Corona economic what if

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

Josh Kellogg

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2020
Messages
52
Reaction score
19
So I am not attempting to point any fingers, or attack anyone. I'm not saying that this is how it should be. I'm genuinely asking this because I just thought of this and wonder whether it would work to help people out during this crisis.

What if, during a crisis like this, and a crisis only, the government mandated that in order to keep all industries from going bankrupt and the world economy tanking, that everything be free?

Everyone works all day like normal for free, and also gets what they need in life for free. Products get sold for free, and can get the needed supplies to be made for free. And of course to prevent people taking advantage, be limited to how much they can get, and have to prove that what they want is a necessity as dictated by the private company.

Could currency be temporarily suspended during a crisis in order to keep society functioning properly, and just have currency be reintroduced when the crisis is over? And I'm not saying government seize everything, I'm saying that everything is private and operates as normal, but without the need for currency temporarily?

I don't intend this to push any perspective. I'm honestly just curious if it could even work, and y'all are smart.
 

BABAR

Builds Rockets for NASA
TRF Lifetime Supporter
TRF Supporter
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
5,473
Reaction score
981
Been tried

com·mu·nism
/ˈkämyəˌnizəm/

noun
  1. a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.


    Please note, this is not a “for” or “against”, simply a definition.
 

Josh Kellogg

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2020
Messages
52
Reaction score
19
Been tried

com·mu·nism
/ˈkämyəˌnizəm/

noun
  1. a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.


    Please note, this is not a “for” or “against”, simply a definition.

Thats exactly why I said that all business stays privately owned. And everything stays the same except the only difference, and a limited time, is that currency is suspended. Because if the government seized the means of production, or everything is handled my hiking taxes, then it would be communism or socialism. What I'm saying is everything literally runs in the same way. Just the currency requirement changes in order to prevent bankruptcy so when the economy goes back to normal, the industries are still there for it to runrun, and then currency resumes as normal.
 

KidRockET

Epstein didn't kill himself
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
878
Reaction score
78
Stay in school...

Study some history...

And economics...
 

KenECoyote

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
2,682
Reaction score
71
That sounds almost like barter system. It's much better imho for govt to start civilian public works projects (like FDR) to employ unemployed masses...may have to resort to that (I even told my daughter this earlier today).

Govt would never give up the dollar...they even made it against the law to hold any significant amount of gold at one point since they feared it can destabilize the dollar. Lots of value in fiat currency.
 

Josh Kellogg

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2020
Messages
52
Reaction score
19
Stay in school...

Study some history...

And economics...

Ooook.....so what are the issues with it. And I'm genuinely asking. Because it isn't the same as communism or socialism, and it keeps the government from having to rack up debt bailing everyone out, citizens still have a home, and companies wont go bankrupt. Also why I said that it should be temporary to a crisis only since the dollar is required for an economy. So we should not abolish the dollar permanently.

Because honestly, what's economically sound about what's happening now. It seems like more damage is done now than in the way I'm asking about.
 

Rob702Martinez

Zip-Tie Oversight Committee
TRF Supporter
Joined
Dec 30, 2015
Messages
1,149
Reaction score
219
Location
Las Vegas
I'm not working for free because my work/efforts/talents/compensation/income/services- far exceeds some free food and goods nor would I accept any private company/industry dictate to me what they feel should be a necessity in my life in exchange for my free hard work.
You have a valid idea, not for me to decide if it's a good one or not, but it directly sounds like what my ancestors and family fled from in a country that turned communist overnight. Not saying your idea is such, but just the thought of it has resonance.
I'm also a self employed small business owner and I wouldn't allow my employees or team members to work for free either. When an employee is working they are producing 100% revenue for the employer so it would not be fair for that employer to benefit from their hard work and give them 25% of their pay in the form or food or goods after they prove the need for it. The money doesn't stop because if it does then you are asking employers, companies to also work for free and give their products and services for free. Then there is no value.
It may be a generational or entitlement disconnect but I've given up a lot and made tons of sacrifice and taken many chances and risks to earn my place and worked 70+ hours a week 7days a week for over 15 years and gone months without time off and suffered through it all to get this far. There are many people who have done the same here.
It's easy for someone who has no desire to work hard or no need to work hard, or the need to get out there and get it, and may have had everything given to them, or not had to struggle and suffer to suggest such a thing. Nothing personal.
 
