Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Welcome to tonight’s PB NightHawks

SystemSystem Posts: 8,258
edited May 21 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Welcome to tonight’s PB NightHawks

The big betting move in the last few hours has been on Amy Klobuchar who is to be vetted by the Biden campaign as a possible VP. I’m not sure how significant this is because there have been reports of other potential VP choices also being examined.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 13,040
    First?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 13,040
    Well that was a spot of luck - just logged in to see a brand new thread!
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 26,149
    Second
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462
    Fourth like the Lib Dems (GB ONLY)
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 2,939
    The market is seriously overreacting to the Klobuchar news, and I say that as someone who thinks she should probably be joint favourite on the fundamentals anyway. But her being vetted/shortlisted should really have been priced in: Was it every likely that she wouldn't be? Harris almost certainly is/will be too.
  • I lost count, like Johnson's children
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 5,098

    Fourth like the Lib Dems (GB ONLY)

    GB? Not in Scotland they're not ...
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462
    Carnyx said:

    Fourth like the Lib Dems (GB ONLY)

    GB? Not in Scotland they're not ...
    Across GB, as in excluding Northern Ireland.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 1,914

    I lost count, like Johnson's children

    Oh you are funny.. get a life...
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 19,837

    I lost count, like Johnson's children

    Oh you are funny.. get a life...
    If only he had a life he could be on an obscure forum at 10pm on a Thursday evening telling folk to get a life.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 21,316
    My bet is on Harris, but I did take out some insurance in Klobuchar back when the ‘case for Klob’ thread was posted.
  • I lost count, like Johnson's children

    Oh you are funny.. get a life...
    Thank you anonymous Internet commentor, who spends their days on an Internet forum.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 21,316

    I lost count, like Johnson's children

    We know that Johnson shows every sign of being innumerate, but I think you’re just guessing about his kids’ mathematical ability....


  • I'm glad the U-turn is being reported as such. This is how credibility in Government starts to fall, now we have a competent opposition ready to take advantage of it.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 5,098

    Carnyx said:

    Fourth like the Lib Dems (GB ONLY)

    GB? Not in Scotland they're not ...
    Across GB, as in excluding Northern Ireland.
    Scottish Pmt.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 21,316
    Mongolia was more proactive than eadric....

    COVID Underdogs: Mongolia
    The best COVID-19 response in the world

    https://medium.com/@indica/covid-underdogs-mongolia-3b0c162427c2
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 2,939
    Quincel said:

    The market is seriously overreacting to the Klobuchar news, and I say that as someone who thinks she should probably be joint favourite on the fundamentals anyway. But her being vetted/shortlisted should really have been priced in: Was it every likely that she wouldn't be? Harris almost certainly is/will be too.

    Hmm, I see Harris is back to the 3ish she was this morning. Which saddens me, but is a better reaction.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 1,342

    I lost count, like Johnson's children

    That's meant to be some sort of cutting remark? Boris has produced more children than the Labour Party has had Prime Ministers!

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 30,904
    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    I posted a while ago (before my account reset for some reason) about Gupta's paper and her interview in the FT. I wasn't impressed, particularly with her interview that drew conclusions way beyond the science.

    I'm similarly unimpressed by her intervention today. As Foxy already pointed out, it's a nonsense to claim that the IFR might be as long as 1/10000 unless she thinks that most confirmed coronavirus deaths were misattributed. Futhermore, the abstract of her paper made a big deal of the need for serological studies (the one thing it got right was to show how one could infer a distribution for the date-of-arrival of the virus once we know the cumulative number of infections). But today she says that serological studies are unreliable and shouldn't be used.

    I do not like to pile on academics. Their expertise deserves respect. I think much of the criticism of Ferguson was unfair. I don't know whether there's a new paper (if anyone has a link, please send it to me and I will review) justifying today's assertions, but absent some powerful evidence I think Gupta is doing scientists a disservice and should stop with the unfounded policy interventions.

    --AS

    I think epidemics tend to burn out after 3-4 months, even without immunity.

    Take for example the Spanish Flu. There were 3 waves, but even then it is estimated that 30-40% caught it across all the waves. Avoidance, whether intentional or not, protects quite a few folk. The same is true for cholera outbreaks in Victorian London.

    10-15% immunity and the wave being nearly over is not incompatible.
    I don't know about cholera, but in the case of Spanish Flu isn't it just because it isn't that infectious? I recall flu has an R0 of around 1.5-1.8, so 30-40% of the population gets to herd immunity.

    I'm really not sold on the idea that epidemics tend to burn out, without there being a mechanism -- herd immunity, the effect of climate and season, eradication, widespread natural or cross-immunity (which is herd immunity by another route) -- that we can point to.

    The thing is, I don't object to her claim that there *might* be widespread natural immunity. However there is no evidence, and her argument of parsimony is extremely weak. To advocate policy on the basis of something that is conceivable but unevidenced, and which if wrong will kill people, is really irresponsible in my view.

    --AS
    I think there is some evidence that herd immunity will be reached before 60% infection.

    1. The difference in infection rates in China for people with blood type O and A suggests that the pool of uninfected people will be increasingly O, and therefore slightly harder to infect.

    2. There seems to be some evidence that people who had recently had coronavirus variants of the common cold have additional immunity.

    Put them together, and it may be that the most infectable (sorry, ugly, unreal word) have seen more incidence.

    This would point to herd immunity being 45-50%, mind, not 15%.
    The difference in susceptibility between blood groups was statistically significant, meaning simply that it was 95% unlikely not to be due to random error. But it wasn’t what anyone would call mathematically significant.
    I thought the numbers were quite a lot bigger than that, as in of c. 10,000 cases 35% of people were blood type A, compared with 30% of the population, and for blood type O it was 25% vs 30%.

    Now it might be random chance. Or it might be those hold. If they do, then at the broadest level then 35 and 25 (assuming equal population sizes) means people with A type blood (like me) are 40% more likely to have caught the virus and had symptoms.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 53,926
    He who sups with Facebook should use a long spoon.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 11,343
    It has taken me a little while to figure it out, but the U turn is a dead cat to distract from Bozo's bonking.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 53,926

    I lost count, like Johnson's children

    That's meant to be some sort of cutting remark? Boris has produced more children than the Labour Party has had Prime Ministers!

    I hope he is kinder to his kids than Labour is to several of its ex-PMs.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 53,926

    It has taken me a little while to figure it out, but the U turn is a dead cat to distract from Bozo's bonking.

    If a dead cat is needed to distract from that it'll be raining dead cats for the next 4 years.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 53,926
    He's probably just happy people won't be throwing away money betting on him to be next Labour leader anymore.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 810
    kle4 said:

    It has taken me a little while to figure it out, but the U turn is a dead cat to distract from Bozo's bonking.

