@Rousseau wrote:

Asking when and suggesting that be answered with a date specific is foolish. Before we can have a return to normal, we must have a restoration of the primacy of truth, science, and ethical behavior. A widespread testing regime and an effective vaccination program requires such a return to intelligent decency. As long as there are fools saying the facts, science, and decency ought take a second place to denialism, snake oil remedies, and an attitude that short term profit is more important than human life we will be plagued with cycles of surging illness and death.

Way to dance around the no-politics policy there...

Perhaps you were referring to China's denial of the serious nature of this virus, unwillingness to share the science, and unethical behavior towards the rest of the world in your thread above? Or maybe you are referring to the W.H.O.? I'm guessing your veiled response is quite a bit closer to home, isn't it?

Human existence has been "plagued with cycles of surging illness and death." since the beginning of time. I will personally be more relieved when we have an effective vaccine, an antibodies test (and widespread testing), or a herd immunity to the virus. Of course, let's hope we are not in the midst of another Great Depression by then, which very well may be the case...

And who will produce these things?

@JustForFun wrote:

Collapse of the world economy? I doubt that. Massive and fundamental change? Sure. But collapse, as in it is no more? Nope.

We need things. I need things, you need things. Out in the world or here at home, that doesn't change.

"As long as there are fools saying the facts, science, and decency ought take a second place to denialism, snake oil remedies, and an attitude that short term profit is more important than human life we will be plagued with cycles of surging illness and death."

Here are some FACTS for you Rousseau:

Houston
Covid-19 deaths by age group:
Less years 60 years old: 2
60+ years old: 14

Houston deaths by medical condition:
Pre-existing condition: 16
Healthy: 0

Total:
Covid-19 deaths: 16
People not dead but living under restrictions: 6,370,984

Why are we financially punishing working-age people and crippling the economy rather than addressing the risk where the risk is? This is serious situation and the hard decisions, politically correct or not, need to be made. Quarantine the old and sick. Let the the others return to work albeit with certain restrictions. And let people who choose not to work for whatever reason (taking care of a sick or elderly person, for example), stay home without any penalty. Yes, it would mean more cases of younger people getting sick for a week, but less deaths (though 6,371,000 divided by 14 is already statistically insignificant) and considerably less economic havoc.

I am not trying to minimize the pain, just recognizing that in this as in most things what comes will come regardless of the tiny movements within my limited brain.

Many of the issues you mention will impact mainly those who hold or borrow assets of one sort or another. I pretty much already lost everything the last time around so I am largely immune to that type of harm.

Inflation wasn't much fun, though, if memory serves. The hair styles in the 80s were interesting and colorful, though, and we've got a good start on growing that back.

When I was younger I thought I had control of a great many things. It turns out I don't and never did.

@Tarantado wrote:

@JustForFun wrote:

Collapse of the world economy? I doubt that. Massive and fundamental change? Sure. But collapse, as in it is no more? Nope.

We need things. I need things, you need things. Out in the world or here at home, that doesn't change.

I have things that you want. You have things that I want. That too doesn't change just because we are both at home trying hard not to breath or spit on each other.

So let's make a deal! Congratulations, we have an economy.

Will the transition from the old economy to the new one be painful? Yup. The sooner we find our way in the new rather than crying and clinging to the old, the happier we will all be.

Massive inflation and also a setback for millions of Americans affected by the epidemic, including defaults on loans, foreclosures, if not, forced refinance which could be labeled as a Troubled Debt Restructure (TDR) leading to higher interest rates, lower credit ratings, etc. Yes, very painful.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/10/2020 11:55PM by JustForFun.

Many will produce things. And many will consume things. Just as now. There's no change to the broad strokes there.

I have some skills, you have others. What can you make that I cannot? What do I have that you would accept in trade for what you make? Things will be made by those who can, just as now.

My only point was that as long as people need things and have or can make some thing to give in trade, things will continue to flow between people. We will still have an economy.

@panama18 wrote:

And who will produce these things?

@JustForFun wrote:

Collapse of the world economy? I doubt that. Massive and fundamental change? Sure. But collapse, as in it is no more? Nope.

We need things. I need things, you need things. Out in the world or here at home, that doesn't change.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/10/2020 11:53PM by JustForFun.

This conversation is going from sensible to ridiculous.

CASE DATA FOR MIAMI-DADE

Total Cases: 6,300
Residents: 6,243
Residents Not in Florida: 1
Non-Residents: 56

Demographics of Cases
Age Range: 0 to 103
Median Age: 48
Men: 3,293
Women: 2,937

Conditions and Care
Deaths: 84
Hospitalizations*
Residents: 494
Non-Residents: 5

Note that the median age is 48, i.e. half of cases are older than that and half are younger. This is NOT just a geriatric problem.

