The Coronavirus

[pbrower2a]

(05-10-2020, 12:19 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The CDC normally puts forth rather blunt documents saying what to do with a particular health threat.  They have not done so with the virus as the White House wanted a different public relations message to get out.  The CDC has prepped messages, but either they get watered down or cancelled due to administration censorship.

Il Duce ha sempre raggione!

We have a President who ignores expertise yet cannot stand criticism. Somehow I prefer fact-based, knowledge-based leadership that has the ego of the leader as a lower priority than the results. Maybe I exaggerate by comparing Trump to Mussolini, but even baby steps toward despotism are ominous. 

Quote:That is one thing that can be done in the crisis end never again conferences.  Somebody might tell The World Health Organization to ignore the politicians and to do what the CDC usually does, to write blunt, scientific advice on how to respond to a given health threat.  There might be a treaty written that if the WHO wants to investigate a health threat, nobody stops their investigators.

There would be resistance in countries that have dangerous working conditions and environmental degradation  as shortcuts to economic development. That could be almost as bad as efforts of some countries to subvert the monitoring of the proliferation of atomic, biological, and chemical weapons. Such reflects the character of some regimes.  

Another thing to be done might be to make sure each country has good reserves of things like PPE and ventilators or things like ventilators that might be required to counter other sorts of bugs.  They might even create their own reserves for countries with governments without be prepared mentalities, though there is the temptation to let such countries stew in their own juices.

Quote:Anything else that might happen at crisis end?

A new normal for which most Americans are well prepared.

[Classic-Xer]

(05-10-2020, 08:31 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: It's a mixed bag, Food consumption is not in decline. Certain foods are less available if they are elaborate to prepare (many sea-food items) or more difficult to get. Some food-processing plants are in hiatus because of COViD-19 outbreaks. I'm going to give you the [citation needed] warning about planting crops. The problem with the oil industry is that production went up to meet what was then a rising amount of energy use. As production fell and fewer people commute, fewer people buy as much gasoline. 

(Don't argue with me on basic economics. My BA is in economics).

I am predicting that our food will be more expensive because the profit-maximizing behaviors that allowed super-cheap food in the last few years has suddenly become excessively dangerous to people who process the food. The transition from one market paradigm to another is't always perfect for the consumer.  

I'll argue with you about basic economics. I've been arguing with you about for years. Your BA in economics doesn't squat to me. I've been in business for almost thirty years. What's a substitute teacher/welfare recipient doing with a BA in economics? I assume that you don't know them better than me at this point. So, are the schools opening up next fall or haven't the Democrats made up their minds about that yet? So, are we going to have a MLB season and help Detroit pay it's bills and employ some of its people or haven't the Democrats made up their minds about that either? Yep, the lower the demand the lower the price until you hit 0 and production stops and there's a huge surplus of worthless oil and billions upon billions of losses in profits that government won't ever get its hands on this year and probably next year. You're about 9 trillion short right now. So, who is going to pay for your more expensive food? The Democrats? Do you have enough Democrats left who are willing to anti-up and pay more taxes and pay higher food costs and higher clothes costs and higher education costs and so forth?

[pbrower2a]

(05-11-2020, 12:44 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(05-10-2020, 08:31 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: It's a mixed bag, Food consumption is not in decline. Certain foods are less available if they are elaborate to prepare (many sea-food items) or more difficult to get. Some food-processing plants are in hiatus because of COViD-19 outbreaks. I'm going to give you the [citation needed] warning about planting crops. The problem with the oil industry is that production went up to meet what was then a rising amount of energy use. As production fell and fewer people commute, fewer people buy as much gasoline. 

(Don't argue with me on basic economics. My BA is in economics).

I am predicting that our food will be more expensive because the profit-maximizing behaviors that allowed super-cheap food in the last few years has suddenly become excessively dangerous to people who process the food. The transition from one market paradigm to another is't always perfect for the consumer.  

