|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On December 10 2020 01:48 JimmiC wrote:
It can't be election related because he won that one no? Maybe something relating to covid measures?
No, I think the Texas thing is referring to how Texas is trying to sue the close states that Biden won, to throw out mail-in votes and give Trump the win.
It makes no sense and nothing will come of it.
|
|
|
On December 10 2020 01:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2020 18:17 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 08 2020 17:41 Wegandi wrote:
As far as debt spending direct payments are the least worst. There's less corruption (though there is some still), it mitigates the Cantillon effect, there's no apparatchiks picking winners/losers so less market distortion re: resource allocation and profitability signaling, and well, if you're into solely politics it likely polls the best (see: every entitlement program on Earth being a big electoral boon to those who shovel money to the voters (LBJ/FDR)). If Republicans were smart politically they'd push for like a 3,200$ check and cut out all the other junk. You could also make it progressive if you wanted to - 150k+ = 1750, <150k = 4000.
I'd imagine Dems would almost be forced politically to support such a "skinny" bill, but these types of bills are almost a no-go because politicians like wielding their power and being wooed by interests and cronies (and rewarding "their side"). In regular times it's better to avoid debt spending but with the way the world has handled the COVID issue via just locking down entire economies direct payments are the best way. Sad to say with the lockdowns they've hurt small businesses and regular working class people the most whilst helped billionaires and big business greatly.Amazon saw sales increase 37% to 96B in 3Q while many small businesses were forced to stay closed https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/oct/29/amazon-profits-latest-earnings-report-third-quarter-pandemicDemocrats may talk tough on helping the poor and getting tougher on big business but their COVID lockdown policies do exactly the opposite. Were you under a rock when the senate was the stage of an epic battle between the GOP that promoted a relief bill almost exclusively in favour of big businesses and the Dems, which pushed for a bill helping modest household and small businesses?
Sheesh. In this framing, Republicans would be equally right to call their bill focused on households and small businesses, and Democrats favoring special interests and big business and state budget bailouts. It's just spin and characterization.
|
United States43259 Posts
On December 10 2020 02:03 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2020 01:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 10 2020 01:48 JimmiC wrote:
It can't be election related because he won that one no? Maybe something relating to covid measures? No, I think the Texas thing is referring to how Texas is trying to sue the close states that Biden won, to throw out mail-in votes and give Trump the win. It makes no sense and nothing will come of it. I guess the sense it makes is he has raised over 200 mil and spent 8. Needs to keep the grift alive to maximize his donations.
I liked that his election overturning campaign fund paid the holding company for his private planes a consulting fee out of donor money. The embezzlement is naked at this point. He’s just openly pocketing their money. He couldn’t bill his election fund for flights because they didn’t do any so he just calls it consulting and pockets the money. Imagine being someone who contributed to that.
https://www.salon.com/2020/12/08/the-trump-campaign-paid-trumps-private-jet-company-16800-in-consulting-fees/
|
Isn't there still several cities that have unpaid bills from his campaign rally's? Kind of hard to find a current update on these things but last month El Paso was still looking for 569k from a 2019 rally.
|
On December 10 2020 02:38 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Isn't there still several cities that have unpaid bills from his campaign rally's? Kind of hard to find a current update on these things but last month El Paso was still looking for 569k from a 2019 rally.
Why would you pay other people when you can pay yourself instead.
|
|
|
On December 10 2020 00:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2020 18:17 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 08 2020 17:41 Wegandi wrote:
As far as debt spending direct payments are the least worst. There's less corruption (though there is some still), it mitigates the Cantillon effect, there's no apparatchiks picking winners/losers so less market distortion re: resource allocation and profitability signaling, and well, if you're into solely politics it likely polls the best (see: every entitlement program on Earth being a big electoral boon to those who shovel money to the voters (LBJ/FDR)). If Republicans were smart politically they'd push for like a 3,200$ check and cut out all the other junk. You could also make it progressive if you wanted to - 150k+ = 1750, <150k = 4000.
