> ... we have realised that it is worth taking an economic hit in order to preserve health.
Have we realized this? I think you'd find a sizable chunk of the country that disagrees. And I also think it's still too soon to say.
> That, after all, is what money is for.
Money that we don't have. We can keep conjuring money out of thin air if we want, but the effects of infinitely deepening debt seem negative in every case study I've ever read (to say the least).
what the pandemic is making more obvious is that money is getting stuck in idle and infirm hands. further, money is being injected into the wrong hands in the economy. we need money being injected closer to productive hands (like essential workers) rather than the current centralized system giving it to far-removed capital holders, those who prefer rent-seeking and other non-productive ways of stalling the velocity of the economy for their own benefit.
We need our tax laws geared to increasing the velocity of money.
I believe that with the growing global middle class we actually do need to print money faster than we are, because we don’t want to be in a situation where people think that not spending is more valuable than spending. Wealth is not zero sum, and these new families need to partake.
The money is there, it just mostly resides in the hands of the few. The mean net worth of an American household is almost $700,000 - that's total net worth of all households, divided by number of households.
It doesn't matter even if people do—techno-capitalist industrial society wants ever-growing efficiency and production, and if it harms humans (like, say, causing wide-spread depression) it will simply invent new mitigations (e.g. anti-depressants) that, natch, result in new products to sell that improve the GDP.
There are no brakes on this train and humans aren't even driving it anyway.
Let's hear some. I believe there is little an individual can do, apart from participating in collective efforts that are fighting this effectively (of which very few are allowed to exist for long)
Collective efforts exist due to the contributions of individuals. One person making a principled stand on how to live their life makes a difference. There are examples all over this thread, and even if you don't think something will last, it doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile to support it in the moment.
The obvious response to your request is "do nothing". And don't let anyone sway you otherwise.
I asked for examples, I don't know what you're referring to in the rest of the thread. Sure collective efforts work because of individual contributions. But I believe you can only change things collectively and asked you for an example where a single person was able to make lasting change.
I just think the individualism narrative has become dangerous, because it leads to people's refusal to participate in collective action. Or it leads people to believe they are not the "right individual", that they don't have what it takes to be the person to make change, and therefore they end up doing nothing. I don't think the collective approach leads people to "do nothing" but quite the opposite! There is no one who is "unfit" to contribute to collective action. The more people involved, the more powerful it is.
For some reason my reply isn't posting to yours below, but you seem to have interpreted my comment to be saying things I neither said nor believe. Good luck with everything.
Everybody wants nice things, not just "techno-capitalist industrial society". Everybody can take an economic hit in order to preserve health and enjoy life more. Downsize your house, get rid of luxuries, stop going on vacations, you'll save so much money that you don't need to work as much (healthy!). You'll also have to give up having a larger apartment, a TV and 5 sets of sneakers (economic hit).
Yet barely anyone does that. We haven't realized this because it's not true.
Have we realized this? I think you'd find a sizable chunk of the country that disagrees. And I also think it's still too soon to say.
> That, after all, is what money is for.
Money that we don't have. We can keep conjuring money out of thin air if we want, but the effects of infinitely deepening debt seem negative in every case study I've ever read (to say the least).