    If a dead cat is needed to distract from that it'll be raining dead cats for the next 4 years.
    I really hope not :worried:
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 32,964
    kle4 said:

    He's probably just happy people won't be throwing away money betting on him to be next Labour leader anymore.
    4.1 on BF !!!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 53,926
    Nigelb said:

    Mongolia was more proactive than eadric....

    COVID Underdogs: Mongolia
    The best COVID-19 response in the world

    https://medium.com/@indica/covid-underdogs-mongolia-3b0c162427c2

    Least densely populated country on earth (though as it notes that in itself is not key)
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 1,599
    For anybody who cant sleep tonight, its the final Debate to pick the Libertarian Party presidential candidate.

    Justin Amash has pulled out, which I think is a pity. but may still be some interest or Political 'junkys'

  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 1,914

    I lost count, like Johnson's children

    Oh you are funny.. get a life...
    If only he had a life he could be on an obscure forum at 10pm on a Thursday evening telling folk to get a life.
    You have no idea what my life entails .. a cheap jibe of yours anf anequivalent to CHB's.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 30,904
    BigRich said:

    For anybody who cant sleep tonight, its the final Debate to pick the Libertarian Party presidential candidate.

    Justin Amash has pulled out, which I think is a pity. but may still be some interest or Political 'junkys'

    Is John McAfee running?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 30,904
    @BigRich - have you read "The Forgotten Depression: The Crash That Cured Itself" by Jim Grant?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 32,640
    rcs1000 said:

    BigRich said:

    For anybody who cant sleep tonight, its the final Debate to pick the Libertarian Party presidential candidate.

    Justin Amash has pulled out, which I think is a pity. but may still be some interest or Political 'junkys'

    Is John McAfee running?
    He's on the run.
  • I lost count, like Johnson's children

    Oh you are funny.. get a life...
    If only he had a life he could be on an obscure forum at 10pm on a Thursday evening telling folk to get a life.
    You have no idea what my life entails .. a cheap jibe of yours anf anequivalent to CHB's.
    You give but you can't take it. Par for the course.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 1,914

    I lost count, like Johnson's children

    Oh you are funny.. get a life...
    If only he had a life he could be on an obscure forum at 10pm on a Thursday evening telling folk to get a life.
    You have no idea what my life entails .. a cheap jibe of yours anf anequivalent to CHB's.
    You give but you can't take it. Par for the course.

    If you dont want your unwarranted personal attacks to be pointed out you should stick to.policy.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 1,599
    rcs1000 said:

    BigRich said:

    For anybody who cant sleep tonight, its the final Debate to pick the Libertarian Party presidential candidate.

    Justin Amash has pulled out, which I think is a pity. but may still be some interest or Political 'junkys'

    Is John McAfee running?
    I think he was, don't know if he is still in, but I don't think he will get the Nomination
  • I lost count, like Johnson's children

    Oh you are funny.. get a life...
    If only he had a life he could be on an obscure forum at 10pm on a Thursday evening telling folk to get a life.
    You have no idea what my life entails .. a cheap jibe of yours anf anequivalent to CHB's.
    You give but you can't take it. Par for the course.

    If you dont want your unwarranted personal attacks to be pointed out you should stick to.policy.
    You point out as much as you wish, I will do the same for you.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 23,232
    If there is a U-turn turn then credit to @Scott_xP who has been pushing this all day.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 32,964
    Rolls Royce job losses lead East Mids news.

    How long before the economic disaster leads every night over the dwindling virus deaths and clapping, as we move to the next stage?
  • I don't even think Sunak thinks we will be having a bounce back anymore. What say PB Tories?
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 1,599
    rcs1000 said:

    @BigRich - have you read "The Forgotten Depression: The Crash That Cured Itself" by Jim Grant?

    I haven't read it, I may be confusing it with something else, but I think I sore a lecher by the auther,was that about the 'non' depredation of 1921?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 21,316
    BigRich said:

    For anybody who cant sleep tonight, its the final Debate to pick the Libertarian Party presidential candidate.

    Justin Amash has pulled out, which I think is a pity. but may still be some interest or Political 'junkys'

    Surely as Libertarians they should just let them all run ?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 19,837

    I lost count, like Johnson's children

    Oh you are funny.. get a life...
    If only he had a life he could be on an obscure forum at 10pm on a Thursday evening telling folk to get a life.
    You have no idea what my life entails .. a cheap jibe of yours anf anequivalent to CHB's.
    It's true, I can only judge you on the sour, barely literate guff you discharge on here, but that's the deal sport.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 13,040

    I lost count, like Johnson's children

    Oh you are funny.. get a life...
    If only he had a life he could be on an obscure forum at 10pm on a Thursday evening telling folk to get a life.
    You have no idea what my life entails .. a cheap jibe of yours anf anequivalent to CHB's.
    Clearly your life isn't troubled by much of a sense of humour :wink:
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 2,222

    I don't even think Sunak thinks we will be having a bounce back anymore. What say PB Tories?

    The economy is royally screwed. I've been saying all along I expect unemployment to top out at around 6m. Annual GDP decline will be in double digits.

    But it's not a party political thing. I struggle to think what Labour or the Lib Dems would have done differently to avoid this.

    I've said several times I wouldn't have had a lockdown (beyond a brief temporary one to build NHS capacity) and would have followed the Swedish model.

    But even countries that remained open will suffer from this staggering global recession, as well as people's reticence to go out (Sweden's model relies on people voluntarily having less contact).

    So I think it's odd you're trying to make this a party political thing. Not everything in life is about party politics.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 1,599
    Nigelb said:

    BigRich said:

    For anybody who cant sleep tonight, its the final Debate to pick the Libertarian Party presidential candidate.

    Justin Amash has pulled out, which I think is a pity. but may still be some interest or Political 'junkys'

    Surely as Libertarians they should just let them all run ?
    I would love it if there wehre multipal libertarians on the ballot!!!

    sadly ballot access Laws don;t alaw it, :(
  • kyf_100 said:

    I don't even think Sunak thinks we will be having a bounce back anymore. What say PB Tories?

    The economy is royally screwed. I've been saying all along I expect unemployment to top out at around 6m. Annual GDP decline will be in double digits.

    But it's not a party political thing. I struggle to think what Labour or the Lib Dems would have done differently to avoid this.

    I've said several times I wouldn't have had a lockdown (beyond a brief temporary one to build NHS capacity) and would have followed the Swedish model.

    But even countries that remained open will suffer from this staggering global recession, as well as people's reticence to go out (Sweden's model relies on people voluntarily having less contact).

    So I think it's odd you're trying to make this a party political thing. Not everything in life is about party politics.
    No I just wondered if the Tories here were in agreement or not.