The notion that we will all just trade among ourselves is equally short sighted. How many folks in your neighborhood grow hogs, cows or chickens? Grow tomatoes in February or lettuce all year round? Provide you with milk, butter and yogurt? Have an olive tree and squeeze olive oil in the garage to barter for things they need? Grow rice, wheat, corn and other grains? Unless you have a horse and wagon you will need those things available locally because where are you going to find gas for your car or are you going to find someone to trade you for an electric car and solar panels to be able to charge it?

The economy is global. We are well beyond the possibility of rebounding as an economy if our international partners do not rebound as well. At the moment Americans are in a good spot compared with many/most of our international partners as the American household has relatively little debt compared to assets. We have about 10% of our workforce unemployed already. We need the vaccine so that we can get back to some semblance of normal before we get into a deep recession and/or enough federal debt trying to save our bacon that our only way out is massive inflation that goes much faster than wage growth.

I feel about twelve most of the time, have a twenty-something bio age in spite of everything, and am oddly affected monetarily by COVID-19. I got an automatic pay raise when salons were closed and I had to revert to doing (well, doing my best with) my own nails. I am a low-volume shopper, auditor, and merchandiser who already had planned personally chosen hiatuses, so my IC income changes are not really noticeable.. I continue to help the hubby with his non-contact job, so I still work in a safe environment every day. My little world did not contain anything that COVID-19 could rock monetarily. So far, no one here has the disease. But if it comes, it will only affect us physically. We are lucky ones, and we know this.

I feel for people who are forced to make drastic adjustments in a short period of time in order to make the various parts of their lives work during illness, threat of illness, loss of revenue, etc. I have been there. I am still here, but in a subdued manner. I think it's for the best for me, but I don't know what is best for other people. They will have to figure out some things and make their peace.

If I had scads of money, I would give on a large scale. I would earmark money for necessities and some services. I would try to find a way to give people hope that can replace some of their fears. Alas.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/11/2020 03:35AM by Shop-et-al.

Okay, I now have a better understanding.

@Shop-et-al wrote:

I feel about twelve most of the time, have a twenty-something bio age in spite of everything, and am oddly affected monetarily by COVID-19.

You extrapolate to specifics which I did not state. I never said that trade wouldn't be global, or that we would reduce to just "trade among ourselves" or our immediate neighbors. Neither did I stipulate anything about a barter-only economy. My comment was much broader. It was simply that trade - an economy - would survive in some form because the need to have that which we cannot ourselves make would survive.

I don't understand why you're leaping right from there to Mad Max.

@Flash wrote:

This conversation is going from sensible to ridiculous.
......
The notion that we will all just trade among ourselves is equally short sighted. How many folks in your neighborhood grow hogs, cows or chickens? Grow tomatoes in February or lettuce all year round? Provide you with milk, butter and yogurt? Have an olive tree and squeeze olive oil in the garage to barter for things they need? Grow rice, wheat, corn and other grains? Unless you have a horse and wagon you will need those things available locally because where are you going to find gas for your car or are you going to find someone to trade you for an electric car and solar panels to be able to charge it?

The economy is global. We are well beyond the possibility of rebounding as an economy if our international partners do not rebound as well. At the moment Americans are in a good spot compared with many/most of our international partners as the American household has relatively little debt compared to assets. We have about 10% of our workforce unemployed already. We need the vaccine so that we can get back to some semblance of normal before we get into a deep recession and/or enough federal debt trying to save our bacon that our only way out is massive inflation that goes much faster than wage growth.

On these points I completely agree.

@Flash wrote:

Note that the median age is 48, i.e. half of cases are older than that and half are younger. This is NOT just a geriatric problem.

....

The economy is global. We are well beyond the possibility of rebounding as an economy if our international partners do not rebound as well.

....

We need the vaccine so that we can get back to some semblance of normal before we get into a deep recession and/or enough federal debt trying to save our bacon that our only way out is massive inflation that goes much faster than wage growth.

I just love how similar you are to mil. She waits, and watches, and squints, and squirms, and POUnces on things like this and takes things out of context. This is what she does for fun (and it is why I suspect COVID-19 is afraid of her). So I have some consolation during this worldwide tragedy: We cannot go and visit mil in person now, but I can set this up here and have a pretty good cyber show. It is not quite mil, but it isn't too bad as cyber shows go...

Meanwhile, I have to buff the glue and rough spots off of my nails. This was left over after I removed the wonderful looking nails...

@JASFLALMT wrote:

Okay, I now have a better understanding.

@Shop-et-al wrote:

I feel about twelve most of the time, have a twenty-something bio age in spite of everything, and am oddly affected monetarily by COVID-19.

So you admit you are just saying things for effect to get a response from people? That is called trolling. Do you consider that to be a "positive contribution?"

@Shop-et-al wrote:

I just love how similar you are to mil. She waits, and watches, and squints, and squirms, and POUnces on things like this and takes things out of context. This is what she does for fun (and it is why I suspect COVID-19 is afraid of her). So I have some consolation during this worldwide tragedy: We cannot go and visit mil in person now, but I can set this up here and have a pretty good cyber show. It is not quite mil, but it isn't too bad as cyber shows go...

