7 ms·

>than to have my entire financial life ruined. You know we can just literally choose to not have this problem, instead of buying into other people's narratives

>than to have my entire financial life ruined. You know we can just literally choose to not have this problem, instead of buying into other people's narratives. >Not once did anyone raise any alarms about, maybe these young people shouldn't go into this line of work Actually plenty of people do. It's just not a very thrilling subject to the U.S. populace.

willvarfar 6y ago
> we can just literally choose to not have this problem how can people facing financial ruin right now choose not to have it?
- maxerickson 6y ago
  That clearly isn't what they mean, they are talking about society taking steps to minimize the financial harm. The feasibility of succeeding at that is a different thing than your question.
  - scottLobster 6y ago
    So technically correct is the best kind of correct? The feasibility of succeeding makes the point moot, and frankly makes it sound like puerile moralizing. You might as well say, in the wake of a murder, "well your society could stop murder altogether if they decided not to kill each other". Especially considering that we've already passed the largest economic bailout/safety net measures in world history in a matter of 3 weeks, and it looks like more is on the way. It would seem that "society" is doing its best over here given the realities of the situation, theoretical Kumbaya ideals aside.
    - maxerickson 6y ago
      Nothing about technically correct, just pointing out that I thought they had misread and failed to address the comment they replied to. For a gun analogy, I go with it's like if someone said "We could choose to make it much more difficult to own a handgun" and then someone fired back with a rejoinder about that not helping the people getting shot right now. The rejoinder doesn't address the statement.
ddxxdd 6y ago
>You know we can just literally choose to not have this problem, instead of buying into other people's narratives. Try saying this after a few months of lockdown, when a severely damaged economy leads to food shortages, and printing money does nothing to help.
- pgsbathhouse2 6y ago
  So you believe the ability to produce food, which we've historically produced too much of and let go to waste, is just going to poof into thin air because a select portion of the population doesn't have money flow. What a ridiculous statement.
- dlp211 6y ago
  There is no evidence that we are headed toward food shortages. We actually have surpluses. The issue now and in the future is one of alignment and market forces.
  - ddxxdd 6y ago
    The economy cannot be modelled as a linear system; it is a pseudo-chaotic system. If one poorly-chosen element is labelled as a "non-essential business", it can cause all the other metaphorical Jenga blocks to collapse.
  - jfnixon 6y ago
    Yeah, this is just like the WHO announcing "no evidence" antibodies provide some immunity. It just means no one has done a scientific study of how to collapse the food supply on a massive scale. These sorts of "everything is peachy neat keeno" claims are like Fauci saying the "risk to the US is low" back in February. There is a nontrivial risk we are headed toward food shortages. We should get back in a safer, more well understood configuration for food production and distribution.
jabedude 6y ago
>You know we can just literally choose to not have this problem, instead of buying into other people's narratives. No, you can't. Goods and services are scarce, legislating them to every person in a country does not lead to everyone getting them.

willvarfar 6y ago

> we can just literally choose to not have this problem how can people facing financial ruin right now choose not to have it?

maxerickson 6y ago
That clearly isn't what they mean, they are talking about society taking steps to minimize the financial harm. The feasibility of succeeding at that is a different thing than your question.
- scottLobster 6y ago
  So technically correct is the best kind of correct? The feasibility of succeeding makes the point moot, and frankly makes it sound like puerile moralizing. You might as well say, in the wake of a murder, "well your society could stop murder altogether if they decided not to kill each other". Especially considering that we've already passed the largest economic bailout/safety net measures in world history in a matter of 3 weeks, and it looks like more is on the way. It would seem that "society" is doing its best over here given the realities of the situation, theoretical Kumbaya ideals aside.
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    Nothing about technically correct, just pointing out that I thought they had misread and failed to address the comment they replied to. For a gun analogy, I go with it's like if someone said "We could choose to make it much more difficult to own a handgun" and then someone fired back with a rejoinder about that not helping the people getting shot right now. The rejoinder doesn't address the statement.

ddxxdd 6y ago

>You know we can just literally choose to not have this problem, instead of buying into other people's narratives. Try saying this after a few months of lockdown, when a severely damaged economy leads to food shortages, and printing money does nothing to help.

pgsbathhouse2 6y ago
So you believe the ability to produce food, which we've historically produced too much of and let go to waste, is just going to poof into thin air because a select portion of the population doesn't have money flow. What a ridiculous statement.
dlp211 6y ago
There is no evidence that we are headed toward food shortages. We actually have surpluses. The issue now and in the future is one of alignment and market forces.
- ddxxdd 6y ago
  The economy cannot be modelled as a linear system; it is a pseudo-chaotic system. If one poorly-chosen element is labelled as a "non-essential business", it can cause all the other metaphorical Jenga blocks to collapse.
- jfnixon 6y ago
  Yeah, this is just like the WHO announcing "no evidence" antibodies provide some immunity. It just means no one has done a scientific study of how to collapse the food supply on a massive scale. These sorts of "everything is peachy neat keeno" claims are like Fauci saying the "risk to the US is low" back in February. There is a nontrivial risk we are headed toward food shortages. We should get back in a safer, more well understood configuration for food production and distribution.

jabedude 6y ago

>You know we can just literally choose to not have this problem, instead of buying into other people's narratives. No, you can't. Goods and services are scarce, legislating them to every person in a country does not lead to everyone getting them.