OT: Coronavirus (COVID-19): Part V

[steves3511]

You are living in fantasy land

I would hope you are not repeatedly using that line on me because I happen to be an artist that deals in the fantasy sphere, but I am finding it pretty hard the believe it is a coincidence. Let me explain something, Just because I chose a path in art and followed a passion does not mean I am incapable of having a complex discussion on US government policy in regards to spending and financial relief in times of an economic crisis. You seem to have this attitude that you are talking down to a child that is ignorant and doesnt know how the world works. We are very clearly on different sides of the isle when it comes to government spending but I really do not appreciate being looked down on because of my profession. You want to disagree on policy fine, but spare me the fantasyland crap.

Why do I get the sense that during 1929 you would have said the New Deal is going to cost too much, paying people that dont have jobs will result in people becoming dependent on the government and will never go back to work, creating a minimum wage will destroy businesses. And yet, it worked, it pulled millions of people out of poverty and started the greatest and fastest expansion in our economic history. Do not tell me large government spending programs do not work, they do.

Which Was Bigger: The 2009 Recovery Act or FDR's New Deal?

For instance, the nation’s population has more than doubled. Thus, the cost on a per capita basis in 2009 dollars was $2,738 for ARRA and $5,231 for the New Deal. Dupor also compared the costs in terms of the size of the economy at the time of enactment. ARRA’s cost was equal to 5.7 percent of the nation’s 2008 output. The New Deal, however, was about 40 percent of the nation’s 1929 output.

we were able to afford 40% of our nations output back in 1929, but you are absolutely certain we cannot afford 1/3rd in 2020

 

[steves3511]

didnt mean to hit reply just yet whoops

Going to hazard a guess that you are not a parent. I have two girls. And I will do anything to ensure that they do not have to wait on breadlines. Including happily sacrificing my life and yours if I need to.

And I get and understand that, you are right, I do not have kids. But as someone who has a job that interacts with thousands of people any weekend there is an event (and I am supposed to have an event about every other weekend) that means I interact with a lot of people, lots of opportunities for me to either get the virus, or spread the virus. What about fathers and mothers that are afraid if they go to work they may come in contact with the virus and either get sick themselves or spread it to their families. or their immuno-compromised friends family and loved ones.

how would you feel if your kids were at risk if they got it? know anyone who is at risk if they got it, its easy to say go back to work, its harder to think of the marginalized and the ones that are most at risk and in danger

You can think "I wont get it" all you want, but what if you do and its serious, how are you going to provide for your family if you are dead. I believe people should not have to gamble with their lives, their families lives and the rest of societies lives just to put food on their table and a roof over their head. That is a choice no one should make.

and the government forcing the economy back open before it is truly ready, and not providing services for people so they can stay home and safe is in fact forcing people back to work and forcing people to make very difficult choices


What is your plan for the people that it is too dangerous for them to go back to work, the people with heart or breathing problems? do they have to play russian roulette? All I have seen you do is say "we gotta open things up" but you are not offering any real realistic or tangible plan to do so, and you are not offering any solutions to people that cannot.

I just flat out dont believe in a world where every man is out for themselves at everyone elses expense. We are in this together and we should get through this together

 

[Machinehead]

HF also got bugs.

 

[Machinehead]

HF also got bugs.

 

[sbjnyc]

That's a dictionary definition. I'm talking about in actual practice. For example, Sweden and Norway are both considered democratic socialist, but both run a mixed economy. The balance of the mixture varies from country to country... my sense being that Sweden is more free-market than Norway.

I mean where else do you get a definition. Norway is different but I don't think consider Sweden is considered to be socialist. Maybe it used to be but they've been deregulating their economy the last few decades. With oil prices plunging Norway might have to do the same.

 

[True Blue]

I'm glad you feel that way. A lot of people don't. Those people shouldn't be disregarded and the idea that nothing can beat this is insanity.

I am very politically active in my personal life not because I want to run anything, think I'm qualified to do so, or think I have a skeleton key solution. I'm simply coming from a mindset that "oh shucks, warts and faults" just isn't cutting it anymore and let's have a discourse on what we can improve.

Again, if your response to the suggestion that we should take care of people besides billionaires and that maybe we don't need one thousand military bases is "that's just how it works" then I patently reject the notion that this is all we're capable of.

I am not disregarding anyone. I am stating my views. You can more than entitled to yours and can voice them. Another thing of beauty about this country.

My notion had nothing to do with not helping people. I live in the real world. And it is a dangerous place. Therefore to me, reducing military bases in this day and age in a nonstarter.

As for the way that I feel, that comes from experiencing life outside of the US. And not on vacation. And frankly, who is stopping any discourse? I do not recall suggesting any such thing.

