Recession: The Government's Obvious Mistake

[Marykeller]

How will the Ukrainian government explain this? During the war between Ukrainian and Russia, there was a stampede of people entering the train and there were no necessary measures taken in place before entering the train.
The Ukrainian government didn't try to curtail the spread of covid-19 during that moment. Their government and the USA government didn't raise alarm about the negligence of Ukrainian citizens taken in respect of not following the precautions of covid-19. All there focused was on how to defend their land and defeat the Russians. The global body didn't question the spread of covid-19. They were all agitating for peace to reign between both nations.

Um..bruh i do not know if you are on another topic, but in case you are not, the topic here is not about the Ukrainian, American or any specific government, it is about every government, because all of them took similar actions to curtail the spread of covid, of which it is those actions that have resulted in inflation and other problems now.

It goes without saying that covid started long before the war in Ukraine, where is the connection? Are you somehow suggesting Ukraine shouldn't defend her territory but focus on covid. In my opinion, the threat to their territory is a much bigger problem to them than covid was or ever will be.

The essence of the lockdown was it not to stop the further spread of covid-19? Don't make it look as if the occurrence I pointed out is irrelevant to the post.

I understand the topic more than you can think. The lockdown affected so many businesses and jobs globally and I was affected by it also. There was a global economic meltdown during that time.

In case you forget so quickly, there were strict measures in some countries during the Ukraine war. Some countries were still taking the necessary measure for stopping the spread of Covid-19 that has killed thousands of their citizens.
Don't get my comment twisted

[1715051246]

1715051246

[1715051246]

1715051246

[1715051246]

1715051246

[Despairo]

This sounds as if we are going against the nature of grace for the presence of a baby. I know there are family planning programs, but is reducing the human population at the heart of the overall lockdown?
Let's say the lockdown is for those who are ready, but for those who can only last a day, they don't care about the lockdown just to survive and provide for their families, they are willing to oppose this one-sided policy.

Reducing human population do have indirect effect for the lockdown. As you said those who are ready will have a lot money and can survive even they're not working, this applies when human population isn't too big, there will increase the chance of people become rich since it will not wasting to grow a baby. You may think I'm rude by saying that, but it's what it's and that's the main problem.

Too much human population will increase poverty and low salary due to too much demand for working rather than good paying job. I'd say when there's no more poverty and anyone working at least at the minimum salary of the country, we wouldn't see people panic due to lockdown.

Are the incentives during our lockdown getting an even distribution phenomenon? channeled into the hands of the needy? maybe not, because there is always someone who wants to take part.

Of course, corruption always happen. Maybe if the government want to distribute around $1 Million to the poor people, only $100K were successful.

[naira]

Reducing human population do have indirect effect for the lockdown. As you said those who are ready will have a lot money and can survive even they're not working, this applies when human population isn't too big, there will increase the chance of people become rich since it will not wasting to grow a baby. You may think I'm rude by saying that, but it's what it's and that's the main problem.

Too much human population will increase poverty and low salary due to too much demand for working rather than good paying job. I'd say when there's no more poverty and anyone working at least at the minimum salary of the country, we wouldn't see people panic due to lockdown.

If we look at other countries, the lockdown has passed and people have returned to their respective activities. So the lockdown is no longer effective in supporting how few people are in boosting the economy. The reason is at this time we have entered the economic recovery some are slow and some are fast, depending on how the government anticipates it. I know in terms of population reduction it sounds like when a pandemic starts with a population reduction agenda, right? The deaths of millions of people in the world are labeled as a result of Covid when only related (cough, flu, heart disease, and the common cold are labeled as COVID and you must be vaccinated immediately). Anything can happen when it comes to media control but behind the locks, we'd really appreciate how important it is to save money.

[mu_enrico]

Maybe he is like the other that does not believe on coivd?

Whoa chill dude
The question is, why it requires belief if all about the disease is obvious? I don't have to believe that, let's say, HIV/AIDS exists, no question.
But it may not be suitable for this econ discussion and COVID discussion is outdated already.

for us that believes then we think that lock downs are a good thing because there is also proof that people are dying and cases are rising all over the world. Majority of the people are also scared during that peak so they just agree to this rule but even if they don't they will still be forced or else they will pay big for it.

If you believe COVID exists, it shouldn't automatically support the lockdowns. What's the proof that lockdown will slow down the spread, lowering the death rate? What if nothing change other than the economy (for the worse). What if the excess mortality isn't because of COVID, but because of lockdowns - no income?

It's evident that when rice is abundant, the rat population increase, conversely when there's shortage, the rat population decrease.

Anyway, the effects of the pandemic are starting to get lowered and the economy is returning back to normal again.

What if it doesn't have to be that way? There's no need to return to normal if we didn't deviate from the normality in the first place.

Um, clearly? I mean they've called it an agenda themselves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Reset.

Yeah, I'm aware of the WEF thing, but I don't think this organization has so much influence.

I don't think there is any agenda it's just that they are too dumb to come up with a better solution, they just do what is easy which is to print money (which is the main reason for these days inflations and being on the verge of recession). Any other solution would be harder and could also come with some unknown risks. Most governments don't bother with it since their terms would come to an end soon before they can finish it!!!

Make sense! They just pick what's easy. I thought it's because of the myopic policy as well. They only think for the short term, but it doesn't match with the green agenda. They are trying to solve 100+ year problem now.

[Gyfts]

Most governments knew what they were doing when they elected to shutdown the entire global supply chain network, their own economies/businesses for the sake of a virus that has a 99.9 percent survival rate. I'm assuming, and this is giving them credit, that the damages as a result of the lockdown strategies were miscalculated and ended up being more severe than they thought it would be.

They knew the end result would be slow economic growth and high inflation, but perhaps they did not expect such a severe degree of stagflation.

I don't think they are dumb, but maybe they followed the wrong principle. Or there's a big agenda to get people into poverty?

They followed "the science," according to them, and not basic economics.