6 ms·

I buy this outline but honest question, was the massive covid stimulus avoidable? I rode a bicycle around NYC during the early days of covid and it was a ghost

I buy this outline but honest question, was the massive covid stimulus avoidable? I rode a bicycle around NYC during the early days of covid and it was a ghost town, like not a person on the streets in a city of 8 million. On the weekend I took a ride up state for a hike and virtually every business was closed on the way. It seemed inevitable at that point the economic consequences of this were going to be massive and I am kind of amazed it took this long. It feels easy to say these steps got us in this mess but I am wondering what the alternative was?

groestl 4y ago
> I am wondering what the alternative was? When an economy stops producing services and goods, somebody is going to need to reduce their consumption of said goods eventually. The question is just, who that is. Another poster above mentioned three ways a government can balance their budget: spending less, raising more, decreasing real value of debt by inflation. Each of those has a target "audience", which suffers the most when pulling that lever. For inflation (if not combined with compulsory loans), it's the middle class. Pick your poison.
- makomk 4y ago
  The trouble is that a large chunk of the media has basically lied about this and told people that no, they'd be able to consume just as much as before if it wasn't for the evil profiteering corporations and the mega-rich stealing from them. They've done things like point to the increase in wealth of the super-rich "during the pandemic" to prove that ordinary people have become poorer because the money they deserve was "siphoned off" (never mind the fact that wealth does not represent services and goods that are available to buy and their measurements conveniently start at the bottom of the pandemic-induced drop in share prices) or run breathless headlines about how profits at grocery stores have doubled and this proves profiteering is responsible for price increases when the profit margins of those companies goes from 1% to 2%.
  - geysersam 4y ago
    Fact remains that wealth inequality has increased enormously over the last decades. This is a big economic issue that deserves journalistic coverage. If you don't want to frame it in terms of "evil" or "profiteering" that's fine. But this issue is important. The expected consequence of inequality is reduced economic output (in terms of utility). It leads to inefficiency. I feel this is a perspective that's not stressed enough.
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      Can you elaborate? How does the existence of a rich person somewhere else reduce my economic output?
      - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        Growing inequality without growing GDP means you became poorer. Even if we assuming they magically appeared and you did not become poorer: will never own an asset in your life, they can price you own of a house, land, shares, etc.
        robertlagrant 4y ago
        > Growing inequality without growing GDP means you became poorer. For example: Bill Gates comes along with Microsoft, and sells Windows to businesses worldwide, who all benefit. Why is GDP not growing? And even if it magically doesn't grow, how has that made me poorer?
        ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        Why are you conflating growth in inequality during the pandemic with entrepreneurship? Did GDP grow during the pandemic? Did dozens of Bill Gates's spawn? How did you even get the idea that Bill gates has increaeed inequality? Thousands of people were able to get a well paid job or start a business, inequality probably decreased on average.
- Scea91 4y ago
  And for raising more its usually also the middle class. Generally, middle class is a convenient target.
majidazimi 4y ago
Peasants have unemployment insurance. If government is supposed to pay something on top of it, why do we even have unemployment benefits to begin with?
okeuro49 4y ago
Put a shield around the most vulnerable and their carers, until there was a vaccine for them and leave everyone else, especially the young, to continue their lives as normal. Easily said now, however.
- dageshi 4y ago
  Can't see that as ever working. There'd be no practical way to shield the vulnerable or the carers and beyond that if it's left to run rampant in the wider population eventually the medical system is overwhelmed and collapses.
  - okeuro49 4y ago
    > There'd be no practical way to shield the vulnerable or the carers The shielding system was an official policy in the UK https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/SHIELDING%20GUIDANCE%20AND%20FAQS%20COMBINED%20-%2024%20APRIL%202020.pdf https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/SHIEL... > left to run rampant in the wider population eventually the medical system is overwhelmed and collapses. The risk of hospitalisation was low around the 30s and younger.
    - dageshi 4y ago
      > The shielding system was an official policy in the UK Yeah, it still didn't and doesn't work though. Carers will have families, they'll have children in school, they'll potentially have more than one job. You can't shield the "carers" so you can't shield the vulnerable outside of a wider scale lockdown. Lockdown was the only thing that stopped case numbers going up till the vaccine came along. > The risk of hospitalisation was low around the 30s and younger. The average age in the UK is 40. So pretty much half the population would need to completely isolate from the other half while the younger half lived their lives as normal. yeah, not going to happen.
      - okeuro49 4y ago
        > Lockdown was the only thing that stopped case numbers going up till the vaccine came along. Really? The graphs I have seen show cases declining even before lockdowns were imposed. > The average age in the UK is 40. So pretty much half the population would need to completely isolate from the other half while the younger half lived their lives as normal. The advice would have been the same, work from homes where possible. There was already the concept of "bubbles".
GateCrasher 4y ago
Probably not. The size of the QE has been too big, and more mistakes have been made but that's only natural. What annoys me is the fact that the CB's feel the need to keep lying about this. The whole sticking "transitory" story, while no one in their right mind thought the inflation was transitory (at least for a short period) is the best example but there are many more. You simply can't shut down the economy for months without having a recession.
geysersam 4y ago
What you are describing are the real physical consequences of a global pandemic. What is QE? How can financial stimulus limit the physical consequences of businesses closing? QE can only redistribute wealth. This is an axiom. If we are lucky/played our cards well, this redistribution results in a more efficient economy overall. For example, because it alleviates overly risk adverse behavior by market actors. However, QE also reduces market efficiency by polluting the price signal. For example, by increasing wealth inequality. I feel this is a common misunderstanding. QE is treated like some magic wand to improve economic measures such as stock market valuations and profits. When the fed/gov uses tools like quantitative easing it should be obligatory for journalists to ask: "Why do you think this redistribution of wealth results in net positive impact on the economy?".

