Economic implications of a SARS/Coronavirus outbreak

[over9k]

Cross-posted from another thread:

There's about a 2ish week lead time from infection to positive result last I checked.

Don't be surprised if biden or harris or whomever tests positive soon as we all know that all the advisors, staff etc rub shoulders with each other constantly. Not saying it's going to happen, but there's a very realistic probability that it does.

And wouldn't you know it:



Harris tested negative yesterday, has suspended all travel.

 

[sptrawler]

You'd get absolute uproar. Boomers don't want the government taking money they'd leave to their kids and the kids need the inheritance money. No chance of it happening.

No they wouldn't, I know for a fact most worked hard for what they have and are helping their kids.
What you are saying is those that have saved and have money in retirement shouldn't be supported, I agree and actually they aren't, nothing is free if you have money in retirement. If you have money and end up requiring care it costs, if you have nothing, it comes out of your government pension.
So I have trouble understanding your angle.
But if it is because you are worried those who don't get a pension and don't get free aged care should be paying more, I'm sure they would be happy to give 40% of what they haven't spent to the government.
I really don't follow where you are coming from.
Everything is means tested when you retire, if you have FA you pay FA, if you have money you don't get a pension and you don't get free accommodation in aged care, you don't get cheap licences, cheap rates, cheap drugs.
Why don't they have a referendum on death duties, I bet old people would vote yes.lol
Think about it, why would the baby boomers be hell bent on leaving their money to their kids, when the kids have the same attitude as what you have.lol weird reasoning.

 

[over9k]

I wasn't giving you my opinion on the policy, just saying that it'll never happen. As I've tried to point out a lot earlier in the thread, we're here to discuss what we think will happen, not what we think should happen. Hence my previous comment to a previous argument between two members not mattering on account of the fact that the politicians are not going to change their tune on it.

There's just no way they'll ever get a decent inheritance tax or equivalent passed. Not a hope. No point even thinking about it, no matter how much of a good idea it might be.

 

[sptrawler]

You'd get absolute uproar. Boomers don't want the government taking money they'd leave to their kids and the kids need the inheritance money. No chance of it happening.

I wasn't giving you my opinion on the policy, just saying that it'll never happen. As I've tried to point out a lot earlier in the thread, we're here to discuss what we think will happen, not what we think should happen. Hence my previous comment to a previous argument between two members not mattering on account of the fact that the politicians are not going to change their tune on it.

There's just no way they'll ever get a decent inheritance tax or equivalent passed. Not a hope. No point even thinking about it, no matter how much of a good idea it might be.

And I was responding to your post that the baby boomers are screwing over the next generation, which I'm sure isn't happening, as I said if you have anything you get nothing.
If you have nothing you get welfare.
From personal experience, I can tell you that I would highly recommend to my kids, that unless you can amass at least $3m you are better going for a pension.
Sad really.
Just my opinion, watching my self funded MIL, my government funded mother, and my self funded self.
10 years ago I would have said exactly the opposite.lol
So I hope they keep pushing toward penalising endeavour, then we will see how much it cost the next generation, when their parents have saved FA.

 

[over9k]

The fact that your house isn't counted in your assets is a major problem. It effectively allows you to yank all (or at least, a lot) of money out of super, buy a palace with it, and then have the system pay you/pay your living expenses while you live in it.

But again, that's not going to change either. From my perspective, it basically just means that I inherit more whilst having higher income taxes to pay the public debt off later. It's nice that my grandmother hasn't had to sell her house to fund her retirement (meaning I'm going to inherit a lot more from her), but at the same time, someone is paying the taxes that fund her pension, and considering that that pension is currently being funded with public debt, that someone is going to be me (eventually).

 

[Smurf1976]

There's a future but it's different to the past - we're going to be making more ourselves and relying on others less

Adding to that but another thing I don't see returning to 2019's "normal" anytime soon is international travel.

In 2019 someone in Australia living in a regional area or a state that doesn't have direct flights could have flown to Sydney or Melbourne on a domestic flight, boarded an international flight to Doha or Dubai, and boarded a second flight to London.

Even allowing for check-in times and flights not aligning well so some "dead" time, ultimately they could still go from their home in Australia to being on the streets of London within 36 hours including a taxi to the airport in Australia and using the train at the London end. Less if they don't need the domestic flight to get to Sydney etc. And all for not much more than a week's wages for an ordinary run of the mill worker.

