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

[OnePointEast]

So saying everything goes perfect. Does phase 1 begin 14 days from today or 14 days from May 1st or phase 1 starts in May 1st. It's worded as to where my mind brainfarts lol.

[Nash_12South]

14 hours ago, OnePointEast said:

So saying everything goes perfect. Does phase 1 begin 14 days from today or 14 days from May 1st or phase 1 starts in May 1st. It's worded as to where my mind brainfarts lol.

I think it was worded to do just that. The mayor doesn't want to commit to a specific date....just yet. 

 

Edited April 24, 2020 by Nash_12South

[Rockatansky]

My interpretation is that Phase 1 could start no earlier than May 15.

[OnePointEast]

23 minutes ago, Rockatansky said:

My interpretation is that Phase 1 could start no earlier than May 15.

I think you're correct.

[Nash_12South]

1 hour ago, Rockatansky said:

My interpretation is that Phase 1 could start no earlier than May 15.

I hope we don't wait that long. If the state starts opening on Monday of next week (as is reported) we shouldn't lag by 2+ weeks. We will certainly not follow the state on aspects of reopening, but the more we wait to start, the more confusing and less practical it will be.

Edited April 24, 2020 by Nash_12South

[OnePointEast]

9 minutes ago, Nash_12South said:

I hope we don't wait that long. If the state starts opening on Monday of next week (as is reported) we shouldn't lag by 2+ weeks. We will certainly not follow the state on aspects of reopening, but the more we wait to start, the more confusing and less practical it will be.

I hope it would have been in unison with the state, to deter any confusion as you said. That being said, I know many small and medium-sized businesses are eager and ready to open, but are we at the stage to actually open up? I'm a small business partner and I would love for this to be over, but what if another wave hits or another spike occurs and we go back to stay at home order. The first stay at home order would have been for naught.

[Nash_12South]

20 minutes ago, OnePointEast said:

I hope it would have been in unison with the state, to deter any confusion as you said. That being said, I know many small and medium-sized businesses are eager and ready to open, but are we at the stage to actually open up? I'm a small business partner and I would love for this to be over, but what if another wave hits or another spike occurs and we go back to stay at home order. The first stay at home order would have been for naught.

Not to be combative, but if not now, when do we start? Until we have a vaccine, there will be spike whenever we reopen. I do not want a spike but how long do we wait? Our hospitals seem to have the capacity now, so why not now? We can't reopen businesses at 10% or 20% capacity, so we start at 50%. Stay home for the next year if you feel the need and can afford it. I'm not trying to be uncaring, I just don't see an advantage in waiting until June/July or the fall. In fact opening now would seem to keep a lot more folks at home who are understandably worried, putting fewer folks in harms way. Start in June and a lot more folks will be ready to get out, to get those haircuts. I'd rather start when more are tempted (and can afford) to stay home.

Edited April 24, 2020 by Nash_12South

[DDIG]

1 hour ago, Nash_12South said:

Not to be combative, but if not now, when do we start? Until we have a vaccine, there will be spike whenever we reopen. I do not want a spike but how long do we wait? Our hospitals seem to have the capacity now, so why not now? We can't reopen businesses at 10% or 20% capacity, so we start at 50%. Stay home for the next year if you feel the need and can afford it. I'm not trying to be uncaring, I just don't see an advantage in waiting until June/July or the fall. In fact opening now would seem to keep a lot more folks at home who are understandably worried, putting fewer folks in harms way. Start in June and a lot more folks will be ready to get out, to get those haircuts. I'd rather start when more are tempted (and can afford) to stay home.

Right. Shelter continuing for vulnerable and over 65, but as more data comes in statistically this is not going to harm you if you are under that age and don't have an underlying condition (yes, you can find anomalies but there are enough numbers now where dying younger and healthy it is like hitting a lottery ticket). Also, recent New York and Stanford studies say mortality rate is as low as .1 to .4%.  I am concerned for that vulnerable population, but we all need to be smart. If I'm out and about I'm not going to go visit someone in the vulnerable class until I'm in the clear, nor should they allow it. Nashville Chamber now estimates 68,000 permanently lost jobs - and Davidson County has 22 deaths. I'm not discounting the tragedy of 22 deaths, but those 68,000 gone jobs will also have severe health long-term consequences. Also our hospitals are hemorrhaging money, most are empty and fast toying with dire financial situations.

