Stupid conspiracy theories - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Stupid conspiracy theories (/thread-19518.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Stupid conspiracy theories (/thread-19518.html)
RE: Stupid conspiracy theories - Genuine Realist - 04-25-2020
(04-25-2020, 08:13 AM)stupac2 Wrote:I have not revisited the thread I said I was done with. I would not comment further here except for continual challenges - from you, in fact, as I read up. I do believe you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.(04-24-2020, 08:45 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote:(04-24-2020, 08:20 PM)stupac2 Wrote: GR, every country you dismiss as either being too small or too close to China to be a fair comparison. So the only fair comparisons are the larger nations of Europe? That's... not a large sample size. If you're going to insist on only looking at wealthy non-Asian democracies with populations >60MI'm not responding because I said last post, and I meant it.
Someone mentioned Canada and you didn't respond at all. Seems pretty relevant as a fairly large, pluralistic, wealthy, north American country, that has 40% of the deaths per capita as us.
But, ultimately, the whole thing is pointless. You've clearly decided ahead of time what the parameters of the game are, and ignore anything going against what you want to conclude. Even by your own timeline the other countries reacted weeks ahead of Trump. You say that Germany quickly switched gears after their first covid death. The first US covid death known at the time was in late February, but our declaration of emergency wasn't until two weeks later. And, as far as I'm aware, the US still isn't coordinating supply at a federal level (just today I saw that London Breed claimed that FEMA confiscated SF-ordered masks).
It's even more ironic that, during the time you're working so feverishly to convince us that the US response was adequate, the president goes out and does something that literally makes people drink bleach.
And teejers, the fact that you can't tell the difference between "open up BeCaUsE tHe EcOnOmY" and "well I guess our public officials are such failures that the best we're going to be able to do is a controlled burn until we get to herd immunity" tells us all we need to know about your analytical skills.
'Declarations of emergency' are legalistic. They basically are predicates for various actions that the government can take. It's the time when action that is taken that matters. Germany went into overall lockdown mode during the same period the US did. In any case, during the January-March time period, it no more got ahead of the curve than any other nation. I notice you did not comment on the various pronouncements of Health Minister Spahn, which were relatively equivalent to Trump's, and made well into February.
Here's the Canadian timeline. It's not materially different than the US - growing awareness and half-measures in January, an airlift on January 29th, various ad hoc measures in February (nothing comprehensive), followed by more drastic government and business closures starting - as always - March 10th. Canada's experience and reactions are not materially different than the US.
Canada was mentioned in, like, the second reply. It wasn't after your "take my ball and go home" comments. Which, by the way, you keep violating, so I don't know why you even said it.
But what is your definition of "materially different"? Because other posters have compiled long lists of dated Trump statements downplaying the virus. I just looked one up and in a fun coincidence, here's what Trump was saying on your auspicious date of March 10:
Quote:Q Mr. President, how long should Americans be prepared for the economy to suffer?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, this was unexpected. This was something that came out of China, and it hit us and many other countries. You look at the numbers; I see the numbers with just by watching you folks. I see it — it’s over 100 different countries. And it hit the world.
And we’re prepared, and we’re doing a great job with it. And it will go away. Just stay calm. It will go away.
We want to protect our shipping industry, our cruise industry, cruise ships. We want to protect our airline industry — very important. But everybody has to be vigilant and has to be careful.
But be calm. It’s really working out. And a lot of good things are going to happen. The consumer is ready, and the consumer is so powerful in our country with what we’ve done with tax cuts and regulation cuts and all of those things. The consumer has never been in a better position than they are right now.
So a lot of good things are going to happen. Thank you very much, everybody.
I understand not wanting to cause panic, but there's a difference between that and setting realistic expectations, which you seem to say that most countries were doing by March 10.
One thing that just occurred to me about this whole pointless exercise, but I'm not sure anyone has really said, is that comparing us to other countries like this is showing how Trump has diminished the US. We're supposed to be the leader of the free world. We're supposed to be the best. We're supposed to be the place that the rest of the world looks to for leadership, as an example of how to do things. You can argue that that backsliding has been happening for a long time, which I won't disagree with, but it's utterly inarguable that it has accelerated under Trump. No other leader was touting specific medicines and inspiring people to drink aquarium cleaner. No other leader spitballs about getting disinfectants into the lungs. No other leader was blaming the opposition for fear-mongering in March.
