Problem: Covid
Solution: $1.5 trillion invested in mortgages!
If you don’t own a house and wonder why they’re unaffordable, this is why:
Anyone who owned ANY assets practically doubled their net worth within 2 years. If you owned a house, you likely also refinanced for under 3%. At the same time, wages increased.
How can there be a drop in demand if your house is now worth 50-100%, your 401k is 50% higher, and your wages are 20% higher?
Sure, this doesn’t describe everyone - the bottom 50%ile might not own any assets at all. But it does describe enough Americans that demand can’t crater anytime soon.
Statistically, if you were 45 years old, you likely benefited a great deal from the pandemic.
My brother is in that age group. He bought his house for 380k. It's now valued at 750k. He works in tech so his salary increased from 120k to 180k. He refinanced his mortgage at 2.5% and pays iirc ~1100/month. It's the same story for all of his friends.
Pretty sure most of those people are mortgage free.
If they are fixed, anyone who refinanced in 2021 when rates were dead cheap and prices were sky high made out like bandits
A reverse mortgage is a different thing, IMO always a bad deal but I guess could be ok in some cases.
If you look at the alternative. The ones who said let's keep schools and businesses open during a pandemic and let people die to keep the economy humming along, I'd say we took the right path.
If it mutates back into more morbidity, we will be in much worse position since I don't think we will have a realistic option to repeat that stimulus without plunging whole world into (not only) economic chaos.
Many people, especially Americans, forget the supply side - a pandemic which wrecked global supply lines, and a war which is impacting some of the most important resources (food and energy), globally. No idea why, maybe because they can't blame a politician/party for that part.
In any case, inflation has many complex causes, is global, and may take quite some time to get reigned in. There's no quick fixes to the supply problems nor for the monetary (supply) problems, and if perceptions are that inflation will continue, it will continue regardless of underlying metrics.
Perhaps it is a supply of cheap labor problem that Covid shutdowns allowed a sufficient disruption to low paying labor markets to cause a “phase change”.
Even before Covid, labor prices were trending up (maybe since birthrates have been dramatically falling for a long time), but the sudden, rapid shake up gave people en masse time and excuse to change things up for themselves, causing a chain reaction from the lowest paid labor being harder to fill.
If you bought a 1.5M house (20% down) at 4.5% your mortgage payment is just about $6K. If you refinanced down to 2.5%, the payment is now $4.7K.
in many states rentoids could stop paying their rent and just pocket it, with evictions halted for >12 months.
there was something for everyone this time around
Homeowners got $1500/mth for 30 years.
Note that house value increase (paper value) doesn't generate any disposable cash to the owner.
They could go and refinance (at a higher rate now) to get some equity cash out, but anyone doing that to spend the money on consumables is doing a bad decision.
Seeing your networth double, even if its on paper, has an impact on your spending patterns. Especially smaller, “feel good” purchases, such as ordering takeout or buying an extra drink at the bar.
You might objectively know that you can’t sell your $1M house for its current zillow estimate, but when you’re out at the bar, its easy to justify in your head that you can “afford” that extra drink. After all, didn’t you just become a millionaire?
There is a huge psychological component to money that’s somehow never talked about.
Do you know of research showing this behavior?
I haven't seen research one way or the other, but anecdotally this seems very unlikely. I don't know of anyone who feels that way and we're in silicon valley so everyone we know has houses that have appreciated quite a bit.
But everyone knows both objectively and emotionally that zillow zestimates are not money that can be spent. It might be money a number of decades in the future after retirement and selling the house to move, but that's way too far in time and uncertainty to have any impact on behavior today.
There is extensive research on the wealth effect.
Try "Analyzing the Effects of Financial and Housing Wealth on Consumption using Micro Data" (IMF)
Err...how do you think people get massive mortgages, if not low interest rates?
The whole thing is basically a cargo-cult kind of thing at this point. Need to stimulate? Drop rates. Inflation too high? Raise rates. But the theory doesn't actually match the real world, and it never actually does any good.
At this point, they'll keep raising rates either until some unrelated factor happens to moderate inflation, or their rate-raising unnecessarily causes a crash and big recession (which will reduce inflation, but really not in a good way).
Have that conversation with people who aren't on tech salaries. Each rate rise brings more cuts to the weekly budget.
