Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Great Pause Was an Economic Revolution

foreignpolicy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 125 posts

Re: The Great Pause Was an Economic Revolution

#61

Post by twblalock »

clairity wrote: post #45
secstate wrote: post #18

Is it just me, or is it a little silly to compare the 1919 world economy pre-mass production/consumerism with today? The irony to most of this shutdown is that "essential" businesses are still open. What the Great Pause has exposed is the shallowness and fragility of mass production/consumerism. During the pandemic of 1919, 80-90% of household income was spent on food and essential needs. Can you even imagine if we s…

> "Can you even imagine if we spent 80-90% of our income on essential needs?" most american households (as in >50%) do spend 80-90% (or more) on essential needs.

In the early 1900s most American households spent 80% of their income on food, clothing, and housing -- and the food was by far the largest expense, more than housing.

The picture for American families today is much better.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/how-ame...

Re: The Great Pause Was an Economic Revolution

#62

Post by ajzinsbwbs »

sushshshsh wrote: post #56
Exmoor wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may very well be right, but I'd be curious if you have a source for that?

Most of these things seem quite essential and aren't cash in the bank equivalents (pension is debatable) https://images.app.goo.gl/HLGya1YkFJ5vv5oS8

If you think about which of the industries in that chart are partially or fully shut down, it seems pretty consistent with the 14% unemployment we got.

Re: The Great Pause Was an Economic Revolution

#63

Post by ptero »

jacobolus wrote: post #38
ptero wrote: post #28

> With the Spanish flu a century ago, people adapted their individual behavior, but social life proceeded more or less as before. “Public places of amusement” were shuttered, but work and business were little affected overall. This is a pretty telling difference with how we perceive the world today. During the last decades most people living in the "first world" (however you define it today) lost ability to rationall…

> lost ability to rationally think about small additional chances of dying What price would you put on a 5% chance of death plus higher chance of permanent chronic health problems for each of your friends and relatives over age 70? (That may even be an underestimate of the Covid IFR for elderly people.) Even for healthy young people, we are talking about a 1/1000 chance of death and rather higher chance of long-term…

> If this virus ends up infecting 60% of the population, as it will if people carry on their pre-pandemic lives, we’ll end up with something on the order of 2–4 million deaths in the USA, and the aggregate healthcare costs over the next few decades will be an outrageously large burden.

On the economics front, USA just printed out $5 trillion of stimulus to fight the slowdown caused by lockdowns. I hear this is just a first step, stay tuned for more. I suspect the burden you mention would be smaller, but would love to hear an estimate.

On the spread: how do you plan to avoid it? Every state and every country has carriers. Assuming the proportion of those with no symptoms is high, as recent studies indicate, people will keep spreading it around. Are we going to force folks wear masks (which, by the way they take off completely if eating in a restaurant) for a year? Outlaw all in person schools and university classes? All contact sports? Honest question.

Re: The Great Pause Was an Economic Revolution

#64

Post by js8 »

ptero wrote: post #28

> With the Spanish flu a century ago, people adapted their individual behavior, but social life proceeded more or less as before. “Public places of amusement” were shuttered, but work and business were little affected overall. This is a pretty telling difference with how we perceive the world today. During the last decades most people living in the "first world" (however you define it today) lost ability to rationall…

> During the last decades most people living in the "first world" (however you define it today) lost ability to rationally think about small additional chances of dying.

I disagree. What do we have the technology for, if not to prevent dying? Why are we destroying the planet (I hope we can agree that having technological comfort requires quite a bit of material processing), if not for that?

To me, to use the technology (which has downsides) to just have more "easy" or extra enjoyable life seems more childish than to use the technology to prevent dying (or in general, improving the living conditions).

We can think of the tradeoff in terms of carbon emissions. Consider a coal miner. What would be better for him, to give him couple extra exotic vacations with airplane, or to close the mine and let him do something healthier, like installing solar panels?

I argue that the latter is a better life.

