5 ms·

At a certain point you run out of money. The US can print trillions of dollars in an emergency as a world reserve currency. Most countries cannot do this. Th

At a certain point you run out of money. The US can print trillions of dollars in an emergency as a world reserve currency. Most countries cannot do this. The idea that India could just pay 1.4 billion people not to work for a year doesn't seem like a realistic proposal.

supernovae 6y ago
On what premise? This kind of talk presumes economies and governments don't serve the will of the people. I mean, lets be real, if they don't serve the will of the people then the economy and government is short term and lockdowns were never the problem, but a symptom...
- f00zz 6y ago
  Not every country has the privilege of having the world's reserve currency. Money printing never ends well for poor countries.
  - supernovae 6y ago
    In a democracy, This isn't a privilege, its the will of the people. Why frame it as money printing? Does everything that can help people have to be pejorative?
    - sgt101 6y ago
      I think that the OP is pointing out that some democracies are freer to act than others. The USA has absolute latitude, especially after demonstrating that countries that might threaten that latitude (ie. anyone who cut the oil off up to 10 years ago - now irrelevant) will be destroyed. India does not have all that much latitude.
      - supernovae 6y ago
        It's political, i get it... but its laughable they try and prove a point through downvotes... but such is hacker news, hide the reality they don't agree with :)
loonster 6y ago
You can't print a chicken. Money is only the intermediary.
- raincom 6y ago
  There are tons of chicken farmers in the world who love to exchange their chickens for the US dollars. However, the same farmers don't want to sell their chickens for Zimbabwian dollars. USD has the world reserve currency status, that's why MMT folks want to print money to spend on fiscal policy. Third world countries don't have this luxury.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
gilbetron 6y ago
The point isn't to do it for a year, but to do it for 2-3 weeks in a very strict manner. If you prepare for it, and then do it every time the spread starts going exponential, then you can keep the numbers incredibly low until vaccines are distributed.
- habibur 6y ago
  That's a dream. Money don't feed people. Foods do. And human activity necessary to feed a billion people sitting at home will require another billion to do the production, distribution and organization in a timely manner. And the whole point of lockdown was to prevent people from performing these movements. I don't see a good solution here.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    This is really not the case. You buy food from farmers, who can keep money, and you use existing government capacity to distribute it. It's been done before and can be done still.
    - ticviking 6y ago
      But then the laborers who process the food have to go to work. And often work in close quarters in factories where it's easy to spread the virus.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        A lot of food processing isn't strictly necessary. People can be expected to cook or live off existing stock for 2-3 weeks if they do not work.
        ticviking 6y ago
        Spend some time volunteering with local emergency preparedness teams and you'll get a better sense of just how much of the US food system is essential "just in time" The more urban a place the more "just in time" everything is because the space is more valuable doing literally anything other than warehousing calories
devonbleak 6y ago
Not with that attitude it's not. It's not that they can't afford it - it's that they're unwilling to actually leverage the wealth of their country to do it. I seriously don't understand the thinking that resources are still so scarce that an entire country like India somehow can't afford to meet the basic needs of its people (let alone the US). If the resources exist you figure out how to get them to the people that need them. Not doing this is how you get unrest, a massive rise in crime and eventually coups, wars, etc. Democracy and capitalism are not givens - they are very much still experiments that can and do fail.
- nradov 6y ago
  Redistributing wealth won't help if the store shelves are empty. People have to be out there working and making stuff or else we won't have any stuff.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Only around 2-8% of people in cities need to work to sustain everyone's livelihoods. As for those who live off of agriculture, you can ensure basic self sufficiency.
    - nradov 6y ago
      Do you even live in the real world? Because your numbers are just totally disconnected from reality. In my city way more that 8% of people work in essential fields like food production and distribution, emergency services, utilities, transportation infrastructure, vehicle repair, home repair, healthcare, military, etc.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Food distribution and emergency services typically get taken over in good part by the military. Necessary food production is generally outside of cities. All Healthcare except for what is immediately necessary similarly is not needed, same for vehicle repair and so on. Keep in mind, this is only for a very short period of time. You don't have to deploy anywhere near the population needed for a sustainable organization. For the US for example, there are 55 million "essential workers". 11 million of those are in agriculture or restauration (so either outside of a city or dispensable). 10 million are in finance or residential/commercial facilities services, most of which is preemptible for a few weeks. 4.5 million are in governmental services which can largely either be done remotely or preempted for a few weeks. Realistically you're looking at 25 million or so when you cut down on everything that isn't necessary and have the military take over a lot of the work. If you want to see what thay looks like, you can look at the Wuhan lockdowns and to a lesser extent various strict lockdowns in third world countries.
systemvoltage 6y ago
Every sovereign nation with resources should be able to handle emergencies. India is not a small nation without resources. At this point, it seems that people are shifting blame from an ineffective government as well as people's will to cooperate on some externality such as world reserve currency. Did people read the FT article at all?
- llampx 6y ago
  Shutting down an economy is well past any fathomable emergency.
  - supernovae 6y ago
    If the economy doesn't serve the people, it deserves to be shutdown - especially in an emergency.