Raising rates definitely has a cooling effect
> A recent GOBankingRates survey found that 30% of Americans have between $1,001 and $5,000 in credit card debt, 15% have $5,001 or more in credit card debt and about 6% have more than $10,000 in credit card debt. Although 6% may seem like a small amount, that means that based on the survey results, 14 million Americans have over $10,000 of credit card debt.
The change to the rates increases the amount of interest paid on holding credit card debt. That directly does impact spending for a significant portion of the population.
---
The awkward part is that the fed's tools for managing the economy are rather blunt and take time to cause a change. Monetary policy vs Fiscal policy.
However, fiscal policy is tied to the gridlock in congress and so all the responsibility for managing the rate of inflation and jobs has been pushed onto the central bank... and this is what you get.
Dropping rates and raising rates are the tools that they have until a majority of elected politicians want to take the responsibility for making a decision that impacts people's finances.
as long as there's a sufficiently large part of the economy infused with debt (banks rolling over short term debts, large companies using credit to fund payroll, any new investment compared to "risk free rate" of central banks, etc) the lever has some effect.
of course it's a blunt instrument. fiscal policy is needed to pick up the slack. but that's mostly bludgeoned to death long ago by polarization of politics.
Lowering interest rates during a pandemic makes sense. What doesn't make sense is lowering interest rates when the economy was perfectly healthy in 2019.
Err, "perfectly healthy" may be a bit of a mischaracterization.
Quoting from the July 2019 FOMC statement[1] (my emphasis):
>> Although growth of household spending has picked up from earlier in the year, growth of business fixed investment has been soft.
...then the following September statement[2]:
>> Although household spending has been rising at a strong pace, business fixed investment and exports have weakened.
...and still the following October statement[3]:
>> Although household spending has been rising at a strong pace, business fixed investment and exports remain weak.
Look at the Fed Funds Effective Rate[4] circa 2019, then compare that to the Fed's balance sheet[5] around the same time.
I understand that little ~$500 billion bump in the 6 months prior to the start of COVID is the Fed averting crisis in a bond market that was approaching dangerously close to the sort of illiquidity levels which get sovereign nations into a lot of trouble.
I also understand that banks were supposed to be part of the machine that provide that liquidity, except regulations coming out of the Great Financial Crisis that imposed things like Liquidity Coverage Ratio and Supplementary Leverage Ratio requirements created an unintended incentive for banks to drop low-yield bonds from their now constrained balance sheets to optimize profits.
So the flow of capital towards "business fixed investments" tightened, capital which originates in the form of loans from banks, and interest rates is a knob the Fed can tweak...or something like that.
To be sure, I'm neither a banker nor an economist.
Also worth noting that the S&P 500 went through a -18% correction starting the end of September 2018 and didn't recover until May 2019.
[1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/mone...
[2] https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/mone...
[3] https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/mone...
[4] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DFF
[5] https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_recenttren...
Why lower interest rates instead of doing direct cash transfers through unemployment insurance and other assistance? If a business is making $0 due to the pandemic, why would a bank be more likely to lend to them at a 1% interest rate rather than a 4% interest rate?
Governments told people they couldn't go to work. Two thirds of the country live paycheck to paycheck. In order to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads many had to go deep into debt and/or eat into their savings which weren't always so great to start with since around 25% of Americans have no savings at all.
Forcing a great number of people into huge amounts of debt and desperation was bound to slow spending long after the bars reopened, and to add to that you had many households where breadwinners were suddenly dead or unable to go back to work either due to illness or unexpected childcare expenses since schools weren't able to perform their role as babysitter while parents worked all day.
Some financial support was (and still is) needed for families who suffered heavy economic losses because of the pandemic and the restrictions it necessitated. Consumer spending was doomed to suffer for a whole lot of Americans. Even after the restrictions were lifted it's pretty hard to stimulate consumer spending when people are trying to dig themselves out of a hole and avoid eviction. All of that was at least somewhat offset by the desperation of the wealthy to get back to spending on the goods and services they were denied while the nation was locked down though. People who were able to stay employed and had large sums of money in the bank throughout the pandemic were very quick to get back to spending. Unfortunately, most Americans didn't come out of the situation in such great shape. After all of the emotional trauma they were every bit as desperate for some familiar comforts and a return to normalcy but they were forced further into debt to get them.
