[JustAnotherFan]

It's not the nominal purpose of the article, but I found these quotes to be pretty relevant to the talk about re-opening (emphasis mine):

Alternatively, even in the absence of formal orders, people could still behave responsibly and prevent the spread of the virus. But if white-collar workers stay home, that’s still crippling to the business models of dry cleaning shops and downtown lunch spots. If 70 percent of the population dines out 70 percent less frequently, that’s a 50 percent drop in restaurant traffic, and everyone’s businesses will fail.

A modern service economy relies on lots and lots and lots of people doing stuff in person that isn’t strictly necessary. Absent a vaccine, won’t business stay depressed at hair and nail salons, gyms and yoga studios, bars and theaters, and all kinds of shopping malls and retailers more or less indefinitely? And if that’s the case, how well will the rest of the economy hold up given the large economic losses incurred by service-sector workers and business owners?

There’s a strong possibility here, in other words, that investors simply aren’t thinking this through very clearly. People may not be indefinitely stuck indoors and largely unable to even sporadically see friends and family, but it doesn’t follow that the economy will be “back to normal” any time soon. Worst of all, a large minority of incautious people going out on the town and gathering in large groups is enough to potentially generate new outbreaks but isn’t enough to generate a healthy business climate. For the majority of people to resume the pre-virus pace of life would require not just some good news on epidemic mitigation but breakthroughs of the sort that we simply aren’t seeing.

I'd love for things to be able to be back to normal in a couple weeks, but I just don't see how it happens in the absence of a vaccine or a very robust test-and-trace system, no matter what the government does about SiP and other regulations.

I can only see one explanation for the stock market doing as well as it is doing -- investors expect large corporations to consolidate power in their various markets as middle market and small businesses are forced to close. In the short and medium term earnings will be depressed, but longer term there will be more concentrated power at the top. Well, that or investors are largely clueless about the severity of the situation.

---

It's not the nominal purpose of the article, but I found these quotes to be pretty relevant to the talk about re-opening (emphasis mine):

Alternatively, even in the absence of formal orders, people could still behave responsibly and prevent the spread of the virus. But if white-collar workers stay home, that’s still crippling to the business models of dry cleaning shops and downtown lunch spots. If 70 percent of the population dines out 70 percent less frequently, that’s a 50 percent drop in restaurant traffic, and everyone’s businesses will fail.

A modern service economy relies on lots and lots and lots of people doing stuff in person that isn’t strictly necessary. Absent a vaccine, won’t business stay depressed at hair and nail salons, gyms and yoga studios, bars and theaters, and all kinds of shopping malls and retailers more or less indefinitely? And if that’s the case, how well will the rest of the economy hold up given the large economic losses incurred by service-sector workers and business owners?

There’s a strong possibility here, in other words, that investors simply aren’t thinking this through very clearly. People may not be indefinitely stuck indoors and largely unable to even sporadically see friends and family, but it doesn’t follow that the economy will be “back to normal” any time soon. Worst of all, a large minority of incautious people going out on the town and gathering in large groups is enough to potentially generate new outbreaks but isn’t enough to generate a healthy business climate. For the majority of people to resume the pre-virus pace of life would require not just some good news on epidemic mitigation but breakthroughs of the sort that we simply aren’t seeing.

I'd love for things to be able to be back to normal in a couple weeks, but I just don't see how it happens in the absence of a vaccine or a very robust test-and-trace system, no matter what the government does about SiP and other regulations.

I can only see one explanation for the stock market doing as well as it is doing -- investors expect large corporations to consolidate power in their various markets as middle market and small businesses are forced to close. In the short and medium term earnings will be depressed, but longer term there will be more concentrated power at the top. Well, that or investors are largely clueless about the severity of the situation.

Okay, reading the article they seem to have hit all the points that I mentioned. 

"One way of looking at the recent market surge is that emergency actions undertaken by Congress and the Federal Reserve seem very generous to the kind of big companies whose shares are likely to be listed on the stock exchange. Individual workers and smaller companies are getting arguably less generous treatment, so it’s possible that owners of financial capital will weather the pandemic storm more easily than the rest of the country [and rake in outsized profits in a winnowed marketplace when growth returns]." 