I'm not expecting that to return anytime soon. Just think of everything that's involved and the issues both with the pandemic itself and the economic effects.

If you've got unlimited funds and are in no hurry then you'll be flying in due course but there's an awful lot of things which need to fall into place to get cheap and frequent travel back in action. The whole concept of low cost air travel relies upon there being a large volume of passengers which creates a "chicken and egg" problem since half full planes are only profitable at much higher ticket prices which then deter passengers from traveling in the first place thus compounding the situation.

Someday yes bit it'll take a while.

Note that I've only mentioned London since it's a place that significant numbers of people go to and I had to pick somewhere. Same concept though applies pretty much everywhere that's a long way away.

 

[sptrawler]

The fact that your house isn't counted in your assets is a major problem. It effectively allows you to yank all (or at least, a lot) of money out of super, buy a palace with it, and then have the system pay you/pay your living expenses while you live in it.

But again, that's not going to change either. From my perspective, it basically just means that I inherit more whilst having higher income taxes to pay the public debt off later. It's nice that my grandmother hasn't had to sell her house to fund her retirement (meaning I'm going to inherit a lot more from her), but at the same time, someone is paying the taxes that fund her pension, and considering that that pension is currently being funded with public debt, that someone is going to be me (eventually).

I agree with that, the prime residence should be included in the asset test for the pension, by the way I sold my ppr and downsized when I was made redundant at 55 and have been self funded since.
Add to that I'm 65 this month and don't get any jobseeker, jobkeeper, or FA and don't qualify for a pension for a year and a half.lol
Meanwhile with the recent economic hit, my dividends are less than my drawdown, but hey still no jobseeker or jobseeker.
I can't wait to see the bleeding hearts in 20 years time, when they have to face up to what they have saved, having to support their expectations when the next crisis hits.
Then they will have grey hair and the laid back younger people snapping at their heels, saying well you had it easy fat bitch.lol
Anyway probably best to get back on thread 9k, it is good to find where we both sit, adds clarity.lol

 

[qldfrog]

The first world has been beholden to the baby boomers' whims since the mid 90's. It's simple demographics and they have outvoted the rest of us.

To be more specific, they've voted to **** us all over. Even now, the boomers are at the peak of their working and therefore taxpaying lives so tax revenues are at the highest they've ever been and so now would be the ideal time to start paying debt down. But the boomers don't want to pay for it and there's enough of them to simply vote for it to be someone else's problem, and so they have. Hence the massive deficits the government is running/the absolute joke the last budget was.

You can also see this politically through time:

In the 90's/early 2000's the boomers all had massive mortgages, so john howard ran on a "interest rates will always be lower under a liberal government" message, and was the 2nd longest reigning PM as a result of it.

Then after inflating a massive housing bubble that krudd & co kept going into the 2010's that made the boomers filthy stinking rich at the expense of their children & grandchildren it was "well nobody's ever complained to me about their house price going up" (like housing getting more expensive is a good thing or something, which it obviously only is if you already own one or even several investments)

Then just before coronavirus it when boomers were all at the peak of their careers before retirement and therefore peak of their taxpaying days it was "historic income tax cuts" and finally, only when being left to rot in nursing homes wasn't too far off for the baby boomers did we finally have a "royal commission into aged care". Not a problem for the boomers' parents/my grandparents, but it's an issue now!

Again, this is not complex - the boomers have had the demographic weight to and have actively decided to vote for nothing other than their own self interests for their entire lives without giving a second thought as to who's going to have to pay for it (i.e their children and their grandchildren) and only once enough of them are dead around 2030-2040 or so will the rest of us be able to finally start cleaning (and paying) up the mess that they're leaving for everyone else to pay for.

All coronavirus has done is make that pain about 50% worse than it was already going to be. To be clear here, this was always coming, it's just going to be so much worse now.

And isn't the covid response the perfect continuation of that policy: destroying the economy of the west..and as an aside of Africa, latin america and all but Asia, not to scare the over.. what 55?
Decimating the future of generation currently younger than 40y old is a shortsighted move imho as who will pay for the meds or push your wheelchair in 15 to 25 y....

 

[SirRumpole]

My last statement might have been too cryptic, but what is the difference between a 'free trade' agreement today, and a removal of tariffs on imported gear from third world countries in the 1980's when labour cost was zero over there? I find it difficult to find the line, but hey I try to be objective.
I guess it depends who is on the rostrum, banging the tamborine.lol

Too political.

