Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just like scientists, economists and financial experts come to a consensus among the community. Yes, there's isolated individuals that are over-dramatizing the situation and those are the people you see on TV. You need to look at what the vast majority of economists are saying and what empirical work they are citing. But, sure, just go by what you see and hear on TV.
What are you talking about? Just in the past month, the USA had the highest ever unemployment spike in it's history Imagine if we totally shut down the economy like some here are demanding
That's up to states and local government's to decide. Cities like New York need to decide when it's time to go on lockdown, if it comes to that. But don't lock down the whole country just because New York has a problem. If anything, those other states need to ban air travel from New York. Social distancing is being recommended everywhere, and that's great. It probably works.
Honest education would go much further than creating hysteria. Warn vulnerable members of the public and give them the facts on how they can limit exposure and risk. Trying to create hysteria causes many people to not take the situation seriously, and I know that is definitely happening today. People have out of the blue told me that the hype is causing them to not take the risk seriously. Some of those people word directly with the public. The very people you would want to take this most seriously.
10% is an estimate, and extreme poverty at that. There are other levels of poverty not included in that estimate.
The federal gov has not locked down anything, state and local governments have.
Education? We got people who know they are infected still going out among other people. Despite all the news, throbs of people on spring break, openly stating they do not care.
I see no hype, where is this hype? All I see stated is social distancing, hygiene, and reports on who is open, closed, curfews, lock downs, etc.
What are you talking about? Just in the past month, the USA had the highest ever unemployment spike in it's history Imagine if we totally shut down the economy like some here are demanding
Are you not aware that the vast majority (almost all) of those people that applied for unemployed fall under temporary unemployment? I think you need to pay more attention what is going on in the world.
Also, are you not aware of the Stimulus Package that congress passed and was signed into law by Trump?
Are you not aware that the vast majority (almost all) of those people that applied for unemployed fall under temporary unemployment? I think you need to pay more attention what is going on in the world.
Also, are you not aware of the Stimulus Package that congress passed and was signed into law by Trump?
And those people will not be consuming nearly as much as when they had something called a job. That is why we are very likely going into a recession, as most of the actual experts are saying. And that will have a definite negative impacts on the global economy.
And those people will not be consuming nearly as much as when they had something called a job. That is why we are very likely going into a recession, as most of the actual experts are saying. And that will have a definite negative impacts on the global economy.
Yes. A far cry from the over-dramatization of the situation you describe in the OP. A far cry from a depression. We'll make it out far ahead, based on what the "actual experts" are saying. There's little to fear in the long-term. We just need to get past this virus and continue on with our strong balance sheets.
This is actually the very point I made in post #2 of this thread. People are creating hysteria around a non-existent and unlikely "depression". We know that there's going to be a short lived economic impact, but over-dramatizing it and using words like "depression" when the likelyhood is so small... almost 0, is just creating unnecessary hysteria. This virus is a short-term thing and we'll get past it really quickly.
Hyperbole and catasrophizing don't help. No argument there! Neither is it aboveboard to conflate personal financial setback, such as stock market losses, with hundreds of millions of people starving to death.
But we should admit that there is a fundamental conflict of interest afoot. On the one side we have people of advanced age and/or fragile health, who have a significant (if still small) chance of dying. These people by and large benefit from an economic shutdown, even if it also hurts them financially. On the other side we have younger/healthier people, whose chance of death is much lower. They would probably be hurt by a protracted shutdown more, than by the virus achieving 100% penetration in the human population, and killing tens of millions, or even hundreds of millions worldwide.
I'm not saying that Bob should die, so that Suzie can stay rich. Or that Suzie should suffer financial setbacks, to enable Bob to live. But that really is our choice, isn't it? There may not be a right answer here. But can we at least agree that this is the question?
Hyperbole and catasrophizing don't help. No argument there! Neither is it aboveboard to conflate personal financial setback, such as stock market losses, with hundreds of millions of people starving to death.
But we should admit that there is a fundamental conflict of interest afoot. On the one side we have people of advanced age and/or fragile health, who have a significant (if still small) chance of dying. These people by and large benefit from an economic shutdown, even if it also hurts them financially. On the other side we have younger/healthier people, whose chance of death is much lower. They would probably be hurt by a protracted shutdown more, than by the virus achieving 100% penetration in the human population, and killing tens of millions, or even hundreds of millions worldwide.
I'm not saying that Bob should die, so that Suzie can stay rich. Or that Suzie should suffer financial setbacks, to enable Bob to live. But that really is our choice, isn't it? There may not be a right answer here. But can we at least agree that this is the question?
We agree on the question.
We must listen to the experts to provide us with an analysis of how the events are likely to unfold based on what decisions are made. We have a consensus among the experts at this time. If the data changes, we should revisit our strategy. The best we can do is go off of the knowledge and data we have to guide our decisions.
Yes. A far cry from the over-dramatization of the situation you describe in the OP. A far cry from a depression. We'll make it out far ahead, based on what the "actual experts" are saying. There's little to fear in the long-term. We just need to get past this virus and continue on with our strong balance sheets.
There actually are many experts warning it may be similar to a great depression. I hope not. I certainly would rather not take the chance and find out. Just look at the stuff Goldman Sachs is speculating might happen. If they are nobodies, than I don't know who you would consider an expert in this topic.
You can find hundreds of articles like this, with reputable sources and names of experts, not some conspiracy theorist or guy on the street whose been predicting the end of the world for decades.
This perfectly sums it up. There's no further discussion required.
It's as if people never lived or studied anything prior to the 90s. The last thing we need is some 35 year old guy who lacks education pushing fairy tails of "Depression 2.0" just to scare people. These scare tactics need to stop. People will lock onto what they see on TV and just regurgitate. Education has gone downhill.
Thank you and I agree. It's as if these people don't have the experience of living through the economic contraction of the early 2000s and watching what happened to their 401ks and the market. I suggest they refer to how the economists, financial experts and government responded. It was a long while ago, but we all lived it.
Hyperbole and catasrophizing don't help. No argument there! Neither is it aboveboard to conflate personal financial setback, such as stock market losses, with hundreds of millions of people starving to death.
But we should admit that there is a fundamental conflict of interest afoot. On the one side we have people of advanced age and/or fragile health, who have a significant (if still small) chance of dying. These people by and large benefit from an economic shutdown, even if it also hurts them financially. On the other side we have younger/healthier people, whose chance of death is much lower. They would probably be hurt by a protracted shutdown more, than by the virus achieving 100% penetration in the human population, and killing tens of millions, or even hundreds of millions worldwide.
I'm not saying that Bob should die, so that Suzie can stay rich. Or that Suzie should suffer financial setbacks, to enable Bob to live. But that really is our choice, isn't it? There may not be a right answer here. But can we at least agree that this is the question?
The thing is, using the UK study's worse case scenario, the economy would be shutting down anyway if tens of thousands were dying every day from this. Mass panic would happen, and people afraid to do a lot of things other than sit home.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
