What I'm saying is that just as we might want to not take drastic action for a disease that will kill x% of the population (like flu) we may want to take certain drastic action for a disease that kills (x+y) of the population. No one wants to say x deaths is acceptable given the cost, but our actions will say it whether we want to or not. Ultimately, the details of how bad the disease is (or how bad we think it is) guide our decisions on some level.
The same is true for the economy. Whether we explicitly say it or not we will (have already) sacrificed z amount of economic activity in our response to the virus. But the details matter. If you say "we are crippling the economy!" I say "The virus will still kill millions!" You can stat and model me all you want, you can't disprove or prove either statement. So we need details and we are also making moves under severe uncertainty.
Those vulnerable to the specific health conditions of the disease will die and businesses vulnerable to the specific business conditions of the disease will close.
Augustus wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:39 pm
There is no way to be "prepared" for this.
I disagree. I prepared for the virus by staying in good health. I prepared for the economic downturn by having multiple income streams and a large cash buffer. I didn't expect either of them and I got lucky that my specific attempts at resilience have worked so far for this specific disaster. Plenty of disasters could undo me, you can't prepare for everything and I am not maximally prepared by my own definition. However, no one has to be overweight and no one has to run your business at the margins. No one has to go into an industry where businesses have thin margins.
I don't think a 60 year old with diabetes deserves to die (or that anyone does, for that matter) and I don't think someone who was operating a great business 3 months ago that happens to be in a low margin industry deserves to go out of business (or that anyone does, for that matter). But both are going to happen. There are lifestyle choices that were made to be less vulnerable before this disease happened and there are pre-existing genetic conditions that can't be avoided. There were business decisions that were made to make companies less vulnerable before this happened and there are pre-existing economic conditions that couldn't be avoided.
I'm not arguing that lockdowns are great or need to extend forever or that economic worries aren't real. There are important details on both sides and important unknowns on both sides that might make the impact of the disease and/ or the economic impact of the lockdown less bad than we think. The most vulnerable on both sides are disproportionately paying the prices of decision and policy makers.
Augustus wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:39 pm
And capital. But whoops, we burned that in a big bonfire. The idea that all that is needed is demand is a fallacy. You need capital, you need infrastructure, you need credit. you need consumers with some fucking money to buy your stuff. We're in the process of nuking ALL of that right now.
But capital still exists? The buildings and equipment are still there and their all going to be on sale. Consumers being out of money and less money being spun around the economy is going to cause a recession (unless these wild gov moves actually worked?), but the infrastructure is still there and eventually it's all on sale and people start doing shit again.
Augustus wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:39 pm
They're going to get rid of me in the next month or two, and I don't blame them.
My plan is to go on the dole and hibernate, I can last a year or two that way.
That sucks man. I'm not familiar with your personal situation or how much money your losing, but this short-term dole is pretty tight. It's at least a few months of a forced early retirement.
