Page 25 of 73
Bad Economic Predictions
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2020 2:43 pm
by TheCatt
Well, at least I got paid today.
Bad Economic Predictions
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2020 2:44 pm
by TheCatt
Goldman is predicting a 24% decline in GDP next quarter, averaging out to -3.8% this year.
Bad Economic Predictions
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2020 3:10 pm
by TheCatt
Bad Economic Predictions
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2020 5:46 pm
by Leisher
They can go fuck themselves.
Bad Economic Predictions
Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 7:04 pm
by TheCatt
Latest coronavirus stimulus fails to get votes, market futures hit limit down of 5% (again).
I'm sure the bill will get passed eventually, but not a good look. As for the markets, I have no idea how they find a bottom until we get some better medicine.
Bad Economic Predictions
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2020 8:05 am
by TheCatt
The Fed just announced it will buy an unlimited amount of treasuries and mortgage backed securities
Bad Economic Predictions
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2020 10:11 am
by Leisher
Seemed more appropriate to move this discussion here as it's more about the economy than the coronavirus...
TheCatt wrote: The Democratic objections seems to be lots of $$$ spent on corporations instead of the people losing jobs.
I was thinking and reading more about this, and to be fair to the Rs, they rubber stamped the House's bill earlier in the week despite it containing stuff they didn't agree with. The Ds were apparently not willing to do the same. (Just going on this information alone, it does seem like the Ds are playing politics. Being honest, it would absolutely benefit them if this crisis caused the economy to tank and people to suffer. I mean, it is an election year and an R sits at the top of the tower.)
So Ds claim to always pass legislation for the people, but their strongholds are shitshows and their core voters still maintain the same position in the economy. Rs clearly favor passing legislation to help corporations, which I guess they believe will then save the people. It's harder to see if that's been effective or not, but I'm guessing no. If fact, based upon the clear corporate greed we see daily, I'm going to say fuck no.
Is there a right answer?
Is it possible to limit capitalism enough so that employing people becomes more profitable than not? This is what I was getting at with this statement:
Leisher wrote: I was pondering a new tax idea. Could a tax cut for businesses be possible based upon how many people they employ. The key here being it would save the government all of most of the cost of that person being unemployed, while also being cost effective for businesses so it actually encourages hiring.
The point would be to encourage hiring instead of companies trying to run on skeleton crews. Make it so laying people off isn't necessarily a "go to" method of boosting quarterly/annual performance for stock gains.
I fully understand payroll taxes, but how can we make it so it's more profitable to employ people than not? Without going so far that companies employ too many people...

Is it even possible? Basically, how do we stop the trend of constant layoffs to boost stocks, running on skeleton crews to boost bottom lines, etc?
Is there a sweet spot to still let the market be the market, yet limiting executives' ability to act in their own self interest, while also providing incentive to maintain a large workforce with good benefits? I know...utopia...
Bad Economic Predictions
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2020 10:21 am
by TheCatt
Leisher wrote: Is there a right answer?
No.
Leisher wrote: I fully understand payroll taxes, but how can we make it so it's more profitable to employ people than not? Without going so far that companies employ too many people... Is it even possible? Basically, how do we stop the trend of constant layoffs to boost stocks, running on skeleton crews to boost bottom lines, etc?
No.
The UK took the approach of increasing unemployment to 80%. That saves the workers who are let go, but doesn't help the companies.
Leisher wrote: Is there a sweet spot to still let the market be the market, yet limiting executives' ability to act in their own self interest, while also providing incentive to maintain a large workforce with good benefits? I know...utopia...
Any approach is going to have abusers, winners/losers, and other issues.
Bad Economic Predictions
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2020 11:23 am
by Leisher
Like I said, utopia.
Bad Economic Predictions
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2020 11:29 am
by Leisher
Bad Economic Predictions
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2020 11:34 am
by TheCatt
Finally, it's essential that we plan now for how to get America back to work. Whether it's early April or early May, or checkpoints along the way, we should have a clear date to shoot for, with clear benchmarks for what needs to be in place to reopen America. It may be phased, and should be regionally sensitive, but, clearly, we need a concrete set of objectives developed and adopted now.
I am highly skeptical of an April exit. Especially an early April one.
Bad Economic Predictions
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2020 11:38 am
by Leisher
As stated in the Trump thread, he's planning to pretend life can go back to normal after his 15 day plan is up.
He's genuinely going to get people killed.
Exciting times.
Bad Economic Predictions
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2020 11:49 am
by TheCatt
Leisher wrote: As stated in the Trump thread, he's planning to pretend life can go back to normal after his 15 day plan is up.
He's genuinely going to get people killed.
Exciting times.
Then I think my plan will be to hunker the fuck down and let the other people die, and hopefully there's enough herd immunity around that it stops eventually, I guess?
Bad Economic Predictions
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2020 11:52 am
by Leisher
I just did the most an American citizen can do under President Trump:
Bad Economic Predictions
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2020 11:54 am
by GORDON
TheCatt wrote: Leisher wrote: As stated in the Trump thread, he's planning to pretend life can go back to normal after his 15 day plan is up.
He's genuinely going to get people killed.
Exciting times.
Then I think my plan will be to hunker the fuck down and let the other people die, and hopefully there's enough herd immunity around that it stops eventually, I guess?
Worst case scenario: This becomes Great Depression 2. A hundred million people out of work and hungry.
And armed to the teeth.
Things could get very, very bad if we tank the economy. Much worse than flooding the hospitals for 3 months, in my completely wrong and evil opinion.
Bad Economic Predictions
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2020 11:55 am
by TheCatt
Good luck, person who probably entered our country illegally based on that last name.
I don't know quite how to balance this virus against economics. We have X Capacity to care for people. Do we just try to hit X? Obviously, we want to increase X, but that's not easy. Any decision made will be terrible. Either we clamp down too hard, or we don't clamp down hard enough. There will be no perfect balance.
c'mon medicine...
Bad Economic Predictions
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2020 12:00 pm
by Troy
Per Governor Cuomo it sounds like the plan is going to be to isolate the most vulnerable after a few weeks, return to our lives, and let the healthy fight this until we get herd immunity.
Bad Economic Predictions
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2020 12:04 pm
by Leisher
TheCatt wrote: Good luck, person who probably entered our country illegally based on that last name.
?
GORDON wrote: Things could get very, very bad if we tank the economy. Much worse than flooding the hospitals for 3 months, in my completely wrong and evil opinion.
How good do you think the economy is going to do if 7.7 million people die because we didn't bother locking down and stopping the spread of the virus?
TheCatt wrote: There will be no perfect balance.
Right? Imagine if this was a deadlier virus or if it mutates...
Bad Economic Predictions
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2020 12:05 pm
by GORDON
Leisher wrote:
GORDON wrote: Things could get very, very bad if we tank the economy. Much worse than flooding the hospitals for 3 months, in my completely wrong and evil opinion.
How good do you think the economy is going to do if 7.7 million people die because we didn't bother locking down and stopping the spread of the virus? .
Better than if we tank the economy and put 100 million armed people out of work.
The great majority of the 7.7 million, in your example, that would die would already be retired pensioners.
Bad Economic Predictions
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2020 12:08 pm
by Leisher
GORDON wrote: Better than if we tank the economy and put 100 million armed people out of work.
Had we locked down 4 weeks ago, this would already be over. Unfortunately too many people in charge worship money.
Glad to hear you agree with Hitler that certain folks need to be culled.