I'd imagine Dems would almost be forced politically to support such a "skinny" bill, but these types of bills are almost a no-go because politicians like wielding their power and being wooed by interests and cronies (and rewarding "their side"). In regular times it's better to avoid debt spending but with the way the world has handled the COVID issue via just locking down entire economies direct payments are the best way. Sad to say with the lockdowns they've hurt small businesses and regular working class people the most whilst helped billionaires and big business greatly.Amazon saw sales increase 37% to 96B in 3Q while many small businesses were forced to stay closed https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/oct/29/amazon-profits-latest-earnings-report-third-quarter-pandemicDemocrats may talk tough on helping the poor and getting tougher on big business but their COVID lockdown policies do exactly the opposite. The Democrats don’t like COVID lockdowns, they think they’re necessary even though they don’t like them. What a ridiculous argument. Everybody would prefer that there wasn’t a pandemic but unfortunately there is one and so we can’t all have what we’d prefer.
Lockdowns aren't necessary.It's a failed policy that has helped big business and hurt small business on the whole.
When you re-open cases go back up either straight away or after a delay.
Europe is back in lockdown, Canada is back in lockdown.
Now i was mostly talking about retail businesses but restaurants have been hardest hit.Two thirds of public restaurants at risk of bankruptcy https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-29/two-thirds-of-public-restaurants-are-seen-at-risk-of-bankruptcy
Like i said from the start of it, my opinion hasn't changed.Tell old people to be careful, maybe get them to isolate.Don't send COVID patients back into nursing homes.Let young people go about their lives.Then you don't have tens of thousands of restaurants going out of business.Economy is over if this keeps going.
|
On December 10 2020 06:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2020 00:02 KwarK wrote:On December 09 2020 18:17 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 08 2020 17:41 Wegandi wrote:
As far as debt spending direct payments are the least worst. There's less corruption (though there is some still), it mitigates the Cantillon effect, there's no apparatchiks picking winners/losers so less market distortion re: resource allocation and profitability signaling, and well, if you're into solely politics it likely polls the best (see: every entitlement program on Earth being a big electoral boon to those who shovel money to the voters (LBJ/FDR)). If Republicans were smart politically they'd push for like a 3,200$ check and cut out all the other junk. You could also make it progressive if you wanted to - 150k+ = 1750, <150k = 4000.
I'd imagine Dems would almost be forced politically to support such a "skinny" bill, but these types of bills are almost a no-go because politicians like wielding their power and being wooed by interests and cronies (and rewarding "their side"). In regular times it's better to avoid debt spending but with the way the world has handled the COVID issue via just locking down entire economies direct payments are the best way. Sad to say with the lockdowns they've hurt small businesses and regular working class people the most whilst helped billionaires and big business greatly.Amazon saw sales increase 37% to 96B in 3Q while many small businesses were forced to stay closed https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/oct/29/amazon-profits-latest-earnings-report-third-quarter-pandemicDemocrats may talk tough on helping the poor and getting tougher on big business but their COVID lockdown policies do exactly the opposite. The Democrats don’t like COVID lockdowns, they think they’re necessary even though they don’t like them. What a ridiculous argument. Everybody would prefer that there wasn’t a pandemic but unfortunately there is one and so we can’t all have what we’d prefer. Lockdowns aren't necessary. When you re-open cases go back up either straight away or after a delay. Europe is back in lockdown, Canada is back in lockdown. Now i was mostly talking about retail businesses but restaurants have been hardest hit.Two thirds of public restaurants at risk of bankruptcy https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-29/two-thirds-of-public-restaurants-are-seen-at-risk-of-bankruptcyLike i said from the start of it, my opinion hasn't changed.Tell old people to be careful, maybe get them to isolate.Don't send COVID patients back into nursing homes.Let young people go about their lives.Then you don't have tens of thousands of restaurants going out of business.Economy is over if this keeps going. I don't follow your logic, you correctly identify that without a lockdown numbers go up but don't see that a lockdown is needed to stop the numbers from rising?
If numbers go up the numbers will eventually get to high for healthcare to properly deal with, as which point deaths take a dramatic spike upward. This has to be avoided and nothing short of a lockdown looks to stop the numbers from going up.
In the Netherlands the government tried varies measures to get the numbers to go down without having to close bars/restaurants but the numbers simply wouldn't go down until bars and restaurants were closed.