 

[True Blue]

Not sure what you consider a large country, but the first few that spring to mind are South Korea, Germany, and Canada.

Look at the size of those countries and then look at the density of the population. You are comparing apples and oranges. At least in my view.

 

[Synergy27]

Plenty good enough. No system is perfect. But as someone who was not born here and whose family experienced the other ism, more than good enough for me. Responsible for more job and wealth creation than any other system.

I know you don’t care, and I’m not involved in this discussion (I am now I guess), but the basis of your argument is invalid from the start. You are citing anecdotal evidence. You are citing personal experience, experience which includes first hand knowledge of one system and second hand knowledge of another. What about all of the other possible systems?

There is a long-standing strategy employed by folks on your side of this to make this an argument about a binary decision. We won the Cold War, so obviously capitalism is better than communism. This is a strategic over simplification of the argument that is designed to frustrate the folks that are trying to envision a more nuanced system that is informed by lessons learned throughout history. It also patently ignores basically the rest of the industrialized west who also “won” the Cold War and somehow managed to put in place governmental systems that are more balanced and result in actual, measured higher degrees of happiness and security in their populations.

You don’t care though. Just like no one could have done better against the coronavirus, no one can do better when it comes to this either. You are in good shape, that’s all that matters. Everyone else who hasn’t figured it out deserves what they get - it’s their fault.

 

[True Blue]

Which large countries (whatever that definition is) are doing worse? China, maybe. Any others?

Look what is going on in France. In Spain. Heck even Singapore. That is not really that much better.

Lots of people, including medical people, were calling for action in January. Even members of the administration called for action:

Let's not forget that the person running against the president, dismissed it as fear mongering. The Speaker of the House called travel restrictions xenophobic. And the governor of New York praised the health system as the best in the world and said that NY is out in front of it.

The government isn't organizing it. At least there is no evidence of it, although it's curious that the rallies have now been linked with a threat to the 2nd amendment. There is someone behind it, though.

Then why insinuate that they are behind it?

They are three brothers with the last name of Dorr.

Not sure what this has to do with anything. Are you suggesting that the federal branch is responsible for organizing this?

 

[True Blue]

A critique of your entire shtick is your belief that things are as they are and we can only succeed as an economy and a country following a certain narrowly proscribed path. As an aside an economy should never come before a country or its people. It should instead be subservient to both. What we've got in the past couple decades + anyway is the opposite though--people as servants of the economy instead of the other way around. This is how you end up with super billionaires, a congress that works for rich people, stagnant wages for workers, regime change resource wars and college students looking at a future of indentured servitude up to their eyeballs in debt before they even start. Things don't have to be this way.

I do not have a shtick. I just understand that a 35% unemployment rate is unsustainable for a country to have. And I also understand that for a country to be functioning, it needs to have a functioning economy. I sorry, but that is just truth.

I have no intention of hating billionaires just because they are billionaires. They worked. They got. What they choose to do with their money is up to them. Not you or I.

Last I checked college grads were anything but indentured servants. It take a ton of hutzpah to see the world that way.

A long while ago I read Marshall McLuhan's Understanding media and he shows the progression of change---of technology over time and the point is that change is inevitable--that things are always subject to change and those that refuse to change get left behind in some way or another and as a somewhat older person I'm getting left behind on the technological front (but I'm alright with it because you can't hate change for its sake or your sake). Things advancing with or without us is really in its way a hopeful message--that we will continue to innovate and evolve as a society and this is not just tangible things like automobiles going from gas guzzling to electric or newspapers/radio/television getting replaced by the internet. More intangible things like an economy are also subject to change. Or as another Canadian Naomi Klein puts it that after a real disaster there are ideas laying around and what matters is what ideas get picked up.

I understand the economies change. But that still have nothing to do with being allowed to operate.

We can't leave a third of the work force unemployed--so where is the money coming from? The bank robber Willie Sutton when asked why he robbed banks replied 'because that's where the money is'. Duh. So what hopefully is going to happen is we'll start sorting out the essential from the non-essential and then we're going to restructure the economy so that those millions of people aren't left out in the cold or we're eventually going to have some kind of revolution whether bloody or otherwise.....hopefully otherwise. The economy bears down the hardest on people of color and young people--here's a chance to begin to rectify those things.

Am not trying to offend you, but this is sheer fantasy land. You can restructure things all you want, but the stark reality is that the money comes from taxation, both of the individual and small business. If you have a third of the country unemployed and have wiped away most small businesses, you can cry "restructure it" all you want but that is not going to bring to you the revenue necessary. And at that point, congrats. You have now created a new class of citizens that are permanently unemployed. The reality is that every small business is non-essential. Unless you want to talk about them employing people who then go out and spend money on goods and services. And then you really find out that there is no such thing as non-essential. Duh

 

[True Blue]

I love living here, but I've traveled quite a bit, and it ain't so bad in many other places, either.