Much of the government response, particularly at the federal level, was aimed at terrorizing the public and, when they came online, coercing mostly low-risk people into submitting to experimental, liability-free vaccines that don't prevent spread and so do nothing to protect genuinely high-risk people. The government also financially incentivized refusal to treat covid in its early stages (allowing the patients to either recover on their own or, for elderly and already chronically ill, to become sicker), place patients on ventilators, and prescribe dangerous experimental treatments like Remdesivir that contributed to the death tallies.
The federal government's meddling in some states' distribution of monoclonal antibody treatments was especially pernicious. Lawsuits targeting hospitals, local and state governments, and the federal governments for their conduct (everything from propagandizing to causing or contributing to deaths as in the use of Remdesivir) during the pandemic are in process throughout the United States now.
Do you mean don't reduce spread at all, or don't prevent it 100%?
The cited values for time post-shot to peak efficacy and the subsequent time from there to whatever threshold of efficacy you choose (and on to negative efficacy after that) are based on studies of groups of individuals. For some of the individuals, the shots were more or less effective than the mean/median/this-many-standard-devs value in preventing infection and then, as their jabs' effects weakened, in reducing viral load and symptoms that are relevant to onwards transmission.
In the absence of any widely-enforced way of measuring an individual's viral load at any given moment, many people who believe themselves to be under a covid shot's umbrella of protection are actually infected with covid and spreading it. Covid is aerosol-borne and can linger in the air for hours.
For high-risk people not living in a one-person habitat at the bottom of the ocean or on the Moon, there is no avoiding covid, even if everyone around them gets a booster every three months.
There are reasons that effective vaccines for the viruses that cause the common cold (rhinoviruses, coronaviruses, et al.) and for influenza have never been developed. And everyone should have been very skeptical of authorities' "If you get this (or that) shot, you won't get or spread covid!" claims about a bunch of experimental vaccines (some since withdrawn or abandoned due to lack of uptake in the face of adverse effects or realizations about the mildness of this disease for most people) churned out in a matter of months.
It's neither accurate or factual. Genuinely high-risk people who are vaccinated but get covid fair much better than genuinely high-risk people who do not. It can literally protect them from death. You'd have to be crazy to conclude that the vaccine "does nothing to protect" them.
From my original comment: "coercing mostly low-risk people into submitting to experimental, liability-free vaccines that don't prevent spread and so do nothing to protect genuinely high-risk people"
You are now citing an alleged benefit of lowered odds of severe illness and death to high-risk individuals from receiving the experimental vaccines themselves.
I am decrying the government coercion/disinfo efforts that bribed, bullied, shamed, and frightened low-risk persons (non-elderly, exhibiting none of the known risk factors for serious disease, in apparent good health) into getting any of these shots on the (false) pretext that doing so would prevent truly high-risk persons from contracting covid.
This is an obviously biased total misrepresentation.
The "and so do nothing to protect genuinely high-risk people" is still a lie. What you didn't say is "coercing mostly low-risk people into submitting to experimental, liability-free vaccines that don't prevent spread and so do nothing to protect genuinely high-risk people from ever getting infected"
which would still be a lie, but much much closer to the truth. Instead you misleadingly stated what you said in such a way that it made the vaccines sound like they weren't protecting genuinely high-risk people at all which is, again, a lie.
The vaccines do protect genuinely high-risk people. It also helps prevent the spread of the virus, but at this point only a little. Against early strains of the virus the vaccines were very effective at preventing infection, but we've allowed the virus to evolve so now that's no longer the case. This wasn't a government conspiracy, it was a complex and changing situation and the CDC was very quick to inform the public once the data showed that the vaccines were not protecting against infection as well as they used to, and were also very clear about the fact that the vaccines are still (so far) highly effective at keeping people from dying and getting seriously ill.
When vaccine efficacy goes negative (you're more vulnerable to infection and become as or more symptomatic and carry as high or higher a viral load than unvaccinated) after a few months, you have to get a booster and subject yourself to the same or greater low, but non-negligible risk of known serious/fatal adverse effects in order to fingers crossed buy a few more months of protection you don't personally need but which you hope will reduce truly high-risk persons' chances of contracting covid. There may also be other, as-yet-unknown adverse effects.
How long are you willing to keep running back and forth across a minefield?
Given the situation a full run of trials would have taken far too much time.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Table 4a.
