5 ms·

Because while you can work from home and have a paycheck, thousands (millions?) of small businesses are closing and the people rely on those to make their money

Because while you can work from home and have a paycheck, thousands (millions?) of small businesses are closing and the people rely on those to make their money. I could endure a lockdown for years (heck, I've worked remotely for 10), but my friends that own a restaurant? Screwed! My coach that needs the athletes to practise? Screwed! Friend's mother that sells her vegetables in farmers markets? Screwed! etc etc And with these closing, less money all around, other businesses end up following suit, even if they aren't directly affected, they will be down the line.

fxtentacle 6y ago
If I remember correctly, Germany spent 550 billion on the 2008 banking crisis. There's roughly 80 million citizens. So the government could - at the same cost - pay every citizen €2300 = $2700 per month for 3 months to cover the complete loss of income caused by a super-strict lock-down. Why is that not an option?
- odshoifsdhfs 6y ago
  I don't know, ask them. I'm not defending government's actions here. I'm just showing what the 'angry people against lockdown' are feeling. In Portugal the societal help was full of limitations (if you were self employed but made even 50 euros that month, you would get no help, but if you made nothing, you would get around 500, smart no? - it was later changed) and cuts but somehow we found 1.7 billion to save an already unprofitable and bankrupted airline which seems that will still need 100 million per month from government not to close.
- sumedh 6y ago
  > Why is that not an option? Who is going to lobby on behalf for the general public, banks have well paid lobbyists who will make sure that most banks will get a bail out when they are in trouble.
- adventured 6y ago
  How would three months be enough? This is a year long pandemic, at least. More realistically would be a minimum of nine months of strict lockdown if you want it to actually be worth doing. Now you're talking $2 trillion or more, because that level of economic damage would prove far worse than the 2008 crisis. $8 trillion in the US, at a minimum. For one pandemic, for part of one year. To do that would be insane. Germany could afford it in theory, and it'd be a helluva price to pay for a slightly above average pandemic (1918-1920 laughs at this pandemic so far). Planning to do the same thing in another 10 or 20 years when the next global pandemic hits? How do you plan to pay for the next great recession? Shall we pretend that nothing else bad will happen in the next decade or two and spend our brains out on this one pandemic? There is a reckoning coming from the shortsighted economic choices that have been made in Europe and the US over the past 20 years.
Joker_vD 6y ago
Reading this argument is always pretty surreal. There is some amount of population that is employed to provide the most basic commodities: food, fuel, medicine, infrastructure maintenance, logistics, healthcare, etc. Even if everyone else would go to lockdown, they still can provide the same amount of food, medicine, etc. Well, physically, at least. But apparently the economy is arranged in such a way that even though it's absolutely in the realm of physical possibility to keep those people working and supplying the rest of the population that have to sit down and not work with all the stuff needed for survival, it can't be done for economical reasons. Because apparently the economy that we have can't be made work this way? For some reason?
- odshoifsdhfs 6y ago
  Well, you know how it is. This is in a socialist government with quite high taxes, but the money has to always flow to the upper echelon of society, not the poor mom or dad that want to feed their kids. But then again, you don't need a crisis, we have the money/production for everyone to have the minimum conditions to live, but hey, some billionaire wants another comma in their net worth so...
- edanm 6y ago
  You seem to be assuming that a certain portion of the population needs to work, and the rest of the population doesn't really need to work. This is just not true, at least not in the timeframe of months/years that we're talking about. Or at least, not true while continuing to enjoy a fairly modern lifestyle. I mean, we can definitely get rid of anyone working in education, for example. And get rid of anyone working in anything that helps with education (e.g. software for education, etc). We can also get rid of anyone working in entertainment. Or tech. That is definitely doable. It just means a huge portion of the population can't do 90% of the things they do all day (i.e. jobs aside, how much time do people spend watching TV, on the internet, etc?).
  - Joker_vD 6y ago
    But it is true, isn't it? There are lots of people who don't work and still live (relatively) well. And today, thanks to the technical progress, this number is larger than it was, say, 500 years ago.

fxtentacle 6y ago

If I remember correctly, Germany spent 550 billion on the 2008 banking crisis. There's roughly 80 million citizens. So the government could - at the same cost - pay every citizen €2300 = $2700 per month for 3 months to cover the complete loss of income caused by a super-strict lock-down. Why is that not an option?

odshoifsdhfs 6y ago
I don't know, ask them. I'm not defending government's actions here. I'm just showing what the 'angry people against lockdown' are feeling. In Portugal the societal help was full of limitations (if you were self employed but made even 50 euros that month, you would get no help, but if you made nothing, you would get around 500, smart no? - it was later changed) and cuts but somehow we found 1.7 billion to save an already unprofitable and bankrupted airline which seems that will still need 100 million per month from government not to close.
sumedh 6y ago
> Why is that not an option? Who is going to lobby on behalf for the general public, banks have well paid lobbyists who will make sure that most banks will get a bail out when they are in trouble.
adventured 6y ago
How would three months be enough? This is a year long pandemic, at least. More realistically would be a minimum of nine months of strict lockdown if you want it to actually be worth doing. Now you're talking $2 trillion or more, because that level of economic damage would prove far worse than the 2008 crisis. $8 trillion in the US, at a minimum. For one pandemic, for part of one year. To do that would be insane. Germany could afford it in theory, and it'd be a helluva price to pay for a slightly above average pandemic (1918-1920 laughs at this pandemic so far). Planning to do the same thing in another 10 or 20 years when the next global pandemic hits? How do you plan to pay for the next great recession? Shall we pretend that nothing else bad will happen in the next decade or two and spend our brains out on this one pandemic? There is a reckoning coming from the shortsighted economic choices that have been made in Europe and the US over the past 20 years.

Joker_vD 6y ago

Reading this argument is always pretty surreal. There is some amount of population that is employed to provide the most basic commodities: food, fuel, medicine, infrastructure maintenance, logistics, healthcare, etc. Even if everyone else would go to lockdown, they still can provide the same amount of food, medicine, etc. Well, physically, at least. But apparently the economy is arranged in such a way that even though it's absolutely in the realm of physical possibility to keep those people working and supplying the rest of the population that have to sit down and not work with all the stuff needed for survival, it can't be done for economical reasons. Because apparently the economy that we have can't be made work this way? For some reason?

odshoifsdhfs 6y ago
Well, you know how it is. This is in a socialist government with quite high taxes, but the money has to always flow to the upper echelon of society, not the poor mom or dad that want to feed their kids. But then again, you don't need a crisis, we have the money/production for everyone to have the minimum conditions to live, but hey, some billionaire wants another comma in their net worth so...
edanm 6y ago
You seem to be assuming that a certain portion of the population needs to work, and the rest of the population doesn't really need to work. This is just not true, at least not in the timeframe of months/years that we're talking about. Or at least, not true while continuing to enjoy a fairly modern lifestyle. I mean, we can definitely get rid of anyone working in education, for example. And get rid of anyone working in anything that helps with education (e.g. software for education, etc). We can also get rid of anyone working in entertainment. Or tech. That is definitely doable. It just means a huge portion of the population can't do 90% of the things they do all day (i.e. jobs aside, how much time do people spend watching TV, on the internet, etc?).
- Joker_vD 6y ago
  But it is true, isn't it? There are lots of people who don't work and still live (relatively) well. And today, thanks to the technical progress, this number is larger than it was, say, 500 years ago.