    Welcome the views of others, thanks for your input.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462

    I don't even think Sunak thinks we will be having a bounce back anymore. What say PB Tories?

    I think we'll have a bounce back next year.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 21,316
    Newsnight taking the piss about “world beating”.

    Not without justification.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 3,497

    I don't even think Sunak thinks we will be having a bounce back anymore. What say PB Tories?

    I think we'll have a bounce back next year.
    Delusional, but I hope you are right.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 21,316
    Mount Everest is Visible From Kathmandu, Nepal for First Time in Living Memory
    https://snowbrains.com/everest-visible-kathmandu-nepal-first-time/
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 1,599
    kyf_100 said:

    I don't even think Sunak thinks we will be having a bounce back anymore. What say PB Tories?

    The economy is royally screwed. I've been saying all along I expect unemployment to top out at around 6m. Annual GDP decline will be in double digits.

    But it's not a party political thing. I struggle to think what Labour or the Lib Dems would have done differently to avoid this.

    I've said several times I wouldn't have had a lockdown (beyond a brief temporary one to build NHS capacity) and would have followed the Swedish model.

    But even countries that remained open will suffer from this staggering global recession, as well as people's reticence to go out (Sweden's model relies on people voluntarily having less contact).

    So I think it's odd you're trying to make this a party political thing. Not everything in life is about party politics.
    I'm with you on 90% of that, sadly, ones a government program is started it is much harder to stop no matter how bad or counter productive it is.

    We could and should just open everything now, most people will still stay in and there is very unlikely to be second wave bigger than the NHS can handal. and if there is going to be a second wave when we reopen, then that would come anyway at whatever point we re-open so unless we are prepared to wait till a vacine is developed, then we might as well have it now and get it over with, rater than courses more harm to the economy with the delay.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462

    I don't even think Sunak thinks we will be having a bounce back anymore. What say PB Tories?

    I think we'll have a bounce back next year.
    Delusional, but I hope you are right.
    Even dead cats bounce.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 19,837
    It's wearying going over Trump's daily stream of stupidity, but the pleased, self-satisfied expression on his face as he poops this stuff out is special.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 30,904
    BigRich said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @BigRich - have you read "The Forgotten Depression: The Crash That Cured Itself" by Jim Grant?

    I haven't read it, I may be confusing it with something else, but I think I sore a lecher by the auther,was that about the 'non' depredation of 1921?
    That'll be the one.

    Basically, his point is that government intervention usually has two consequences: (1) it furthers long term income and capital inequality by protecting the owners of capital, and (2) it usually makes recovery longer than shorter.

    The key, of course, is that a crash (like the one we've had) doesn't actually actually affect the productive power of the economy. It might mean you lose the time, money and hard work you sunk into your business. But - to take the example of a restaraunt - it has not made the tables, chairs, cookers, pots and pans disappear.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 13,040
    Just checked my surname (not Pointer) in the Oxford Dictionary of Family Names which has been offering free access for the past week apparently...

    ...and lo and behold it's a Norman name with an earliest known holder of the name born in the year 1000.

    So my family probably goes back further than @Charles's lol!

    Anyway it's an interesting resource - I have a feeling it may only be free access until midnight today though.

    https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199677764.001.0001/acref-9780199677764
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 16,930

    I don't even think Sunak thinks we will be having a bounce back anymore. What say PB Tories?

    I think we'll have a bounce back next year.
    A key factor will be how much structural change there is of the economy and society in general.

    That is whether we return to the economic systems of last year or whether more fundamental changes, wfh for example, become permanent.

    The more and deeper the fundamental changes then the greater the number of people who will be significantly affected either positively or negatively.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,069
    Nigelb said:

    Newsnight taking the piss about “world beating”.

    Not without justification.

    The whole concept is a bit weird, why do we expect to be world beating at contract tracing?

    Countries that have better technology and/or more authoritarian surveillance have an in built advantage. UAE and Singapore probably hit the sweet spots for expected world leaders here.

    We need to get used to doing things that are right for us, not expecting to be the best at everything (or randomly proclaiming to be the best).
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 19,837
    Nigelb said:

    Mount Everest is Visible From Kathmandu, Nepal for First Time in Living Memory
    https://snowbrains.com/everest-visible-kathmandu-nepal-first-time/

    They'll soon be able to see Hartlepool from London.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 1,599

    I don't even think Sunak thinks we will be having a bounce back anymore. What say PB Tories?

    With a massive about of deregulation, the economy 'could' bounce back very quickly, sadly I don't see that happening.

    While Jonson himself might understand the power of free enterprise, in the currant atmofire I don't think he could be seen to get rid of the minimum wage for example.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462
    BigRich said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I don't even think Sunak thinks we will be having a bounce back anymore. What say PB Tories?

    The economy is royally screwed. I've been saying all along I expect unemployment to top out at around 6m. Annual GDP decline will be in double digits.

    But it's not a party political thing. I struggle to think what Labour or the Lib Dems would have done differently to avoid this.

    I've said several times I wouldn't have had a lockdown (beyond a brief temporary one to build NHS capacity) and would have followed the Swedish model.

    But even countries that remained open will suffer from this staggering global recession, as well as people's reticence to go out (Sweden's model relies on people voluntarily having less contact).

    So I think it's odd you're trying to make this a party political thing. Not everything in life is about party politics.
    I'm with you on 90% of that, sadly, ones a government program is started it is much harder to stop no matter how bad or counter productive it is.

    We could and should just open everything now, most people will still stay in and there is very unlikely to be second wave bigger than the NHS can handal. and if there is going to be a second wave when we reopen, then that would come anyway at whatever point we re-open so unless we are prepared to wait till a vacine is developed, then we might as well have it now and get it over with, rater than courses more harm to the economy with the delay.
    If everything was open now and everyone was staying in then the economy would go bust quicker. Hospitality etc would be devastated with even healthy businesses that had paid lots of taxes going bust as their business evaporates.

    The second wave won't happen if we squash base load of cases to a low amount and keep R low and have containment policies.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 3,497

    I don't even think Sunak thinks we will be having a bounce back anymore. What say PB Tories?

    I think we'll have a bounce back next year.
    Delusional, but I hope you are right.
    Even dead cats bounce.
    I suppose it all depends on how you define 'bounce back'.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 53,926

    It's wearying going over Trump's daily stream of stupidity, but the pleased, self-satisfied expression on his face as he poops this stuff out is special.

    He could have been the greatest performance artist of our time but got distracted by actually gaining power.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462
    rcs1000 said:

    BigRich said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @BigRich - have you read "The Forgotten Depression: The Crash That Cured Itself" by Jim Grant?

