Coronavirus

[teamsaint]

I don't criticise that, at all, but spend for those who haven't managed to save, who are worse off than before, who don't have access to private transport and who still are being told to "stay home" because 83% of deaths come from their age group.

I do realise that many people are worse off than before the virus. But far more people are at least as well off, and really can’t spend on things such as travel, concerts etc.
Unfortunately, the government had to frighten ( some) people to make the lockdown effective, and are now faced with the opposite problem, of persuading ( some) people out , even though it is probably very safe for them to be out and about, if following distancing guidelines.
My concern is that many people who do have discretionary spend available will be spending less than they might usually, because of unfounded fears. I hope that I am wrong.

Edit.....as it goes, I need ( or want )new running shoes, but I’m certainly not joining a mile long queue to get into Sports Direct !!

Think I’ll go to a smaller indie group instead.....https://upandrunning.co.uk

[Count Boso]

My concern is that many people who do have discretionary spend available will be spending less than they might usually, because of unfounded fears. I hope that I am wrong.

Yes, I've just read an article in the FT - I can't read it again without subscribing - which had a graph showing that anxiety levels at all levels (measured by single/partnered/widowed) had increased markedly.

[MrGongGong]

We shouldn't always knock big businesses, or just be biased significantly against ones we don't like.

The world would be better off without "Spoons"

It really is quite simple IMV

[oddoneout]

The world would be better off without "Spoons"

It really is quite simple IMV

Is it the company itself, and what it provides, or the idiot at the top who is the problem for you?

[LMcD]

The world would be better off without "Spoons"

It really is quite simple IMV

I can't wait for them to finally get round to building their much-delayed new pub (as against their usual refurbishment) on the site of the former doctors' surgery, which has been an eyesore for far too long. Somehow, I never seem to think about Mr W when enjoying a burger and Greene King IPA at under £2 a pint.

[oddoneout]

I do realise that many people are worse off than before the virus. But far more people are at least as well off, and really can’t spend on things such as travel, concerts etc.
Unfortunately, the government had to frighten ( some) people to make the lockdown effective, and are now faced with the opposite problem, of persuading ( some) people out , even though it is probably very safe for them to be out and about, if following distancing guidelines.
My concern is that many people who do have discretionary spend available will be spending less than they might usually, because of unfounded fears. I hope that I am wrong.

Edit.....as it goes, I need ( or want )new running shoes, but I’m certainly not joining a mile long queue to get into Sports Direct !!

Think I’ll go to a smaller indie group instead.....https://upandrunning.co.uk

Can't help feeling it would be useful to inject some of that caution into those who now seem determined to 'get back to normal' asap regardless of what controls still exist(and those who want to abide by them) and what their financial position/prospects may be.
Once the normal routines eventually kick in - commuting, work outside the home, school - the general spend will go up as previous habits re-establish(takeaway coffees, ready prepared sandwiches etc) regardless of what was temporarily learnt during lockdown, although some will make the changes a more permanent part of their lives.

[Serial_Apologist]

I think what is vital is that people support those businesses that are local and independent
otherwise, the only "choice" we will have is Walmart, Tesco and Wetherspoons ... the sooner we get the latter to go bust the better IMV

The problem being that, on the current "model", without the huge (relatively-speaking, as always) profits made by big biz, there wouldn't be the wherewithal in tax returns to pay for the essential services such as Welfare and the NHS. The costs ***in reality*** of such a system as the one we have, in terms of wastage: excess cash sloshing around that then gets devalued when the overproduction that is the consequence of capitalism's anarchic mode of prod. and distr. goes into periodical overdrive, known as boomtime, then recession; wastage in terms of natural resources - raw materials, ecological sustainability, human input. Were production to be held and controlled and distributed "in common" not only would there be less need for the massive monetary injections needed to keep the dying horse breathing, but less need to "keep up with the Joneses" in the mad gadarene mass rush to the next precipice, and the anger and scapegoating required to maintain the divide-and-rule necessary for unholding the status quo.

Some of us have been saying this for a long time unheeded, told that the forces of law 'n' order and self-entitlment were too strong to challenge. But now everyone, regardless of wealth or social status, is in the same place - threatened by coronovirus, future pandemics and increasing chances of an inhospitable planet.

You know it makes sense!

[Frances_iom]

... Were production to be held and controlled and distributed "in common" not only would there be less need for the massive monetary injections needed to keep the dying horse breathing, but less need to "keep up with the Joneses" in the mad gadarene mass rush to the next precipice, and the anger and scapegoating required to maintain the divide-and-rule necessary for unholding the status quo.
...
You know it makes sense!