groestl 4y ago

> I am wondering what the alternative was? When an economy stops producing services and goods, somebody is going to need to reduce their consumption of said goods eventually. The question is just, who that is. Another poster above mentioned three ways a government can balance their budget: spending less, raising more, decreasing real value of debt by inflation. Each of those has a target "audience", which suffers the most when pulling that lever. For inflation (if not combined with compulsory loans), it's the middle class. Pick your poison.

makomk 4y ago
The trouble is that a large chunk of the media has basically lied about this and told people that no, they'd be able to consume just as much as before if it wasn't for the evil profiteering corporations and the mega-rich stealing from them. They've done things like point to the increase in wealth of the super-rich "during the pandemic" to prove that ordinary people have become poorer because the money they deserve was "siphoned off" (never mind the fact that wealth does not represent services and goods that are available to buy and their measurements conveniently start at the bottom of the pandemic-induced drop in share prices) or run breathless headlines about how profits at grocery stores have doubled and this proves profiteering is responsible for price increases when the profit margins of those companies goes from 1% to 2%.
- geysersam 4y ago
  Fact remains that wealth inequality has increased enormously over the last decades. This is a big economic issue that deserves journalistic coverage. If you don't want to frame it in terms of "evil" or "profiteering" that's fine. But this issue is important. The expected consequence of inequality is reduced economic output (in terms of utility). It leads to inefficiency. I feel this is a perspective that's not stressed enough.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    Can you elaborate? How does the existence of a rich person somewhere else reduce my economic output?
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      Growing inequality without growing GDP means you became poorer. Even if we assuming they magically appeared and you did not become poorer: will never own an asset in your life, they can price you own of a house, land, shares, etc.
      - robertlagrant 4y ago
        > Growing inequality without growing GDP means you became poorer. For example: Bill Gates comes along with Microsoft, and sells Windows to businesses worldwide, who all benefit. Why is GDP not growing? And even if it magically doesn't grow, how has that made me poorer?
        ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        Why are you conflating growth in inequality during the pandemic with entrepreneurship? Did GDP grow during the pandemic? Did dozens of Bill Gates's spawn? How did you even get the idea that Bill gates has increaeed inequality? Thousands of people were able to get a well paid job or start a business, inequality probably decreased on average.
Scea91 4y ago
And for raising more its usually also the middle class. Generally, middle class is a convenient target.

majidazimi 4y ago

Peasants have unemployment insurance. If government is supposed to pay something on top of it, why do we even have unemployment benefits to begin with?

okeuro49 4y ago

Put a shield around the most vulnerable and their carers, until there was a vaccine for them and leave everyone else, especially the young, to continue their lives as normal. Easily said now, however.

dageshi 4y ago
Can't see that as ever working. There'd be no practical way to shield the vulnerable or the carers and beyond that if it's left to run rampant in the wider population eventually the medical system is overwhelmed and collapses.
- okeuro49 4y ago
  > There'd be no practical way to shield the vulnerable or the carers The shielding system was an official policy in the UK https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/SHIELDING%20GUIDANCE%20AND%20FAQS%20COMBINED%20-%2024%20APRIL%202020.pdf https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/SHIEL... > left to run rampant in the wider population eventually the medical system is overwhelmed and collapses. The risk of hospitalisation was low around the 30s and younger.
  - dageshi 4y ago
    > The shielding system was an official policy in the UK Yeah, it still didn't and doesn't work though. Carers will have families, they'll have children in school, they'll potentially have more than one job. You can't shield the "carers" so you can't shield the vulnerable outside of a wider scale lockdown. Lockdown was the only thing that stopped case numbers going up till the vaccine came along. > The risk of hospitalisation was low around the 30s and younger. The average age in the UK is 40. So pretty much half the population would need to completely isolate from the other half while the younger half lived their lives as normal. yeah, not going to happen.
    - okeuro49 4y ago
      > Lockdown was the only thing that stopped case numbers going up till the vaccine came along. Really? The graphs I have seen show cases declining even before lockdowns were imposed. > The average age in the UK is 40. So pretty much half the population would need to completely isolate from the other half while the younger half lived their lives as normal. The advice would have been the same, work from homes where possible. There was already the concept of "bubbles".

GateCrasher 4y ago

Probably not. The size of the QE has been too big, and more mistakes have been made but that's only natural. What annoys me is the fact that the CB's feel the need to keep lying about this. The whole sticking "transitory" story, while no one in their right mind thought the inflation was transitory (at least for a short period) is the best example but there are many more. You simply can't shut down the economy for months without having a recession.

geysersam 4y ago

What you are describing are the real physical consequences of a global pandemic. What is QE? How can financial stimulus limit the physical consequences of businesses closing? QE can only redistribute wealth. This is an axiom. If we are lucky/played our cards well, this redistribution results in a more efficient economy overall. For example, because it alleviates overly risk adverse behavior by market actors. However, QE also reduces market efficiency by polluting the price signal. For example, by increasing wealth inequality. I feel this is a common misunderstanding. QE is treated like some magic wand to improve economic measures such as stock market valuations and profits. When the fed/gov uses tools like quantitative easing it should be obligatory for journalists to ask: "Why do you think this redistribution of wealth results in net positive impact on the economy?".