Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
In the end, all the talk about profit margins and dividends and stock valuations and all the other trivialities are... well, trivial.

Recessions are caused by powerful people panicking and taking actions that turn small downturns into huge economic uncertainty among the masses. Stability builds strong economies; instability makes them weak. It really is that simple.

That is absolutely ridiculous. You can't possibly be that naive.

I am listening. Tell me more.

Economics was never my focus, so I am open to learning.

Economics make more sense when you pair it with group psychology and a good background of economic history. The basics are 'more people working = good, fewer people working = bad', and, as I said above, stability builds strong economies while instability makes them weak.

Instability can be caused by many things, but what they all have in common is people stop spending. Why? This is where psychology comes into play. They're worried they'll need the money to cover basics later. Thus, no new spending. This puts people out of work (fewer people working = bad), and causes a downward spiral. It doesn't matter WHAT caused that instability - stock market crash, war, inflation and interest rates, terrorist attacks, housing bubbles, or even just gross racism and racial inequality a la South Africa, this is what happens.

Likewise, in stable areas people are confident they will have a job tomorrow, so they spend freely (but hopefully not irresponsibly, as irresponsible spending causes credit crises, another source of instability...). Thus there is more opportunity to find work (more people working = good), so there is more available to purchase. Thus, really stable countries like Switzerland have strong economies even without vast natural resources or large populations.

That's not what you were talking about in your original post. There, you stated that recessions are created by panicking executives. Apparently a good company steward facing business headwinds should just keep the spending pedal to the floor. Run that b**ch straight into the iceberg, I guess. Maybe consider that conservative management can ultimately SAVE jobs?

Should we blame Millennials for not buying big houses and other big-ticket items? I mean, consumer spending is twice as important to the economy as corporate spending. Maybe they should sack up and take on even more debt to keep things afloat for the rest of us. There are pool installers' jobs on the line here.

I think there is a bit of misinterpretation going on.

Mario wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I would wager most of us never saw the "Boom Times" as it has been a slow decline ever since for most workers.

Yup, the oldest millennials might have seen some but that got wiped out by 2008. After that it's all about phrases like "be happy you still have a job in this economy". And yet, somehow companies regularly manage to have record profits :/

Median income for millennials (born about 1981 to 1996) in the USA: https://twitter.com/LukewSavage/status/1126345501723582464

With regard to US peak income: in 1977, my father was managing a repair service for RCA. He managed 180 people in his division, their job was to repair televisions. That's all they did, ride around in trucks and repair TVs in people's homes. Their campus was next to a GE repair service, they had 4 times the number of people doing in-home repairs on the same model.

The service was company owned, he made a great salary, he had great benefits and a company car that was replaced every 2 years. His 30-year mortgage was something like $100k. With inflation, the bank paid for more than half of it. He had the GI Bill going for him, got a degree in Mechanical Engineering and turned down an offer with Martin Marietta because he liked what he was currently doing. Eventually opened his own business in an unrelated field and did well.

He was living in an economy that stressed full employment, it was a great time to be a worker.

The current economy is really odd to me. 30 years of globalization has taken its toll, but I keep seeing surprising reports about Millennials. This one from Pew claims young adults are making more than older generations. Quote: "The median adjusted income in a household headed by a Millennial was $69,000 in 2017." Inflation adjusted, that's not far off from what my Dad was making.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/11/young-adult-households-are-earning-more-than-most-older-americans-did-at-the-same-age/

Wondering why there's a perception Millennials make so little. I realize there was a period from 2008 - 2014 where young people weren't able to save as much, and that the cost of education / healthcare is dramatically higher, but that could not be the whole story...

 techsoldaten wrote:

Mario wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I would wager most of us never saw the "Boom Times" as it has been a slow decline ever since for most workers.

