When do we reopen the country back up.

[tango]

Well, it's probably academic now, anyway. Church and Nancy have made it clear that they aren't about to allow federal assistance to such people and businesses.

If you don't choose the red pill today it will be a suppository tomorrow...

 

[JRT]

If the economy is to recover it requires a healthy workforce with enough money to buy food and shelter. Many governments have programs to support income and the sustainability of businesses. but without a tax revenue government will soon run out of ability to borrow. If the lockdown continues for a long time there is still a last resort. The richest 1% control over 50% of the planet's wealth. Either they step forward or governments will act to seize that wealth for the good of humanity.

 

[tango]

If the economy is to recover it requires a healthy workforce with enough money to buy food and shelter. Many governments have programs to support income and the sustainability of businesses. but without a tax revenue government will soon run out of ability to borrow. If the lockdown continues for a long time there is still a last resort. The richest 1% control over 50% of the planet's wealth. Either they step forward or governments will act to seize that wealth for the good of humanity.

The governments won't seize the wealth of the 1%. Not least because unless a truly terrifying global order is introduced they either won't have the power to do it or any attempt to do it will collapse more sections of the economy. The multibillionaires are also the ones who can afford accountants and lawyers to create offshore trusts that are safely out of reach of national governments.

Many people like to think that biliionaires get a monthly bank statement that says "Balance: $48,936,020,561.87" or similar. The reality is that people with that kind of net worth have it in the form of shares and other investments. Perhaps the government could seize someone's cash balance but unless they want to forcibly seize and sell huge numbers of shares in corporations (thereby crashing the market) they won't get at the rest of their assets.

For the sake of an example, how would you seize the wealth of Bill Gates? I'm sure he has a bank balance much more impressive than most of us but an awful lot of his wealth is in the form of shares in Microsoft. If you seize and sell them you crash the value of Microsoft, meaning you get less money.


I agree entirely that for the economy to function it needs people with money to spend. That said, maybe it wouldn't be a bad thing if the economy could be restructured so it didn't depend so heavily on consumers spending money they don't have on things they don't need to impress people they don't know. Except that would mean the little people weren't slaves to debt, so I can't see that ever happening.

 

[hedrick]

The models are showing that the initial hump won't go away until the end of May. For NY and NJ it's the end of April, but states that started later are ending later.

I think it's pretty clear that it will be a slow start. I have no idea exactly how that will work.

I'm 70. I'd rather not have the government protect me. I've thought carefully about what I would and wouldn't do. I'd be pretty limited. E.g. I teach Sunday School at middle school level. it's a small class in a reasonable size room, with an age group that doesn't commonly get it. But I'm afraid I wouldn't do choir or even attend church services. Too tightly picked with people in the age groups that commonly do get it.

I have an individual office in a hall without many people. Going to work doesn't bother me.

 

[tango]

The models are showing that the initial hump won't go away until the end of May. For NY and NJ it's the end of April, but states that started later are ending later.

I think it's pretty clear that it will be a slow start. I have no idea exactly how that will work.

Whenever this hump might occur we have to consider the costs of reopening everything up against the costs of maintaining the lockdown, especially when put against the notion that as soon as we do open everything up again we risk the virus spreading again. Even if we could reach a place where we had a 100% guarantee there wasn't a single person infected in the entire country, what happens when the first plane from abroad lands? If this virus is anywhere near as dangerous as we're being told the only solution is a global shutdown until every single person anywhere in the world can be confirmed virus-free. At present it looks like we are unleashing a social and economic apocalypse in order to not get rid of a virus that may or may not be particularly nasty. From statistics I read from the UK's Office of National Statistics, as of the end of March this thing looked like a statistical blip. If I can find more recent statistics it will be interesting to see if much has changed.