supernovae 6y ago

On what premise? This kind of talk presumes economies and governments don't serve the will of the people. I mean, lets be real, if they don't serve the will of the people then the economy and government is short term and lockdowns were never the problem, but a symptom...

f00zz 6y ago
Not every country has the privilege of having the world's reserve currency. Money printing never ends well for poor countries.
- supernovae 6y ago
  In a democracy, This isn't a privilege, its the will of the people. Why frame it as money printing? Does everything that can help people have to be pejorative?
  - sgt101 6y ago
    I think that the OP is pointing out that some democracies are freer to act than others. The USA has absolute latitude, especially after demonstrating that countries that might threaten that latitude (ie. anyone who cut the oil off up to 10 years ago - now irrelevant) will be destroyed. India does not have all that much latitude.
    - supernovae 6y ago
      It's political, i get it... but its laughable they try and prove a point through downvotes... but such is hacker news, hide the reality they don't agree with :)

loonster 6y ago

You can't print a chicken. Money is only the intermediary.

raincom 6y ago
There are tons of chicken farmers in the world who love to exchange their chickens for the US dollars. However, the same farmers don't want to sell their chickens for Zimbabwian dollars. USD has the world reserve currency status, that's why MMT folks want to print money to spend on fiscal policy. Third world countries don't have this luxury.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

gilbetron 6y ago

The point isn't to do it for a year, but to do it for 2-3 weeks in a very strict manner. If you prepare for it, and then do it every time the spread starts going exponential, then you can keep the numbers incredibly low until vaccines are distributed.

habibur 6y ago
That's a dream. Money don't feed people. Foods do. And human activity necessary to feed a billion people sitting at home will require another billion to do the production, distribution and organization in a timely manner. And the whole point of lockdown was to prevent people from performing these movements. I don't see a good solution here.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  This is really not the case. You buy food from farmers, who can keep money, and you use existing government capacity to distribute it. It's been done before and can be done still.
  - ticviking 6y ago
    But then the laborers who process the food have to go to work. And often work in close quarters in factories where it's easy to spread the virus.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      A lot of food processing isn't strictly necessary. People can be expected to cook or live off existing stock for 2-3 weeks if they do not work.
      - ticviking 6y ago
        Spend some time volunteering with local emergency preparedness teams and you'll get a better sense of just how much of the US food system is essential "just in time" The more urban a place the more "just in time" everything is because the space is more valuable doing literally anything other than warehousing calories

devonbleak 6y ago

Not with that attitude it's not. It's not that they can't afford it - it's that they're unwilling to actually leverage the wealth of their country to do it. I seriously don't understand the thinking that resources are still so scarce that an entire country like India somehow can't afford to meet the basic needs of its people (let alone the US). If the resources exist you figure out how to get them to the people that need them. Not doing this is how you get unrest, a massive rise in crime and eventually coups, wars, etc. Democracy and capitalism are not givens - they are very much still experiments that can and do fail.

nradov 6y ago
Redistributing wealth won't help if the store shelves are empty. People have to be out there working and making stuff or else we won't have any stuff.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Only around 2-8% of people in cities need to work to sustain everyone's livelihoods. As for those who live off of agriculture, you can ensure basic self sufficiency.
  - nradov 6y ago
    Do you even live in the real world? Because your numbers are just totally disconnected from reality. In my city way more that 8% of people work in essential fields like food production and distribution, emergency services, utilities, transportation infrastructure, vehicle repair, home repair, healthcare, military, etc.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Food distribution and emergency services typically get taken over in good part by the military. Necessary food production is generally outside of cities. All Healthcare except for what is immediately necessary similarly is not needed, same for vehicle repair and so on. Keep in mind, this is only for a very short period of time. You don't have to deploy anywhere near the population needed for a sustainable organization. For the US for example, there are 55 million "essential workers". 11 million of those are in agriculture or restauration (so either outside of a city or dispensable). 10 million are in finance or residential/commercial facilities services, most of which is preemptible for a few weeks. 4.5 million are in governmental services which can largely either be done remotely or preempted for a few weeks. Realistically you're looking at 25 million or so when you cut down on everything that isn't necessary and have the military take over a lot of the work. If you want to see what thay looks like, you can look at the Wuhan lockdowns and to a lesser extent various strict lockdowns in third world countries.

systemvoltage 6y ago

Every sovereign nation with resources should be able to handle emergencies. India is not a small nation without resources. At this point, it seems that people are shifting blame from an ineffective government as well as people's will to cooperate on some externality such as world reserve currency. Did people read the FT article at all?

llampx 6y ago
Shutting down an economy is well past any fathomable emergency.
- supernovae 6y ago
  If the economy doesn't serve the people, it deserves to be shutdown - especially in an emergency.