Yup, the oldest millennials might have seen some but that got wiped out by 2008. After that it's all about phrases like "be happy you still have a job in this economy". And yet, somehow companies regularly manage to have record profits :/

Median income for millennials (born about 1981 to 1996) in the USA: https://twitter.com/LukewSavage/status/1126345501723582464

With regard to US peak income: in 1977, my father was managing a repair service for RCA. He managed 180 people in his division, their job was to repair televisions. That's all they did, ride around in trucks and repair TVs in people's homes. Their campus was next to a GE repair service, they had 4 times the number of people doing in-home repairs on the same model.

The service was company owned, he made a great salary, he had great benefits and a company car that was replaced every 2 years. His 30-year mortgage was something like $100k. With inflation, the bank paid for more than half of it. He had the GI Bill going for him, got a degree in Mechanical Engineering and turned down an offer with Martin Marietta because he liked what he was currently doing. Eventually opened his own business in an unrelated field and did well.

He was living in an economy that stressed full employment, it was a great time to be a worker.

The current economy is really odd to me. 30 years of globalization has taken its toll, but I keep seeing surprising reports about Millennials. This one from Pew claims young adults are making more than older generations. Quote: "The median adjusted income in a household headed by a Millennial was $69,000 in 2017." Inflation adjusted, that's not far off from what my Dad was making.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/11/young-adult-households-are-earning-more-than-most-older-americans-did-at-the-same-age/

Wondering why there's a perception Millennials make so little. I realize there was a period from 2008 - 2014 where young people weren't able to save as much, and that the cost of education / healthcare is dramatically higher, but that could not be the whole story...

Interating story and article. The article explains the reason for the "increase" pretty early on.....

How have Millennial households generated their comparatively high earnings? At least two factors related to women in households headed by Millennials are buttressing their income.

The generations definedWomen in Millennial households worked more in 2017 than their counterparts in young adult households did in 2000. Among those who were employed, 78% of women in Millennial households in 2017 worked at least 50 weeks of the year. In 2000, by comparison, 72% of women workers in households headed by 22- to 37-year-olds worked as long.

Aside from working more, women in young adult households are being paid more. The median earnings of women working full time for a full year (in households headed by people ages 22 to 37) rose from $37,100 in 2000 to $39,000 in 2017.

Millennial households have obtained these higher incomes even though the households are somewhat less likely to have two contributing spouses or partners. Today, 55% of young adult heads of a household have a spouse or cohabiting partner, down from 57% in 2000. The share of young adult households with two earners fell from 49% in 2000 to 44% in 2017.

Looking at wages is only data for that; how much money people make. While useful in a statistical/analysis context that means nothing in a real-world context where wages vs expenses is what matters. If a business sees its sales double but its expenses triple, it is considerably worse off despite that growth of income.

 gorgon wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
In the end, all the talk about profit margins and dividends and stock valuations and all the other trivialities are... well, trivial.

Recessions are caused by powerful people panicking and taking actions that turn small downturns into huge economic uncertainty among the masses. Stability builds strong economies; instability makes them weak. It really is that simple.

That is absolutely ridiculous. You can't possibly be that naive.

I am listening. Tell me more.

Economics was never my focus, so I am open to learning.

Economics make more sense when you pair it with group psychology and a good background of economic history. The basics are 'more people working = good, fewer people working = bad', and, as I said above, stability builds strong economies while instability makes them weak.

Instability can be caused by many things, but what they all have in common is people stop spending. Why? This is where psychology comes into play. They're worried they'll need the money to cover basics later. Thus, no new spending. This puts people out of work (fewer people working = bad), and causes a downward spiral. It doesn't matter WHAT caused that instability - stock market crash, war, inflation and interest rates, terrorist attacks, housing bubbles, or even just gross racism and racial inequality a la South Africa, this is what happens.

Likewise, in stable areas people are confident they will have a job tomorrow, so they spend freely (but hopefully not irresponsibly, as irresponsible spending causes credit crises, another source of instability...). Thus there is more opportunity to find work (more people working = good), so there is more available to purchase. Thus, really stable countries like Switzerland have strong economies even without vast natural resources or large populations.