If the choice is between restaurants being closed or hospitals being overwhelmed there is no realistic choice. Hospitals getting overwhelmed has utterly disastrous consequences, see Italy.
|
|
|
On December 10 2020 06:56 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2020 06:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 10 2020 00:02 KwarK wrote:On December 09 2020 18:17 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 08 2020 17:41 Wegandi wrote:
As far as debt spending direct payments are the least worst. There's less corruption (though there is some still), it mitigates the Cantillon effect, there's no apparatchiks picking winners/losers so less market distortion re: resource allocation and profitability signaling, and well, if you're into solely politics it likely polls the best (see: every entitlement program on Earth being a big electoral boon to those who shovel money to the voters (LBJ/FDR)). If Republicans were smart politically they'd push for like a 3,200$ check and cut out all the other junk. You could also make it progressive if you wanted to - 150k+ = 1750, <150k = 4000.
I'd imagine Dems would almost be forced politically to support such a "skinny" bill, but these types of bills are almost a no-go because politicians like wielding their power and being wooed by interests and cronies (and rewarding "their side"). In regular times it's better to avoid debt spending but with the way the world has handled the COVID issue via just locking down entire economies direct payments are the best way. Sad to say with the lockdowns they've hurt small businesses and regular working class people the most whilst helped billionaires and big business greatly.Amazon saw sales increase 37% to 96B in 3Q while many small businesses were forced to stay closed https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/oct/29/amazon-profits-latest-earnings-report-third-quarter-pandemicDemocrats may talk tough on helping the poor and getting tougher on big business but their COVID lockdown policies do exactly the opposite. The Democrats don’t like COVID lockdowns, they think they’re necessary even though they don’t like them. What a ridiculous argument. Everybody would prefer that there wasn’t a pandemic but unfortunately there is one and so we can’t all have what we’d prefer. Lockdowns aren't necessary. When you re-open cases go back up either straight away or after a delay. Europe is back in lockdown, Canada is back in lockdown. Now i was mostly talking about retail businesses but restaurants have been hardest hit.Two thirds of public restaurants at risk of bankruptcy https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-29/two-thirds-of-public-restaurants-are-seen-at-risk-of-bankruptcyLike i said from the start of it, my opinion hasn't changed.Tell old people to be careful, maybe get them to isolate.Don't send COVID patients back into nursing homes.Let young people go about their lives.Then you don't have tens of thousands of restaurants going out of business.Economy is over if this keeps going. I don't follow your logic, you correctly identify that without a lockdown numbers go up but don't see that a lockdown is needed to stop the numbers from rising? If numbers go up the numbers will eventually get to high for healthcare to properly deal with, as which point deaths take a dramatic spike upward. This has to be avoided and nothing short of a lockdown looks to stop the numbers from going up. In the Netherlands the government tried varies measures to get the numbers to go down without having to close bars/restaurants but the numbers simply wouldn't go down until bars and restaurants were closed. If the choice is between restaurants being closed or hospitals being overwhelmed there is no realistic choice. Hospitals getting overwhelmed has utterly disastrous consequences, see Italy.
Swedens numbers still fell back to zero even without lockdown.
Still, i stated old people should isolate and care should be taken amongst aged care homes.
Fewer old people with COVID = fewer deaths since vast majority of deaths are in those ages 70+
You're creating an epidemic of mental illness in youth and a potential suicide epidemic whilst simultaneously allowing amazon to get even bigger at the expense of small business.
|
On December 10 2020 07:11 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2020 06:56 Gorsameth wrote:On December 10 2020 06:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 10 2020 00:02 KwarK wrote:On December 09 2020 18:17 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 08 2020 17:41 Wegandi wrote:
As far as debt spending direct payments are the least worst. There's less corruption (though there is some still), it mitigates the Cantillon effect, there's no apparatchiks picking winners/losers so less market distortion re: resource allocation and profitability signaling, and well, if you're into solely politics it likely polls the best (see: every entitlement program on Earth being a big electoral boon to those who shovel money to the voters (LBJ/FDR)). If Republicans were smart politically they'd push for like a 3,200$ check and cut out all the other junk. You could also make it progressive if you wanted to - 150k+ = 1750, <150k = 4000.
