________________________________________________________________________________
Gee who would have thought implementing lockdowns costs money?
The problem will get printed away anyway... All those doom and gloom posts get boring...
I went to Whole foods last night to buy some vodka sauce as it was going to be faster that making it myself due to time constraints.
The container is about half the size ( 10 ounces ) now for the same price. The cashier even noticed it and said something to me.
Modern monetary theory still does not solve this problem.
Good thing gold doesn't shrink.
"Printing" doesn't resolve any problems. If it did, we wouldn't need to do it over and over. Have you heard of hyperinflation? Do you know where "printed" money tends to end up (hint: it's neither in your pocket nor mine)?
Depends - if you are in debt - hyperinflation is a clean slate, if you have savings in the currency you're screwed, also depends on how stable your income is.
Considering the ridiculously low interest rates right now if you want to bet on inflation - take out as much loans as you can and buy assets that won't depreciate much.
I have been waiting for hyperinflation to occur in the US, as doomsayers have been predicting, for at least 25 years.
They may have been claiming it will happen for longer than 25 years but I've only been paying attention for 25 years.
At this rate, I think the Return of His Lord and Savior Jesus Christ may occur sooner than hyperinflation.
Is it for real this time? Is hyperinflation finally happening? I would love to wallpaper my bathroom in $100,000 bills after using four of them to pay off my mortgage.
In theory, states can't print money - it's illegal and no one would accept it regardless. (California has come close with some of its IOU's but that's another story.)
Certainly there will be a push for federal money printing to bail out states, though, you're right. Whether it actually works depends on politics and maybe how far things swing in 5 days.
Forget money. Think in terms of stuff (goods and services).
Our society is producing less stuff (quarantines, shutdowns, people not working). We still want to consume as much stuff. Eventually, that's going to be a problem - one you can't fix with money.
Exactly. Folks want to carry on and not live in a world with a pandemic (or climate change, or slavery). But they also don't want to implement austerity at a personal level. They also don't want government to implement austerity at a larger scale. So the pandemic will rage on, climate change will continue to accelerate, and commodities will be produced by child and slave labor. All this will continue until the externalities bite us and revolution or collapse takes it all away.
The US could have handled this better if the politics weren't so polarized; but as it stands, the country is all too happy to cut its nose to spite its face. Perhaps economic collapse of the country which consumes the most resources in the world will reduce that consumption, and hence pollution and slavery. Maybe it will create a vacuum of power where another nation will take over; one which puts a greater focus on the environment but doesn't mind slavery. Or maybe we'll just say "fuck it" and start tossing bombs.
The last coronavirus pandemic didn't cause collapse or revolution. The acute phase of the pandemic will end within a few years even if we do nothing to control it (I am not advocating doing nothing).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7252012/
Uhhh back then, people didn't travel around the world for fun and buisness in masses and within a few hours...
That's irrelevant over a timespan of months to years. People did travel and the virus spread all over the world in 1889. Due to the way exponential growth works, all it takes is one index case in a region and it takes off from there.
That's assuming people live close together and don't make a quarterly or yearly trek into town for supplies. A much larger portion of the world's population lived in rural areas back then. The virus only has a 14 day or so window to infect people. If people only come into contact once a month on average, that will seriously inhibit the virus.
Still irrelevant. Lower population densities and slower travel only slightly retard the spread of a pandemic. It reached almost all population centers in less than a year.
Even in 1889 people could cross the Atlantic Ocean in about 6 days. Wealthier countries had railroad service between all major cities. Most rural US residents would typically go into town or church at least once a week.
Then it should be over in march, then it's one year.
I have big big doubts about that...
I never claimed it would be "over" in a year, and there is no reason to expect that.
I disagree. See the latest GDP report.
Gee who would have thought that a tax cut when we were already in debt and had a massive deficit BEFORE COVID would get worse with an economic downturn?
Even without a "lockdown" plenty of people are avoiding behavior that would put them at higher risks (i.e. air travel, sporting events, etc) that would effect the GDP.
FYI We never had a real nationwide lockdown, like what Italy did in March.
Excellent point about the tax cuts that increased disposable income for most Americans at the cost of a deficit on an overinflated federal budget, but we're talking about the states here.
> Excellent point about the tax cuts that increased disposable income for most Americans...
Please point me in the direction of that disposable income, because it’s not even significant enough to purchase an extra candy bar.
"Compared to current law, 5 percent of taxpayers would pay more tax in 2018, 9 percent in 2025, and 53 percent in 2027."
"Compared to current law, taxes would fall for all income groups on average in 2018, increasing overall average after-tax income by 2.2percent."
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/distributional-...
Disposable income went down for a lot of people, such as truck drivers, who's per-diem became taxable income.
Except, the GDP is up 33%?
The GDP being up 33% doesn't directly translate to tax revenue.
It would translate more directly, if we'd stop passing tax cuts.