That's not what you were talking about in your original post. There, you stated that recessions are created by panicking executives. Apparently a good company steward facing business headwinds should just keep the spending pedal to the floor. Run that b**ch straight into the iceberg, I guess. Maybe consider that conservative management can ultimately SAVE jobs?

Should we blame Millennials for not buying big houses and other big-ticket items? I mean, consumer spending is twice as important to the economy as corporate spending. Maybe they should sack up and take on even more debt to keep things afloat for the rest of us. There are pool installers' jobs on the line here.

So the concept of 'a summary' escapes you then?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 techsoldaten wrote:

Mario wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I would wager most of us never saw the "Boom Times" as it has been a slow decline ever since for most workers.

Yup, the oldest millennials might have seen some but that got wiped out by 2008. After that it's all about phrases like "be happy you still have a job in this economy". And yet, somehow companies regularly manage to have record profits :/

Median income for millennials (born about 1981 to 1996) in the USA: https://twitter.com/LukewSavage/status/1126345501723582464

With regard to US peak income: in 1977, my father was managing a repair service for RCA. He managed 180 people in his division, their job was to repair televisions. That's all they did, ride around in trucks and repair TVs in people's homes. Their campus was next to a GE repair service, they had 4 times the number of people doing in-home repairs on the same model.

The service was company owned, he made a great salary, he had great benefits and a company car that was replaced every 2 years. His 30-year mortgage was something like $100k. With inflation, the bank paid for more than half of it. He had the GI Bill going for him, got a degree in Mechanical Engineering and turned down an offer with Martin Marietta because he liked what he was currently doing. Eventually opened his own business in an unrelated field and did well.

He was living in an economy that stressed full employment, it was a great time to be a worker.

The current economy is really odd to me. 30 years of globalization has taken its toll, but I keep seeing surprising reports about Millennials. This one from Pew claims young adults are making more than older generations. Quote: "The median adjusted income in a household headed by a Millennial was $69,000 in 2017." Inflation adjusted, that's not far off from what my Dad was making.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/11/young-adult-households-are-earning-more-than-most-older-americans-did-at-the-same-age/

Wondering why there's a perception Millennials make so little. I realize there was a period from 2008 - 2014 where young people weren't able to save as much, and that the cost of education / healthcare is dramatically higher, but that could not be the whole story...

I imagine HUGE college debts have something to do with it.

One of the justifications used back in the early 2000s for making it impossible to discharge student loans in bankruptcy was, 'I worked hard at a summer job to pay my college tuition. That's what these kids need to do to.'

Which of course was neatly ignorant of how much tuition had increased since his 'summer job' was enough to pay for college. And how much it's further increased since then. And how the system is setup now to push as many kids to attend college as possible. Alternative solutions like trade and technical schools are ignored or discouraged (shop and trade skill classes are not suited for standardized testing, so resources spent on those are resources not put towards the results schools are judged on).

And both schools and financial institutions are happy with the situations as is. The ease of getting educational loans means the schools get paid, so they're happy. Loan companies are happy because those interest payments keep accruing, so loan away. Whether the student was actually best served by going to college instead of some other path like military service, pursuing a trade, or something else is irrelevant to them.

Then there's also how many benefits of steady, long term employment have been taken away, with the cost put onto the employee, like healthcare and retirement funding.

 techsoldaten wrote:

The current economy is really odd to me. 30 years of globalization has taken its toll, but I keep seeing surprising reports about Millennials. This one from Pew claims young adults are making more than older generations. Quote: "The median adjusted income in a household headed by a Millennial was $69,000 in 2017." Inflation adjusted, that's not far off from what my Dad was making.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/11/young-adult-households-are-earning-more-than-most-older-americans-did-at-the-same-age/

Wondering why there's a perception Millennials make so little. I realize there was a period from 2008 - 2014 where young people weren't able to save as much, and that the cost of education / healthcare is dramatically higher, but that could not be the whole story...