I'd imagine Dems would almost be forced politically to support such a "skinny" bill, but these types of bills are almost a no-go because politicians like wielding their power and being wooed by interests and cronies (and rewarding "their side"). In regular times it's better to avoid debt spending but with the way the world has handled the COVID issue via just locking down entire economies direct payments are the best way. Sad to say with the lockdowns they've hurt small businesses and regular working class people the most whilst helped billionaires and big business greatly.Amazon saw sales increase 37% to 96B in 3Q while many small businesses were forced to stay closed https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/oct/29/amazon-profits-latest-earnings-report-third-quarter-pandemicDemocrats may talk tough on helping the poor and getting tougher on big business but their COVID lockdown policies do exactly the opposite. The Democrats don’t like COVID lockdowns, they think they’re necessary even though they don’t like them. What a ridiculous argument. Everybody would prefer that there wasn’t a pandemic but unfortunately there is one and so we can’t all have what we’d prefer. Lockdowns aren't necessary. When you re-open cases go back up either straight away or after a delay. Europe is back in lockdown, Canada is back in lockdown. Now i was mostly talking about retail businesses but restaurants have been hardest hit.Two thirds of public restaurants at risk of bankruptcy https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-29/two-thirds-of-public-restaurants-are-seen-at-risk-of-bankruptcyLike i said from the start of it, my opinion hasn't changed.Tell old people to be careful, maybe get them to isolate.Don't send COVID patients back into nursing homes.Let young people go about their lives.Then you don't have tens of thousands of restaurants going out of business.Economy is over if this keeps going. I don't follow your logic, you correctly identify that without a lockdown numbers go up but don't see that a lockdown is needed to stop the numbers from rising? If numbers go up the numbers will eventually get to high for healthcare to properly deal with, as which point deaths take a dramatic spike upward. This has to be avoided and nothing short of a lockdown looks to stop the numbers from going up. In the Netherlands the government tried varies measures to get the numbers to go down without having to close bars/restaurants but the numbers simply wouldn't go down until bars and restaurants were closed. If the choice is between restaurants being closed or hospitals being overwhelmed there is no realistic choice. Hospitals getting overwhelmed has utterly disastrous consequences, see Italy. Swedens numbers still fell back to zero even without lockdown. Still, i stated old people should isolate and care should be taken amongst aged care homes. Fewer old people with COVID = fewer deaths since vast majority of deaths are in those ages 70+ You're creating an epidemic of mental illness in youth and a potential suicide epidemic whilst simultaneously allowing amazon to get even bigger at the expense of small business.
Blaming the victims of a pandemic for what happens as a result of the pandemic. Nice.
|
On December 10 2020 07:11 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2020 06:56 Gorsameth wrote:On December 10 2020 06:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 10 2020 00:02 KwarK wrote:On December 09 2020 18:17 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 08 2020 17:41 Wegandi wrote:
As far as debt spending direct payments are the least worst. There's less corruption (though there is some still), it mitigates the Cantillon effect, there's no apparatchiks picking winners/losers so less market distortion re: resource allocation and profitability signaling, and well, if you're into solely politics it likely polls the best (see: every entitlement program on Earth being a big electoral boon to those who shovel money to the voters (LBJ/FDR)). If Republicans were smart politically they'd push for like a 3,200$ check and cut out all the other junk. You could also make it progressive if you wanted to - 150k+ = 1750, <150k = 4000.
I'd imagine Dems would almost be forced politically to support such a "skinny" bill, but these types of bills are almost a no-go because politicians like wielding their power and being wooed by interests and cronies (and rewarding "their side"). In regular times it's better to avoid debt spending but with the way the world has handled the COVID issue via just locking down entire economies direct payments are the best way. Sad to say with the lockdowns they've hurt small businesses and regular working class people the most whilst helped billionaires and big business greatly.Amazon saw sales increase 37% to 96B in 3Q while many small businesses were forced to stay closed https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/oct/29/amazon-profits-latest-earnings-report-third-quarter-pandemicDemocrats may talk tough on helping the poor and getting tougher on big business but their COVID lockdown policies do exactly the opposite. The Democrats don’t like COVID lockdowns, they think they’re necessary even though they don’t like them. What a ridiculous argument. Everybody would prefer that there wasn’t a pandemic but unfortunately there is one and so we can’t all have what we’d prefer. Lockdowns aren't necessary. When you re-open cases go back up either straight away or after a delay. Europe is back in lockdown, Canada is back in lockdown. Now i was mostly talking about retail businesses but restaurants have been hardest hit.Two thirds of public restaurants at risk of bankruptcy https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-29/two-thirds-of-public-restaurants-are-seen-at-risk-of-bankruptcyLike i said from the start of it, my opinion hasn't changed.Tell old people to be careful, maybe get them to isolate.Don't send COVID patients back into nursing homes.Let young people go about their lives.Then you don't have tens of thousands of restaurants going out of business.Economy is over if this keeps going. I don't follow your logic, you correctly identify that without a lockdown numbers go up but don't see that a lockdown is needed to stop the numbers from rising? If numbers go up the numbers will eventually get to high for healthcare to properly deal with, as which point deaths take a dramatic spike upward. This has to be avoided and nothing short of a lockdown looks to stop the numbers from going up. In the Netherlands the government tried varies measures to get the numbers to go down without having to close bars/restaurants but the numbers simply wouldn't go down until bars and restaurants were closed. If the choice is between restaurants being closed or hospitals being overwhelmed there is no realistic choice. Hospitals getting overwhelmed has utterly disastrous consequences, see Italy. Swedens numbers still fell back to zero even without lockdown. Still, i stated old people should isolate and care should be taken amongst aged care homes. Fewer old people with COVID = fewer deaths since vast majority of deaths are in those ages 70+ You're creating an epidemic of mental illness in youth and a potential suicide epidemic whilst simultaneously allowing amazon to get even bigger at the expense of small business. You don't seem to get it.