I don't agree with Hawke and Keating removing tariffs either. It's decimated our manufacturing industry.

 

[over9k]

 

[Smurf1976]

I don't agree with Hawke and Keating removing tariffs either. It's decimated our manufacturing industry.

Classic case of something that went too far.

It's one thing to give favourable treatment to genuinely poor countries in order to help them help themselves by providing a market for their products. That's a cost efficient and practical means of providing aid to those in genuine need, it gives them a means to lift themselves up economically.

It's another thing entirely to wipe out entire industries of your own in order to send them to superpowers.

If there's one good thing I'm expecting to come out of all this it's a reversal of some of that.

 

[over9k]

U.S. Budget Gap Triples to Record $3.1 Trillion on Virus Relief

The U.S. budget deficit more than tripled to a record $3.1 trillion in the latest fiscal year on the government’s massive spending aimed at softening the blow from the coronavirus pandemic.

www.bloomberg.com

.



3.1 trillion deficit and counting. The next stimulus package will obviously add another couple of trillion or whatever it ends up being.

The previous deficits were about 1ish trillion a year, so we're probably looking at 4-5 years of deficits to pay off, assuming they're paid off at the same rate they were accrued (which they won't be).

AU isn't much different, but the AUD isn't the world's reserve currency, so it's a much bigger problem for AU.

 

[over9k]

I'm honestly surprised it's not higher. We'll see what winter brings when all the casual summer work (that's left) is over.

 

[qldfrog]

View attachment 113349

I'm honestly surprised it's not higher. We'll see what winter brings when all the casual summer work (that's left) is over.

One confusing thing with the US is that we see overall results
Not per state, probably willingly so that people are kept in the fog...
This detaches end results from actual covid blamed measures from consequences.
Trump does not order lockdown measures or free for all.states do:
As a result economically, you can not..but i am sure big fund do, judge the effects of policy changes if when they come on retail, closure, unemployment,etc ultimately critical for US indexes.well should be...
Once elections are over,we may see common sense and figures talk again,but do not all your breath.
Under machartysm time,it took years for US kids not to be told to look under their bed for a red commie in hiding...

 

[basilio]

The long term economic consequences of COVID on Australia are being spelt out. All that easy growth from more people is gone. We will almost certainly lose a large slab of the O/S students who underwrote our Universities as well as the domestic consumption/rental market in the big cities.

Covid rewrites Australia’s future, with huge drop in population signalling challenges ahead
Population growth of 600,000 fewer people in 2022 a sign of major changes for all aspects of life, Deloitte reports

Covid rewrites Australia’s future, with huge drop in population signalling challenges ahead

Population growth of 600,000 fewer people in 2022 a sign of major changes for all aspects of life, Deloitte reports

www.theguardian.com

 

[basilio]

So I wonder at what stage the Share Market starts to reflect the economic realities of very different Australia ?

 

[sptrawler]

So I wonder at what stage the Share Market starts to reflect the economic realities of very different Australia ?

Who says it isn't?

 

[basilio]

Who says it isn't?

?? All ords at 6450 ? I suggest the implications of the story I quoted and just the most obvious consequences of COVID to date would not support the current SP overall.

 

[sptrawler]

Time will tell, but the article you posted was basically an opinion piece, with very little reasoning behind it IMO.
The drop in immigration could well be blessing in disguise, it will allow some infrastructure money to be spent on productive investment, rather than just being poured into the housing sector to support the ponzi scheme that has been rampant for the last 15 years.

It will allow for more investment in a renewable grid, rather than just struggling to keep up with the increased power demand, that 600,000 extra people per annum add to the existing grid.
It will allow social housing to catch up with demand and reduce the pumping of existing house prices, as supply has never been allowed to catch up with demand.

The share market IMO, is reflecting the economy currently prevailing, financials are still down understandably, miners are up understandably and retail is being kept afloat by government spending.
So IMO it is a reflection of where we are at, whether that stays the same when the Government reduces the handouts remains to be seen, but on past performance, I expect some for of stimulus for the financial sector when the transition happens.
Just my opinion, but up to now I think it has been handled extremely well, I hope it holds up.

 

[over9k]

So I wonder at what stage the Share Market starts to reflect the economic realities of very different Australia ?

When the government stops borrowing money and propping it up with it. All they've done is kick the can down the road. This piper needs to be paid eventually.