    I haven't read it, I may be confusing it with something else, but I think I sore a lecher by the auther,was that about the 'non' depredation of 1921?
    That'll be the one.

    Basically, his point is that government intervention usually has two consequences: (1) it furthers long term income and capital inequality by protecting the owners of capital, and (2) it usually makes recovery longer than shorter.

    The key, of course, is that a crash (like the one we've had) doesn't actually actually affect the productive power of the economy. It might mean you lose the time, money and hard work you sunk into your business. But - to take the example of a restaraunt - it has not made the tables, chairs, cookers, pots and pans disappear.
    It does if the property is vandalised while vacant.
  • tysontyson Posts: 5,976

    I don't even think Sunak thinks we will be having a bounce back anymore. What say PB Tories?

    Why the fuck would you want to ask pbTories anything? I get more sense out of my dog.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 32,964

    Nigelb said:

    Newsnight taking the piss about “world beating”.

    Not without justification.

    The whole concept is a bit weird, why do we expect to be world beating at contract tracing?

    Countries that have better technology and/or more authoritarian surveillance have an in built advantage. UAE and Singapore probably hit the sweet spots for expected world leaders here.

    We need to get used to doing things that are right for us, not expecting to be the best at everything (or randomly proclaiming to be the best).
    British bluster born on the playing fields of Eton is about to meet the harsh reality of life as a middle power, outside the EU, fighting an economic depression and hopelessly lost in nostalgia.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 1,342
    tyson said:

    I don't even think Sunak thinks we will be having a bounce back anymore. What say PB Tories?

    Why the fuck would you want to ask pbTories anything? I get more sense out of my dog.
    You get more what out of your dog? Oh, you said 'sense'. Never mind.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 1,599
    rcs1000 said:

    BigRich said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @BigRich - have you read "The Forgotten Depression: The Crash That Cured Itself" by Jim Grant?

    I haven't read it, I may be confusing it with something else, but I think I sore a lecher by the auther,was that about the 'non' depredation of 1921?
    That'll be the one.

    Basically, his point is that government intervention usually has two consequences: (1) it furthers long term income and capital inequality by protecting the owners of capital, and (2) it usually makes recovery longer than shorter.

    The key, of course, is that a crash (like the one we've had) doesn't actually actually affect the productive power of the economy. It might mean you lose the time, money and hard work you sunk into your business. But - to take the example of a restaraunt - it has not made the tables, chairs, cookers, pots and pans disappear.
    I entirely agree with the auther, and the example of the 1921 non depretion is a great example,

    don't forget that with the depreshion of 1929, unemployment first peaked at less than 10% and then whan down a lot I think to about 6% before the government got heavenly involved and it what back up and stayed at over 10% for a decade.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462

    I don't even think Sunak thinks we will be having a bounce back anymore. What say PB Tories?

    I think we'll have a bounce back next year.
    A key factor will be how much structural change there is of the economy and society in general.

    That is whether we return to the economic systems of last year or whether more fundamental changes, wfh for example, become permanent.

    The more and deeper the fundamental changes then the greater the number of people who will be significantly affected either positively or negatively.
    Some structural changes could be a very good thing. Necessity is the mother of invention as they say and a boost to making the economy more efficient would not be a bad thing.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 1,599
    rcs1000 said:

    BigRich said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @BigRich - have you read "The Forgotten Depression: The Crash That Cured Itself" by Jim Grant?

    I haven't read it, I may be confusing it with something else, but I think I sore a lecher by the auther,was that about the 'non' depredation of 1921?
    That'll be the one.

    Basically, his point is that government intervention usually has two consequences: (1) it furthers long term income and capital inequality by protecting the owners of capital, and (2) it usually makes recovery longer than shorter.

    The key, of course, is that a crash (like the one we've had) doesn't actually actually affect the productive power of the economy. It might mean you lose the time, money and hard work you sunk into your business. But - to take the example of a restaraunt - it has not made the tables, chairs, cookers, pots and pans disappear.
    Just cureose, where/when did you hear about the book?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 25,758
    rcs1000 said:

    ...
    The key, of course, is that a crash (like the one we've had) doesn't actually actually affect the productive power of the economy. It might mean you lose the time, money and hard work you sunk into your business. But - to take the example of a restaraunt - it has not made the tables, chairs, cookers, pots and pans disappear.

    Hmm, not so sure about that one. Those tables, chairs, cookers etc are likely to be sold off (i.e. dispersed) or scrapped completely, as will many aeroplanes for example. Many sectors rely on an entire ecosystem of support services and supply chains, built up over years or in some cases decades. Once those get disrupted they are gone.

    The point here is that this is not like a normal recession, where you get a proportion of the weaker players in a given sector going out of business or being taken over by stronger rivals at a knockdown price; it's whole sectors - healthy, profitable sectors until the shutters came down on them virtually overnight - being clobbered.

    It seems to me that the financial markets and pundits are underestimating the scale of the disaster. It's going to be a long, slow crawl out of this.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 1,599

    BigRich said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I don't even think Sunak thinks we will be having a bounce back anymore. What say PB Tories?

    The economy is royally screwed. I've been saying all along I expect unemployment to top out at around 6m. Annual GDP decline will be in double digits.

    But it's not a party political thing. I struggle to think what Labour or the Lib Dems would have done differently to avoid this.

    I've said several times I wouldn't have had a lockdown (beyond a brief temporary one to build NHS capacity) and would have followed the Swedish model.

    But even countries that remained open will suffer from this staggering global recession, as well as people's reticence to go out (Sweden's model relies on people voluntarily having less contact).

    So I think it's odd you're trying to make this a party political thing. Not everything in life is about party politics.
    I'm with you on 90% of that, sadly, ones a government program is started it is much harder to stop no matter how bad or counter productive it is.

    We could and should just open everything now, most people will still stay in and there is very unlikely to be second wave bigger than the NHS can handal. and if there is going to be a second wave when we reopen, then that would come anyway at whatever point we re-open so unless we are prepared to wait till a vacine is developed, then we might as well have it now and get it over with, rater than courses more harm to the economy with the delay.
    If everything was open now and everyone was staying in then the economy would go bust quicker. Hospitality etc would be devastated with even healthy businesses that had paid lots of taxes going bust as their business evaporates.

    The second wave won't happen if we squash base load of cases to a low amount and keep R low and have containment policies.
    So haw do we keep R low, when we eventually open up?
  • tysontyson Posts: 5,976

    tyson said:

    I don't even think Sunak thinks we will be having a bounce back anymore. What say PB Tories?

    Why the fuck would you want to ask pbTories anything? I get more sense out of my dog.
    You get more what out of your dog? Oh, you said 'sense'. Never mind.
    And out of the blue...steps out the bluest of the blue....

