Discussion in 'The Bar' started by keys, May 2, 2020.
@websaway some day I hope to meet someone I love as much as you love masks
Maybe staggering the lockdown by ages is the way to go
The data shows under 40s aren't adversely effected on the whole, let them go back to work where they can
By the time we get to 65+ hopefully there will be some reliable antibody tests where we can say that large outbreaks are no longer possible
The world runs on debt and spending, there's going to be a massive recession, it all sounds nice a return to simpler times when we all live within our means, grow our own vegetables, cycle etc but that's very naive, that's nice when it's a choice but not when you can't afford food or a car
Observation: many nations including our own have had to borrow huge sums of money, which will have grave consequences for funding of health, education, social care, local government services for maybe years to come.
Question: who lent the money?
I have a follow up question, but first I'd like people's answers to that.
Like quantative easing I suspect it will just automagically appear.
Unfortunately just going to Tesco's to buy food turns into a Darwin award festival. I've come to the conclusion that actually...most people are just selfish twats. Apparently the advice is for everyone else.
The Government issues bonds to raise money. Investors buy the bonds.
Arent most bonds at negative yield at mo ? Doesnt that only pay positive in massive deflation situations ?
Not sure what your point is. If you want to know how governments raised the money. it's by selling bonds.
Irrespective of yield, UK insurance companies and pension funds must hold them and the Bank of England buys a large proportion too.
Wasnt a point, genuine question. I dont know enough about it. Never understood bonds. The returns always seem minimal .
Okay, so there are investors with enough money to basically give loans on a scale equivalent to the wealth of many nations?
Who are these people? Sovereign wealth funds? And who actually owns the bulk of those funds? Are pension funds part of that wealth? If so what %?
(I still have a follow up question...)
What I'm saying is, if we (and other countries) have to go deeply into debt, that means there must be huge stashes of wealth... vast stashes of wealth... and we're going to have to pay back into those vastly wealthy entities over time?
And being so deep in debt to them, we're going to have to put less into public services than we otherwise would have?
(I still haven't got to my follow up question...)
So in the coming years we are going to have to transfer money into these hugely wealthy entities that could otherwise be transferred into our communities and the well-being of almost everybody else?
(Just trying to clarify, before I ask a further point. Any people trained in economics here? Or with a fair grasp?)
I love solutions to a problem, and this one, in the absence of a vaccine, is a common sense alternative to buses running with a few people in them. if everyone wears a mask in high density situations it reduces the amount of transmission. Risk management should be the order of the future. If you are 50% likely to die if you get the virus, don't get it, if you are 0.001% likely to die if you get the virus then you may be more than prepared to take the risk. All seems like a common sense way to get things back to " a degree of normality"
I think I fall somewhere in between in that I do see wearing a mask in public as a worthwhile step that will likely bring down r0. Much in the same way that you list steps to avoid car crashes, wearing a mask could be seen as a step to try to help avoid spreading covid-19. It's not a panacea though by any means or a reason to act like there isn't a problem, but in some countries it appears to have made a meaningful difference.
You're no doubt right to say that many don't follow the rules anyway, or won't, but we need as much in place that at least can be followed by those looking to stay healthy. Masks, hand sanitiser basically everywhere, limits on the number of people able to enter pubs and restaurants when they eventually open back up, no crowds in any environment. Doing our level best to keep the vulnerable and elderly safe (I do feel like we've failed those in care homes, but then I appreciate it's not easy to find solutions to some problems). If we take things very gradually and are sensible, we may be able to open upa little quicker than we think. If we are not and the r0 rate starts rising again,we're back to square one in some respects.
I tend to be a bit more optimistic about life being fairly normal again at some point. Maybe in a year or two from now, as there a number of routes to that place. Either more effective treatments, a vaccine, or on the grim side, it working its way through the entire population to the point where those most susceptible to it are no longer with us, and those that are are able to fend it off.
Okay, let's consider a scenario.
Collectively, the countries of the world take a decision to re-boot the economy to what it was on January 1st.
How? Digitally alter the figures in everyone's accounts, including the nations' accounts.
So tomorrow, May 11th, is actually as if it is January 2nd. The national borrowings haven't happened. People's business and private bank accounts haven't plummeted. It's just January 2nd.
Yes, of course, in the interim period there will be supply issues. But the main economic hit (and what it will do to ordinary people everywhere) no longer takes place on that scale.
The huge Sovereign Wealth funds are paid back. They are back to January 1st too. Presumably if most of that sovereign wealth is people's future pensions, then there's no huge surge of extra money entering the system right now. So inflation wouldn't be automatic.
After all, inflation wasn't automatic on January 1st, so why would it be automatic now?
I'm trying to be really stupid, and ask the stupid questions, because you need to convince me that digitally re-booting everyone wouldn't vastly improve the situation and people's futures.
You are sounding like a very naïve Marxist. I wouldn't go there, you are opening a can of worms. A can that the last election put a lid on. Read about gilts on Wikipedia, that will give you an insight into an age old way of government raising funds.
Would this include the third of a trillion the airlines are losing . Not sure what you mean.
You could fill a library with books on this subject.
But basically, governments borrow money each and every year to finance public services. If they didn't, we wouldn't have the level of public services we have.
If they didn't borrow the money in the first place, there wouldn't be the money you'd like to see spent in communities, etc.,
And governments don't generally repay debt: they refinance it.
Whether you print money or create it digitally, the more you create, the greater the money supply. That is the very definition of inflation.
I guess my point is more trying to compare the relevance.
If you consider (seat belt = face mask) as a comparison within their given scenarios, the seat belt could almost be considered a non-requirement if all other risks were avoided.
Same goes for the face mask. The problem is humans. Either they are selfish, or just lack the intelligence and awareness of cause and reaction. Whatever the reason, when individuals stop conforming, it the becomes small groups, then large groups, which then turns to a majority.
My way of life isn't going to improve because a considerable portion of the population aren't conforming. Same as this "lockdown", and social distancing. It seems quite a large number of people don't understand what it means, or what purpose it's actually serving.
Separate names with a comma.