[OnePointEast]

46 minutes ago, Nash_12South said:

Not to be combative, but if not now, when do we start? Until we have a vaccine, there will be spike whenever we reopen. I do not want a spike but how long do we wait? Our hospitals seem to have the capacity now, so why not now? We can't reopen businesses at 10% or 20% capacity, so we start at 50%. Stay home for the next year if you feel the need and can afford it. I'm not trying to be uncaring, I just don't see an advantage in waiting until June/July or the fall. In fact opening now would seem to keep a lot more folks at home who are understandably worried, putting fewer folks in harms way. Start in June and a lot more folks will be ready to get out, to get those haircuts. I'd rather start when more are tempted (and can afford) to stay home.

I understand your sentiment, I really do. I'm what you call an essential worker, I'm in the "frontline". I manage several restaurants in the greater Nashville area and have gone full carry-out at the moment.

 

We'll have to switch stances up a bit, to accommodate dine-in, again. The phases can go down or up, depending on the situation. Which can ultimately lead to another stay at home order, which at the end of the day, the politicans decide and not us. My question and point here is what was the point of the first stay at home order if that didn't mitigate the virus completely. And what's becoming increasingly accepted is that more than likely another wave will hit, which will take us to square one. What's the point of having the buissness open at 50% capacity if carry-out yields almost the same revenue, with a plan already place and less risk.

 

My question isn't so much about the virus but what the leaders will decide in the future, and how futile this is all becoming. 

[Nash_12South]

The first order was never intended to mitigate the virus completely but to allow the hospitals time to organize for the onslaught of patients - that in TN has never materialized. Yes, my local restaurant is doing great business with take out, but 75% of it's staff are still jobless. That's partially the reasoning to get going again. Retail also needs to get going. I can order online from a store all day, but it doesn't employee the folks at the local mall. There is no right way to reopen but rather the least painful, or deadly way. No one likes the options, but staying at home for a year is not happening. This virus will cycle through most of us, with minimal side affects (hopefully) by the fall so if/when it picks up hopefully it will strike fewer folks. The election will tamp down, at least in red states the push to close down again in the fall. Yes, our fate is in the hand of politicians, but the protests are having an impact.

[DDIG]

17 minutes ago, OnePointEast said:

I understand your sentiment, I really do. I'm what you call an essential worker, I'm in the "frontline". I manage several restaurants in the greater Nashville area and have gone full carry-out at the moment.

 

We'll have to switch stances up a bit, to accommodate dine-in, again. The phases can go down or up, depending on the situation. Which can ultimately lead to another stay at home order, which at the end of the day, the politicans decide and not us. My question and point here is what was the point of the first stay at home order if that didn't mitigate the virus completely. And what's becoming increasingly accepted is that more than likely another wave will hit, which will take us to square one. What's the point of having the buissness open at 50% capacity if carry-out yields almost the same revenue, with a plan already place and less risk.

 

My question isn't so much about the virus but what the leaders will decide in the future, and how futile this is all becoming. 

Initially the whole idea of flatten the curve was to not overwhelm our hospitals, not to eradicate the virus (which is simply impossible at this juncture). Nashville never came close to overwhelming our health system. Now the goal posts have moved a bit by my estimation - although I do suspect Summer starts to slow the virus considerably. 

You bring up very good points about restaurant management and processes and what is most reasonably. I don't really have the answer. I personally would feel comfortable eating at a restaurant as long as it is a trustworthy place following protocol. The odds of getting the virus in that setting is exceedingly low - however, I don't know how that translates to profitability and reality.

[titanhog]

23 minutes ago, OnePointEast said:

I understand your sentiment, I really do. I'm what you call an essential worker, I'm in the "frontline". I manage several restaurants in the greater Nashville area and have gone full carry-out at the moment.

 

We'll have to switch stances up a bit, to accommodate dine-in, again. The phases can go down or up, depending on the situation. Which can ultimately lead to another stay at home order, which at the end of the day, the politicans decide and not us. My question and point here is what was the point of the first stay at home order if that didn't mitigate the virus completely. And what's becoming increasingly accepted is that more than likely another wave will hit, which will take us to square one. What's the point of having the buissness open at 50% capacity if carry-out yields almost the same revenue, with a plan already place and less risk.

 

My question isn't so much about the virus but what the leaders will decide in the future, and how futile this is all becoming. 

The stay at home orders were 100% designed to "flatten the curve" so as to not overwhelm hospitals...and it appears we've done that in most areas.  If you go state by state and look at weekly hospitalizations and deaths...you'll see those most states are either over the hump...or about to get over the hump.  Those who are not over the hump should keep waiting.

We have to stop looking at the weekly number of cases reported...because those are severely flawed.  Some states are testing 2000 one week...then 10,000 the next.  So what happens?  The following week, it looks like that state suddenly has WAY more positive cases...but really...we've already discovered that a certain segment of the population is already infected and is asymptomatic.  In other words...we are listing just under 1,000,000 cases in the US...but there are possibly 5-10 million infected or have been infected...and hopefully unable to catch the virus again.

