Economic Conditions - Nashville, TN, U.S., Global

[Armacing]

Good stuff here, and we're mostly in agreement.  You brought up some things I didn't mention as legitimate functions of government, some quick comments about that:

8 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

For example... incorporate your business outside the US... go buy it in Montana or New Hampshire where there is no sales tax...give up your citizenship ... go to the Bahamas and pay no income tax at all. None of those options will end with the US government inflicting violence upon you, which undermines your premise.

Yes, you can avoid taxes if you really set out to do it.  The real harm to society though is the opportunity cost related to more transactions being conducted via coercion rather than voluntary trade.  Aside from the purely moral imperative of limiting the amount of violence experienced by the public, there is the pragmatic economic reality that wealth is only created through voluntary trade where both parties are beneficiaries to the transaction.  In coercive transactions (e.g., taxes taken by force where no value is given in return), only one party benefits from that mere transfer of wealth.  Moreover, information about the true price of assets is lost during that exchange.  Those opportunity costs and information losses are the corrosive barnacles that slowly build up over decades in a centrally-planned or highly-regulated economy and eventually cause socialist/communist economies to collapse from within.

8 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

I could burn down your house ….if there's no government property records to track and enforce deed ownership, what would prevent me from simply claiming that the house

You're right, my description of the framework of government was overly simplistic, possibly because I wanted to keep the discussion relatively binary by contrasting non-violent activities with violent ones.  Or I could have just forgotten entirely.  Had I been more thorough, I would have brought up exactly the point you did.  Private property must be protected from theft by the use of  government force (I did mention thieves, if you recall).  So property records would still be a government function, and arson would still be a crime because it is the destruction of private property.  We can also take a moment to notice the similarity of the outrageous prospect of someone's house being burnt down without recourse, and the reality of people's income being taken through taxes and then summarily given to someone else in society without even the pretense of providing value to the taxpayer.  I contend those two scenarios are outrageous for exactly the same reason.

9 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

... how could we ever conduct that kind of transaction without a court system ...no means to legally enforce payment on loans and/or to foreclose on property

Great point!  I should have mentioned courts and the enforcement of contracts as a legitimate function of government enforcement.  And let's remember that contracts are entered into voluntarily.

9 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

 without banking regulations that make credit and loans possible

Banks and loans would exist without any regulations whatsoever.  Contracts and courts are all that is needed to facility their existence.

9 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

Labor rights like the prohibition of child labor and the creation of the weekend and overtime/hazard pay come immediately to mind as good examples of how workers can be exploited in market-based systems where no governmental oversight exists.

Anyone working jobs with long hours would be doing so voluntarily, so I disagree on that as a legitimate function of government.  On the child labor law issue, I think that comes down to the age when a person is legally allowed to enter into contracts.  If employment contracts with individuals under the age of 18 were unenforceable in court, then no kids would work below that age because there would be no way to force a business to pay wages without a contract.  And with no wage laws or labor laws, it is a foregone conclusion that all employment would be undertaken via the execution of a contract.  Once again, courts and contracts are the answer.

9 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

 Environmental regulations are another easy example since almost all of us were alive back when aerosols ate a hole in the ozone layer and lake Eerie used to spontaneously catch fire with unfortunate regularity. When companies are allowed to dump their toxic byproducts into our waterways at almost no cost, it's hard to blame them for doing so, and who could stop them? Market forces were not enough, otherwise the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts would never have been necessary in the first place.

Man, we could write a whole essay on this subject, but just touching on it briefly, I think the concept of "Limited Liability" is not consistent with the concept of freedom and private property because it allows one party to wrong another party and partially shield themselves from the consequences of doing so.  In simple terms, a truly free society would hold all stockholders liable to the full extent of their personal assets and income for any judgements made against a corporation that they own shares in.  Moreover, with private property including water rights and air rights, it's likely that individuals in the vicinity of these offences would be successful in winning judgements against the offenders.  That likelihood alone would cause the insurance company of the would-be polluter to institute their own controls and stipulations on companies to limit potential liability.  So again, I default back to the answer "Courts".

9 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

keeping our water systems free from the industrial pork farms manure pipeline or the leather tannery's runoff

Same answer as above, "Courts".

9 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

problems with anti-competitive monopolistic behavior, bribery, company stores/indentured servitude, extortion, and piracy of copyrights and patents...and that's just off the top of my head. The last point about patents alone would pretty much up-end our entire pharmaceutical industry, and the absence of an FDA would certainly deal the final blow. I for one have no interest in drinking any traveling salesman's snake oil. 

