My current totally uninformed theory is that pre-existing bat coronaviruses have been giving humans in certain areas a level of immunity. This would be why Scandanavia is so different from the bulk of Europe.
I don't have any data to support this although I bounded it off an epidemiologist friend of mine (formally with the the US Army, CDC and WHO) and he is researching it.
First, Sweden said it would *like* herd immunity but that wasn't the point. For them the point was balancing the cost (including in lives) of an economic shutdown against the life savings gained. This is an important consideration - the hidden deaths are substantial and have always been my concern. I don't think I've even claimed the virus wasn't dangerous - just that the total extended shutdowns would be more dangerous and not effective in the long-term.
Second, despite only voluntary and limited social distancing Stockholm has less than half the infection rate of New York. It *hasn't* spread like wildfire. We are still learning what works, but it seems like our social distancing can afford to be more targeted and still cut the infection rate.
Second, Stockholm has 3,900 deaths out of a population of just under a million. 7.3% infection implies 70,000 infected. This is a *very* high death rate comparatively (close to 5%).
6% of Miami-Dade had positive antibodies. There have been about 2,000 deaths and they have 2.7 million people - including many elderly. Back of the napkin deaths and they should have have twice cases with half the deaths of Sweden for 1/4 the death rate (1.2%).
Why does Florida have a lower death rate?
The fact is, we still don't know. New York has a 20% infection rate - despite a strong lockdown. Their death rates vs. antibody surveys are around 1.4% - a touch higher than Florida's.
London has a strict lockdown. 17% are infected. The death rate is 2.2%.
What I'm getting at is that the benefits of full shutdown vs. partial shutdown in places that can't really totally shut down (the border with Mexico is porous and 40 million Americans can't be without work indefinitely) are probably not that great - and the costs are huge.
Even in lives.
For countries that *can* shut their borders (Australia, New Zealand, Israel) a shutdown can actually suppress the virus. Otherwise you're looking at 'bending the curve.' Sweden hasn't had a hospital shortage, so bending the curve wouldn't help. They seem to have other problems in delivering care.
Who's right? The jury is still out. If there is actually a vaccine in the fall, Sweden will look pretty stupid. If not, as the costs continue to mount, Sweden might actually be well ahead of the game. Their 'limited social distancing' does seem to have limited the spread of the virus.
Of course, they have to get better at protecting their vulnerable (like Florida) and treating the sick. In these regards they are clearly well behind others. The high death rates implies a lot of infected old people relatively.
I am personally surprised their infection rate isn't higher. I was hoping it would be, as I'm sure many Swedes were. It would be great if they were nearing the end of their curve. If they had 1/4 the death rate they do Stockholm's infection rate would have been close to 30%.
Nonetheless this data continues to feed our understanding of what really works in countries that have already seen widespread community infections within their countries.
Sweden's infection control is working reasonably well - despite being limited. Their protection of the elderly/treatment of the sick, however, is quite poor.
The article was about economics not nuclear war :)
Throwing away trillions is going to serve as an economic damper for a long time to come. If people see how broke the US actually is, it could deliver a catastrophic blow.
But broken, bureaucratic and corrupt systems can also hold on for a long time. Look at Byzantium.
If you raise the minimum wage you'll raise unemployment (at least long-term). The cost of labor, combined with improvements in technology, has led to marginal automation getting the leg up (think self-checkout, fast food ordering screens, German and Japanese factories). We shouldn't drive labor costs down to address this - if machines are cheaper, great. But we shouldn't artificially raise them either. Instead, we should make it possible for anybody who isn't severely disabled or a criminal to be worth employing. Dropping the obligation on companies to provide a minimum salary enables this. At the same time, we add an obligation on society to supplement those with low wages.
This is a method of getting people into the workforce and subsidizing the little value they can return in this sort of environment.
Of course, as the economy improves the value they can deliver will rise. This is why software developers, doctors and many others don't get paid minimum wage - there is labor market demand that drives up their salaries. This is also why 98.7% of Swiss full-time workers make more than $37,000 a year - despite there being no minimum wage in Switzerland.