If you look at our leadership, and then look at leadership around the world, and see something of rough equivalence, I'd suggest a long look in the mirror.
I posted the 'Timelines' because other posters and the MSM kept implying that other Western nations, particularly Germany, had met the challenge with more efficiency than the US. That simply isn't true, as the data indicates. Goose is quite right in pointing out the Asian nations coped a little better because of the SARS experience and more authoritarian societies. But these are not comparable to the West.
Trump's statements are not what signify. He says a lot of things. But in terms of policy and action, the US pretty much did what everyone else did, which, as I have mentioned, is just what you;d expect.
As for Trump, I've considered him a narcissistic boor for four years. He craves attention, and demands to be center stage - horrible qualities for a President. It has been interesting to me, however, to see him morph into a monster of incredible dimension, with no discernible virtues, never a good moment, and all the qualities of Hitler and Nero combined, except that he can't play the violin or paint postcards.
The caricature is ridiculous and actually undercuts legitimate political opposition. You want to believe that a 73 year old multi-billionaire, an Ivy League graduate, who became President of the United States after an improbably shrewd campaign, knows less folk medicine than the average fifth grader? Go ahead. I can't stop you. But you better consider just who is making a fool of you.
RE: Stupid conspiracy theories - OutsiderFan - 04-25-2020
This is a very good overview of things in Australia. Reading it made me think "well, Australia is managing this better than we are."
[tweet]https://twitter.com/smh/status/1253793068123410433[/tweet]
RE: Stupid conspiracy theories - stupac2 - 04-25-2020
(04-25-2020, 08:59 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote: The caricature is ridiculous and actually undercuts legitimate political opposition. You want to believe that a 73 year old multi-billionaire, an Ivy League graduate, who became President of the United States after an improbably shrewd campaign, knows less folk medicine than the average fifth grader? Go ahead. I can't stop you. But you better consider just who is making a fool of you.
Then give any reasonable interpretation of what he said, which I'll quote below from the white house transcript:
Quote:THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. So I asked Bill a question that probably some of you are thinking of, if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you’re going to test that too. It sounds interesting.
ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN: We’ll get to the right folks who could.
THE PRESIDENT: Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.
So we’ll see. But the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute, that’s — that’s pretty powerful.
You keep trying to make it seem like people here, in your words, see him as "a monster of incredible dimension, with no discernible virtues, never a good moment, and all the qualities of Hitler and Nero combined, except that he can't play the violin or paint postcards." All I see are people pointing out statements like the above, where he is very clearly saying something very stupid. But I'd love to see your thoughts on that, on why this isn't something incredibly, incredibly stupid for a grown man, let alone the president, to say. You've here and previously done some nice rundown of Trump's credentials, because I guess someone who was born into a ton of money and somehow managed to not lose it all can't possible be dumb or go senile later in life, but never any kind of explanation of what in the world was actually going through his mind there besides the straight reading.
Not that it matters, but:
(04-24-2020, 09:44 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote: My last post on the thread. I've made my point.
(04-24-2020, 10:02 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote: Faced with the challenge, I will post one more.
You've also continued to hash it out in this thread, which hardly seems in the spirit of "I've made my point." You haven't made your point, unless your point was to be extremely tendentious and unconvincing.
RE: Stupid conspiracy theories - Mick - 04-25-2020
(04-25-2020, 08:13 AM)stupac2 Wrote: We're supposed to be the leader of the free world. We're supposed to be the best. We're supposed to be the place that the rest of the world looks to for leadership, as an example of how to do things. You can argue that that backsliding has been happening for a long time, which I won't disagree with, but it's utterly inarguable that it has accelerated under Trump. No other leader was touting specific medicines and inspiring people to drink aquarium cleaner. No other leader spitballs about getting disinfectants into the lungs. No other leader was blaming the opposition for fear-mongering in March.
If you look at our leadership, and then look at leadership around the world, and see something of rough equivalence, I'd suggest a long look in the mirror.
There's no question our global leadership has been suffering for years. Our response to the COVID-19 pandemic will crater the economy, which will throw the world into a Depression. Right now, that's the only way we can be a leader.
