EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2453
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Slydie
1927 Posts
also might not be. We don't know much about grocery store transmission. Grocery stores are not carriers of the pandemic in Norway, at least. As of May 09, only around 60 employees in grocery . stores in the whole country were infected, which is surprisingly low. Source in Norwegian: www.nrk.no They did "everything" EXCEPT demanding face masks for emplyees and customers. One important taking point is that supermarkets generally have high ceilings and good ventilation. As there are risks involved with selling food even in normal times, the starting point of hygene was pretty good, even before doing things like limiting the amount of people in the store, distancing, cleaning even more, plexi glass at the cashiers and washing hands with alcohol by the entrance. I am sorry of this is off topic, but I think this should be clarified. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23470 Posts
On June 26 2020 06:13 Mohdoo wrote: Nope. It is just blind adherence to dollar bills. It is not safe to eat at a restaurant, 6 ft be damned. 6 ft is for brief contact, not sitting down at a restaurant for an hour. And a mask is encouraged for 6 ft. Gas/particle physics tend to be a part of my expertise and the long story short is that time and distance can both lead to infection. If you are "properly distanced", but hang out with that person for an hour, you're probably getting sick. Restaurants are being given an unreasonable amount of leniency because a shit load of them are definitely going to be going out of business in the next couple months. This is a pathetic temporary solution to a long term problem. And people will still get infected. The whole thing is stupid. Rather than trying to let restaurants let people dine in, states should be focused on finding ways to help businesses survive on take out and delivery. Thank you for this. It can't be stressed enough how critical a role capitalism's incentives will play in driving not just Republican areas to do unsafe things like this but even west coast liberal havens like WA and CA. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
Also no medical bankruptcy  | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On June 26 2020 06:49 JimmiC wrote: Doesn't socialism also rely on markets and the economy? All systems of society rely on markets and economic activity, but look at Florida. They will end up economically behind compared to Oregon because their total damage will be much higher. Capitalism places undue importance on short term at the cost of long term. When the government is able to just directly cover costs until a pandemic is over, the total cost of the pandemic is reduced, since there isn’t as much short term desperation. Desperation moves can be prevented by government intervention. If you have someone who you know is bad at swimming, and they end up drowning, the cost of a funeral is a lot more than the cost of floaties or a lifesaver. If you just buy someone some floaties, rather than letting them fend for themselves, you end up saving money by preventing a funeral. | ||
|
Slydie
1927 Posts
On June 26 2020 06:34 JimmiC wrote: That is interesting, I wonder what type of new hygiene rules that have been created for Covid-19 are going to stick around after. I have heard a lot people talking about how they have never gone this long without a cold or flu and so on. I wonder if office buildings and other places will start to have those type of requirements going forward? Some of them will absolutely stick around. The grocery stores have even experienced record low amounts of sick leaves among their employees. Another source in Norwegian: https://velferd.no/helse/2020/rekordlavt-sykefravaer-i-dagligvarebutikkene | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18120 Posts
On June 26 2020 07:58 Mohdoo wrote: All systems of society rely on markets and economic activity, but look at Florida. They will end up economically behind compared to Oregon because their total damage will be much higher. Capitalism places undue importance on short term at the cost of long term. When the government is able to just directly cover costs until a pandemic is over, the total cost of the pandemic is reduced, since there isn’t as much short term desperation. Desperation moves can be prevented by government intervention. If you have someone who you know is bad at swimming, and they end up drowning, the cost of a funeral is a lot more than the cost of floaties or a lifesaver. If you just buy someone some floaties, rather than letting them fend for themselves, you end up saving money by preventing a funeral. "Capitalism" does not place any importance on short term, long term or any other term. In fact, Jeff Bezos, that apex capitalist GH brings up every now and then as his punching back, built Amazon on a very long-term focused business model. Same goes for plenty of other businesses. The problem isn't "capitalism" here, it's cash flow. Restaurants tend not to be the type of business with large reserves that can pay their bills on 0 income. So the government can either bail them out, let them go bankrupt, or allow them to open to try to make some money in the safest way they can (and we can agree that that is not very safe). However it doesn't have anything to do with capitalism, long term or short term, but is simply finance. If you get rid of *money* and *debt* then you get rid of this problem, but I haven't heard anybody talk about that. Is that what you're proposing here? I think it is madness that Spain is opening the border to Brits. They clearly do not have this under enough control to safely travel to Spain, and the government is taking too large a risk, imho, by