People are worth more in a successful economy.
In the modern American economy, employers can't band together to force down wages on employees. There is robust competition between employers and industries for talent. A few months ago, this meant that only 2% of workers earned minimum wage. A robust economy drove up wages. We don't have a robust economy, so instead of minimum wage we'll just see mass persistent unemployment.
I'd prefer to cleanly and simply subsidize the working poor than put them out of work.
He couldn't work because we have a benefits system that 1) threatened his subsistence if he earned a living and 2) required him to be worth more than the value he could deliver.
I'm not sure where the trickle down is here. The typical trickle down description seems to be very low tax rates and just drive lots of high-income which results in more demand lower down the curve. I'm not sure how that labeling applies here. After all, this is quite a high tax rate and it is also progressive.
Most importantly for me, this not only makes it easier for Betty to have a business, it also has an extensive income support system. I'm pretty sure that isn't typical supply side Republicanism.
The label just seems kind of irrelevant.
If I were to characterize left and right, right would be focused on enlarging the pie and left on making sure everybody has enough of it: Creation vs. Absence of Want/Fear.
This approach is about addressing both. But creation for me isn't some big supply side thing - it comes down to regular people having fulfilling and productive jobs. And the absence of fear isn't about just collecting a guaranteed income - the lack of work rots people (just look at studies on early retirement and early death).
Do I care about supply? Of course. Money without supply is just paper. But I also care about demand - not as a driver of economics but as a reality: people have needs and society ought to help meet them.
I am not interested in making sure people have money, if they have nothing to spend it on.
There are lots of examples of that particular catastrophe.
For me, you ought to aim somewhere in the middle: finding a way to support both creation and the absence of want/fear.
A friend wrote: "Read the article on TalkMarkets. It is a good idea. You write “spending could be classified as business spending. In these cases, taxes on spending would be refunded.” In this case what we have is a VAT, Value added Tax. This doesn’t change the idea, I just think it is a more accurate description.
One downside is that people currently consider what they spend their money on private. This would force you to show everything you buy to the government.
The argument could be made that the government could find this data by looking at credit cards and bank statements but currently they need to search it is not handed to them. The other issue is the burden of retaining and dealing with all the paperwork for those that don’t have a credit card although I suppose that using debit cards would handle that."
I responded:
A VAT requires a connection in the goods used. It doesn't apply to salaries for example (or replace related taxes). It also requires collection by the business. It is an enormous filling and paperwork burden.They figure out value add but in a very intensive way. This is just cash flow add, which is far simpler. You just have to follow cash, not goods. And you don't need to link inputs and outputs.
The government would only need to be able to see details in an audit. Otherwise all they need is amounts, vendors and dates, not identification of what was purchased.
I am imagining reporting paperwork only being needed for:
1) Non-electronic spending on which you want a subsidy (need evidence so you can collect it)
2) Non-electronic revenue (so you can pay tax on it)
3) Spending you want to classify as business spending (so you can justify it). I'd also add charitable spending to the non-taxable category, and it would also attract audits.
Everything but category 3 would just need meta-data - who from, who to, amount, date/time.
A debit card could handle it. And, for people who are 'unbankable' there could be a government sponsored account that allows no overages etc... but is only used for this purpose.
@[Gary Anderson](user:4798) @[Danny Straus](user:5566) @[Flat Broke](user:29387) @[Angry Old Lady](user:7657) @[Joe Black](user:4869) @[Craig Newman](user:7650) I did a video about this https://youtu.be/xTt4nrndUw0
Latest Comments
The Road To A Post-Corona Boom (Healthcare) - Part 2
It will be never. We still argue about 1918.
My current totally uninformed theory is that pre-existing bat coronaviruses have been giving humans in certain areas a level of immunity. This would be why Scandanavia is so different from the bulk of Europe.
I don't have any data to support this although I bounded it off an epidemiologist friend of mine (formally with the the US Army, CDC and WHO) and he is researching it.