I get that Trump's a nutjob (43% Gallup job approval ratings). What does that make Congress? (30%).
https://news.gallup.com/poll/308675/trump-job-rating-slides-satisfaction-tumbles.aspx
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx
RE: Stupid conspiracy theories - Genuine Realist - 04-25-2020
(04-25-2020, 10:00 AM)stupac2 Wrote:EXCUSE ME, read your posts. You challenged me to respond. Please,(04-25-2020, 08:59 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote: The caricature is ridiculous and actually undercuts legitimate political opposition. You want to believe that a 73 year old multi-billionaire, an Ivy League graduate, who became President of the United States after an improbably shrewd campaign, knows less folk medicine than the average fifth grader? Go ahead. I can't stop you. But you better consider just who is making a fool of you.
Then give any reasonable interpretation of what he said, which I'll quote below from the white house transcript:
Quote:THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. So I asked Bill a question that probably some of you are thinking of, if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you’re going to test that too. It sounds interesting.
ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN: We’ll get to the right folks who could.
THE PRESIDENT: Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.
So we’ll see. But the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute, that’s — that’s pretty powerful.
You keep trying to make it seem like people here, in your words, see him as "a monster of incredible dimension, with no discernible virtues, never a good moment, and all the qualities of Hitler and Nero combined, except that he can't play the violin or paint postcards." All I see are people pointing out statements like the above, where he is very clearly saying something very stupid. But I'd love to see your thoughts on that, on why this isn't something incredibly, incredibly stupid for a grown man, let alone the president, to say. You've here and previously done some nice rundown of Trump's credentials, because I guess someone who was born into a ton of money and somehow managed to not lose it all can't possible be dumb or go senile later in life, but never any kind of explanation of what in the world was actually going through his mind there besides the straight reading.
Not that it matters, but:
(04-24-2020, 09:44 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote: My last post on the thread. I've made my point.
(04-24-2020, 10:02 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote: Faced with the challenge, I will post one more.
You've also continued to hash it out in this thread, which hardly seems in the spirit of "I've made my point." You haven't made your point, unless your point was to be extremely tendentious and unconvincing.
RE: Stupid conspiracy theories - Leftcoast - 04-25-2020
Unrequested advice ... take some deep breaths guys.
It's getting overly personal and the time when anyone might have changed their minds is long since passed. Plus we all like each of you and want the board to not have undergone a personality change when all of this is over. (I'm still in recovery from the Ferrari/Garvin/et al spat of 4 years ago.)
RE: Stupid conspiracy theories - stupac2 - 04-25-2020
(04-25-2020, 05:31 PM)Mick Wrote: There's no question our global leadership has been suffering for years. Our response to the COVID-19 pandemic will crater the economy, which will throw the world into a Depression. Right now, that's the only way we can be a leader.
I get that Trump's a nutjob (43% Gallup job approval ratings). What does that make Congress? (30%).
https://news.gallup.com/poll/308675/trump-job-rating-slides-satisfaction-tumbles.aspx
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx
Is there a response we could be making that wouldn't crater the economy? I have my ideas but I'm curious to see yours.
(04-25-2020, 05:47 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: EXCUSE ME, read your posts. You challenged me to respond. Please,
This is a discussion board, where we discuss things. I'm going to continue to say stuff if I have stuff to say. You're under no obligation to respond. I am genuinely curious how you'd respond to the top half of my post.
RE: Stupid conspiracy theories - Mick - 04-26-2020
(04-25-2020, 07:22 PM)stupac2 Wrote:Happy to give the list. I won't list things we could have done, because like Satchel Paige, I don't like to look back. So here are my suggestions.(04-25-2020, 05:31 PM)Mick Wrote: There's no question our global leadership has been suffering for years. Our response to the COVID-19 pandemic will crater the economy, which will throw the world into a Depression. Right now, that's the only way we can be a leader.Is there a response we could be making that wouldn't crater the economy? I have my ideas but I'm curious to see yours.
I get that Trump's a nutjob (43% Gallup job approval ratings). What does that make Congress? (30%).
https://news.gallup.com/poll/308675/trump-job-rating-slides-satisfaction-tumbles.aspx
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx
First, the politicians on both the left and right essentially refuse to work together for the good of the country, and it's been moving in that direction for a very long time, basically as long as it was clear that entitlements would one day sink the economy. I'd like to figuratively knock their heads together, same with their respective supporters. The days of Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan compromising are long gone (with a few exceptions, such as prison reform). As each generation has performed poorly compared to the prior generation, and as it's become clear that entitlements will sink us, politicians have shifted from "compromise" to "blame" and have implemented policies to enforce "blame" as their primary contribution, on both the left and right. Society and politics has become polemicized.
