Jobs, Jobs, Jobs....

jimmurphy said:

All the JOBS, JOBS, JOBS created in the last 10 years have evaporated.

Wonder what AJC thinks of that...

 Results from the poor response by Dems to the Pandemic.


STANV said:

 Results from the poor response by Dems to the Pandemic.

 It's China's fault


STANV said:

 Results from the poor response by Dems to the Pandemic.

 That’d be a hard sell.


ajc said:

 Yes, are you looking for a job? I have openings at the florist, (Maplewood Flowers) the ice cream store, (Dippy Sippy) the B&B, (Les Saisons) and the repo business (Commercial Service Corporation).

I will take any one of those if they are still open


I don't know if this is the right thread for this, but does anyone have any thoughts / theories / data on the real impact to the economy. I don't think the real impact has shown itself yet. We have all these office workers still working from home assuming this is some temporary thing, we are talking about starting the economy back up, stock market took a beating but is now recovering again, etc. How is this possible? Whole sectors of the economy will be wiped out (automotive, airlines and travel in general, entertainment, retail). How on earth is this a temp thing? Am I missing something?


ml1 said:

STANV said:

 Results from the poor response by Dems to the Pandemic.

 It's China's fault

No, it's Obama's fault.  He left the broken tests behind, to damage the recovery that started right after Trump was elected. 


basil said:

I don't know if this is the right thread for this, but does anyone have any thoughts / theories / data on the real impact to the economy. I don't think the real impact has shown itself yet. We have all these office workers still working from home assuming this is some temporary thing, we are talking about starting the economy back up, stock market took a beating but is now recovering again, etc. How is this possible? Whole sectors of the economy will be wiped out (automotive, airlines and travel in general, entertainment, retail). How on earth is this a temp thing? Am I missing something?

My theory is that optimism and ignorance are driving the positive view of the near future.

I think the market will tank again once the impact on social distancing for opened businesses is felt. I expect that office workers will be put on a set schedule like every other day or week in the office, perhaps less frequent than that. Schools will likely be the same.

There will likely be a drive to sequester the elderly and those with underlying health conditions, especially if Trump is re-elected.

You’re not missing anything, this is gonna take a while. 


We're not being helped by a Congress dominated by conservative/supply-side economics. They either don't know or don't care what they need to do keep the economy stable until we can climb out of this. Temporary UBI should have been a no-brainer, for example. Avoiding corporate bailouts that do nothing for maintaining employment should have been another. Countless small businesses will have to hire new staff and train them, all at the same time, because we didn't maintain employment for them, ostensibly the purpose of the PPP, which got squandered and was way too small and hard to qualify for anyway.

We're really kinda screwed I think.


basil said:

I will take any one of those if they are still open

 B&B has no guests. Florist is closed. Ice cream parlor is closed. Repo is down, auto loans get a time out.

AJC is missing in action. 


I can't believe the government doesn't have a solution to shutting down the economy for months.  Shocking.


terp said:

I can't believe the government doesn't have a solution to shutting down the economy for months.  Shocking.

there's no "solution" but there are certainly ways of easing the pain, and for easing the transition to opening the economy up again.

We're not doing much of either. Consequently some people are panicking about locking down. And some governors are easing mitigation too soon.

What would the libertarian approach to this be?

drummerboy said:

there's no "solution" but there are certainly ways of easing the pain, and for easing the transition to opening the economy up again.

We're not doing much of either. Consequently some people are panicking about locking down. And some governors are easing mitigation too soon.

What would the libertarian approach to this be?

Libertarians are very good in criticizing others. Less so in running actual things.


terp said:

I can't believe the government doesn't have a solution to shutting down the economy for months.  Shocking.

I’ve been receptive to your arguments before.

Make one.

My guess is that you’d let things take their course without intervention.

What are the pros and cons of that approach, if that’d be the position?


basil said:

drummerboy said:

there's no "solution" but there are certainly ways of easing the pain, and for easing the transition to opening the economy up again.

We're not doing much of either. Consequently some people are panicking about locking down. And some governors are easing mitigation too soon.

What would the libertarian approach to this be?

Libertarians are very good in criticizing others. Less so in running actual things.

 Can't run something if it doesn't exist.


jimmurphy said:

terp said:

I can't believe the government doesn't have a solution to shutting down the economy for months.  Shocking.

I’ve been receptive to your arguments before.

Make one.

