Coronavirus

[stahleyp]

If you mean "better off" by the amount of crap people can buy, sure. If you mean "better off" by having a job you take pride in, then I'll have to disagree. The fact that drug deaths and suicides are up make me believe that a lot of folks are not better off.

 

I'd suggest reviewing 70 year data on resident population growth, immigration growth, unemployment rates, real GDP per capita, infant mortality rates, and average life expectancy. Maybe overlay that with qualitative factors such as access to education, access to healthcare, voter's rights, and representation by demographic group in government.

 

You're ignoring literal mountains of evidence in favor of sentimentalism.

 

Okay...I'm hoping this one really is my last non-virus post on this thread Sorry all!

 

I'd want to change the subject too, if I were arguing your position :D

 

lc...you're dragging me back in. What does 70 year data have to do with anything? China was allowed free trade by Clinton in 2000. And through most of that time we've had artificially low interest rates and huge deficits to maintain our broken system.

 

If I were wrong, we wouldn't have the current leadership we do now either. ;)

[Liberty]

Australian intelligence officials tell Sydney Morning Herald that U.S. briefings on Wuhan lab theory are mostly write-ups of news reports and "contained no material from intelligence gathering."

 

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australian-intelligence-knocks-back-us-government-s-wuhan-lab-virus-claim-20200504-p54pk3.html

[Liberty]

 

Trump brags about doing things that are consensual.  Trump has never bragged about assault. 

 

 

The women disagree with you that it was consensual, including the 13 yr old girl that Trump allegedly raped in Jeffery Epstein's apartment:

 

The number of women who have accused Trump of rape or sexual assault is at least 12

 

https://www.mic.com/articles/156669/how-many-women-have-accused-donald-trump-of-rape-or-sexual-assault#.KujVwb2jl

 

Whoever thinks Trump was bragging about consensuel stuff, I have a bridge I’d like to sell them.

[LC]

If you mean "better off" by the amount of crap people can buy, sure. If you mean "better off" by having a job you take pride in, then I'll have to disagree. The fact that drug deaths and suicides are up make me believe that a lot of folks are not better off.

 

I'd suggest reviewing 70 year data on resident population growth, immigration growth, unemployment rates, real GDP per capita, infant mortality rates, and average life expectancy. Maybe overlay that with qualitative factors such as access to education, access to healthcare, voter's rights, and representation by demographic group in government.

 

You're ignoring literal mountains of evidence in favor of sentimentalism.

 

Okay...I'm hoping this one really is my last non-virus post on this thread Sorry all!

 

I'd want to change the subject too, if I were arguing your position :D

 

lc...you're dragging me back in. What does 70 year data have to do with anything? China was allowed free trade by Clinton in 2000. And through most of that time we've had artificially low interest rates and huge deficits to maintain our broken system.

 

If I were wrong, we wouldn't have the current leadership we do now either. ;)

 

I would further suggest some historical review of China. Chinese international economic trends began far before the year 2000.

 

Mao's policy in the 50s-60s spurred a lot of industrialization in China at the expense of individual workers. International impact was thin during this era and you can use it to establish a baseline case for the status of the US without China as a superpower.

 

Post-Mao in the 70s China began a market-based economic model which leveraged and exploited this foundation from Mao. Rapid, de-centralized industrialization at cost (with human and environmental externalities - the price they paid). This was a rapidly expanding era that has essentially continued to-date.

 

If you think a pre-China world is somehow better for the US, you can take a look at the 50s-60s statistics which I have suggested as they apply to the USA, and compare them to the 70s-2020 era. In almost every case, US has progressed incredibly during the time period coinciding with China's rise to power.

 

It is one of the poster-child examples of how the theory of comparative advantage benefits both participants.

 

A lot of this is due to China taking over low-skill work previously done within the US. But, I understand that politically, this fact does not sit well in red states of mind.

 

Coincidentally, when speaking of red states (of mind), you can compare/contrast the USA during this pre- and post-China era and the USA during the pre- and post-Civil war era. During the Civil war, Confederate agriculture simply could not (or actually, would not) adapt to changing times and the rise of industrial manufacturing. This gave the Union a strong economic advantage.

[Liberty]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-04/coronavirus-causes-blood-clots-harming-organs-from-brain-to-toes

 

Another threat from the lung virus that causes Covid-19 has emerged that may cause swift, sometimes fatal damage: blood clots.

 

Doctors around the world are noting a raft of clotting-related disorders -- from benign skin lesions on the feet sometimes called “Covid toe” to life-threatening strokes and blood-vessel blockages. Ominously, if dangerous clots go untreated, they may manifest days to months after respiratory symptoms have resolved.