    I think if you combined the collective brain cells of our pbCOM Tories...they out rival themselves on their gross stupidity and fuckwittery...and eulogies to all things Boris and Brexit....if you combined their brain cells and multiplied by 10..I still don't think you'd arrive at anything sensible...
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 14,537

    rcs1000 said:

    ...
    The key, of course, is that a crash (like the one we've had) doesn't actually actually affect the productive power of the economy. It might mean you lose the time, money and hard work you sunk into your business. But - to take the example of a restaraunt - it has not made the tables, chairs, cookers, pots and pans disappear.

    Hmm, not so sure about that one. Those tables, chairs, cookers etc are likely to be sold off (i.e. dispersed) or scrapped completely, as will many aeroplanes for example. Many sectors rely on an entire ecosystem of support services and supply chains, built up over years or in some cases decades. Once those get disrupted they are gone.

    The point here is that this is not like a normal recession, where you get a proportion of the weaker players in a given sector going out of business or being taken over by stronger rivals at a knockdown price; it's whole sectors - healthy, profitable sectors until the shutters came down on them virtually overnight - being clobbered.

    It seems to me that the financial markets and pundits are underestimating the scale of the disaster. It's going to be a long, slow crawl out of this.
    Makes the financial crisis look like a picnic.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462

    rcs1000 said:

    ...
    The key, of course, is that a crash (like the one we've had) doesn't actually actually affect the productive power of the economy. It might mean you lose the time, money and hard work you sunk into your business. But - to take the example of a restaraunt - it has not made the tables, chairs, cookers, pots and pans disappear.

    Hmm, not so sure about that one. Those tables, chairs, cookers etc are likely to be sold off (i.e. dispersed) or scrapped completely, as will many aeroplanes for example. Many sectors rely on an entire ecosystem of support services and supply chains, built up over years or in some cases decades. Once those get disrupted they are gone.

    The point here is that this is not like a normal recession, where you get a proportion of the weaker players in a given sector going out of business or being taken over by stronger rivals at a knockdown price; it's whole sectors - healthy, profitable sectors until the shutters came down on them virtually overnight - being clobbered.

    It seems to me that the financial markets and pundits are underestimating the scale of the disaster. It's going to be a long, slow crawl out of this.
    I agree. In normal circumstances I think if companies go bust or people lose their jobs then so be it. Dust yourself down and look for something new. But that's when its unhealthy businesses failing etc

    I think the furlough scheme is a reasonable compromise that will help us get through this relatively intact. The weak businesses will collapse still like in any recession (but perhaps with a bit more of a notice period) but the healthy ones should be able to get out of this intact, and allow the industry to keep going. The healthy ones may even be able to pick up some of what has gone bust elsewhere to expand and get productivity going up.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462
    BigRich said:

    BigRich said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I don't even think Sunak thinks we will be having a bounce back anymore. What say PB Tories?

    The economy is royally screwed. I've been saying all along I expect unemployment to top out at around 6m. Annual GDP decline will be in double digits.

    But it's not a party political thing. I struggle to think what Labour or the Lib Dems would have done differently to avoid this.

    I've said several times I wouldn't have had a lockdown (beyond a brief temporary one to build NHS capacity) and would have followed the Swedish model.

    But even countries that remained open will suffer from this staggering global recession, as well as people's reticence to go out (Sweden's model relies on people voluntarily having less contact).

    So I think it's odd you're trying to make this a party political thing. Not everything in life is about party politics.
    I'm with you on 90% of that, sadly, ones a government program is started it is much harder to stop no matter how bad or counter productive it is.

    We could and should just open everything now, most people will still stay in and there is very unlikely to be second wave bigger than the NHS can handal. and if there is going to be a second wave when we reopen, then that would come anyway at whatever point we re-open so unless we are prepared to wait till a vacine is developed, then we might as well have it now and get it over with, rater than courses more harm to the economy with the delay.
    If everything was open now and everyone was staying in then the economy would go bust quicker. Hospitality etc would be devastated with even healthy businesses that had paid lots of taxes going bust as their business evaporates.

    The second wave won't happen if we squash base load of cases to a low amount and keep R low and have containment policies.
    So haw do we keep R low, when we eventually open up?
    Washing our hands. Rapid testing, tracing and isolating of the positive so they don't go on to infect people.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 898

    Just checked my surname (not Pointer) in the Oxford Dictionary of Family Names which has been offering free access for the past week apparently...

    ...and lo and behold it's a Norman name with an earliest known holder of the name born in the year 1000.

    So my family probably goes back further than @Charles's lol!

    Anyway it's an interesting resource - I have a feeling it may only be free access until midnight today though.

    https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199677764.001.0001/acref-9780199677764

    Doesn't have my [Irish] surname, which is disappointing.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 25,758
    edited May 21
    Jonathan said:


    Makes the financial crisis look like a picnic.

    It's comparable to the domino-effect disaster which the financial crisis would have become if the Brown/Darling government hadn't rescued the creditors of the banks, albeit not quite so extreme (because at least some sectors in the current crisis are relatively or entirely unaffected). But it's worse that what the financial crisis was with that rescue, and I don't think there's anything much the government can do* beyond what it is already doing, which is only short-term support.

    * Well of course there is one thing they could do to help things somewhat, but this government of ultra-Brexit loons won't do it.
  • tysontyson Posts: 5,976

    rcs1000 said:

    ...
    The key, of course, is that a crash (like the one we've had) doesn't actually actually affect the productive power of the economy. It might mean you lose the time, money and hard work you sunk into your business. But - to take the example of a restaraunt - it has not made the tables, chairs, cookers, pots and pans disappear.

    Hmm, not so sure about that one. Those tables, chairs, cookers etc are likely to be sold off (i.e. dispersed) or scrapped completely, as will many aeroplanes for example. Many sectors rely on an entire ecosystem of support services and supply chains, built up over years or in some cases decades. Once those get disrupted they are gone.

    The point here is that this is not like a normal recession, where you get a proportion of the weaker players in a given sector going out of business or being taken over by stronger rivals at a knockdown price; it's whole sectors - healthy, profitable sectors until the shutters came down on them virtually overnight - being clobbered.

    It seems to me that the financial markets and pundits are underestimating the scale of the disaster. It's going to be a long, slow crawl out of this.
    The financial markets and the real economy often go out of kilter.....

    The financial markets are doing well because there is a shed load of cash sloshing around and no good options. And it is populated by short term speculators.

    But....the real economy is fucked....really fucked...properly fucked everywhere, globally....this is not the financial crash, this is not even a world war where industry could mobilise....this is unlike anything that we have ever seen. It's a slow strangulation....or slow crawl....the same
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462

    Jonathan said:


    Makes the financial crisis look like a picnic.