Italy's hospitals got overrun in the first wave, parts of France did, parts of Spain. Netherlands barely got their numbers down in time to avoid getting overrun.
The rest of Europe is not Sweden, and Sweden did significantly worse then their neighbours and by all accounts that I have seen suffered just as much economic damage as everyone else.
|
On December 10 2020 07:11 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2020 06:56 Gorsameth wrote:On December 10 2020 06:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 10 2020 00:02 KwarK wrote:On December 09 2020 18:17 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 08 2020 17:41 Wegandi wrote:
As far as debt spending direct payments are the least worst. There's less corruption (though there is some still), it mitigates the Cantillon effect, there's no apparatchiks picking winners/losers so less market distortion re: resource allocation and profitability signaling, and well, if you're into solely politics it likely polls the best (see: every entitlement program on Earth being a big electoral boon to those who shovel money to the voters (LBJ/FDR)). If Republicans were smart politically they'd push for like a 3,200$ check and cut out all the other junk. You could also make it progressive if you wanted to - 150k+ = 1750, <150k = 4000.
I'd imagine Dems would almost be forced politically to support such a "skinny" bill, but these types of bills are almost a no-go because politicians like wielding their power and being wooed by interests and cronies (and rewarding "their side"). In regular times it's better to avoid debt spending but with the way the world has handled the COVID issue via just locking down entire economies direct payments are the best way. Sad to say with the lockdowns they've hurt small businesses and regular working class people the most whilst helped billionaires and big business greatly.Amazon saw sales increase 37% to 96B in 3Q while many small businesses were forced to stay closed https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/oct/29/amazon-profits-latest-earnings-report-third-quarter-pandemicDemocrats may talk tough on helping the poor and getting tougher on big business but their COVID lockdown policies do exactly the opposite. The Democrats don’t like COVID lockdowns, they think they’re necessary even though they don’t like them. What a ridiculous argument. Everybody would prefer that there wasn’t a pandemic but unfortunately there is one and so we can’t all have what we’d prefer. Lockdowns aren't necessary. When you re-open cases go back up either straight away or after a delay. Europe is back in lockdown, Canada is back in lockdown. Now i was mostly talking about retail businesses but restaurants have been hardest hit.Two thirds of public restaurants at risk of bankruptcy https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-29/two-thirds-of-public-restaurants-are-seen-at-risk-of-bankruptcyLike i said from the start of it, my opinion hasn't changed.Tell old people to be careful, maybe get them to isolate.Don't send COVID patients back into nursing homes.Let young people go about their lives.Then you don't have tens of thousands of restaurants going out of business.Economy is over if this keeps going. I don't follow your logic, you correctly identify that without a lockdown numbers go up but don't see that a lockdown is needed to stop the numbers from rising? If numbers go up the numbers will eventually get to high for healthcare to properly deal with, as which point deaths take a dramatic spike upward. This has to be avoided and nothing short of a lockdown looks to stop the numbers from going up. In the Netherlands the government tried varies measures to get the numbers to go down without having to close bars/restaurants but the numbers simply wouldn't go down until bars and restaurants were closed. If the choice is between restaurants being closed or hospitals being overwhelmed there is no realistic choice. Hospitals getting overwhelmed has utterly disastrous consequences, see Italy. Swedens numbers still fell back to zero even without lockdown. Still, i stated old people should isolate and care should be taken amongst aged care homes. Fewer old people with COVID = fewer deaths since vast majority of deaths are in those ages 70+ You're creating an epidemic of mental illness in youth and a potential suicide epidemic whilst simultaneously allowing amazon to get even bigger at the expense of small business.
