3 ms·

Of course it’s realistic, we can still produce necessary goods at the rate we need to live. > It seems like you are proposing that to fix the income issue we j

Of course it’s realistic, we can still produce necessary goods at the rate we need to live. > It seems like you are proposing that to fix the income issue we just print money indefinitely until a cure comes out, and then restart the economy. Doing something like that is not really comparable to the kind of QE that's being done in the stock market. It'd have to be done on an incredible scale, and nobody really knows what the effects of that would be on the economy. At least people could know they have food and shelter. We live in a death cult. I wonder why we don’t know how to make a basic plan for the economy, hmm... oh yea we jailed those folks and hunted them down and killed them around the globe, yay freedom to die on the job or starve while rich fucks nest up in cabins with personal servants and massive stores of resources. Hell even in the last year we ran Evo Morales out of one of the greatest runs of poverty reduction in contemporary times and he was replaced with a fucking nazi. Your attitude is mask-off homicidal.

darawk 6y ago
> Of course it’s realistic, we can still produce necessary goods at the rate we need to live. For a little while. But things will start to break. There are all sorts of things that can be done for a bit, that cannot be extended indefinitely. > I wonder why we don’t know how to make a basic plan for the economy, hmm... oh yea we jailed those folks and hunted them down and killed them around the globe, yay freedom to die on the job or starve while rich fucks nest up in cabins. I'm not sure what you're referring to here. This isn't an issue of planning, and it doesn't have much to do with inequality either. A major economic depression is going to hurt the poor more than the rich.
- ozzyman700 6y ago
  >I'm not sure what you're referring to here. This isn't an issue of planning, and it doesn't have much to do with inequality either. A major economic depression is going to hurt the poor more than the rich. > it doesn't have much to do with inequality either > hurt the poor more than the rich. ...seems like the poor and rich, are quite inequal. Possibly the rich could have rigged the rules in their favor using their wealth. One could then say, that is an issue of planning, as the rich should not hold greater political sway than the majority.
  - darawk 6y ago
    None of this has anything to do with political sway. I'm talking about the economic depression that will ensue if we keep the economy closed. That will hurt the poor more than the rich. Economic depressions cause people to lose money - if you start at a higher place, you're better off when you lose 30% or more of your net worth. It has nothing to do with political influence.
    - monadic2 6y ago
      You can pretend that the economy is non-political all you want. The clear loss of life you imply says otherwise.

darawk 6y ago

> Of course it’s realistic, we can still produce necessary goods at the rate we need to live. For a little while. But things will start to break. There are all sorts of things that can be done for a bit, that cannot be extended indefinitely. > I wonder why we don’t know how to make a basic plan for the economy, hmm... oh yea we jailed those folks and hunted them down and killed them around the globe, yay freedom to die on the job or starve while rich fucks nest up in cabins. I'm not sure what you're referring to here. This isn't an issue of planning, and it doesn't have much to do with inequality either. A major economic depression is going to hurt the poor more than the rich.

ozzyman700 6y ago
>I'm not sure what you're referring to here. This isn't an issue of planning, and it doesn't have much to do with inequality either. A major economic depression is going to hurt the poor more than the rich. > it doesn't have much to do with inequality either > hurt the poor more than the rich. ...seems like the poor and rich, are quite inequal. Possibly the rich could have rigged the rules in their favor using their wealth. One could then say, that is an issue of planning, as the rich should not hold greater political sway than the majority.
- darawk 6y ago
  None of this has anything to do with political sway. I'm talking about the economic depression that will ensue if we keep the economy closed. That will hurt the poor more than the rich. Economic depressions cause people to lose money - if you start at a higher place, you're better off when you lose 30% or more of your net worth. It has nothing to do with political influence.
  - monadic2 6y ago
    You can pretend that the economy is non-political all you want. The clear loss of life you imply says otherwise.