I'm also hearing this morning that we've hit the 10% mark. I also heard the same economist say "The economy is collapsing, and it's a global collapse". I don't even need coffee to be alert the rest of the day...
For general views of very smart people on the economy and markets, I recommend Bloomberg Surveillance every morning on the Bloomberg app, radio and on your favorite podcast app
Right now, the sources I have say to expect to be WFH and "socially distanced" until July or August at the earliest. Restaurants will probably start slowly opening back up around then, but conferences or sporting events are going to be cancelled through at least the end of the year. A single sporting event or conference can lead to thousands of new infections, so none of that stuff is coming back for a long time.
Past that, we were told to expect 3 waves of economic pain: one right now when everyone loses their job, another big layoff cycle in 3 months once companies that can WFH start to adjust for structural changes, and a third wave near the end of the year after people start to seriously curtail consumption in response to the first two waves and global demand falls off a cliff.
This information has been getting priced into the market for a few weeks, so none of it is new. But these numbers are just starting to hit the wider media and your average American is starting to panic because we're looking at a decade or more of hurt before this is all over.
Despite our best efforts, this thing is burning through entire populations, and will do so quickly (within a couple of months globally, except some places in asia who escaped the first wave but are now seeing more). Every active person leaving home is going to be exposed in short order, thus infecting their household, and even in lockdowns people need to eat. Almost every country waited too long to lock down, and large countries still haven't effectively done so.
The downside of that is a horrific global death toll (1 million confirmed cases this month, maybe 10 million infected? megadeath next month?). The upside is that we will at some point reach herd immunity and/or develop and manufacture a vaccine and economies will restart.
Looking at Italy I find it hard to believe that almost every household has not been exposed by now - all it takes is one infected during the lockdown and the entire household gets it. Their new cases are declining and their deaths are flat already.
There will be substantial economic damage but I think the recovery may be quite fast as there will be a clear cause which has been addressed (probably by a rushed vaccine currently in trials - there are lots globally). I don't believe a lockdown of more than 2 months is acceptable to most, even with a 1% risk of death, and such lockdowns require the consent of the population to function.
This virus is not transmitted via magic. Even basic precautions lower the transmission rate considerable. Most places are now taking precautions that are far beyond basic.
I agree that could be worded better (I'll leave it up since you've replied), but I meant it's hard to avoid if you're going shopping every few days - people are not good at infection control and many are pretty much asymptomatic for a long period. Lockdowns are controlling the rate of spread, not stopping it, despite best efforts, and will I suspect be released after a few months for that reason - because it has infected > 50% anyway and those people are allowed out after testing.
I'm encouraged by the progress in Italy, but don't see how you can avoid having most of the population catch this in the long term without a vaccine. It appears to be very hard to control even with really draconian quarantines which only have an impact after weeks and cannot realistically hold for more than a a few months, esp in poorer countries. I'm not saying don't quarantine, it's essential to avoid really horrific deaths, just that it may not stop the majority getting it in within a year or so.
If it mutates of course that's another problem but this disease is so virulent and the economic damage of effective countermeasures is so disastrous that I cannot believe the world will not prioritise mass vaccinations when that arrives and eliminate it whatever the cost.
>such lockdowns require the consent of the population to function.
NO, they require they compliance of a population when faced with the military and martial law -- Which was already intimated directly as not being needed "just yet" by Trump.
Massive rumors of troop deployments and getting ready - videos of trains with tons of equipment being moved around the country.
Videos of the suposed "testing centers" setup at various places were the military setup huge tents - and they are completely empty, as well as fema delivering refridgerated trailers to these places...
They are planning on mass death coming very soon.
Media claiming that the hospitals are a "war zone" and guys went to these hospitals and they were empty.
Our concern is a supply chain meltdown when you have millions infected and sick. I would rather be prepared and not need something, then need something and not be prepared.
This is an absurdist prediction - we are looking at maximum 2 million 75+ year olds dying with some much smaller number of people of different ages. This is the group least likely to be involved in the day-to-day functioning of our supply chains.
Honestly, where are people coming up with these doomsday predictions?
And even if the elderly bear most of the risk, countries are shutting down completely for their sake - and that means companies stopping operations, leading to further disruptions. Also this article: US already has 10 million unemployed, and it barely started to consider doing anything about the virus.
I think this is closest to actual doomsday since the peak of Cold War.
> I think this is closest to actual doomsday since the peak of Cold War
I agree, but I think that more speaks to the relative safety and stability of the post-Cold War era than any particularly huge danger from the pandemic. 2 million deaths is terrifying and we should do what we can to prevent it - I don't see any evidence that this is the lead up to general societal collapse or even substantial supply chain disruption for things you need to survive.