Part of it is, as you say, education and healthcare costs that have absolutely skyrocketed. Part of it is also that housing costs continue to rise, with nearly no new construction of "affordable" housing (in my zip code alone, there are probably a dozen housing construction projects ongoing at the moment. The apartments are all "luxury housing", and the single family unit housing is all well north of $300k for 1600+ sq. ft. all despite the "new" jobs in the area not exactly being the type to support that housing).

Part of it is also Millenial spending habits. . . The "traditional wisdom" to home buying, as created by the boomers, was get married, get job at mill, buy starter home. While at mill, get promoted to section/shift leader and lower management, buy mid-career home. Finally, a few years before retiring from the mill, buy your "forever" dream home with your middle management salary and pension money. Data shows Millennials, seeing the financial investment of buying a house are not "settling" for that starter home. That entire time that millennials were busy living at home with mom and/or dad, they were actually saving up money for that down payment (and the data reflects that as well)

I will admit I haven't done as much research as I should, but I have seen articles and studies that also showcase different spending habits from prior generations in the automotive sector. The short of it is, Millennials are apparently less likely to lease a "normal" vehicle, so they are more likely to buy, and further, they are holding on to those vehicles for longer than the average time of prior generations.

 Easy E wrote:
We have been in a long growth period, and the nature of the economy is cyclical.

I'm just gonna question this first assumption. Economies aren't cyclical. Recessions will always come, but you aren't more likely to have one just because you haven't had one in a while. Some countries will have a recession and then have another within a couple of years, while other countries can go decades without one, here in Australia we've gone 27 years without a recession.

Think of it this way - keep rolling two dice again and again and sooner or later you will roll a double 6, but just because you've rolled 50 times without a double 6 it doesn't mean you're any more likely to roll one on your next roll, and if you do roll double 6 it doesn't mean you're any less likely to roll another one straight after. Recessions aren't completely independent events like dice rolls, but they're not cyclical either.

As to the current indicators of recession - maybe? The inverting yield curve tracks really closely to past recessions, but economics and finance are full of a truly stupid mass of data, and a lot of it is very messy. At any given point there will be data pointing in a lot of different directions, and it is likely a mistake to pick out a single data point and claim that is the one key bit of evidence that a macro level event is coming. Other economic signs are okay, about as okay as they have been since the long recovery out of the GFC started. They're not great, but 'not great' may be the new normal given modern demographics.

As to what will happen if there is another recession? Who knows. Tolstoy started Anna Karenina with the wonderful line 'All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.' This applies to a lot of things, including economies - prosperous economies are all pretty much the same, while recessions are all different in their own way. Japan's lost decade was nothing at all like Asian Financial Crisis, which nothing like the Volcker recession, and so on.

I was reading up on potential recessions today after they spoke about it on the radio. Advice seems to be, save some money, which I have, pay off any high interest debts, of which only my car finance really applies, and not to freak out and sell stocks of the market plummets.

It also said that interest rates will fall, which sounds like a good thing to me? I assume to encourage spending, but definitely good for buying property. And led me to wonder, why worry about higher interest debts if rates will fall? Can anyone clear that up for me? Are the rates generally fixed or something?

All in all I'm not too worried should one hit. It might even be beneficial if I end up in the situation where I'm buying a home in the next 2 years.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I was reading up on potential recessions today after they spoke about it on the radio. Advice seems to be, save some money, which I have, pay off any high interest debts, of which only my car finance really applies, and not to freak out and sell stocks of the market plummets.

It also said that interest rates will fall, which sounds like a good thing to me? I assume to encourage spending, but definitely good for buying property. And led me to wonder, why worry about higher interest debts if rates will fall? Can anyone clear that up for me? Are the rates generally fixed or something?

