Jump to content
dimreepr

The world has changed...

Recommended Posts

The economy can suddenly afford to help the less fortunate.

We have enough food to feed everyone (who knew).

Our pollution of the atmosphere has been reduced, significantly. 

So my question is, how do we stop it changing back?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The economy can suddenly afford to help the less fortunate.

We have enough food to feed everyone (who knew).

Are you mocking? Or are living in the parallel Universe to the rest of this world?

I know homeless who have no food nor money to buy food and cannot even search for beer bottles and beer's Aluminum cans in trashcans because of lockdown of the country..

35 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Our pollution of the atmosphere has been reduced, significantly. 

One thing I can agree with in your post..

 

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sensei said:

Are you mocking? Or are living in the parallel Universe to the rest of this world?

I know homeless who have no food nor money to buy food and cannot even search for beer bottles and Aluminum beer cans in trashcans because of lockdown of the country..

You do know the homeless have no home to be locked into, right?

 

So they get locked up, with three square meals...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

You do know the homeless have no home to be locked into, right?

Lockdown of the country causes that normal people do not go to parks, streets are empty, etc. etc. and leave no things that homeless people search in trashcans to sell them to get money..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sensei said:

Lockdown of the country causes that normal people do not go to parks, streets are empty, etc. etc. and leave no things that homeless people search in trashcans to sell them to get money..

 

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

So they get locked up, with three square meals...

Sounds like a win.

 

16 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Are you mocking?

No, but you do seem sensitive on the subject.

My point is less extreme than yours. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you'd better take a good look around, Dim, and not how you imagine things.
You might not like what you see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MigL said:

I think you'd better take a good look around, Dim, and not how you imagine things.
You might not like what you see.

Are you suggesting:

We haven't improved social funding?

Or 

We don't have enough food?

 

The third thing seems to be accepted, that's a positive, right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

My point is less extreme than yours. 

My point is that you have no idea what is going on the world.. therefore making untrue claims..

 

Today news from Ecuador: "Bodies are being left in the streets in an overwhelmed"

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/03/americas/guayaquil-ecuador-overwhelmed-coronavirus-intl/index.html

10 mln jobless people in the US. Within two weeks.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/02/weekly-jobless-claims.html

15% jobless rate in Norway. The first time from the end of II world war.

https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-norway-unemployment/norways-unemployment-soars-to-record-14-7-of-work-force-idUSS8N2BJ039

Tell me. For how long do you think they will have money to buy food? The majority of people, in the majority of countries, lives from the weekly check, to the next weekly check, and after week without job won't have anything left..

 

Better to be prepared for the worst that did not come, than being unprepared in the moment when it happened..

 

Do you know what I suggest people here? To buy seeds and cell seeding trays.. Just to be prepared for shortage of food.. This can happen very quickly. Entire agriculture relies on extensive usage of energy. Shortage of fuel supply (e.g. because of collapse and anarchy in the country on the opposite side of the world, which used to sell your country fuel) will cause that harvesters and other agricultural devices won't work at full power, and trucks, and factories, won't deliver enough food to shops to feed the all people..

Therefor for many, many, years, I was "asking" to move to renewable energy sources. To be prepared. Now you are not prepared.

Did you see my posts where I said that Japan is importing 60-70% of the all consumed food? I said it in many threads. They also have no natural energy sources. They are not prepared for lockdown of the entire world, and collapse of global trade. Collapse and anarchy in countries which export food to Japan, can cause mass starvation of Japanese people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unemployment has skyrocketed.
And its been only a couple of weeks.

When inflationary pressure begins building because of the huge jumps in Government debts, and food costs increase, we'll see how long your utopia lasts.After a while, or a little suffering, people will say the hell with it, and start looking out only for themselves.
Which means the young and healthy will disregard quarantines/lockdowns, and the old and infirm will die by the millions.

If you think getting rid of the old and infirm to create a genetically stronger human race,  A Hitler thought along the same lines.
And if you think sacrificing the old and infirm is a small price to pay for a stronger economy, D Trump would agree with you.

Over 60,000 people have died already ( with many more to come ), and you think this is a good thing ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As in 'the world has changed'? A little bit for the better...

Utopia is, no place; a little better, is just over there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the world changes for the better. Yes, I fear hunger more than the virus.

You maybe noticed that I post more often than before. This is because my skills are regarded useless now; society wants me to stay indoors and do not use things learned in past decades... If I start farming now, in my forties, I would be an unskilled farmer without equipment and without land.

***

At the moment, most of troubles mentioned by Sensei and MigL are caused by government responses, not by the disease directly. And I think it was a good choice to make a strong initial response and 'take the helm'.

