I'm constantly boggled by stories about how the "economy" is doing badly. Of course it is. As part of a reasonable response to a pandemic people have decided (at least until recently) that venturing out and exposing themselves and their loved ones to a deadly virus is a bad idea and have stayed inside rather than spending. Further, many governments have (until recently) instated reasonable restrictions on businesses to curb the spread of the disease. Complaining that the economy is doing badly is like a family in WWII complaining that it's dark because they've shut off all the lights due to an air raid.
All the hand wringing about the economy indicates a great failing of our society, that we are incapable of viewing world events through a lens other than that of the artificial and arbitrary statistics that have come to define "the economy".
What's important is not whether "the economy" is doing well but whether people are able to feed themselves, whether they have shelter, and whether they are able to protect themselves from the virus, things that the numbers that define "the economy" are unrelated to for the most part.
Governments should focus on those things rather than propping up some "economy" by forcing people to decide between being exposed to the virus and being able to provide food and shelter for their families.
We certainly don't lack food or shelter, at least in the US, so we should make sure people have those, at a minimum. Certainly there's no collapse of demand for those and I have no doubt that they can be provided to people in need without endangering either the producers or the consumers until the virus subsides.
Your lofty ideals do not match the reality of living in the US.
What you think governments should focus on is not what they are doing for individuals. A $1200 stimulus check doesn't go that far.
Most small businesses pay their owner only a salary, they cannot afford to shut down for several months. All that deferred store rent has to paid back, and that isn't going to happen with 1% to 10% margins.
The mortality rate for corona is 1/1000 for people under 70, which is only double a bad flu year. I can guarantee the coming economic problems will have a much higher cost in terms of lives, and more, than that.
We are continuing lockdown post-April because of flawed corona models with a deliberately late start date that inflates estimates.
This is exacerbated by the Nov. elections paralyzing politicians. And Newsom wants to be President, so his best option is to make no decision that could cause controversy for him later.
For those with uninterrupted income: I wonder how much the illusion of consumption == happiness has been upended by the shutdown. People make other people happy not stuff, and depriving a lot of people from contact with other humans may (for a while) refocus our attention on that. Being able to be with other humans is the new luxury.
For unemployed: They may be too sacred to start buying stuff if they do have income (or govt checks) in case of a second wave (or relapse of the first).
Also, there's also a whole group who realizes the economy is in free fall and are holding their collective breath. As my father would always say, the fall doesn't kill you, it's just the sudden stop at the bottom.
The hardest-hit business sectors were venues to be with other people.
Since we can't do that in public anymore, we're probably going to buy stuff to facilitate it in private. Urban apartments are not just places to sleep anymore; the city is no longer your living room.
My hypothesis is that due to being isolated at home for so long, ‘home hobby’-type purchases (eg DIY supplies, art supplies, home exercise, gardening, etc.) will be significantly increased. This would correlate with your experience.
Anecdotal. Demand on particular goods and services has shifted, but is overall net down. And whenever there is a threat of recession, large corporations scale back investment, jobs, purchases, and manufacturing.
All the hand wringing about the economy indicates a great failing of our society, that we are incapable of viewing world events through a lens other than that of the artificial and arbitrary statistics that have come to define "the economy".
What's important is not whether "the economy" is doing well but whether people are able to feed themselves, whether they have shelter, and whether they are able to protect themselves from the virus, things that the numbers that define "the economy" are unrelated to for the most part.
Governments should focus on those things rather than propping up some "economy" by forcing people to decide between being exposed to the virus and being able to provide food and shelter for their families.
We certainly don't lack food or shelter, at least in the US, so we should make sure people have those, at a minimum. Certainly there's no collapse of demand for those and I have no doubt that they can be provided to people in need without endangering either the producers or the consumers until the virus subsides.