    It's comparable to the domino-effect disaster which the financial crisis would have become if the Brown/Darling government hadn't rescued the creditors of the banks, albeit not quite so extreme (because at least some sectors in the current crisis are relatively or entirely unaffected). But it's worse that what the financial crisis was with that rescue, and I don't think there's anything much the government can do* beyond what it is already doing, which is only short-term support.

    * Well of course there is one thing they could do to help things somewhat, but this government of ultra-Brexit loons won't do it.
    What's the one thing we could do?

    I don't see how Brexit is relevant except thankfully the transition will end so we're not on the hook for bailing out the continent as well as fixing our own problems.
  • tysontyson Posts: 5,976

    BigRich said:

    BigRich said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I don't even think Sunak thinks we will be having a bounce back anymore. What say PB Tories?

    The economy is royally screwed. I've been saying all along I expect unemployment to top out at around 6m. Annual GDP decline will be in double digits.

    But it's not a party political thing. I struggle to think what Labour or the Lib Dems would have done differently to avoid this.

    I've said several times I wouldn't have had a lockdown (beyond a brief temporary one to build NHS capacity) and would have followed the Swedish model.

    But even countries that remained open will suffer from this staggering global recession, as well as people's reticence to go out (Sweden's model relies on people voluntarily having less contact).

    So I think it's odd you're trying to make this a party political thing. Not everything in life is about party politics.
    I'm with you on 90% of that, sadly, ones a government program is started it is much harder to stop no matter how bad or counter productive it is.

    We could and should just open everything now, most people will still stay in and there is very unlikely to be second wave bigger than the NHS can handal. and if there is going to be a second wave when we reopen, then that would come anyway at whatever point we re-open so unless we are prepared to wait till a vacine is developed, then we might as well have it now and get it over with, rater than courses more harm to the economy with the delay.
    If everything was open now and everyone was staying in then the economy would go bust quicker. Hospitality etc would be devastated with even healthy businesses that had paid lots of taxes going bust as their business evaporates.

    The second wave won't happen if we squash base load of cases to a low amount and keep R low and have containment policies.
    So haw do we keep R low, when we eventually open up?
    Washing our hands. Rapid testing, tracing and isolating of the positive so they don't go on to infect people.
    Believe in Boris comrade...rejoice at the fountain of the Boris...stay alert and we'll vanquish this disease
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 1,599

    BigRich said:

    BigRich said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I don't even think Sunak thinks we will be having a bounce back anymore. What say PB Tories?

    The economy is royally screwed. I've been saying all along I expect unemployment to top out at around 6m. Annual GDP decline will be in double digits.

    But it's not a party political thing. I struggle to think what Labour or the Lib Dems would have done differently to avoid this.

    I've said several times I wouldn't have had a lockdown (beyond a brief temporary one to build NHS capacity) and would have followed the Swedish model.

    But even countries that remained open will suffer from this staggering global recession, as well as people's reticence to go out (Sweden's model relies on people voluntarily having less contact).

    So I think it's odd you're trying to make this a party political thing. Not everything in life is about party politics.
    I'm with you on 90% of that, sadly, ones a government program is started it is much harder to stop no matter how bad or counter productive it is.

    We could and should just open everything now, most people will still stay in and there is very unlikely to be second wave bigger than the NHS can handal. and if there is going to be a second wave when we reopen, then that would come anyway at whatever point we re-open so unless we are prepared to wait till a vacine is developed, then we might as well have it now and get it over with, rater than courses more harm to the economy with the delay.
    If everything was open now and everyone was staying in then the economy would go bust quicker. Hospitality etc would be devastated with even healthy businesses that had paid lots of taxes going bust as their business evaporates.

    The second wave won't happen if we squash base load of cases to a low amount and keep R low and have containment policies.
    So haw do we keep R low, when we eventually open up?
    Washing our hands. Rapid testing, tracing and isolating of the positive so they don't go on to infect people.
    We are washing our hands now, and tacking lots of other precautions, and people when identified are getting tested and should be self isolating, you may have faith in the track and trace, but I don't.

    irrespective of that some places have opened up already without big problems e.g. in the UK Georgia or Denmark
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 7,480
    Nearly 14 hours later, I’ve finally finished my EU law “eExam”. Christ it is dull. Hopefully I never have to touch that again.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462
    tyson said:

    BigRich said:

    BigRich said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I don't even think Sunak thinks we will be having a bounce back anymore. What say PB Tories?

    The economy is royally screwed. I've been saying all along I expect unemployment to top out at around 6m. Annual GDP decline will be in double digits.

    But it's not a party political thing. I struggle to think what Labour or the Lib Dems would have done differently to avoid this.

    I've said several times I wouldn't have had a lockdown (beyond a brief temporary one to build NHS capacity) and would have followed the Swedish model.

    But even countries that remained open will suffer from this staggering global recession, as well as people's reticence to go out (Sweden's model relies on people voluntarily having less contact).

    So I think it's odd you're trying to make this a party political thing. Not everything in life is about party politics.
    I'm with you on 90% of that, sadly, ones a government program is started it is much harder to stop no matter how bad or counter productive it is.

    We could and should just open everything now, most people will still stay in and there is very unlikely to be second wave bigger than the NHS can handal. and if there is going to be a second wave when we reopen, then that would come anyway at whatever point we re-open so unless we are prepared to wait till a vacine is developed, then we might as well have it now and get it over with, rater than courses more harm to the economy with the delay.
    If everything was open now and everyone was staying in then the economy would go bust quicker. Hospitality etc would be devastated with even healthy businesses that had paid lots of taxes going bust as their business evaporates.

    The second wave won't happen if we squash base load of cases to a low amount and keep R low and have containment policies.
    So haw do we keep R low, when we eventually open up?
    Washing our hands. Rapid testing, tracing and isolating of the positive so they don't go on to infect people.
    Believe in Boris comrade...rejoice at the fountain of the Boris...stay alert and we'll vanquish this disease
    Its what Singapore, New Zealand and other nations have done. Why can't we?

    R dropped before lockdown just from washing our hands, even when we lacked the testing and tracing capabilities. Why can't washing our hands plus testing and tracing keep it down?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462
    BigRich said:

    BigRich said:

    BigRich said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I don't even think Sunak thinks we will be having a bounce back anymore. What say PB Tories?

    The economy is royally screwed. I've been saying all along I expect unemployment to top out at around 6m. Annual GDP decline will be in double digits.

    But it's not a party political thing. I struggle to think what Labour or the Lib Dems would have done differently to avoid this.

    I've said several times I wouldn't have had a lockdown (beyond a brief temporary one to build NHS capacity) and would have followed the Swedish model.