Last edited:

Josh Kellogg

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2020
Messages
52
Reaction score
19
That sounds almost like barter system. It's much better imho for govt to start civilian public works projects (like FDR) to employ unemployed masses...may have to resort to that (I even told my daughter this earlier today).

Govt would never give up the dollar...they even made it against the law to hold any significant amount of gold at one point since they feared it can destabilize the dollar. Lots of value in fiat currency.

I guess the reason why I thought it being a crisis only solution, is so that the government would not have to go into debt, or give up the dollar, and the whole sections of the economy won't be destroyed coming out of this. But I do agree with your point there.

Do you think the tradeoff of a less stable dollar is worth the debt and industry loss? I'm genuinely asking, not trying to be sarcastic.
 

KidRockET

Epstein didn't kill himself
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
878
Reaction score
78
They have shuttered entire sections of the economy...

So free or not, many things are NOT moving...

Do you really want to have to prove your needs...

In order to go about your daily life...

Many say you don't need a 15 round magazine...

Think real hard about what you are asking...
 

Josh Kellogg

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2020
Messages
52
Reaction score
19
They have shuttered entire sections of the economy...

So free or not, many things are NOT moving...

Do you really want to have to prove your needs...

In order to go about your daily life...

Many say you don't need a 15 round magazine...

Think real hard about what you are asking...

Fair enough on the shuttering point. So I guess the idea could only be implemented in a crisis that not requiring business to stop doing business. I can see your point there.

But on the proving point, stores are already doing that. By saying you can get only one package of food or toiletries, they are effectively telling you what you need. What's worse about that is you in reality may need more, but are told to only get one, and thats where to proof comes in. So you can't overstock, but also get what you need.

And I won't comment on the mag thing, because I don't want to get political by coming down on my thoughts for a currently contested political issue. And then get reported.
 

KidRockET

Epstein didn't kill himself
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
878
Reaction score
78
Change the mag to a Corvette...

Do you need a Corvette...

What happens if everyone decides...

That they need a Corvette...

Is GM forced to produce Corvettes...

For everyone - FOR FREE
 

Rob702Martinez

Zip-Tie Oversight Committee
TRF Supporter
Joined
Dec 30, 2015
Messages
1,149
Reaction score
219
Location
Las Vegas
Fair enough on the shuttering point. So I guess the idea could only be implemented in a crisis that not requiring business to stop doing business. I can see your point there.

But on the proving point, stores are already doing that. By saying you can get only one package of food or toiletries, they are effectively telling you what you need. What's worse about that is you in reality may need more, but are told to only get one, and thats where to proof comes in. So you can't overstock, but also get what you need.

And I won't comment on the mag thing, because I don't want to get political by coming down on my thoughts for a currently contested political issue. And then get reported.
Not true because in the free country I can go to another store somewhere else and get my limit there should I need more. In your idea I can't go to a different employer to get more of what I need and it is up to a person at a company who decides what and how much I need, so then you are biasing by giving one employee more of something then the other when they both equally work hard.

Matter of time before this gets locked.
 

KidRockET

Epstein didn't kill himself
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
878
Reaction score
78
Hell,

I need a bigger house...

A maid, and a gardener...

And a Corvette...
 

Josh Kellogg

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2020
Messages
52
Reaction score
19
I'm not working for free because my work/efforts/talents/compensation/income/services- far exceeds some free food and goods nor would I accept any private company/industry dictate to me what they feel should be a necessity in my life in exchange for my free hard work.
You have a valid idea, not for me to decide if it's a good one or not, but it directly sounds like what my ancestors and family fled from in a country that turned communist overnight. Not saying your idea is such, but just the thought of it has resonance.
I'm also a self employed small business owner and I wouldn't allow my employees or team members to work for free either. When an employee is working they are producing 100% revenue for the employer so it would not be fair for that employer to benefit from their hard work and give them 25% of their pay in the form or food or goods after they prove the need for it. The money doesn't stop because if it does then you are asking employers, companies to also work for free and give their products and services for free. Then there is no value.
It may be a generational or entitlement disconnect but I've given up a lot and made tons of sacrifice and taken many chances and risks to earn my place and worked 70+ hours a week 7days a week for over 15 years and gone months without time off and suffered through it all to get this far. There are many people who have done the same here.
It's easy for someone who has no desire to work hard or no need to work hard, or the need to get out there and get it, and may have had everything given to them, or not had to struggle and suffer to suggest such a thing. Nothing personal.

