
States reject Trump talk of restarting U.S. economy early - hhs
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa/states-reject-trump-talk-of-restarting-u-s-economy-early-idUSKBN21B1EC
======
mullingitover
Nobody seems to be talking about the elephant in the room: the president's
raging conflict of interest. He owns a major equity stake in a business that
is being harmed by the public health response to the pandemic, and his actions
are what you'd expect from someone who prioritizes that business over the
interests of public health.

This is exactly why previous presidents have put their assets in a blind
trust. We shouldn't have to question whether the White House is more concerned
with their personal bottom line than the public interest, but here we are.

~~~
threatofrain
Nobody is talking about conflict of interest not because it's an unworthy
issue of governance, but because this question has already been tested and
America has already answered -- it's okay.

~~~
mullingitover
This was never up for a public vote, but every other public office and
judicial appointment has clear ethical guidelines for conflict of interest.
The only reason it was never legislated for the president was because up until
now, no president has been willing to brazenly violate ethical norms.

~~~
threatofrain
Things don't have to go up for a public vote to test whether a message has
political potency in the hearts of Americans. It was tested in the media.
Similarly, Coke's messaging doesn't have to go up for a vote to see whether it
has the potency to win over the hearts of Americans.

The message of President Trump's conflicts of interests has already been
tested and America shrugged. When there's only so much air in the room it's
important to pick messaging that wins.

~~~
mullingitover
There hasn't been a test of public opinion when the president's personal
business could be the recipient of public funds at his direction.

To further refute your point: the public didn't shrug, they voted against his
election by millions of votes. Furthermore, the duration that his approval
rating has been above 50% during the entirety of his presidency is
unprecedented in its briefness.

~~~
threatofrain
I'm not sure why you're talking about the election, because back then the
story was that Hillary Clinton had a big lead, and Donald Trump was going to
be transparent about how his money and business worked.

Since then, we've heard a steady drumbeat of news about President Trump's
nepotism and self-dealing. How would you rank the impact of such news vs. the
Mueller report, or the treatment of immigrants at the border? There won't be a
Emolument Report either.

Yes, just one more Trump is Selfish and Plays Golf article, or Where are
Trump's Tax Returns, or Why are Trump's Kids in Office, or Why is the Navy
Boozing it Up at Trump Estates, or Why is there link between Trump and Saudi
money. Yes, there's blood in the water.

Maybe a second push for impeachment on these very issues.

~~~
mullingitover
So are you arguing that conflict of interest is okay, or that the political
system is so horribly corrupt that this is just another line item in the list
and not worth pursuing in light of the more egregious violations?

~~~
marakv2
I'd say he is arguing that the public is okay with it as it has been blatantly
obvious for his entire presidency, without people rioting

~~~
mullingitover
Plenty of people who care about corruption are members of the public and are
not okay with it, so saying 'the public' is 'okay with it' is simply
wrongheaded. A narrow group of partisans are okay with it, because they are
partisans.

People who care about corruption being rooted out aren't really the types of
people who are gearing up to riot in the streets.

I should also point out the small matter of the 2018 election, where the
republican majority in the House of Representatives was neatly demolished.

------
smallgovt
“If you ask the American people to choose between public health and the
economy, then it’s no contest. No American is going to say accelerate the
economy at the cost of human life” - Cuomo

Unfortunately, this just isn't true. Is life worth living if you're destitute
and living in poverty or emotional turmoil? Won't a strong economy increase
the pace at which we develop and produce life saving technologies?

At a certain point of economic ruin, I think many people will choose a strong
economy over saving lives. The question is more so what the tipping point is.
It seems hard to quantify and compare the total impact a strong economy has
versus lives saved, but I think it's definitely worth having the conversation.
Ultimately, this is a value judgment so there's no objective answer.

~~~
afiler
"Is life worth living if you're destitute and living in poverty or emotional
turmoil?"

It sounds like you're saying you think maybe poor people should just die.

~~~
Apes
You seem to be aggressively avoiding any critical thinking, so here's a
thought game for you to play:

You have two choices:

1: 0% chance of dying from Covid-19, but you lose your job, you're evicted
from your home, and have no clear path back to normalcy for the foreseeable
future.

2: 3% chance of dying from Covid-19, but you still have a job, a home, and a
fairly normal life.

This is the choice being made for millions of people in the world without
their input. It's not so black and white as you want to make it out to be.

~~~
yongjik
World War 2 killed only 0.3% of Americans. When 3% of Americans die, you will
lose your job, there's a very good chance you will lose your home, and good
luck having a normal life.

~~~
DuskStar
Losing 3% of Americans, spread equally throughout the population, would be bad
for the economy. Losing 20% of retirees, though... That would be _fantastic_
for the US economy.

And guess what? _Covid-19 kills mostly retirees_.