They remain quite effective against hospitalisation and death, and have saved millions of lives globally, net.
Old people should get vaccinated but the herd immunity arguments used to justify vaccination of young people are completely unjustified.
I don't blame you because the governments spread this misinformation. The CDC has recanted this misinformation.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/cdc-director-covid-...
But we also know the CDC's original position was false.
More importantly, all social media platforms universally censored the scientist who discovered the mrna vaccine because he said... they dont prevent spread.
Do you feel this will be a convincing argument?
Do note that neither the Pfizer nor Moderna vaccines actually tested risk of infection or transmission. You can download the clinical trial protocols and read what the clinical trials actually measured. Patients in the trial were only tested upon symptoms and the endpoint measured was severity of disease.
I believe it was only the J&J vaccine that actually regularly tested patients to see if there was a difference in protection against acquiring Covid. They did not test protection against transmission.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34355689/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34738514/
Those studies pretty consistently found benefits in the 40-60% range against the original strain. Unfortunately, we had political opportunists discouraging adoption and then Delta and Omicron evolved so the scenario public health experts had been worried about happened.
Regarding the claim that Pfizer and Moderna didn’t test for transmission, this has been muddied substantially by its popularity as a talking point for antivax activists and right-wing pundits trying to present it as a conspiracy of some sort. In reality, Pfizer and Moderna worked with the FDA to design the phase 3 trials and they all decided to focus on protection against serious outcomes, but that doesn’t mean that they didn’t look for signals in the data or that other studies weren’t in progress. All of this was clearly communicated at the time, too, so I would question the motives of anyone who tries to say it was buried – at the very least, that’s saying they get their news from untrustworthy sources.
This is covered at considerable length here:
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine...
"We estimated a VET of 71% among household contacts of fully vaccinated index cases. Harris et al. found a VET of 40–50% for unvaccinated households contacts". They estimated it, and if using the 40-50% figure, their study found higher transmission rats among vaccinated.
It was also self-reported data they explicitly state was not collected for research purposes, "As our study used data not primarily collected for research purposes, it has some important limitations. Our data do not contain information on negative tests among contacts, therefore we do not know if contacts did not get infected or did not seek testing."
I would be careful in making any sweeping conclusions from an observational study using self-reported income.
In reality, Pfizer and Moderna worked with the FDA to design the phase 3 trials and they all decided to focus on protection against serious outcomes, but that doesn’t mean that they didn’t look for signals in the data or that other studies weren’t in progress.
I agree - Pfizer and Moderna never claimed they reduced infection rates because they never tested it. Generally it was politicians who were saying "get vaccinated to protect others" based on some theoretical benefit.
Like I said, look at the Phase 3 clinical trial designs, they are public documents. Risk of infection/transmission was not captured.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22651099/
I draw your attention in particular to one of the figures: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22651099/#&gid=article-figur...
You will see that there is a great deal of variation in the number of aerosol-sized particles emitted by the individuals in this small clinical study and note that the variation between individuals is greater than the difference, for a single individual, between a person's aerosol output when ill vs. after recovery.
You can also find studies confirming that ordinary breathing constantly generates aerosols. They aren't just something produced when someone coughs or sneezes.
If you were extremely socially isolated, perhaps on a farm or in a cabin somewhere and only going into town once a month to buy some supplies or pick up your mail from a one-man post office or something, slight reductions in other persons' viral load and very conscientious use of a properly-fitted respirator and eye protection might buy you a little more time before you got infection.
But living normally, going out most days and interacting with many people and entering environments with non-negligible foot traffic from other people who have made their own respiratory contributions to the ambient air? With surgical masks or cute cloth masks and everyone having gotten some combination of the currently-available covid shots? No.
The conspiracy thinking assuming some sinister ulterior motive from government actions is just a harmful trope, and wrong.
None of them worked and it was clear from the beginning that they were not going to ameliorate covid's impact. Loose-fitting surgical masks do not meaningfully impede the spread of aerosol-borne viruses. Even N95s have been found to show no additional benefit compared to surgical masks in pre-covid research that compared influenza rates among procedure-mask-wearing healthcare workers and healthcare workers wearing N95s. People seem to forget that the uselessness of masks against covid was known early on, then experts were trotted out to hypothesize (incorrectly but authoritatively) that covid was actually droplet-borne so that the mask-orders being imposed would have some air of legitimacy. Many deluded people still believe that surgical masks are useful against covid.