I'll argue with you about basic economics. Your BA in economics doesn't squat to me. I've been in business for almost thirty years. So, are the schools opening up next fall or haven't the Democrats made up their  minds about that yet?

That is the story of Man and Virus. There could be an opening of the economy in fits and starts. Open until trouble arises? Or are we more selective. Do we change some of our habits? 

Much is trickier than it used to be. Restaurants can survive as drive-ins, drive-throughs, and drive-ups.  The menu had better be attractive and easy to understand if it is on the Web, which is new to many mom-and-pop entities  

Quote:So, are we going to have a MLB season and help Detroit pay it's  bills and employ some of its people or haven't the Democrats made up their minds about that either?

I'm more likely to watch some minor league baseball in which the entertainment value is reasonably good. Buying a ticket to see a minor league team over its head playing among major league teams is like paying for a Cadillac and ending up with a Yugo.  Heck, I might make the trip to the Twin Cities to see your fairly-new ballpark. I;ve never been to the Twin Cities. No, I have no desire to meet you for any reason.   The Tigers are going to lose lots of 8-2 and 11-4 games next year. I don;t pay A money to see B movies.    

Quote:Yep, the lower the demand the lower the price until you hit 0 and production stops and there's a huge surplus of worthless oil and billions upon billions of losses in profits that government won't ever get its hands on this year and probably next year. You're about 9 trillion short right now. So, who is going to pay for your more expensive food? The Democrats? Do you have enough Democrats left who are willing to anti-up and pay more taxes and pay higher food costs and higher clothes costs and higher education costs and so forth?

The oil companies stop pumping oil (tough luck, oil-field workers, but that is how capitalism works). Firms go bankrupt, and the strongest businesses buy out the assets of the failures at the sorts of vulture sales that we saw in retailing at places like Radio Shack, Mervyn's, and Montgomery Ward. Plenty of commercial real estate is vacant for a long time, and tax revenues plummet. 

Humanity has adjusted to all sorts of things in different scenarios. The Iron Curtain closed many old and once-desirable markets and suppliers off to capitalist firms even across the infamous internal border in Germany.  I have some optimism about certain things. We are still social creatures (we have pet dogs because the human family has much the same structure as a wolf pack, and dogs are basically wolves that have learned that children are not meat) and will not become isolated hermits forever. We still believe in consumerism as a reward for our efforts. We still believe in technological progress as a way to do things better and with richer results. We will innovate our way into doing much that we did before COVID-19 and get away with doing that again. Who knows? We may learn to use helmets that allow us protection from the virus yet allow us to eat in sit-down restaurants and attend concerts and theater events. We may end up with a safe and effective vaccine that gives COVID-19 no further chance to infect and kill. We will have places to go because we will be able to do things there. As it is I have no reason to go to Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, or Indianapolis, the four closest cities to me that have 500 thousand or more people. 

And, yes, we are political actors. I expect Donald Trump to go down to defeat and take a large number of his spineless and corrupt enablers down with him.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-11-2020, 12:44 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Do you have enough Democrats left who are willing to anti-up and pay more taxes and pay higher food costs and higher clothes costs and higher education costs and so forth?

The time America was Great was the time of tax and spend liberalism. We have since moved conservative way past the point of diminishing return. Yes, I think it is time to go back to what worked. We don’t have much choice, as the virus is tugging us in that direction. Denying that the problem exists, refusing to solve it, goes no where save death.

This is not to say we won’t go past the point of diminishing return again in the opposite direction. The next unravelling will come in its time. The desire to do what is best for the common good will wane.

But right now is the time of change, the time of commitment to the country. Some are sensing it. Others are marching to their doom.

[Warren Dew]

(05-10-2020, 09:13 AM)David Horn Wrote: There is vast difference between essential services and ones that aren't. Sorry, but nail salons and gyms are luxuries, not necessities … but it's the economy, isn't it?   

