Thread: CoronaVirus ==> Empty Shelves

Originally Posted by Tccp123

I wonder what the lefties are making of the current situation? We seem to be rapidly approaching their goal of equal wealth distribution (i.e. everyone has about the same).

Somehow I doubt it.
Let's say this thing goes into full lockdown for 6 months?
Case A) Someone with no savings, paying rent and no job
Case B) Someone with $10 million in savings/shares etc, (even after losing half on the stock market) and owning their own home, and no job.
Unless B) was a complete loser they're still going to have a lot more than A) after 6 months.
B won't be able to drive around with no purpose, travel, eat out, or buy fancy clobber, anyway so they will have enforced savings.

One minor side benefit of all this I've noticed are the overnight disappearance of TV ads for 3rd Party Travel Services.

Originally Posted by BobL

Somehow I doubt it.
Let's say this thing goes into full lockdown for 6 months?
Case A) Someone with no savings, paying rent and no job
Case B) Someone with $10 million in savings/shares etc, (even after losing half on the stock market) and owning their own home, and no job.
Unless B) was a complete loser they're still going to have a lot more than A) after 6 months.
B won't be able to drive around with no purpose, travel, eat out, or buy fancy clobber, anyway so they will have enforced savings.

So who's the biggest loser? Case A or Case B?

And I might add that B has probably never driven around with no purpose, eaten out unreasonably or bought fancy clobber. That's typically why these people have $10M.

Originally Posted by Tccp123

So who's the biggest loser? Case A or Case B?

Case "B" would be crying into his beer that he could hardly go on in life and might yet have to sell his BMW, while case "A" may not be alive to say anything or is residing under the local bridge or the more favoured from that group will be setting up home in their forty year old Holden Kingswood station wagon.

It brings back the image I have of a stock broker interviewed on the TV as to what he thought of the new limitations on putting money into super (when they first came in). He said it was just awful. He would be limited to $100,000 per year. The wealthy rarely seem to have any compassion or sensibility for those less well off and seem to be totally self absorbed. They are also among the first to complain if times get tough. Possibly because they have no understanding of what it is like to struggle.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Case "B" would be crying into his beer that he could hardly go on in life and might yet have to sell his BMW, while case "A" may not be alive to say anything or is residing under the local bridge or the more favoured from that group will be setting up home in their forty year old Holden Kingswood station wagon.

It brings back the image I have of a stock broker interviewed on the TV as to what he thought of the new limitations on putting money into super (when they first came in). He said it was just awful. He would be limited to $100,000 per year. The wealthy rarely seem to have any compassion or sensibility for those less well off and seem to be totally self absorbed. They are also among the first to complain if times get tough. Possibly because they have no understanding of what it is like to struggle.

Regards
Paul

I have a relative who is a Case A. She and her husband struggle from one stimulus package to the next. When times are good they enjoy them till the money runs out then they start complaining again till the next likeline arrives. They both drink (a lot), he smokes, they have two mercs (admittedly old ones) and do zip to better their lot except to wait for handouts.

In the two cases above, if a limited stimulus package were to become available (but only one) who would you give it to? My relatives or someone who already has some money (because he's lived frugally) and is more likely to invest back into a business that might employ other people and grow?

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

The wealthy rarely seem to have any compassion or sensibility for those less well off

We may even be seeing that at very close quarters from the "not quite as wealthy as the wealthy but probably quite well off".

Originally Posted by Tccp123

And I might add that B has probably never driven around with no purpose, eaten out unreasonably or bought fancy clobber. That's typically why these people have $10M.

Then they won't miss these so will have even more savings after 6 months.

"The wealthy rarely seem to have any compassion or sensibility for those less well off"

Do you honestly believe all those people we've seen assaulting old people in the supermarkets fighting over toilet rolls are "the wealthy"?

Originally Posted by Tccp123

In the two cases above, if a limited stimulus package were to become available (but only one) who would you give it to? My relatives or someone who already has some money (because he's lived frugally) and is more likely to invest back into a business that might employ other people and grow?

Absolutely to your relatives. It's well documented that those who live fortnight to fortnight will spend the money almost immediately on retail, which is what is designed to happen - that's why Govts have done it. Investing back into a business (presumably to make more money for the investor) does not have the same effect, and is certainly not immediate.

You're kind of presenting two caricatures. Life isn't like an Ayn Rand novel where people fall into two categories of either noble productive members of society or moochers. You can find example but many people are in the middle. There are hard-working, decent people who just don't have much, and lazy assholes who have gotten lucky or inherited money.

Unfortunately when you have in your head that there are all these "Case A" types, you tend to only see that.

For many people it's a mixed bag. I'm self-employed and run a small business. But on the other hand, I have fixed employees (employed indirectly through a services company with others) and will never need more because of the nature of my work. If you gave me a stimulus package I wouldn't change my behaviour. It'd probably just go on my fixed expenses which aren't going away over the next few months no matter what happens. The economy would probably be better off objectively if the money went to someone on the dole who spent it in local businesses.

Originally Posted by Cgcc

The economy would probably be better off objectively if the money went to someone on the dole who spent it in local businesses.

Indeed. The stimulus isn't designed to benefit the recipient - it's to benefit the businesses that they patronise, which helps keep their employees working, which means the Govt gets income tax instead of paying out more unemployment benefits. Very simple economics really, and only requires a modicum of thought.

There is a very good reason why $750 won't be going out until March 31st, and it's part political and part "crowd control" for want of a better expression. It means that it will be spent in the second quarter which will boost GDP in that quarter. The presumption is that the current quarter is going to be -ve growth, so stack it up with negativity and try to keep the next quarter +ve.

That way, a technical recession is avoided (at least for the time being) which means that Smirko can beat his political chest (the part political reason) but also more importantly keep us in a mindset we we don't have to live through a recession - because they are essentially a state of mind brought on by a loss of confidence. The stock market is just the same - confidence/herd mentality driven.

Originally Posted by Tccp123

Do you honestly believe all those people we've seen assaulting old people in the supermarkets fighting over toilet rolls are "the wealthy"?

What old people being assaulted? I've not heard of any. We've all seen the edited footage of those dickheads fighting over bumroll. We never did see what the start of that ridiculous scene was - what did the single person do to the selfish mother and daughter in the first place, if anything? Did she just walk over to their trolley and try to take a packet out. All unknown, and none of them would be classified as old.

Originally Posted by Cgcc

You're kind of presenting two caricatures. Life isn't like an Ayn Rand novel where people fall into two categories of either noble productive members of society or moochers. You can find example but many people are in the middle. There are hard-working, decent people who just don't have much, and lazy assholes who have gotten lucky or inherited money.

Unfortunately when you have in your head that there are all these "Case A" types, you tend to only see that.

For many people it's a mixed bag. I'm self-employed and run a small business. But on the other hand, I have fixed employees (employed indirectly through a services company with others) and will never need more because of the nature of my work. If you gave me a stimulus package I wouldn't change my behaviour. It'd probably just go on my fixed expenses which aren't going away over the next few months no matter what happens. The economy would probably be better off objectively if the money went to someone on the dole who spent it in local businesses.

Yes of course I understand there are different scenarios but if I was to try to cover them all it would be ridiculous so I've limited my examples to caricatures as you have correctly identified. Essentially that is to pick out extremes of each example. Essentially the question is if this was the choice who would you pick? And the answer (so far) seems to be the moochers who will spend it on themselves (buying from the bottleshop owners, corporate supermarket owners, travel agents etc. the very people you say you wouldn't give it to) vs. the Case B who may spend it on buying more employees who would benefit more and spread the money wider.