Woah, good long list of things.  Luckily I've heard all these before, but it really would take a while to hash through every issue.  I'll keep my responses brief and you let me know where you want to dig deeper:

1) Monopolies - These only come about when created by government regulation, which I propose to eliminate.  So I see that as a symptom of government intervention, not the free market.

2) Bribery -  Do you mean bribery of government officials here?  With no regulations affecting business I guess that would be limited to the bribery of judges, which would still be a crime.  If you mean bribery in the private sector, I would argue that is how business functions today and every day.  Rebates, incentives, wine & dine, close connections, etc.  Bribery in the private sector is just another flavor of peaceful trade.

3) Company Stores - That's a voluntary situation.

4) Indentured servitude - people should be free to enter into any contracts they see fit.

5) Copyrights/patents - The concept of intellectual property is not consistent with the concept of freedom.  That is not a legitimate function of government, but we could once again write a whole essay on that.  I'll just say that in my opinion there is no such thing as intellectual property because two people can think the same idea at once, and sing the same song at once, and engage in the same business process at once.  In contrast, two people cannot eat the same cashew at once, so there is a fundamental difference between physical property which can be owned because of its inherent scarcity and ideas, which are free to all because they are not scarce - but rather unlimited.

6) Pharmaceutical industry -  Yep, that industry would be fundamentally transformed by the absence of patents, but I think it would be transformed for the better.  Not to mention the ramifications of eliminating the concept of limited liability.  And in a free society with no prohibitions on trade, certain traditional "herbal" medicines may prove to be formidable competitors to synthetic drugs.  But really, like so many other things we have discussed, this involves the entire re-imagining of an industry under new assumptions and with new ground rules.  "What's the point?", you might wonder.  My response:  "Correcting everything that is wrong with these systems today."

[JoeyX]

On 4/19/2020 at 11:04 PM, grilled_cheese said:

 

@JoeyX you wanna shed some light on this, big boy?

I just got back from Carl's Jr.

Mann, was it good. Mo hominey hominey homineeyyyy.

Now.... I will deal with you.

On 4/19/2020 at 11:04 PM, grilled_cheese said:

Think the people that protested the last few days will pay market rate for their medical treatment if they get corona-sick?  You know, full blown capitalism and all.

Also, are they from Metro-Nashville-Davidison?  Are their businesses in Metro-Nashville-Davidson?  Aren't these the same types of people that voted in the blackface-plumber-zerogubmentexperience and iHaTeDeVeLoPmEnT dudes into office?

@JoeyX you wanna shed some light on this, big boy?

By blackface-plumber-zerogubmentexperience do you mean the governor of Virginia?

 

Edited April 22, 2020 by JoeyX

[Nash_12South]

Mayor Cooper was on MSNBC this afternoon ( MTP Daily) and did a fine job. We will know details of our opening back up tomorrow. Keeping expectations low.

[downtownresident]

37 minutes ago, Nash_12South said:

Mayor Cooper was on MSNBC this afternoon ( MTP Daily) and did a fine job. We will know details of our opening back up tomorrow. Keeping expectations low.

Man, compared to the interview with the Las Vegas mayor on CNN, he did a great job. 

[grilled_cheese]

5 hours ago, JoeyX said:

I just got back from Carl's Jr.

Mann, was it good. Mo hominey hominey homineeyyyy.

Now.... I will deal with you.

By blackface-plumber-zerogubmentexperience do you mean the governor of Virginia?

 

Who tf is the gov of Virginia?

https://nypost.com/2020/04/21/man-dies-from-coronavirus-after-calling-it-a-political-ploy/

I honestly thought this was you and prayed pretty hard it wasn't.

[BnaBreaker]

3 hours ago, Nash_12South said:

Mayor Cooper was on MSNBC this afternoon ( MTP Daily) and did a fine job. We will know details of our opening back up tomorrow. Keeping expectations low.

Ya know... aside from all of the meddling in pre-existing development deals and him probably scaring off at least one major tech company, I actually like the way he has handled the job.  Obviously I'm an out-of-towner so my opinion on the matter perhaps doesn't hold much water, but I think he has shown some solid leadership through the tornadoes and now the pandemic.  Hopefully that version of Cooper is what we see going forward.