I can't speak to nail salons, but I get my exercise at a ballroom dance studio.  Since it has been closed, I've gained 5 pounds, with no signs of stopping.  Closing that dance studio is increasing my risk of death more than leaving it open would be.  I imagine gyms work the same way for some people.

Limiting Covid-19 may save lives, but limiting the damage to the economy saves both lives and livelihoods.

[Warren Dew]

(05-11-2020, 06:55 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-11-2020, 12:44 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Do you have enough Democrats left who are willing to anti-up and pay more taxes and pay higher food costs and higher clothes costs and higher education costs and so forth?

The time America was Great was the time of tax and spend liberalism.

We defeated the Soviet Union in the middle of the Reagan/Clinton economy.  If Reagan is "tax and spend liberalism" to you, I'm happy to go back to the Reagan years.

[David Horn]

(05-11-2020, 09:50 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-10-2020, 09:13 AM)David Horn Wrote: There is vast difference between essential services and ones that aren't. Sorry, but nail salons and gyms are luxuries, not necessities … but it's the economy, isn't it?   

I can't speak to nail salons, but I get my exercise at a ballroom dance studio.  Since it has been closed, I've gained 5 pounds, with no signs of stopping.  Closing that dance studio is increasing my risk of death more than leaving it open would be.  I imagine gyms work the same way for some people.

Limiting Covid-19 may save lives, but limiting the damage to the economy saves both lives and livelihoods.

Actually, you have it exactly backwards.  Every country that has managed to master this pandemic has concentrated on the disease first and foremost.  Show me two countries less alike politically than Australia and New Zealand, then note how similar their approach and results have been.  Look at Denmark and most of the other Scandinavian countries (Sweden being the outlier).  They have used similar approaches. In the case of the more socialist countries, they've even managed to do most of this with minimal change to business-as-usual.

Focusing on people first reduces anxiety, and high anxiety makes reentry into the economy a scary proposition.  If people think they're being treated like cannon fodder, they will act accordingly.

[David Horn]

(05-11-2020, 09:52 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-11-2020, 06:55 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-11-2020, 12:44 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Do you have enough Democrats left who are willing to anti-up and pay more taxes and pay higher food costs and higher clothes costs and higher education costs and so forth?

The time America was Great was the time of tax and spend liberalism.

We defeated the Soviet Union in the middle of the Reagan/Clinton economy.  If Reagan is "tax and spend liberalism" to you, I'm happy to go back to the Reagan years.

Reagan was borrow and spend.  This is supposed to be antithetical to conservatives, but apparently it's OK if it's your guys doing it.  With the sole exception of GHWB, every Republican since has followed suit.  Then they wailed at the profligacy of the Democrat's when they were in charge.

And btw, the Soviets defeated themselves, to the greatest extent. They never had a functioning economy that could compete, and Gorbachev knew it.

[Warren Dew]

(05-11-2020, 10:20 AM)David Horn Wrote: Actually, you have it exactly backwards.  Every country that has managed to master this pandemic has concentrated on the disease first and foremost.  Show me two countries less alike politically than Australia and New Zealand, then note how similar their approach and results have been.

Australia and New Zealand are virtually identical when compared to, say, China and South Korea.

You're retreating to partisan gibberish.

[Warren Dew]

(05-11-2020, 10:24 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-11-2020, 09:52 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-11-2020, 06:55 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-11-2020, 12:44 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Do you have enough Democrats left who are willing to anti-up and pay more taxes and pay higher food costs and higher clothes costs and higher education costs and so forth?

The time America was Great was the time of tax and spend liberalism.

We defeated the Soviet Union in the middle of the Reagan/Clinton economy.  If Reagan is "tax and spend liberalism" to you, I'm happy to go back to the Reagan years.

Reagan was borrow and spend.  This is supposed to be antithetical to conservatives, but apparently it's OK if it's your guys doing it.  With the sole exception GHWB, every Republican since has followed suit.

And GHWB is the sole Republican who caused more recessions than he fixed.  Unlike Democrats, Republicans are able to realize when their policies are destructive, and to change them.  Austerity was one of the policies that was destructive and had to be abandoned.