I fully agree that your hard work exceeds food and goods. What I was saying is that all your bills for anything are 0. Including your overhead, and your employees would be covered. What would happen if companies that yours rely on go out of business? Thats what I meant by it, was to just keep society running until the crisis passes. I definitely understand your point on things turning communistic. That has happened before. Thats why i was saying make it a temporary measure, and only the currency changes, and not the entire permanent economic system change, so that things don't slide into the communist frame of an economy.
 

Josh Kellogg

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2020
Messages
52
Reaction score
19
Not true because in the free country I can go to another store somewhere else and get my limit there should I need more. In your idea I can't go to a different employer to get more of what I need and it is up to a person at a company who decides what and how much I need, so then you are biasing by giving one employee more of something then the other when they both equally work hard.

Matter of time before this gets locked.

Well thats what the checks are for, because then what would happen, is that people can business hop, then hoard goods that are needed by others, and then resell it and gouge people. Thats the protection. So that everyone gets what they need. And also, thats why I say it should be a temporary measure, because you are right, no one should be regularly telling you what to do. And the measures I'm saying should be no means be permanent. Because it is a free country. But also in this country, by law, our rights are suspended in times of crisis, I'm simply saying that under that established rubric, we use a different strategy to keep sections of the economy, and government from going bankrupt and getting permanently knocked out.
 

KenECoyote

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
2,682
Reaction score
71
I guess the reason why I thought it being a crisis only solution, is so that the government would not have to go into debt, or give up the dollar, and the whole sections of the economy won't be destroyed coming out of this. But I do agree with your point there.

Do you think the tradeoff of a less stable dollar is worth the debt and industry loss? I'm genuinely asking, not trying to be sarcastic.
I'm just an armchair economist, but I've home-studied the Depression in -2008 just before the last Recession and also predicted a recession coming since July of 2019 (and made moves to bonds/cash before both). From my observations, the Govt can "print" more money/QE since times of high unemployment & poor economy counter any inflationary effect (less demand/purchasing results in deflation while QE is inflationary). Of course this is a balancing act and it can be taken too far resulting in runaway inflation, but I don't think the US would let that happen. Plus there is more confidence in the U.S. Govt & it's currency vs. many other countries. Just the govt's "quick" action and huge trillions of money promised has already helped to boost the markets and people's confidence/hopes.

However who knows how bad it can get or how long...all a fortune telling game, but it's scary when I start hearing others voicing the same "out there" opinion I had months ago.
 

Josh Kellogg

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2020
Messages
52
Reaction score
19
Change the mag to a Corvette...

Do you need a Corvette...

What happens if everyone decides...

That they need a Corvette...

Is GM forced to produce Corvettes...

For everyone - FOR FREE

Thats why you need to show proof in times of crisis why you need a corvette. Thats what the checks are there for. Because people would try to take advantage, and if you already have transportation, then you aren't at need for a corvette. Also, the measures are temporary. And even if demands for corvettes go up like that. Corvette isn't being charged for production and overhead, so they wouldn't be impacted. And why I say the temporary measures are better, is because if people do take advantage, and get that corvette, when currency isn't suspended, they know have to pay all the upkeep and insurance for it. And if they can't handle the cost, they loose the car. Simple as that.
 

Steven

Lifetime Supporter
TRF Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Sep 17, 2013
Messages
2,962
Reaction score
572
With the exception of a Vette, we've got things covered.
 

Peartree

Cyborg Rocketeer
Staff member
Administrator
Global Mod
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
4,721
Reaction score
338
Location
Alliance, Ohio
Here's the problem: Who decides?

Who decides how much toilet paper that *I* need?