In terms of being an existential threat to human life, this virus as we currently understand it (ignoring all the unknowns) isn't a real Doomsday. Historically it's merely a blip on the radar of awful things humanity has went through, endured, and survived leading to where we are now. People survived the bubonic plague and continued on. It was awful and they lacked much of the knowledge and understanding we now have to better curb these threats.
The vast majority of the population is going to be fine, healthy, and moving along. There may be economic restructuring after this (I don't see it as likely though). You're probably going to see a drop in quality/standard of living at large no matter what, but the majority of our infrastructure will still be there and the majority of the people who operate it will still be there. It's not like humans won't be around, infrastructure will be destroyed, our acquired knowledge and skills are lost...
The absolute worst case scenario is that this virus mutates regularly (perhaps with higher mortality rates) and we aren't able to manage it. Each mutation comes with significant risk of death. Although the risk could low for many, multiple exposures to relatively low risk leads to higher more realized unwelcome outcomes. This would absolutely force a complete systematic restructuring of societies, how we interact, how we work, etc. long term.
Based on what we currently know this will be a fairly long decline in productivity that most will be immune to and life will probably continue on mostly as is. It all boils down to questions about who deserves what, who takes the hit on losses, etc. Right now it looks like your average US citizen will see a larger decline in standards of living and our economic system will further consolidate/concentrate wealth and power barring some sort of (hopefully non-violent) social revolution.
If you're worried about a real collapse, then do what you can to prepare, sure - ideally remembering that, by all the accounts of people who've been through such collapses and later told the tale, what really gets you through in the long run isn't liquor, smokes, or bullets, but relationships.
You don't need to soak in the news to do that. Indeed, soaking in the news probably makes it harder. Anxiety can get paralyzing, and there's a lot in the news to be anxious about. But it's also worth remembering that what's going to happen is going to happen whether you obsess over it or not. It can't be hurried, helped, or fought. It can only be dealt with as best you can, and from here it seems like you're not really helping yourself by what you're doing just now. So, maybe consider trying doing something else for a while? You know, just to see if it feels any different.
If this triggers a financial crisis, then working capital can disappear so even if capacity exists liquidity won’t and there won’t be enough purchase power to float inventory.
I worked at the best corporate bankruptcy law firm in the country in 2008. I can tell you there was a real concern that lack of liquidity would result in grocery stores not having food for extended periods from lacking working capital. That can happen fast.
Whether or not you need ammo probably depends on where you live... but I'd stock up on non-perishables and necessities if you can afford it.
Not sure you need vodka at all, but I think that's a matter of personal preference. I'm actually trying to be as healthy and fit as possible to fight the weirdness that is self-isolation and to be ready for the virus when it inevitably comes (if 80% of us really are going to be infected...)
Am also hearing PE funds are forecasting anything between "18 months until we're back to normal" to "it will never be the same"..
I've stocked up a month ago for a minor supply chain disruption. But the more I read the news every day, the more it seems to me that it isn't going to be a minor disruption. I'm starting to worry about survival even if neither myself nor anyone around me actually catches COVID-19.
COVID-19 isn't going to destroy any of our infrastructure, and if we mobilize properly, isn't going to kill nearly as many people. If our [great-]grandparents made it through WWII, there's no reason we can't make it through this.
> COVID-19 isn't going to destroy any of our infrastructure, and if we mobilize properly, isn't going to kill nearly as many people. If our [great-]grandparents made it through WWII, there's no reason we can't make it through this.
In The U.S., WWII was funded by the savings of that generation, which is really amazing considering they had been in the longest, deepest economic depression in the nation's history prior to the start of the war.
After the war ended, cooler heads prevailed and all wartime orders were lifted and capital and labor could reform, as it saw fit, and as such, the year immediately following the war produced the greatest annualized economic gains in the history of the country.
Going into what we are doing right now, Americans don't have any savings plus many private and nearly all public institutions have a lot of debt.
There is no indication that the government will permit such a freely flowing economy even after whatever it is we are doing has ended, so I don't find direct comparisons relevant.
Not immediately, but the U.S. was on a gold standard at the time and funded the war through war bonds (and establishment of income taxes) which were largely purchased domestically.
The gold standard bit is important because the government was not able to simply print money to fund the war.
Yes, there is irresponsible lending that winds up in temporary value being created that we later find out was fake, and yes it's scary when the government is that lender. Maybe ironically, gold now works as a store of value that hedges against government money going bad.