[gabrielle]

The economy is screwed no matter what.  If we allow many more people to die, including many skilled health care workers, it will be even more difficult to rebuild the economy, besides being morally reprehensible.

I know about economic hardship.  I lost my job in 2009.  I never really recovered from those times.

[David Horn]

(05-11-2020, 11:20 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-11-2020, 10:20 AM)David Horn Wrote: Actually, you have it exactly backwards.  Every country that has managed to master this pandemic has concentrated on the disease first and foremost.  Show me two countries less alike politically than Australia and New Zealand, then note how similar their approach and results have been.

Australia and New Zealand are virtually identical when compared to, say, China and South Korea.

You're retreating to partisan gibberish.

If it will make you happy: both are democratic, but the ruling factions are opposites.  Nonetheless, they followed similar playbooks to get solid results.  Look it up.

[Classic-Xer]

(05-11-2020, 06:55 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-11-2020, 12:44 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Do you have enough Democrats left who are willing to anti-up and pay more taxes and pay higher food costs and higher clothes costs and higher education costs and so forth?

The time America was Great was the time of tax and spend liberalism.  We have since moved conservative way past the point of diminishing return.  Yes, I think it is time to go back to what worked.  We don’t have much choice, as the virus is tugging us in that direction.  Denying that the problem exists, refusing to solve it, goes no where save death.

This is not to say we won’t go past the point of diminishing return again in the opposite direction.  The next unravelling will come in its time.  The desire to do what is best for the common good will wane.

But right now is the time of change, the time of commitment to the country.  Some are sensing it.  Others are marching to their doom.

[David Horn]

(05-11-2020, 11:22 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-11-2020, 10:24 AM)David Horn Wrote: Reagan was borrow and spend.  This is supposed to be antithetical to conservatives, but apparently it's OK if it's your guys doing it.  With the sole exception GHWB, every Republican since has followed suit.

And GHWB is the sole Republican who caused more recessions than he fixed.  Unlike Democrats, Republicans are able to realize when their policies are destructive, and to change them.  Austerity was one of the policies that was destructive and had to be abandoned.

Are you serious? Reagan ran his game plan successfully, but let's not pretend it didn't impact GHWB. And his son GWB did the same, but hit a wall while still in office. Pumping money into the economy in good times is a recipe for disaster. We're about to see how much of a disaster Trump has created by handing money to his friends and punishing everyone else. His off-the-charts tax cut is still out there, creating havoc. The rich and large corporations aren't needing any help. It's everyone else.

[Classic-Xer]

(05-11-2020, 11:28 AM)gabrielle Wrote: The economy is screwed no matter what.  If we allow many more people to die, including many skilled health care workers, it will be even more difficult to rebuild the economy, besides being morally reprehensible.

I know about economic hardship.  I lost my job in 2009.  I never really recovered from those times.

I view COVID19 as being here to stay no matter what. So, what's the point of continuing to destroy portions of the economy and making matters worse for more people at this point? I'm sorry to hear that you didn't recover from 2009. I know a thing or two about economic hardship too. Life sucks due to all the financial restrictions and uncertainties and added stress that are placed on those experiencing it at the time. You should be able to relate to what I'm saying and the positions that I've been taking much better than Dave. Dave seems to live in an Ivory Tower and the only threat to Dave seems to be COVID19 finding a way in at this point. Why are liquor stores more important than salons? I understand there is an added tax value to keeping liquor stores open and the liquor industry manufacturing booze these days. Other than that, I don't understand why they're viewed as more essential to life than a salon. So, what do you think, do you think that's bullshit or what?

[Classic-Xer]

(05-11-2020, 11:54 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-11-2020, 11:22 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-11-2020, 10:24 AM)David Horn Wrote: Reagan was borrow and spend.  This is supposed to be antithetical to conservatives, but apparently it's OK if it's your guys doing it.  With the sole exception GHWB, every Republican since has followed suit.