The Road To A Post-Corona Boom (Healthcare) - Part 2
That is fascinating.
First, Sweden said it would *like* herd immunity but that wasn't the point. For them the point was balancing the cost (including in lives) of an economic shutdown against the life savings gained. This is an important consideration - the hidden deaths are substantial and have always been my concern. I don't think I've even claimed the virus wasn't dangerous - just that the total extended shutdowns would be more dangerous and not effective in the long-term.
Second, despite only voluntary and limited social distancing Stockholm has less than half the infection rate of New York. It *hasn't* spread like wildfire. We are still learning what works, but it seems like our social distancing can afford to be more targeted and still cut the infection rate.
Second, Stockholm has 3,900 deaths out of a population of just under a million. 7.3% infection implies 70,000 infected. This is a *very* high death rate comparatively (close to 5%).
6% of Miami-Dade had positive antibodies. There have been about 2,000 deaths and they have 2.7 million people - including many elderly. Back of the napkin deaths and they should have have twice cases with half the deaths of Sweden for 1/4 the death rate (1.2%).
Why does Florida have a lower death rate?
The fact is, we still don't know. New York has a 20% infection rate - despite a strong lockdown. Their death rates vs. antibody surveys are around 1.4% - a touch higher than Florida's.
London has a strict lockdown. 17% are infected. The death rate is 2.2%.
What I'm getting at is that the benefits of full shutdown vs. partial shutdown in places that can't really totally shut down (the border with Mexico is porous and 40 million Americans can't be without work indefinitely) are probably not that great - and the costs are huge.
Even in lives.
For countries that *can* shut their borders (Australia, New Zealand, Israel) a shutdown can actually suppress the virus. Otherwise you're looking at 'bending the curve.' Sweden hasn't had a hospital shortage, so bending the curve wouldn't help. They seem to have other problems in delivering care.
Who's right? The jury is still out. If there is actually a vaccine in the fall, Sweden will look pretty stupid. If not, as the costs continue to mount, Sweden might actually be well ahead of the game. Their 'limited social distancing' does seem to have limited the spread of the virus.
Of course, they have to get better at protecting their vulnerable (like Florida) and treating the sick. In these regards they are clearly well behind others. The high death rates implies a lot of infected old people relatively.
I am personally surprised their infection rate isn't higher. I was hoping it would be, as I'm sure many Swedes were. It would be great if they were nearing the end of their curve. If they had 1/4 the death rate they do Stockholm's infection rate would have been close to 30%.
Nonetheless this data continues to feed our understanding of what really works in countries that have already seen widespread community infections within their countries.
Sweden's infection control is working reasonably well - despite being limited. Their protection of the elderly/treatment of the sick, however, is quite poor.
The Road To A Post-Corona Boom - Part 1
Next part added. It is about universal health care...
talkmarkets.com/.../the-road-to-a-post-corona-boom-healthcare-part-2
The Road To A Post-Corona Boom - Part 1
Next part added. It is about universal health care...
talkmarkets.com/.../the-road-to-a-post-corona-boom-healthcare-part-2
The Road To A Post-Corona Boom - Part 1
The article was about economics not nuclear war :)
Throwing away trillions is going to serve as an economic damper for a long time to come. If people see how broke the US actually is, it could deliver a catastrophic blow.
But broken, bureaucratic and corrupt systems can also hold on for a long time. Look at Byzantium.
The Road To A Post-Corona Boom - Part 1
If you raise the minimum wage you'll raise unemployment (at least long-term). The cost of labor, combined with improvements in technology, has led to marginal automation getting the leg up (think self-checkout, fast food ordering screens, German and Japanese factories). We shouldn't drive labor costs down to address this - if machines are cheaper, great. But we shouldn't artificially raise them either. Instead, we should make it possible for anybody who isn't severely disabled or a criminal to be worth employing. Dropping the obligation on companies to provide a minimum salary enables this. At the same time, we add an obligation on society to supplement those with low wages.
This is a method of getting people into the workforce and subsidizing the little value they can return in this sort of environment.