[grilled_cheese]

Big brain Las Vegas boomer mayer

 

[downtownresident]

7 hours ago, BnaBreaker said:

Ya know... aside from all of the meddling in pre-existing development deals and him probably scaring off at least one major tech company, I actually like the way he has handled the job.  Obviously I'm an out-of-towner so my opinion on the matter perhaps doesn't hold much water, but I think he has shown some solid leadership through the tornadoes and now the pandemic.  Hopefully that version of Cooper is what we see going forward.

My hope is that the tornado/pandemic has shown him just how important the growth downtown, the tourism industry, and the convention center is to city, and metro budget. I have a feeling that he’ll be singing a different tune when we come out the other side, because economic growth is going to be absolutely crucial for the city’s long term survival. 

[smeagolsfree]

An interview done earlier in the week with Waddell Wright, founder and CEO of W. Wright & Co. LLC, by the NBJ

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/c/nashville-real-estate-specialist-we-went-straight.html

The scariest take-away from the entire interview was this statement:

“I’d be surprised if 70% [of businesses] survived at this point. … Some deals were already holding by a shoestring, by a hair. It only takes one little mishap like this for it all to fall apart. They were basing everything on future cash flow, because the market was up 15% to 20% and then just went to a screaming halt.”

 

I was also reading info about the SBA loans this week and many of the businesses will not be able to use them as 75% of the money has to be used on payroll. Many of these companies cannot even open back up such as restaurants because they can't open at 100% capacity, so they will more than likely go under. 

I have also been seeing that the economic recovery will more than likely be a “W” shape instead of a “V” shape recovery.

I also look for the stock market to take a huge tumble once the 2nd quarter earning reports come out. That will be the 1st quarter to be entirely in the pandemic. Investors, especially the short term investors are short sighted and panic and when they see the numbers they will sell and the market will once again plunge like a rock. 

I am just an amateur, so what do I know.

[ruraljuror]

On 4/21/2020 at 10:01 PM, Armacing said:

Good stuff here, and we're mostly in agreement.  You brought up some things I didn't mention as legitimate functions of government, some quick comments about that:

Yes, you can avoid taxes if you really set out to do it.  The real harm to society though is the opportunity cost related to more transactions being conducted via coercion rather than voluntary trade.  Aside from the purely moral imperative of limiting the amount of violence experienced by the public, there is the pragmatic economic reality that wealth is only created through voluntary trade where both parties are beneficiaries to the transaction.  In coercive transactions (e.g., taxes taken by force where no value is given in return), only one party benefits from that mere transfer of wealth.  Moreover, information about the true price of assets is lost during that exchange.  Those opportunity costs and information losses are the corrosive barnacles that slowly build up over decades in a centrally-planned or highly-regulated economy and eventually cause socialist/communist economies to collapse from within.

You're right, my description of the framework of government was overly simplistic, possibly because I wanted to keep the discussion relatively binary by contrasting non-violent activities with violent ones.  Or I could have just forgotten entirely.  Had I been more thorough, I would have brought up exactly the point you did.  Private property must be protected from theft by the use of  government force (I did mention thieves, if you recall).  So property records would still be a government function, and arson would still be a crime because it is the destruction of private property.  We can also take a moment to notice the similarity of the outrageous prospect of someone's house being burnt down without recourse, and the reality of people's income being taken through taxes and then summarily given to someone else in society without even the pretense of providing value to the taxpayer.  I contend those two scenarios are outrageous for exactly the same reason.

Great point!  I should have mentioned courts and the enforcement of contracts as a legitimate function of government enforcement.  And let's remember that contracts are entered into voluntarily.

Banks and loans would exist without any regulations whatsoever.  Contracts and courts are all that is needed to facility their existence.

Anyone working jobs with long hours would be doing so voluntarily, so I disagree on that as a legitimate function of government.  On the child labor law issue, I think that comes down to the age when a person is legally allowed to enter into contracts.  If employment contracts with individuals under the age of 18 were unenforceable in court, then no kids would work below that age because there would be no way to force a business to pay wages without a contract.  And with no wage laws or labor laws, it is a foregone conclusion that all employment would be undertaken via the execution of a contract.  Once again, courts and contracts are the answer.

Man, we could write a whole essay on this subject, but just touching on it briefly, I think the concept of "Limited Liability" is not consistent with the concept of freedom and private property because it allows one party to wrong another party and partially shield themselves from the consequences of doing so.  In simple terms, a truly free society would hold all stockholders liable to the full extent of their personal assets and income for any judgements made against a corporation that they own shares in.  Moreover, with private property including water rights and air rights, it's likely that individuals in the vicinity of these offences would be successful in winning judgements against the offenders.  That likelihood alone would cause the insurance company of the would-be polluter to institute their own controls and stipulations on companies to limit potential liability.  So again, I default back to the answer "Courts".