Then there were the capacity limits for businesses and forced closures of non-megacorp businesses.
And the stickers on the floor at arbitrary, pointless intervals. Pointless because covid is, as we knew from the beginning, pretended to forget for a while when "experts" falsely asserted the droplet nonsense, and know once more... aerosol-borne. Replication-competent covid virions can linger in the air for literally hours.
And the contact-tracing charade. And forced quarantine (not a thing in the USA but did happen in many other nations that were supposedly following "the science"), sometimes simply for alleged exposure to a PCR-positive "case".
During the covid pandemic, most citizens of nations that actively tried to "fight" the pandemic were deceived and abused relentlessly and shamelessly by those in authority, abetted by many experts. Those who dissented were falsely labeled kooks, deplatformed, and targeted for destruction.
I cannot read the minds of government officials in every country that imposed these sorts of unscientific and harmful alleged public health measures on their populations and tell you why they did it but I can tell you that it was obvious to many with relevant expertise or a rational mind and a willingness to look into what was being done and compare it to most nations' preexisting response plans for epidemics of viral respiratory illnesses and with the published literature with an open mind, even at the time when some were panicking, and know that they did not make sense and would not help.
In contrast, here is a report on the CDC's website on mask effectiveness for Covid: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7106e1.htm
That report contradicts your claims of ineffectiveness ("uselessness of masks" etc.) as well as the relative effectiveness of various types of masks.
On top of the lack of evidence for any of your claims, you accuse people of being deluded if they disagree. You call contact-tracing a charade, in opposition to epidemiologists. Those are just two examples among multiple others. So. Is there a reason for this incendiary rhetoric and gish-galloping in your posts?
Did you even search for any peer-reviewed papers about surgical mask effectiveness against covid?
Here's a model study that aligns closely with what we've all observed in real life (i.e. rooms full of masked people spreading and getting covid):
"Effectiveness of Face Masks in Preventing Airborne Transmission of SARS-CoV-2" https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mSphere.00637-20
"IMPORTANCE Airborne simulation experiments showed that cotton masks, surgical masks, and N95 masks provide some protection from the transmission of infective SARS-CoV-2 droplets/aerosols; however, medical masks (surgical masks and even N95 masks) could not completely block the transmission of virus droplets/aerosols even when sealed."
Here's the clinical study that found no difference between N95s and surgical masks:
"N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31479137/
"Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza."
Now, how many replication-competent virions need to make it around, through, etc. a face covering in order to initiate an infection? The answer is one.
And you're aware that covid infections can be initiated via the exposed regions of mucous membrane around your eyes (ocular mucous membrane), right? Have you been wearing a full-facepiece respirator with N100 filters installed when you went outdoors?
No, I know. You think that stopping some virions, even 30% or 60%, must be useful. No, it isn't. Not if you're trying to prevent infection.
1. Paper [1] is a simulation from Oct 2020 - we have had better real-life data since that time, reflected in the CDC graph of relative effectiveness of mask types [2].
Also, further in that ASM paper [1], they state "Our airborne simulation experiments showed that cotton masks, surgical masks, and N95 masks had a protective effect with respect to the transmission of infective droplets/aerosols and that the protective efficiency was higher when masks were worn by the virus spreader. Considerable viral loads have been detected in the nasal and throat swabs of asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic patients, as well as those of symptomatic patients, which suggests transmission potential (4). Accordingly, it is desirable for individuals to wear masks in public spaces. Importantly, medical masks (surgical masks and even N95 masks) were not able to completely block the transmission of virus droplets/aerosols even when fully sealed under the conditions that we tested. In this study, infectious SARS-CoV-2 was exhaled as droplets/aerosols and mask efficacy was examined. To allow quantification, we conducted our studies by using a relatively high dose of virus, and under these conditions, it is possible that the protective capacity of the masks was exceeded. Although the efficiency of detecting infectious virus was reduced when the amount of exhaled virus was reduced, viral RNA was detected regardless of the type of mask used. These results indicate that it is difficult to completely block this virus even with a properly fitted N95 mask. However, it remains unknown whether the small amount of virus that was able to pass through the N95 masks would result in illness."
