The Myth Of A Rapid Economic Recovery Once Quarentines Are Lifted

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: ScepticScot

I didn't say they created the virus.

They created the undue panic and economic turmoil.

Based on the advice of a team of doctors who relied on faulty models.

originally posted by: hombero
who says that? The msm? Who listens to them here

Reality says that, unless you can't do basic math.

originally posted by: Creep Thumper

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: ScepticScot

I didn't say they created the virus.

They created the undue panic and economic turmoil.

Based on the advice of a team of doctors who relied on faulty models.

Just about everything the government does is faulty.

originally posted by: Creep Thumper
Businesses have suffered. Some have already gone out of business in my area, mostly small restaurants.

Which is part of my point. Are these people going to 'be eating out, partying, buying things they couldn't get during the lockdown'? No, because they're broke.

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: ScepticScot

And yet, you're still wrong on your whole premise in this thread that the economic fallout won't matter because the "money will be spent at some point".

I didn't say the economic fallout doesn't matter.

I did say measuring money not spent (as the OPs does) is the wrong way to think about the economic impact.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Because as as already covered you will spend money at some point. The government can waive taxes, provide low cost loans and directly support job retention to keep business open in the meantime.

You still didn't address how they recoup a month of lost business.

And again its not an either or choice. People weren't going to be flocking to restaurants in the middle of an out of control pandemic any way.

Really? I was out for dinner the Friday before New Jersey shutdown and the pizza place I go to was jammed.

originally posted by: RAY1990
That's where government help should be provided.

What help is there to recoup lost income? You either made it or you didn't.

a reply to: Gravelbone

You touched on a good point regarding trust.

Trust in government and the free market is not in a very good place at this point.

I don't intend to divert your thread but I am looking at this from a political perspective. I can see this working in Biden's favor. CNN, MSNBC, the NYT and other treasonous news organizations are now hammering Trump for lack of response in the beginnings here in the states. Hammering him hard.
I watched Biden reading from a teleprompter the other day and he actually looked, somewhat, presidential, with a teleprompter and a written composed speech to deliver. Otherwise he cant string together 3 coherent words. If Trump can't get out and fill the stadiums and Biden doesn't have to at this point, this could turn out politically devastating for Trump.

Social Order Is On The Brink, US Facing Meat Shortage, Farmers Dump Food, Millions Going Hungry

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: dogstar23
Even so, that money is delayed in circulating by months. Under normal cicumstances, that money would have been moving through hands many times instead of sitting around doing nothing.

Another good point that should be addressed. My favorite restaurant is not passing that money to his suppliers, employees and people he owes debt or obligations to.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: ScepticScot

And yet, you're still wrong on your whole premise in this thread that the economic fallout won't matter because the "money will be spent at some point".

I did say measuring money not spent (as the OPs does) is the wrong way to think about the economic impact.

The OP is not working so money not spent is also money not made. It's not like people are sitting around on hoards of cash and when the virus goes away its gonna be a spendapolooza.

People are not making money but still paying bills. A lot of them wont have jobs to go back to.

originally posted by: lakenheath24
Damn...800 on entertainment/incidentals...aka hookers.

That's mostly things like a happy hour work meeting for clients or a lunch and learn. Plus things we do on the weekend like go to a brewery or shop one of the local stores. I totaled up my personal and company card expenses and that's what I came up with.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Because as as already covered you will spend money at some point. The government can waive taxes, provide low cost loans and directly support job retention to keep business open in the meantime.

You still didn't address how they recoup a month of lost business.

And again its not an either or choice. People weren't going to be flocking to restaurants in the middle of an out of control pandemic any way.

Really? I was out for dinner the Friday before New Jersey shutdown and the pizza place I go to was jammed.

It explains how business that rely on face-to-face trade can be kept going.

How would people eating out have lasted when the the virus hit?

I think most people put their health ahead of eating out once it actually gets close to home.

a reply to: CharlesT

Not interested in political bull****, this transcends cheering for your team. Tthey both screwed the pooch. Hard.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
And this is why we need to end the lockdowns ASAP.

I agree with a lot of things you said in your OP. You are kind of right, but for the wrong reason, in my opinion. The American way of life was due for a big fail at any time, already. It wouldn't have taken much to cause it to happen.

I mean, where I shopped for groceries, the price of milk got down to $1.29 about two years ago. Then I watched it slowly climb back up .10 to .20 a month for the next year and a half, until it was back up to $2.79. And that was just one single item. Most everything else was rising in price as well. That physically could not continue forever. And I'm sure you've noticed that the size of items keeps shrinking while the price continually keeps going up as well. We know by common sense that that couldn't continue to happen. When the size of food items gets down near to zero amount - where does it go from there? That was a big fail ready to happen.

And I can't drive anywhere, doing the speed limit of 55 m.p.h., without somebody else catching up with me almost immediately and riding my bumper because they just have to pass so they could get back up to 70 miles an hour, or faster - they are in such a hurry and their life is so much more important than mine. Or so THEY think. And nearly every driver I see is talking on their cellphone - They're not paying attention to their driving. They're just accidents waiting to happen and I don't want to be just another traffic fatality statistic because of their narcissism. People these days are just so RUDE! Bills keep going up while paychecks don't. I could name several more glaring examples, but we've all experienced what I'm talking about.

This couldn't have continued to happen. The bubble had to burst eventually. So, whether it was a virus or whatever, this was coming - have no doubts about that.

So when you say lockdowns need to end ASAP, I say no. Let things crash completely, because they're going to anyway, but let's get it over with at a quicker pace so we can start building whatever way of life comes next. Humanity deserves that much.

originally posted by: FauxMulder

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: ScepticScot

And yet, you're still wrong on your whole premise in this thread that the economic fallout won't matter because the "money will be spent at some point".

I did say measuring money not spent (as the OPs does) is the wrong way to think about the economic impact.

The OP is not working so money not spent is also money not made. It's not like people are sitting around on hoards of cash and when the virus goes away its gonna be a spendapolooza.

People are not making money but still paying bills. A lot of them wont have jobs to go back to.

Which is why government intervention to keep those jobs going is required.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
It explains how business that rely on face-to-face trade can be kept going.

It doesn't explain anything, you're asking for government intervention that could take months (like the failed stimulus checks that wont be out for months) for business that needed the money yesterday.

How would people eating out have lasted when the the virus hit?

The ones that wanted to stay home could have stayed home. Let the business owner and private citizen make the call.

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind
So when you say lockdowns need to end ASAP, I say no. Let things crash completely, because they're going to anyway, but let's get it over with at a quicker pace so we can start building whatever way of life comes next. Humanity deserves that much.

Not going to work. There are already food shortages, people are only a short way from anarchy when that happens.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind
So when you say lockdowns need to end ASAP, I say no. Let things crash completely, because they're going to anyway, but let's get it over with at a quicker pace so we can start building whatever way of life comes next. Humanity deserves that much.

Not going to work. There are already food shortages, people are only a short way from anarchy when that happens.

What do you mean "not going to work?" It already is working. People really ARE only a potentially short way from anarchy. I agree with you totally on that point.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Not to mention many are cashing in more on unemployment than they were at a job.

Lets say we do "restart" soon, and businesses decide to take a risk after being bled dry and hire some people again. People gonna hop off the free ride and go back to work for less?

The whole topic has 100 ways we could describe how screwed we are. The only counter point I've seen for a quick v recovery is backed by blind optimism and little logic.