 

The clotting phenomenon is “probably the most important thing that’s emerged over the last perhaps month or two,” said Mitchell Levy, chief of pulmonary critical care and sleep medicine at the Warren Albert School of Medicine at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island.

[elliott]

some Americans became obsessed with Japan in the 80s, before that it was the Soviet Union, now it is China

and life goes on

 

by the way, China was already a super power many centuries ago

[stahleyp]

If you mean "better off" by the amount of crap people can buy, sure. If you mean "better off" by having a job you take pride in, then I'll have to disagree. The fact that drug deaths and suicides are up make me believe that a lot of folks are not better off.

 

I'd suggest reviewing 70 year data on resident population growth, immigration growth, unemployment rates, real GDP per capita, infant mortality rates, and average life expectancy. Maybe overlay that with qualitative factors such as access to education, access to healthcare, voter's rights, and representation by demographic group in government.

 

You're ignoring literal mountains of evidence in favor of sentimentalism.

 

Okay...I'm hoping this one really is my last non-virus post on this thread Sorry all!

 

I'd want to change the subject too, if I were arguing your position :D

 

lc...you're dragging me back in. What does 70 year data have to do with anything? China was allowed free trade by Clinton in 2000. And through most of that time we've had artificially low interest rates and huge deficits to maintain our broken system.

 

If I were wrong, we wouldn't have the current leadership we do now either. ;)

 

I would further suggest some historical review of China. Chinese international economic trends began far before the year 2000.

 

Mao's policy in the 50s-60s spurred a lot of industrialization in China at the expense of individual workers. International impact was thin during this era and you can use it to establish a baseline case for the status of the US without China as a superpower.

 

Post-Mao in the 70s China began a market-based economic model which leveraged and exploited this foundation from Mao. Rapid, de-centralized industrialization at cost (with human and environmental externalities - the price they paid). This was a rapidly expanding era that has essentially continued to-date.

 

If you think a pre-China world is somehow better for the US, you can take a look at the 50s-60s statistics which I have suggested as they apply to the USA, and compare them to the 70s-2020 era. In almost every case, US has progressed incredibly during the time period coinciding with China's rise to power.

 

It is one of the poster-child examples of how the theory of comparative advantage benefits both participants.

 

A lot of this is due to China taking over low-skill work previously done within the US. But, I understand that politically, this fact does not sit well in red states of mind.

 

Coincidentally, when speaking of red states (of mind), you can compare/contrast the USA during this pre- and post-China era and the USA during the pre- and post-Civil war era. During the Civil war, Confederate agriculture simply could not (or actually, would not) adapt to changing times and the rise of industrial manufacturing. This gave the Union a strong economic advantage.

 

I have no problem with competitive or comparative advantages. I have a problem with the government putting the wealthy over the middle and lower classes. Do you really think market valuations would be where they are if the government had interest rates at normal levels? Do you think home prices on the coasts would be where they are compared to the rest of the country? Why should the government create debt and lower interest rates to prop up stocks but not to prop up manufacturing?

 

If you are going to just let markets happen, then it should be all markets - not just what the higher ups like.

[Liberty]

 

Good reminder by Talet that people are mixing up various things and forgetting the relationships (or lack of) between them.

[Mephistopheles]

Let's move the thread back to coronavirus. There is no convincing people in politics of your opinion. Everyone sticks to their beliefs. Use the politics forum to rant and fight.

[rb]

About that reopening

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-texas/texas-back-in-business-barely-yall-as-malls-restaurants-empty-idUSKBN22H19K

[Jurgis]

About that reopening

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-texas/texas-back-in-business-barely-yall-as-malls-restaurants-empty-idUSKBN22H19K

 

The problem is as follows: if mall/whatever reopened, I would go there if I knew I'd be the only person in the mall. But then store(s) don't get enough business. OTOH, if everyone rushes in, then I wouldn't go there. So likely you can't get many people there.

 

It's also possible that there will be a bad feedback loop: people don't go to malls, cases don't rise, people think that it's safe and go to malls, then cases rise again, rinse, repeat?

 

Restaurants are more complicated than stores. Even if I'm the only customer there, there is a risk of getting infected from the staff. More risk than if I ordered for delivery. So screw going to restaurant.

 

 

[dwy000]

If you mean "better off" by the amount of crap people can buy, sure. If you mean "better off" by having a job you take pride in, then I'll have to disagree. The fact that drug deaths and suicides are up make me believe that a lot of folks are not better off.

 

I'd suggest reviewing 70 year data on resident population growth, immigration growth, unemployment rates, real GDP per capita, infant mortality rates, and average life expectancy. Maybe overlay that with qualitative factors such as access to education, access to healthcare, voter's rights, and representation by demographic group in government.

 

You're ignoring literal mountains of evidence in favor of sentimentalism.