Same answer as above, "Courts".

Woah, good long list of things.  Luckily I've heard all these before, but it really would take a while to hash through every issue.  I'll keep my responses brief and you let me know where you want to dig deeper:

1) Monopolies - These only come about when created by government regulation, which I propose to eliminate.  So I see that as a symptom of government intervention, not the free market.

2) Bribery -  Do you mean bribery of government officials here?  With no regulations affecting business I guess that would be limited to the bribery of judges, which would still be a crime.  If you mean bribery in the private sector, I would argue that is how business functions today and every day.  Rebates, incentives, wine & dine, close connections, etc.  Bribery in the private sector is just another flavor of peaceful trade.

3) Company Stores - That's a voluntary situation.

4) Indentured servitude - people should be free to enter into any contracts they see fit.

5) Copyrights/patents - The concept of intellectual property is not consistent with the concept of freedom.  That is not a legitimate function of government, but we could once again write a whole essay on that.  I'll just say that in my opinion there is no such thing as intellectual property because two people can think the same idea at once, and sing the same song at once, and engage in the same business process at once.  In contrast, two people cannot eat the same cashew at once, so there is a fundamental difference between physical property which can be owned because of its inherent scarcity and ideas, which are free to all because they are not scarce - but rather unlimited.

6) Pharmaceutical industry -  Yep, that industry would be fundamentally transformed by the absence of patents, but I think it would be transformed for the better.  Not to mention the ramifications of eliminating the concept of limited liability.  And in a free society with no prohibitions on trade, certain traditional "herbal" medicines may prove to be formidable competitors to synthetic drugs.  But really, like so many other things we have discussed, this involves the entire re-imagining of an industry under new assumptions and with new ground rules.  "What's the point?", you might wonder.  My response:  "Correcting everything that is wrong with these systems today."

Thanks again for the reply.  While I appreciate how much thought you've clearly put into this, I fear that we've veered into the realm of political science fiction. I still see some holes in your rationale (which I will address shortly) but even if you'd concocted an airtight governing system (in your estimation) that achieved all of its purported goals with maximum objective morality (as you define it), you still would have no way enacting anything even close to resembling this system in the real world unless you were starting from scratch or unless you were the global god-emperor and could get it all done with a snap of your fingers simultaneously. 

To be clear, I do think it's an interesting thought experiment, but when you start letting your abstract philosophy bleed into your real-world political expression, I think you're creating a tangled web that muddles the point of the exercise. For example, when I said I think we should tax the rich more - I very much mean that in a practical, real-world sense. But when you reply that doing so would be enacting more violence on people and is therefore immoral, your response hinges on this very extensive fantasy scenario in which the way you wish that government would function (as opposed to how it actually does function) is foundational to your argument.  Obviously in the real world, even accepting your premise that taxation = violence, clearly there's no more violence committed in the collection of a larger amount of taxes than there is in the collection of a small amount of taxes, which renders your point moot.  This is where I think you may have gotten caught in the web between what actually is and what you believe could be. 

To that point, in terms of confusing reality with your personal ideals, I think it's a somewhat dangerous game to play, because doing so would allow you to freely profess things like 'taxes are thievery' and might even inspire yourself or others to vote for political candidates in the real world who most closely adhere to that philosophy, but in doing so you would be neglecting all of the other aspects of your ideal governmental system that would make such a 'no-tax' governance arguably moral.  A government that would collect less/no taxes is an interesting concept, but if that same government doesn't also enact the end of limited-liability for corporate actors and shareholders in accordance with your design, then that government would in fact be LESS moral than the one we currently have.  Also, as a practical matter, ending limited-liability as you have proposed isn't necessarily a bad idea in the abstract, but it's a good example of the kind of provision that almost definitely is never going to happen without the global god-emperor powers I referenced above.

Beyond those general issues with your framing, I also think there are a couple weaknesses in your specific arguments/policies. For example you state that monopolies "only come about when created by government regulation" as though that's an unimpeachable fact, but I actually think your assessment is pretty far off base here. Historically, monopolies have come into existence for any number of reasons unrelated to government regulations: geography can create de-facto monopolies, as can exclusive contracts within supply chains, and access to limited resources.  In fact, without strong regulations against collusion, price-fixing, and bribery, history shows that monopolistic practices will be incredibly common - which is why anti-trust laws and these kinds of regulations were enacted in the first place. Further, even without patents and intellectual property protections, trade secrets about processes, materials, and engineering can and will still enable the existence of monopolies - only now those monopolies could potentially go on forever instead of only for the life of the patent. And that's just one example. 