Who decides whether I *need* a Yugo, a Chevette, a Corvette, a pickup truck, or a tank?

Who do you want to have that much power and influence in a free society? If you say "the government" then the government just got a LOT bigger (because it's going to take a lot of people to make all those decisions for everyone else) and the government just got a LOT more powerful (because now the government literally has control of every single aspect of your life from the food you eat to healthcare, to reproduction.

The second problem is that *everything* can't be free. There is ultimately a cost, somewhere, and somebody has to pay it. So GM gives Corvettes away for free, the workers supply their labor for free (more on that in a moment), but it doesn't cost GM anything because all of it's raw materials are free. But where did those raw materials come from? Steel likely came from overseas and they aren't going to give their stuff away for free. The electricity could easily have come from the electric grid that came from Canada, and *they* aren't giving their electricity for free. And even if the iron ore came from the US, that means that it came from land that was owned by a US citizen and now the government (or somebody) just stole the value of their land without exchanging anything for it.

And the worst of it is the labor. What you are describing is, in many ways, how the Soviet planned economy was supposed to work, but the problem that quickly arose was that if all the food and rent and means of living are free, no one wants to work. If the guy that works three hours a day and takes a five hour smoke break gets paid the same as the person who's busting their butt and working 60 hours per week, it won't take long at all before no one is working at all. That's how millions of people starved during the first few years after the Soviets came to power. The government claimed all the land and the farmers were expected to produce food for free. But what happened was that the farmers grew just enough food to feed their families (and maybe a couple friends) and there was no food left for anyone else. Farmers got one of the first, and biggest, concessions in the Soviet system because if they didn't own their own land, and control their own production (and prices) there wasn't any incentive to do any more than absolutely necessary. As someone else said, "you can't change human nature." There has to be some medium of exchange. "Free" doesn't work.
 

Josh Kellogg

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2020
Messages
52
Reaction score
19
Here's the problem: Who decides?

Who decides how much toilet paper that *I* need?

Who decides whether I *need* a Yugo, a Chevette, a Corvette, a pickup truck, or a tank?

Who do you want to have that much power and influence in a free society? If you say "the government" then the government just got a LOT bigger (because it's going to take a lot of people to make all those decisions for everyone else) and the government just got a LOT more powerful (because now the government literally has control of every single aspect of your life from the food you eat to healthcare, to reproduction.

The second problem is that *everything* can't be free. There is ultimately a cost, somewhere, and somebody has to pay it. So GM gives Corvettes away for free, the workers supply their labor for free (more on that in a moment), but it doesn't cost GM anything because all of it's raw materials are free. But where did those raw materials come from? Steel likely came from overseas and they aren't going to give their stuff away for free. The electricity could easily have come from the electric grid that came from Canada, and *they* aren't giving their electricity for free. And even if the iron ore came from the US, that means that it came from land that was owned by a US citizen and now the government (or somebody) just stole the value of their land without exchanging anything for it.

And the worst of it is the labor. What you are describing is, in many ways, how the Soviet planned economy was supposed to work, but the problem that quickly arose was that if all the food and rent and means of living are free, no one wants to work. If the guy that works three hours a day and takes a five hour smoke break gets paid the same as the person who's busting their butt and working 60 hours per week, it won't take long at all before no one is working at all. That's how millions of people starved during the first few years after the Soviets came to power. The government claimed all the land and the farmers were expected to produce food for free. But what happened was that the farmers grew just enough food to feed their families (and maybe a couple friends) and there was no food left for anyone else. Farmers got one of the first, and biggest, concessions in the Soviet system because if they didn't own their own land, and control their own production (and prices) there wasn't any incentive to do any more than absolutely necessary. As someone else said, "you can't change human nature." There has to be some medium of exchange. "Free" doesn't work.
Here's the problem: Who decides?

Who decides how much toilet paper that *I* need?

Who decides whether I *need* a Yugo, a Chevette, a Corvette, a pickup truck, or a tank?

Who do you want to have that much power and influence in a free society? If you say "the government" then the government just got a LOT bigger (because it's going to take a lot of people to make all those decisions for everyone else) and the government just got a LOT more powerful (because now the government literally has control of every single aspect of your life from the food you eat to healthcare, to reproduction.