But debt it still a great system that will continue to work well after COVID-19.
> Yes, there is irresponsible lending that winds up in temporary value being created that we later find out was fake, and yes it's scary when the government is that lender. Maybe ironically, gold now works as a store of value that hedges against government money going bad.
> But debt it still a great system that will continue to work well after COVID-19.
There is no argument for or against debt. You are inserting something not there.
It is notable, however, that to create debt there must be a creditor.
the reason the US was ably to basically jump start it's economy after ww2 was mainly because all of its competitors got either got their industries and cities literally leveled, or their nation/people nearly utterly destroyed.
Even the UK, which was a victor of world war 2 had an economy which was basically dead in the water until the late 70's.
The US got incredibly "lucky" during world war 2 in the sense that it didn't fight the conflict on its own continent.
Also, the marshall plan was a smart policy in an economic sense because it allowed the war economy to transistion back into civilian goods thanks to having a massive (subsidized) export market.
> the reason the US was ably to basically jump start it's economy after ww2 was mainly because all of its competitors got either got their industries and cities literally leveled, or their nation/people nearly utterly destroyed.
> Even the UK, which was a victor of world war 2 had an economy which was basically dead in the water until the late 70's.
> The US got incredibly "lucky" during world war 2 in the sense that it didn't fight the conflict on its own continent.
> Also, the marshall plan was a smart policy in an economic sense because it allowed the war economy to transistion back into civilian goods thanks to having a massive (subsidized) export market.
Nations are not competitors. They are trade partners.
The Marshall Plan was passed in 1948.
These are not mutually exclusive. See China v USA right now.
> These are not mutually exclusive. See China v USA right now.
Well, taken out of context of the discussion, you can say lots of things.
Of course nations are competitors. International trade is an unregulated market, every nation competes economically with each other and tries to extract maximally favorable deal for themselves; when negotiations get heated, they get backed up by military strength, and the only reason we don't go to war often is a combination of sanity and MADness.
> Of course nations are competitors. International trade is an unregulated market, every nation competes economically with each other and tries to extract maximally favorable deal for themselves; when negotiations get heated, they get backed up by military strength, and the only reason we don't go to war often is a combination of sanity and MADness.
What does this have to do with post-WWII economic recovery in the U.S.?
If it's relevant, 3 million people in India died due to widespread starvation during World War 2 caused by British colonial and war-time policies. Additionally all their cloth production was used by the British war effort, so many Indians went without clothes during that period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#Cloth_fa...
I'd have to listen to the episode again, but I think the most outrageous and shameful thing about it is that it wasn't actually necessary. The way Gladwell portrays it, they died mostly due to the personal spite of one person.
[1] http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/15-the-prime-minister...
My guess is plenty of essential jobs will have heavy overtime while many people are unemployed. Simply because the disruptions are going to cascade through individual factories very quickly. The economic impact is largely going to be a question of how much do we shut down to save lives?
i think about that a lot. I have so much respect for the task force setup to work on this, but man, i'm glad i'm not on it.
1) A huge impact on the economy and fewer people die.
2) A huge impact on the economy and lots of people die.
Nobody has the capability to predict the real outcome of one scenario over the other from an economic perspective.
If the US does everything perfectly, we'll probably lose 200k people to COVID-19. If we "reopen the economy" prematurely, the number could easily be 5x to 10x that figure.
Loss of human life has a very tangible impact on the economy, so folks should not be thinking of this as a binary decision ("do we save lives vs do we save the economy").
Frankly, the US with effective leadership could have less than 1/10th your quoted 200,000 deaths, just look at South Korea. Any time someone says their are two options on a complex issue it’s a straw man argument which is what I objected to.
BS: Donald Trump was specifically asked yesterday how he feels about the poor and especially illegal immigrants who will have zero access to help, both financial and medical.
He litaerally tilted his head and said "what are you gunna do?" knowing what that outcome is going to result in.
I have a middle finger for you for how cold hearted you sound. As though “it’s no big deal”. My wife went through this (previously healthy 34 year old) and it was terrible. The docs just said: “there’s nothing more we can do”
I've done some preparations over a month ago, but these were preparations for a short-term supply chain disruption. Not for what increasingly seems like a global economic meltdown.
Personally, I find this a lot less scary than '08. The main objective of the current exercise is to ensure the healthcare system does not collapse... because if that happens, things could get dicey. (i.e. blind terror would likely cause more damage than the virus itself) Once we get to the point where the medical community feels like 'OK, we've got this under control' things should start looking up since we'll know for sure what the bottom looks like from a health/mortality standpoint. Then people can start sorting out the economic side of the equation. Right now there's fear because no one knows where the bottom is for either situation.
