U.S. Economy Shrinks at 4.8% Pace, Signaling Start of Recession • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. Economy Shrinks at 4.8% Pace, Signaling Start of Recession

#671

Post by jessaustin » Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 7:09 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #382

mcphilip wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is anecdotal and it might come across as bitter and tonedeaf as someone who is not in a STEM job and cant see the bigger picture very well. Im a diesel engine tech who repairs those big trucks carrying food and shit tickets to grocery stores. the fact that ANY market is completely detached from whats actually happening to Americans is frustrating. Thanks for posting this comment. I know it sounds trite, but I’…

Most people will not want social unrest. Social unrest leads to chaos and unpredictability. A better alternative is the less sexy but more productive political action obviously with buy in from the power brokers. Unrest is what happens in Venezuela or Yemen, etc. it doesn’t always have to be like that as those are extreme; never the less unrest is a medicine that is in most instances worse than the disease.

Unrest is what happens in Venezuela or Yemen, etc.

As Thucydides wrote, the tyranny that the Athenian empire imposed on others it finally imposed on itself. "Unrest" in Latin America is caused by USA's off-the-leash unsupervised services. Venezuela's government is taking better care of its citizens than our government is taking of us, in this current health emergency. This despite the crippling sanctions and attempted coups d'état we've perpetrated against them. Don't believe the war media; I recommend The Grayzone. [0]

Although, of course, for the last year or so not even the war media attempts to defend what we're doing in Yemen.

[0] https://thegrayzone.com/

Re: U.S. Economy Shrinks at 4.8% Pace, Signaling Start of Recession

#672

Post by yters » Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 7:09 PM UTC

RankingMember wrote: post #655

yters wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree the situation is clear. To take the logical extreme, if we were to avoid all possible immediate threat to life, no one should leave the house, let alone drive to work. Obviously, our society would immediately collapse, and many millions would die. So we have to balance possible immediate threats against likely longer term consequences. Something we do not seem to be doing very well in the case of covid-19.

> I disagree the situation is clear I'm confused, do you actually think the mortality rate of a down economy will be anywhere near that of a pandemic? Let me know if I'm misinterpreting you here but it sure seems like this is what you're arguing.

Yes, I do think we could have a more reasonable approach that will result in less aggregate deaths than our current approach.

Re: U.S. Economy Shrinks at 4.8% Pace, Signaling Start of Recession

#673

Post by jessaustin » Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 7:11 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #503

DethNinja wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually I believe they sent a clear message that they want problems to get even worse. It is not even keeping the status quo at same level, at the face of this pandemic almost all world governments decisively pursued enriching the 1%. I only hope more people woke up to this fact and form a critical mass but I doubt it.

You can read if that way. What I see is them propping up business so that there are actual jobs to go back to once things stabilize. It does little good to send people thousands of dollars if when that dries up, and it would, there are no above board jobs to go back to.

When people die, they're dead. When businesses die, their assets are sold to better businesses and their former employees are hired by better businesses.

I swear I have yet to meet a capitalist who actually believes in "capitalism"...

Re: U.S. Economy Shrinks at 4.8% Pace, Signaling Start of Recession

#674

Post by RankingMember » Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 7:12 PM UTC

RankingMember wrote: post #655

yters wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree the situation is clear. To take the logical extreme, if we were to avoid all possible immediate threat to life, no one should leave the house, let alone drive to work. Obviously, our society would immediately collapse, and many millions would die. So we have to balance possible immediate threats against likely longer term consequences. Something we do not seem to be doing very well in the case of covid-19.

> I disagree the situation is clear I'm confused, do you actually think the mortality rate of a down economy will be anywhere near that of a pandemic? Let me know if I'm misinterpreting you here but it sure seems like this is what you're arguing.

> lostapathy: If said "down economy" led to a long-term depression or a year or two of lost crops due to any number of possible disruptions, we could easily see more death (both directly and due to social unrest, suicide, etc).

History doesn't bear this out. The Great Depression resulted in an uptick in suicide, yes, but a decline in practically every other cause of mortality.

https://www.pnas.org/content/106/41/17290.full

> yters: Yes, I do think we could have a more reasonable approach that will result in less aggregate deaths than our current approach.

You could look at any societal attempt to deal with a large scale threat and say "well that could've been done better", but as I said in my other comment, perfection takes time, and, with time of the essence, I think we were smart to move forward with an imperfect but obviously impactful solution rather than burn time and lives trying to find some mythical perfect balance.

Re: U.S. Economy Shrinks at 4.8% Pace, Signaling Start of Recession

#675

Post by rconti » Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 7:12 PM UTC

ChrisRR wrote: post #386

nimbius wrote: post #98

This is anecdotal and it might come across as bitter and tonedeaf as someone who is not in a STEM job and cant see the bigger picture very well. Im a diesel engine tech who repairs those big trucks carrying food and shit tickets to grocery stores. the fact that ANY market is completely detached from whats actually happening to Americans is frustrating. My job just cut benefits and hours but we're "essential." Remembe…

It still surprises me that America has such a culture of leasing cars they can't afford for hundreds, if not thousands of dollars a month. Here in the UK if you said you were going to buy a car, most people would instantly assume you mean second hand. There's not much of a culture of buying or leasing new cars here, and even less of leasing cars that you really can't afford (outside of petrolheads anyway)

Who buys them, then? Obviously someone is buying them new.

Frankly, as an American, the UK's car market seems nuts to me. The kinds of cars that folks get as "company cars" is laughable.

Re: U.S. Economy Shrinks at 4.8% Pace, Signaling Start of Recession

#676

Post by greedo » Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 7:13 PM UTC

School-Cotton wrote: post #228

res0nat0r wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, we can let a million folks in the USA die because we love our capitalism, but 80%+ of the USA disagrees with that false dichotomy.