    But even countries that remained open will suffer from this staggering global recession, as well as people's reticence to go out (Sweden's model relies on people voluntarily having less contact).

    So I think it's odd you're trying to make this a party political thing. Not everything in life is about party politics.
    I'm with you on 90% of that, sadly, ones a government program is started it is much harder to stop no matter how bad or counter productive it is.

    We could and should just open everything now, most people will still stay in and there is very unlikely to be second wave bigger than the NHS can handal. and if there is going to be a second wave when we reopen, then that would come anyway at whatever point we re-open so unless we are prepared to wait till a vacine is developed, then we might as well have it now and get it over with, rater than courses more harm to the economy with the delay.
    If everything was open now and everyone was staying in then the economy would go bust quicker. Hospitality etc would be devastated with even healthy businesses that had paid lots of taxes going bust as their business evaporates.

    The second wave won't happen if we squash base load of cases to a low amount and keep R low and have containment policies.
    So haw do we keep R low, when we eventually open up?
    Washing our hands. Rapid testing, tracing and isolating of the positive so they don't go on to infect people.
    We are washing our hands now, and tacking lots of other precautions, and people when identified are getting tested and should be self isolating, you may have faith in the track and trace, but I don't.

    irrespective of that some places have opened up already without big problems e.g. in the UK Georgia or Denmark
    Yes we are and we need to continue doing those sensible things even as we ease out of the lockdown and get back to normal.

    Some places have but their case numbers when they did were lower than ours are. The lower we can get the case numbers, the easier it will be to contain this. The better we contain this the more we can get back to normal. Do you understand that logic?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 53,926

    Just checked my surname (not Pointer) in the Oxford Dictionary of Family Names which has been offering free access for the past week apparently...

    ...and lo and behold it's a Norman name with an earliest known holder of the name born in the year 1000.

    So my family probably goes back further than @Charles's lol!

    Anyway it's an interesting resource - I have a feeling it may only be free access until midnight today though.

    https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199677764.001.0001/acref-9780199677764

    Darn, mine only goes back to the 13th Century
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 30,904

    rcs1000 said:

    ...
    The key, of course, is that a crash (like the one we've had) doesn't actually actually affect the productive power of the economy. It might mean you lose the time, money and hard work you sunk into your business. But - to take the example of a restaraunt - it has not made the tables, chairs, cookers, pots and pans disappear.

    Hmm, not so sure about that one. Those tables, chairs, cookers etc are likely to be sold off (i.e. dispersed) or scrapped completely, as will many aeroplanes for example. Many sectors rely on an entire ecosystem of support services and supply chains, built up over years or in some cases decades. Once those get disrupted they are gone.

    The point here is that this is not like a normal recession, where you get a proportion of the weaker players in a given sector going out of business or being taken over by stronger rivals at a knockdown price; it's whole sectors - healthy, profitable sectors until the shutters came down on them virtually overnight - being clobbered.

    It seems to me that the financial markets and pundits are underestimating the scale of the disaster. It's going to be a long, slow crawl out of this.
    If the chairs are sold off, they have new owners who sit on them.

    If you are scrapping an aeroplane, it's because there are purchasers for the bits who will presumably find useful ways of using them.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 34,452
    tyson said:

    tyson said:

    I don't even think Sunak thinks we will be having a bounce back anymore. What say PB Tories?

    Why the fuck would you want to ask pbTories anything? I get more sense out of my dog.
    You get more what out of your dog? Oh, you said 'sense'. Never mind.
    And out of the blue...steps out the bluest of the blue....

    I think if you combined the collective brain cells of our pbCOM Tories...they out rival themselves on their gross stupidity and fuckwittery...and eulogies to all things Boris and Brexit....if you combined their brain cells and multiplied by 10..I still don't think you'd arrive at anything sensible...
    You, on the other hand, have all those exemplary brain cells - and can only churn out such turgid shit as your last post.

    Smug, leftist wank....give it a rest.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 30,904
    BigRich said:

    rcs1000 said:

    BigRich said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @BigRich - have you read "The Forgotten Depression: The Crash That Cured Itself" by Jim Grant?

    I haven't read it, I may be confusing it with something else, but I think I sore a lecher by the auther,was that about the 'non' depredation of 1921?
    That'll be the one.

    Basically, his point is that government intervention usually has two consequences: (1) it furthers long term income and capital inequality by protecting the owners of capital, and (2) it usually makes recovery longer than shorter.

    The key, of course, is that a crash (like the one we've had) doesn't actually actually affect the productive power of the economy. It might mean you lose the time, money and hard work you sunk into your business. But - to take the example of a restaraunt - it has not made the tables, chairs, cookers, pots and pans disappear.
    Just cureose, where/when did you hear about the book?
    When I ran a mutual fund, I used to subscribe to his newsletter "Grant's Interest Rate Observer". It was one of the better investment newsletter publications.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 1,599

    tyson said:

    BigRich said:

    BigRich said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I don't even think Sunak thinks we will be having a bounce back anymore. What say PB Tories?

    The economy is royally screwed. I've been saying all along I expect unemployment to top out at around 6m. Annual GDP decline will be in double digits.

    But it's not a party political thing. I struggle to think what Labour or the Lib Dems would have done differently to avoid this.

    I've said several times I wouldn't have had a lockdown (beyond a brief temporary one to build NHS capacity) and would have followed the Swedish model.

    But even countries that remained open will suffer from this staggering global recession, as well as people's reticence to go out (Sweden's model relies on people voluntarily having less contact).

    So I think it's odd you're trying to make this a party political thing. Not everything in life is about party politics.
    I'm with you on 90% of that, sadly, ones a government program is started it is much harder to stop no matter how bad or counter productive it is.

    We could and should just open everything now, most people will still stay in and there is very unlikely to be second wave bigger than the NHS can handal. and if there is going to be a second wave when we reopen, then that would come anyway at whatever point we re-open so unless we are prepared to wait till a vacine is developed, then we might as well have it now and get it over with, rater than courses more harm to the economy with the delay.
    If everything was open now and everyone was staying in then the economy would go bust quicker. Hospitality etc would be devastated with even healthy businesses that had paid lots of taxes going bust as their business evaporates.

    The second wave won't happen if we squash base load of cases to a low amount and keep R low and have containment policies.
    So haw do we keep R low, when we eventually open up?
    Washing our hands. Rapid testing, tracing and isolating of the positive so they don't go on to infect people.
    Believe in Boris comrade...rejoice at the fountain of the Boris...stay alert and we'll vanquish this disease
    Its what Singapore, New Zealand and other nations have done. Why can't we?

