Who's Going to Pay the Bills?: Purpose-Driven Coronavirus Business Shutdowns Cause Economic Catastrophe

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1cthlctrth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Today crude oil prices hit an astonishing negative $32 per barrel.
Last week Smithfield closed it’s doors for at least 14 days and they provide 22 million meals per day to the US.
The week prior 22 million people filed for unemployment.
3 million small businesses have already closed their doors permanently.
Trillions of dollars of wealth gone.
Trillions of dollars of paper money printed, devaluing the dollar and increasing inflation.
Protests are occurring through America because people have no ability to provide.
People are being arrested for going outside.
People are being threatened by local police for inciting a riot and general unrest because they tweeted they have COVID.
Governors are restricting people from purchasing seeds.
In the US, governors are violating our constitutional rights without ability by restricting right to worship and right to free speech.

The damage is already done. And it will get worse. These are the just the first dominoes to fall. You cannot just turn the economy back on.

And we did this because of a virus that would likely have killed just as many people if we had done nothing. All of this based on incomplete and inconsistent data.

We tried to guarantee safety by giving up liberty. No one has a right to be guaranteed safety, including being safe from a virus.
 
Last edited:
John_Martin said:
Trump requires only his reports of reality be listened to and that each of you purge your hearing of non-Trump obeying news services and shout “Fake News” when you hear them
Click to expand...
That is a profound misrepresentation of what Pres Trump has said and why he says it! All the networks are guilty of twisting the truth. I have never seen such an orchestrated effort to destroy someone they don’t like!
 
1cthlctrth said:
I’m not saying I know the answer to the dilemma between the coronavirus meteor and the economic meteor. But I am at least willing to acknowledge the latter exists, and to not sanctimoniously scream YOU DON’T CARE ABOUT DEAD PEOPLE to those who dare to discuss that other disaster movie.
Click to expand...
It seems pretty clear that the promoters of the “deadly virus” scenario are in a win-win situation while those who even express a tiny smidgeon of doubt regarding any aspect of the virus are in a lose-lose situation.

As Victor Davis Hansen points out in a recent article…
As I have written earlier, the psychology of the pessimist is always win-win: when wrong, his terrifying models are still efficacious in scaring the public into doing the right thing (and thus are often deliberately exaggerated). When right, “he bravely warned us of Armageddon.”

The poor optimist is trapped in a lose-lose dilemma: if right in doubting the end of days, only the response to the pessimist made his own hopeful reservations prescient. If wrong about a return of the Black Plague, then he is a veritable murderer, in a way that the flawed pessimist’s modeling is never held culpable for destructive shutdowns and lockdowns.
Click to expand...
 
HarryStotle said:
It seems pretty clear that the promoters of the “deadly virus” scenario are in a win-win situation…
Click to expand...
This is very insulting to those, like Dr. Fauci, who are doing their best for the country. To imply that people like him are just out to “win a debate” is just disgraceful.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
It seems pretty clear that the promoters of the “deadly virus” scenario are in a win-win situation…
Click to expand...
This is very insulting to those, like Dr. Fauci, who are doing their best for the country. To imply that people like him are just out to “win a debate” is just disgraceful.
Click to expand...
You are completely misreading the gist of the article.

It isn’t about winning a debate, it is about the necessary advantage of the pessimist view point in ANY such circumstance or in any such debate. There are pitfalls and shortcomings with regard to taking an optimistic view that is simply built into the nature of any supposedly “dire” situation.

Somehow you completely missed that in your exuberance to defend your “side.”

Could we please try to think beyond the narrow perspective of taking sides and think about the underlying philosophical implications regarding the perspectives (optimistic vs pessimistic) themselves that were being explored.

I suppose taking a detached perspective, even to think for a few minutes beyond the narrow field of “sides,” isn’t possible for some who are fully “attached”.

Climate change, by the way, is — to goad your sensitivities further — another such case where the pessimistic view is in a win-win position, by default.

No one is claiming Dr. Fauci is NOT doing his best, nor that people like him are in this “just for the win.” That would be you putting spin on what I said. It is just that taking the pessimistic position has a natural advantage in this kind of debate.