I think the crucial part comes in your next comment:

I'm 70. I'd rather not have the government protect me. I've thought carefully about what I would and wouldn't do. I'd be pretty limited. E.g. I teach Sunday School at middle school level. it's a small class in a reasonable size room, with an age group that doesn't commonly get it. But I'm afraid I wouldn't do choir or even attend church services. Too tightly picked with people in the age groups that commonly do get it.

I have an individual office in a hall without many people. Going to work doesn't bother me.

This part is key. If people know what's going on they can decide for themselves. It's entirely possible that restaurants in densely populated urban areas will decide to remain closed due to lack of demand but in areas where population density is sparse people may decide they can go about their business more or less as normal. At least then there would be choices - as I've mentioned elsewhere the current rules don't allow me to buy a pair of shoes from my local shoe store (where I can stay at least 10 feet away from everybody the entire time) but do allow me to buy a pair of shoes from Walmart. I'm allowed to go outside to mow the lawn but am not allowed to pay someone else to mow my lawn. It's hard to see how rules that create these situations are about public safety. I'm sure some would object about people being fired for not going to work because they were concerned about the virus, but at present they don't even have that choice - they've been laid off because their employers have been forced to close the doors.

I think I mentioned elsewhere about my friend who is pushing 80, immune-compromised with a heart condition. I wouldn't visit her uninvited with this thing going around but if she asked me to visit in person the chances are I would. She's a big girl, all grown up now and able to make decisions for herself about what level of risk she is willing to take. Up to a point telephone calls work to maintain social connections but a lot of people, her included, want to see someone in person rather than hearing a disembodied voice on the phone. I'm thankful that she still lives in her own house and has space - I'd hate to be living in an old peoples' home and confined to a fairly small room.

 

[hedrick]

I would be crazy to consider only saving the very most possible lives, without trading off the economic impacts. No one that I'm aware is being that extreme. On the other hand, no one wants to lose a million people, which was possible. I'm pretty sure we'll start making compromises in late May and June.

Unfortunately traditional church services may be one of the last things to restart. They have all the worst characteristics.

I should note that it can't all be personal choice. In public health situations, what one person does influences what happens to others.

 

[tango]

I would be crazy to consider only saving the very most possible lives, without trading off the economic impacts. No one that I'm aware is being that extreme. On the other hand, no one wants to lose a million people, which was possible. I'm pretty sure we'll start making compromises in late May and June.

That is pretty much what is happening when people are told they aren't allowed to earn a living any more. A friend of mine is a self-employed hairdresser. She was told to shut down her salon so she can't earn any money. She still has to pay her mortgage and feed her children. Never mind, the feds will send her some money, eventually. It might even be enough to cover a month's bills, even if she is forcibly out of work for many months.

A million people was a guess from an early model that was based on a lot of assumptions. Compromises in late May and June are too late - huge damage will already have been done by then. Only today I was helping distribute meals to school-aged children and one of the fathers was saying how his business is cutting grass. He hasn't been allowed to work for several weeks now but still has children to feed. He's also trying to homeschool five kids but without any chance to prepare or figure out how anything will work. Sucks to be him I guess.

In the meantime calls to suicide hotlines have spiked, a report I read from the UK suggested domestic abuse had doubled since the lockdown there, and the link between unemployment and alcohol and substance abuse is well known. But never mind the human cost, it's apparently about saving lives. Which is why I can't go to my quiet local shoe store to buy a new pair of shoes but can go to Walmart with everyone else and buy a pair of shoes.

Unfortunately traditional church services may be one of the last things to restart. They have all the worst characteristics.

Never mind that pesky separation of church and state, and the freedom to assemble, and the freedom to follow religion, right?

I should note that it can't all be personal choice. In public health situations, what one person does influences what happens to others.

Many things we do influences others. The person involved in a fatal car wreck probably didn't go out that morning figuring they'd kill someone by the end of the day. Yet we don't shut down the road network, just in case. We accept tens of thousands of annual deaths and vastly more injuries as the price for freedom of movement. But when the danger is a virus rather than a two-ton hunk of metal we demand protection from it, as if the government can do much to protect us.