In addition to these practical concerns, I think the governmental system you've cooked up will run into some moral issues beyond what you've acknowledged, as well.  It's fine to lean on volition when entering into contracts as your safety net to assuage concerns about moral hazards, but indentured servitude (and to a lesser degree, child labor) were already entered into voluntarily for the most part. We still outlawed/regulated those practices despite that they were voluntary transactions, because people recognized the power imbalances that were often involved in those transactions, saw their logical outcomes, and deemed them to be immoral. If I'm starving and have no shelter from a blizzard, I'd gladly sign away 20 years of my own slave labor for a pot roast, a roof, and a blanket if the alternative is most likely death. In order for a choice to be voluntary, there has to be a meaningful alternative, which is why we've outlawed coercion and invalidated transactions that are objectively deemed to be unconscionably harsh.

All that to say, I do think this is some pretty interesting stuff to discuss (though I'm sure more than a couple of our fellow UPers have grown quite tired of it taking up space in this thread). And as long as you don't start promoting some of these ideas as piecemeal solutions to real-world problems, I think it's a great philosophical exercise to consider. Just don't make the mistake of forgetting that the system you've devised (even for all of its flaws as I see them) is still greater than the sum of it's parts and the structure cannot hold without the entire foundation in place. All the same, I would love to see how something like your system would play out in a giant simulation - I'm sure we'd both learn a lot.  Thanks again for the reply in any case!

 

 

 

Edited April 23, 2020 by ruraljuror

[japan]

1 hour ago, smeagolsfree said:

I also look for the stock market to take a huge tumble once the 2nd quarter earning reports come out. That will be the 1st quarter to be entirely in the pandemic. Investors, especially the short term investors are short sighted and panic and when they see the numbers they will sell and the market will once again plunge like a rock. 

 

I'm assuming that this is already built into the market.  You would think.

[Armacing]

35 minutes ago, ruraljuror said:

 All the same, I would love to see how something like your system would play out in a giant simulation - I'm sure we'd both learn a lot.  Thanks again for the reply in any case!

And thank you for your responses - very well thought out.  Although some time in the future I would like to discuss monopolies more and the nature of "voluntary" choices in economics, I liked your point about how the whole system needs to change in unison for the individual features to have their intended consequences.  One  day we might see a more perfect libertarian society arise, and if that happens then I think we will both eagerly observe the outcome of such an experiment.  Until that time, it only exists in the realm of theory... then again, all revolutions start out as theories in a certain sense.  Great discussion!

[Nash_12South]

The mayor's proposed reopening plan. 4 phases, 2 weeks in length contingent on the cases not going up too much, which is a tad unrealistic. 

https://www.newschannel5.com/rebound/mayor-john-cooper-expected-to-announce-reopening-plans-for-nashville

 

[smeagolsfree]

41 minutes ago, japan said:

I'm assuming that this is already built into the market.  You would think.

I think a lot of these traders can only see one day in front of their noses. Most of the idiots are reactionary traders that drive the wild market swings. I think a majority of the smart ones are just riding out the storm and standing pat. That is always the smart think to do, but a lot of these guys are in it for the quick buck.

[DDIG]

56 minutes ago, Nash_12South said:

The mayor's proposed reopening plan. 4 phases, 2 weeks in length contingent on the cases not going up too much, which is a tad unrealistic. 

https://www.newschannel5.com/rebound/mayor-john-cooper-expected-to-announce-reopening-plans-for-nashville

 

Here's what will drive me crazy about the new cases metric for awhile. As we RAMP up testing, we have no idea if new cases are actual case growth or us just capturing more of the down-slope of something that was way more widespread than we know. 

[titanhog]

2 minutes ago, DDIG said:

Here's what will drive me crazy about the new cases metric for awhile. As we RAMP up testing, we have no idea if new cases are actual case growth or us just capturing more of the down-slope of something that was way more widespread than we know. 

Yep...that's already happening.  These daily new cases numbers are so skewed.  Just from the testing in CA, we know that we've only tested a fraction of who is infected.  So it's obvious that the more we test, the more positive cases we're going to find (with many being asymptomatic).  The better metric to watch, as far as whether or not we're going up or down, are the number of hospitalizations.  

