Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China to inject $174B of liquidity on Monday as markets reopen

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 560 posts

Re: China to inject $174B of liquidity on Monday as markets reopen

#91

Post by a_c »

daenz wrote: post #31

Maybe this is demonstrates an immediate consequence of having a people (mainland China, not necessarily HK) that is governed primarily by fear: reactions of extreme subordination, which keep things running "smoothly" under normal conditions, can threaten the whole system to collapse under abnormal conditions.

HK has a dozen confirmed cases. Shenzhen, the city bordering HK, has a hundred confirmed cases.

HK had experienced SARS, and the magnitude of the epidemic, in terms of number of infected globally, has already exceeded that of SARS. Together with government's inaction (HK government is refusing to close down its border where 60s country or so are now blocking entry from China).

HK's medical system is overwhelmed by mainland patients. The nurses and doctors are orchestrrating a strike to urge government closing down its border before the epidemic go out of control. Last strike from medical professionals were 30 years ago to fight for better wage. This time for public good

Re: China to inject $174B of liquidity on Monday as markets reopen

#92

Post by DuskStar »

jmnicolas wrote: post #68
stapled_socks wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My interpretation would be that the rate of survival is 53%; 348/(305+348). People don't die immediately, the ones currently infected can go either to the "Recovered" figure or the "Deaths" figure. From the link above: 14628 are currently infected(?) 305 were infected and died 348 were infected and recovered

If this thing was killing half of the infected persons there would already be much more deaths than there is now. Unless most the infections occurred very recently which is pretty unlikely. I think my 98% is probably a bit too optimistic, but your 53% is way beyond pessimistic.

Infections are doubling every few days, so yes most infections occurred very recently. If it takes a month from initial infection to declare someone "disease-free", then there might only be ~300 people to that point.

Re: China to inject $174B of liquidity on Monday as markets reopen

#93

Post by gruez »

cagenut wrote: post #19
garaetjjte wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What will happen 17th?

according to various models the infection rate should shift from exponential growth to an s-curve function where growth rapidly falls off, the first stage of containment, somewhere around the 15th. the 17th is the monday after that, so many schools and business and cities are planning for everyone to just stay home until the 17th (at least).

>according to various models the infection rate should shift from exponential growth to an s-curve function where growth rapidly falls off

I'm sort of skeptical of such models because the quality of their output is entirely dependent on the data coming in. There were anecdotal accounts of hospitals in China running out of test kits. Limited test kits -> limited diagnosis -> underreported infection numbers -> misleading models. Garbage in, garbage out.

Re: China to inject $174B of liquidity on Monday as markets reopen

#94

Post by samsonradu »

glofish wrote: post #63
staplers wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because natural resources are finite. If you don't understand why runaway inflation is bad then you'll need to educate yourself.

but there is no runaway inflation - as a matter of fact the inflation is lower than typical

Globalization kept inflation at bay. Instead of upping prices due to increased production costs, enterprises in advanced economies moved production to China & co.

This is not necessarily a bad thing of course, as China catches up and the ‘free’ markets work efficiently. Meanwhile the middle-class in the developped countries gets hurt, thus their economies see little inflation.

Another argument for this would be that everything not outsource-able saw rather higher inflation than the CPI numbers. (Housing, education etc.)

Inflation in China though hovers around 5% - https://tradingeconomics.com/china/inflation-cpi

Re: China to inject $174B of liquidity on Monday as markets reopen

#95

Post by caconym_ »

moralestapia wrote: post #85
jmnicolas wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this thing was killing half of the infected persons there would already be much more deaths than there is now. Unless most the infections occurred very recently which is pretty unlikely. I think my 98% is probably a bit too optimistic, but your 53% is way beyond pessimistic.

>there would already be much more deaths than there is now Why? People can be sick for quite some time (in this case, a month, maybe?) and then ultimately die from the disease, this is actually like ... the most common scenario ... I have been unpleasantly surprised by how much people struggle to understand this simple concept. Recovered / (recovered+death) is how you do it. It's common sense, come on ...

Since we are in early days and it probably takes longer to recover than to die of it, and the reporting of infections and recoveries and deaths coming out of China is likely undercounting all three due to different systematic factors, I think it's too early for the results of that formula to be taken at face value.

In the end, when everything is tallied up, sure. But in the meantime, in the presence of so much uncertainty, "common sense" is only going to lead you astray.

Re: China to inject $174B of liquidity on Monday as markets reopen

#96

Post by blfr »

cambalache wrote: post #66
adnzzzzZ wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of analysis I'm seeing everywhere is so misguided. The reason the local government didn't report on the situation accurately and even punished some journalists for speaking about it is a flaw of how their country is run and how their command structure incentives are poorly set up. This isn't a new problem and it's why we have converged to a different system in most of the West. The government coming in late…

It seems to me that China can only make wrong in your eyes. If it takes time to act it is because the system causes this failure. If the government acts swiftly, it is because they are in panic. If it does not solve the situation, of course because they have a terrible oppressive culture. If the problem is fixed. Of course, because these are one of the few advantages of having an authoritarian system. No matter what…

[flagged]

Re: China to inject $174B of liquidity on Monday as markets reopen

#98

Post by DataWorker »

ttul wrote: post #8

A friend of mine is leaving HK today - he lives there, so this is not a casual trip abroad. He said the level of fear is making it impossible to live there as a single person. The shops and restaurants are closed. Even his own employer shut its doors indefinitely - and they’re just a video production company. The virus won’t be what ruins China. It’s the panic itself.

Why would that panic be limited to China? They are the world’s second largest economy, there’s no way to isolate the economic impact. Can’t quarantine dollars.

Re: China to inject $174B of liquidity on Monday as markets reopen

#99

Post by ithinkinstereo »

adnzzzzZ wrote: post #52
bane wrote: post #20

The Chinese government's response to this situation (after some initial dithering) has been to move swiftly with big moves. I suspect that the force that overcame the initial delays in local response were powerful central government actors who could some in and simply shut cities and entire areas down and not fool around. There appears to be at least one emergency prefab hospital with about 1600 beds under constructi…

This kind of analysis I'm seeing everywhere is so misguided. The reason the local government didn't report on the situation accurately and even punished some journalists for speaking about it is a flaw of how their country is run and how their command structure incentives are poorly set up. This isn't a new problem and it's why we have converged to a different system in most of the West. The government coming in late…

There's a Chinese saying that's apt here; "山高皇帝远" which literally translates into "mountains are high, the emperor is far away."

However, I disagree that this is solely unique to China. You see it in the west too. The water crisis in Flint, MI springs to mind.

Re: China to inject $174B of liquidity on Monday as markets reopen

#100

Post by jmnicolas »

moralestapia wrote: post #85
jmnicolas wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this thing was killing half of the infected persons there would already be much more deaths than there is now. Unless most the infections occurred very recently which is pretty unlikely. I think my 98% is probably a bit too optimistic, but your 53% is way beyond pessimistic.

>there would already be much more deaths than there is now Why? People can be sick for quite some time (in this case, a month, maybe?) and then ultimately die from the disease, this is actually like ... the most common scenario ... I have been unpleasantly surprised by how much people struggle to understand this simple concept. Recovered / (recovered+death) is how you do it. It's common sense, come on ...

I think it's meaningless to make stats on unknown things. We have no idea how many of the infected people will die.

The only thing we can say is : as of now the survival rate is 98%. It will probably go down, nobody knows how much.

Post reply on HN