Meanwhile, I have to buff the glue and rough spots off of my nails. This was left over after I removed the wonderful looking nails...

@JASFLALMT wrote:

Okay, I now have a better understanding.

@Shop-et-al wrote:

I feel about twelve most of the time, have a twenty-something bio age in spite of everything, and am oddly affected monetarily by COVID-19.

CQ, you hit the nail on the head. Not something we already didn't know, eh?

@sestrahelena wrote:

It would be helpful to know if I already have antibodies and whether I am non-contagious. If this were true I would be roaming freely but there is so much contradictory info out there about testing, immunity, etc., that I just don't know. I would, and did, feel safe already.

[www.scientificamerican.com]
This was an article on immunity from yesterday.

Useful info.

@ wrote:

It is less clear what those antibody tests mean for real life, however, because immunity functions on a continuum. With some pathogens, such as the varicella-zoster virus (which causes chicken pox), infection confers near-universal, long-lasting resistance. Natural infection with Clostridium tetani, the bacterium that causes tetanus, on the other hand, offers no protection—and even people getting vaccinated for it require regular booster shots. On the extreme end of this spectrum, individuals infected with HIV often have large amounts of antibodies that do nothing to prevent or clear the disease.

At this early stage of understanding the new coronavirus, it is unclear where COVID-19 falls on the immunity spectrum. Although most people with SARS-CoV-2 seem to produce antibodies, “we simply don’t know yet what it takes to be effectively protected from this infection,” says Dawn Bowdish, a professor of pathology and molecular medicine and Canada Research Chair in Aging and Immunity at McMaster University in Ontario. Researchers are scrambling to answer two questions: How long do SARS-CoV-2 antibodies stick around? And do they protect against reinfection?

@roxy1 wrote:

"As long as there are fools saying the facts, science, and decency ought take a second place to denialism, snake oil remedies, and an attitude that short term profit is more important than human life we will be plagued with cycles of surging illness and death."

Here are some FACTS for you Rousseau:

Houston
Covid-19 deaths by age group:
Less years 60 years old: 2
60+ years old: 14

Houston deaths by medical condition:
Pre-existing condition: 16
Healthy: 0

Total:
Covid-19 deaths: 16
People not dead but living under restrictions: 6,370,984

Why are we financially punishing working-age people and crippling the economy rather than addressing the risk where the risk is? This is serious situation and the hard decisions, politically correct or not, need to be made. Quarantine the old and sick. Let the the others return to work albeit with certain restrictions. And let people who choose not to work for whatever reason (taking care of a sick or elderly person, for example), stay home without any penalty. Yes, it would mean more cases of younger people getting sick for a week, but less deaths (though 6,371,000 divided by 14 is already statistically insignificant) and considerably less economic havoc.

I think you have to weigh the counter-factual possibilities as well. Suppose places like Houston or California did not shut down? You could be looking at a New York, which has surpassed Italy (or tied) now in deaths.

New York is still in shutdown mode, so much more damage could easily have been done. They had 779 deaths this past Wednesday. They have had 700+ deaths several days already. That is a tragedy. I have a close relative who died (he lived in Manhattan) with some COVID-19 symptoms. We cannot pay respects and family in NYC cannot even attend the funeral.

With 330 million people in the U.S., if 50% get the virus (which is a number I've seen thrown around as likely over time - albeit, that was before some of our current measures went into place) and you have a 1% fatality rate, that's:

1.65 million people

I don't know if that is acceptable or not to people. But, it's a big number. Just one person hurts. I know this personally. Many more millions would be hospitalized. Some deaths of non-COVID patients could result as well if the healthcare system is overwhelmed.

Doctors and healthcare workers dying would also be demoralizing. We need them for so many other illnesses and sick people outside of COVID-19. If too many people get the virus at once, essential production chains could get interrupted. Food supply chains. Paper goods chains.

I could imagine an economic meltdown from not closing the economy down just as much as we're hurting with partial closings right now.

I'm sympathetic to your side of the argument too. I just think both choices could be equally bad perhaps.

[www.click2houston.com]

Things have changed a lot in the Houston area since roxy1 posted.

After my long stretch, I feel as limber as I did when I was eight. This is progress for an ol' lady, folks. I felt twelve in the morning and I feel eight now. Hmm.

Meanwhile, there are a few terms that must be turned on their head and seen through another lens.

How many of you have taken medication that was prescribed as an off-label use? I have done so , many years ago. Some have posted here that they have done so. Was that just a snake oil remedy, or was it the product of constant studying and re-thinking of symptoms, medications, and possibilities? Is the current attempt to treat COVID-19 with known medications in an off-label format really just snake oil? Or, is this practice an attempt to save lives? Hmm.

Is the absolute absence of money and buying power for one person less important that the possible recovery from COVID-19 for another person? Who makes up these inane dichotomies? This is nothing more than the games I hated in school. We had to identify ourselves and attempt to persuade everyone why we should be kept on the boat. I was chosen to stay on the boat. My eye twitched for a week after that hideous waste of time and I still want my money back for the classes that included this @$%%^&^*$#%.

