Read in the paper today that the White House might want businesses to reopen in 2 weeks with people going back to work. If the WH goes forward with that but the Governors of the States don’t agree and keep the stay at home directives, who has the final authority in those States?
I dont think it will ever be waking up one day and we get ok it is safe, i think it will be gradual
What happens if one locale decides to remain sheltered in place, while others open? At this point, the economy doesn't work.
And what happens if certain localities tell businesses that they are willing to provide tax credits or other incentives to have them relocate to those areas? At that point, you are picking economic winners and losers based on nothing but what areas are more risk averse than others.
We have a massive demand problem in our economy right now. Re-opening the economy isn't going to magically eliminate it.
Plenty of localities provide tax credits/incentives for having people locate as it is. That has been happening for decades.
As for picking economic winners and losers based on nothing but what areas are more risk averse, that happens all the time as well. New Orleans is still recovering from Katrina. If there are states that have no coronavirus cases in three weeks, are you saying they should not be able to open up for business? If the coronavirus is only prevalent in say NYC in three weeks, should the rest of the country be shut down too?
you wont know if the shelter in place is working for another week, if it is working you should start seeing results in a week or so...
No you can't... no politics at all. It gets brutal and we forget that we are all in this together.
Quote:
Again, we have tremendous regional linkages in our economy.
What happens if one locale decides to remain sheltered in place, while others open? At this point, the economy doesn't work.
And what happens if certain localities tell businesses that they are willing to provide tax credits or other incentives to have them relocate to those areas? At that point, you are picking economic winners and losers based on nothing but what areas are more risk averse than others.
We have a massive demand problem in our economy right now. Re-opening the economy isn't going to magically eliminate it.
Plenty of localities provide tax credits/incentives for having people locate as it is. That has been happening for decades.
As for picking economic winners and losers based on nothing but what areas are more risk averse, that happens all the time as well. New Orleans is still recovering from Katrina. If there are states that have no coronavirus cases in three weeks, are you saying they should not be able to open up for business? If the coronavirus is only prevalent in say NYC in three weeks, should the rest of the country be shut down too?
Not even close.
Geographical locations that suffer from more frequent weather or tectonic events are factored into decision-making processes. Responses to a viral pandemic are not. In fact, given that we were told we were woefully under-prepared for a pandemic, it is likely that people's attitudes towards risk changed as the pandemic has changed.
And yes, thank you, tax credits have been offered for decades. How insightful. Please provide evidence of the last time tax credits were offered to attract businesses because of a pandemic? Would it have been kosher for that to happen after 9/11, to attract businesses outside of NYC because of the threat for terrorism?
Quote:
Again, we have tremendous regional linkages in our economy.
What happens if one locale decides to remain sheltered in place, while others open? At this point, the economy doesn't work.
And what happens if certain localities tell businesses that they are willing to provide tax credits or other incentives to have them relocate to those areas? At that point, you are picking economic winners and losers based on nothing but what areas are more risk averse than others.
We have a massive demand problem in our economy right now. Re-opening the economy isn't going to magically eliminate it.
Plenty of localities provide tax credits/incentives for having people locate as it is. That has been happening for decades.
As for picking economic winners and losers based on nothing but what areas are more risk averse, that happens all the time as well. New Orleans is still recovering from Katrina. If there are states that have no coronavirus cases in three weeks, are you saying they should not be able to open up for business? If the coronavirus is only prevalent in say NYC in three weeks, should the rest of the country be shut down too?
By the way, you may want to re-read the posts.
I have never stipulated that re-opening the economy can not happen in different areas. But that the impact is likely to be ineffective.
That is wildly different than the last paragraph you hammered out...
Quote:
Nobody wants those small businesses to fail but this is not a policy decision it’s a virus. Step one to economic recovery is limiting the spread of the virus until the spread slows and we have sufficient testing to quickly and accurately determine who has the virus so they can be quarantined. Until that happens there’s no practical way to return to normal.
The best option for all businesses is to implement and adhere to significant restrictions now.
I am of the opinion that every citizen should get money to hold them over and every small business should get money directly from the government as well. I’m not talking about McDonald’s or American Airlines, small businesses need financial help which the government is capable of providing in the short term.
It is not just small businesses... People work at those small business and are currently being laid off or let go or if lucky a company may float some workers for a certain amount of time. People have to pay bills and a lot of people are going to struggle for the next 6 months to a year at least I would assume on unemployment which is going to be hit hard with requests and backlogs. Economically big businesses are in much better shape than small businesses and people that work at them.
Saying that, what can we do? We can't have this spread throughout our country and getting people sick and killing people. This is a disaster and it is going to be rough.
This is my biggest worry, the wealthy don't hate recessions, they look more like opportunities to them. When you wipe out a ton of small businesses, who has the capital or credit to take over when all is said and done?
As for the idea that the cure is worse than the disease. That's a bit of a false choice. There are ways to mitigate the damage to the economy if desired.
Quote:
In comment 14848499 kicker said:
Quote:
Again, we have tremendous regional linkages in our economy.
What happens if one locale decides to remain sheltered in place, while others open? At this point, the economy doesn't work.