Lenin had a go at 5 year plans - electrification etc - Stalin improved on his ideas by removing an awkward layer of recalcitrant peasants who thought they could use the land better - a few unfortunates lost their lives over this - the Chinese also tried it with a great leap forward - also a few peasants had some feeding problems and later by suggesting to the plebs that if they had fewer children all would be well - centralised planning has a long + glorious history.

Later the Chinese decided to establish an open air debate in one of their large squares to demonstrate to the educated youth that it really was in their interests to support centralised planning - many of the youth were never the same after this generous offer by the government

[Serial_Apologist]

Lenin had a go at 5 year plans - electrification etc - Stalin improved on his ideas by removing an awkward layer of recalcitrant peasants who thought they could use the land better - a few unfortunates lost their lives over this - the Chinese also tried it with a great leap forward - also a few peasants had some feeding problems and later by suggesting to the plebs that if they had fewer children all would be well - centralised planning has a long + glorious history.

Later the Chinese decided to establish an open air debate in one of their large squares to demonstrate to the educated youth that it really was in their interests to support centralised planning - many of the youth were never the same after this generous offer by the government

Well of course there was also Trotsky, though he too was not without tarnish, waking up a bit late to what was going on under Stalin. Socialism had always been seen up to that point as grass-roots planned and organised production and shared distribution, gained through the process of unseating those who had usurped monopoly control by dint of the periodic scarcity entrenched in pre-existing social models. The way I see it, "the left" has learned a lot since WW2, taking on board the textural-enrichments of an otherwise poorly embellished vision offered in the "holy texts" of later Marx and his would-be successors, namely the leading protagonists of the subsequent "internationals". Their explanations of capitalism's shortcomings and, after Marx, strategies for socialism, left prescriptive and descriptive vacuums with regards to what socialism would mean in the every day, other than generalised outlinings, such as in Clause 4 of Labour's party principles, pre-Blair.

It has been left to the neo-Freudians and post-Structuralists, in their respective fields, to assist in filling out the picture, unveiling subconscious motivators and linguistic conventions driving compliance with the status quo, and to sociologists, psychologists, artists and dramatists to uncover the underlying roots of alienation in everyday operation. And lately it has been down to environmentalists to raise the alarm on sustainability under the existing system, while drawing out parallels linking advances in scientific knowledge to the practical applications of far-eastern principles pre-dating Christianity in technological solutions non-discongruent with the workings of nature. The idea being that the fate of such systemic, wisdom-based approaches lay in the hands of history - experiments that though premature held rehearsive value for the interconnected world we now live in.

Margaret Mead's researches into ancient Chinese history are worth a read for this subject: we now understand that societies do not "have to" follow pre-ordained courses of development in the teleological succession sequence over-simplistically ascribed to Marx, even though technology will always determine conditions, and conditions, expectations. We have had a lot to learn from since the errors of the first half of the 20th century because it is possible to see where and how things went badly wrong. The same cannot be said for capitalism's defenders, who despite the privilege of media publicity have no recourse other than to keep repeating the same clichés and platitudes with every (predictable) crisis.

[Frances_iom]

I must have missed the famines in the capitalist west - the Chinese did well post WW2 under Mao, other SE Asian nations tried to emulate Mao's success - even the one-time bread basket of Africa managed to improve on Mao in terms of feeding its populace.

[zola]

But surely the government would not be so petty as to ban scientific advisors from the daily briefings just because they had refused to support Dominic Cummings ?

[Dave2002]

But surely the government would not be so petty as to ban scientific advisors from the daily briefings just because they had refused to support Dominic Cummings ?

But BJ has recently said something along the lines of "we can't ignore public opinion ...", in only a very slightly different context.

[Serial_Apologist]

I must have missed the famines in the capitalist west - the Chinese did well post WW2 under Mao, other SE Asian nations tried to emulate Mao's success - even the one-time bread basket of Africa managed to improve on Mao in terms of feeding its populace.

I must be missing some heavy-handed irony here, I think

[johnb]

But surely the government would not be so petty as to ban scientific advisors from the daily briefings just because they had refused to support Dominic Cummings ?

Perhaps I'm wrong but I believe that the scientific advisors, by taking part in the briefings, have already accepted a type of "cabinet responsibility" which limits their ability to give voice to any significant differences they may have with the government's policies and decisions. After all they are government appointees, one way or another.

Richard Horton (editor of The Lancet) has commented on a "broken system of obsequious politico-scientific complicity".

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/14/the-lancets-editor-the-uk-response-to-coronavirus-is-the-greatest-science-policy-failure-for-a-generation

A searing indictment.

[Frances_iom]

I guess as a serialist you too easily miss the underlying melody.

Anyway to bring the posting back on topic - yes it required the senior nurse to point out that BJ (no doubt under the direction of DC) was merely using them to prop up an incompetent administration