In future, however, governments will have to release the pressure on economy and allow more people to die. In my opinion, a wise government will find a balance.

More problematic are those many countries where human lives are regarded sanctity, where trading lives for general well-being is a taboo. In case we don't receive a vaccine within a year, such societies might hurt themselves much more than needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

In future, however, governments will have to release the pressure on economy and allow more people to die. In my opinion, a wise government will find a balance.

More problematic are those many countries where human lives are regarded sanctity, where trading lives for general well-being is a taboo. In case we don't receive a vaccine within a year, such societies might hurt themselves much more than needed.

It's clear there are many people like you who think "the economy" represents something higher than life, rather than something that's supposed to enhance life. You consider it "wise" to strike a mid-point between folks dying and folks not making money? You and too many others.

All this time, I thought the whole foundation of society was mutual benefit through mutual support. If you don't think trading lives for general well-being should be avoided, I'm rather glad you don't live in my country. I've always pushed back against the concept of "acceptable losses".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

It's clear there are many people like you who think "the economy" represents something higher than life, rather than something that's supposed to enhance life. You consider it "wise" to strike a mid-point between folks dying and folks not making money? You and too many others.

All this time, I thought the whole foundation of society was mutual benefit through mutual support. If you don't think trading lives for general well-being should be avoided, I'm rather glad you don't live in my country. I've always pushed back against the concept of "acceptable losses".

Sorry for misunderstanding, Phy. I only care about human lives. That is why I suggest putting production resources back online... Do you hear the world 'economy' only as 'money making'?

If I understand you correctly, you suggest me to go to my neighbor and ask him if I can help him work on his land. Then he will be willing to share potatoes with me. Well, yes, at the moment I have no better choice. This is what I will do. My neighbor is a honest man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

It's clear there are many people like you who think "the economy" represents something higher than life, rather than something that's supposed to enhance life. You consider it "wise" to strike a mid-point between folks dying and folks not making money? You and too many others.

All this time, I thought the whole foundation of society was mutual benefit through mutual support. If you don't think trading lives for general well-being should be avoided, I'm rather glad you don't live in my country. I've always pushed back against the concept of "acceptable losses".

I think most would generally agree, but not literally agree. Unless you live by taking no risks at all, none whatsoever, and wish to encourage everyone doing the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'economy' is not just a money making mechanism for the wealthy, Phi.
It is the means by which most of us feed, clothe, house ourselves and our families; it's how we survive.

I have no problem with the economy 'going for a sh*t' as long as it saves lives.
But if it 'goes for a sh*t' for too long, people start losing their life for reasons other than the pandemic.
That is the balance that has to be struck; dying by starvation is just as bad as dying by Covid-19.

I believe that is what Danijel Gorupec meant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, MigL said:

I have no problem with the economy 'going for a sh*t' as long as it saves lives.

The best "economy" is to share everything that you can best give to this world, without requesting or requiring to pay any money.

It is "economy" without rich or poor.. Without exploitation..

 

The problem is that the most of people do only things that they are paid for.. Without "award" (money) they do not do anything.. or do very very little..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sensei said:

The best "economy" is to share everything that you can best give to this world, without requesting or requiring to pay any money.

It is "economy" without rich or poor.. Without exploitation..

 

The problem is that the most of people do only things that they are paid for.. Without "award" (money) they do not do anything.. or do very very little..

The problem of course is human instinct and human nature. If only it were different...

The problem gets exacerbated when some thinks they can ignore human nature and run an economy on "good intentions", usually leading to dictatorships or one party rule based on what someone feels is best for everyone.

It also gets exacerbated by " winner take all" attitude, and trying to run an economy based on that. Trickle down capitalism, where the winners control an excessive share of the resources.

It's not easy to strike a balance between reasonable incentive and equality of outcome. 

The median income per capita for the 7.8 billion of us is just under $3,000 USD/year, if anyone is wondering what side of things they might be on. (not sure what the average is but I would think just a little higher) It certainly would be lower without free enterprise, or for that matter it's ugly twin brother, capitalism.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The problem of course is human instinct and human nature. If only it were different...

The problem gets exacerbated when some thinks they can ignore human nature and run an economy on "good intentions", usually leading to dictatorships or one party rule based on what someone feels is best for everyone.

It also gets exacerbated by " winner take all" attitude, and trying to run an economy based on that. Trickle down capitalism, where the winners control an excessive share of the resources.

It's not easy to strike a balance between reasonable incentive and equality of outcome. 

