[tankenmate]

During the 1750s the average work day was 11 hours, 208 days a year (2288).

During the 1860s the average work day was 16 hours, 311 days a year (4976).

During the 1920s the average work day was 8 hours, 243 days a year (1944, and productivity was up according to Henry Ford).

Most tech employers in China pre COVID, 10 hours a day, 297 days a year (2970).

Netherlands pre COVID, 5.8 hours a day, 234 days a year (1357).

US pre COVID, 6.9 hours a day, 239 days a year (1649).

Which one of the above examples cared the most about their jobs? Which was the most productive? In terms of business profit PPP? And wage PPP?

[throwaway22032]

I don't care how many hours a day people work or about your abstract economic figures.

What I care about is that when I go to book a driving test, I can get one. I could do that pre-2020. I now can't.

This experience has been replicated across the economy.

Things have stopped working properly.

As far as I'm concerned your "PPP" is intellectual masturbation.

The population is unhappy because structural changes, not only limited to coronavirus, have meant that work doesn't pay.

[AlexandrB]

> What I care about is that when I go to book a driving test, I can get one. I could do that pre-2020. I now can't.

Sounds like a supply and demand problem. The marker solution would be to increase wages for driving testers and attract more candidates to these positions.

[throwaway22032]

Yes, across the entire economy, because it's not just driving tests, it's everything.

What we actually did, is to print money and give it to people for not working.

And so, as in the article, 20% inflation. Oops!

[tankenmate]

The alternative was mass unemployment, it would have taken two decades to re-prime the pump. So the alternative to such a large shock was either ~5 years of inflation / stagflation largely caused by supply side issues (can't get a driving test, can't get employees, can't get something shipped from China, etc), or a two decade (a la 30s / 40s) rebuilding the economy from scratch.

And (as a side issue) you shouldn't be surprised that large scale uncontained shocks lead to war. Look at the drought in Syria from 2006 to 2010. Look at the largely global economic shock in the 30s. If you want to see what a systemic supply shock can do to economies at scale have a look at the complete collapse in the lead up to 1177 BC.

So a large systemic shock like COVID will need to be "paid for", and the choices are "a very big bill" or "a catastrophic bug bill". I suspect that you feel that life was fine pre COVID and you were happy with your lot. And now you're not, you wish it was back the way it was (e.g. you can book a test). So since we had interventions (most "imposed" on us), post hoc ergo propter hoc the interventions are bad.

So my suggestion is to do a root cause analysis and realise that humans (both individually and collectively) are bad at dealing with black swans, even when we know it will come (sooner or later). And secondly, even if you don't like this human short coming and you wish that someone would just "get a grip" of the situation so you don't have to deal with something you don't like, it might help to have a bit more empathy towards people trying to help.

[throwaway22032]

Nah, the alternative was to not close everything down :)

[tankenmate]

So then the only viable alternative to collapse (a la 1177BC), or the circling the drain that was 30s hyperinflation, is stagflation (which is somewhat similar to the 70s energy crisis).

So the question is can the UK handle it better than MT did in the early 80s. It took about 8 years last time, has monetary / fiscal understanding improved in any practical sense since then? Will the UK have another George Soros to inflict reality on the powers that be? Watch this space...