opening up the borders for Brits (Germans, Dutch and Danes are fine, as they are doing far better at contact tracing and quarantining than the Brits are). But I understand the trade-off. Salvaging what there is to be salvaged from this summer tourism season means maybe the government doesn't spend as much on bailing out hotels, restaurants, airlines, tour operators, etc. etc. It *might* come at the cost of more sick, or god forbid, a second wave of uncontrolled spreading. But hopefully it won't, and the Brits bring some money and leave the Rona at home. And that means the tax hike to pay for all of these bailouts will maybe be 1% lower? Or how do you think all the money spent on unemployment, debt relief, etc. from the government gets paid for. The government's money isn't *theirs*, it's *ours*. Unless, of course, we just switch on the money printer again. Then we pay for it somewhere down the line when this whole idiotic credit bubble explodes and we get hit with some instant hyperinflation. The idea was never to be in lockdown indefinitely. At some point we were going to have to deal with life with a nasty new virus. It isn't clear yet what parts of life as we knew it can be picked up and what we can't. People really value going out for dinner. And restaurants make up an important economic sector. So a choice was made to try and see if that can start up again (at a reduced capacity and with a modicum of new safety measures). What things you allow or don't and when is a delicate balance. I don't have a clue if opening restaurants in Washington is too soon or not. But optimally balancing the spread of a deadly virus with the costs of businesses going bankrupt is not an easy one. And blaming capitalism for short term thinking when you disagree with a decision is way too simple a blame game. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On June 26 2020 09:16 Acrofales wrote: "Capitalism" does not place any importance on short term, long term or any other term. In fact, Jeff Bezos, that apex capitalist GH brings up every now and then as his punching back, built Amazon on a very long-term focused business model. Same goes for plenty of other businesses. The problem isn't "capitalism" here, it's cash flow. Restaurants tend not to be the type of business with large reserves that can pay their bills on 0 income. So the government can either bail them out, let them go bankrupt, or allow them to open to try to make some money in the safest way they can (and we can agree that that is not very safe). However it doesn't have anything to do with capitalism, long term or short term, but is simply finance. If you get rid of *money* and *debt* then you get rid of this problem, but I haven't heard anybody talk about that. Is that what you're proposing here? If I were president, I would advocate for restaurants becoming carry out and delivery only. Restaurants lay off everyone who isn't needed beyond that. Those people have their previous salaries covered by the govt until things go back to normal. If businesses need more money due to property costs, govt helps with that too. The whole idea is that a pandemic is a wildly rare event that you can't expect a business to just weather the storm. Not for like a year. If the govt lets all those businesses go out of business, it is more cost than keeping them afloat. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23470 Posts
What I am referencing is that the incentives for capitalism are to exploit a situation to gain profitability, whereas the incentives of socialism is to maintain equitable stability and provide necessities for everyone. The only reason for allowing the masks off for in-restaurant dining is borne of capitalism. Without the profit motive (as opposed to a social welfare motive from socialism) the trade-off of not having in-restaurant dining if it requires endangering everyone by removing masks is obvious. Under capitalism you can't leave that profit on the table for the business the next door over to take from your family's mouth. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On June 26 2020 10:14 JimmiC wrote: The reason is to allow your people the "freedom" they desire and a return to normalcy. Eating with a Mask is impossible so the restaurant to be open need to have no mask policy. It wouldn't matter if there is one owner or a co-op owned or owned by the "people". This is a freedom vs state control issue not a capitalism vs socialism issue and this is where my confusion lands when you claim capitalism is at fault. Capitalism does not have the well-being of others built into it. Capitalism ends up doing a lot of good, incidentally, but the core focus is on maximizing wealth and trying to get as much as you individually can. Socialism's first thought is "how can the lives of the community be improved" and then following from that. I think GH's point is that capitalism dictates the owner's ought to fight to open, as that is the intent of the system they are participating in. In a socialist system, the first objective would be to have as few people infected as possible. The state would move money around as needed for the specific intent of minimizing infection, minimizing total damage to society, and then moving on. Capitalism would focus on "what is the best way to still make as much money as possible, given the situation?". It is a different end goal. Restaurant owners are forced into a situation where they need to compete for capital. So they are acting accordingly. Socialism just changes how the issue is framed. | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On June 26 2020 11:17 Erasme wrote: Is state taking care of its citizen the difference between capitalism and socialism ? As I see it: Capitalism is a natural result of human development. It isn't