The median income per capita for the 7.8 billion of us is just under $3,000 USD/year, if anyone is wondering what side of things they might be on. (not sure what the average is but I would think just a little higher) It certainly would be lower without free enterprise, or for that matter it's ugly twin brother, capitalism.

I'm not suggesting we can achieve utopia, but the change that has been forced on us, has changed our society I think a little for the better (see the OP). I'm thinking we try to embrace the change, rather than keep sawing away at the branch we're sat on.

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

Sorry for misunderstanding, Phy. I only care about human lives.

Perhaps I overreacted to your criticism of countries where "human lives are regarded sanctity". And the bit about acceptable losses being a "taboo" subject. I personally think you can NEVER write off the loss of any life without profound consequences. The idea should be to do our best to save every life we possibly can, and keep fixing the process where it fails. 

My point about the economy is that most of us are willing to keep working to keep things going, even without our regular pay, as long as our societal system can support us with basic necessities. We'll bust our butts for ourselves, our friends and neighbors, and even our fellow strangers, as long as we know the process will keep us at least at a subsistence level. We aren't looking to prosper out of this, or even progress. Maintaining the minimum is a lot more than many can do right now. The folks who are suggesting dangerous behavior, the ones suggesting we need to open up the country again, seem to be more interested in their balance sheets than their people. I don't expect any different from those who are capital extremists, but they use arguments like yours to justify that some folks may need to die to keep their companies afloat during this crisis. 

Again, perhaps an overreaction from hyperfocusing on bad faith arguments. They seem to be everywhere in US politics lately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

The folks who are suggesting dangerous behavior, the ones suggesting we need to open up the country again, seem to be more interested in their balance sheets than their people.

Worse still, even when framed purely in terms of their balance sheets, they’re making a myopic error and being too shortsighted. Opening up too soon may help earnings this week, but will likely reduce earnings over the year ahead. 


https://www.wired.com/story/rush-back-to-normal-blunder-of-the-century/

Quote

I'm not an epidemiologist, so I want to speak with a little bit of caution. But on the basis of everything I know, to try to completely jumpstart the economy after 15 days, or on Easter Sunday would be the greatest policy blunder of the 21st century by far.

The framing—in terms of the adverse economic consequences of our policies versus the adverse health consequences of our policies—is dead wrong in two respects.

<snip>

The second is failing to recognize that the policies of social isolation--mitigating the spread of the disease, and buying time until more satisfactory testing and contact tracing regimens can be put into place--reduce the ultimate economic damage. Fewer people will ultimately get the disease and the cases that do come will be better managed. How long the economy is shut down will be shortened, and the resources that need to be diverted to health care will be ultimately reduced. This isn’t complicated.

Nine months ago, I ruptured both of my quad tendons. I was put in braces that kept my knees rigid. They were uncomfortable. And they sharply limited my mobility. I pressed my doctors to let me out of the braces. They said, “Larry we can let you out of the braces. But if we do, you are likely to reinjure your tendons and rupture them again and then you're going to be right back where you started from.” Abandoning our social control investment when it is significantly along the way to bearing fruit would be as foolish as my tearing off my braces.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

10 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Perhaps I overreacted to your criticism of countries where "human lives are regarded sanctity". And the bit about acceptable losses being a "taboo" subject. I personally think you can NEVER write off the loss of any life without profound consequences. The idea should be to do our best to save every life we possibly can, and keep fixing the process where it fails. 

My point about the economy is that most of us are willing to keep working to keep things going, even without our regular pay, as long as our societal system can support us with basic necessities. We'll bust our butts for ourselves, our friends and neighbors, and even our fellow strangers, as long as we know the process will keep us at least at a subsistence level. We aren't looking to prosper out of this, or even progress. Maintaining the minimum is a lot more than many can do right now. The folks who are suggesting dangerous behavior, the ones suggesting we need to open up the country again, seem to be more interested in their balance sheets than their people. I don't expect any different from those who are capital extremists, but they use arguments like yours to justify that some folks may need to die to keep their companies afloat during this crisis. 

Again, perhaps an overreaction from hyperfocusing on bad faith arguments. They seem to be everywhere in US politics lately.

It's not all or none though. If you want to focus on lives alone that's fair, but lives are on both sides of the equation.

Shutting down makes sense to buy us time currently, and for some time going forward, but continuing it indefinitely will cost more lives than it can possibly save.

At some points in some areas of the country it will become worthwhile cautiously opening things up, reducing some restrictions and going from there.