This didn't start with Trump, the seeds were sown in the middle of the last century. That's why, in spite of the fact that I don't care for the current POTUS, I don't bleat my dislike for him or, frankly, for quite a number of California politicians, because there's enough of that going on. And I hate to inform the right and the left, there's good ideas and good policies on both sides. It's why I'm a registered independent, and why both Congress and POTUS have approval ratings in the tank.
So if the politicians had agreed, or would agree to work together, we could blunt the impact of the economic debacle and 26 million (and counting) lost jobs. It didn't need to crater like it has.
Second, it is blindingly obvious that social distancing is necessary. This means that some industries have to re-engineer the ways they approach their business, customers, vendors and other stakeholders. Take the meat production industry. Two of the largest businesses have closed down. Workers work shoulder-to-shoulder in businesses that you and I would never visit. My family's business is similar, though it is produce-based. They have (had) about 125 workers, and will need to create social distancing in the business; from ingress, to working spaces, to egress to restrooms, to closure of the lunchroom, to staggered shifts, etc., etc., This needs to happen for all industries that formerly involved either workers or customers in close quarters. PPE should be mandatory, and we should re-engineer more businesses to produce more PPE. Frankly, I wonder if a workable vaccine will ever be found. Until that hopeful day, the habits we've accrued and the production of PPE need to protect us to the best extent possible.
Third, as a society, we have to adopt more risk than we have since the pandemic began. It feels to me that we have gone overboard in avoiding risk, a natural reaction for a society that tends to focus on the self versus the greater good. I genuinely don't say that as a slam, just recognizing reality, that powerful people in this society make the laws and the rules and the great unwashed have to abide by them. That means, the Elites make rules that ensure their existence, not necessarily the existence of the common man. So I'd like a little more concern for the common man, and that means businesses open earlier, so people can feed their families and pay their rent. One of the unfortunate results of the pandemic is that companies need to conserve cash, and have stopped paying vendors, or are paying very slowly. If you get a chance, take a look at "velocity" in economic terms, which is essentially the rate at which cash moves through the economy. It's actually been dropping since 1995 as a long term trend, but I would very much like to see the weekly velocity statistics for 2020. I could only find 2019 velocity stats. My suspicion is that velocity has dropped significantly.
Fourth, we have to understand that our currency is ruined, or is on the verge of it. We've voluntarily brought gigantic portions of the economy to a screeching halt and the various governments and consumers and companies have accumulated unsustainable debt over the decades. A few factors (like dropping velocity) have prevented runaway inflation, but after the long months of no production, America (and the world) will need to reengineer debt, asset ownership, payment streams and the like. And we need to do it proactively, or the American Revolution will take on a new definition.
Those are my top four. I have others, but those are a start.
RE: Stupid conspiracy theories - BostonCard - 04-26-2020
(04-26-2020, 09:45 AM)Mick Wrote: First, the politicians on both the left and right essentially refuse to work together for the good of the country, and it's been moving in that direction for a very long time, basically as long as it was clear that entitlements would one day sink the economy. I'd like to figuratively knock their heads together, same with their respective supporters. The days of Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan compromising are long gone (with a few exceptions, such as prison reform). As each generation has performed poorly compared to the prior generation, and as it's become clear that entitlements will sink us, politicians have shifted from "compromise" to "blame" and have implemented policies to enforce "blame" as their primary contribution, on both the left and right. Society and politics has become polemicized.
This seems very odd given that we have passed four major coronavirus bills in near record time on a bipartisan and nearly unanimous basis in little over two months. Yeah, you hear partisans sniping, which is as old as Hamilton and Jefferson, but by and large the idea that our politicians cannot work together is not borne out by the facts.
The Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2020 provided $8 billion in supplemental appropriations to combat the spread of COVID-19. It passed the House 415–2 on March 4 and the Senate 96–1 on March 5, 2020, and was signed the same day.
The Families First Coronavirus Response Act The act provided funding for free coronavirus testing, 14-day paid leave for American workers affected by the pandemic, and increased funding for food stamp. It was introduced to the House on March 14. It passed the House 363–40–1 the next day, and passed the Senate 90-8 four days later. Trump signed it the same day.
