covid politics

[Matador]

I try to quickly  admit my mistakes so I can learn from them. I have reviewed my vote multiple times over these years of partisan mass media criticism.  I remain confident that Hillary Clinton would be far worse so I stand with my vote decision.  VP Joe Biden, or whomever he is the placeholder for, does not look promising, so today I would vote for him again.

You have a good point.  Biden would be a disaster:  we should place our collective faith in the current bastion of intellect and integrity:

[quote author=@realDonaldTrump]
For the 1/100th time, the reason we show so many Cases, compared to other countries that haven’t done nearly as well as we have, is that our TESTING is much bigger and better. We have tested 40,000,000 people. If we did 20,000,000 instead, Cases would be half, etc. NOT REPORTED!
[/quote]

 

[Winston OBoogie]

I'm watching BBC News and seeing another day of record high positive cases in the U.S, the death toll on the rise again, and Florida is the no. 1 hotspot in the *world*
If I look  online, the wearing of masks still seems to be a partisan issue.  This is madness!
What is the administration doing?  People need  guidance and help here.   

 

[JohnRoberts]

Not misstated.  I did a cursory search & shareholder capitalism seems to be juxtaposed with stakeholder capitalism.  Considering that half of all stocks are owned by the wealthiest 1%, and 84% owned by the wealthiest 10%, moving away from a system that puts the interest of shareholders above all seems like a more equitable & likely overall saner and healthier approach.

That sounds like the typical (marxist) class warfare screed.... Is that what he meant?

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/sep/18/ro-khanna/what-percentage-americans-own-stocks/
A once-every-three-years study by the Federal Reserve Board found that in 2016, 51.9 percent of families owned stocks, either directly or as part of a fund.

And in 2017, Gallup found that 54 percent of respondents owned stocks either directly or as part of a fund.

Those findings show a majority owning stocks — a modest majority, but still a majority.

America provides economic mobility for all, this does not mean that everybody will have the exact same success or wealth. There will be a statistical distribution curve between the very successful and those who aren't.
======
Everyone having the same result is communism (or its promise). In practice the equal success promised by communism is often effected by sinking to the lowest common denominator (do I need to provide examples?).

If you want to increase entitlement spending, you need to support the businesses creating wealth because the government does not have its own money. It gets it from taxpayers.

Killing the golden goose will not end well.

JR

 

[crazydoc]

From the other thread:

(Note: President Trump is not a scientist or medical expert.)

Someone should tell him...

Mose did:

You sittin' here and yakkin' right in my face
You comin' on exactly like you own the place
You know if silence was golden
You couldn't raise a dime
Because your mind is on vacation and your mouth is workin' overtime

You quotin' figures and droppin' names
You tellin' stories about the dames
You're overlaughin' when things ain't funny
You tryin' to sound like the big money
You know if talk was criminal
You'd lead a life of crime
Because your mind is on vacation and your mouth is workin' overtime

You know that life is short
Talk is cheap
Don't be makin' promises that you can't keep
You don't like this little song I'm singin'
Just grin and bear it
All I can say is if the shoe fits wear it
If you must keep talkin'
Please try to make it rhyme
Because your mind is on vacation and your mouth is workin' overtime

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOWrsXDuwDE

 

[Matador]

That sounds like the typical (marxist) class warfare screed.... Is that what he meant?

Clearly that was said in jest.  What else could it be?  In any case, it's just the opening to a negotiation, right?

America provides economic mobility for all, this does not mean that everybody will have the exact same success or wealth. There will be a statistical distribution curve between the very successful and those who aren't.

You are correct, it is indeed a distribution:

Looks almost like an impulse response, no?

Unless you are arguing that a 20 ton boulder and a 200hp motorcycle are both equally capable of being moved from point A to point B, and sidestepping the issue of how that plays out in actual practice?  Anyone is capable of walking out of a casino a millionaire, however the vast majority don't?

 

[living sounds]

[...] but capitalism and free markets are what created all the wealth we enjoy today.

What about science? The rule of law? Democracy? Separation of powers? Basic/human rights like freedom of expression? A social safety net and health insurance? Public spending on innovation and R&D?

To attribute the wealth we (in the post-colonial industrialized western democracies) enjoy today only (or mostly) to capitalism and free markets is a common mistake made by people following the neoliberal ideology (now on the way out).

To reiterate just one of the points from my list above, a very good case can be made that most of the wealth created in the postwar era is thanks to public and state funded investments in innovation and technology. I can recommend this book:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Entrepreneurial_State

 

[Winston OBoogie]

I don't expect a  response from John Roberts but I'll put this here for the record:


Everyone having the same result is communism (or its promise)


The US govt. started  scaremongering with that sort of stuff in the 1950's.
It makes little old ladies clutch their pearls in horror.