All in all I'm not too worried should one hit. It might even be beneficial if I end up in the situation where I'm buying a home in the next 2 years.

The problem is, right now (in America, at least) the Prime Rate is rates are so low there's not much room FOR them to fall without going negative.

As for the impact on high-interest debts, the rates for those are completely divorced from the Prime Rate, so they'll stay astronomically high 'because they can'.

Ah yeah OK thats what I was wondering.

Yeah that makes sense. The interest rate is quite low here too. But then a negative interest rate would be even better for mortgage buyers right? They would effectively be paying you for the mortgage.. But then if you had any savings, you would be paying to use the accounts.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Ah yeah OK thats what I was wondering.

Yeah that makes sense. The interest rate is quite low here too. But then a negative interest rate would be even better for mortgage buyers right? They would effectively be paying you for the mortgage.. But then if you had any savings, you would be paying to use the accounts.

I would assume that mortgage lenders would just start ignoring the prime rate just as high-interest lenders already do. There's no profit in paying someone to borrow money, and if America is about ANYTHING it's about maximizing profit.

But charging savings accounts for negative interest rates? Oh, yeah, they'd be all over that like white on rice. Of course, then no one would leave money in 'interest bearing' accounts, stripping banks of money to loan... 1929 bank collapse part 2, coming right up!

surely banks would have to adhere to the rate though? I dont know..I'm uninformed on the subject really.

I dont feel like its ever been done in uk, at least recently, but it seems some countries are doing it, although I cant see the advantage, except for the buyer, which makes no sense to me at all?

Negative Rates are not supposed to be a thing..... but lo and behold they have happened.

More rate cuts probably helped keep us from a recession combined with Quantitative Easing and Fed lending picking back up. However, I am no expert so I will let others chime in.

The problem is just as you state, if you keep them low too long, their is no where to go if the floor falls out again.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
surely banks would have to adhere to the rate though? I dont know..I'm uninformed on the subject really.

I dont feel like its ever been done in uk, at least recently, but it seems some countries are doing it, although I cant see the advantage, except for the buyer, which makes no sense to me at all?

To be honest, I don't know either.

All I know is that credit cards keep trying to get me to accept their 40% APR cards regardless of what the Prime Rate is. So I conclude that the Prime Rate has nothing to do with what interest rates are actually charged to the consumer.

Thinking about it, isn't the Prime Rate just the rate at which the government loans money to major financial institutions? No reason those institutions HAD TO charge (or pay) interest with any relation to that rate, to be honest. At least, not in America, anyway.

I think we can all rest assured that large financial institutions WILL find a way to screw over the little guy for profit. I'm not sure if the details of how are actually important, because the reality is that they will do it, the government will let them do so if it isn't already busy enabling the process, and the people will let the government do such if they aren't already busy enabling the process.

For that "stuff's gotten more expensive discussion": https://twitter.com/oren_cass/status/1230505794686373888

Punchline: Popular perception is correct. In 1985, the typical male worker could cover a family of four's major expenditures (housing, health care, transportation, education) on 30 weeks of salary. By 2018 it took 53 weeks. Which is a problem, there being 52 weeks in a year.

A key assumption of our inflation-adjusted analyses is that old products are still available. Don't like / can't afford the $26K 2018 Grand Caravan, go buy the $18K 1996 one instead. Except you can't. Same problem is even more pernicious in areas like housing and health care.

Another huge problem with health care, especially, is that everyone has to pay for shared risk. If a million-dollar miracle cure needed by 1 in 1,000 households drives up everyone's insurance premium, that's not inflationary. You now have access to the million-dollar cure. Another huge problem with health care, especially, is that everyone has to pay for shared risk. If a million-dollar miracle cure needed by 1 in 1,000 households drives up everyone's insurance premium, that's not inflationary. You now have access to the million-dollar cure.