So no, they probably wouldn't be losing their job in that scenario, unless of
course their job is to take care of the old in some way.

~~~
rsgalloway
Yes, and the assets passed down to the next generation would also be spent,
thus further improving the economy.

------
yongjik
It seems obvious that we will have depression anyway, even if we "go back to
normal" now: when everybody knows someone who died, and when hospitals won't
help you because they are already full, people will stop planning for a
vacation, and start saving money.

So the only realistic choice is (major depression) vs. (major depression +
many people dies). There's no way out without economic turmoil now; the ship
has sailed a month ago.

------
tristanb
Imagine if a competent leadership partnered with companies to design and
deliver test kits for the majority of the population. Just like a 23andme kit.
Turns up at your door. Gets turned around. We have an actual idea of hotspots,
and can design treatment plans. Making decisions with actual data. As opposed
to this unmitigated shitshow.

I had to go to the hardware store to get protective gear for my wife, who is a
doctor at a hospital with none.

------
vearwhershuh
My Proposal: Set a 3% limit on credit card interest for the next six months.
If a credit card company complains, nationalize it. Use the six months to set
up a debt-forgiveness plan that works for middle and low income earners. At
the end of six months, consider lifting the limit incrementally.

Get spending power into the hands of common people and ease the cash-crunch
anxiety immediately, without any stupid one time payments that will be too
late, won't be large enough to help, and require the entire legislative branch
to agree.

------
nixpulvis
I want to see hard numbers of monetary and supply relief given to each state
by the federal government.

------
nunez
I think Trump is in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't predicament.

He _could_ enforce a federal 18-month lockdown and wait for a vaccine to
become available (assuming that we _can_ make a vaccine for this within the
timelines proposed). As software engineers, we know that we almost always
optimize for Big-O, so assuming that the US will be effectively shut down for
18 months is probably the best way to model this, especially since waves of
people seem to become symptomatic at different times. I don't have hard data
to back this, but I don't think the US could afford to keep millions of people
fed and housed for that long, and recovering from that is likely to take WAY
longer than us finding a way to control this virus. This could cause us to
lose our global hegemony and have dire long-term effects.

He _could_ also basically say "yolo" and keep the US running at full force.
People's jobs will be protected and society will continue to function...until
people start dying en masse because herd infection happens before herd
immunity. The stats tell us that people are _more than likely not_ going to
die from this, but more people could die if hospitals run out of capacity and
protective gear.

In either case, we don't know when hospitals will run out of capacity, though
we _think_ that this will happen sooner to much sooner if we cover our ears
and pretend that things are fine.

Also, this is a completely unique situation since we haven't had a large scale
pandemic like this before aside from smaller-scale ones like SARS or MERS and
the last big one happened in a completely different generation.

I have my opinions about our current administration, but I would not want to
be Trump right now because this sounds like a vortex of suck.

~~~
mullingitover
It's a textbook wicked problem[1].

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem)

------
eric_b
It's easy to say Trump is crazy when you're a privileged tech worker who can
work from your nice home office and not worry about money running out or the
unemployment line.

Meanwhile, in the real world, we can't shut down the global economy for months
without dire consequences. Shortages, civil unrest, total anarchy are the next
things coming if we keep this shutdown going. If you're not a fan of violent
crime, or don't have a lot of guns, I'd recommended considering opening the
economy sooner than later.

Here is a measured piece by an actual expert. We need to start getting the
least vulnerable back to work and school, while keeping the most vulnerable
isolated. Eventually we can let everyone out, but we need to keep the gears
moving in the meantime.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/21/facing-
co...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/21/facing-
covid-19-reality-national-lockdown-is-no-cure/)

~~~
paradox242
I will continue to maintain that Trump's instinct to reopen things is largely
selfish in nature, but that does not mean that opening things back up to a
certain degree does not make sense for those most economically vulnerable.
Right now we are stuck between getting sick and getting those we love sick, or
risk losing our livelihood, homes, and a way to support our families. Really
not a great place to be, and some balance between the two extremes must be
struck. It seems sensible that those least likely to suffer deleterious
effects should be allowed to return to work and school and we should try and
continue to support those most vulnerable as best we can at the state and
federal level. I have also seen suggestions that any direct stimulus funding
should have an expiration date so that we can be sure that the money get used
immediately, otherwise it does little good.

Long term, I really hope that more Americans wake up to the threadbare reality
of our healthcare system and social safety net so that systemic shocks like
this are better planned for.

~~~
downerending
The guy is a zillionaire. The idea that he's primarily motivated by the desire
to be a double-zillionaire seems like a bit of a stretch. Personally, I think
he'd rather continue to be adored by the masses.

------
verify_sirrah
Can somebody link me to where this 15 day shutdown was declared? I can see
many articles talking about Trump walking it back but none about it actually
being declared or what it entails.

------
tootie
Cuomo's briefing today was absolutely scathing. NY State has 25,000 cases and
is rising unabated and the federal government is doing next to nothing to
support them while publicly seeking to move on from emergency measures. Trump
is looking for a >$1T stimulus bill and unlimited Fed bond purchases but
thinks that applying the Defense Production Act would be government overreach.
People are dying and he only cares about goosing the stock market.