And GHWB is the sole Republican who caused more recessions than he fixed.  Unlike Democrats, Republicans are able to realize when their policies are destructive, and to change them.  Austerity was one of the policies that was destructive and had to be abandoned.

Are you serious?  Reagan ran his game plan successfully, but let's not pretend it didn't impact GHWB. And his son GWB did the same, but hit a wall while still in office. Pumping money into the economy in good times is a recipe for disaster.  We're about to see how much of a disaster Trump has created by handing money to his friends and punishing everyone else.  His off-the-charts tax cut is still out there, creating havoc.  The rich and large corporations aren't needing any help. It's everyone else.

The Democrats have been pumping money into the economy, the global economy and the global institutions on a full time basis ever since FDR took office and the Democratic party voted to change the rules and skewed the courts to make it possible for them to do it long term. FDR did a good job keeping the radical factions within the Democratic party in line/ under control with his record use of the veto which kept America together during the years of the Great Depression.

Like I've mentioned, FDR doubled down on the change that Hoover was forced to make during the early years of the Great Depression. I'm sure that you are familiar with the Hoover Dam. We had a major economic problem during the 70's (post LBJ/Vietnam era) that needed to be addressed/fixed. A big government problem that couldn't be fixed the old Democratic way because the old Democratic way of doing business and years of tossing billions upon billions at all kinds of people problems was starting to cause problems. So, how many years will it be before big government believers admit that the government is broke and the era of big government being looked to solve our problems has to end?

[Classic-Xer]

(05-11-2020, 11:54 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-11-2020, 11:22 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-11-2020, 10:24 AM)David Horn Wrote: Reagan was borrow and spend.  This is supposed to be antithetical to conservatives, but apparently it's OK if it's your guys doing it.  With the sole exception GHWB, every Republican since has followed suit.

And GHWB is the sole Republican who caused more recessions than he fixed.  Unlike Democrats, Republicans are able to realize when their policies are destructive, and to change them.  Austerity was one of the policies that was destructive and had to be abandoned.

Are you serious?  Reagan ran his game plan successfully, but let's not pretend it didn't impact GHWB. And his son GWB did the same, but hit a wall while still in office. Pumping money into the economy in good times is a recipe for disaster.  We're about to see how much of a disaster Trump has created by handing money to his friends and punishing everyone else.  His off-the-charts tax cut is still out there, creating havoc.  The rich and large corporations aren't needing any help. It's everyone else.

I'd say his "Read My Lips, No New Taxes" comment hurt him quite a bit after he buckled/caved to liberal demands for more taxation and signed the bill that increased them.

[Bob Butler 54]

From my perspective, the time America was great was also the tax and spend liberal time, the time the Democrats pushed benefits and labor unions to put more in the hands of the workers, less in the hands of the elites. Now, the rest of the world’s factories are not going to get bombed out again. The jobs sent abroad in the conservative era (with the aid of both parties) are not going to come back. But productivity has gone steadily up. The difference is the Democratic favoring of the people, the Republican favoring of the racists and elites.

Again, from my perspective, each Republican from “It’s the economy stupid”, to the Great Recession of Bush 43, to Trump’s coronavirus collapse has… collapsed. It takes a more responsible pay off the debt Democratic administration to undo the damage done by the voodoo economics.

And the problem with the 70s was getting the economy used to getting off the gold standard. This was as much Nixon’s fault as anyone. It took years of discipline and stagflation to fix it. And naturally, Reagan stole the credit, and immediately started voodoo to wreck it again.

Now the Republican leaning posters here don’t look at the obvious, Republican failures. Repeatedly. They find ways to look at things backwards, to blame the Democrats. Fantasy. Lies. Good times become bad, and bad good. Policies fail due to the opposition resisting them not because they are bad policies. By screaming their fantasies loud enough they think they can repeat the same mistakes indefinitely.

Now I anticipate the Republicans are going to repeat their fantasies again. If I have my perspective, others will have theirs, and we can go back and forth indefinitely.

