COVID-19 Outbreak (Update: More than 2.9M cases and 132,313 deaths in US) (4 Viewers)

[FootballLady]

Who said topple? You are creating a false narrative by misrepresenting what is being said. The concern is a massive depression.

7.5 million small businesses are at risk of closing, report finds

Millions of small businesses will close permanently if disruption caused by the coronavirus pandemic persists, according to a new survey from Main Street America.

www.cnbc.com

Coronavirus Bankruptcy Tracker: These Major Companies Are Failing Amid The Shutdown

Some of the 20th century’s biggest names in corporate America are in danger of going the way of Sears, Blockbuster and RadioShack.

www.forbes.com

But what's the tipping point? America has the resources to help people through this, but perhaps not the will to do it.

 

[Dago]

But what's the tipping point? America has the resources to help people through this, but perhaps not the will to do it.

People who know far more about the economy than you or I disagree

 

[St. Widge]

People who know far more about the economy than you or I disagree

You may be right, but I'm a bit skeptical. So who is saying that we don't have the resources to prop up the economy for say 3 or 4 months?

I ask because it was suggested above that the last stimulus could have been used to give every American household $5,500 per month for three months and the next proposed stimulus could have been used to give every American household $6,500 per month for the next three months. I don't know if the numbers are right, but it seems to me that would allow us not got go into a deep depression and allow even those who can't work at all enough to get buy until this thing is really down to almost nothing.

Would that be a good idea? I don't know but I also don't know that anyone has said that it can't be done or that it would be a bad idea for the economy. I mean, it doesn't seem much different than the New Deal which is what ended the Great Depression (along with WWII).

 

[B4YOU]

....
Sweden is essentially pushing deaths into the present, a pretty gruesome way to look at it, but that is essentially what they are doing. If either treatments or a vaccine don't come about prior to the rest of the world getting to whatever the total infection rate becomes in Sweden, we will all be in essentially the same boat. We won't know the true outcome until this is "over" and that is still a long ways away.

"Pushing deaths into the present" seems like really bad policy when the entire world is rapidly searching for therapeutics and a vaccine. If we discover next month that a combination of remdesivir and another antiviral reduces fatalities and long term health impacts by 90%, then what do the Swedish policy makers tell their people? There is a growing attitude of "accept the inevitability of this disease". It is defeatist and it's an attitude that can contribute to individuals and nations taking the same route as Sweden.

 

[FootballLady]

People who know far more about the economy than you or I disagree

Some, yes, because they adhere to a particular economic model that doesn't allow for it. But there are plenty of economists who do agree and they are the ones upon which I am relying for the basis of my opinion.

 

[DaveXA]

I'm going to embark on an interesting quest. I'm going to educate myself about two states on polar ends of the political spectrum in their response to COVID-19. I'd be happy to hear suggestions. I was thinking about California (liberal west coast state that is allegedly conservative with COVID reopening) and Florida (the opposite). I live in Florida, so there probably is a level of bias there, but at least I'm familiar with their laws and dashboard, so it will be a little bit more easy to study.

If anyone can convince me to pick different states...let me know. I suppose that it will probably be more than five hours of work, but I think that it will be very educational.

I'd like to see a comparison between Louisiana and either California or Maryland. I think that would be interesting.

 

[FootballLady]

You may be right, but I'm a bit skeptical. So who is saying that we don't have the resources to prop up the economy for say 3 or 4 months?

I ask because it was suggested above that the last stimulus could have been used to give every American household $5,500 per month for three months and the next proposed stimulus could have been used to give every American household $6,500 per month for the next three months. I don't know if the numbers are right, but it seems to me that would allow us not got go into a deep depression and allow even those who can't work at all enough to get buy until this thing is really down to almost nothing.

Would that be a good idea? I don't know but I also don't know that anyone has said that it can't be done or that it would be a bad idea for the economy. I mean, it doesn't some much different than the New Deal which is what ended the Great Depression (along with WWII).

As of 2019, there are approximately 129 million households in the United States, giving each $5000 would cost 645 billion dollars per month. Doing so for 3 months would cost in the neighborhood of 1.9 trillion dollars. As it happens, the richest 400 Americans (individuals, not companies) have a net worth of 2.9 trillion dollars. Taking 1.9 trillion dollars from them would leave each of those 400 people a mere 4 billion dollars to try to live on.

Our country has spent over 3 trillion dollars on the Iraqi boondoggle, so it's not like we can't do it if we want to.

 

[Dago]

Some, yes, because they adhere to a particular economic model that doesn't allow for it. But there are plenty of economists who do agree and they are the ones upon which I am relying for the basis of my opinion.

Could you list them?

 

[Dago]

You may be right, but I'm a bit skeptical. So who is saying that we don't have the resources to prop up the economy for say 3 or 4 months?

I ask because it was suggested above that the last stimulus could have been used to give every American household $5,500 per month for three months and the next proposed stimulus could have been used to give every American household $6,500 per month for the next three months. I don't know if the numbers are right, but it seems to me that would allow us not got go into a deep depression and allow even those who can't work at all enough to get buy until this thing is really down to almost nothing.

Would that be a good idea? I don't know but I also don't know that anyone has said that it can't be done or that it would be a bad idea for the economy. I mean, it doesn't some much different than the New Deal which is what ended the Great Depression (along with WWII).

And what happens at the end of that when there still arent jobs to return to?

I already posted a link showing 7.5 million small businesses are at risk

 

[bonnjer]

My "pertinent information filter" is working overtime today in this thread.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

People who know far more about the economy than you or I disagree

but that's only built on the premise of McConnell and potus doing nothing to help (not a bad premise, tbc)
but the economy vs lives is a false dichotomy buttressed by current propaganda
it doesn't have to be that way and we should avoid buying in to the narrative

 

[bonnjer]

Looking at today's numbers, I see the new case curve is bending in the wrong direction. Sign of things to come after Mother's Day events and "early" stay at home lifting outings?

 

[Dago]

but that's only built on the premise of McConnell and potus doing nothing to help (not a bad premise, tbc)
but the economy vs lives is a false dichotomy buttressed by current propaganda
it doesn't have to be that way and we should avoid buying in to the narrative

Again, I have yet to see anybody want to open up without regulations and precautions in this thread.
I asked if there was anybody but i got no answer

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I ask because it was suggested above that the last stimulus could have been used to give every American household $5,500 per month for three months and the next proposed stimulus could have been used to give every American household $6,500 per month for the next three months.

It doesn't need to be every household, just the un or underemployed. The challenge will be the small businesses that can't survive if they can't open and how we address that. I think that would be far more expensive to save than keeping money in people's pockets and it also has the biggest long term economic impact (permanent loss of jobs).

I know I sound like a broken record, but the answer is to follow the White House metrics for reopening. They are solid, attainable, and a good middle ground. It is so odd to me that they seem to be completely out of the discussion as if it wasn't ever evaluated and a massive plan put together on the taxpayer's dime. Talk about government waste (pretending we would ever pay attention to something so reasonable).

 

[DaveXA]

Again, I have yet to see anybody want to open up without regulations and precautions in this thread.
I asked if there was anybody but i got no answer

No one here has lately. I know of one poster who thinks this is all overblown, but even he said opening with some measure of caution would be sensible. So yeah, I haven't seen that either.