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act was the big one. It provided nearly $2 trillion in spending between direct payments to individuals, enhanced unemployment insurance, bailouts for industries heavily affected by the pandemic and forgivable loans funneled through the small business administration. Although it failed early procedural votes in the senate in late March, an agreement was reached three days later and it was passed three days later on a unanimous 96-0 vote. Two days later it passed the House on a near unanimous, unrecorded voice vote. It was signed into law a few hours later.
Two days ago, the fourth major coronavirus bill was signed by President Trump. It shored up the small business loan program with an additional $300 billion, $75 billion for health care providers to support COVID-19 expenses and lost revenue due to the canceling of many elected procedures, and $25 billion to develop mass testing, with $11 billion earmarked for states and localities. It passed the Senate on Tuesday by voice vote and the House voted for it 388 to 5 two days ago. Trump signed it later Friday.
A fifth coronavirus bill that would provide more payments to individuals, aid to states and local goverments, and infrastructure spending is now being negotiated. Mitch McConnell's comments (and the reactions to them notwithstanding), I think it too will pass.
BC
RE: Stupid conspiracy theories - Mick - 04-26-2020
(04-26-2020, 10:07 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(04-26-2020, 09:45 AM)Mick Wrote: First, the politicians on both the left and right essentially refuse to work together for the good of the country, and it's been moving in that direction for a very long time, basically as long as it was clear that entitlements would one day sink the economy. I'd like to figuratively knock their heads together, same with their respective supporters. The days of Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan compromising are long gone (with a few exceptions, such as prison reform). As each generation has performed poorly compared to the prior generation, and as it's become clear that entitlements will sink us, politicians have shifted from "compromise" to "blame" and have implemented policies to enforce "blame" as their primary contribution, on both the left and right. Society and politics has become polemicized.
This seems very odd given that we have passed four major coronavirus bills in near record time on a bipartisan and nearly unanimous basis in little over two months. Yeah, you hear partisans sniping, which is as old as Hamilton and Jefferson, but by and large the idea that our politicians cannot work together is not borne out by the facts.
The Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2020 provided $8 billion in supplemental appropriations to combat the spread of COVID-19. It passed the House 415–2 on March 4 and the Senate 96–1 on March 5, 2020, and was signed the same day.
The Families First Coronavirus Response Act The act provided funding for free coronavirus testing, 14-day paid leave for American workers affected by the pandemic, and increased funding for food stamp. It was introduced to the House on March 14. It passed the House 363–40–1 the next day, and passed the Senate 90-8 four days later. Trump signed it the same day.
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act was the big one. It provided nearly $2 trillion in spending between direct payments to individuals, enhanced unemployment insurance, bailouts for industries heavily affected by the pandemic and forgivable loans funneled through the small business administration. Although it failed early procedural votes in the senate in late March, an agreement was reached three days later and it was passed three days later on a unanimous 96-0 vote. Two days later it passed the House on a near unanimous, unrecorded voice vote. It was signed into law a few hours later.
Two days ago, the fourth major coronavirus bill was signed by President Trump. It shored up the small business loan program with an additional $300 billion, $75 billion for health care providers to support COVID-19 expenses and lost revenue due to the canceling of many elected procedures, and $25 billion to develop mass testing, with $11 billion earmarked for states and localities. It passed the Senate on Tuesday by voice vote and the House voted for it 388 to 5 two days ago. Trump signed it later Friday.
A fifth coronavirus bill that would provide more payments to individuals, aid to states and local goverments, and infrastructure spending is now being negotiated. Mitch McConnell's comments (and the reactions to them notwithstanding), I think it too will pass.
BC
Yes, the five anecdotes you cite make it appear that the two parties cooperate. In reality, that's not the case. George Washington warned against it, John Adams feared it, and (starting with the 2010 midterms) America has split into two very different parties. This Atlantic article, "America is Now the Divided Republic that the Framers Feared," published earlier this year and written by Lee Drutman makes the case far better than I could.