Try to be clear on what is being said and what is not being said.
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
I suppose taking a detached perspective, even to think for a few minutes beyond the narrow field of “sides,” isn’t possible for some who are fully “attached”.

Climate change, by the way, is — to goad your sensitivities further — another such case where the pessimistic view is in a win-win position, by default.

No one is claiming Dr. Fauci is NOT doing his best, nor that people like him are in this “just for the win.” That would be you putting spin on what I said. It is just that taking the pessimistic position has a natural advantage in this kind of debate.
Click to expand...
This is not a debate; debates have judges as to who has the winning logical argument; you do not provide logical argumentation but personal attack by calling the opposite “side” to be “taking sides” and call the opposite “side” to be “fully attached” and “pessimistic” while suggesting you are “detached and optimistic”. That is not an argument about the OP, but about suggesting readers should ignore your opponent because of personal defect and not listen (might they hear something you do not want heard?)
No, you do not debate nor know how.
 
Last edited:
This is an interesting point. I think most people recognize that there is no perfect solution, be it extreme stay-at-home orders or do nothing. But for those who seem a bit santicmonious about how “people just need to stay home” and “you are not pro life if you choose work over human lives”, I find it odd they insist on going out to buy groceries or their necessities. Clearly when it comes to what they need to survive, they will do what they want. People who don’t have income can’t eat. I suspect those lecturing others over how anyone considering the economy is somehow choosing greed over people find themselves protected economically in some way, be it pension, retirement, or government employee. Unless you are giving everyone free food, why is it seen as moral than we have people leaving their home to buy groceries, but others are not allowed to leave their home to earn money to buy groceries? Somehow people are selfish for wanting to leave to earn money to feed their family, but others are not selfish for wanting to leave to buy food.

The nuance in how this is discussed by the more hardliners of stay at home orders is noticed. We talk about individual lives saved (a number we will never actual know, mind you), but we talk about “the economy” as though we are comparing people’s lives to some monolithic beast. The economy is individual people’s lives, many of which will be ruined, lost, or worse. It isn’t selfish to admit there are considerations to be taken when it comes to the economy; that just prudence. I have seen people glibly dismiss “the economy” and see references to the stock market bouncing back; it is clear anyone doing that is clueless about the real economic impacts people care about; things like starvation and the destruction of people’s lives.

If you want truly share the pain so that we are all truly all “in this together”, mandate the loss of all jobs (rather than cherry picking whose life is more important), freeze everyone’s bank accounts, or forbid all people from leaving home for any reason. I suspect we find a better to solution to widespread stay-at-home orders if suddenly, those promoting them didn’t have a means to eat either. This situation is a perfect case of deciding who is more important than whom, though we just don’t say it in those terms.
 
HarryStotle said:
It seems pretty clear that the promoters of the “deadly virus” scenario are in a win-win situation while those who even express a tiny smidgeon of doubt regarding any aspect of the virus are in a lose-lose situation.
Click to expand...
I think it easily comes down to this. We still have respect and dignity for human life, but we simply understand that there is a difference between having respect and dignity and doing everything possible to save one life.

For example, pre-COVID circa November 2019, if someone were to get sick or get in an accident or have a congenital disease or lost a limb, we would not stop heaven and earth and spend all of the earth’s wealth to ensure no one ever got sick or died from being sick or no one ever would get in an accident again, or that we would make sure if anyone lost a limb, we would consolidate the best doctors in the world and we would all focus on being patriotic to ensure that we could come up with a “regrow your limb” cure.

And to be honest I think the people screaming “granny murderer” show that they base their arguments on fear and emotion.
 
Last edited:
And Dr. Fauci recently went off the deep end and said we should put and end globally to the handshake, forever. A bit paranoid you think? This man now has clearly demonstrated that he has zero risk tolerance, except when it comes to an interview with Tindr. No handshakes ever, but hey, it’s okay if you want to swipe and go sleep with a stranger.
 
JoeFreedom said:
For example, pre-COVID circa November 2019, if someone were to get sick or get in an accident or have a congenital disease or lost a limb, we would not stop heaven and earth and spend all of the earth’s wealth to ensure no one ever got sick or died from being sick or no one ever would get in an accident again, or that we would make sure if anyone lost a limb, we would consolidate the best doctors in the world and we would all focus on being patriotic to ensure that we could come up with a “regrow your limb” cure.