I am not saying it is. I have done a decent amount of traveling and loved where I have been. I also full well recognize that there are issues in this country. But, and I say that as one who immigrated here, it is the best pound for pound.

 

[True Blue]

I would hope you are not repeatedly using that line on me because I happen to be an artist that deals in the fantasy sphere, but I am finding it pretty hard the believe it is a coincidence. Let me explain something, Just because I chose a path in art and followed a passion does not mean I am incapable of having a complex discussion on US government policy in regards to spending and financial relief in times of an economic crisis. You seem to have this attitude that you are talking down to a child that is ignorant and doesnt know how the world works. We are very clearly on different sides of the isle when it comes to government spending but I really do not appreciate being looked down on because of my profession. You want to disagree on policy fine, but spare me the fantasyland crap.

I never insinuated that you cannot have a complex discussion. I stated that a government cannot simply print money at all problems. You cannot devalue the dollar to Monopoly money. Ask how it worked out in Argentina and Venezuela. When you need a wheel barrow to pile your dollars onto to go buy milk, that's an issue.

I could care less about your profession when it comes to discussions. Or anyone else's. I respect all of them.

Why do I get the sense that during 1929 you would have said the New Deal is going to cost too much, paying people that dont have jobs will result in people becoming dependent on the government and will never go back to work, creating a minimum wage will destroy businesses. And yet, it worked, it pulled millions of people out of poverty and started the greatest and fastest expansion in our economic history. Do not tell me large government spending programs do not work, they do.

This is not 1929. This unemployment rate would leave that one far behind.

we were able to afford 40% of our nations output back in 1929, but you are absolutely certain we cannot afford 1/3rd in 2020

I think that you severely overestimate what this country could do if a third of it's population is not working and most of the small businesses have been wiped out.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

I would hope you are not repeatedly using that line on me because I happen to be an artist that deals in the fantasy sphere, but I am finding it pretty hard the believe it is a coincidence. Let me explain something, Just because I chose a path in art and followed a passion does not mean I am incapable of having a complex discussion on US government policy in regards to spending and financial relief in times of an economic crisis. You seem to have this attitude that you are talking down to a child that is ignorant and doesnt know how the world works. We are very clearly on different sides of the isle when it comes to government spending but I really do not appreciate being looked down on because of my profession. You want to disagree on policy fine, but spare me the fantasyland crap.

Why do I get the sense that during 1929 you would have said the New Deal is going to cost too much, paying people that dont have jobs will result in people becoming dependent on the government and will never go back to work, creating a minimum wage will destroy businesses. And yet, it worked, it pulled millions of people out of poverty and started the greatest and fastest expansion in our economic history. Do not tell me large government spending programs do not work, they do.

Which Was Bigger: The 2009 Recovery Act or FDR's New Deal?

For instance, the nation’s population has more than doubled. Thus, the cost on a per capita basis in 2009 dollars was $2,738 for ARRA and $5,231 for the New Deal. Dupor also compared the costs in terms of the size of the economy at the time of enactment. ARRA’s cost was equal to 5.7 percent of the nation’s 2008 output. The New Deal, however, was about 40 percent of the nation’s 1929 output.

we were able to afford 40% of our nations output back in 1929, but you are absolutely certain we cannot afford 1/3rd in 2020

I have an MBA from a top five school in finance, worked as an I-banker in my 20s, and now provide outsourced CFO consulting to early stage companies...

...in order to finance my dream of writing fantasy novels.

And I agree with you.

 

[True Blue]

I just flat out dont believe in a world where every man is out for themselves at everyone elses expense. We are in this together and we should get through this together

It is far from every man for themselves. You and I have a fundamental belief in what is and what is not possible.

If you are waiting for it to be truly safe, you will be waiting for a long, long time. This is here to stay. They cannot develop a vaccine for the cold, but a vaccine for this is right around the corner?

Where you and I differ is that I believe that you can take the cure too far to the point that there is no jump starting the economy. I also believe that a 35% unemployment rate means that breadlines are not far off. It is a completely unsustainable rate for the country to carry. Small businesses are the backbone of this country. And it is not in their design to function on social distancing.

This not a matter of thinking of who is or is not immune and feeling like superman. But my responsibility is to provide for my family. As it is for a lot of other people. And if you are not allowed to do that, the demonstrations will only continue.

You keep using the term "forcing". I think that we see two different groups of people. I know that that do not have a paycheck that would spring to get to work tomorrow.

 

[Fireonk]

Look at the size of those countries and then look at the density of the population. You are comparing apples and oranges. At least in my view.