In my view, all humans have value. We should be allowed to work if we can, and we should not be chastised if we cannot work. We should be allowed to care for our own if we can, and we should be free to seek assistance if we cannot do that. We should be free to demand better conditions, such as comprehensive packets of protective gear, instead of chastised for speaking out about a glaring deficiency (as I have been here).

Talking of the mask issue, are the people who chastise me for criticizing the inappropriateness of the current status of the mask situation among the deniers? Hmm.

@msimon-2000 wrote:

@Rousseau wrote:

Asking when and suggesting that be answered with a date specific is foolish. Before we can have a return to normal, we must have a restoration of the primacy of truth, science, and ethical behavior. A widespread testing regime and an effective vaccination program requires such a return to intelligent decency. As long as there are fools saying the facts, science, and decency ought take a second place to denialism, snake oil remedies, and an attitude that short term profit is more important than human life we will be plagued with cycles of surging illness and death.

Way to dance around the no-politics policy there...

Perhaps you were referring to China's denial of the serious nature of this virus, unwillingness to share the science, and unethical behavior towards the rest of the world in your thread above? Or maybe you are referring to the W.H.O.? I'm guessing your veiled response is quite a bit closer to home, isn't it?

Human existence has been "plagued with cycles of surging illness and death." since the beginning of time. I will personally be more relieved when we have an effective vaccine, an antibodies test (and widespread testing), or a herd immunity to the virus. Of course, let's hope we are not in the midst of another Great Depression by then, which very well may be the case...

@Shop-et-al wrote:

Is the absolute absence of money and buying power for one person less important that the possible recovery from COVID-19 for another person? Who makes up these inane dichotomies? This is nothing more than the games I hated in school. We had to identify ourselves and attempt to persuade everyone why we should be kept on the boat. I was chosen to stay on the boat. My eye twitched for a week after that hideous waste of time and I still want my money back for the classes that included this @$%%^&^*$#%.

In my view, all humans have value. We should be allowed to work if we can, and we should not be chastised if we cannot work. We should be allowed to care for our own if we can, and we should be free to seek assistance if we cannot do that. We should be free to demand better conditions, such as comprehensive packets of protective gear, instead of chastised for speaking out about a glaring deficiency (as I have been here).

Talking of the mask issue, are the people who chastise me for criticizing the inappropriateness of the current status of the mask situation among the deniers? Hmm.

re: protecting the vulnerable vs. loss of income

I do feel for those suddenly without much needed income. In particular, I worry about those who may lose their homes if we have a protracted recession. That would be life-changing.

So, I'll start by saying I really do get that part and I think it is a valid counter-argument.

I personally think we can protect both to a degree (maybe not "forever" - I don't know) and some sort of shutdown was probably necessary to prevent the exponential case growth nightmare scenario that would have led to nation-wide healthcare system failure.

It's not just the 1% (or whatever the real number is) of COVID-19 patients dying who contract it - although, that is bad enough. It's also the 10-20% who need hospitalization. And if we did not have shelter-in-place type of measures, you could see health systems completely failing across the U.S. in many areas. This would be from a lack of beds and ventilators. Overburdened staff. There were "crazy" stories of people being asked to come out of retirement if they had medical credentials or being offered jobs if they hadn't graduated yet from nursing or medical school (but were close) to help in various hospitals in the U.S.

In Europe, non-medical doctors were being asked to come in and help. If you had a Ph.D. in statistics or what not, they treated you as a "doctor." It was get all the hands we can on deck. Additionally, medical staff had to choose who would get a ventilator and who wouldn't. The young were given preference over the old.

A worst case scenario would involve:

-too many people getting the virus all at once
-overwhelming of the healthcare system leading to unnecessary COVID-19 deaths
-overwhelming of the healthcare system leading to unnecessary non-COVID-19 deaths
-healthcare workers dying and demoralized
-workers in important industries (food and medicine, in particular) getting sick and having essential supply chains interrupted
-millions of Americans dying (be it one, two, or three...)***

***That sort of a headline would be so demoralizing to the public and possibly create more fear and panic about the virus with consequences of their own. There is an economic and psychological impact to having deaths (or just illnesses and hospitalizations) on a mass scale related to COVID-19. The economy would not just return to "normal" after that type of a wipe-out. Maybe it would do better than coming out of a recession or depression we could be facing. But, my guess is that there would be some slowing too after so many deaths.

The reason I said we could protect both the vulnerable (and avoid a worst case scenario) and the economy - at least for a while - is what I wrote in another coronavirus thread.

In the movie, The Big Short, there was a famous line about how for every 1 percent unemployment goes up, 40,000 Americans die. However, that is based on things like depression, suicide, drug use, and the like that are associated with being out of work and not having money. IF we had an effective bailout and stimulus package that could tide people over while we were in shutdown, much of those deaths could be avoided. If you knew you weren't going to be kicked out of your home, if you knew you had money to buys essentials, if you knew this lockdown was temporary, etc., that could get you through emotionally and physically better.

