3 ms·

Economic problems come with a cost on human life. There are numerous studies and paper that show how bad being poor and unhappy are for a person's health. Why W

Economic problems come with a cost on human life. There are numerous studies and paper that show how bad being poor and unhappy are for a person's health. Why WOULDN'T we consider the economic ramifications?

ardy42 6y ago
>> At best an economist could advise you on how to keep the economy afloat under the restrictions the epidemiologists has advised. > Why WOULDN'T we consider the economic ramifications? He's not saying that. He's talking about who should be giving the marching orders. Let me put it another way: in a war, the generals decide what equipment the military needs and the economists figure out how to produce it. You don't have the economists saying: the economy is good at making buses, it makes sense to us to weld extra armor to them rather than to design a tank from scratch, so go fight the war in armored buses.
- salmon30salmon 6y ago
  But before you go to war, the leaders listen to a diversity of opinions. Could diplomacy work? Could sanctions? What about an alliance prior to war? Could we use covert methods? The problem here is that we waged war without having that discussion. We went straight to the Generals (in our case, epidemiologists) without getting the opinion of the diplomats, allies, covert ops (economists, labor groups, civil rights groups) etc.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > But before you go to war, the leaders listen to a diversity of opinions. Could diplomacy work? Could sanctions? What about an alliance prior to war? Could we use covert methods? The problem here is that we waged war without having that discussion. We went straight to the Generals (in our case, epidemiologists) without getting the opinion of the diplomats, allies, covert ops (economists, labor groups, civil rights groups) etc. You're leaning a bit too hard on the analogy: you can't negotiate with a virus. The pandemic is more akin to an attack by an irrationally implacable enemy with a couple months advance warning of the threat at the border. In the analogy, the policy options are: resist, Y/N? If Y, then how effectively? When a country is attacked, does its leadership typically first consult with its economists to determine if resistance is cost effective vs. just letting the enemy take territory or kill citizens with little opposition? Usually the generals evaluate what they can achieve, and if success unachievable, then alternatives are considered. Surrender is always an option, but it's usually towards the bottom of the list.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      > When a country is attacked, does its leadership typically first consult with its economists to determine if resistance is cost effective vs. just letting the enemy take territory or kill citizens with little opposition? Yes, countries very often let the enemy take territory or kill citizens because resistance wouldn't be cost effective. All countries of course try to project the image that they wouldn't, that their territory and the lives of their citizens are priceless. But border skirmishes happen all the time and the vast majority of them don't lead to war.
eirini1 6y ago
you can do any kind of lockdown without having any ramifications on people's health. In vietnam the government went around and distributed high quality food to everyone so they didn't have to go get groceries. There are a ton of things you can do to have people not be miserable during a pandemic lockdown, you just probably have to not obsessively stick to the capitalist free market economy where everyone is on their own.
yokaze 6y ago
Maybe we would, but it isn't like there is consensus on economist side. And it isn't like not having a lockdown is good for the economy , because that has clear economical consequences too: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/opinion/coronavirus-reopen-economy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/opinion/coronavirus-reope...

ardy42 6y ago

>> At best an economist could advise you on how to keep the economy afloat under the restrictions the epidemiologists has advised. > Why WOULDN'T we consider the economic ramifications? He's not saying that. He's talking about who should be giving the marching orders. Let me put it another way: in a war, the generals decide what equipment the military needs and the economists figure out how to produce it. You don't have the economists saying: the economy is good at making buses, it makes sense to us to weld extra armor to them rather than to design a tank from scratch, so go fight the war in armored buses.

salmon30salmon 6y ago
But before you go to war, the leaders listen to a diversity of opinions. Could diplomacy work? Could sanctions? What about an alliance prior to war? Could we use covert methods? The problem here is that we waged war without having that discussion. We went straight to the Generals (in our case, epidemiologists) without getting the opinion of the diplomats, allies, covert ops (economists, labor groups, civil rights groups) etc.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > But before you go to war, the leaders listen to a diversity of opinions. Could diplomacy work? Could sanctions? What about an alliance prior to war? Could we use covert methods? The problem here is that we waged war without having that discussion. We went straight to the Generals (in our case, epidemiologists) without getting the opinion of the diplomats, allies, covert ops (economists, labor groups, civil rights groups) etc. You're leaning a bit too hard on the analogy: you can't negotiate with a virus. The pandemic is more akin to an attack by an irrationally implacable enemy with a couple months advance warning of the threat at the border. In the analogy, the policy options are: resist, Y/N? If Y, then how effectively? When a country is attacked, does its leadership typically first consult with its economists to determine if resistance is cost effective vs. just letting the enemy take territory or kill citizens with little opposition? Usually the generals evaluate what they can achieve, and if success unachievable, then alternatives are considered. Surrender is always an option, but it's usually towards the bottom of the list.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    > When a country is attacked, does its leadership typically first consult with its economists to determine if resistance is cost effective vs. just letting the enemy take territory or kill citizens with little opposition? Yes, countries very often let the enemy take territory or kill citizens because resistance wouldn't be cost effective. All countries of course try to project the image that they wouldn't, that their territory and the lives of their citizens are priceless. But border skirmishes happen all the time and the vast majority of them don't lead to war.

eirini1 6y ago

you can do any kind of lockdown without having any ramifications on people's health. In vietnam the government went around and distributed high quality food to everyone so they didn't have to go get groceries. There are a ton of things you can do to have people not be miserable during a pandemic lockdown, you just probably have to not obsessively stick to the capitalist free market economy where everyone is on their own.

yokaze 6y ago

Maybe we would, but it isn't like there is consensus on economist side. And it isn't like not having a lockdown is good for the economy , because that has clear economical consequences too: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/opinion/coronavirus-reopen-economy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/opinion/coronavirus-reope...