All you need to do is wait for the next delivery to show up (which it will). The problem is, people like you will continue to buy up everything as quickly as possible, so after the first couple hundred customers the shelves will be empty again. Until the next delivery. That is the problem, not supply shortages.
Don't feel bad for people who didn't horde resources at everyone else's expense. Help those people by buying what you need plus only a little extra.
Your post was completely and factually incorrect, then you not only blame me, but blame the people trying to adjust to a supply issue. How do you determine "what you need plus only a little extra" when you can't determine when TP will be in stock? It's been weeks now, and it's perfectly rational to buy more than you need since you can't count on the supply chain.
Keep calm and carry on
Two global wars, the use of nuclear weapons, and a 50 year cold war with the ever present threat of nuclear apocalypse didn't cause society to break down last century, a flu won't cause it to fall apart this century either.
You know that that meme originated from a campaign designed by the British government for motivation in the face of mass bombing anticipated in England before the onset of WWII right? I think saying that "this won't be any worse than being bombed by nazis" is not a particularly motivated slogan.
> a flu won't cause it to fall apart this century either.
If you think this is just a freak thing that is happening, som e flu what will pass, then you don't understand what is happening. What we're seeing is the way this pandemic is exposing vulnerabilities in our global capitalist system.
And finally, plenty of societies of collapse in those time periods. Of course humans and societies continue to exist, but there are more an enough examples of societies that have ceases to exist and the transition is a painful process.
"According to Dr Honigsbaum, the “carry on” advice may well have been responsible for thousands of the 250,000 Britons who ultimately died in the Spanish flu pandemic."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/coronavirus-...
If you're invoking the flu as a parallel for illustrative purposes with an informed audience then it's pedantic to call it out.
2. It's not an informed audience if misinformation is not challenged, it's a misinformed audience.
3. The flu is a bad parallel. The flu, while annually killing lots of people, does not overwhelm hospitals like a novel virus does. At best it makes people think this is like swine flu, while it has quickly shown to be nothing like swine flu.
Flus can be very deadly and the poster obviously did not intend to use the word in a diminutive way. You added that interpretation, knowing it is wrong, and then challenged it.
So yes, the poster was using flu in a diminutive sense. And yes, flu is deadly and a lot worse than a lot of people (who've probably never had flu) realise. But even given that, even recent novel flu strains haven't stressed and shut down the global economy like this pandemic has.
We had several options for how to respond to this, and chose the most invasive, drastic and potentially economically catastrophic one.
In the absence of data around who is sick, who is not, and who is immune, there is no way to slow the spread of the virus during an outbreak except to keep everyone away from everyone else.
This does not minimize the harm a flu can do, it puts it in perspective. Nuclear bombs going off over LA, London, New York, and Beijing probably would not cause society to break down. That does not mean that does not mean that it wouldn't be terrible, deadly, and disruptive.
When planning for how to prepare and deal with this pandemic, people should not be preparing for some Mad-Max scenario where an assault rifle is their most valuable possession.
Also, 50MM for the Spanish flu is the top end of reasonable estimates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu#Around_the_globe
What is clear is that people are underestimating this crisis, no one wants to think we are in a WWII level moment, and so we don’t activate the appropriate level of response. But it is and will be a world altering period.
Once consistent pattern is that countries seem to feel like you do, it’s just a flu, then doctors see patients gasping for breath and literally drowning as their lungs fill up with fluid, and the true dread sets in. My friend is a doctor in NYC. She said this feels like war, and the nature of death experienced by people is horrific. If people were bleeding from their eyeballs like a movie maybe that would capture people’s attention but on the front lines people are terrified because this is an awful awful way to die.
(UK already into "one large pack of TP per customer" territory, which is an improvement from bare shelves)
The curve will barely flatten, before 'peak infection' is reached. At the current rate, we have only 1 or 2 months to accomplish this, and no progress so far.
Many folks will get sick; the oldest will die at home. For others it will suck, and there will be no help even from neighbors, churches etc (like the last time, they quit functioning entirely)
Some will not notice at all, apparently. They will survive into a world changed by loss, conservatism, suspicion and paranoia.
An initial recession, while paradoxically goods are plentiful due to the reduced demand
The Social Security fund will disappear entirely as a topic of discussion
Civilization won't fall, and public order will only be occasionally disrupted in small localities
I'd recommend establishing a network of close friends who will support one another during this time. It's about the only support we can expect.
The curve is flat (at least the new "X" curve) in both Seattle and the Bay Area. That's definitely progress.