Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

The State of the Economy Thread - “Falling inflation, rising growth give U.S. the world’s best recovery”

PleaseBlitz

By PleaseBlitz
in The Tailgate

 Share

Recommended Posts

Corcaigh

Corcaigh

Posted
Posted

Yeah ... I’d echo that now is a very very risky time for stock picking. Some on Wall Street are saying the S&P will be back to the February highs by the end of the year. Others are predicting a multi-year slump.

 

And for individual stocks the risks are much greater. Unless you have inside knowledge on whether a particular company has the cash reserves or even the desire to follow their current strategy, and weather whatever storm might be coming, individual stocks are incredibly risky. Even if the sector is going to thrive an individual company may not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

NEW: The congressional panel policing the $500bn corporate bailout fund has only one member with no staff or support -- so he's using his unverified @Twitter feed as billions of taxpayer $$ race out the door.

 

Eh.  Trump isn't gonna tell him who he's assisting paying off, anyway.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

sure they are....  the word he was looking for was “agreed upon” or “universal accepted”....

 

 

 

formal: "officially sanctioned or recognized"

 

(2nd definition when I put formal into google.

 

NBER (the people that determine when the US is in a recession):

 

https://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions_faq.html

 

"However, just as the NBER does not define the term depression or identify depressions, there is no formal NBER definition or dating of the Great Depression."

 

There is no officially sanctioned or recognized definition of a depression.  And that's a contributing factor to the fact that there's not an agreed upon or universally accepted definition of depression.

Edited by PeterMP
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LD0506

LD0506

Posted
Posted

Don't forget that letting people die en masse is acceptable overhead to the Repubs to get their money mill cranked back up

 

Quote

An Indiana congressman said Tuesday that letting more Americans die from the novel coronavirus is the "lesser of two evils" compared with the economy cratering due to social distancing measures.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/14/politics/trey-hollingsworth-coronavirus/index.html

 

Image may contain: text

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
Quote

 

Hollingsworth told CNN, in a statement provided by his office later Tuesday, that "It's hyperbolic to say that the only choices before us are the two corner solutions: no economy or widespread casualties."
 
 
"We can use the best of biology and economics to enable as much of the economy to operate as possible while we work to minimize disease transmission."

 

 

How long do ya'll think the present course can be maintained?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Renegade7

Renegade7

Posted
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, twa said:

 

How long do ya'll think the present course can be maintained?

 

Of states refusing to work with certain states on best way to do this and Feds getting in way of all of it?  Until the end of time. 

 

How long can states maintain stay at home orders is hard to answer because some that haven't done it her still haven't buckled under the pressure of high death rates that are growing rapidly.

 

If states like South Dakota can with a straight keep up this act once they become deemed a new epicenter similar to what New York and Italy is going through, some states may have no choice but to wait until that takes it's course, which would in theory not take very long because they'll spike exactly the way folks warned it would.

 

At this rate, States that bought in may just have to wait until nature takes it's course with everyone that didnt, otherwise their citizens staying home will be for nothing and theyll get sick, too, when they come they try to open back up.  I say this because the testing for having it is taking forever, the antibody tests won't be any faster at this rate.

 

So end of this year, likely.

Edited by Renegade7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Renegade7

Renegade7

Posted
Posted
Just now, twa said:

 

by the end of the year you might be starving in the dark....or replacing essential workers.

 

Nope, I just won't have any bacon.

 

We could all come outside if we want, wed just have to get used to seeing dead bodies at some point.

 

This is very much a damned if you damned if you don't situation exacerbated by decisions we made or didn't make up to this point.

 

I'm not buying the "maintain present course" option you are presenting because we technically haven't started yet with States still holding out.  This will take longer because of this and when they spike folks will be too scared to go out anyway.

 

It's not right to insinuate that States that are taking this stay at home thing seriously will be to blame for this taking longer then it should.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, twa said:

 

by the end of the year you might be starving in the dark....or replacing essential workers.

 

Either way, you're going to need to replace essential workers, and if you come back sooner, you'll actually have to replace a lot more essential workers in a much smaller time frame (i.e. the more people are active, the more risk to everybody, including essential workers much sooner), which would likely cause much larger disruptions.  Doing it slowly means you have more time to train, replace, or just divert resources/workers.

 

If we can hold out until things have stabilized and even declined in the major population centers, then that would be big for us.  If we can get them through this initial wave, then that does ease our resource demand on the health care system.  Especially if as we do that we can build up stockpiles of critical equipment (e.g. ventilators).  This also gives us time to better understand the virus and develop treatments.   

 

It is unlikely there is going to be a clear line where it is safe to come back in terms of the spread of the virus vs. the risk and damage from continued shutdowns and social distancing.  But I think it is pretty clear that we'll be much better in a month, even in terms of understanding the risks of opening things back more broadly (we'll see what has happened in places like Sweden where they've done minimal shutting down of things etc., we'll learn if people are getting it twice, etc.) then we are today.  If we keep this up, by June, I think we'll see most of the major population centers have gone through the first wave and peaked.  That would certainly be ideal.

