That said, slowly or not, the economy will make the transition, the demographics will shake out and in the fullness of time things will move on. Man has been here a thousand times before.The fall of the Roman Empire led to the economically and culturally depressed Middle Ages - complete with the Black Death that wiped out 1/4 of Europe's population. By contrast, the 1918-1919 Spanish influenza pandemic produced - with a little help from World War I demobilization - a sharp but relatively short economic depression, but then to the huge economic boom of the 1920s. The Great Depression set the stage for another world war and then the boom of the 1950s. (Such that no one remembers - at all - the 1957 influenza pandemic. It scarcely merits a footnote in the history of the 50s.)Through it all, life moved on, man adapted and the economy resumed its course such that, according to statistics provided by the United Nations Organization, world poverty is at its lowest level in human history. So take a breath, the ride will be bumpy as ever it has been, but life will move on.
Ruin is just a figure of speech. That was my intention.
Well, fair enough. However, the more specific the question the more precise the answer. That said, I would answer the question the same either way.The Federal Reserve Bank in St. Louis is predicting a 30% rate of unemployment by the time this is all over. That is somewhat worse than the Great Depression. Yet we recovered from that. "Ruin" then being relative.The economy will not be good. Could even be quite bad. The recovery will be far slower than is popularly assumed at the moment. However, recover it will.To the extent that "ruin" means damage - then yes. To the extent it means "obliterate," the answer is no. Wherever your figure of speech exists in that range, I stand somewhere in the middle.
P. S. Just to add. Insofar as the economic boom goes - that is an economy characterized by that almost ideal mix of low inflation, low interest rates, statistical full employment, and a strong dollar - that is over for the foreseeable future. Even when the economy recovers, growth is apt to slower - it was already not great - and for various reasons, including those I mentioned above, unemployment will decline but a return to statistical full employment is highly unlikely. It is apt to remain high by recent averages.Further, quite possibly, the rate of inflation could end up being quite high. Setting up a stagflation not unlike that of the 1970s. (In 1979, the rate of inflation hit 14.5% - even though unemployment was around 7%. The highest ever in peacetime. In 1980, it hit 13.1%, the first time the country had back-to back years of double digit unemployment.)The Fed and the Congress have poured tons of money into the economy with no productivity to back it up. So unless the economy snaps back faster than I expect, inflation will spike. This then requiring the Fed to raise interest rates to slow the economy at the very moment increased growth will be needed to lower unemployment.This will be very sticky. As I say, the road will be bumpy.
How long do you think the lockdown should realistically last?
My own view is that there never should have been a comprehensive lockdown. Rather, special efforts should have been made to protect those populations that are most susceptible - the elderly, those with compromised immune systems and pre-existing conditions. (Of those who are otherwise healthy and under age 65 who contract the disease, 68% will experience mild or no symptoms.)The current policy is based on the abstract application of scientific principle absent consideration of a broader economic and social context. The public, soused on an ethic that every problem has a solution and that it is entitled to perfect safety, is in a panic. Policymakers are then responding as they are because A) no one wants to get blamed ex post facto for the anticipated fatalities - maximum estimated 200,000 out of a population of 330 million, and B) because no one wants to put the burden of inconvenience on the elderly who vote in greater numbers.So, the economy is being left to take the collateral costs of the abstract application of scientific principles. This absent any calculation of the aforementioned collateral - read economic and social - costs. Hence also the blythe assumption that the economy will snap back. Thus to add wishful thinking to misbegotten policy.
P. S. Just for a comparative basis, 38,000 Americans died last year in highways accidents. Yet do we hear anyone demanding that all driving stop?Perhaps more pertinently, i n the Spanish influenza pandemic out of a then total population of 104.5 million a total of 675,000 Americans died. Compared to a projected worst case scenario this time of 200,000 out of a population of 330 million.To say no more, even in the worst case scenario, the Spanish influenza was, by far, the worst pandemic. (Globally as well.) Yet in 1918-1919, the nation had no consistent lockdown policy, with some states and localities being comprehensive, others a more limited approach.Further, according to Professor Nancy Tomes of Stony Brook University of New York, in her book, The Gospel of Germs: Men, Women, and the Microbe in American Life, the effectiveness of the limited and comprehensive approaches was about the same. In terms of infections and lives lost, to be sure allowing for the more limited record keeping of that time, the results of the comprehensive and limited lockdowns were statistically similar.
P. S. Type-o:This sentence from above - "In 1980, it hit 13.1%, the first time the country had back-to back years of double digit unemployment."Should read - "In 1980, it hit 13.1%, the first time the country had back-to back years of double digit INFLATION."
Be careful. You're going to set off goaded's radar and make him seek you out to argue with you!
It does not take much. However, truth in advertising, after he made some what I took to be offensive remarks about my family, I blocked him.Frankly, I debated it. However, he lapsed to easily into vitriol and I do this as a hobby. So I decided it was no longer worth it. I feel a little uncomfortable with that decision, but again I had to weigh the value of debating him - epithets and all - against time spent with other people on this site as well as the simple fact that I do this for fun and not blood sport.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
How long do you think this ordeal will last?
End of may at the longest. My personal “fuck this shit” day is May 1.
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!