The second problem is that *everything* can't be free. There is ultimately a cost, somewhere, and somebody has to pay it. So GM gives Corvettes away for free, the workers supply their labor for free (more on that in a moment), but it doesn't cost GM anything because all of it's raw materials are free. But where did those raw materials come from? Steel likely came from overseas and they aren't going to give their stuff away for free. The electricity could easily have come from the electric grid that came from Canada, and *they* aren't giving their electricity for free. And even if the iron ore came from the US, that means that it came from land that was owned by a US citizen and now the government (or somebody) just stole the value of their land without exchanging anything for it.

And the worst of it is the labor. What you are describing is, in many ways, how the Soviet planned economy was supposed to work, but the problem that quickly arose was that if all the food and rent and means of living are free, no one wants to work. If the guy that works three hours a day and takes a five hour smoke break gets paid the same as the person who's busting their butt and working 60 hours per week, it won't take long at all before no one is working at all. That's how millions of people starved during the first few years after the Soviets came to power. The government claimed all the land and the farmers were expected to produce food for free. But what happened was that the farmers grew just enough food to feed their families (and maybe a couple friends) and there was no food left for anyone else. Farmers got one of the first, and biggest, concessions in the Soviet system because if they didn't own their own land, and control their own production (and prices) there wasn't any incentive to do any more than absolutely necessary. As someone else said, "you can't change human nature." There has to be some medium of exchange. "Free" doesn't work.

I agree with you on pretty much all of what you said, it makes total sense. Thats why what I meant by mandating that that currency not be required, I meant that as the only thing government can do, so that the government doesn't take over the production, and it still stays in private hands. Because government can't handle things well as the soviets learned. But the other mandate to it that I should have elaborated on, was that the controls either be done by private business with their products (since there still needs to be a consensual transaction whether or not the price is 0, and business must keep up with production, so in times of panic, rationing still needs to be done like its being done now with certain products), or the government simply has preset options. Example: a family of four can get four packets of a certain good. I know thats a basic example but I hope you see what I mean. Because the issue is that if there isn't any limit, then people can hoard, resell, then price gouge. Stores can limit how much people can buy, so I figured, that instead of one per person buying, where a family may not get what it needs, and instead of unlimited where people can take advantage, it seems like a in between option.

Also as to the government power issues. I fully agree that it would make government too powerful, thats why I said it must be a temporary mandate for crisis only. Much like the wartime mandates already on place which basically do the same thing.

And I fully agree with you that if just the us did it, other countries wouldn't abide. Thats why I said what if, like what ifif it was a global mandate. And all countries agreed to it. I fully know that its unrealistic today, but just wanted to play with the idea of what it would be like of they did.

As to the labor. Thats why its a temporary measure, because you are totally right that it insentivises people not to work, and therefore is unsustainable. So it physically can't be a long term solution. Just meant for very short term crisis situation. And people do seem to step up in times of crisis, because no one would want to starve, so the insentive is that they still get all their needs met, and won't loose anything till the crisis passes, because currently people will still be losing everything.

The overlying idea for the plan is to at least keep everything running and consistent until the crisis passes, not to be a complete economic change permanently. Its also meant for industries to still exist coming out of this without a country going into unbreakable debt to bail out the industries. Its a choice between long term issues and short term issues. The debt coming out of this and industries no longer existing coming out of this strikes me as a longer and more harmful issue, than a short term, unsustainable way that at least can get the industries out it.

Sorry for the long reply.
 

Rob702Martinez

Zip-Tie Oversight Committee
TRF Supporter
Joined
Dec 30, 2015
Messages
1,149
Reaction score
219
Location
Las Vegas
For those worried about hoarding and price gouging, at least in CA, it's illegal to overcharge or take advantage of pricing on anything during a declared crisis. :headspinning:
 

Josh Kellogg

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2020
Messages
52
Reaction score
19
For those worried about hoarding and price gouging, at least in CA, it's illegal to overcharge or take advantage of pricing on anything during a declared crisis. :headspinning:

Well thats a good thing, is that a federal law too?
 
2
Top