About 1/4th of the German population is in a risk group of some sort. How do you want to isolate 1/4th of the population?
|
On December 10 2020 07:11 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2020 06:56 Gorsameth wrote:On December 10 2020 06:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 10 2020 00:02 KwarK wrote:On December 09 2020 18:17 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 08 2020 17:41 Wegandi wrote:
As far as debt spending direct payments are the least worst. There's less corruption (though there is some still), it mitigates the Cantillon effect, there's no apparatchiks picking winners/losers so less market distortion re: resource allocation and profitability signaling, and well, if you're into solely politics it likely polls the best (see: every entitlement program on Earth being a big electoral boon to those who shovel money to the voters (LBJ/FDR)). If Republicans were smart politically they'd push for like a 3,200$ check and cut out all the other junk. You could also make it progressive if you wanted to - 150k+ = 1750, <150k = 4000.
I'd imagine Dems would almost be forced politically to support such a "skinny" bill, but these types of bills are almost a no-go because politicians like wielding their power and being wooed by interests and cronies (and rewarding "their side"). In regular times it's better to avoid debt spending but with the way the world has handled the COVID issue via just locking down entire economies direct payments are the best way. Sad to say with the lockdowns they've hurt small businesses and regular working class people the most whilst helped billionaires and big business greatly.Amazon saw sales increase 37% to 96B in 3Q while many small businesses were forced to stay closed https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/oct/29/amazon-profits-latest-earnings-report-third-quarter-pandemicDemocrats may talk tough on helping the poor and getting tougher on big business but their COVID lockdown policies do exactly the opposite. The Democrats don’t like COVID lockdowns, they think they’re necessary even though they don’t like them. What a ridiculous argument. Everybody would prefer that there wasn’t a pandemic but unfortunately there is one and so we can’t all have what we’d prefer. Lockdowns aren't necessary. When you re-open cases go back up either straight away or after a delay. Europe is back in lockdown, Canada is back in lockdown. Now i was mostly talking about retail businesses but restaurants have been hardest hit.Two thirds of public restaurants at risk of bankruptcy https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-29/two-thirds-of-public-restaurants-are-seen-at-risk-of-bankruptcyLike i said from the start of it, my opinion hasn't changed.Tell old people to be careful, maybe get them to isolate.Don't send COVID patients back into nursing homes.Let young people go about their lives.Then you don't have tens of thousands of restaurants going out of business.Economy is over if this keeps going. I don't follow your logic, you correctly identify that without a lockdown numbers go up but don't see that a lockdown is needed to stop the numbers from rising? If numbers go up the numbers will eventually get to high for healthcare to properly deal with, as which point deaths take a dramatic spike upward. This has to be avoided and nothing short of a lockdown looks to stop the numbers from going up. In the Netherlands the government tried varies measures to get the numbers to go down without having to close bars/restaurants but the numbers simply wouldn't go down until bars and restaurants were closed. If the choice is between restaurants being closed or hospitals being overwhelmed there is no realistic choice. Hospitals getting overwhelmed has utterly disastrous consequences, see Italy. Swedens numbers still fell back to zero even without lockdown. Still, i stated old people should isolate and care should be taken amongst aged care homes. Fewer old people with COVID = fewer deaths since vast majority of deaths are in those ages 70+ You're creating an epidemic of mental illness in youth and a potential suicide epidemic whilst simultaneously allowing amazon to get even bigger at the expense of small business.
Yes it's all a conspiracy of egoistic old people wanting to life teaming up with evil Amazon to bribe every government on earth to do lockdowns just to shit on the youth and destroy restaurants.
|
Swedens numbers still fell back to zero even without lockdown.
That's absolutely bullshit.
Like, not even just wrong, but violently false.