My guess is that you’d let things take their course without intervention.

What are the pros and cons of that approach, if that’d be the position?

A lot of damage has already been done.  This damage was done prior to this crisis with radical monetary and fiscal policies without any crisis.  Then, additional damage has been done as a result of this crisis. 

To think that we can work our way out of this crisis without incurring quite a bit of pain is unreasonable IMO.  I think that the economic fallout of shutting things down will be felt for years to come.   There is no painless way out of this crisis. 

That being said, we should correct what we should.  The thing that the government(s) can do is to reduce regime uncertainty as much as possible.  Shutting down multiple times will be a disaster.  There is no way individuals or businesses can plan in that environment.  That will create additional pain and even more businesses will go under. 

We should have a clear plan to open things safely.  We need to provide visibility.  Define clearly what the objectives of the shutdowns are?  At one point early on that seemed clear.  It was to prevent our hospitals from being overrun with patients.  Second, we need to make people understand under what conditions they can open.  Do stores, offices, etc need to limit people, other precautions, etc  What activities will be allowed and when?   What is the action plan should an outbreak begin?  

The goal of the program to find sustainable way to keep things open without having to shut down again.  Maybe it's just the bleach talking, but I personally don't think we're set up very well for this right now.  

I would also pronounce that we will not bail out large companies or the large financials.  The Federal Reserve should return to its original mission and stop buying corporate debt, and state that they will not under any set of circumstances subject its citizens to a negative interest rate regime.  People are going to save as they recover in the wake of this crisis.  This is a perfectly rational, and advisable thing to do.  They should not be punished for doing so. 

Given that businesses may be subject to additional regulations due to the pandemic, Congress, State & local governments should look to remove other regulations and lower taxes.  As much as humanly possible, this should focus on supporting small businesses, but it should benefit businesses in general.   

Companies in large concentrated cities should be given tax incentives for developing WFH programs for office workers.  This will reduce the number of people in offices, using public transit, etc. 

That's what I've got right now. 


ridski said:

 Can't run something if it doesn't exist.

 For examples, see the US economy. 


terp said:

jimmurphy said:

terp said:

I can't believe the government doesn't have a solution to shutting down the economy for months.  Shocking.

I’ve been receptive to your arguments before.

Make one.

My guess is that you’d let things take their course without intervention.

What are the pros and cons of that approach, if that’d be the position?

A lot of damage has already been done.  This damage was done prior to this crisis with radical monetary and fiscal policies without any crisis.  Then, additional damage has been done as a result of this crisis. 

To think that we can work our way out of this crisis without incurring quite a bit of pain is unreasonable IMO.  I think that the economic fallout of shutting things down will be felt for years to come.   There is no painless way out of this crisis. 

That being said, we should correct what we should.  The thing that the government(s) can do is to reduce regime uncertainty as much as possible.  Shutting down multiple times will be a disaster.  There is no way individuals or businesses can plan in that environment.  That will create additional pain and even more businesses will go under. 

We should have a clear plan to open things safely.  We need to provide visibility.  Define clearly what the objectives of the shutdowns are?  At one point early on that seemed clear.  It was to prevent our hospitals from being overrun with patients.  Second, we need to make people understand under what conditions they can open.  Do stores, offices, etc need to limit people, other precautions, etc  What activities will be allowed and when?   What is the action plan should an outbreak begin?  

The goal of the program to find sustainable way to keep things open without having to shut down again.  Maybe it's just the bleach talking, but I personally don't think we're set up very well for this right now.  

I would also pronounce that we will not bail out large companies or the large financials.  The Federal Reserve should return to its original mission and stop buying corporate debt, and state that they will not under any set of circumstances subject its citizens to a negative interest rate regime.  People are going to save as they recover in the wake of this crisis.  This is a perfectly rational, and advisable thing to do.  They should not be punished for doing so. 

Given that businesses may be subject to additional regulations due to the pandemic, Congress, State & local governments should look to remove other regulations and lower taxes.  As much as humanly possible, this should focus on supporting small businesses, but it should benefit businesses in general.   

Companies in large concentrated cities should be given tax incentives for developing WFH programs for office workers.  This will reduce the number of people in offices, using public transit, etc. 

That's what I've got right now. 

 Can I get some croutons on that word salad?


Red_Barchetta said:

terp said:

jimmurphy said:

terp said:

I can't believe the government doesn't have a solution to shutting down the economy for months.  Shocking.