 

Okay...I'm hoping this one really is my last non-virus post on this thread Sorry all!

 

I'd want to change the subject too, if I were arguing your position :D

 

lc...you're dragging me back in. What does 70 year data have to do with anything? China was allowed free trade by Clinton in 2000. And through most of that time we've had artificially low interest rates and huge deficits to maintain our broken system.

 

If I were wrong, we wouldn't have the current leadership we do now either. ;)

 

I would further suggest some historical review of China. Chinese international economic trends began far before the year 2000.

 

Mao's policy in the 50s-60s spurred a lot of industrialization in China at the expense of individual workers. International impact was thin during this era and you can use it to establish a baseline case for the status of the US without China as a superpower.

 

Post-Mao in the 70s China began a market-based economic model which leveraged and exploited this foundation from Mao. Rapid, de-centralized industrialization at cost (with human and environmental externalities - the price they paid). This was a rapidly expanding era that has essentially continued to-date.

 

If you think a pre-China world is somehow better for the US, you can take a look at the 50s-60s statistics which I have suggested as they apply to the USA, and compare them to the 70s-2020 era. In almost every case, US has progressed incredibly during the time period coinciding with China's rise to power.

 

It is one of the poster-child examples of how the theory of comparative advantage benefits both participants.

 

A lot of this is due to China taking over low-skill work previously done within the US. But, I understand that politically, this fact does not sit well in red states of mind.

 

Coincidentally, when speaking of red states (of mind), you can compare/contrast the USA during this pre- and post-China era and the USA during the pre- and post-Civil war era. During the Civil war, Confederate agriculture simply could not (or actually, would not) adapt to changing times and the rise of industrial manufacturing. This gave the Union a strong economic advantage.

 

I have no problem with competitive or comparative advantages. I have a problem with the government putting the wealthy over the middle and lower classes. Do you really think market valuations would be where they are if the government had interest rates at normal levels? Do you think home prices on the coasts would be where they are compared to the rest of the country? Why should the government create debt and lower interest rates to prop up stocks but not to prop up manufacturing?

 

If you are going to just let markets happen, then it should be all markets - not just what the higher ups like.

 

The idea that you are not absolutely voting for Trump is a joke.  You started out with that comment simply to imply that you're coming from some objective position.  And then every post since then has been wrapped in a MAGA t-shirt.  At least be upfront that you're a rally-going, shoot-someone-on-5th-avenue, nothing he does it wrong Trump supporter.  It's a least more honest.  But then again honesty and Trump....understood.

[StubbleJumper]

About that reopening

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-texas/texas-back-in-business-barely-yall-as-malls-restaurants-empty-idUSKBN22H19K

 

The problem is as follows: if mall/whatever reopened, I would go there if I knew I'd be the only person in the mall. But then store(s) don't get enough business. OTOH, if everyone rushes in, then I wouldn't go there. So likely you can't get many people there.

 

It's also possible that there will be a bad feedback loop: people don't go to malls, cases don't rise, people think that it's safe and go to malls, then cases rise again, rinse, repeat?

 

Restaurants are more complicated than stores. Even if I'm the only customer there, there is a risk of getting infected from the staff. More risk than if I ordered for delivery. So screw going to restaurant.

 

 

I wouldn't worry at all about going to malls.  My observation is that I don't have much trouble staying 6+ feet away from the next guy at a shopping mall except during the Christmas rush and at lunchtime at the food court.  But a mall during May in Canada?  You could shoot a cannon down the mall and not hit anybody during May.

 

It's a bit of a similar thing with most restaurants at lunch time during May and from Monday-Wednesday at supper time.  One table out of two might be occupied.  But, for restaurants it is more hit-and-miss.  There are some that are jammed all of the time, so you'd have to be a bit selective.

 

 

SJ

[Liberty]

President Donald Trump said Tuesday that his administration blocked Dr. Anthony Fauci from testifying in the House because the chamber is full of “Trump haters,” contradicting the White House claim that the key health official is too busy to appear at a hearing on the U.S. coronavirus response.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/05/coronavirus-trump-blocked-anthony-fauci-house-testimony-because-of-haters.html

 

Great reason not to have a top expert in charge of the US response to a pandemic not inform elected representatives of the people who are sick, tens of thousands dying, and footing the huge bill.

[ERICOPOLY]

This is crazy.  Who is going to go on a cruise this August?

 

https://news.yahoo.com/carnival-announces-comeback-cruises-resume-154302608.html

 

[UK]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-politics-trust/coronavirus-health-fears-outweigh-concern-for-economy-global-survey-idUSKBN22H098

[Dalal.Holdings]

I'd say almost all presidents are super egocentric. Trump may or may not be worse...but he's certainly worse at hiding it.