So, start putting these things together, and you find a situation where major costs facing families have skyrocketed unsustainably in ways our economics is incapable of acknowledging. Then we gloss over the underlying assumptions and say "inflation-adjusted wages look good."

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think we can all rest assured that large financial institutions WILL find a way to screw over the little guy for profit. I'm not sure if the details of how are actually important, because the reality is that they will do it, the government will let them do so if it isn't already busy enabling the process, and the people will let the government do such if they aren't already busy enabling the process.

Considering bank bail outs, we could argue governments actually PAY banks to screw over the small guy...

The US has done quite well with bailouts.

https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/

Interesting read.

So the banks in the US didn’t just use the bailouts to pay next years bonuses?

Given the state of the Chinese economy right now and the Corona virus beginning to spread worldwide, I think the 'next' recession will be arriving very shortly.

 Vulcan wrote:
Given the state of the Chinese economy right now and the Corona virus beginning to spread worldwide, I think the 'next' recession will be arriving very shortly.

Possibly. Technically a recession is 2 successive quarters of economic decline.

Fourth quarter 2019 rose to about 2.1% (same as 3rd quarter), with revisions may be happening in a few weeks:
https://www.bea.gov/news/2020/gross-domestic-product-fourth-quarter-and-year-2019-advance-estimate

Much of the Asian supply chain was in the works to be moved outside of China in 2019, so the tariff's impact may already be baked-in.

However, with stories that some Asian manufacturers, particularly China, were shuttered due to the virus has got to impact the markets.

Or, the reaction to the virus is merely a pretext for stock market corrections. If that's the case, then expect some aggressive buying sometime next week.

IMO, disruption in Chinese manufacturing on top of... 'previously existing risk factors' is definitely going to de-motivate a wave of re-buying. We are definitely heading into the next recession.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
IMO, disruption in Chinese manufacturing on top of... 'previously existing risk factors' is definitely going to de-motivate a wave of re-buying. We are definitely heading into the next recession.

We've been heading that way for about a year now.

It's possible the economy rebounds from this issue, maybe. I wouldn't be surprised if the real hit came in the fall when the markets are always volatile anyway.

 Vulcan wrote:
I would assume that mortgage lenders would just start ignoring the prime rate just as high-interest lenders already do. There's no profit in paying someone to borrow money, and if America is about ANYTHING it's about maximizing profit.

Banks don't charge negative rates and aren't expected to. That rate is the short term risk free rate. ie what you accept if you want to be absolutely guaranteed to get your money back in about 30 days. Longer term loans, and more importantly loans with a chance of default will have a premium over that base rate. The rate of that premium is determined by the market, ie each bank making its own assessment of market conditions, the risk of the investment and the financial reliability of the lender. So the bank might access money at negative 0.25%, then turn around and lend it to someone for a houseloan at 2.5%. Or for a business loan with little capital it might 8%. For a loan shark giving money to finance a cocaine deal it might 1,500%.

The importance of that base rate is it is the starting point that premium will be added to. So if it spiked to 4% because of a runaway, overheated economy, that mortgage might go to something around 7%


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mario wrote:
For that "stuff's gotten more expensive discussion": https://twitter.com/oren_cass/status/1230505794686373888

Years ago, maybe around 2011 or 2012, I had an argument with someone here on dakka about one of the points raised in that article. I was defending the process of adjusting inflation for product improvements. Anyhow I read that stuff when it popped up on twitter and I realised I was wrong. So fair point, person from 8 or 9 years ago, baseline inflation adjustment is misleading.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vulcan wrote:
Given the state of the Chinese economy right now and the Corona virus beginning to spread worldwide, I think the 'next' recession will be arriving very shortly.

Possibly, but it would need to have some massive knock on effects. Chinese is a huge trading partner for the US, but I think people don't realise exactly that is. Chinese goods coming in to the US made up about ~2.0% of US GDP in 2019. That's big but if it was to cut by let's say 0.5% it's the kind of impact that could be countered with markets realigning to other trading partners and some government money splashing around.