So they conclude that (a) there is a protective effect (b) which is better if the spreader is wearing the mask (c) people should wear masks in public spaces (d) some virus does get through, but (e) it is unknown (circa Oct 2020) whether the amount getting through results in illness and (f) their process of forcing high doses of virions through is a lab situation and may have exceeded the capacity of the masks to prevent virions getting through.
For the point (e), this study [3] estimates 300-2000 virions (not 1) are needed to cause an infection. For point (f) methinks that maybe masks are ineffective if someone coughs in your face 1 foot away; we'd have to compare viral loads there with those in the study. I didn't research it in that detail, maybe we depend on the scientists to do that and develop some guidance on the topic.
2. Let's look at your second link [4]
This study is saying that "Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza." This is a 2019 pre-covid study. And that is not the same conclusion as that "medical masks and N95 masks are ineffective" or that "medical masks and N95 masks are ineffective in the general population" or that "medical masks and N95 masks are equally ineffective in the general population" or that "medical masks and N95 masks are ineffective for covid". Paper [1] examines this last point for covid.
It simply says that for health care personnel, there's no difference in transmission rates for influenza for either type of mask, so we can extrapolate that these (trained) people will see equal effectiveness from either type of mask. To see if the masks are effective is a different study, though there is a clue in this study - 8.2% infections in an outpatient setting. To get a real understanding of effectiveness, one would have to compare that 8.2% infection rate to what the infection rate would be if those healthcare personnel were not wearing masks (I freely and unknowledgeably speculate that would be upwards of 80%-90% depending on their immune system).
Yes, you are right that covid infections can occur through the eyes. For that glasses can cut down the infection rates. Goggles are probably better, but glasses work somewhat [5]. Also [6]. The mechanism appears to be unclear - whether it is by preventing touching the eyes, or by actually blocking virions landing on the eyes.
Overall, neither of these links appears to imply that masks are completely ineffective, and I'm confused about how any reasonable tech/science-savvy person could read those papers and come to the conclusion that masks are completely ineffective. There is also [2]. Wearing glasses appears to convey additional protection.
<rant on> All those surgeons and doctors and nurses wearing masks in hospitals and operating rooms before covid must have been idiots, eh? Semmelweis [7] must have been a moron to start the trend of hand washing in hospitals to reduce infections, yes? I mean, why even bother with medicine or science, we can just pray the virus away, right? We can eat dirt and uncooked and unwashed food and drink raw milk and suck on the pus from an infection without consequences!!! After all humanity has been around for thousands of years and science only for a few hundred! Why even bother with clean rooms in chip factories, it's not like viruses can infect chips!! <rant off/>
[1] https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mSphere.00637-20 [2] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7106e1.htm [3] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... [4] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31479137/ [5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8193301/ [6] https://aricjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s1375... [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
Doesn't matter, as long as it keeps people out of the hospital. Dying of delayed cancer treatment because hospital staff is busy dealing with unvaxxed Covid patients isn't great.
Also, please stop waving away these deaths as "comorbidities" and act like Covid wasn't involved in these deaths. If these people hadn't had a Covid infection then they wouldn't be dead. Period end. That's why 1 million more Americans than expected died. There are millions of Americans successfully managing their heart disease and diabetes who otherwise can expect to live long lives. Covid cut those lives short.
Sounds like a lot, but over 2 years, you'd expect more than 6 million Americans to die from all causes (you can work that out easily from an ~80 year life expectancy and 300+ million Americans). A significant fraction of those who would die anyway, will die with Covid and be counted in that 1 million. Tell me the excess deaths as a percentage, and anything under 50% excess deaths isn't really going to do that much to the economy.
Oh, and then the surge in excess deaths is followed by a fall (of less than that X% for sure). Bringing the deaths of the sickest Americans forward by about a year is actually going to improve the economy, in all likelihood.
Anyway, the "million Americans dead from Covid" statement is nearly always divorced from the context of "3 million Americans die every year".
Or a decade or more: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/people-coronavirus-dying-10-ye...
Whatever their "logic" was the virus has been killing many more republicans than democrats for some time. https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/study...
It's not difficult to find expected deaths vs actual deaths in 2020, but I've been on the internet long enough to know that someone who laces their post with conservative buzzwords, aka someone who hasn't learned themselves into their position, will have no interest in learning anything they disagree with.
2020 had the largest mortality spike in 100 years and 15-20% more deaths than expected, despite a lockdown which would reduce some accidental death rate such as car accidents.