Unfortunately, the process has been slow. I do worry people who need money are not getting it fast enough! In theory, I felt we could have dealt with both problems for a while in a way that could have prevented the worst of both scenarios. Now, I'm not so sure, given the execution.

But, also, on the shutdown front, many states still don't seem to have shelter-in-place rules (I could be wrong) or were very slow to implement them.

I know I haven't given the other side a thoroughly fair hearing in my comments above. Much more analysis can be done on the economic impact (which has an impact on people's mental and physical well-being as well) of a partial economic shutdown like we have right now and one that possibly extends much longer. I haven't read or thought as deeply about it as I have the medical side of things. I also am sympathetic to that side.

The one thing I'm not happy about is that our "shutdown" may not be coordinated enough to have the best impact. I really liked Bill Ackman's idea of a 30-day nationwide shutdown. But, that would require all states to do the same at the same time. If we did that, it'd have put us in much better shape going forward. These staggered partial shutdowns aren't doing as good of a job - although, they do have an impact on the curve. I wish we'd listened to the likes of Bill Gates and Bill Ackman on this. Take greater "pain" earlier - you could have a much better scenario later.

If it were up to me, I'd now get all "political"*** and start inveighing against how stupid and inept our President and his selected "experts" are, but I'll avoid that per forum etiquette.

eta: ***I do think stating facts about the U.S. government response w/o giving emotional opinions on politics isn't necessarily political. That would seem just...factual (?)...but I worry getting too far into that, so I won't for now.

Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2020 11:13AM by shoptastic.

@Tarantado wrote:

@kimmiemae wrote:

Plus, now they are talking about a second wave of infections so that implies a long road ahead.

If additional "Stay at Home" orders are forthcoming, this could really be the collapse of the world's economy.... In regards to the US, is the expectation for the fed's to QE until the point where the dollar truly becomes hyperinflated?

With debt, which QE is (unless they perform QT, which they tried - along with raising interest rates - in late 2018 and quickly gave up after the U.S. stock market crashed 19% by early January) on the Federal Reserve's balance sheet, there are only a few ways to alleviate it:

a.) Make more (as a nation) than you spend and pay it back.
--Post-2008 financial crisis, U.S. GDP has averaged 2.x%. That is the LOWEST IN ALL OF U.S. HISTORY. This includes the Trump term. The past 12 years have been the worst in U.S. history. The Reagan years had 3%+. Before that, we've seen as high as 5% + and 10%+ at various times. Plus, our federal debt was usually much smaller as a % of GDP.

Now, we have:
--RECORD LOW GDP
--HIGH DEBT

With all the unofficial debt (social security, for example) liabilities we have too, most economists dismiss the "pay it back" method. There was an attempt to change course in late 2018, as noted above, but the stock market crashed when the Fed started "burning money" with QT (the common layperson's image some economists give is that QE is printing money and QT is burning it), so they paused. For me, I'd rather take the pain now and have a chance for the nation to recover years later than go down a more painful route over time.

But, but, but,...what about growing our way out of it? Mayyyyyyyybe that was conceivable if we had a robust economy with lots of opportunities for people to maximize their talent (i.e., less inequality than we have now) and if people started being savers more and indebted spenders less. But with record high inequality, a spend what you don't have attitude by some (I know many who are responsible, but just don't get the breaks in life others do, so not including them), and a rigged economy by the rich, I don't see us growing robustly enough to pay back those debt obligations.

b.) Officially default on your debt.
--Most nations would never do this. It's humiliating and it might cause some near-term shocks.

c.) Unofficially default on your debt (i.e., inflation/hyperinflation).
--Yup. Sadly, this is a common play. When you have no realistic way to pay back your debt, one way to deal with things is to just print, print, print your money value away. Sure, people will have lots of money (nominally), but it won't be worth very much and they'll actually be poor in real terms. You'll be able to pay back the national debt (which isn't worth much in real terms then), but you impoverish people holding dollars.

THIS IS WHY my family has invested in gold/silver and foreign assets (of companies and countries) where there is a stable currency, low debt, relatively low asset valuations, and lots of economic growth potential.

We took a big chunk of our U.S. record high asset profits, before the stock market crashed in February, and put a bunch in those two areas above. And we've continued to do so now with existing cash. On top of that, we are simply also holding a lot in cash (for safety reasons and possibly buying more if asset prices fall). Although, we still have 30%-40% of our assets in the U.S. I'd never recommend going completely away from the U.S.

The inflation/hyperinflation route to paying back our debt is a long-term thing. It could play out over 3-10 years I'm guessing. We could first get deflation before we get inflation. This is because the U.S. is still considered a safe haven and people will buy U.S. assets and the dollar in times of distress. And, prices cannot rise, due to supply and demand. Once the economy gets back to running again, however, all that extra cash in the system will start to circulate. That's when inflation could start creeping in....but that could be a couple of years from now. At the same time, our sovereign debt problem could look less like a safe haven and more like a crashing value trap to foreigners (if it doesn't already)....So you don't have the safe haven trade and you now have a much greater money supply with people back to spending.