EDIT: The briefing on YT ->
[https://youtu.be/eD1eg3vMO2A](https://youtu.be/eD1eg3vMO2A)

~~~
lgleason
I grew up in Western New York and have watched New York state policies and
taxes decimate my home town. Needless to say I'm not a big fan of Cuomo. In a
town that used to have oil, manufacturing etc. now the largest employer by far
is social services and the jail. These new jobs have not come close to
matching the income generated from businesses of the past. Every year when I
go back I see the town decay a bit further. To make matters worse, houses that
have 1/3rd of the value of my house in Atlanta have much higher yearly taxes
and crime has gone up significantly.

I moved south and reduced my overall cost of living while living in a much
larger metropolitan area and more opportunity. States that feel it's necessary
to stay closed can do so. The high regulation states such as New York can
force people to stay closed while others open up further. After this is done,
probably more will continue to leave it and other more draconian states for
greener pastures.

The fact is that the fed cannot print enough money to sustain a multi month
national shutdown and it would decimate the economy and drive the national
debt to un-sustainable levels. Right now my employment prospects as a software
developer are a lot better than those for restaurant workers, hotel and
airline employees etc.. Even with that I'm freaked out about what will happen
with my employment prospects if we go into a depression because I would be
naive to assume it wont eventually affect me. So I can't imagine the amount of
stress and uncertainty many of them are feeling about the economic fallout
from a prolonged shutdown.

There are no easy answers here, but there are tough choices to make and both
choices suck.

~~~
tootie
For one, the governor can't do much about dying industries. Cuomo has, in
fact, invested billions in trying to spur investment in upstate and western
New York and failed because businesses just aren't interested in being there.
It's been decades of decline.

Secondly, if you watch his briefing, he's not calling for longer shutdowns or
anything like that. He is calling for ventilators. He needs 30,000 ventilators
or people are going to die. The crisis in New York is urgent and acute.
Infection rate is higher than anywhere in the country and growing quickly.
They expect it to hit a peak in 14-21 days and they don't have enough
resources and the federal government can do something to help and they aren't.
NY State is already on full lockdown and has already pulled every lever it has
to ramp up their response and it's not enough. Federal action is desperately
needed and it's not forthcoming.

------
mnm1
The president's actions, specifically his lack of action, are a huge part of
why the pandemic is so bad in the US. I hope people remember that he is the
reason for the late action, the bungled tests, the lack of cdc funding, the
lack of preparedness and stockpiles. And ultimately, he is the reason we will
have way more deaths that could have been prevented. Even now we don't have
the proper testing capability. We don't have masks and the government is still
lying about their effectiveness. 60k testing kits is nothing. He's still not
doing what he could and should. I'm glad states are no longer listening to
this administration. Doing that would kill a lot more people. Trump and his
administration can go fuck themselves. And at this point, so can the people
who still stand behind this president who is so callous to so many Americans
dying. It's almost impossible to imagine a worse response than what has
happened. I hope the markets do not recover before the election as,
unfortunately, the mass unnecessary suffering and deaths of Americans will
likely be forgotten by many voters if they do.

~~~
Izkata
He was acting on this back during the impeachment scandal, while the
mainstream media was still calling it "no worse than the flu", creating the
task force on Jan 29, and getting called racist for the international travel
restrictions days later.

It would be worse in the US than it is now if not for his early actions.

~~~
rat87
He wasn't acting on it, and his lack of actions and untrue statements are part
of the reason there are so many stupid conspiracies going around.

------
coder1001
It saddens me that even in a crisis like this, people are being political and
taking sides!

~~~
wccrawford
Is that because you've picked a side and want people to blindly follow your
side?

It's not so cut-and-dried as my make it out to be. _Not_ fixing the economy
means more people out of work and unable to provide for themselves. That means
more death. It doesn't matter which way you choose, if you go all the way that
direction, people die who don't have to.

The real question here is how to best help the most people. There isn't a
simple path to that.

------
danharaj
Neoliberalism is a death cult. Look at its high priests demanding sacrifice to
Moloch! The vast majority of economic activity is absolutely useless to
maintain essential supplies, infrastructure and services. Very few people have
to work to keep society intact while we ride out the pandemic. Recession
caused by a drop in activity is easy to fix provided you manage debt
obligations in the interim. That can be a delicate dance but it is well within
the means of modern capital.

All of these problems are ideological. You see people in these threads lately
who literally cannot imagine anything possible outside of the status quo and
are willing to sacrifice the vulnerable to get it back. If you break the
facade that debt obligations are a moral obligation and not a social construct
whose relevance in extraordinary circumstances is marginal, a central pillar
of free market ideology collapses. At this point I'm not sure if it's a
charade being pushed to its absurd extreme or if the ruling class and their
sycophants' brains are completely hollowed out by ideological brain worms.

------
m0zg
What's "early" and when, in the opinion of Reuters, would it not be too
"early"?

~~~
nixpulvis
I heard Trump and his lackeys were talking about dates as early as a few weeks
from now. Meanwhile healthcare officials are all claiming many months, upwards
of longer than a year.

It's not easy, but we _must_ listen to the experts.

~~~
hnaccy
We can't afford to shutdown the economy for a year.

~~~
bdcravens
It likely won't be. But it'll take a few months for it either to be back to
business as usual, or a few months for the economy to adjust to the new
reality of takeout and greater ecommerce focus.