[MLBrumby]

I'm sorry if this was already posted here, but I've seen similar stories on this topic. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/23/us-coronavirus-outbreak-tennessee-kentucky

[donNdonelson2]

1 hour ago, MLBrumby said:

I'm sorry if this was already posted here, but I've seen similar stories on this topic. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/23/us-coronavirus-outbreak-tennessee-kentucky

It seems odd that Kentucky has a lower population total than Tennessee, and their governor shut down the state earlier than Tennessee, and yet they’ve had MORE Covid-19 deaths than their neighbor to the south.  Has anyone heard speculation as to why?

[OnePointEast]

I wonder if a 50% occupancy rate for a restaurant so early on is a good thing. Restaurants have people in an enclosed area for more than 15 minutes, a time which epidemiologists refer to quite often with this virus. We'll see, though. Hope everything turns out good and we don't have to go back to square one. That would be something that could bring the morale down for many owners of small businesses. 

[MLBrumby]

I can see booths with high backs coming back into vogue. Lots of those restaurants won't be able to do so many tables, and prices will rise too. I expect the emphasis on take-out will continue indefinitely. 

[smeagolsfree]

 

38 minutes ago, donNdonelson2 said:

It seems odd that Kentucky has a lower population total than Tennessee, and their governor shut down the state earlier than Tennessee, and yet they’ve had MORE Covid-19 deaths than their neighbor to the south.  Has anyone heard speculation as to why?

Probably the fact that Kentucky's heath care system is much worse than Tennessee's is one of the big issues. The state is much more rural in nature also.

[Rockatansky]

43 minutes ago, donNdonelson2 said:

It seems odd that Kentucky has a lower population total than Tennessee, and their governor shut down the state earlier than Tennessee, and yet they’ve had MORE Covid-19 deaths than their neighbor to the south.  Has anyone heard speculation as to why?

KY does have the highest rate of smoking in the country. Plus plenty of coal workers with already damaged lungs. Just spitballing.

[PruneTracy]

42 minutes ago, donNdonelson2 said:

It seems odd that Kentucky has a lower population total than Tennessee, and their governor shut down the state earlier than Tennessee, and yet they’ve had MORE Covid-19 deaths than their neighbor to the south.  Has anyone heard speculation as to why?

I try not to think about statistics unless it's absolutely necessary, but the overall fatalities are so low that it seems insignificant (the difference in numbers, not the fatalities themselves, obviously). I don't know what's going on up there but let's say the virus hits one extra nursing home, that's the difference. So many of these deaths have co-morbidities that a small change in the infected population changes the fatality rate considerably. Or, as the article barely mentioned, Kentucky hasn't tested to the extent Tennessee has, so perhaps they have more cases that are not accounted for.

Speaking of, that article is a good example of the shoddy "journalism" we have nowadays.

[downtownresident]

46 minutes ago, donNdonelson2 said:

It seems odd that Kentucky has a lower population total than Tennessee, and their governor shut down the state earlier than Tennessee, and yet they’ve had MORE Covid-19 deaths than their neighbor to the south.  Has anyone heard speculation as to why?

Our initial outbreak was in the population segment that has the lowest death rate and hospitalization rate. In fact, the 20-30 population segment still has the highest number of overall cases, and the majority of cases are in people under the age of 50.  In Kentucky the majority of cases are in people over the age of 50. 
 

We also have a much more robust health care system due to Nashville being a health care hub,  and the state is in a better place financially, and can afford to throw more resources behind expanded testing and surge capacity, so it would stand to reason that our CFR would be lower than that of KY. 
 

It’s not really fair to compare the two states in their outbreaks or response, because the two states are dramatically different in population size, distribution, and resources available to combat the pandemic. 

[Nash_12South]

3 hours ago, OnePointEast said:

I wonder if a 50% occupancy rate for a restaurant so early on is a good thing. Restaurants have people in an enclosed area for more than 15 minutes, a time which epidemiologists refer to quite often with this virus. We'll see, though. Hope everything turns out good and we don't have to go back to square one. That would be something that could bring the morale down for many owners of small businesses. 

I think not nearly everyone is as wary of eating in restaurants as some may think. The reopened restaurants will do good business, including those who will keep doing take out. Retail will also do well. Social distancing is not that hard in a mall or small shop. I know some are understandably worried, but we will see how dire things go as we reopen. No one is really dispelling that 80% of us will have little or no symptoms.