Edited 10 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2020 02:28PM by shoptastic.

"The $40 Trillion Problem" (April 6, 2020)
[seekingalpha.com]

"Why This Is Unlike The Great Depression" (March 30, 2020)
[seekingalpha.com]

Both of these articles explain the issues related to our national debt and the current COVID-19/economic crisis from one of my favorite investment writers mentioned before, Lyn Alden.

Thank God for the toggle function.

Some condensed posts would be nice. Shoptastic, when you go on and on I have a hard time reading it. I usually make it through a few lines and then stop reading when I see that it's going to be a novella.

@SoCalMama wrote:

Thank God for the toggle function.

Hope you're not talking about toggling your favorite Asian poster on the forum

@JASFLALMT wrote:

Some condensed posts would be nice. Shoptastic, when you go on and on I have a hard time reading it. I usually make it through a few lines and then stop reading when I see that it's going to be a novella.

Lol I'll post some 'Too Long; Didn't Read' to summarize Shoptastic's posts (of course, correct me if I misinterpreted any of your posts!!) with my views on it in bold:

1. Quantitative Easing (QE) aka the feds pumping money into the economy is inevitable.
Agreed.

2. Inflating the economy reduces panic of the people (i.e. people seeing lower numbers vs. inflated numbers in terms of their wealth, income, etc.).
Agreed; but at some point, you have to draw the line.

3. Fiat currency through constant QE will leave it worth less, so invest in precious metals and foreign assets where their fiat currency experienced less QE.
Eh, don't agree. I believe investing in precious metals is inefficient and like Warren Buffet's view, an asset that just sits there.

4. The inflation effects of the dollar won't be felt since others countries are relying on it, thus holding it's worth.
Agreed

5. For the "re: protecting the vulnerable vs. loss of income" response to Shop-et-al, it hits a variety of points including (a) people going on the verge of bankruptcy if the quarantine continues, (b) addressing it with building more hospitals and shelters to address, focuses & protecting the vulnerable first while not neglecting the effects of the economy, and (c) targeting how the shutdowns have been handled by the government.
Focusing too much on "social responsibility" needs to be balanced with the effects of the economy. People are neglecting the fact that the stimulus is far from bullet proof and is in fact, leaving every people on the verge of bankruptcy STILL. When you are unemployed, you can get unemployment benefits plus $600/week to alleviate the pain, but people forget that other important benefits such as health insurance is suddenly halted; COBRA and insurance OUTSIDE of group rates aren't exactly the most affordable....

Lol I'll stop there for now. Too much summarizing for a Sunday holiday

@shoptastic wrote:

THIS IS WHY my family has invested in gold/silver and foreign assets (of companies and countries) where there is a stable currency, low debt, relatively low asset valuations, and lots of economic growth potential.

We took a big chunk of our U.S. record high asset profits, before the stock market crashed in February, and put a bunch in those two areas above. And we've continued to do so now with existing cash. On top of that, we are simply also holding a lot in cash (for safety reasons and possibly buying more if asset prices fall). Although, we still have 30%-40% of our assets in the U.S. I'd never recommend going completely away from the U.S.

I still don't see the hype of buying into "precious metals" that literally just sit there. It could be because I'm a younger guy and can weather through these market fluctuations.... Unless of course, it really is the apocalypse and if that's the case, it really doesn't matter what we invest in; we're all screwed!

@Tarantado wrote:

I still don't see the hype of buying into "precious metals" that literally just sit there. It could be because I'm a younger guy and can weather through these market fluctuations.... Unless of course, it really is the apocalypse and if that's the case, it really doesn't matter what we invest in; we're all screwed!

Agree 100%. Precious metals and jewels made sense in past centuries when there were less regulated markets and there were wars between petit princes that might require your family emigrate under cover of darkness quickly. Even the idea of a gold wedding ring or one with a diamond was to provide emergency value in uncertain times.

When the US changed its coinage from silver to 'sandwich' metals an acquaintance dug a side cavity in his basement to collect bags and bags of silver dimes because when the 'apocalypse' came his family might be able to trade a silver dime for a loaf of bread. About twenty years later when the old man died his kids got to dispose of all the sacks of coins and after a lot of effort and inquiry found someone willing to pay about 20% above face value. Luckily they did not have to pay the assay fees that are needed with bullion privately owned nor had the coins needed to be held in rental storage for all those years. If the same amount of cash had been simply put into a savings account, after 20 years it would have been worth more.

@Tarantado wrote:

@SoCalMama wrote:

Thank God for the toggle function.

Hope you're not talking about toggling your favorite Asian poster on the forum .

Magandang hapon

Of course not.

