically, unemployment, consumption goes down. It's not just the 'resorts and hotels' it's all the subsidiary businesses. They all go down. Airlines generally operate on thinner margins - if tourism goes, then airlines go down for sure. There is no alternative but government takeover / Chapter 11 / restructure - or total collapse of airlines. Sales drop for aircraft, Boeing lays off and cancels new plans. That's restaurants, hotels, construction, real estate, manufacturing, massive supply chain - all down. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Central Banks around the world are printing money like it doesn't matter, balance sheets are exploding to the point wherein normal conditions we would have nations declare bankruptcy. It's clear that people generally have no idea what's happening in our systems. This is not 'a recession' ... we're facing 'total implosion' unless we act responsibly.
- paulryanrogers 7y ago
  > You're going to be telling 100 of millions they're going to lose on all that they've worked on for their entire lives etc. Does it have to be this way? Why not put certain things like rent, utilities, mortgage payments on pause--even if just for those on furlough? I realize those who are heavily leveraged may suffer, like airlines who bought back stocks instead of maintaining a war chest. And ultimately I agree that lockdown isn't practical in the long term.
  - 7y ago

dleslie 7y ago

Incarceration is knowing you cannot move two steps to the left without being severely punished. Social distancing is an inconvenience; it is not incarceration.

jariel 7y ago
Why would you try to split hairs about the editorialization of a word ... and then provide a totally false definition of the term? There are no forms of general incarceration wherein 'moving two steps will get you punished'. But it's beside the point: Billions of people are forcibly confined to areas and activities in the most blindingly and openly transgression of 'liberty' in the history of civilization. If I go and visit my mother - if I go pick up a frame for that painting - if I walk down the street with a friend - I face an $800 fine and actual 'classical' incarceration. This is considerably more aggressive than marshall law in many ways. To ignore this while at the same time making 'pre Coronavirus' arguments about 'contract tracing and privacy' is deeply unwise. Obviously privacy matters, obviously we have to be worried about the state gaining too much influence whilst using the calamity as an excuse.