First of all, that number is clearly exaggerated. No current evidence supports the claim that a million people in the USA dying of covid is remotely plausible. Now to the substance of your argument: this has little to do with capitalism. If most people are not working for a long period of time, in any society, even a non-capitalist one, then that society will rapidly become dramatically materially poorer. We make cho…

Lots of current evidence supports the claim. COVID is clearly more contagious than the flu, and herd immunity (without a vaccine) will require between 60-70% of the population to become infected. That's 229M people. COVID is also more fatal than the flu. Its IFR is roughly 1%. So 1% of 229M is 2.3M fatalities, and roughly 20M additional hospitalizations.

If you believe the IFR is lower, say .5% (still over 5x the flu), then you still have the same number of hospitalizations, but just 1.15M fatalities.

If you believe the IFR is the same as the flu (0.1%), then you'll still have 20M hospitalizations and 230K fatalities.

Say we're really lucky, and the IFR is the same as the flu, and we find a therapeutic drug to help treat it, dropping the IFR to half of the flu (0.05%), you have 114800 fatalities, but still the 20M hospitalizations.

The math is just brutal. What will the impact be of 20M hospitalizations, to say nothing of the deaths?

Re: U.S. Economy Shrinks at 4.8% Pace, Signaling Start of Recession

#677

Post by lisper » Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 7:14 PM UTC

baggy_trough wrote: post #638

lisper wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not an example that is a vague hand-wavy allegation. Which cities? What specific acts of corruption?

Actually, it is an example. These reports by the University of Illinois at Chicago have more details. The start of the most recent report: "Chicago continues to be the most corrupt city in the country and Illinois remains the third most corrupt state." https://pols.uic.edu/chicago-politics/anti-corruption-report...

Yes, you're right. Sorry, I was reading your comment while waiting in line at the grocery store and I was not focused.

But that is one example. You said many large cities have been run exclusively by Democrats for decades and are notoriously corrupt. One is not many. AFAICT Chicago and Illinois are the exception rather than the rule among Democratically controlled cities and states.

Also, Democrats don't exhibit pride in their corruption the way Trump does. When Democratic corruption is exposed, Democrats seem to be, for the most part, ashamed of it. It's not just Trump's corruption that is problematic, it's the way he wears is proudly as if it were a badge of honor. When Rod Blagojevich tried to sell Obama's Senate seat, he was put in prison. And then he was pardoned by (of course) Donald Trump!

Also, your (one) example deals only with corruption. I cited two problems, the second being denial of facts. Do you dispute that?

Re: U.S. Economy Shrinks at 4.8% Pace, Signaling Start of Recession

#678

Post by jariel » Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 7:15 PM UTC

matthewdgreen wrote: post #284

jariel wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The market ostensibly has a much longer view of things. The word 'recession' is essentially meaningless without knowing the impetus for it. The 'outsourcing of Jobs to China' is a huge, permanent, secular shift that may affect stocks one way or another, but the 'coronavirus' is something I think business believes we will recover from quickly - for the most part. Tim Cooke told Trump he thinks it will be a 'v-shaped r…

How many people do you know who are going to buy the latest iPhone this year or next? I can tell you that among my acquaintances, that number is vastly lower than it was if I asked the same question in February. And that's assuming that everything with the virus goes as well as possible, which it isn't.

Yes, but by this time next year they might not only be buying a the same rate as previously, but they might also even be buying a little more than usual.

Point being, the markets are seing corona as a 'flash crash' that will take some time, maybe 18 months to re-adjust, but it won't really hold things back long run.

If someone hits a vaccine the markets will go on a tear.

Re: U.S. Economy Shrinks at 4.8% Pace, Signaling Start of Recession

#679

Post by jessaustin » Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 7:16 PM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #476

standardUser wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Bernie Sanders was, as far as I can see, our last shot at reversing the trend from within the current system" If anything, Bernie Sanders was our first, worst shot at structural economic change. In fact, every candidate on stage during those Democratic debates was running far, far to the economic left of Barack Obama, John Kerry, Al Gore or either Clinton. With some historical perspective, you might see that the tid…

In practice, none of them would actually have implemented it, except the only one with a history of going against party and lobby. Barack Obama ran far to the left of Barack Obama, but ended up compromising with Republicans for some absurd reason as he held both the house and senate, to the degree where he passed Mitt Romney's proposal while dragging his feet. None of them except for Bernie Sanders was willing to rec…

I didn't believe even Sanders would do that. That's why I supported Gabbard. She wasn't as strong on the economics, but I actually believed she would try to rein in the military-industrial complex, which is an indisputable blight upon humanity and which Sanders never discusses.

Re: U.S. Economy Shrinks at 4.8% Pace, Signaling Start of Recession

#680

Post by astronautjones » Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 7:16 PM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #479

jdhn wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>My question is how much, if any, social unrest this will lead to. The only social unrest that has happened so far have been the protests about wanting to lift or ease restrictions on states, and they were widely panned as a bunch of nutjobs. I doubt there will be any "unrest" beyond the protests.

The only social unrest that has happened so far have been the protests about wanting to lift or ease restrictions on states, and they were widely panned as a bunch of nutjobs. It's easy to look down on people lower on the socioeconomic ladder. They're still human beings. They've been given this raw deal: For the greater good, you will now give up your job for an indefinite period of time, with no prospect of finding…

> It's easy to look down on people lower on the socioeconomic ladder. They're still human beings. They've been given this raw deal: For the greater good, you will now give up your job for an indefinite period of time, with no prospect of finding like employment elsewhere. You have no choice, and if you refuse, you are a horrible person and in some cases you may face civil and criminal consequences.

Lots of these people (and a lot of the trumpy, NRA class at large) are bourgeoise, fwiw