But I'm making this post for people who care about reality, not for you.
But you are correct, it's cumulative, so without Covid you'd expect max ~100,000 more deaths per year (aging population), so the baseline would be
2019 - 2.8M (+0 excess deaths)
2020 - 2.9M (+500k excess deaths)
2021 - 3.0M (+400k excess deaths)
So 900k.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PMSAVE
The actual reality is that the vast majority of people kept working but didn’t have enough ways to spend their money. Then the Congress started mailing massive checks to people regardless of need and the Fed cut rates.
Surprise surprise… people spent every last dollar they had saved and borrowed 7x their income. On houses. On new and used cars. On electronics. On home improvement. On anything and everything they could find.
And that all caused inflation. Unemployment was transitory and mostly recovered by the end of 2020.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE
And now we shall pay the price.
That's cold comfort to the majority of americans that don't have enough savings to last to "the end of 2020".
Almost no one was struggling to pay bills by the end of 2020. This is a made up sob story that didn't play out at all in reality.
10 million jobs were lost in the pandemic. Over 1/3 of US workers were forced out of their job. (https://fortune.com/2021/05/14/us-workers-changing-jobs-covi...). The jobs all come back now that things are reopened and people are starting to spend again, that was to be expected, but that doesn't mean people didn't struggle while they were unable to work and recovery takes time (https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2021/03/05/poll-49-of-...).
Stimulus money went mostly to help recover savings or pay off debt while lower income households depended on that money for essentials (https://abcnews.go.com/Business/majority-pandemic-stimulus-c...)
Wealthy people did alright during the pandemic because they couldn't spend the money they had. They had no choice but to save it and savings went up. Poor people were just plain screwed by the pandemic and are still recovering. In fact we haven't even seen the full fallout of that because evictions were delayed (not made illegal), and we still face a looming eviction/homelessness crisis which isn't what you'd expect if everyone was rolling in money thanks to the pandemic. (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/07/us/evictions-crisis-us.ht...) In fact homelessness is already on the rise which disproves that practically no one is struggling to pay their bills. (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/homelessness-surging-in-...)
How the pandemic played in out in reality was very different for the wealthy than it was for many many others.
1/3 of workers lost or switched jobs. Who cares about job switchers?
As for the rest I already sent you the literal underlying fed data. Unemployment went down as fast as it went up. Savings rates blew up. Old debt decreased. Food insecurity went down. It was illegal to evict people for nonpayment.
Your assertion of mass struggle did not exist in this reality, or any reality.
Maybe this is the problem that should be tackled between recessions.
If you want to build a financially resilient population it requires top down solutions - it won’t just arise.
If the fed's interest rate shenanigans are to blame for inflation, why is it affecting every other country in the world too?
Support for the poor or laid off, in terms of a check, yes.
Turns out the response to covid was completely unreasonable and we have some extremely severe consequences to deal with now.
The people responsible for these severe consequences will need to be punished.
During the pandemic, knobs were turned. They continue to be turned. Where's the price stability?
well, it kinda turns out the market is so highly consolidated and inefficient (in a market sense) that a couple oligopolists control most markets, and they pretty much all colluded to increase margins at the same time.
the only knob the fed really has to put a stop to that is to hurt the economy so badly that people can't afford to pay it.
What would happen if both Intel and AMD decided to raise prices? Well, you'd pay more, maybe in the long term you'd see a push away to ARM or RISC-V but that's always been a pipe dream in practice, x86 domination of the desktop market has never been cracked. And oops, turns out ARM went bad just recently too, so, time to start over again, better luck next time suckas!
In any case, 22m people benefiting is far more people than the top 1% who benefited in March 2020. But compare the relative outrage.
Where's all the hate for government assistance for the stock market? That's pretty much the definition of "people who do not need assistance".
In this case, the colleges running the scam (charging astronomical prices for worthless paper credentials, and the administrators feeding at this trough) are the biggest winners.
Even the counselors and advisors are part of this pipeline of moral hazard if you think about it. What is their purpose, and are they fulfilling it? Does bailing out their bad advice change anything?
In the case of bailout/forgiveness, there is the perception that every taxpayer...those who paid their debts for college or those that didn't even go to college, are paying for other's mistakes. So on one hand, the disinterest is on account of the issue not being seen as affecting some people while the bailout brings them into it.
i.e. the anger is "now you're making it my problem, to fix your problem."