Swedens numbers are one of the worst in europe, in fact they're worse than british numbers when you're looking at daily infections. In terms of EU wide, they're at the very bottom end of "how well they did", and that's not even taking into account the incredibly low population density of sweden, technically having it considerably easier containing a virus compared to densely populated countries.
In fact their weekly rate of infection is higher than the rates in germany and the UK combined. They had 3500 confirmed cases in the last 24h ffs. In a population of 10m. The UK had 12000 confirmed new cases in almost 70m - and the virus is running rampant over here.
Why is everyone just arguing with people like Nettles/Wegandi rather than fact checking their viciously bullshitted numbers?
|
Pointing at Swedish population density doesn't sound too convincing considering...
87% of Swedes live in urban areas, which cover 1.5% of the entire land area.
|
On December 10 2020 07:11 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2020 06:56 Gorsameth wrote:On December 10 2020 06:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 10 2020 00:02 KwarK wrote:On December 09 2020 18:17 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 08 2020 17:41 Wegandi wrote:
As far as debt spending direct payments are the least worst. There's less corruption (though there is some still), it mitigates the Cantillon effect, there's no apparatchiks picking winners/losers so less market distortion re: resource allocation and profitability signaling, and well, if you're into solely politics it likely polls the best (see: every entitlement program on Earth being a big electoral boon to those who shovel money to the voters (LBJ/FDR)). If Republicans were smart politically they'd push for like a 3,200$ check and cut out all the other junk. You could also make it progressive if you wanted to - 150k+ = 1750, <150k = 4000.
I'd imagine Dems would almost be forced politically to support such a "skinny" bill, but these types of bills are almost a no-go because politicians like wielding their power and being wooed by interests and cronies (and rewarding "their side"). In regular times it's better to avoid debt spending but with the way the world has handled the COVID issue via just locking down entire economies direct payments are the best way. Sad to say with the lockdowns they've hurt small businesses and regular working class people the most whilst helped billionaires and big business greatly.Amazon saw sales increase 37% to 96B in 3Q while many small businesses were forced to stay closed https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/oct/29/amazon-profits-latest-earnings-report-third-quarter-pandemicDemocrats may talk tough on helping the poor and getting tougher on big business but their COVID lockdown policies do exactly the opposite. The Democrats don’t like COVID lockdowns, they think they’re necessary even though they don’t like them. What a ridiculous argument. Everybody would prefer that there wasn’t a pandemic but unfortunately there is one and so we can’t all have what we’d prefer. Lockdowns aren't necessary. When you re-open cases go back up either straight away or after a delay. Europe is back in lockdown, Canada is back in lockdown. Now i was mostly talking about retail businesses but restaurants have been hardest hit.Two thirds of public restaurants at risk of bankruptcy https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-29/two-thirds-of-public-restaurants-are-seen-at-risk-of-bankruptcyLike i said from the start of it, my opinion hasn't changed.Tell old people to be careful, maybe get them to isolate.Don't send COVID patients back into nursing homes.Let young people go about their lives.Then you don't have tens of thousands of restaurants going out of business.Economy is over if this keeps going. I don't follow your logic, you correctly identify that without a lockdown numbers go up but don't see that a lockdown is needed to stop the numbers from rising? If numbers go up the numbers will eventually get to high for healthcare to properly deal with, as which point deaths take a dramatic spike upward. This has to be avoided and nothing short of a lockdown looks to stop the numbers from going up. In the Netherlands the government tried varies measures to get the numbers to go down without having to close bars/restaurants but the numbers simply wouldn't go down until bars and restaurants were closed. If the choice is between restaurants being closed or hospitals being overwhelmed there is no realistic choice. Hospitals getting overwhelmed has utterly disastrous consequences, see Italy. Swedens numbers still fell back to zero even without lockdown. Still, i stated old people should isolate and care should be taken amongst aged care homes. Fewer old people with COVID = fewer deaths since vast majority of deaths are in those ages 70+ You're creating an epidemic of mental illness in youth and a potential suicide epidemic whilst simultaneously allowing amazon to get even bigger at the expense of small business.
