All Things Coronavirus (Part 2)

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 hours ago, yuna628 said:

It is not surprising that the richest tier may get richer in a pandemic. With everything, most people think of the bad effects a pandemic will cause, and rarely think about the good effects. How could there possibly be any good effects you might wonder? When I say good, I'm moreso meaning natural but not necessarily harmful effects of a free market. Many of the above are business-owners of large corporations. So while restaurants and other retail that is restricted during a pandemic may take a big hit with money, jobs, and services - you're going to find others will thrive.

 

Pandemics will increase the demand on some products and services, while reducing in other areas that may have once been in high demand. This will cause shortages and even higher prices, as the demand puts severe pressure in some sectors to keep up. Aluminum, tin, electronics, food and household goods, and cardboard. Demand on delivery services will rise. It's not surprising that Amazon is exploding with wealth even more than it was before - we simply are buying tons of stuff from home. As a greater emphasis is placed on healthier living, staying at home and/or exercise - we see extra demand on sneakers like Nike instead of fashionable shoes. Even fashion choices and demand will change to adjust. The sales of chairs/home office equipment, computers all went crazy. My husband tells me there are months and months of waiting lists to obtain recording and AV equipment that costs thousands of dollars as institutions and businesses rush to adapt to work/teach at home. Some institutions have decided to dip into budgets and do renovations while students/staff aren't present and there are no more excuses.

 

Toiler paper, food, cans, medicines, cleaning goods shortages, were all due to extreme demand on an industry that has had to make big adjustments to keep up. That means they're actually making more money than ever before. Less demand on some food products has made companies remove those quantities and keep stocking brands that are in highest demand. It means we end up having less choices in some regards as usual as the companies themselves cannot afford to be too choosy. Some items are raising in price. Home improvement stores in my town have become like the local watering hole, and they can barely keep up with demand. And while restaurants in many places are hit hard, others have adapted with smaller and cleaner menus, fast takeout, and alcohol sales (which have been generously allowed by the governor). Disinfecting/cleaning companies are in high demand, and as we know medical supplies and everything involved in making them are critical.

 

You'd be surprised what industries have thrived. Cookware companies, spice and herb companies, craft/sewing supplies, fabric, streaming services, vitamins, dog food (there are shortages now), canning companies can barely keep up, tv dinners, and prepackaged goods, dollar stores, and yes even house flipping/house sales are all booming. I've seen no shortage of new small businesses opening too.

 

   I don't mind people making as many millions and billions as they possibly can, but given what we have been through, I really don't want to hear how tough billionaires are having it making their next million. 

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

2 hours ago, yuna628 said:

It is not surprising that the richest tier may get richer in a pandemic. With everything, most people think of the bad effects a pandemic will cause, and rarely think about the good effects. How could there possibly be any good effects you might wonder? When I say good, I'm moreso meaning natural but not necessarily harmful effects of a free market. Many of the above are business-owners of large corporations. So while restaurants and other retail that is restricted during a pandemic may take a big hit with money, jobs, and services - you're going to find others will thrive.

 

Pandemics will increase the demand on some products and services, while reducing in other areas that may have once been in high demand. This will cause shortages and even higher prices, as the demand puts severe pressure in some sectors to keep up. Aluminum, tin, electronics, food and household goods, and cardboard. Demand on delivery services will rise. It's not surprising that Amazon is exploding with wealth even more than it was before - we simply are buying tons of stuff from home. As a greater emphasis is placed on healthier living, staying at home and/or exercise - we see extra demand on sneakers like Nike instead of fashionable shoes. Even fashion choices and demand will change to adjust. The sales of chairs/home office equipment, computers all went crazy. My husband tells me there are months and months of waiting lists to obtain recording and AV equipment that costs thousands of dollars as institutions and businesses rush to adapt to work/teach at home. Some institutions have decided to dip into budgets and do renovations while students/staff aren't present and there are no more excuses.

 

Toiler paper, food, cans, medicines, cleaning goods shortages, were all due to extreme demand on an industry that has had to make big adjustments to keep up. That means they're actually making more money than ever before. Less demand on some food products has made companies remove those quantities and keep stocking brands that are in highest demand. It means we end up having less choices in some regards as usual as the companies themselves cannot afford to be too choosy. Some items are raising in price. Home improvement stores in my town have become like the local watering hole, and they can barely keep up with demand. And while restaurants in many places are hit hard, others have adapted with smaller and cleaner menus, fast takeout, and alcohol sales (which have been generously allowed by the governor). Disinfecting/cleaning companies are in high demand, and as we know medical supplies and everything involved in making them are critical.

 

You'd be surprised what industries have thrived. Cookware companies, spice and herb companies, craft/sewing supplies, fabric, streaming services, vitamins, dog food (there are shortages now), canning companies can barely keep up, tv dinners, and prepackaged goods, dollar stores, and yes even house flipping/house sales are all booming. I've seen no shortage of new small businesses opening too.

While your assessment of the of the shift in consumer patterns is accurate, it is not really speaking to the growth of wealth for the wealthiest.

 

 

  In 2020 there was an explosion of Initial public offerings and many of those fetched outrageously high valuations. Genetic technology, Financial Tech, the next internet, edge computing and security have been rewarding for investors and the biggest winners were those who invested before these stocks were available to retail investors. 

 

No doubt some stocks surged (or tanked) based on changes in how we work, shop and communicate, but those were secular shifts that were in motion accelerated by the pandemic. 