really something special, it is a natural result of competing for resources. That competition ended up being called capitalism. When people compete, we pull from human instinct and a desire for survival, and as such, we "do well" and thus contribute value to a society incidentally. Socialism is an idea where once we have already got this whole civilization thing going, we realize we have the ability to focus on human wellness and then figure out how to get there. We can decide on things like old people don't rot when they are no longer able to work (social security), people shouldn't be denied healthcare based on their ability to create capital (socialized medicine), children have the right to education (public schools) and other such ideas. In my eyes, socialism wasn't possible 4000 years ago. We needed to have an actual society first. We needed people to be educated and mostly fine. Now that we are here, we are in a position to start working on adding to the socialism pile and guaranteeing more wellness to more people. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23470 Posts
On June 26 2020 11:23 Mohdoo wrote: As I see it: Capitalism is a natural result of human development. It isn't really something special, it is a natural result of competing for resources. That competition ended up being called capitalism. When people compete, we pull from human instinct and a desire for survival, and as such, we "do well" and thus contribute value to a society incidentally. Socialism is an idea where once we have already got this whole civilization thing going, we realize we have the ability to focus on human wellness and then figure out how to get there. We can decide on things like old people don't rot when they are no longer able to work (social security), people shouldn't be denied healthcare based on their ability to create capital (socialized medicine), children have the right to education (public schools) and other such ideas. In my eyes, socialism wasn't possible 4000 years ago. We needed to have an actual society first. We needed people to be educated and mostly fine. Now that we are here, we are in a position to start working on adding to the socialism pile and guaranteeing more wellness to more people. Mostly agree but it's important to note things like caring for disabled (like from birth) members of a tribe is something that appears to go back at least 500,000 years, so I think you're still leaning a bit too heavily on outdated notions of human/hominid history/"natural" behavior. I don't think capitalism is as necessary as some, but I can acknowledge it accelerated some things for sure. Impending climate collapse begs the question "but at what cost"? | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On June 26 2020 12:11 GreenHorizons wrote: Mostly agree but it's important to note things like caring for disabled (like from birth) members of a tribe is something that appears to go back at least 500,000 years, so I think you're still leaning a bit too heavily on outdated notions of human/hominid history/"natural" behavior. I don't think capitalism is as necessary as some, but I can acknowledge it accelerated some things for sure. Impending climate collapse begs the question "but at what cost"? Perhaps it is just nuance at this point, but societies that value the things you are describing have a long history of being conquered by militaristic, selfish cultures. The cultures you are describing, according to my understanding of history, tended to be destroyed by less ethical cultures. Nowadays, the US is not likely to invade Denmark. But that isn't because Denmark has bigger or more numerous guns. Denmark is able to survive due to modern culture, not brute strength. | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2591 Posts
On June 26 2020 11:23 Mohdoo wrote: As I see it: Capitalism is a natural result of human development. It isn't really something special, it is a natural result of competing for resources. That competition ended up being called capitalism. When people compete, we pull from human instinct and a desire for survival, and as such, we "do well" and thus contribute value to a society incidentally. Socialism is an idea where once we have already got this whole civilization thing going, we realize we have the ability to focus on human wellness and then figure out how to get there. We can decide on things like old people don't rot when they are no longer able to work (social security), people shouldn't be denied healthcare based on their ability to create capital (socialized medicine), children have the right to education (public schools) and other such ideas. In my eyes, socialism wasn't possible 4000 years ago. We needed to have an actual society first. We needed people to be educated and mostly fine. Now that we are here, we are in a position to start working on adding to the socialism pile and guaranteeing more wellness to more people. This is rather inaccurate. Prehistoric societies were 'socialist'. Greek citystates were far closer to socialism than any modern country is, as was the Roman empire. Perhaps it is just nuance at this point, but societies that value the things you are describing have a long history of being conquered by militaristic, selfish cultures. The cultures you are describing, according to my understanding of history, tended to be destroyed by less ethical cultures. Nowadays, the US is not likely to invade Denmark. But that isn't because Denmark has bigger or more numerous guns. Denmark is able to survive due to modern culture, not brute strength. Roman Empire is a clear example of how wrong this idea is. Incidentally, Viking age Denmark (and other Scandinavian tribes) also had a culture of ensuring that the elderly, widows, and orphans would be taken care of. | ||
| ||
