There's talk of "lockdowns 2.0," which I suppose is market parlance for politicians' latest efforts to craft a response to rising virus caseloads that doesn't entail the kind of sweeping, stay-at-home orders and business closures that plunged the world into a mini-depression earlier this year. One thing that stood out last week as big bank earnings rolled in was the extent to which the worst-case scenario in terms of losses, delinquencies, and other types of pandemic-related credit events didn't materialize. I can already hear the pushback: "Well, no, because consumers and households benefited from cushions built thanks to government assistance in Q2, while deferral programs and other sorts of relief during the worst days of the lockdowns helped consumers build a small safety net to help them make it through the third quarter." That's all true, and you could scarcely find anyone who's spent more time warning about the long-term, structural damage than me. Even in the near-term, consumers and households are likely to face severe economic challenges in the absence of additional fiscal support. Of course, severe economic challenges have a way of metamorphosing into other types of "