What is your suggestion when the hospitals are overwhelmed? Like whats the next step? Ration care? Hope it doesn't happen? Lets say you were magically made dictator and had to deal with an overwhelmed hospital system, whats your next step?
|
On December 10 2020 08:42 m4ini wrote:That's absolutely bullshit. Like, not even just wrong, but violently false. Swedens numbers are one of the worst in europe, in fact they're worse than british numbers when you're looking at daily infections. In terms of EU wide, they're at the very bottom end of "how well they did", and that's not even taking into account the incredibly low population density of sweden, technically having it considerably easier containing a virus compared to densely populated countries. In fact their weekly rate of infection is higher than the rates in germany and the UK combined. They had 3500 confirmed cases in the last 24h ffs. In a population of 10m. The UK had 12000 confirmed new cases in almost 70m - and the virus is running rampant over here. Why is everyone just arguing with people like Nettles/Wegandi rather than fact checking their viciously bullshitted numbers?
I dunnu, looking at excess mortality for 2020 Sweden is very much middle of the pack in Europe. Far worse than Norway or Germany, much better than the UK and Spain (or the US)
In terms of deaths per 100k people:
Spain: 132
Britain: 110
US: 95
Netherlands: 76
Sweden: 62
Germany: 11
Denmark: 4
source: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/07/15/tracking-covid-19-excess-deaths-across-countries
I do think excess mortality is a better way of measuring these things than reported case numbers, or even reported deaths, since it accounts for differences in testing and reporting regimes.
Related to Nettles other point that deaths in Sweden dropped to zero during the summer just as in the rest of Europe, that is also true and a quick look at worldometers would confirm that, so considering how much you seem to like fact checking I am not sure why you would label that particular comment as violently false.
All that said the uniqueness of the "Swedish" approach has been greatly exaggerated I think. I mean "Sweden" is used abroad in some circles as some kind of rallying cry for "lets just ignore covid" but I think in practice the actual number of contacts per people per day probably dropped a similar amount in Sweden as it did in the Netherlands or whatever. For example my father has been working from home since April, usage of the Stockholm subway system dropped by ~60% etc. I still dont understand the Swedish CDC aversion to masks, considering researchers across the world more or less all seem to agree they help.
|
On December 10 2020 09:59 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2020 08:42 m4ini wrote:Swedens numbers still fell back to zero even without lockdown.
That's absolutely bullshit. Like, not even just wrong, but violently false. Swedens numbers are one of the worst in europe, in fact they're worse than british numbers when you're looking at daily infections. In terms of EU wide, they're at the very bottom end of "how well they did", and that's not even taking into account the incredibly low population density of sweden, technically having it considerably easier containing a virus compared to densely populated countries. In fact their weekly rate of infection is higher than the rates in germany and the UK combined. They had 3500 confirmed cases in the last 24h ffs. In a population of 10m. The UK had 12000 confirmed new cases in almost 70m - and the virus is running rampant over here. Why is everyone just arguing with people like Nettles/Wegandi rather than fact checking their viciously bullshitted numbers? I dunnu, looking at excess mortality for 2020 Sweden is very much middle of the pack in Europe. Far worse than Norway or Germany, much better than the UK and Spain (or the US) In terms of deaths per 100k people: Spain: 132 Britain: 110 US: 95 Netherlands: 76 Sweden: 62 Germany: 11 Denmark: 4 source: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/07/15/tracking-covid-19-excess-deaths-across-countriesI do think excess mortality is a better way of measuring these things than reported case numbers, or even reported deaths, since it accounts for differences in testing and reporting regimes. Related to Nettles other point that deaths in Sweden dropped to zero during the summer just as in the rest of Europe, that is also true and a quick look at worldometers would confirm that, so considering how much you seem to like fact checking I am not sure why you would label that particular comment as violently false. All that said the uniqueness of the "Swedish" approach has been greatly exaggerated I think. I mean "Sweden" is used abroad in some circles as some kind of rallying cry for "lets just ignore covid" but I think in practice the actual number of contacts per people per day probably dropped a similar amount in Sweden as it did in the Netherlands or whatever. For example my father has been working from home since April, usage of the Stockholm subway system dropped by ~60% etc. I still dont understand the Swedish CDC aversion to masks, considering researchers across the world more or less all seem to agree they help.
Performance isn’t judged against worst case scenario, it’s judged against best. In that regards, Swedish leadership should be ashamed. Think about how many people in Sweden are dead because the government made bad decisions. I can’t imagine a world where that’s acceptable. If your parents were dead, you wouldn’t be comforted knowing other countries failed worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
61784
2017
285
EPT