If it ever is going to end, people have to look at the facts. We had a boom time in the progressive era. We had a bunch of collapses towards the end of Republican terms in the White House in the conservative eras. You have to keep coming back to that. Voodoo economics stink. It is past time to move beyond that.

[Eric the Green]

(05-11-2020, 02:18 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(05-11-2020, 11:54 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-11-2020, 11:22 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-11-2020, 10:24 AM)David Horn Wrote: Reagan was borrow and spend.  This is supposed to be antithetical to conservatives, but apparently it's OK if it's your guys doing it.  With the sole exception GHWB, every Republican since has followed suit.

And GHWB is the sole Republican who caused more recessions than he fixed.  Unlike Democrats, Republicans are able to realize when their policies are destructive, and to change them.  Austerity was one of the policies that was destructive and had to be abandoned.

Are you serious?  Reagan ran his game plan successfully, but let's not pretend it didn't impact GHWB. And his son GWB did the same, but hit a wall while still in office. Pumping money into the economy in good times is a recipe for disaster.  We're about to see how much of a disaster Trump has created by handing money to his friends and punishing everyone else.  His off-the-charts tax cut is still out there, creating havoc.  The rich and large corporations aren't needing any help. It's everyone else.

The Democrats have been pumping money into the economy, the global economy and the global institutions on a full time basis ever since FDR took office and the Democratic party voted to change the rules and skewed the courts to make it possible for them to do it long term. FDR did a good job keeping the radical factions within the Democratic party in line/ under control with his record use of the veto which kept America together during the years of the Great Depression.

Like I've mentioned, FDR doubled down on the change that Hoover was forced to make during the early years of the Great Depression. I'm sure that you are familiar with the Hoover Dam. We had a major economic problem during the 70's (post LBJ/Vietnam era) that needed to be addressed/fixed. A big government problem that couldn't be fixed the old Democratic way because the old Democratic way of doing business and years of tossing billions upon billions at all kinds of people problems was starting to cause problems. So, how many years will it be before big government believers admit that the government is broke and the era of big government being looked to solve our problems has to end?

There was a recession in 1980, and it cost Carter. So did his endless crisis with Iran. That crisis also caused the second great gas shortage/gas price hikes (the first caused the recession of 1973-75), and that more than anything else was responsible for huge inflation and the resulting recession. But Carter was something of a would-be Republican, a centrist Democrat. He did NOT use the old Democratic way, which his primary opponent Ted Kennedy wanted to use, but was more concerned about keeping taxes and the deficit low. He could not handle the recession, therefore, and it cost him and the Democrats. We have not had a real Democrat elected president since LBJ. And he sabotaged his own presidency.

Americans are easily fooled. Reagan was a charming actor, a great communicator and an effective, macho-sounding candidate. He was a very clever sloganeer. When he said "government is the problem," he fooled a lot of people. Who likes the government? It's an easy target. When he asked the people if they were better off now than they were 4 years ago, many had to say no. It's tough to beat the innate ability of a candidate as shown by a 22-6 horoscope score. But a great candidate does not equal a great president, as we see again now on full display.

Reagan only fixed the economy for the wealthy. The Saudis buoyed him up with lower gas prices. Otherwise, his trickle-down economics didn't work any better than Carter's waffling. How many years will it take before trickle-down believers admit that neo-liberalism is a sham, has never worked, and never will?

[David Horn]

(05-11-2020, 11:28 AM)gabrielle Wrote: The economy is screwed no matter what.  If we allow many more people to die, including many skilled health care workers, it will be even more difficult to rebuild the economy, besides being morally reprehensible.

I know about economic hardship.  I lost my job in 2009.  I never really recovered from those times.

I agree.  We're not going to see good times for a while, and great times will have to wait even longer.  If, by some miracle, we manage to really change the paradigm, then at least the end of the 1T should be a good to great one.  That's still a long time away, with plenty of pain along the way.