[JustAnotherFan]

It's not the nominal purpose of the article, but I found these quotes to be pretty relevant to the talk about re-opening (emphasis mine):

Alternatively, even in the absence of formal orders, people could still behave responsibly and prevent the spread of the virus. But if white-collar workers stay home, that’s still crippling to the business models of dry cleaning shops and downtown lunch spots. If 70 percent of the population dines out 70 percent less frequently, that’s a 50 percent drop in restaurant traffic, and everyone’s businesses will fail.

A modern service economy relies on lots and lots and lots of people doing stuff in person that isn’t strictly necessary. Absent a vaccine, won’t business stay depressed at hair and nail salons, gyms and yoga studios, bars and theaters, and all kinds of shopping malls and retailers more or less indefinitely? And if that’s the case, how well will the rest of the economy hold up given the large economic losses incurred by service-sector workers and business owners?

There’s a strong possibility here, in other words, that investors simply aren’t thinking this through very clearly. People may not be indefinitely stuck indoors and largely unable to even sporadically see friends and family, but it doesn’t follow that the economy will be “back to normal” any time soon. Worst of all, a large minority of incautious people going out on the town and gathering in large groups is enough to potentially generate new outbreaks but isn’t enough to generate a healthy business climate. For the majority of people to resume the pre-virus pace of life would require not just some good news on epidemic mitigation but breakthroughs of the sort that we simply aren’t seeing.

I'd love for things to be able to be back to normal in a couple weeks, but I just don't see how it happens in the absence of a vaccine or a very robust test-and-trace system, no matter what the government does about SiP and other regulations.

I can only see one explanation for the stock market doing as well as it is doing -- investors expect large corporations to consolidate power in their various markets as middle market and small businesses are forced to close. In the short and medium term earnings will be depressed, but longer term there will be more concentrated power at the top. Well, that or investors are largely clueless about the severity of the situation.

---

It's not the nominal purpose of the article, but I found these quotes to be pretty relevant to the talk about re-opening (emphasis mine):

Alternatively, even in the absence of formal orders, people could still behave responsibly and prevent the spread of the virus. But if white-collar workers stay home, that’s still crippling to the business models of dry cleaning shops and downtown lunch spots. If 70 percent of the population dines out 70 percent less frequently, that’s a 50 percent drop in restaurant traffic, and everyone’s businesses will fail.

A modern service economy relies on lots and lots and lots of people doing stuff in person that isn’t strictly necessary. Absent a vaccine, won’t business stay depressed at hair and nail salons, gyms and yoga studios, bars and theaters, and all kinds of shopping malls and retailers more or less indefinitely? And if that’s the case, how well will the rest of the economy hold up given the large economic losses incurred by service-sector workers and business owners?

There’s a strong possibility here, in other words, that investors simply aren’t thinking this through very clearly. People may not be indefinitely stuck indoors and largely unable to even sporadically see friends and family, but it doesn’t follow that the economy will be “back to normal” any time soon. Worst of all, a large minority of incautious people going out on the town and gathering in large groups is enough to potentially generate new outbreaks but isn’t enough to generate a healthy business climate. For the majority of people to resume the pre-virus pace of life would require not just some good news on epidemic mitigation but breakthroughs of the sort that we simply aren’t seeing.

I'd love for things to be able to be back to normal in a couple weeks, but I just don't see how it happens in the absence of a vaccine or a very robust test-and-trace system, no matter what the government does about SiP and other regulations.

I can only see one explanation for the stock market doing as well as it is doing -- investors expect large corporations to consolidate power in their various markets as middle market and small businesses are forced to close. In the short and medium term earnings will be depressed, but longer term there will be more concentrated power at the top. Well, that or investors are largely clueless about the severity of the situation.

Okay, reading the article they seem to have hit all the points that I mentioned. 

"One way of looking at the recent market surge is that emergency actions undertaken by Congress and the Federal Reserve seem very generous to the kind of big companies whose shares are likely to be listed on the stock exchange. Individual workers and smaller companies are getting arguably less generous treatment, so it’s possible that owners of financial capital will weather the pandemic storm more easily than the rest of the country [and rake in outsized profits in a winnowed marketplace when growth returns]."