And what happens if certain localities tell businesses that they are willing to provide tax credits or other incentives to have them relocate to those areas? At that point, you are picking economic winners and losers based on nothing but what areas are more risk averse than others.
We have a massive demand problem in our economy right now. Re-opening the economy isn't going to magically eliminate it.
Plenty of localities provide tax credits/incentives for having people locate as it is. That has been happening for decades.
As for picking economic winners and losers based on nothing but what areas are more risk averse, that happens all the time as well. New Orleans is still recovering from Katrina. If there are states that have no coronavirus cases in three weeks, are you saying they should not be able to open up for business? If the coronavirus is only prevalent in say NYC in three weeks, should the rest of the country be shut down too?
Not even close.
Geographical locations that suffer from more frequent weather or tectonic events are factored into decision-making processes. Responses to a viral pandemic are not. In fact, given that we were told we were woefully under-prepared for a pandemic, it is likely that people's attitudes towards risk changed as the pandemic has changed.
And yes, thank you, tax credits have been offered for decades. How insightful. Please provide evidence of the last time tax credits were offered to attract businesses because of a pandemic? Would it have been kosher for that to happen after 9/11, to attract businesses outside of NYC because of the threat for terrorism?
So you are worried about states offering pandemic tax credits? Honestly, if a locality is so susceptible to a pandemic based on factors such as population density, hospitals beds per person, etc., I would completely understand a business relocating to a sparser area. I don't see what the problem would be with a state or locality offering tax breaks to help such businesses and reinvigorate their locality.
2007:
Consumer spending, $11.5 trillion.
Average credit card debt, $764 ($6,758 per household)
Percentage of unpaid balances, 51%
2019:
Consumer spending, $13.5 trillion.
Average credit car debt, $881 ($8,602 per household)
Percentage of unpaid balances, 52%
A slightly growing consumption economy largely financed off of debt and drawing down savings, at levels that are comparable to our most recession, will not be able to effectively take off in a period of massive economic uncertainty.
State A has a low enough rate of infection they feel comfortable opening up contact, then gives incentives for people from State B with a high enough infection rate contact is not open, to come on over.
What could go wrong with that?
So the US economy is just to help rich people grow their portfolio?
This is why there should be an IQ test to be eligible to vote. Someone with this view of the world shouldn't be influencing important decisions at all.
Well, thank you for that sanctimonious bullshit. No, there is nothing wrong with offering tax credits or incentives for a business somewhere else. Should every state and locality have their taxes as high as NY or CA? Are you talking about a specific "pandemic tax credit?" That is such a bizarre hypothetical, why would you be worried about that?
And if a state or locality does something like that, it kind of depends on how they market it. Again, there is nothing wrong with trying to help businesses and people that have been hurt by a pandemic. If NYC becomes the epicenter of the pandemic, and the marketing is "Come to South Dakota, where you won't die from a pandemic and be killed by taxes" then yes, it is probably in bad taste and will receive some backlash. But again, now we are getting into overly bizarre hypotheticals.
Maybe it is, but from what I’m seeing, Republicans and Democrats are both seemingly in agreement that they won’t give the green light until the cdc gives the green light. So I’d say that is good sign.
Nobody thinks that. Who are you talking to?
In 2008, total outstanding household debt was $12.6 trillion. In 2019, it was about $14 trillion.
So, consumer spending increased by $2 trillion, and total household debt increased by $1.4 trillion. That means that about 70-percent of the increase in consumer spending was financed by household debt.
So. How do we have any impetus to speed an economic recovery when the expansion was financed by debt, and given the likely debt load increases from this pandemic...
Have any of you who think this hunkering down should end in a week or two seen pics and articles from Italy? It's a damn Humanatarium crisis over there
Quote:
Do you really think it's a good idea to draw people from a highly populated and highly infected region of the country, to a less infected region of the country?
Nobody thinks that. Who are you talking to?
So you're saying after all threats of the outbreak have subsided, localities should offer incentives for companies to re-locate?
Quote:
In comment 14848571 christian said:
Quote:
Do you really think it's a good idea to draw people from a highly populated and highly infected region of the country, to a less infected region of the country?
Nobody thinks that. Who are you talking to?
Quote:
Honestly, if a locality is so susceptible to a pandemic based on factors such as population density, hospitals beds per person, etc., I would completely understand a business relocating to a sparser area. I don't see what the problem would be with a state or locality offering tax breaks to help such businesses and reinvigorate their locality.
So you're saying after all threats of the outbreak have subsided, localities should offer incentives for companies to re-locate?
Kicker was talking about some kind of pandemic tax break. Ask him. States offer tax breaks now for businesses to move. I hardly think there are many businesses moving in the middle of the pandemic. I hardly think there are many states thinking about offering pandemic tax breaks in the middle of a pandemic. I truly don't know what he's talking about.
2) Cuomo was talking about the need to get the economy going, but not at the expense of people
3) Likely why Fauci hasn't been visible the last 2 days of briefings
4) I, for one, would not listen at this juncture to return to work or social activities
5) At least the CDC, Governors, Congressman (both parties), and medical experts are not agreeing with Trump.
6) Cumor was saying earlier that the curve has actually risen, not flattened, in NY
+1, we already are on target to pass Italy for cases within 4 days