In the case of a major epidemic, would it create a positive influence for the economy?
Okay so like, If there was a virus or a disease that killed off half the population. Would that create a positive influence for the economy?,
Because like, half the houses would be un-inhabited. Imagine how low the housing prices would be. You could just pick any house you wanted, remove any rotting corpses and you could buy it for hardly any amount.
Cars would be really cheap, because there’d be twice as many cars needed for the population.
And second hand electronics, and televisions, there would be such a surplus of goods, everything would be extremely cheap. Because there would be no-one to use them.
Would it create an overall positive effect for the economy?
We don’t need a nasty virus to get those effects. Larger government will do all that for you by killing off those who disagree with the regime.
How could anyone think the wholesale massacre of 1/2 of the population would be good? By any means that would be disastrous. Who cares about the free goodies that would be left behind? What if it were your sons or daughters, parents or friends? Would there be cause for celebration then?
May 28th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
If there is anyone left alive to enjoy this economic upturn? Maybe.
No, the economy would crash terribly. Nothing would be traded, nobody can buy and sell, hospitals and clinics will be overwhelmed and the Military will be on overdrive. Remember the last time people weren’t spending money? *cough* Recession *cough*. Recall the Spanish Flu of 1918? I don’t remember anyone talking about how great the economy was then. How about the Black Plague in the 13th century which wiped out 1/3 of Europe’s population?That pretty much halted all economic activity and everyone was in poverty and misery, the lucky ones died.
References :
May 28th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
…Wow…No not really…*facepalm*
References :
May 28th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Yeah, business would be booming.
References :
May 28th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Negative Ghost Rider.
References :
May 28th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
So let’s see what your saying here: No jobs building new housing. No jobs building automobiles. No jobs building, servicing or selling electronics. Half the skilled labor/workforce killed off. Yeah, I can’t see a flaw in your logic. The economy should boom. Have you told Obama about this plan yet? I bet they would start work on an air-born Ebola virus ASAP.
References :
May 28th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
We don’t need a nasty virus to get those effects. Larger government will do all that for you by killing off those who disagree with the regime.
How could anyone think the wholesale massacre of 1/2 of the population would be good? By any means that would be disastrous. Who cares about the free goodies that would be left behind? What if it were your sons or daughters, parents or friends? Would there be cause for celebration then?
References :
May 28th, 2010 at 8:06 pm
It depends which half. If it happened to hit poor regions such as Malaria and AIDS in Africa, it wouldn’t amount much to the U.S. economy. Malaria kills about 1 million people a year and infected about 300 million. See the employment rising because of that? Heck, you probably didn’t know that many people died from it or have it. The CIA and even the DOD has labeled AIDS a military threat because it can bring down countries and create gangs which then can turn into terrorist groups.
References :
May 28th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
In a sick kind of way, yes.
Housing prices have already plummeted though.
There would also be lots of job openings!
Have you been reading or watching "The Stand"?
References :
May 28th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
There is no economy separate from people. If you kill half the people you kill half the economy.
Prices on everything would remain the same, because there would be half the demand, and half the production.
References :
May 28th, 2010 at 9:11 pm
It sounds like Paradise for looters; but no one else.
References :
May 28th, 2010 at 9:25 pm
It would seem that it might be that way assuming we had a free economy. But since the government and big business work hand in hand to create a captive market, it would work just the opposite way. The government would implement new taxes for the disposal of excess property while the corporations would be allowed to increase prices due to the shortage of manpower.
References :
May 28th, 2010 at 9:55 pm
nope. it would crush the world as we know it. we would all kind of be cavemen/cavegals again. once major industries and utilities fail, as they would under your scenario, they are gone. the education systems fail. EVERYTHING falls apart. you can have all the second hand appliances you want as well as all the cars you want, BUT there is simply no power to run any of it. it’s useless junk. do you know how to fire up a power plant? neither do i. there is no food. i can slaughter a cow, but can you? and can you find a cow? oil, gas, and food supplies are very limited. IF a epidemic took out half the population, it would take 50 years, minimum, to over come it and the world would be a different place entirely.
References :
May 28th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
No, it would probably cause an economic collapse. The last of any shared resources that a currency was backed with would be spent fighting whatever disease caused the population to die down.
When the dead people’s houses were filled again and their canned food divided up, most of what they have is in bank accounts that no one but their own family members can get to, and most of those resources would just go back to the banks.
Who, of course, already control the houses and aren’t going to give them to you for free just because you clear out 4.5 corpses. That house is worth what the bank says it’s worth, no matter how many houses there are. They own all the other empty houses too.
There are already more than enough cars, if you’re including the broken down heaps you’ll find most of the people that died have. You don’t have to wait for some "left behind" scenario to buy a used car; you have the exact same benefit today. Yahoo search a used car dealership near you.
The real problem is that we rely on new resources being created every day, and now half the people creating those resources are gone. With that big a number, there is no one to replace a lot of those people. Power plants melt down, airplanes crash into runways. All of that has a cost.
It would be the financial equivalent of being on Oprah’s show when she gave out all the cars, and then finding out you couldn’t afford to keep it because you can’t afford to pay the taxes on it. Except on a national scale.
References :
May 28th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
Not at all It would create choas and an even bigger police state here in America.
References :