But it doesn't have to be so black and white.

And it's really laughable to the folks on here living within a less selfish, more socialised system.

 

[Winston OBoogie]

A social safety net and health insurance? P

For folks like John with libertarian leanings, the American system actually isn't selfish enough.  Believe it or not.  So social safety net?  Forget it.

 

[hodad]

That sounds like the typical (marxist) class warfare screed.... Is that what he meant?


JR

Sounds like typical right wing lunatic BS--is that what you meant?  If you want conversations to stay civil, say something meaningful instead of spouting incendiary garbage.

 

[JohnRoberts]

wow and we still have months to go...

Be safe everybody

JR

 

[crazydoc]

Well, it looks like the pandemic is out of control (just my uninformed opinion.) The stupidity and lack of self control of people (all the way to the top), and politicizing the mask/mitigation measures seem to be the main factors. Hop on for the ride, the sh!tstorm special is leaving the station.

And now the wheels are coming off.

And the emperor has no clothes.

 

[john12ax7]

I only know of a few politicians and business people who are actually capitalist (based on their actions).  Both major parties have facilitated a huge upward transfer of wealth and generated ongoing financial crises through a system that is most definitely not capitalism.  Actual capitalism would have avoided the issues,  let's not confuse it with the corrupt system that's currently in place.

Edit: Another thing is that capitalism and a strong social safety net are not at odds with each other.  On the contrary,  as it allows for more efficient price discovery.

 

[Winston OBoogie]

Edit: Another thing is that capitalism and a strong social safety net are not at odds with each other.  On the contrary,  as it allows for more efficient price discovery.

Exactly.   
But the suggestion of socialised safety nets is tantamount to lobbying for "Marxism" and "Communism"  to some.

 

[living sounds]

wow and we still have months to go...

Be safe everybody

JR

How convenient.  ;D

 

[JohnRoberts]

I guess this explains the some of the hammer/sickle and raised fists graphiti on the monuments.

They have always been with us, but some candidates have no sense of history.

In  Health related....
It looks like the percentage of expected deaths from all causes has dropped from 100%  before June , 50% at the end of June and to  23% now..

I attached a graph of daily new infections vs new deaths.  This was on the front page of the WSJ Thursday and showed them in perspective. BUT yesterday when I tried to find it on the WWW to post in the normal COVID thread, it was gone.

I am still not a mind reader but my speculation was that it wasn't scary enough presented that way, and didn't fit the doom and gloom messaging.  Since I still had my paper copy I scanned this for your enjoyment.

JR

PS: I am a big boy so can take the verbal abuse, it belittles you guys more than me.

 

[crazydoc]

That is great that the mortality rate seems to be going down, probably due to increasing medical knowledge of treatment modalities, increased treatment options particularly for serious disease, and a much younger cohort of patients who tolerate illness better. But old doomandgloom me expects the mortality to rise some again, as it lags the case count by weeks to a month.

 

[hodad]

That is great that the mortality rate seems to be going down.

It's also not the only issue at hand.  As doctors and scientists learn more about COVID, they're seeing more and more evidence of long term health issues (lung and kidney isssues, cognitive impairment, etc. ), and that becomes even more of a concern as cases among young people rise.  Yes, lower death rates are great (although likely to rise somewhat in the coming weeks), but even if the pandemic were handled perfectly from this point, the after-effects of COVID will reverberate for decades.

But the president said yesterday that it's all under control, so I'm not worried about a thing.

 

[fazer]

More like an occupying force in a war zone than community policing:

Didn’t this start after 9/11.  Trying to fight Terrorist with military response?  Also the bank robbers in LA with body armor that the police could not bring down.  If they have it they use it.    Not always wisely. 

 

[Winston OBoogie]

Didn’t this start after 9/11.  Trying to fight Terrorist with military response?  Also the bank robbers in LA with body armor that the police could not bring down.  If they have it they use it.    Not always wisely.

Militarisation of the US police certainly rose after 9/11 but it didn't start then.  I believe it started with "The War On Drugs'.  It's certainly not something I would lay blame just with Republicans and George W Bush.  Obama was as guilty although did eventually sign an executive order to limit the amount of equipment flowing from the Pentagon to the police.  However, Trump overturned this executive order.

 

[hodad]

Militarisation of the US police certainly rose after 9/11 but it didn't start then.  I believe it started with "The War On Drugs'. 

Bill Clinton started a program that released military surplus to police forces for free--all the police departments had to do was pay for the item to get to them from wherever it was.  This might not have been the beginning of the militarization, but at the least it was a very significant turning point.