In short, for most of the country's existence, the two parties were able to cooperate. There were different factions and coalitions in each party that would seek common ground.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/two-party-system-broke-constitution/604213/
Key quote: "These triple developments—the nationalization of politics, the geographical-cultural partisan split, and consistently close elections—have reinforced one another, pushing both parties into top-down leadership, enforcing party discipline, and destroying cross-partisan deal making. Voters now vote the party, not the candidate. Candidates depend on the party brand. Everything is team loyalty. The stakes are too high for it to be otherwise.
The consequence is that today, America has a genuine two-party system with no overlap, the development the Framers feared most. And it shows no signs of resolving. The two parties are fully sorted by geography and cultural values, and absent a major realignment, neither side has a chance of becoming the dominant party in the near future. But the elusive permanent majority promises so much power, neither side is willing to give up on it."
RE: Stupid conspiracy theories - stupac2 - 04-26-2020
(04-26-2020, 09:45 AM)Mick Wrote: Third, as a society, we have to adopt more risk than we have since the pandemic began. It feels to me that we have gone overboard in avoiding risk, a natural reaction for a society that tends to focus on the self versus the greater good. I genuinely don't say that as a slam, just recognizing reality, that powerful people in this society make the laws and the rules and the great unwashed have to abide by them. That means, the Elites make rules that ensure their existence, not necessarily the existence of the common man. So I'd like a little more concern for the common man, and that means businesses open earlier, so people can feed their families and pay their rent. One of the unfortunate results of the pandemic is that companies need to conserve cash, and have stopped paying vendors, or are paying very slowly. If you get a chance, take a look at "velocity" in economic terms, which is essentially the rate at which cash moves through the economy. It's actually been dropping since 1995 as a long term trend, but I would very much like to see the weekly velocity statistics for 2020. I could only find 2019 velocity stats. My suspicion is that velocity has dropped significantly.
I was thinking more along the lines of government response, but these are interesting as well, I think this one in particular. My experience has been that the checks come in basically as late as possible, and big guys try to do as much as they can to take advantage of that (one customer of our tried to get us onto net 90 terms, lol).
In general I actually think our society is far too blase about risk. I've seen a lot of people compare covid deaths to car crash deaths, but I've long thought that car crash deaths are insanely high. We accept the risk because it's small for each for us, but also because when we're driving we feel "in control" so we don't care so much. It's why people are so much more likely to be afraid of flying than driving, despite driving being far more dangerous. I think a similar thing is at work with covid, it's new and scary, so everyone's afraid (in this case I think the fear is legitimate, but my guess is that if this were the 3rd outbreak in our lifetimes we'd care less). But in general I wish we'd spend more time thinking about low-hanging fruit of mortality and how to affect it, like curbing air pollution, car accidents, suicides, etc.
But that's a bit of an aside. I think the quote portion above strikes at the heart of the matter, which is that individuals are scared and there's not a lot you can do about that. Saying "let people go back to work" sounds good, but in some sense it's actually coercive if re-opening takes away UI benefits (I hadn't thought much about that, but this interview talks about it). Making low-income people choose between their safety and their finances is morally questionable, and re-opening early could do that depending on how the laws are phrased. Plus if 80% of your customer base isn't interested in buying your wares (which is likely true of a host of businesses that rely on in-person sales, if survey data is to be trusted) it doesn't matter if you can open, you're still screwed.
That's why I tend to think reopening is a sideshow, we'd be better off just following the advice of the epidemiologists, but also do some crazy stimulus that makes what we've done so far look timid. It doesn't seem like this is forthcoming, which is depressing, because I think that leaves us with a menu composed mostly of various flavors of shit sandwiches.
RE: Stupid conspiracy theories - Goose - 04-26-2020
(04-26-2020, 04:41 PM)stupac2 Wrote: That's why I tend to think reopening is a sideshow, we'd be better off just following the advice of the epidemiologists, but also do some crazy stimulus that makes what we've done so far look timid. It doesn't seem like this is forthcoming, which is depressing, because I think that leaves us with a menu composed mostly of various flavors of shit sandwiches.
Unfortunately, a crazy stimulus at some point makes the money worthless with Weimar Republic inflation levels. Or, for more recent cases, see Argentina. Until we have an economy that can actually open to do business, it isn't a "stimulus". It is just keeping people from starving. We have to do it, but confusing it with a stimulus is IMHO an error. There is an underlying reality that can't be ignored. I think the menu is composed exclusively of shit sandwiches. There is no "obvious" good choice. It is difficult to know which set of choices is least bad.