I’ve been receptive to your arguments before.

Make one.

My guess is that you’d let things take their course without intervention.

What are the pros and cons of that approach, if that’d be the position?

A lot of damage has already been done.  This damage was done prior to this crisis with radical monetary and fiscal policies without any crisis.  Then, additional damage has been done as a result of this crisis. 

To think that we can work our way out of this crisis without incurring quite a bit of pain is unreasonable IMO.  I think that the economic fallout of shutting things down will be felt for years to come.   There is no painless way out of this crisis. 

That being said, we should correct what we should.  The thing that the government(s) can do is to reduce regime uncertainty as much as possible.  Shutting down multiple times will be a disaster.  There is no way individuals or businesses can plan in that environment.  That will create additional pain and even more businesses will go under. 

We should have a clear plan to open things safely.  We need to provide visibility.  Define clearly what the objectives of the shutdowns are?  At one point early on that seemed clear.  It was to prevent our hospitals from being overrun with patients.  Second, we need to make people understand under what conditions they can open.  Do stores, offices, etc need to limit people, other precautions, etc  What activities will be allowed and when?   What is the action plan should an outbreak begin?  

The goal of the program to find sustainable way to keep things open without having to shut down again.  Maybe it's just the bleach talking, but I personally don't think we're set up very well for this right now.  

I would also pronounce that we will not bail out large companies or the large financials.  The Federal Reserve should return to its original mission and stop buying corporate debt, and state that they will not under any set of circumstances subject its citizens to a negative interest rate regime.  People are going to save as they recover in the wake of this crisis.  This is a perfectly rational, and advisable thing to do.  They should not be punished for doing so. 

Given that businesses may be subject to additional regulations due to the pandemic, Congress, State & local governments should look to remove other regulations and lower taxes.  As much as humanly possible, this should focus on supporting small businesses, but it should benefit businesses in general.   

Companies in large concentrated cities should be given tax incentives for developing WFH programs for office workers.  This will reduce the number of people in offices, using public transit, etc. 

That's what I've got right now. 

 Can I get some croutons on that word salad?

 Sorry.  There's a shortage.  I don't think you'd need to look too far to find a douche though.  Seems like you just need to find the nearest mirror. 


Most of terp's ideas sound good to me, and even workable, BUT they presuppose a well-functioning and well-informed federal government working in consultation and coordination with businesses and other governments.  I live in hope of this but am certainly not seeing it right now.


mjc said:

Most of terp's ideas sound good to me, and even workable, BUT they presuppose a well-functioning and well-informed federal government working in consultation and coordination with businesses and other governments.  I live in hope of this but am certainly not seeing it right now.

 I gather that he believes that a "well-functioning" federal government is an oxymoron. 

Most of us believe it requires a CEO who is mentally stable and at least somewhat competent.


terp said:

Red_Barchetta said:

terp said:

jimmurphy said:

terp said:

I can't believe the government doesn't have a solution to shutting down the economy for months.  Shocking.

I’ve been receptive to your arguments before.

Make one.

My guess is that you’d let things take their course without intervention.

What are the pros and cons of that approach, if that’d be the position?

A lot of damage has already been done.  This damage was done prior to this crisis with radical monetary and fiscal policies without any crisis.  Then, additional damage has been done as a result of this crisis. 

To think that we can work our way out of this crisis without incurring quite a bit of pain is unreasonable IMO.  I think that the economic fallout of shutting things down will be felt for years to come.   There is no painless way out of this crisis. 

That being said, we should correct what we should.  The thing that the government(s) can do is to reduce regime uncertainty as much as possible.  Shutting down multiple times will be a disaster.  There is no way individuals or businesses can plan in that environment.  That will create additional pain and even more businesses will go under. 

We should have a clear plan to open things safely.  We need to provide visibility.  Define clearly what the objectives of the shutdowns are?  At one point early on that seemed clear.  It was to prevent our hospitals from being overrun with patients.  Second, we need to make people understand under what conditions they can open.  Do stores, offices, etc need to limit people, other precautions, etc  What activities will be allowed and when?   What is the action plan should an outbreak begin?  

The goal of the program to find sustainable way to keep things open without having to shut down again.  Maybe it's just the bleach talking, but I personally don't think we're set up very well for this right now.  

