Pemalite said:
Pyro as Bill said:
The War caused the 70% collapse and was one long 6 year depression.
The period after the War is literally referred to as the Golden Age of Capitalism because of the unprecedented levels of growth.
The depopulation during the War didn't cause a post-war depression. It did the complete opposite.
|
"Collapse" is a strong word. Either way, I have provided the evidence, you are more than welcome to read it.
Pyro as Bill said:
Good. Empires are expensive. We became richer than ever after 'losing' the Empire.
Hong Kong didn't leave until 1997 and they'd have stayed if they'd had the choice or China agreed to extend the lease.
Empire - noun
1.an extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm
|
The Hong Kong issue was just a part of a long process, the loosing of territories under British control happened at the end of world war 2 and gradually continued well into the 90's.
Arguably, Hong Kong was worse off for it too.
KiigelHeart said:
What's your obsession with United States? While I think it's very unlikely this virus could've been defeated even with instant proactive measures, there's plenty of other countries who messed up as well. This wasn't the first wide-spread disease Europe had to deal with either, and things have been just as bad. This hindsight bullshit isn't helping anyone at the moment, there's time for that later, hopefully. Now would be the time to try to avoid a future where we'll be fighting COVID-19 while dealing with economic crisis. How it's done I'm not sure, but months and months of lockdown will lead to that future.
edit. well fuck it after considering it a while I think I do value money over health.. I risk my own life and health for a lousy paycheck. You got me.
|
Those other countries aren't making stupid statements in the middle of a pandemic and providing a high quality level of comical entertainment... The United States is providing the information and the evidence of what not to do right now... And the world needs to take note of those lessons and not emulate their same responses now or in the future.
Yes those other countries that stuffed up deserve criticism as well... And need to be called out and acknowledged. - The thing about hindsight is that, the world should have used it to be better prepared for the Coronavirus as this isn't the first virus that threatened the modern world, but it seems only a few countries took lessons from the Swine Flu and Bird Flu.
LurkerJ said:
We seem to have a new breed of people who are happy to claim moral superiority because they care about lives claimed by the coronavirus, when most of them couldn't care less about preventable deaths literally weeks ago. You guys are worse than pompous vegans.
|
Absolutely not even remotely comparable.
I cared about life, property and the environment before the Coronavirus happened, protecting life is literally part of my job description, so yes, I did care about preventable deaths before this shit happened.
LurkerJ said:
10 million people die yearly of hunger when we have 10 times that number of obese people walking around, what have you done for that?
|
Donated to charitable causes, assisted charitable causes.
I literally put my life on the line to save others on a frequent basis.
What have you done?
LurkerJ said:
If you want to care about lives taken by the virus, go ahead, do that, but know that you're not a better person just because you care more about people of your color dying, since a part of this new caring passion of yours is born out of pure selfishness, those who want to have a conversation about life going back to normal are not heartless monsters, no more than you are anyway.
|
Do not turn this into a racial issue, that would be highly disingenuous when that hasn't even been a point of contention in this thread.
Literally don't do it. Consider it a warning.
Life going back to normal during the middle of a pandemic is going to cause more deaths.
It's a blatant fact that social distancing is a big factor in reducing virulent spread, returning things back to normal completely undermines that effort and will prolong the pain and suffering.
LurkerJ said:
Not to mention, lockdowns are being eased now while fully knowing that deaths will spike despite all the measures that will stay in place, in other words, at one point, everyone is going to balance the loss of lives against loss of jobs and livelihood, it's happening right now at an international level, so just because some of us are comfortable having that conversation weeks earlier than the rest doesn't make them assholes.....
|
If the virus has been defeated for weeks, then of course lockdowns can viably start to be lifted without fear of spiked cases.
Governments need to step in and help the vulnerable during this crisis so that people can stay isolated for as long as possible.
|
Since it's been decided by the professionals, that the here and now is more important and relevant than the foreseeable future, are we actually saving lives, or just trading them by pushing back and shifting the deaths?
For example, what about the life saving medical research and treatments that are being held back or have been put on hold due to the lock down? What about the people who are known to only have so much time left, who were hoping/expecting those treatments to be ready in time to save their lives? How many of these people are now going to die because the professionals chose to shut things down to save some people in the present? How many will die due to contracting covid 19 itself, which puts them over the edge, when they could've fought it off and lived after being treated? There are many more examples of how people may die in other ways due to this lock down.
Now this may seem stupid to some, because we can't be certain of the future, so why bother worrying about it in this case?
If the near or even distant future isn't worth worrying about, then why for example, should anyone bother saving money? If for all you know, you may be dead tomorrow, why bother having money in the bank? What if every single person was just days away from being flat broke? Would that be a good message for the professionals to put out to the public? Don't bother saving money because the future isn't certain? $250 account limit lock downs going forward because why have more? What about the potential future consequences of a decision like that?
While I don't necessarily think that some are simply virtue signalling when it comes to how much they care about saving lives, I also don't think the overall picture is being taken into account, which makes it seem like some may care less than they actually do. It doesn't appear all that clear which choice is better or worse, if either. Maybe this way ends up saving more lives, maybe it doesn't. We won't really know until later, in the future, so it's pretty hard to say anyone is definitely right or wrong.
Essay Pro