RE: Stupid conspiracy theories - Genuine Realist - 04-26-2020
(04-25-2020, 08:13 AM)stupac2 Wrote:I will answer, at the risk of being accused of promise breaking.(04-24-2020, 08:45 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote:(04-24-2020, 08:20 PM)stupac2 Wrote: GR, every country you dismiss as either being too small or too close to China to be a fair comparison. So the only fair comparisons are the larger nations of Europe? That's... not a large sample size. If you're going to insist on only looking at wealthy non-Asian democracies with populations >60MI'm not responding because I said last post, and I meant it.
Someone mentioned Canada and you didn't respond at all. Seems pretty relevant as a fairly large, pluralistic, wealthy, north American country, that has 40% of the deaths per capita as us.
But, ultimately, the whole thing is pointless. You've clearly decided ahead of time what the parameters of the game are, and ignore anything going against what you want to conclude. Even by your own timeline the other countries reacted weeks ahead of Trump. You say that Germany quickly switched gears after their first covid death. The first US covid death known at the time was in late February, but our declaration of emergency wasn't until two weeks later. And, as far as I'm aware, the US still isn't coordinating supply at a federal level (just today I saw that London Breed claimed that FEMA confiscated SF-ordered masks).
It's even more ironic that, during the time you're working so feverishly to convince us that the US response was adequate, the president goes out and does something that literally makes people drink bleach.
And teejers, the fact that you can't tell the difference between "open up BeCaUsE tHe EcOnOmY" and "well I guess our public officials are such failures that the best we're going to be able to do is a controlled burn until we get to herd immunity" tells us all we need to know about your analytical skills.
'Declarations of emergency' are legalistic. They basically are predicates for various actions that the government can take. It's the time when action that is taken that matters. Germany went into overall lockdown mode during the same period the US did. In any case, during the January-March time period, it no more got ahead of the curve than any other nation. I notice you did not comment on the various pronouncements of Health Minister Spahn, which were relatively equivalent to Trump's, and made well into February.
Here's the Canadian timeline. It's not materially different than the US - growing awareness and half-measures in January, an airlift on January 29th, various ad hoc measures in February (nothing comprehensive), followed by more drastic government and business closures starting - as always - March 10th. Canada's experience and reactions are not materially different than the US.
Canada was mentioned in, like, the second reply. It wasn't after your "take my ball and go home" comments. Which, by the way, you keep violating, so I don't know why you even said it.
But what is your definition of "materially different"? Because other posters have compiled long lists of dated Trump statements downplaying the virus. I just looked one up and in a fun coincidence, here's what Trump was saying on your auspicious date of March 10:
Quote:Q Mr. President, how long should Americans be prepared for the economy to suffer?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, this was unexpected. This was something that came out of China, and it hit us and many other countries. You look at the numbers; I see the numbers with just by watching you folks. I see it — it’s over 100 different countries. And it hit the world.
And we’re prepared, and we’re doing a great job with it. And it will go away. Just stay calm. It will go away.
We want to protect our shipping industry, our cruise industry, cruise ships. We want to protect our airline industry — very important. But everybody has to be vigilant and has to be careful.
But be calm. It’s really working out. And a lot of good things are going to happen. The consumer is ready, and the consumer is so powerful in our country with what we’ve done with tax cuts and regulation cuts and all of those things. The consumer has never been in a better position than they are right now.
So a lot of good things are going to happen. Thank you very much, everybody.
I understand not wanting to cause panic, but there's a difference between that and setting realistic expectations, which you seem to say that most countries were doing by March 10.
One thing that just occurred to me about this whole pointless exercise, but I'm not sure anyone has really said, is that comparing us to other countries like this is showing how Trump has diminished the US. We're supposed to be the leader of the free world. We're supposed to be the best. We're supposed to be the place that the rest of the world looks to for leadership, as an example of how to do things. You can argue that that backsliding has been happening for a long time, which I won't disagree with, but it's utterly inarguable that it has accelerated under Trump. No other leader was touting specific medicines and inspiring people to drink aquarium cleaner. No other leader spitballs about getting disinfectants into the lungs. No other leader was blaming the opposition for fear-mongering in March.
If you look at our leadership, and then look at leadership around the world, and see something of rough equivalence, I'd suggest a long look in the mirror.