    R dropped before lockdown just from washing our hands, even when we lacked the testing and tracing capabilities. Why can't washing our hands plus testing and tracing keep it down?
    We probably will keep R down, possible below 1 and defiantly at worst only just above it, compared to the first wave, we have built up some level of heard immunity.

  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 25,758

    Jonathan said:


    Makes the financial crisis look like a picnic.

    It's comparable to the domino-effect disaster which the financial crisis would have become if the Brown/Darling government hadn't rescued the creditors of the banks, albeit not quite so extreme (because at least some sectors in the current crisis are relatively or entirely unaffected). But it's worse that what the financial crisis was with that rescue, and I don't think there's anything much the government can do* beyond what it is already doing, which is only short-term support.

    * Well of course there is one thing they could do to help things somewhat, but this government of ultra-Brexit loons won't do it.
    What's the one thing we could do?

    I don't see how Brexit is relevant except thankfully the transition will end so we're not on the hook for bailing out the continent as well as fixing our own problems.
    It is absolutely incontrovertible that they need to extend the transition, it's a complete no-brainer. There simply isn't the time or the capacity for industry, or even governments themselves, to prepare for the catastrophic increase in red tape, not even to mention the disruption to supply chains in addition to the the disruption already being seen. Only the most ludicrous purblind ideologue could possibly not accept this point.

    I do have some sympathy with the argument that merely extending the transition in itself is simply avoiding a resolution of the issues, but the difficulty is that even with Covid-19, eleven months to negotiate a deal and, crucially, to prepare for it, was always absurdly short. Businesses and governments, even in normal times, would need at least six months to make preparations once they know what they are preparing for. That means that even without Covid-19 we would need to be finalising the trade deal now in order to implement it in January. With Covid-19, who the hell is able to give this full attention?

    This is a joint failure of the UK and the EU. The UK for ideological insanity, and the EU for the root cause of the problem, namely their daft and inflexible sequencing. The whole thing has been backwards - we should have negotiated the trade deal first, and then jointly figured out what was needed to transition to it. Instead we're in an 11 months transition to an unknown destination. Completely bonkers.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462
    BigRich said:

    tyson said:

    BigRich said:

    BigRich said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I don't even think Sunak thinks we will be having a bounce back anymore. What say PB Tories?

    The economy is royally screwed. I've been saying all along I expect unemployment to top out at around 6m. Annual GDP decline will be in double digits.

    But it's not a party political thing. I struggle to think what Labour or the Lib Dems would have done differently to avoid this.

    I've said several times I wouldn't have had a lockdown (beyond a brief temporary one to build NHS capacity) and would have followed the Swedish model.

    But even countries that remained open will suffer from this staggering global recession, as well as people's reticence to go out (Sweden's model relies on people voluntarily having less contact).

    So I think it's odd you're trying to make this a party political thing. Not everything in life is about party politics.
    I'm with you on 90% of that, sadly, ones a government program is started it is much harder to stop no matter how bad or counter productive it is.

    We could and should just open everything now, most people will still stay in and there is very unlikely to be second wave bigger than the NHS can handal. and if there is going to be a second wave when we reopen, then that would come anyway at whatever point we re-open so unless we are prepared to wait till a vacine is developed, then we might as well have it now and get it over with, rater than courses more harm to the economy with the delay.
    If everything was open now and everyone was staying in then the economy would go bust quicker. Hospitality etc would be devastated with even healthy businesses that had paid lots of taxes going bust as their business evaporates.

    The second wave won't happen if we squash base load of cases to a low amount and keep R low and have containment policies.
    So haw do we keep R low, when we eventually open up?
    Washing our hands. Rapid testing, tracing and isolating of the positive so they don't go on to infect people.
    Believe in Boris comrade...rejoice at the fountain of the Boris...stay alert and we'll vanquish this disease
    Its what Singapore, New Zealand and other nations have done. Why can't we?

    R dropped before lockdown just from washing our hands, even when we lacked the testing and tracing capabilities. Why can't washing our hands plus testing and tracing keep it down?
    We probably will keep R down, possible below 1 and defiantly at worst only just above it, compared to the first wave, we have built up some level of heard immunity.

    Indeed which is why the most important thing for lifting lockdown isn't really R, its the quantity of cases in the community.

    If we can get the new cases in the hundreds rather than thousands per day and keep R below 1 then the virus will be very containable and the rest of us can get back to normal.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 25,758
    edited May 21
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ...
    The key, of course, is that a crash (like the one we've had) doesn't actually actually affect the productive power of the economy. It might mean you lose the time, money and hard work you sunk into your business. But - to take the example of a restaraunt - it has not made the tables, chairs, cookers, pots and pans disappear.

    Hmm, not so sure about that one. Those tables, chairs, cookers etc are likely to be sold off (i.e. dispersed) or scrapped completely, as will many aeroplanes for example. Many sectors rely on an entire ecosystem of support services and supply chains, built up over years or in some cases decades. Once those get disrupted they are gone.

    The point here is that this is not like a normal recession, where you get a proportion of the weaker players in a given sector going out of business or being taken over by stronger rivals at a knockdown price; it's whole sectors - healthy, profitable sectors until the shutters came down on them virtually overnight - being clobbered.

    It seems to me that the financial markets and pundits are underestimating the scale of the disaster. It's going to be a long, slow crawl out of this.
    If the chairs are sold off, they have new owners who sit on them.

    If you are scrapping an aeroplane, it's because there are purchasers for the bits who will presumably find useful ways of using them.

    The chairs probably end up in a barn somewhere gathering dust, and the aeroplane is sold for scrap. The value is destroyed.

    In any case much of the original worth of a modern business is intangible, and will simply evaporate.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 19,837

    Just checked my surname (not Pointer) in the Oxford Dictionary of Family Names which has been offering free access for the past week apparently...

    ...and lo and behold it's a Norman name with an earliest known holder of the name born in the year 1000.

    So my family probably goes back further than @Charles's lol!

    Anyway it's an interesting resource - I have a feeling it may only be free access until midnight today though.

    https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199677764.001.0001/acref-9780199677764

    I believe a certain poster suggested that descent from Wotan is the benchmark for pride in ancestry.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 2,589
    kle4 said:

    Just checked my surname (not Pointer) in the Oxford Dictionary of Family Names which has been offering free access for the past week apparently...

    ...and lo and behold it's a Norman name with an earliest known holder of the name born in the year 1000.

    So my family probably goes back further than @Charles's lol!

    Anyway it's an interesting resource - I have a feeling it may only be free access until midnight today though.

    https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199677764.001.0001/acref-9780199677764

    Darn, mine only goes back to the 13th Century
    Mine... doesn't exist.

    *checks notes*

    "...more than 100 bearers..."

    Ah, well. That'd be it.
Sign In or Register to comment.