A global pandemic originated in China, has left businesses around the globe counting costs. A global, novel virus that keeps us confined to our lodgings - for days, or even for months - is already revamping our relationship to government, to the outside world and even to each other. Some changes that experts expect to see in the coming months or years might feel unfamiliar or unsettling: Will we establish boundaries ? Will touch become taboo? What will become of restaurants? However, another outlook can be to view it as ‘a blessing in disguise’.
Because, this crisis moment also presents opportunity: more sophisticated and flexible use of technology, less ramification among different groups, a revived appreciation for the outdoors and life’s other simple pleasures. The outcome is uncertain, but there are diverse ways as to how our society - the government, healthcare, our lifestyles and more will change. One important attribute responding to this change is our “global economy”.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
In an ideal situation, the trauma of this pandemic will force society to curb mass consumer culture in order to defend ourselves against future contagions and climate disasters alike. For decades, we took the edge off of our prodigious appetites by encroaching on an ever-expanding chaff of the planet with our industrial activities, forcing wild species to cram into remaining fragments of their habitat in closer proximity to ours. That’s what nhas allowed animal microbes such as SARS-COVID19—not to mention hundreds of others from Ebola to Nipah—to cross over into human bodies, causing epidemics. Theoretically, we could decide to shrink our industrial footprint and conserve wildlife habitat, so that animal microbes stay in animals’ bodies, instead. More likely, we’ll see less directly relevant mutations.
Rewinding to previous years, the administration was slammed by experts for imposing tariffs on imports on a global basis for national security reasons. But to most economists, China was the real reason for turmoil in the markets, particularly that of metals; and imposing tariffs additionally on them was nonsensical on the government’s part, the argument went: After all, even if the country loses its steel industry altogether, we would still be able to count on supplies from other allies.
Fast forward to 2020. Currently, allies are considering sizeful border restrictions , including shutting down ports, even domestic airports and restricting exports . While there’s nothing to suggest that the coronavirus essentially is being transmitted through commerce, one can envisage a perfect blizzard in which deep recessions plus hiking geopolitical tensions limit a country’s access to its normal supply chains and the lack of homegrown capacity in various product markets limits the government’s ability to respond deftly to threats like these. Admissible people can differ over whether those tariffs were the right response at the right time.
The coronavirus pandemic will exert influence on corporations to weigh the efficiency and costs/benefits of a globalized supply chain system against the austerity of a domestic-based supply chain. By switching to a more vigorous domestic supply chain, we would refrain from depending entirely on an increasingly ruptured global supply system. Howbeit, this would betterensure that people get the goods they need, this shift would likely also ascend costs to corporations and consumers.
Discussions of inequality often focus on the growing gap between the bottom 99 percent and the top 1 percent. But the other gap that has grown is between the top richest and all the rest—and that gap will be aggravated by this pandemic. The wealthiest have comparatively made greater income gains than those below them in the income hierarchy in recent decades. They are more often members of highly educated families, high-salary professionals or managers, they live in Internet-ready homes that will accommodate telecommuting—and where children have their own bedrooms and aren’t asturbulent to a work-from-home schedule. The other 80 percent lack that financial cushion. Not many will be OK, as masses of them will struggle with job losses and family burdens. They are more likely to be single parents or sole bread earner of the households. They’re less able to work from home, and largely employed in the service sectors; in jobs that put them at greater danger of coming into contact with the coronavirus. In many cases, their children will not have access to education at home, because parents will not be able to teach them, or their households might lack access to the high-speed Internet that enables remote instruction via online classroom.
Stuck on your essay?
