money is relative. it can all get to a point where dozens of zeros are chopped off and simply forgotten and debts erased by fiat.
No, money is not relative. Every $ represents the sweat of somebody’s brow. You can’t just inflate away that many zeros without serious repercussions … although they’ll probably try. They’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
In the UK, there’s now a new tax to pay for the consequences of lockdowns: the average earner will pay an extra 400 pounds a year to service the debt. Not to repay the debt, mind: just to cover the cost of capital. Future generations are going to carry that burden for a long time to come.
If a life-year is worth 30,000 pounds, then 400 pounds is 1/75th of a life-year. 30m taxpayers will be ‘donating’ 400,000 life-years, every year, for many years to come. So was it worth it? Was it a fair tradeoff?
2 Likes
Its not going to be worked that way. The USA has over 12 trillion bucks of debt, its not going to EVER pay it off.
The world of finance has changed, the way money works will change. the valuation will change.
the world has changed.
But the question remains: was it worth it?
2 Likes
the world will default on itself and money will be revalued.
That’s entirely possible. And the crisis that follows that default will be something to behold.
2 Likes
the present course of action versus your course of NO action?
I think we should as a human race have progressed from 1918 when we didnt do anything.
so just doing nothing and letting everything just work as it was was not a solution.
is it worth it if only 5 million people die then say 100 million? Yes in my book it is worth it.
1 Like
by the way, not to appear to ignor you but its 1210am here and i must shower and get to bed so that i can work tomorrow and not personally default on my monetary obligations as I am not big like uncle sam and able to print money and have people accept that money 
1 Like
But why do you think it’s worth it? If you save two years of one life by deleting one year from a hundred other people, how is that a fair bargain, particularly if those hundred are not being given any choice in the matter?
In any case I have never suggested no action. I’ve suggested not making things worse.
2 Likes
ok i have time for one last drink at the bar tonight…
in my simple math this virus will possibly before its over kill 10 million people…versus with no action taken possibly exceeding 100 million people so 90 million people saved is worth it…
OK, you’re making two related claims here.
- Without “controls”, COVID would have killed 100 million people.
- Lockdowns and whatnot therefore save 95 million lives.
Do you have anything to back this up?
It seems highly unlikely, given that absolutely everyone has now been exposed to the virus … and miraculously has not died.
Your third claim is that $20 trillion is a fair price to pay for 95 million (mostly very elderly) lives - perhaps 200 million life-years. Even if your first two claims are true, that’s still 3x over fair value, and ignores all the people who will have their lives shortened by lockdowns. If you end up deleting two years from 100 million other lives, it’s all been for naught.
2 Likes
covid so far appears to have killed about 4.5 million people with some 200 million infected that is a percentage of about 2.25 pct of those infected…and with 8 billion on the planet the infection rate is about 200 million out of 8 billion so about 2.5 pct of existing population. If the virus was unchecked, no borders closed, etc. i do believe that the infection rate will at least double its safe to say…meaning 9 million dying if the infection rate is double. It could easily have tripled or quadrupled or more.
You’re conflating rates with totals. Everyone has already been infected. Or at least has had the “opportunity” to become infected.
2 Likes
I lost my job too and i saw first hand businesses closing etc. but we have mostly come through so far as it is in california.
And im sure if nothing was done the number of people who died in california will very easily have doubled at the very very least.
opportunity and actually getting infected is not the same…
i go to a bar i have the opportunity to get laid…but actually getting laid versus just the opportunity…is not the same.
“doubled” is a long way from a factor of 20.
The problem here is that you’re just guessing. You really can’t prove that shutting down businesses directly saved lives, and nor can anybody else. It’s just being taken as an article of faith that if we hurt these people over here then maybe the virus will pass over these other people over there.
2 Likes
OK I GOTTA GO but finley for petes sake get that stupid vaccine in your arms !!! STOP being so smart that if YOU get the virus and is on DEATHS BED…you will have LOST your own argument.
you are arguing with the devil…
2 Likes
IF I WAS IN CHARGE MY ACTION WILL NOT BE INACTION. as you appear to suggest
i was chicken shit scared finley and if tommy can get that vaccine you can too…
How many people would you hurt, tommy? What would you do to them? Where would it stop?
I know you’re not a bad guy. But do think about what you’re suggesting here. “Saving lives” by hurting people is wrong. It’s always been wrong. I would not want to save my own life if I knew a hundred other people would have to suffer for it.
1 Like