This does need debate on both sides. Pretty easy to set aside some of Trump's "optimism", but not all arguments we don't agree with are in bad faith. That thinking is also quite prevalent in US politics today.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It's not all or none though. If you want to focus on lives alone that's fair, but lives are on both sides of the equation.

Shutting down makes sense to buy us time currently, and for some time going forward, but continuing it indefinitely will cost more lives than it can possibly save.

At some points in some areas of the country it will become worthwhile cautiously opening things up, reducing some restrictions and going from there.

This does need debate on both sides. Pretty easy to set aside some of Trump's "optimism", but not all arguments we don't agree with are in bad faith. That thinking is also quite prevalent in US politics today.

All that straw isn't going to cure me of my humanity. I point very specifically to the arguments I feel are in bad faith. Just watch me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

All that straw isn't going to cure me of my humanity. I point very specifically to the arguments I feel are in bad faith. Just watch me.

You feel I've made a straw man argument? I've simply replied to your generalizations, which are based, quite clearly, on one side of an argument.

I've put no words in your mouth. Let me know where you feel I've exaggerated anything you've said.

If I had said "you don't care about the lives lost from an economic collapse" that would certainly have been unfair.

Edited by J.C.MacSwell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/4/2020 at 3:28 PM, dimreepr said:

You do know the homeless have no home to be locked into, right?

 

So they get locked up, with three square meals...

I forgot to mention here, people don't get locked up, they are not prisoners and should not be treated like dirt under peoples feet. We're all in this together, and if the boat sinks, we all sink together. 

On 4/4/2020 at 4:27 PM, Sensei said:

My point is that you have no idea what is going on the world.. therefore making untrue claims..

 

Today news from Ecuador: "Bodies are being left in the streets in an overwhelmed"

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/03/americas/guayaquil-ecuador-overwhelmed-coronavirus-intl/index.html

10 mln jobless people in the US. Within two weeks.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/02/weekly-jobless-claims.html

15% jobless rate in Norway. The first time from the end of II world war.

https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-norway-unemployment/norways-unemployment-soars-to-record-14-7-of-work-force-idUSS8N2BJ039

Tell me. For how long do you think they will have money to buy food? The majority of people, in the majority of countries, lives from the weekly check, to the next weekly check, and after week without job won't have anything left..

 

Better to be prepared for the worst that did not come, than being unprepared in the moment when it happened..

 

Do you know what I suggest people here? To buy seeds and cell seeding trays.. Just to be prepared for shortage of food.. This can happen very quickly. Entire agriculture relies on extensive usage of energy. Shortage of fuel supply (e.g. because of collapse and anarchy in the country on the opposite side of the world, which used to sell your country fuel) will cause that harvesters and other agricultural devices won't work at full power, and trucks, and factories, won't deliver enough food to shops to feed the all people..

Therefor for many, many, years, I was "asking" to move to renewable energy sources. To be prepared. Now you are not prepared.

Did you see my posts where I said that Japan is importing 60-70% of the all consumed food? I said it in many threads. They also have no natural energy sources. They are not prepared for lockdown of the entire world, and collapse of global trade. Collapse and anarchy in countries which export food to Japan, can cause mass starvation of Japanese people.

My boss at the end of March told us that we were not to attend work from the week after Monday, he did not say whether we would receive any money the week after or not. To date we've had no acknowledgement from the company about money and I've recently learned that the government are looking at paying us up to 80% of our wages from the end of April. If we have no funds to live on, how to we live to then? 

People who live day to day or week to week don't really need to worry about COVID-19 as hunger will kill them before the end of April. 

Edited by Casio
missed replying to a quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

It's not all or none though. If you want to focus on lives alone that's fair, but lives are on both sides of the equation.

Shutting down makes sense to buy us time currently, and for some time going forward, but continuing it indefinitely will cost more lives than it can possibly save.

At some points in some areas of the country it will become worthwhile cautiously opening things up, reducing some restrictions and going from there.

This does need debate on both sides. Pretty easy to set aside some of Trump's "optimism", but not all arguments we don't agree with are in bad faith. That thinking is also quite prevalent in US politics today.

 

What's the point of an economy?

To feed, shelter and protect the populace, or to collect paper, at the expense of that populace?

We have robots now to do the stuff we hate to do, which theoretically means, our work ethic isn't undermined by the lazy arseholes we all love to point at, to excuse our greed.

Instead we can use our work ethic to have a little more comfort/toys/stuff than those arseholes that depend on the robots to have the basics to live; by arseholes I of course, mean those "of us" who for some reason or another isn't quite as capable as the rest.

The wealthy like to point at the arseholes, which is kinda ironic.

 

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.