It's also interesting to note that many cities over the world experienced much cleaner air during the shutdown. I am not exactly sure what they have given up, but sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

Re: The Great Pause Was an Economic Revolution

#65

Post by ptero »

CraigJPerry wrote: post #53
ptero wrote: post #28

> With the Spanish flu a century ago, people adapted their individual behavior, but social life proceeded more or less as before. “Public places of amusement” were shuttered, but work and business were little affected overall. This is a pretty telling difference with how we perceive the world today. During the last decades most people living in the "first world" (however you define it today) lost ability to rationall…

> lost ability to rationally think about small additional chances of dying I’m not thinking I’ll die if i catch it but if i do catch it, how many people will i pass it on to, and how many will they infect. How many deaths would be attributable to me catching it? It’s pretty heavy when you think about it. I suppose someone has to be the 1 in 500 at my age. That would suck but like most people, i just assume it wouldn’…

> I’m not thinking I’ll die if i catch it but if i do catch it, how many people will i pass it on to, and how many will they infect. How many deaths would be attributable to me catching it? It’s pretty heavy when you think about it.

That is fair point, but its consideration should not be limited to COVID. I definitely not claim you do this, but in the USA I see people sending sick (with colds and flu) kids to school all the time. I see people coming to work sick (even when there is really, really, no penalty for staying home) and spreading the good stuff on everyone in the office including this lady in her 70s and that guy who just had chemo which hosed his immunity.

We seem to ignore this "because that is what everyone does", but I personally know people who died from flu complications and there are real risks for others from this. We cannot ignore this, but give hell to folks who are not convinced that they must stay home to avoid infecting others with coronavirus; especially when they have no symptoms.

Re: The Great Pause Was an Economic Revolution

#66

Post by redis_mlc »

carapace wrote: post #4

The "Economic Revolution" of the title is fascinating and exciting: > About 35 percent of food expenditures—more than $2.5 trillion globally—is up for grabs as consumers shift to dining at home and experimenting with new buying channels. This could be the end of cruel factory farms and the resurgence of smaller, healthier and more humane farming. Check out "SPIN farming": it stands for "Small-Parcel INtensive", a kin…

I come from a farming area. When I read the drivel on HN about urban farming, my response is, "Talk is cheap" and "What are the details?"

- 1/4 acre in SV starts at $1 million

- farming is a job. My family's small garden (30'x30') was like a part-time job in itself.

- when there's an immigrant farm labor shortage and unemployed locals are recruited for farm work, they don't make it to lunch on the first day - it's back-breaking and often dangerous work

Thanks to the ag insider who did the 2-part post on ag economics earlier this week.

Re: The Great Pause Was an Economic Revolution

#67

Post by fuvkthisguy »

_skel wrote: post #57
js8 wrote: post #54

I am not sure what is there to wonder about. Change has always been possible. It's the elites in power who are conservative, claiming that there is no alternative, they want to (for the most part) keep their position. It's funny to read that Hayek compared parts of the economy to organs. I often use analogy of money being blood in human body, to illustrate that from the perspective of each individual cell, blood is a…

There is a big difference between "possible for a few months" and "possible indefinitely". A lot of what we did during the lockdowns was never going to be sustainable. By the way, the "helicopter money" thing was proposed by Milton Friedman, a libertarian economist who was influenced by Hayek and who was highly critical of most forms of government intervention in the economy.

> There is a big difference between "possible for a few months" and "possible indefinitely". A lot of what we did during the lockdowns was never going to be sustainable.

I would be interested to see an argument for this point, because I don't think it stands on its own.

Re: The Great Pause Was an Economic Revolution

#68

Post by mynegation »

> In fact, supply chains adapted and readjusted at extraordinary speed.

Tell that to the shitshow named Canada Post.

But seriously, while it is good to discuss what is possible and what might have changed to the better, it will be important for us to understand hidden long term consequences: medical complications of virus, sudden trauma of loss, depression as a result of lack of social interaction, fear of uncertainty, financial or medical, ballooned debt on all levels, while industries wiped out.

Re: The Great Pause Was an Economic Revolution

#69

Post by claudeganon »

twblalock wrote: post #61
clairity wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Can you even imagine if we spent 80-90% of our income on essential needs?" most american households (as in >50%) do spend 80-90% (or more) on essential needs.

In the early 1900s most American households spent 80% of their income on food, clothing, and housing -- and the food was by far the largest expense, more than housing. The picture for American families today is much better. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/how-ame...

This data seems to stop in 2003, before Great Recession and the massive increase in housing costs in urban centers. Also doesn’t seem to take into account the dramatic increases in healthcare costs in the intervening years. I’m not sure how useful it is as a measure?
Post reply on HN