@Tarantado wrote:

3. Fiat currency through constant QE will leave it worth less, so invest in precious metals and foreign assets where their fiat currency experienced less QE.
Eh, don't agree. I believe investing in precious metals is inefficient and like Warren Buffet's view, an asset that just sits there.

a.) Warren Buffett invested in silver (a precious and industrial metal) in the late 1990's. Had he had the conviction to hold it longer (a few extra years), he'd have made 5x his money. Instead, he only doubled his money.

So, yeah, Buffett doesn't exactly do as he himself preaches. Having said that, I don't agree with him that precious metals cannot be valued***, because they lack yield and you can only hope to gain by having another person pay more for it.

They can, in fact, be valued by looking at: i.) supply & demand; and ii.) historical pricing relationships (such as high inflation and/or low or negative real interest rates). E.g., gold and silver are valued (or will be) more when there is lots of demand and little (stagnant and/or diminishing) supply. That was why Buffett himself bought silver in the 90's.

For the record, silver is the most undervalued based on its silver-to-gold ratio in all of recorded history. There have been recent articles on this that show its ratio recently has been the widest in over 5,000 years (beyond the times of Jesus). It's averaged a 15 or 20--to 1 relationship with gold throughout history. It's a more useful industrial metal (found in electronics, cars, and in buildings), but degrades over time more than gold. It tends to do better when the economy picks back up and when you have negative real interest rates or high inflation. It's ratio to gold can get out of whack at times, but it's historical ratio to gold ALWAYS closes. In the short-term, it's pricing is more volatile. If it were to close from today's prices, that'd be a 6x gain. It was over 123-to-1 recently.

b.) Yes, foreign assets are what we've been looking at, but not just any foreign assets (I listed the criteria above for what we've bought). Also, it's not because their countries have performed less QE (some never have and some, in theory, could have performed more, but with an ability to reverse course - unlike the U.S.). But, it's about whether their sovereign debt situations are in good order (or manageable) and they have a chance to grow in asset value over time.

***eta: Well, he doesn't say they cannot be valued. Rather, he says HE DOES NOT KNOW HOW.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2020 09:11PM by shoptastic.

@Flash wrote:

Agree 100%. Precious metals and jewels made sense in past centuries when there were less regulated markets and there were wars between petit princes that might require your family emigrate under cover of darkness quickly. Even the idea of a gold wedding ring or one with a diamond was to provide emergency value in uncertain times.

When the US changed its coinage from silver to 'sandwich' metals an acquaintance dug a side cavity in his basement to collect bags and bags of silver dimes because when the 'apocalypse' came his family might be able to trade a silver dime for a loaf of bread. About twenty years later when the old man died his kids got to dispose of all the sacks of coins and after a lot of effort and inquiry found someone willing to pay about 20% above face value. Luckily they did not have to pay the assay fees that are needed with bullion privately owned nor had the coins needed to be held in rental storage for all those years. If the same amount of cash had been simply put into a savings account, after 20 years it would have been worth more.

a.) You don't have to store your own precious metals today, as I'm sure you know, although having SOME gold or silver coins is often recommended as part of one's allocation. One can trade gold fund/trusts the same way stocks/funds trade with the click of a mouse on the computer.

b.) Value depends on when you buy the metal and when you sell. I'm not a gold/silver/precious metals bug. I simply see them as an alternative asset class that can be a store of value and profitable when bought and sold at a good price.

E.g., I started buying gold (ETFs) in December of 2018 through about April of 2019. I am up 25% on my investments, while U.S. stocks are down 20% recently.

I bought more silver (bought in 2019 as well) a few weeks ago near the 5,000 year historical silver-to-gold ratio low. I'm up a little bit, but I know it'll be volatile.

Historically, precious metals do better than stocks and bonds when asset prices have been inflated very high and you have negative real interest rates. E.g., why would anyone buy a bond when interest rates are zero (unless one believes the U.S. will go negative like Europe and Japan).

This is why people are scared the U.S. 60/40 portfolio is busted now. Stocks were massively overvalued (highest in recorded history based on the Warren Buffet Indicator/Ratio and second-highest in recorded history based on the CAPE/Schiller PE Ratio - second only to the 2000 dot com bubble) and bonds cannot rise in price anymore after the Fed has lowered interest rates to zero. With zero yielding interest bonds, which cannot go lower (to raise the price), you are locking in negative inflation-adjusted returns.

When both stocks and bonds are massively overvalued and both falling in value for the first time recently (usually they move in opposite directions), where can a person hide? Money has to go somewhere. Historically, precious metals and other foreign assets that are good values are places they've gone.

Under such conditions, I think owning some gold and silver make sense. Although, I do agree with Buffett in that they lack yield and over the long-term it's better to own real businesses. However, at certain times, precious metals outperform stocks.

E.g., During part of the 2000's when Warren Buffett lost money for an entire decade (his "so-called" lost decade, during the 90's dot com bubble and after it into the 2000's), gold went up 5x from 2000 to 2011.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2020 09:39PM by shoptastic.