Don't believe me? Well Trump's trade war cut chinese imports from 2.5% in 2018 to 2.0% in 2019. Some farmers were hammered by Chinese retaliation, but was anyone impacted by a decline in Chinese imports? Nah, US purchases just realigned to other countries offering the same stuff at similar prices and we all shuffled along.

Coronavirus, like anything, probably won't be a recession in itself. It might be a contributory factor, if it spreads to a lot of countries and starts impacting economic activity in all of them. And even then, recession is only likely if it puts pressure on economic sectors that are suddenly revealed to be very fragile.

So like everything in economics the answer is maybe, if a bunch of stuff we think might happen actually happens, but even then maybe not. But also maybe if a bunch of stuff we haven't thought happens, then it also might happen because of that.

https://slate.com/business/2020/02/four-reasons-why-coronavirus-is-such-a-terrifying-economic-threat.html

The first, most obvious answer is that the disease could disrupt life and commerce as the world knows it. Global supply chains are already getting scrambled, as much of China, the world’s factory, has been put on lockdown. Chinese consumers have stopped shopping, hurting sales of everything from cars to iPhones. Tourists are staying home. And if coronavirus truly washes across the U.S.—as public health officials seem to expect—it could prevent Americans from going to the office, their favorite restaurants, or the movies. As people’s daily routines grind to a halt, so too could the economy.

A budding pandemic is likely to be different. For starters, it creates demand problems that can’t necessarily be solved by putting money in people’s pockets; families aren’t going to spend a tax cut on a trip to Disney World if they’re afraid to go out in public. At the same time, as The Economist’s Ryan Avent pointed out earlier this week, coronavirus is also threatening to create a “supply shock,” by simply cutting off access to goods and services.

Issue number three: People are worried that a recession brought about by coronavirus could trigger landmines that have seemingly been waiting to explode in the financial world.

Fourth, there’s just the sheer uncertainty of it all. Nobody has any real frame of reference for what’s coming the world’s way right now.

I find the third point the most "concerning" as these "unexploded landmines" are there with or without Coronavirus.

 Easy E wrote:
https://slate.com/business/2020/02/four-reasons-why-coronavirus-is-such-a-terrifying-economic-threat.html

The first, most obvious answer is that the disease could disrupt life and commerce as the world knows it. Global supply chains are already getting scrambled, as much of China, the world’s factory, has been put on lockdown. Chinese consumers have stopped shopping, hurting sales of everything from cars to iPhones. Tourists are staying home. And if coronavirus truly washes across the U.S.—as public health officials seem to expect—it could prevent Americans from going to the office, their favorite restaurants, or the movies. As people’s daily routines grind to a halt, so too could the economy.

A budding pandemic is likely to be different. For starters, it creates demand problems that can’t necessarily be solved by putting money in people’s pockets; families aren’t going to spend a tax cut on a trip to Disney World if they’re afraid to go out in public. At the same time, as The Economist’s Ryan Avent pointed out earlier this week, coronavirus is also threatening to create a “supply shock,” by simply cutting off access to goods and services.

Issue number three: People are worried that a recession brought about by coronavirus could trigger landmines that have seemingly been waiting to explode in the financial world.

Fourth, there’s just the sheer uncertainty of it all. Nobody has any real frame of reference for what’s coming the world’s way right now.

I find the third point the most "concerning" as these "unexploded landmines" are there with or without Coronavirus.

It's also worth noting that the #1 enemy of a strong economy is uncertainty. And here we have a budding pandemic creating massive uncertainty...

Seems like a perfect time to start weaning people off 70 years of environment-damaging overconsumerism.
Or just another stock crash, whatever.

I think coronavirus will get real nasty in the US because of how strong our go-to-work-while-sick culture is, even/especially in service industries. To say nothing about the number of people who cannot afford to miss three weeks of work.