 

And from there, any extra time makes it that much better.  And you can think about doing rolling shut downs and resource assignments based on where it is bad.

 

Schools are going to be the biggest issue.  And it is hard to start things up again until you start schools back up.

Edited by PeterMP
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CousinsCowgirl84

CousinsCowgirl84

Posted
Posted

How are things going to decline in major population centers? Things have gotten shut down so people havnt been exposed to the virus and there isn’t a vaccine.


Even if you wait 20 years to open up without a vaccine arent you just sitting on your hands pushing the inevitable further out?  I know we don’t know when/if a vaccine will be available so it’s worth it to wait for now... but without a vaccine won’t deaths follow as soon as everything opens?
 

What if a vaccine can’t be made, re some of the recent reports that people are getting reinfected?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EmirOfShmo

EmirOfShmo

Posted
Posted

A friend of mine who works at Bank of America told me that her direct reports are getting paid overtime (double) during this. They are rotating onsite so they only have to work in the office 1 or 2 days per week other days working from home. No furloughs there, yet. 

 

Can't wait to see how much BOA gets from the bailout...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

How are things going to decline in major population centers? Things have gotten shut down so people havnt been exposed to the virus and there isn’t a vaccine.


Even if you wait 20 years to open up without a vaccine arent you just sitting on your hands pushing the inevitable further out?  I know we don’t know when/if a vaccine will be available so it’s worth it to wait for now... but without a vaccine won’t deaths follow as soon as everything opens?
 

What if a vaccine can’t be made, re some of the recent reports that people are getting reinfected?

 

Things are going to decline because many people are not getting the virus because they aren't interacting with other people.  If nobody gets it, then things decline.  

 

As I stated there are three things by pushing things out further (to a reasonable manner):

 

1.  We have more time to get other ducks in the row, while actually taking the situation seriously.   Even compared to a month ago, the testing situation is better.  We've worked out the initial issues with CDC tests.  We've got lets of testing sites up and running.  Given that, our ability to track the virus is much better.  The antibody tests aren't still where they need to be across the board, but given more time we'll have a better idea which ones work and which ones don't.  That'll even improve the testing.  We can have more equipment.  More PPE, more ventilators etc are being made.  Having those things alone will cause fewer deaths (and slow the spread to essential personal like health care workers).  Having a system in place to identify sick people, find other people that they've gotten sick, and protect the relevant workers along the way will be better than what we had before.

 

Yes, deaths will happen when you reopen, but it will be fewer deaths than if you hadn't shut things down.

 

Simply being better prepared will likely make future waves less of an issue, especially if we can space them out geographically and temporally.

 

2.  Even beyond a vaccine, it is likely some medicines will act better than others in treating this virus.  Everything we have is not likely to be completely ineffective and/or equally effective.  By slowing things down, you have a better chance of finding what existing medicines we have work the best.  Again, there will be deaths, but having information on the bests ways to treat the disease will lower the number of deaths.  Your also giving time for other treatments to be developed even beyond vaccines (HIV being an example of a virus that we don't have a vaccine for, but given time we've developed multiple ways to treat and over time have developed better ways to treat it).

 

3.  I suspect (as I stated), we will see future shut downs.  NYC will likely re-open, be open for a while, but then have to shut down again so that the health system doesn't get overwhelmed.  (And just maybe we'll find a drug that is an excellent treatment for it and so essentially eliminates deaths and would prevent the healthcare system from being overwhelmed at all).  But most likely people will get sick and some will die, but it won't be as many people as would happen if the health care system is over run.

 

Lastly, that a few people seem like they might be getting it again or not making antibodies isn't really good evidence that we won't be able to make a vaccine.  The virus seems to affect some people very mildly.  It isn't surprising they aren't making antibodies.  Some people clearly are making antibodies (that's how we've made some antibody tests).

 

Vaccines aren't only way to treat viruses.  If this thing turns out to be something that's very hard to treat (with drugs) and most/many people can't become immune to it and we can't make vaccines to it, then you are talking about some thing that is going to cause a general break down in society.  It'll just keep going round and round until you see huge decreases in populations that cause its spread to slow through social distancing through deaths (and evolution has then has time for humans to evolve immunity not through the immune system).  IMO that's exceedingly unlikely, but if that's our fate, then staying closed for a few more weeks or even months isn't going to hurt things.

Edited by PeterMP
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheGreatBuzz

TheGreatBuzz

Posted
Posted

This could go in several threads probably.  It is only a recommendation and the article is 6 days old.  Still interesting though.

 

Quote

The health department proposes people voluntarily limit trips for groceries to once every 5 days on the following schedule:

Last name starting with A-C shop on days ending with 0 and 5

Last name starting with D-G shop on days ending with 1 and 6

Last name starting with H-L shop on days ending with 2 and 7

Last name starting with M-R shop on days ending with 3 and 8

Last name starting with S-Z shop on days ending with 4 and 9

 

https://www.thebaynet.com/articles/0420/calvert-county-proposes-people-to-shop-by-a-last-name-schedule.html

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...