COVID-19: Are government resources better spent on public health or stimulating the economy?

The strength of the economy depends on an able workforce

Question: COVID-19: Are government resources better spent on public health or stimulating the economy?
Position‹3 of 3: Government resources are better spent on public health
Argument‹2 of 2: The strength of the economy depends on an able workforce

If additional funding is not put into protecting citizens from the coronavirus, the economy is doomed.

The argument

The economy is built on the strength of its workforce, and the argument's first task is to say what the word “economy” refers to when it is invoked in this debate. As Robert Reich, former US Secretary of Labor, writes in response to Trump's comments: 'An “economy” is nothing but human beings. So it matters whose losses we’re talking about – whose losses of life, and whose losses of dollars'. This distinction is key to understanding the central question in this debate. Namely, the mainstay of the economy is the ability of the population to work. Not the stock market. The two can move apart, and when they do, an appeal to protect “the economy” has to be resolved into a choice about which of them is being protected — because a policy that supports share prices while the workforce is sick is not the same policy as one that keeps people able to work. Once the question is put that way, proponents argue, the distribution of the benefit becomes visible. Those that would benefit if the workforce returned during the crisis belong to a tiny, wealthy elite. As Reich says, 'The bankers and billionaires now urging Americans get back to work possess a huge share of that stock market. The richest 1% of the population owns roughly half of the value of all shares of stock. (The richest 10% own more than 80%)'. The gains from a rising market accrue to the same people making the case for reopening, while the risk of returning falls on those who must be physically present to do their jobs. In this case, encouraging people to return to work would mean sacrificing countless lives to maintain the vast wealth of the 1%.

Context

It is reductive to look at the overall value of the economy, without considering how that value is created. Prioritising economic growth over public health will make short term gains for a wealthy minority. However, the subsequent Covid spread will decimate the workforce, and ultimately reverse any earlier economic progress.

Premises

[P1]As Robert Reich argues, an economy is nothing but human beings, so its mainstay is the population's ability to work, not the stock market. [P2] Those urging a quick return to work are a tiny, wealthy elite—the richest 1% own roughly half of all stock—so reopening would sacrifice countless lives to protect their wealth. [C] Therefore, because the economy's strength depends on an able workforce, government resources are better spent on public health.

Counter-arguments

Brokers and bankers may profit the most from the stock market, but they are hardly the only people to benefit from a strong economy. Its trickle down effect means that all citizens ultimately suffer when it is weak; to avoid this, it must be protected at any cost.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The economy is complex and does not rely on any single factor