COVID-19 Outbreak (Update: More than 2.9M cases and 132,313 deaths in US) (2 Viewers)

[St. Widge]

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

Why wouldn't there be jobs to return to when people would have $5,500 to $6,500 a month to spend in the economy to keep businesses up and keep people fed and sheltered until they can re-start other businesses? Maybe won't, but neither you or I know the answer unless you have some source saying that won't work.

Saying that 7.5 million are at risk doesn't answer the question I asked and I think the above stimulus from the government might save those small businesses. You are saying that economists are saying that giving that kind of money to people won't save the economy. I'm just asking who those economists are and/or for a link to something that says it won't work.

 

[DaveXA]

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).

I'm convinced that a lot of the government waste that's out there is because people are often idiots and don't properly utilize the resources the government provides. In other words, it's not the government wasting resources, but rather states, and people who essentially throw the money away.

Sure, the government, at any level, has it's share of inefficiencies, but that's not unusual in any large organization.

 

[St. Widge]

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).

I know. I'm not saying it is the solution. It's just that if someone makes a claim that economists say something, I'd like a link to it or at least to know who they are.

I personally think a combination of the phased approach (with the realization that there is just no safe way to operate some businesses) with the combination of stimulus money to those businesses that can't safely operate and those who work for those businesses that can't safely operate is the way to go. But, nuance is lost on the world and I think lots of places and businesses are ignoring, or going to ignore, the safe phased approach. Hopefully it won't be enough to start another major outbreak, but I'm skeptical.

 

[Bayouboy]

I wonder if everyone really has a grasp of what a trillion dollars is and how hard that is to "pay back". Folks are throwing around numbers like its candy or play money. I totally understand trying to avoid another great depression, but we have to try to avoid government handouts as much as possible. Which is why opening up in a safe, orderly manner is actually the best course of action. Try to save as many small businesses as possible. The virus is not going anywhere. Try to get the economy at least moving again. Try to stop the economic bleeding.

 

[faceman]

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?

More testing will mean more positive results. I was listening to WWL earlier today and some companies that started testing a few days
ago released their results today. It was posted by a doctor on this thread weeks ago. The key stat to look for is hospitalizations and
patients on ventilators

 

[St. Widge]

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).

I mean, I don't want to get political, but a large part of the problem is that the branch of government that created that plan and released it to the public as the plan, has since that time refused to let CDC issue more precise guidelines on how to execute that plan and has been in the social media and mainstream media doing everything they can to subvert that plan. In fact urging people to resist that plan.

So, I guess it's no surprise to me that people ignore the plan, when it's clear that it isn't supported by the very branch of government that created the plan. Which is really annoying since I agree that it does appear to be a fairly reasonable plan.

 

[St. Geezy]

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?

Correct...plus the skewing of New York's decline is starting to flatten, thus revealing the truth - our nation, outside of the tri-state area, is starting to spike, right at a time when we are set to re-open.

It'll be a very interesting next two weeks coming up here.

 

[Dago]

Why wouldn't there be jobs to return to when people would have $5,500 to $6,500 a month to spend in the economy to keep businesses up and keep people fed and sheltered until they can re-start other businesses? Maybe won't, but neither you or I know the answer unless you have some source saying that won't work.

Saying that 7.5 million are at risk doesn't answer the question I asked and I think the above stimulus from the government might save those small businesses. You are saying that economists are saying that giving that kind of money to people won't save the economy. I'm just asking who those economists are and/or for a link to something that says it won't work.

So you are asking me to disprove something you havent provided any evidence would work?

By the way, I never stated that economists said your particular idea wouldnt work. They are saying that our economy is reaching a breaking point

 

[St. Widge]

I wonder if everyone really has a grasp of what a trillion dollars is and how hard that is to "pay back". Folks are throwing around numbers like its candy or play money. I totally understand trying to avoid another great depression, but we have to try to avoid government handouts as much as possible. Which is why opening up in a safe, orderly manner is actually the best course of action. Try to save as many small businesses as possible. The virus is not going anywhere. Try to get the economy at least moving again. Try to stop the economic bleeding.

I mean, I think I know what it is since the Federal Government doesn't seem to have an issue with spending a trillion here and there on various wars, including wars on drugs, that make no sense. The fact is that the government wastes that much or more on a yearly basis on things I don't think they have any business doing and probably don't even have the legal authority to do.

But, when it's something that they have the legal authority to do, the legal obligation to do, and the moral obligation to do, the government suddenly becomes fiscally responsible? Please.

I agree that we should try to restrain how much we have to spend to keep the country moving, but I don't know why it is that when there is a real emergency the government is suddenly going to be careful with how they spend our money.

 

[St. Widge]

So you are asking me to disprove something you havent provided any evidence would work?

By the way, I never stated that economists said your particular idea wouldnt work. They are saying that our economy is reaching a breaking point

No. I'm asking you to back up the statement you made.


This is the exchange I am talking about:

FootballLady said:

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

Dago Said:

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

I'm saying:

Who are those people?

 

[bonnjer]

More testing will mean more positive results. I was listening to WWL earlier today and some companies that started testing a few days
ago released their results today. It was posted by a doctor on this thread weeks ago. The key stat to look for is hospitalizations and
patients on ventilators

Ah ok. So these are delayed results. I did notice that hospitalizations and ventilators had continued to drop, so I wasn't sure.

 

[Dago]

No. I'm asking you to back up the statement you made.

What exactly are you asking me to provide links to? Economists saying our economy is in trouble? Me posting links showing businesses going under doesnt accomplish that?

 

[St. Widge]

What exactly are you asking me to provide links to? Economists saying our economy is in trouble? Me posting links showing businesses going under doesnt accomplish that?

No. You said that economic experts disagree that the U.S. has the resources to prevent us from reaching the tipping point but doesn't have the will to do it. I'm asking you who said that?

I'm not in any way arguing that the economy isn't in trouble. The question is what can we do to stop it from reaching the tipping point while also not sacrificing too many lives?

Some contend that the answer is to open up more. Some contend the answer is to have the government pump more money into the economy while staying as open as we are now. I don't know the answer, but I'm guessing its somewhere in between. And it would be nice to know what the experts are saying and who those experts are.

 

[FootballLady]

Could you list them?

Paul Krugman is one. Richard Wolff, Stephanie Kelton, Randall Wray.

 

[Eeyore]

Here's a story about a study that Indiana did.

Opinion | Too Many States Are Flying Blind Into Reopening. Not Indiana. (Published 2020)

The federal government doesn’t seem willing to mobilize, so states will have to do the heavy lifting.

www.nytimes.com