In any case, to your point about punishing the colleges, I think is absolutely necessary. It's just that bailing out the debtors does not do that whatsoever, in fact in ingrains the moral hazard and keeps the colleges money train flowing (maybe, unless the government has some common sense to know they have to address the other end of the pipeline).
Even your response to my comment focused only on student debt relief, though I also asked about stock market relief. Every taxpayer - those who were still paying college loans, those who paid off their college loans, and those who never went to college - paid for that in higher inflation and asset prices. And unlike student debt relief, every non-taxpayer also paid for it!
that's how society works though. I didn't have kids and my taxes still go to help support childhood nutrition and education programs, etc. I don't get a choice about funding the military, etc. Societally these are things that we have determined are important and deserve funding.
Everyone benefits from having a highly educated populace, not least because of the prolific lack of critical thinking the public displays in the political sphere. Want less "jewish space lasers" nonsense? Build a society with a good tertiary education pipeline that doesn't leave people horribly in debt, and increase the amount of the populace that has access. In many ways we are suffering the pain of that 80s/90s/00s neoliberal consensus on reduced education funding and privatization right now, this is what you get with 30 years of public secondary education being terrible and tertiary education being too expensive for a large portion of the population to access.
But people really just think about me, me, me. MY taxes. And this is the society you get with that.
I always found this to be a non-compelling answer. Society can mean any number of things and changes all the time. You can say the same thing about anything you want.
Obviously "Society" had decided that individuals were responsible for the college debt that they took on until this last year, and then it changed. Never mind the fact that neither society at large or their elected representatives voted on it, just a single individual via executive action.
If you strip away the appeal to "society", it is just an argument that more redistribution is better than less.
Try looking at it this way.
If I am already struggling with someone is robbing me, I would still try to fight if someone new wants to start robbing me too.
Just because there is a real and significant problem with existing corporate bailouts, that doesn't mean that other new bailouts should be encouraged as long they aren't as big.
They can be, but they aren't.
> part of fighting bailouts is preventing new ones
Curious that only one type of bailout is ever fought though.
There are several people in this very thread saying they oppose both, but you seem to refuse to believe them.
That said, congressional bailouts are usually legal, and therefore hard to challenge.
One major problem is that congress prone to make legislative decisions based on corporate interests opposed to their other constituents. This is a hard problem to solve, but many people still care about it and try.
It is an election issue for many, primarily fiscal conservatives from either side of of the isle.
Another challenge is that fiscal conservatives are generally ostracized from either party. Parties draw votes along culture war.
At the end of the day, most people who object to student bailouts also object to corporate bailouts. If we could solve only one, I think most people would pick the latter, recognizing it is a bigger problem.
Not at all, I said the same thing upthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33438985
hence, people can be upset at two things. I guess we have come full circle.
IMO the real problem is that we just created a new entitlement program out of thin air. And unlike the other programs that have more broad appeal, this one is just for a small portion of the citizenry. And nobody is having a serious conversation about how we're going to fund it going forward.
22m applicants doesn't sound like a "small portion" to me. It'll benefit them and their families - those who are supporting them, as well as those they support.
> IMO the real problem is that we just created a new entitlement program out of thin air.
Would it sound better if you called it a "tax break" or "tax credit"? What's the difference?
And it's certainly way more than the number that benefited from propping up the stock market in 2020.
I agree I don't think it's fair to "hate" on the college-indebted, but I can also see an element of unfairness to debt relief and can understand why someone like that bartender would not be so happy about it.
And yet all the propaganda directs hate towards "blue-haired baristas/bartenders with worthless degrees in women's studies". I don't think it's as simple as "blue collar" vs "white collar". People who took loans to go to trade schools should also be eligible.
And all 3 of those people's tax dollars are going to pay for their bosses' stock portfolios.
It's called Moral Hazard. A lot of us learned this in 2007/2008. For me I had a friend in 2005/2006 that would go to Toll Brothers developments with 2 friends because they only "allowed" you to buy 3 houses per person. So together they'd buy 9 houses, sit on them for 6 months and flip them making hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I thought he was insane and that it was inevitable to blow up spectacularly. Which it did. Which the government almost completely bailed him out of and there were almost no consequences, financial or otherwise.