It's time for those states "over the hump" to allow the young and healthy to get back to work (if they desire)...and those who are highly susceptible to make a decision to either risk it or stay safe until there's a vaccine.

Edited April 24, 2020 by titanhog

[smeagolsfree]

From what I saw on the news conference today is that they will take an average of the 14 days of cases to see if there is an overall decrease in cases over that 14 day period.

[DDIG]

Just now, smeagolsfree said:

From what I saw on the news conference today is that they will take an average of the 14 days of cases to see if there is an overall decrease in cases over that 14 day period.

Right, but again the tricky thing to me is that we are testing more and more. So it is a flawed metric because we don't really know if we are capturing the virus growing or getting a clearer snapshot of a virus on the downswing.

[titanhog]

Just now, DDIG said:

Right, but again the tricky thing to me is that we are testing more and more. So it is a flawed metric because we don't really know if we are capturing the virus growing or getting a clearer snapshot of a virus on the downswing.

Yep.  Hospitalizations is key...IMO.  That's the truest measurement of the severity at the moment.

[Mr_Bond]

On 4/23/2020 at 10:25 AM, smeagolsfree said:

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.

It's helpful to think of the stock market as comprising many players of various sizes and varying goals.  It ranges from HFTs (high frequency traders) who are looking to make tiny profits for a few seconds several times each day to those who are truly very long term buy-and-hold.  No one player can dominate the others because everyone is looking for an opportunity to make a profit.

The wisdom of the market participants in total is much greater than that of any one player, even the smartest one in the world backed by computing power (whoever that is).

[MLBrumby]

One exacerbating thing with the stock market is triggered trading is all done by computers and they all run on essentially the same algorithms. So the real wealth is made when traders override their programmed trades. I can't pick stocks. And I certainly don't want to worry daily about the wild swings. Realized that the hard way (Tech Wreck of 2000). So I sold everything and put the proceeds into mutual funds & ETFs, essentially tracking the S&P with a slight beta that favors tech funds on the 'up side'. So far, it's been good for me. As I approach 50 now, I'll have to find another approach. 

[Tennessine]

On 4/22/2020 at 3:51 PM, JoeyX said:

I just got back from Carl's Jr.

Mann, was it good. Mo hominey hominey homineeyyyy.

Come on, alter, what is this?

Every real Tennessean calls that ish Hardee's. Get your California brands outta here

[Tennessine]

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."

[markhollin]

Two percent of Tennessee's workforce, or 64,093 people, will permanently lose jobs in the best-case scenario of a May 1 reopening of the economy, according to a new report.

More at The Tennessean here:

https://www.tennessean.com/story/money/2020/04/23/report-tennessee-jobs-lost-coronavirus-reopening/3006881001/?utm_source=tennessean-Daily Briefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=baseline_greeting&utm_term=hero

[OnePointEast]

My buissness partner is saying he's opening at half capacity next week. Is that allowed? I thought such measures only applied to the surrounding counties and the not the most populous cities. What would happen if he did open up at half capacity before the mayor of Nashville even announces such opening? He seems to be either ignoring the mayor's orders and following what the governor says or he's just outright confused, maybe.

Edited April 26, 2020 by OnePointEast

[WebberThomas4]

3 hours ago, OnePointEast said:

My buissness partner is saying he's opening at half capacity next week. Is that allowed? I thought such measures only applied to the surrounding counties and the not the most populous cities. What would happen if he did open up at half capacity before the mayor of Nashville even announces such opening? He seems to be either ignoring the mayor's orders and following what the governor says or he's just outright confused, maybe.

What line of work? 

[Nash_12South]

The mayor needs to provide direction tomorrow (Monday) as to Nashville’s plans. It’s called leadership. Businesses need to be able to plan. There will be howls no mater what he does. 
No one has to reopen, or leave their house if they do not want to.

Edited April 27, 2020 by Nash_12South

[OnePointEast]

30 minutes ago, Nash_12South said:

The mayor needs to provide direction tomorrow (Monday) as to Nashville’s plans. It’s called leadership. Businesses need to be able to plan. There will be howls no mater what he does. 
No one has to reopen, or leave their house if they do not want to.

Ok. Thanks. Was just making sure he wasn't getting ahead of himself. So plans for Nashville will be announced tomorrow?

1 hour ago, WebberThomas4 said:

What line of work? 

Restaurant industry. 

[Nash_12South]

15 minutes ago, OnePointEast said:

Ok. Thanks. Was just making sure he wasn't getting ahead of himself. So plans for Nashville will be announced tomorrow?

Restaurant industry. 

The plans should be announced tomorrow, but we don’t know.