And to be honest I think the people screaming “granny murderer” show that they base their arguments on fear and emotion.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that, at least where I am, the people promotong it think it’s OK to murder unborn children.
 
In a recent interview with Bill Mahr, someone with whom I rarely agree, told the media to stop being such doomsday pessimists, and call out Trump for leading with optimism, because it would put him right back in the White House in November. Leaders lead with optimism. So what Trump is doing, like his policies or not, is giving people hope. Yeah, hydrochloroquine may not work, but it might.

Imagine for a moment a platoon leader in WWII telling his troops, “Hey, you’re going to go and die a bloody horrible death today” vs “Hey, we are fighting for freedom and liberty and while there is no guarantee, America believes in you and what you are fighting for, so let’s go and get the enemy!”
 
Yeah, kinda funny don’t ya think. Where are these people who are screaming “Granny Murderer”… oh, that’s right, they are promoting abortion, having abortion, supporting euthanasia.
 
JoeFreedom said:
we would not stop heaven and earth and spend all of the earth’s wealth to ensure no one ever got sick or died from being sick or no one ever would get in an accident again,
Click to expand...
Hyperbole much? That is not what is happening, and it was never touted as such. The idea from the beginning was to slow down the rate of serious infection so that we could try to avoid overwhelming the medical infrastructure and causing an even worse collapse when there were no doctors or nurses available to treat anyone else who was sick or injured. If anyone was accusing anyone else of being a “granny murderer” they were wrong to do so, but I don’t recall government or media using that sort of phrasing.
 
JoeFreedom said:
And Dr. Fauci recently went off the deep end and said we should put and end globally to the handshake, forever. A bit paranoid you think?
Click to expand...
What I think is that this is totally off the deep end fake news (disinformation). It is hard to keep up with it when it is being shovelled so fast.
 
JoeFreedom said:
And we did this because of a virus that would likely have killed just as many people if we had done nothing. All of this based on incomplete and inconsistent data.

We tried to guarantee safety by giving up liberty. No one has a right to be guaranteed safety, including being safe from a virus.
Click to expand...
What about the number of people who survive the infection, but only because lengthy stays in the hospital and the people who are ill at home for a month. That impacts the economy too. If 20% of your workers are home for a month or more battling the disease. If too many people need ventilators they put pressure on hospitals. So far everyone I know who got infected is still not fully well a month later (and all but one are still in the hospital) and by the way, none of these people are old.

But, when the wave hits your part of the country, you’ll see this for yourself.

I’m also a “give me liberty or give me death” kind of person. I value my liberty and have been complaining about how we traded liberty for the illusion of safety after 9/11. But I’m also not suicidal. While no one can be guaranteed safety, it’s not exactly Christian to go around breathing in other people’s faces and carelessly spreading germs. You have to combine the American love of freedom with the Christian love of your fellow man.
 
It’s easy to tell who lives in a high-impact area and who lives in a low-impact area just by reading the replies on these threads. Those of you in low-impact areas are not being piled up in refrigerated trucks and buried in mass graves - Not yet. But when the wave hits you, you’ll be singing a different tune.

And don’t make light of our trips to the grocery store. It’s a terrifying experience. If it weren’t for my husband going out for food, I might very very die (literally die) of starvation because it is terrifying out there and knowing me I might rather die of starvation than catch this brutal disease. I never imagined the grocery store being a terrifying place but the last time I went (a month ago) I was so frightened by the aggressive people, the masked faces, and the rows of empty shelves and empty frozen foods cases. Even the senior citizen hour in the morning is a nightmare.

But you’ll see for yourself soon enough. Apparently the wave is starting to reach the middle of the country - where so much food is produced - and then the starvation will really begin.
 
JoeFreedom said:
letting fear guide you.
Click to expand...
I am reminded of a quote I saw a week or so ago. Unfortunately can’t find the reference at the moment:

“I used to have a dog that wasn’t afraid of traffic”.

Sometimes fear is a good thing, and dismissing someone else’s fear as overreaction is uncharitable at best, and possibly simply false since you don’t know the circumstances.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top