^^^funny enough, Warren Buffett bought silver in 1997/98 during his "lost decade"

@F and L TeleComm wrote:

Ok, so China physically blocked roads, etc to completely isolate the citizens that they thought were infected. Wuhan just got off lockdown after 11 weeks I think it was. I think that we are looking at the same (or even longer). Ours just started March 16th. Using that analogy we are looking at close to mid-June before we can go back out. Now here is an issue that I would want to be addressed before any of us go back out into society. Disinfectant wipes need to be in widespread availability and hand sanitizer. Without these two mitigators, there's no way I will feel safe. But as for me, myself, and I (and of course my sig other) we will not rejoin the working until this happens and we will actually use hand sanitizer and wipes way more than we ever did before. This will not change even if the government says it's ok.
If any of you use or know someone who uses public transportation, you/yours need to be even more CAUTIOUS. You need to sit by yourself on buses/trains, do not travel during rush hour at all, and carry your very own wipes. Wipe all poles, doors, chairs that you sit on, etc. anywhere that hand even starts to touch. WE can never go back to the "the way we were". That kind of naivety should be gone forever.

On a personal level, I will not be going back to normal until we get a vaccine most likely. It's not optimal, but a sacrifice I'll be making for family. Not everyone can do this, but we are fortunate to have the money to survive under such sub-optimal conditions. I think we could see two broad patterns in society:

i.) the immune and statistically less risky go back to normal life;
ii.) those who are vulnerable or living with the vulnerable choose to stay in a sheltered state

Thus, I am not very optimistic about the economy (not just the U.S., but globally) recovering rapidly and going back to anything like pre-virus norms. I think we'll see essential businesses do well or okay. Discretionary spending businesses could take years to go back to normal. And, if we get a second, third, etc. wave of infections, we could see temporary shutdowns again that further disrupt economic flow.

On the medicinal side of things, I hope these two things work out:
A PROMISING COVID-19 TREATMENT GETS FAST-TRACKED
[hub.jhu.edu]

@ wrote:

Arturo Casadevall and collaborators at Johns Hopkins and beyond have worked around the clock to develop a convalescent serum therapy to treat COVID-19 using blood plasma from recovered patients. If early promising studies on the therapy done in China are confirmed by U.S. trials, thousands of survivors might soon line up to donate their antibody-rich plasma. "I absolutely think this could be the best treatment we have for the next few months," Hopkins pathologist Aaron Tobian says.

CORONAVIRUS VACCINE COULD BE READY IN SIX MONTHS
[www.bloomberg.com]

@ wrote:

A vaccine against the coronavirus could be ready by September, according to a scientist leading one of Britain’s most advanced teams.

Sarah Gilbert, professor of vaccinology at Oxford University, told The Times on Saturday that she is “80% confident” the vaccine would work, and could be ready by September. Experts have warned the public that vaccines typically take years to develop, and one for the coronavirus could take between 12 to 18 months at best.

In the case of the Oxford team, however, “it’s not just a hunch, and as every week goes by we have more data to look at,” Gilbert told the London newspaper.

I try to remain optimistic, but am also preparing for the worst: the loss of my parents' lives and my own.

While my father is most vulnerable, my mom and I also have characteristics that make us vulnerable (which I haven't and won't discuss for medical privacy reasons). I've seen my parents calling their brothers and sisters and others with sometimes pessimistic or deflated tones when talking about the realities of the virus. They hope for the best, but recognize this could also be the end for them in this Earthly life.

It's an emotionally and psychologically difficult thing to carry around during this time. I've never experienced anything like this. You see the virus closing in around you in reported cases. You see what it's been like in New York, Italy, and Spain. You know every time you go out, you could be at risk.

Many states' curves have not peaked yet. And even when they do, secondary and beyond outbreaks could occur if we relax measures. Yes, what we're doing right now is better than letting everyone get sick at once (with a possible 20% hospitalization rate and 1-3% fatality rate). But, can these measures last until we get a vaccine? If we relax restrictions, will the case and death rate just go back up...and we end up seeing 50% or more people globally infected ultimately? Will 1-3% of people on Earth die from COVID-19 ultimately?

I hate to say it, but I don't have strong faith in the U.S.'s response. Although, I shall be praying we do better! And during this time, I hope that I can help in any way possible.

eta:

@shoptastic wrote:

Will 1-3% of people on Earth die from COVID-19 ultimately?

Something to be concerned about is India. As they enter winter, will they see a spike in cases and deaths? And, can the second most populous country on Earth, which is also very poor in many places and lacks modern healthcare infrastructure handle a large outbreak? India's situation is scary.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2020 02:59AM by shoptastic.

Before this pandemic, the supermarket and bank that I use always had disinfectant wipes at entry and the bank had a Purell dispenser as well. Of course, not available now. I don't think I will feel comfortable once we are free to out for awhile. My Ziploc bag of Clorox wipes will be forever a part of me.