a bank note's worth is just the paper, the value attached it it is fictive/imaginary.

the 1 and 0's in the bank system are just numbers, banks can even "make-up" more any time they like (to lend out ect), and actually often do.

You can "print" more bank notes, and just add fictive amounts of new money at banks and bank accounts.


You cannot give someone a life back.
Thats the point Immersiveunreality is trying to make.

economy issue is small and tiny, and easily fixed, compaired to this virus outbreak.

Thats easy to say when you talk about "a" life, and not your own.

I guess we could fix the over crowded hospitals in near future, by just shooting anyone that gets too sick right? who cares about human life? USA first country to "fix" the issue of this virus, why let it bother our economy, we choose money over life. Imagine trump giveing a speech like that?
(above is me being as silly as you are, its a horrible discussion about where to draw lines of the value of a human life)

The issue is currently (with the economy talks you guys have), that workers are loseing their jobs.
All the state has to do, is offer 100% compensation for every single worker, forced to stay home.

Boom, no jobs lost. No companies fireing people.
Cant afford food? make sure everyone gets enough money to buy foods.

^ easy fix's that probably wont cost all that much (compaired to doing nothing, and workforces being laid off ect).

The virus outbreak and the economy issue are tied together and concerns for the lesser one should not be frowned upon, i mean why should one of those be the only important one when the lesser one is a result of the first one?

It is very important to talk about both to be prepared for both.

Bolded: 

Do you think it is fictive for people that absolutely need it to feed their family,many do not have the luxury we have in the western world and for many that ''fictive'' bank note issue can evolve into a life and death scenario and that is why it is still real for those people.

I do not worry about my own money but i do care for those that do not have the luck to be born in a place where it does not matter that much(atm)

That is why both are real and why both of them does effect people, it is silly that one of those can not be talked about as not everyone is just thinking about how it effects themselves but also about how it effects the world and all of the people in it.

Most nations can afford the costs of feeding their entire nations populations for a short periode of time.

USA spends how much on its military each year?

How much would it cost america to pay for food, for everyone in the country for 2-3 months?
My guess is drastically less than what they spend on military each year.


Your missing the point I was makeing.
Money issue is being overblown.

Fired people, no income, is only a issue if your leadership does nothing to help its citizens.
Theres way around haveing it effect the population short term.

Hopefully by then the virus is gone, and things go back to normal.

*edit:

$2,641 annually per person (based on the average 2.5 people in each household)  x   328million people =  $866 billion.

^ every american 1 years worth of free food, paid for by the state.

Apparently USA spends about $700 billion each year on military (quick google search).
So it would only be slightly more expensive than that.

My meaning was just that, for a few months, the state could pay for rent/houseing, foods, even some of the wages the work force has.
No one would need to lose homes/jobs over this virus.

It depends on how the leaders choose to handle the situation.


Which circles nicely back to my point I was makeing.
You cant put a price on human life, but you can solve all the issues to the ecomony/jobs/houseing ect quite easily.
Its just a matter of if their willing to do so.

It most likely is yes but my point was that it is still an issue and can be talked about, overblown or not.

So i'm not missing your point but what are you arguing about then,i think you missed my point when you started reacting to me yourself.

We are agreeing and talking past eachother,it is the curse of the internet.

Yes the economic issues are real.
However they are fixable by the state, if your leadership chooses to do so.

"Oh, and the state offering 100% compensation really isn't all they have to do, or even should do. Most countries simply wouldn't be able to afford that. I don't know what the result of a country going bankrupt would be, but I'm certain it wouldn't be good. And a lot of those people would still end up losing their jobs anyway."

Why would anyone lose their jobs, if everything is covered for by the state?
Why would any company choose to fire anyone, if it costs them nothing to keep them on? That doesnt make sense.

Backrupt a country? nah... I bet USA could easily do it for a few months, and it would be less than what they spend on military every year.
(to balance it out, next year just cut military budget in half, that should more than make up for it, after that things are back to normal)

Maybe set a upper limit though, so you dont have the state paying anyone obscene amounts, but enough to cover the essentials.
The thing is, its workable, and you can manage the damage to the economy and lost jobs, by doing meassures such as these (without bankrupting countries).

"What they should do is offer a statutory minimum amount of pay for those that aren't able to work and/or lose their jobs (which most developed countries already do) as well as make temporary exceptions to loan/mortgage etc. payments (which I believe at least France has said they will do so far). It'll still hurt economically for awhile (especially for the countries that have been stupidly running at a deficit for ages now), but it shouldn't even require much deviation from the current system and while certainly not sustainable long term will hopefully only be required as a short term measure."

^ not as drastic a meassure as I mentioned but again, a way to solve the issues of the ecomic impact this virus will have.


This entire debate, started over someone saying something akin to "the ecomony will kill us before the virus does".
(so it doesnt make sense to keep spread down, it costs to much - my interpretation of the meaning of those words)

My counter was theres work arounds, to the job losses and impacts of such.

Also it seems most of us agree on this matter, so we re really argueing over nothing.

Only if you're old, an infant or someone with a weak immune system should you stay home. Everyone else can get back to work and live their lives. More than 2-3% of our lives are going to be affected if we don't start working and keep the economy going. Soon, we will run out of supplies and companies will face irreversible damage causing less jobs and the great depression.

You realise that 30-50 year olds also contract this virus, and require intensive care + respirators right?

Even healthy 30-50 year olds, that make up a majority of the workforce, could spread this, and end up requireing hospitalisation.

Here comes the problem Snoopy.

If you do that, soon 70-80% of the entire population will have this virus.
Once that happends the health care system cannot deal with so many infected and requireing aid.


Theres 328million in the USA.
if 70% of everyone gets it lets say within the next 2-3 months, because people are going "back to the normal lives" instead, then theres going to be a need for 46 million sick beds.

The USA doesnt have that many (sickbeds, air-tanks, ventilators ect).
Do you want the sick and dieing to lay outsides on the streets? dieing there, or back in their own homes?

The damage to lives of the population would be massive, in a country that took that option.

"More than 2-3% of our lives are going to be affected if we don't start working and keep the economy going."

Even if you assumed NO ONE died from this, if you just let it spread rampant.
There would still be like ~20% that got so sick, they had to spend a week or more in bed.

This virus is gonna effect way more than just 2-3% of people's lives, even if you just ignore it and went back to work as normal.

Imagine haveing like ~50million people so sick, they cant get out of bed.
The majority of the rest, would be walking around with running noses/caughing and feeling weak ect.

It would be a odd new reality.... the death rates would be crazy, but a month lateron, everyone would probably be immune to futher infections.
You would have a entire country basically back on its feet, working as normal.... in the wake of millions and millions dieing.

Yes indeed and never dictate ones freedom to just talk about both, never assume people think the lesser is the most important just because they happen to mention it.

I have read some comments almost taking it as an offense if someone mentions the word economy and that response is a bit impulsive imo.

I mean, when you assume that those  mentioning economy are being egoistic you have made a strawman out of their character.

Most people who get the flu won't need a sick bed or a respirator. Only people who needs it will be the elderly or people with weak immune system. I actually got the flu earlier this year and I just stayed home for about a week and I was fine just like most people.  Also, most people who are dying are the elderly and infants who should stay home like I said before.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/16/lower-coronavirus-death-rate-estimates/