Of course, as the economy improves the value they can deliver will rise. This is why software developers, doctors and many others don't get paid minimum wage - there is labor market demand that drives up their salaries. This is also why 98.7% of Swiss full-time workers make more than $37,000 a year - despite there being no minimum wage in Switzerland.
People are worth more in a successful economy.
In the modern American economy, employers can't band together to force down wages on employees. There is robust competition between employers and industries for talent. A few months ago, this meant that only 2% of workers earned minimum wage. A robust economy drove up wages. We don't have a robust economy, so instead of minimum wage we'll just see mass persistent unemployment.
I'd prefer to cleanly and simply subsidize the working poor than put them out of work.
The Road To A Post-Corona Boom - Part 1
He couldn't work because we have a benefits system that 1) threatened his subsistence if he earned a living and 2) required him to be worth more than the value he could deliver.
This is about addressing those issues.
The Road To A Post-Corona Boom - Part 1
I'm actually not a Republican.
I'm not sure where the trickle down is here. The typical trickle down description seems to be very low tax rates and just drive lots of high-income which results in more demand lower down the curve. I'm not sure how that labeling applies here. After all, this is quite a high tax rate and it is also progressive.
Most importantly for me, this not only makes it easier for Betty to have a business, it also has an extensive income support system. I'm pretty sure that isn't typical supply side Republicanism.
The label just seems kind of irrelevant.
If I were to characterize left and right, right would be focused on enlarging the pie and left on making sure everybody has enough of it: Creation vs. Absence of Want/Fear.
This approach is about addressing both. But creation for me isn't some big supply side thing - it comes down to regular people having fulfilling and productive jobs. And the absence of fear isn't about just collecting a guaranteed income - the lack of work rots people (just look at studies on early retirement and early death).
Do I care about supply? Of course. Money without supply is just paper. But I also care about demand - not as a driver of economics but as a reality: people have needs and society ought to help meet them.
I am not interested in making sure people have money, if they have nothing to spend it on.
There are lots of examples of that particular catastrophe.
For me, you ought to aim somewhere in the middle: finding a way to support both creation and the absence of want/fear.
The Road To A Post-Corona Boom - Part 1
A friend wrote: "Read the article on TalkMarkets. It is a good idea. You write “spending could be classified as business spending. In these cases, taxes on spending would be refunded.” In this case what we have is a VAT, Value added Tax. This doesn’t change the idea, I just think it is a more accurate description.
One downside is that people currently consider what they spend their money on private. This would force you to show everything you buy to the government.
The argument could be made that the government could find this data by looking at credit cards and bank statements but currently they need to search it is not handed to them. The other issue is the burden of retaining and dealing with all the paperwork for those that don’t have a credit card although I suppose that using debit cards would handle that."
I responded:
A VAT requires a connection in the goods used. It doesn't apply to salaries for example (or replace related taxes). It also requires collection by the business. It is an enormous filling and paperwork burden.They figure out value add but in a very intensive way. This is just cash flow add, which is far simpler. You just have to follow cash, not goods. And you don't need to link inputs and outputs.
The government would only need to be able to see details in an audit. Otherwise all they need is amounts, vendors and dates, not identification of what was purchased.
I am imagining reporting paperwork only being needed for:
1) Non-electronic spending on which you want a subsidy (need evidence so you can collect it)
2) Non-electronic revenue (so you can pay tax on it)
3) Spending you want to classify as business spending (so you can justify it). I'd also add charitable spending to the non-taxable category, and it would also attract audits.
Everything but category 3 would just need meta-data - who from, who to, amount, date/time.
A debit card could handle it. And, for people who are 'unbankable' there could be a government sponsored account that allows no overages etc... but is only used for this purpose.
The Road To A Post-Corona Boom - Part 1
@[Gary Anderson](user:4798) @[Danny Straus](user:5566) @[Flat Broke](user:29387) @[Angry Old Lady](user:7657) @[Joe Black](user:4869) @[Craig Newman](user:7650) I did a video about this https://youtu.be/xTt4nrndUw0