By 'materially different', I mean in terms of actual measures taken - not talk, which is awfully cheap. Now let us move on.
(04-26-2020, 04:59 PM)Goose Wrote:I agree with almost all of your sensible posts. But my own thought is that deflation is far more likely than inflation. Money just isn't circulating anymore. My last tank of gas is likely to last 60 days.(04-26-2020, 04:41 PM)stupac2 Wrote: That's why I tend to think reopening is a sideshow, we'd be better off just following the advice of the epidemiologists, but also do some crazy stimulus that makes what we've done so far look timid. It doesn't seem like this is forthcoming, which is depressing, because I think that leaves us with a menu composed mostly of various flavors of shit sandwiches.
Unfortunately, a crazy stimulus at some point makes the money worthless with Weimar Republic inflation levels. Or, for more recent cases, see Argentina. Until we have an economy that can actually open to do business, it isn't a "stimulus". It is just keeping people from starving. We have to do it, but confusing it with a stimulus is IMHO an error. There is an underlying reality that can't be ignored. I think the menu is composed exclusively of shit sandwiches. There is no "obvious" good choice. It is difficult to know which set of choices is least bad.
RE: Stupid conspiracy theories - BostonCard - 04-26-2020
(04-26-2020, 02:27 PM)Mick Wrote:(04-26-2020, 10:07 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(04-26-2020, 09:45 AM)Mick Wrote: First, the politicians on both the left and right essentially refuse to work together for the good of the country, and it's been moving in that direction for a very long time, basically as long as it was clear that entitlements would one day sink the economy. I'd like to figuratively knock their heads together, same with their respective supporters. The days of Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan compromising are long gone (with a few exceptions, such as prison reform). As each generation has performed poorly compared to the prior generation, and as it's become clear that entitlements will sink us, politicians have shifted from "compromise" to "blame" and have implemented policies to enforce "blame" as their primary contribution, on both the left and right. Society and politics has become polemicized.
This seems very odd given that we have passed four major coronavirus bills in near record time on a bipartisan and nearly unanimous basis in little over two months. Yeah, you hear partisans sniping, which is as old as Hamilton and Jefferson, but by and large the idea that our politicians cannot work together is not borne out by the facts.
[deleting the examples]
BC
Yes, the five anecdotes you cite make it appear that the two parties cooperate. In reality, that's not the case. George Washington warned against it, John Adams feared it, and (starting with the 2010 midterms) America has split into two very different parties. This Atlantic article, "America is Now the Divided Republic that the Framers Feared," published earlier this year and written by Lee Drutman makes the case far better than I could.
In short, for most of the country's existence, the two parties were able to cooperate. There were different factions and coalitions in each party that would seek common ground.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/two-party-system-broke-constitution/604213/
...
Not to be pedantic, but you stated categorically that our two parties "refuse to work together", and I clearly identified examples where that was not the case. More importantly, they were relevant examples. They were examples of the two parties working together to fight this very crisis. If your original point was a general observation of the two parties becoming more sorted and less likely to work together as a matter of course, I agree with you, and I will cite two books (from opposite ends of the spectrum):
Yuval Levine's A Time to Build: https://www.amazon.com/Time-Build-Community-Recommitting-Institutions/dp/B0839P9WCC/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2MYUP73AKRQJ4&dchild=1&keywords=yuval+levin&qid=1587946728&s=books&sprefix=yuval+lev%2Caps%2C261&sr=1-1
Ezra Klein's: Why We are Polarized: https://www.amazon.com/Why-Were-Polarized/dp/B07V25JH7N/ref=sr_1_1?crid=V7WIFOVUCUUF&dchild=1&keywords=why+we%27re+polarized+by+ezra+klein&qid=1587946747&s=audible&sprefix=ezra+kle%2Caudible%2C225&sr=1-1
So I don't disargee that generally we are more polarized than before. I imagine that while in the acute phase the two parties will be able to come together to pass legislation, this is a transient stage, and once the worst is passed, and especially after we start rebuilding, that ideological differences between the parties will reassert their prominence, and by 2021, no matter who wins, you will see bipartisanship wane substantially.
But the question prompt that triggered your response was "Is there a response we could be making that wouldn't crater the economy?", citing partisan dysfunction seems a bit odd, since in this very narrowly tailored formulation, partisan dysfunction in congress has more or less been a complete non-issue. