[Goose]

The economic data that 2006alum shared has implications for the false "jobs vs. virus fighting" tradeoff that some people on this site have been promoting endlessly.  There was never any tradeoff.  If enough people reduce their spending voluntarily, you get a recession or a depression, period.  This is what's happening now in the US.  The "reopening" hasn't brought back most of the jobs lost, and things will probably get worse economically, not better, in the coming months as the virus spreads again, even if we don't reverse the reopenings.

I think there is no question that consumer spending reacts to uncertainty about economic prospects. Until the general public feels their economic situation is predictable and stable, they are going to cut spending. The epidemic produces uncertainty no matter how it is addressed. The job losses due to the SIP would not ever have been good for the economy. Neither would overflowing ICUs and even more deaths been good for the economy. The real problem is that nobody knows what comes next, and when "next" is. It for sure doesn't start now. There is going to be more economic pain.

I also think there were serious underlying structural problems in the world economy before the epidemic. Zero or negative interest rates for a long period that do not produce significant real growth at all levels of society are, or should have been, a big warning that the status quo wasn't sustainable. These problems eventually would have caught up with us. The epidemic has hastened the process.

[Goose]

The economic data that 2006alum shared has implications for the false "jobs vs. virus fighting" tradeoff that some people on this site have been promoting endlessly.  There was never any tradeoff.  If enough people reduce their spending voluntarily, you get a recession or a depression, period.  This is what's happening now in the US.  The "reopening" hasn't brought back most of the jobs lost, and things will probably get worse economically, not better, in the coming months as the virus spreads again, even if we don't reverse the reopenings.

I think there is no question that consumer spending reacts to uncertainty about economic prospects. Until the general public feels their economic situation is predictable and stable, they are going to cut spending. The epidemic produces uncertainty no matter how it is addressed. The job losses due to the SIP would not ever have been good for the economy. Neither would overflowing ICUs and even more deaths been good for the economy. The real problem is that nobody knows what comes next, and when "next" is. It for sure doesn't start now. There is going to be more economic pain.

I also think there were serious underlying structural problems in the world economy before the epidemic. Zero or negative interest rates for a long period that do not produce significant real growth at all levels of society are, or should have been, a big warning that the status quo wasn't sustainable. These problems eventually would have caught up with us. The epidemic has hastened the process.