 

“All presidents r bad” is the new “both parties r bad”.

 

False equivalence fallacy much? I don’t remember when Abraham Lincoln said he wouldn’t have assaulted that woman because she wasn’t attractive enough...

 

Trump fools ordinary folk the most—what do you expect from an Atlantic city casino/reality TV guy.

 

Too bad those ordinary folk think he’s their guy—cutting corporate taxes to the bone is his largest fiscal accomplishment. “New NAFTA” will not stop worker pain. His OPEC “deal” will not save oil workers. And coronavirus will hurt poor/non middle class the most. And this recession will be another huge hit on these folk.

 

You actually think a guy who hangs out with Steve Mnuchin, Tom Barrack, Carl Icahn, Roger Stone, etc has ordinary folks’ interest at heart? His ability to fool the common man is his greatest talent.

[Jurgis]

This is crazy.  Who is going to go on a cruise this August?

 

https://news.yahoo.com/carnival-announces-comeback-cruises-resume-154302608.html

 

Same people who go anywhere regardless of crowds as soon as the lock-down ends.

[Jurgis]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-politics-trust/coronavirus-health-fears-outweigh-concern-for-economy-global-survey-idUSKBN22H098

 

I am mostly for lockdowns, but this:

 

“But people are saying, ‘We’ve already had six to seven weeks of this (restriction on activity), what’s another week or two?’”

 

is wishful thinking.

 

It's not "another week or two" whether we have lock-downs or not. It's likely another 6-10 months if not longer.

 

So maybe reopen. It will likely cause flare ups and deaths, but at least there won't be "govt is killing us by lock-down" complaints.

[arcube]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-politics-trust/coronavirus-health-fears-outweigh-concern-for-economy-global-survey-idUSKBN22H098

 

I am mostly for lockdowns, but this:

 

“But people are saying, ‘We’ve already had six to seven weeks of this (restriction on activity), what’s another week or two?’”

 

is wishful thinking.

 

It's not "another week or two" whether we have lock-downs or not. It's likely another 6-10 months if not longer.

 

So maybe reopen. It will likely cause flare ups and deaths, but at least there won't be "govt is killing us by lock-down" complaints.

 

Could not agree more. But I am sure they will find another way to blame government.

[Jurgis]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-politics-trust/coronavirus-health-fears-outweigh-concern-for-economy-global-survey-idUSKBN22H098

 

I am mostly for lockdowns, but this:

 

“But people are saying, ‘We’ve already had six to seven weeks of this (restriction on activity), what’s another week or two?’”

 

is wishful thinking.

 

It's not "another week or two" whether we have lock-downs or not. It's likely another 6-10 months if not longer.

 

So maybe reopen. It will likely cause flare ups and deaths, but at least there won't be "govt is killing us by lock-down" complaints.

 

Could not agree more. But I am sure they will find another way to blame government.

 

Yeah, that is certain.

[K2SO]

 

Trump brags about doing things that are consensual.  Trump has never bragged about assault. 

 

 

The women disagree with you that it was consensual, including the 13 yr old girl that Trump allegedly raped in Jeffery Epstein's apartment:

 

The number of women who have accused Trump of rape or sexual assault is at least 12

 

https://www.mic.com/articles/156669/how-many-women-have-accused-donald-trump-of-rape-or-sexual-assault#.KujVwb2jl

 

Whoever thinks Trump was bragging about consensuel stuff, I have a bridge I’d like to sell them.

 

Political discourse has now degraded to the level that we're arguing which sexual harasser is the least bad.

 

What an absolute tragedy that at a time when we need strong leadership, there is none to be found.

 

[Liberty]

It's not "another week or two" whether we have lock-downs or not. It's likely another 6-10 months if not longer.

 

I don't think SK or NZ will have 6-10 months of lockdown. They might bounce back and forth between tighter and looser measures, but places that did this well (lockdown to crush the initial curve + masks + massive testing + contact tracing) are in much better shape.

[Liberty]

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-admin-seizing-ppe/

 

"Under U.S. President Donald Trump, federal authorities are confiscating orders of personal protective equipment (PPE) from local governments amid the COVID-19 pandemic."

[Jurgis]

It's not "another week or two" whether we have lock-downs or not. It's likely another 6-10 months if not longer.

 

I don't think SK or NZ will have 6-10 months of lockdown. They might bounce back and forth between tighter and looser measures, but places that did this well (lockdown to crush the initial curve + masks + massive testing + contact tracing) are in much better shape.

 

Sure. I was talking mostly US and somewhat Europe.

 

Places that have close to zero cases + test/trace/etc probably will do fine without lock downs. And definitely will do better without lock downs than places that still have tons of cases and don't test/trace.