Karl Marx wrote:
inierested reader wrote:
We’re caught in a trap, forced to decide between lives and livelihoods, public health and the economy. Most discussion on the topic descends into chirping and name-calling, dividing mainly along political lines (at least in the US, if perhaps not as much elsewhere). I’m wondering if we can manage some calm discussion on a productive way through this. Nobody wants to destroy the economy and nobody wants people to die, or at least those are my starting assumptions, and yet some degree of both is unavoidable.
My question is, given what we’ve learned so far, what is the best balance of freedoms versus restrictions to find an optimum path through this?
I don't think we have learned much yet.
Other countries have a working health care system, that's why they are ahead in the whole Covid 19 timeline.
In the US the virus has exposed all the vulnerabilities of a society which lives from pay check to pay check on mostly minimum wages. At the same time CEOs rake in huge benefits packets when they get fired. It's a rigged game which works well for the 1%ers but not so much for anybody else.
This is inaccurate, Karl. First of all, the 1%ers is actually 20%ers who enjoy an affluent lifestyle resulting from their hard work and intelligence. And around 50% of the remaining 80%ers -- i.e., 40% -- understand that their relatively decent status in life depends entirely on the ability of the 20%ers to promote growth and add value. So that's 60% of the population dedicated to prosperity and the American way, even if a large number never attain true value status. The remaining 40%ers are lazy, malingering, ingrates who are under the mistaken belief that dismantling this proven system will somehow result in them being rich.