A Headline About David Portnoy and Capitalism and Coronavirus
Tags: Coronavirus, Inequality, Lockdown, Dave Portnoy, Capitalism

Dave Portnoy, the founder of the esteemed Barstool Sports, has again weighed in on something he knows nothing about — how the United States should respond to the coronavirus pandemic. After watching his video, it’s obvious that if capitalism were the infectious disease, he’d throw a huge party and only invite those already infected.

Here’s the thing — I believe that Dave Portnoy actually cares about small businesses and the people who run them. He really does think small business owners are the lifeblood of our country, and if you ask him he wouldn’t hesitate to say he’s pro-worker. But his words show that given the choice Portnoy would sacrifice the very same worker he claims to protect on the altar of capitalism if he had to choose between the two. A major argument against Catholics in America used to be that they’d really be loyal to the Pope, not to their country. The funny thing is the people who probably made that argument — Capitalists — are more loyal to their (false) god, Adam Smith, than they are to their country.

At one point In the video he says that the government is taking away the “freedom to make a living”. The way he means it, I assume, is that you also have the freedom to die. That there is no social safety net. You either succeed or you don’t. Does Portnoy honestly believe in — and support — the idea that this is some man eat man stuff? (Bruh you flew (probably privately) from your really expensive home in New York City to your really expensive home in Miami. If you had to kill or be killed…) Does he believe that every person for themselves is the BEST way for a society to function? If he does, that’s some pure libertarian market based stuff. And I mean stuff as in really dumb not stuff as in well thought out ideas. I’ve never read Lord of the Flies but this feels like the point where someone would say something like “That’s some Lord of the Flies … right there.”

On The World Bank’s website about social safety nets, the sub header reads, “Social safety net programs protect families from the impact of economic shocks, natural disasters, and other crises.” And the very first line in the article declares, “An estimated 36 percent of the very poor escaped extreme poverty because of social safety nets, providing clear evidence that social safety net programs…are making a substantial impact in the global fight against poverty.” These programs also “…reduce the poverty gap by about 45 percent.” Countries also raise their GDP levels when they implement tight and strong social safety nets that result in low levels of income inequality. According to the Global Social Mobility report, created by the World Economic Forum, the United States could add 867 billion dollars to its GDP by 2030 if it reduced its income inequality by 10 points in their rankings. In addition, the economies that instituted extremely strict measures for a shorter period of time and then transitioned to common sense restrictions are currently recovering at the fastest rate. At the moment the United States ranks behind Brazil! And Hungary! And Malaysia! In terms of our economic recovery.

This data proves we need a stronger social safety net in America in general — so it’s easy to assume we need even more during this pandemic, too.

Another (almost accurate) quote “Where do you think people are going? They’re going to house parties”

Wait — a sound argument? I used to say this one all the time in support of fraternities having parties. That it’s better to have kids trust you than have them hide stuff, especially on an institutional level. And I still believe that — my freshman year roommate pretty much saved my life because they knew calling an ambulance for me when I was so drunk I couldn’t walk wouldn’t get me or them in trouble.

To be honest, I actually don’t know if I can argue against this one. Good point, Portnoy.

I’m still not sure if that means we should be allowing restaurants to open up, but I am definitely willing to talk about possible solutions to this problem.

I swear this one is pretty close — “All you’re doing is ruining thousands and thousands and thousands of lives”

Well we’ll see if the rates and DEATHS go down. Death is the main thing that ruins life, I’m pretty sure.

So he’s saying that the government is ruining these lives because the government is shutting down the restaurants. That the people who both own and work for these businesses won’t be able to survive since they won’t have any source of income. Let’s think about this one for a little bit. What if there was some sort of institution that was responsible for supporting the people who paid into it in their time of need? What if that institution also had the power to spend money while taking other measures to uniquely stimulate the economy?

The answer to this is to have the government pay for it. Have the government give , oh I don’t know, stimulus checks? Pay everyone to stay home for 4 weeks, or 6. The thing is, numerous studies have already proven lockdowns reduce the spread of coronavirus. And by reduce the spread, I also mean reduce the number of deaths. It’s difficult to have a restaurant during a government-mandated shutdown, but it’s even more difficult to have one when all your customers are dead.

“You wanna stay home stay home”

Again another lie. Unfortunately in this case, your mindset does not directly correlate to how sick you get. It’s not like everybody in the hospital (you know, laying there, taking up beds, getting intubated, DYING) believed in the coronavirus while those people walking around thinking you should be able to choose for yourself have some sort of protection from the virus that decreases their chances of getting it. It’d be nice if there was some sort of protection like that — and if that protection also caused the transmission rate to drop a precipitous amount.

Oh — wait.

Or if there was a thing becoming available soon that could make it so you don’t get sick from the virus even if you catch it and all we had to do was wait a little bit for it.

Oh — wait.

David Portnoy does not want to listen to the experts who have not only studied this specific virus and pandemic but who can also incorporate historical context to make a WELL EDUCATED decision. This is another symptom of his Capitalist mindset. And this Capitalist mindset results in actual Americans dying.

Yes making the argument that deaths are rising relies on the fact that those dying are primarily “older”. Even if you think this is a valid sentiment — which it isn’t (if it was then why do we normally spend so much time trying to lengthen life? Why were Republicans so up in arms about the “death panels” Obamacare would create?) — our country could also avoid these deaths. One of the reasons for them is because of the people who won’t die from it yet contract this virus and spread it or take up hospital beds/resources.

I don’t care how you get there. I really don’t care what your starting point is. I understand your starting point — and that you believe your starting point is valid. We both want these people to survive. For these people to be successful. You don’t want people to lose their life’s work because of an outside force they can’t control. But, again, to use a similar setup — it’s hard to have your life’s work without your life. With your way, with your way, people die. And I mean like a lot more than normally should. 100,000 more.