I would also pronounce that we will not bail out large companies or the large financials.  The Federal Reserve should return to its original mission and stop buying corporate debt, and state that they will not under any set of circumstances subject its citizens to a negative interest rate regime.  People are going to save as they recover in the wake of this crisis.  This is a perfectly rational, and advisable thing to do.  They should not be punished for doing so. 

Given that businesses may be subject to additional regulations due to the pandemic, Congress, State & local governments should look to remove other regulations and lower taxes.  As much as humanly possible, this should focus on supporting small businesses, but it should benefit businesses in general.   

Companies in large concentrated cities should be given tax incentives for developing WFH programs for office workers.  This will reduce the number of people in offices, using public transit, etc. 

That's what I've got right now. 

 Can I get some croutons on that word salad?

 Sorry.  There's a shortage.  I don't think you'd need to look too far to find a douche though.  Seems like you just need to find the nearest mirror. 

 Seems to me like you're calling me a douche.  **** you.  

ETA:  the system replaced my letters with asterisks.  I meant what I said.  


If you don't like being called a douche, try being less douchey. 


mjc said:

Most of terp's ideas sound good to me, and even workable, BUT they presuppose a well-functioning and well-informed federal government working in consultation and coordination with businesses and other governments.  I live in hope of this but am certainly not seeing it right now.

 Let's look at his ideas:

1.  That being said, we should correct what we should.

2.  The thing that the government(s) can do is to reduce regime uncertainty as much as possible.

3.  I would also pronounce that we will not bail out large companies or the large financials.

With great stuff like this he must work at the White House, he's probably one of the brains behind wonderboy Jared.  

And to you again, Mr. TERD, again I'll say **** you.


STANV said:

mjc said:

Most of terp's ideas sound good to me, and even workable, BUT they presuppose a well-functioning and well-informed federal government working in consultation and coordination with businesses and other governments.  I live in hope of this but am certainly not seeing it right now.

 I gather that he believes that a "well-functioning" federal government is an oxymoron. 

Most of us believe it requires a CEO who is mentally stable and at least somewhat competent.

 

Trump is certainly a part of the issue right now in our system.  I think there would be issues regardless.  I mean the level of political tribalism at play is just crazy.   The corporate media just amplifies it.  

The country isn't really in a great place right now to come together.  You would think a crisis like this would do it, but you'd be wrong. 


Red_Barchetta said:

mjc said:

Most of terp's ideas sound good to me, and even workable, BUT they presuppose a well-functioning and well-informed federal government working in consultation and coordination with businesses and other governments.  I live in hope of this but am certainly not seeing it right now.

 Let's look at his ideas:

1.  That being said, we should correct what we should.

2.  The thing that the government(s) can do is to reduce regime uncertainty as much as possible.

3.  I would also pronounce that we will not bail out large companies or the large financials.

With great stuff like this he must work at the White House, he's probably one of the brains behind wonderboy Jared.  

And to you again, Mr. TERD, again I'll say **** you.

 Well.  I guess you're not going to take my advice. 


terp said:

 Well.  I guess you're not going to take my advice. 

 See you soon.  


terp said:

 

Trump is certainly a part of the issue right now in our system.  I think there would be issues regardless.  I mean the level of political tribalism at play is just crazy.   The corporate media just amplifies it.  

The country isn't really in a great place right now to come together.  You would think a crisis like this would do it, but you'd be wrong. 

 I did expect that and I was wrong. I think that with just about any other person as President the country would have come together. Trump functions by division. 

George W. Bush said about himself when he was running for President said "I am a uniter, not a divider". Trump would never say that but moreover he does not see that as a positive trait. He sees everything as a battle between him and his opponents and believes that "divide and conquer" is the best strategy. 


STANV said:

George W. Bush said about himself when he was running for President said "I am a uniter, not a divider". Trump would never say that but moreover he does not see that as a positive trait. 

 If Trump thought it would help him to claim to be a uniter, he would definitely say it.  In fact, I'm pretty sure he did.  


terp said:

 

Trump is certainly a part of the issue right now in our system.  I think there would be issues regardless.  I mean the level of political tribalism at play is just crazy.   The corporate media just amplifies it.  

 The "corporate media" is doing its job, making as much profit for its shareholders as it can in the most efficient way possible. It has no other obligation.


Perhaps.  Though, I wonder how true that is.  I think its more accurate to say they are dying slowly, but you could certainly make that case. 

AFAICT, they are amplifying the political tribalism.  Which I think is not helping this particular situation.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.