There is never going to be a perfect one to one comparison, every country has it's own challenges (and advantages) when dealing with this. But, there are obviously some large countries that have dealt with this more successfully so far, which is the question you asked. Not sure why you asked if you are just going to dismiss them as unfair comparisons.

 

[True Blue]

I know you don’t care, and I’m not involved in this discussion (I am now I guess), but the basis of your argument is invalid from the start. You are citing anecdotal evidence. You are citing personal experience, experience which includes first hand knowledge of one system and second hand knowledge of another. What about all of the other possible systems?

You are right. I don't care. My view is my view. I am always open to discussion, however so do not give me that bs.

My family and I came here with $300 TOTAL. We lived in a crappy apartment with 3 other families. So yeah, capitalism and the United States work. Not perfectly, but better than the rest. If this is some sort of dystopia, then why be here?

And umm....I have first hand knowledge of several systems.

 

[True Blue]

There is never going to be a perfect one to one comparison, every country has it's own challenges (and advantages) when dealing with this. But, there are obviously some large countries that have dealt with this more successfully so far, which is the question you asked. Not sure why you asked if you are just going to dismiss them as unfair comparisons.

You are right. That was silly of me to ask as my views are formed right now. I am however open to dialogue if one was to point out who and what did specifically what to make this better and how this could have been implemented in this country.

 

[NYRFANMANI]

Ok. I'll bite. If we do not have free market capitalism, what do we have?

Whatever we have, it certainly is capitalist and it certainly is not a free market. The latter, because we do not let the market regulate itself.
In fact we interfere with the market regulation, with bias towards the capitalists, lobbied for by capitalists.

Corporate socialism.

This is actually super accurate. If I understand correctly that the government is socialized towards corporations. A biased reallocation of resources towards corporations. (Up to the point of corporations becoming the actual sovereign.)

Don't let the name fool you though, "corporate socialism" is entirely capitalist in nature.

 

[True Blue]

Whatever we have, it certainly is capitalist and it certainly is not a free market. The latter, because we do not let the market regulate itself.
In fact we interfere with the market regulation, with bias towards the capitalists, lobbied for by capitalists.

Some would argue with you and state that the markets need regulation.

 

[Synergy27]

You are right. I don't care. My view is my view. I am always open to discussion, however so do not give me that bs.

My family and I came here with $300 TOTAL. We lived in a crappy apartment with 3 other families. So yeah, capitalism and the United States work. Not perfectly, but better than the rest. If this is some sort of dystopia, then why be here?

And umm....I have first hand knowledge of several systems.

Again. It worked for you so of course it works for everyone else, or if it doesn’t, it’s their fault.

Again, instead of being willing to acknowledge nuance, you break the argument down to utopia vs dystopia.

You aren’t interested in conversation like you say you are. You are entrenched in the belief that a system that worked for you is beyond reproach because, well, it worked for you. If you can’t see why that’s problematic, there’s not a lot that can be said here.

 

[NYRFANMANI]

Some would argue with you and state that the markets need regulation.

I'd agree with them. My issue is the "BIASED" part, not f***ing regulations in general. I think that was obvious.

 

[GoAwayGiannone]

You are right. I don't care. My view is my view. I am always open to discussion, however so do not give me that bs.

My family and I came here with $300 TOTAL. We lived in a crappy apartment with 3 other families. So yeah, capitalism and the United States work. Not perfectly, but better than the rest. If this is some sort of dystopia, then why be here?

And umm....I have first hand knowledge of several systems.

Because people are uhhh idk, born here? With families and friends they care for. And the younger ones who wish to move dont have the necessary income to afford to move because student loans are insane, housing costs are insane and all the while minimum wage has barely budged. But yes, this system works so well. Please

 

[Synergy27]

Because people are uhhh idk, born here? With families and friends they care for. And the younger ones who wish to move dont have the necessary income to afford to move because student loans are insane, housing costs are insane and all the while minimum wage has barely budged. But yes, this system works so well. Please

His family came here with $300 total. Surely you can take whatever you have in savings and just go wherever you want and figure it out. They did it. You can too. If not, you must just be a loser.

 

[Leonardo87]

Can anybody who knows more about this than I do tell me why we have bugs?

There's crazy f***ing bugs in my kitchen since the virus started and a lot of my friends are reporting the same, also since the virus started.

I just get those tiny little ants as the weather gets warmer, which are harmless but just annoying. Fortunately people didn’t hoard all the ant bait traps.

 

[NYRFANMANI]

I stated that a government cannot simply print money at all problems. You cannot devalue the dollar to Monopoly money. Ask how it worked out in Argentina and Venezuela. When you need a wheel barrow to pile your dollars onto to go buy milk, that's an issue.

You can't seriously compare the world lead currency to Venezuela and Argentina, come on. US-$ is used worldwide to trade crude oil.
Pretty much by virtue of that, you can't just devalue it.