5 ms·

I think this is quite telling that the economic aspects almost immediately pops up. I believe that over the decades we have shifted more and more from "people f

I think this is quite telling that the economic aspects almost immediately pops up. I believe that over the decades we have shifted more and more from "people first" to "economy first", to the point that sometimes it feels like people exist only to serve economy.

m0zg 6y ago
People _are_ the economy. If you don't think economic collapse does not affect "people" I invite you to read about the Great Depression.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > People _are_ the economy Most popular economic performance metrics are quite distant from the real world effects on most people, largely because measures that incorporate distribution rather than simple aggregates are not popular. So while the people are the economy in a very real sense, discussion of economic performance impacts of real or hypothetical policy tend to focus on impacts that have a distant, loose relationship to the experience of most people.
  - m0zg 6y ago
    That's a very long winded and obfuscated way of saying that people would be utterly fucked if the economy collapsed, which was my original point. "Experience of most people" would be pretty awful with 50% unemployment, and once economy stops it's very hard to get going again, let alone get it going to the extent we saw in January.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - refurb 6y ago
    Popular economic performance metrics include things like median household income and the unemployment rate. I would say that are immediately and direct impacts on the experience of most people.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  No. The economy is people plus a whole lot of relationships that economists ignore, but which happen to be critical to a functioning civilisation. Of course economic collapse hurts people. But there are only two causes of economic collapse - external stressors, and internal mismanagement. And the only situations in which they're not the same are when physical disasters permanently destroy significant productive capacity. Everything else should be manageable. Covid - and the Great Depression - both prove the economy is badly mismanaged. It should be possible to hit a pause button on non-essential activities, keep as many people as possible safe, fed, entertained and possibly even educated, and then hit restart when the threat is over. "Possible" does not mean "trivially easy." But it does mean "Can be handled successfully with some adjustments and minimal attrition." This culture just can't do it. Its primary engine is debt-fuelled plutocracy and short-term profit-seeking, and it's so inherently unstable it can't cope rationally with a relatively minor and short-lived challenge like a nasty but not spectacularly deadly virus.
goatinaboat 6y ago
people first" to "economy first", to the point that sometimes it feels like people exist only to serve economy. I don’t see these as mutually exclusive. The state of the economy dictates what we can afford in terms of healthcare, infrastructure, education, defence and much more. It is directly correlated with life expectancy and quality of life. Sure top-line numbers don’t tell the whole story, but they do tell a lot of it.
- astrobe_ 6y ago
  I am no economist, so I am probably wrong there: USA or China have a better GDP than France or Germany, yet the European countries have better healthcare, education systems and life expectancy. Different priorities?

m0zg 6y ago

People _are_ the economy. If you don't think economic collapse does not affect "people" I invite you to read about the Great Depression.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> People _are_ the economy Most popular economic performance metrics are quite distant from the real world effects on most people, largely because measures that incorporate distribution rather than simple aggregates are not popular. So while the people are the economy in a very real sense, discussion of economic performance impacts of real or hypothetical policy tend to focus on impacts that have a distant, loose relationship to the experience of most people.
- m0zg 6y ago
  That's a very long winded and obfuscated way of saying that people would be utterly fucked if the economy collapsed, which was my original point. "Experience of most people" would be pretty awful with 50% unemployment, and once economy stops it's very hard to get going again, let alone get it going to the extent we saw in January.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- refurb 6y ago
  Popular economic performance metrics include things like median household income and the unemployment rate. I would say that are immediately and direct impacts on the experience of most people.
TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
No. The economy is people plus a whole lot of relationships that economists ignore, but which happen to be critical to a functioning civilisation. Of course economic collapse hurts people. But there are only two causes of economic collapse - external stressors, and internal mismanagement. And the only situations in which they're not the same are when physical disasters permanently destroy significant productive capacity. Everything else should be manageable. Covid - and the Great Depression - both prove the economy is badly mismanaged. It should be possible to hit a pause button on non-essential activities, keep as many people as possible safe, fed, entertained and possibly even educated, and then hit restart when the threat is over. "Possible" does not mean "trivially easy." But it does mean "Can be handled successfully with some adjustments and minimal attrition." This culture just can't do it. Its primary engine is debt-fuelled plutocracy and short-term profit-seeking, and it's so inherently unstable it can't cope rationally with a relatively minor and short-lived challenge like a nasty but not spectacularly deadly virus.

goatinaboat 6y ago

people first" to "economy first", to the point that sometimes it feels like people exist only to serve economy. I don’t see these as mutually exclusive. The state of the economy dictates what we can afford in terms of healthcare, infrastructure, education, defence and much more. It is directly correlated with life expectancy and quality of life. Sure top-line numbers don’t tell the whole story, but they do tell a lot of it.

astrobe_ 6y ago
I am no economist, so I am probably wrong there: USA or China have a better GDP than France or Germany, yet the European countries have better healthcare, education systems and life expectancy. Different priorities?