Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
In my local store the maximum amount of milk is 3 big bags (9 small bags) (12L, 3 gallons). This means an individual can buy 12 liters for just themselves, while a family of, say, three, would get the same 12L. How, then, do you avoid problems with food supply if the standards to all are the same but the needs and wants are different? For example: potatoes are not limited. This means one person can come in and buy up the 15 or so bags near the entrance. Do you also limit potatoes? What if, for dietary reasons, a person can only eat a handful of products, such as potatoes, eggs, and meat. Eggs are definitely limited. I'm actually not sure about limitations on meat, but regardless: either the person can't purchase the needed quantity for their diet or they may buy too much, leaving others with little or nothing. Potatoes aren't limited, so the same question would exist.
This would require deficit spending, yes?
Oh for sure. I think it was estimated here that if that was kept up for a year, debt to GDP would increase with 40%. But we have a luxurious position of only 45% debt to GDP
... "Debt held by the public was approximately 77% of GDP in 2017"
Probably different country, but www.rtlz.nl/.../staatsschuld-onder-crisisniveau-bbp-wopke-hoekstra-cbs
So from 45 to 85%. Seems like a hole that would become ever deeper..
Meh, 85% is not too bad for a dent to GDP ratio. We used to be higher than that if I recall correctly after the ‘08 crisis, which decreased a lot afterwards due to fiscally responsible spending
oh okay. As long as you guys are responsible.
Sounds like soulshulisum to me nothing but being controlled by a few rich people. None of witch thank no farther then there own egos will let them. Those kind of people will lead millions of souls to hell.. . Fact is we dont need 75% of what is shipped and 90% of trivial is work related thus brings back my statement being slaves to the top 1% And until that changes my dear people nothing in this world will ever change. The movement has started up against the wall or ant to the ark.
You are actually 100% correct. Since people let this happened to the world people will have to fix. You can not blame politicians for lazy brain dead zombie people.
of course :D
You think many people living cities have rural properties?
It seems unlikely to be a large proportion.
If a person has no more food, what should they do? "Order food". And if they have no money because they are unemployed?
If they live in the US, they'll be getting money for food, and they can file for unemployment. If they had no food or money beforehand, it's no different than it was. There are shelters and food kitchens where you can go to get food, plus, there are friends and family.
If I work minimum wage and have $300 savings, then when I lose my job I still have $300 worth of spending power. After I spend the last of my salary and the $300 (which would happen within 1-2 weeks) I would be objectively poorer than before. In addition, unless I start getting government handouts right away, I would literally have to start starving in order to stay home. Going to a food kitchen doesn't equate to staying at home. If a group of people are already gathering at a food kitchen, they might as well gather at work.
And if there's no one to buy the product or service that you produce at work, then there's no point in being there. A food pantry, rather than a soup kitchen, will give you food to take home. IF you apply for unemployment immediately, it should get to you in a matter of weeks. Like I said, you have friends and family help from, even places of worship. Though your plight sucks and you have to improvise, going "back to normal" will only result in further disaster.
I just don't see how you can exclude the economic when tons of people were already barely scrapping by when working full time and now we want them to sit at home, without work or benefits (for a couple weeks).
You don't see HOW? Ok, just ignore the science, doctors and epidemiologists and let everybody go back to "normal" so the virus can spread into the millions and MILLIONS. Let no hospital be able to handle the patients, let the health workers be over exposed, who already don't have enough proper gear. Then let's just see who survives... all because YOU couldn't figure out a way to survive with friends, family and places to get free food, for two weeks while your benefits arrived. Yeah, let's do THAT, champ.
I'm not saying we should, I'm saying we can't expect people to sit at home without employment or income. Two things result: 1) People have no money to buy things with. 2) Nobody produces anything. This would mean the economy falling by, essentially, the amount of work not being done. If 70% of people aren't working for 2 months, then during those two months the economy is basically 50-60% lower. "YOU couldn't figure out a way to survive with friends, family and places to get free food, for two weeks while your benefits arrived. Yeah, let's do THAT, champ."If talking about me personally:If I didn't live with my mother, I wouldn't be able not to work. I am self-employed, have no EI, no friends, no family members in-country, and no vehicle to get to the nearest free-food giving place, which I doubt actually exists in my city. The only thing going for me is that I can work from home. However, considering even if I worked the maximum amount of time possible for my job, my income would not be high enough to support myself; I would still need to go out and work. Considering it is now getting nearer to summer, I would be supplementing my low-medium income with landscaping, which would give me enough money to actually live in this city. So your solution would not work for me, if I didn't live with a high-income earner. As I do, I stay home. But remove that one factor and I would have no choice but to go do work out of the house for at least 1-2 days a week.
well then... think of it as the post apocalypse and now you have to survive. You are making your personal case for one and only solution, and it's NOT going to happen.
The real solution is one word: savings. If everyone had savings, it would be vastly easier.
Of course, then you could weather the storm. But in the USA, like your country, the vast majority of families live paycheck to paycheck and have no more than a 3 paycheck grace period to empty. You're just 19, and haven't had a chance to accumulate savings yet. But, just ask either leaders of our countries and they'll tell you how "great" the economy is doing, for everyone ! Yeah, it sucks. I know.
Well there are two ways to create savings: less taxes and better personal spending habits.
When you're making minimum wage, good luck with that.
Communal apartment would reduce housing costs to, perhaps, the $200 range. Lower taxes would make everything a bit cheaper to buy. If such a worker would manage to save 75 cents from every $7.25, then it would work out to $120 per month, out of a total $1160. However, most people make more than minimum wage. Equally, a job market that would be even more free and open would allow for more job opportunities.
That is how they seem to solve any problem.
Well it does work, maybe not morally speaking
Well they also require foreign aid to keep themselves alive.