Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Economic implications of a SARS/Coronavirus outbreak

Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Posts
15,095
Reactions
6,058
Another sector, that the recession has forced to have a reality check.
From the article:
“There are clubs that honestly believe that 18 teams is too many in the current financial circumstances,” Wilson explained.

With a population of 25million there is only so much money to go around, if some clubs merged the AFL may find that they fill grounds with spectators, and they could then drop the admission price.
The current situation of quarter full grounds, means they have to keep jacking up the admission price, to finance 18 teams.
I know I stopped going to the footy because admission prices became stupid.
The lockdowns and financial squeeze, may be bringing in some home truths.
 
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Posts
11,225
Reactions
6,416
Another sector, that the recession has forced to have a reality check.
A classic example of an industry that would be a very long way down the list of things most would think of when discussing economics but which has been hit nonetheless.

There will be many more like that no doubt. Things that just wouldn't get a mention in any discussion of economics but which will suffer significant impacts due to the broader circumstances. :2twocents
 

over9k

Long positions are short positions that failed.
Joined
Jun 12, 2020
Posts
1,182
Reactions
959
Very interesting.
Yeah, here's the graph of the gfc round two that your sig is talking about/gut is telling you is coming:

developed_without_us_2030.jpg

The world was supposed to have several years of both time and income to plan & deal with this stalking horse (or, monster) but coronavirus has nuked both all the income and all the time we had to plan/transition into it.

I'm not being funny when I say that the demographic cliff that the world is about to jump off means that coronavirus plus pre-existing national debts are going to take an entire generation to pay off. We were headed for a solid decade of pain/weren't going to get back to relative "normal" until the 2030's as it was and coronavirus has given us the double whammy of both a couple of years' of lost income plus 5-10 years' more national debt to pay off.

It is no exaggeration to say that it won't be until the 2040's before we can even think about returning to what we've considered to be normal for the past several generations and that assumes a rebound in birth rates after coronavirus.

Without it, we transition into what is diplomatically being called "post growth economies". In other words, a state of perpetual contraction as both debt is paid off and populations shrink in tandem which is literally unable to reverse without anything other than a reversal of birth rates and therefore in a generational timeframe.

Australia along with the U.S is one of just a handful of countries on earth that doesn't have this debt + demographics monster coming due very soon so it's going to be relatively (RELATIVELY) ok:

5.3-us-demography-2030.jpg
 

over9k

Long positions are short positions that failed.
Joined
Jun 12, 2020
Posts
1,182
Reactions
959
As an aside, the U.S graph above combined with the E.U graph here:

u2zni00q10511.jpg

Also shows why britain got brexit right - the EU is *not* the trading partner of the future, america is. Now, the yanks import vanishingly little as a percentage of GDP, but at least there's a market there to crack, which is more than the EU has going for it.
 
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Posts
2,028
Reactions
938
It is fascinating, the world is changing due to aging population that spends/consume less, but the same group of people cost more to keep alive.

Along comes a virus, that knocks of this demographic and what do we do, throw $$$$$ at saving them, at the real cost of the consumer base, those under 40.
 

over9k

Long positions are short positions that failed.
Joined
Jun 12, 2020
Posts
1,182
Reactions
959
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.
 
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Posts
11,225
Reactions
6,416
This is worth a watch and then a second one. He says an awful lot in a very short space of time.
Sounds pretty right to me and what many have been saying right from the start.

The 2019 version of "normal" is not coming back. There's a future but it's different to the past - we're going to be making more ourselves and relying on others less. :2twocents
 
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Posts
14,325
Reactions
4,139
we're going to be making more ourselves and relying on others less.
I hope so, but the precedent set by previous and the current Liberal government is to "let the market decide", which in reality means doing very little for ourselves and importing cheap foreign junk.
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Posts
15,095
Reactions
6,058
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.
Excellent summation, the only problem is, the baby boomers will soon pass away and leave everything to the next generation, who really haven't proven to be great workers.
So how do we stop the next generation, spending the rest of their lives, with their feet up spending the inheritance?
Keep them running around in circles, finding excuses for the government to take it of the parents, before the kids get it.
Magic, dance Maria.
Pretty simple really, re introduce a 40% death duty, the old get to enjoy the efforts of their labour and the government gets 40% of the estate.
Works in most other countries, the unions suggested it to silly Billy last election.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Posts
15,095
Reactions
6,058
I hope so, but the precedent set by previous and the current Liberal government is to "let the market decide", which in reality means doing very little for ourselves and importing cheap foreign junk.
Jeez Rumpy you can't let it go can you, maybe they should re introduce tariffs that Hawke and Keating dismantled.
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Posts
15,095
Reactions
6,058
Tariffs for the sake of it I'm personally not at all keen on but tariffs to offset cheating by others seems entirely fair and reasonable.
Absolutely they were there to protect Australian industries and jobs, Labor signed up to the Lima agreement, Hawke and Keating started to dismantle the tariffs and the rest is history.
Unfortunately the story has been massaged with the passing of time, to suit the mythical belief that some have, that certain parties are looking after certain sectors.
A bit like a Hollywood western, the bad guys wear black and the good guys wear white, when in reality the pilgrims are being robbed by both.
It is just one circles to the right and the other circles to the left.lol
 
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Posts
14,325
Reactions
4,139
Jeez Rumpy you can't let it go can you, maybe they should re introduce tariffs that Hawke and Keating dismantled.
Look at our "free trade" agreements and as what has been the benefit for us ?

A massive trade deficit with the US for one, who subsidise their farmers while ours have to slog along with little government assistance.

Free trade ? Like hell.
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Posts
15,095
Reactions
6,058
Look at our "free trade" agreements and as what has been the benefit for us ?

A massive trade deficit with the US for one, who subsidise their farmers while ours have to slog along with little government assistance.

Free trade ? Like hell.
Same horse different rider.lol
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Posts
15,095
Reactions
6,058
Look at our "free trade" agreements and as what has been the benefit for us ?

A massive trade deficit with the US for one, who subsidise their farmers while ours have to slog along with little government assistance.

Free trade ? Like hell.
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
 

over9k

Long positions are short positions that failed.
Joined
Jun 12, 2020
Posts
1,182
Reactions
959
Excellent summation, the only problem is, the baby boomers will soon pass away and leave everything to the next generation, who really haven't proven to be great workers.
So how do we stop the next generation, spending the rest of their lives, with their feet up spending the inheritance?
Keep them running around in circles, finding excuses for the government to take it of the parents, before the kids get it.
Magic, dance Maria.
Pretty simple really, re introduce a 40% death duty, the old get to enjoy the efforts of their labour and the government gets 40% of the estate.
Works in most other countries, the unions suggested it to silly Billy last election.
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.
 
Top