[Mick]

Making low-income people choose between their safety and their finances is morally questionable...

Perhaps. But shouldn't they have that choice, versus enforced safety and crippled personal finances and perhaps homelessness? I don't want to mandate anyone to go to work if they don't feel safe, and no one is questioning that. After all, there's 26 million+ workers available for work. A fair number of them would probably want to work.

---

But my own thought is that deflation is far more likely than inflation. Money just isn't circulating anymore. My last tank of gas is likely to last 60 days.

You're right, I think velocity has been dropping like a rock.  And since 70% of an economy is fueled by consumers -- and we're throwing them out of work in record numbers -- deflation is certainly possible, particularly if we have the "Nike swoosh" economic growth curve.  If it's the "V" curve, inflation.  If it's the "Nike swoosh" then deflation.  Barron's says inflation. Financial Times says deflation.

GR, this is an internet first.  You talked me into it.  Because I think we're far more likely to have the Nike swoosh rebound than the V-style rebound that the people on this board have been implicitly promising, I agree with you.  Deflation it is.

---

Yes, the five anecdotes you cite make it appear that the two parties cooperate.  In reality, that's not the case. George Washington warned against it, John Adams feared it, and (starting with the 2010 midterms) America has split into two very different parties.  This Atlantic article, "America is Now the Divided Republic that the Framers Feared," published earlier this year and written by Lee Drutman makes the case far better than I could.

In short, for most of the country's existence, the two parties were able to cooperate.  There were different factions and coalitions in each party that would seek common ground.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...on/604213/

Not to be pedantic, but you stated categorically that our two parties "refuse to work together", and I clearly identified examples where that was not the case.  More importantly, they were relevant examples.  They were examples of the two parties working together to fight this very crisis.  If your original point was a general observation of the two parties becoming more sorted and less likely to work together as a matter of course, I agree with you, and I will cite two books (from opposite ends of the spectrum).

So I don't disargee that generally we are more polarized than before.  I imagine that while in the acute phase the two parties will be able to come together to pass legislation, this is a transient stage, and once the worst is passed, and especially after we start rebuilding, that ideological differences between the parties will reassert their prominence, and by 2021, no matter who wins, you will see bipartisanship wane substantially.

But the question prompt that triggered your response was "Is there a response we could be making that wouldn't crater the economy?", citing partisan dysfunction seems a bit odd, since in this very narrowly tailored formulation, partisan dysfunction in congress has more or less been a complete non-issue.  Congressional response to the pandemic has been bipartisan and pretty decisive inasmuch as devoting 20% of GDP to the response is decisive.

So to sum up, I agree there is a problem with polarization generally. But I disagree that it has been an issue to date specifically in terms of the response to COVID-19.  There may be many reasons our economy has cratered, but I don't see evidence that the congressional response is one of them.

BC

The parties worked together solely because they had a gun to their collective heads, not out of a spirit of collaboration or cooperation. That is the only reason the bills got passed. It was the same as declaring war on Japan on December 8, 1941. If either Congress hadn't voted nearly unanimously, there would have been a collective mutiny in the country.

The fallout will be as expected. The Left will blame Trump for everything under the sun and give him no credit for anything in an effort to take over both houses of Congress and the Presidency? Why? So they legislate without the odious presence or participation of the right. Just as the Right does the few times they've owned all three.

Evidence: The Left wants people to shelter in place. The Right wants people to go back to work. There will be fighting and skirmishing all along, but one thing won't exist...cooperation on that topic.

[Mick]

Making low-income people choose between their safety and their finances is morally questionable...

Perhaps. But shouldn't they have that choice, versus enforced safety and crippled personal finances and perhaps homelessness? I don't want to mandate anyone to go to work if they don't feel safe, and no one is questioning that. After all, there's 26 million+ workers available for work. A fair number of them would probably want to work.

---

But my own thought is that deflation is far more likely than inflation. Money just isn't circulating anymore. My last tank of gas is likely to last 60 days.

You're right, I think velocity has been dropping like a rock.  And since 70% of an economy is fueled by consumers -- and we're throwing them out of work in record numbers -- deflation is certainly possible, particularly if we have the "Nike swoosh" economic growth curve.  If it's the "V" curve, inflation.  If it's the "Nike swoosh" then deflation.  Barron's says inflation. Financial Times says deflation.

GR, this is an internet first.  You talked me into it.  Because I think we're far more likely to have the Nike swoosh rebound than the V-style rebound that the people on this board have been implicitly promising, I agree with you.  Deflation it is.

---

Yes, the five anecdotes you cite make it appear that the two parties cooperate.  In reality, that's not the case. George Washington warned against it, John Adams feared it, and (starting with the 2010 midterms) America has split into two very different parties.  This Atlantic article, "America is Now the Divided Republic that the Framers Feared," published earlier this year and written by Lee Drutman makes the case far better than I could.

In short, for most of the country's existence, the two parties were able to cooperate.  There were different factions and coalitions in each party that would seek common ground.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...on/604213/

Not to be pedantic, but you stated categorically that our two parties "refuse to work together", and I clearly identified examples where that was not the case.  More importantly, they were relevant examples.  They were examples of the two parties working together to fight this very crisis.  If your original point was a general observation of the two parties becoming more sorted and less likely to work together as a matter of course, I agree with you, and I will cite two books (from opposite ends of the spectrum).

So I don't disargee that generally we are more polarized than before.  I imagine that while in the acute phase the two parties will be able to come together to pass legislation, this is a transient stage, and once the worst is passed, and especially after we start rebuilding, that ideological differences between the parties will reassert their prominence, and by 2021, no matter who wins, you will see bipartisanship wane substantially.

But the question prompt that triggered your response was "Is there a response we could be making that wouldn't crater the economy?", citing partisan dysfunction seems a bit odd, since in this very narrowly tailored formulation, partisan dysfunction in congress has more or less been a complete non-issue.  Congressional response to the pandemic has been bipartisan and pretty decisive inasmuch as devoting 20% of GDP to the response is decisive.

So to sum up, I agree there is a problem with polarization generally. But I disagree that it has been an issue to date specifically in terms of the response to COVID-19.  There may be many reasons our economy has cratered, but I don't see evidence that the congressional response is one of them.

BC

The parties worked together solely because they had a gun to their collective heads, not out of a spirit of collaboration or cooperation. That is the only reason the bills got passed. It was the same as declaring war on Japan on December 8, 1941. If either Congress hadn't voted nearly unanimously, there would have been a collective mutiny in the country.

The fallout will be as expected. The Left will blame Trump for everything under the sun and give him no credit for anything in an effort to take over both houses of Congress and the Presidency? Why? So they legislate without the odious presence or participation of the right. Just as the Right does the few times they've owned all three.

Evidence: The Left wants people to shelter in place. The Right wants people to go back to work. There will be fighting and skirmishing all along, but one thing won't exist...cooperation on that topic.