 

There is no remedy to the fact that the wealthy have the means to pursue riskier investments and will benefit more in any economic cycle.

 

What is unfair in my mind is the tax and policy structure that benefits the wealthy and that accelerated under Trump tax policies. The trickle down theories have not benefited working people or mainstreet businesses.

 

 

 

[yuna628 9,646]

40 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   I don't mind people making as many millions and billions as they possibly can, but given what we have been through, I really don't want to hear how tough billionaires are having it making their next million. 

Nor do I. Bezos for example is making an obscene amount of money this year (possibly greater than the past) and has no reason to complain. I was just remarking that a chart showing how much more billionaires and their companies are making during a pandemic does have some economic reasons behind it. Instead of feeding the beast, perhaps we should be doing all we can to pressure them to contribute something greater to society financially.

38 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

While your assessment of the of the shift in consumer patterns is accurate, it is not really speaking to the growth of wealth for the wealthiest.

 

 

  In 2020 there was an explosion of Initial public offerings and many of those fetched outrageously high valuations. Genetic technology, Financial Tech, the next internet, edge computing and security have been rewarding for investors and the biggest winners were those who invested before these stocks were available to retail investors. 

 

No doubt some stocks surged (or tanked) based on changes in how we work, shop and communicate, but those were secular shifts that were in motion accelerated by the pandemic. 

 

There is no remedy to the fact that the wealthy have the means to pursue riskier investments and will benefit more in any economic cycle.

 

What is unfair in my mind is the tax and policy structure that benefits the wealthy and that accelerated under Trump tax policies. The trickle down theories have not benefited working people or mainstreet businesses.

 

 

 

As a libertarian I too see a lot of nonsense in clinging to the idea of trickle down economics when it doesn't work that way. But a bunch of tired old ideas from tired old people that have been in office for a dog's age is what our government is -- until we the people collectively decide otherwise. Still, even with these silly policies, big market competition, and a pandemic I'm seeing small main street businesses opening. You would think that now would not be a good time to be opening up, and yet it's happening.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

17 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Nor do I. Bezos for example is making an obscene amount of money this year (possibly greater than the past) and has no reason to complain. I was just remarking that a chart showing how much more billionaires and their companies are making during a pandemic does have some economic reasons behind it. Instead of feeding the beast, perhaps we should be doing all we can to pressure them to contribute something greater to society financially.

As a libertarian I too see a lot of nonsense in clinging to the idea of trickle down economics when it doesn't work that way. But a bunch of tired old ideas from tired old people that have been in office for a dog's age is what our government is -- until we the people collectively decide otherwise. Still, even with these silly policies, big market competition, and a pandemic I'm seeing small main street businesses opening. You would think that now would not be a good time to be opening up, and yet it's happening.

I do see some opportunities in small business, but it takes a lot of smarts and guts to make it happen.  More power to the little guy/ gal who can make it happen. 

[Dashinka 24,110]

16 hours ago, yuna628 said:

Nor do I. Bezos for example is making an obscene amount of money this year (possibly greater than the past) and has no reason to complain. I was just remarking that a chart showing how much more billionaires and their companies are making during a pandemic does have some economic reasons behind it. Instead of feeding the beast, perhaps we should be doing all we can to pressure them to contribute something greater to society financially.

As a libertarian I too see a lot of nonsense in clinging to the idea of trickle down economics when it doesn't work that way. But a bunch of tired old ideas from tired old people that have been in office for a dog's age is what our government is -- until we the people collectively decide otherwise. Still, even with these silly policies, big market competition, and a pandemic I'm seeing small main street businesses opening. You would think that now would not be a good time to be opening up, and yet it's happening.

Trickle down or letting the state control everything.  Which one is better?

[Bill Hamze 89]

27 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Trickle down or letting the state control everything.  Which one is better?

Except in the trickle down scenario, it doesn’t actually “trickle down” as expected. 

[Ban Hammer 13,110]

53 minutes ago, Bill Hamze said:

Except in the trickle down scenario, it doesn’t actually “trickle down” as expected. 

it certainly won't in the state controlled scenario

[Boiler 44,857]

[Dashinka 24,110]

1 hour ago, Bill Hamze said:

Except in the trickle down scenario, it doesn’t actually “trickle down” as expected. 

It may not trickle down in an efficient form, but I definitely prefer it over government control of the capital.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

4 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Trickle down or letting the state control everything.  Which one is better?

That's a false dichotomy. It's not a either/or,  it's spectrum and we are not talking about state control of distribution or manufacturing. 

 

What's better? Tax policies that moderate the excessive burden placed on lower incomes and younger people that would still leave the wealthiest very, very, very rich by any measure.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

[Ban Hammer 13,110]

2 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

looks like the most movement upward for the rich took place in the obama years, and the next 9 percent took a dive in the obama years too.......

[Dashinka 24,110]

6 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

looks like the most movement upward for the rich took place in the obama years, and the next 9 percent took a dive in the obama years too.......

Interesting how that happens.

29 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

That's a false dichotomy. It's not a either/or,  it's spectrum and we are not talking about state control of distribution or manufacturing. 

 

What's better? Tax policies that moderate the excessive burden placed on lower incomes and younger people that would still leave the wealthiest very, very, very rich by any measure.

So tax the rich?  That always works.

[Boiler 44,857]

Yep, pay back.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

9 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

looks like the most movement upward for the rich took place in the obama years, and the next 9 percent took a dive in the obama years too.......

If you had cash to invest in 2008, you undoubtedly rode the recovery gravy train.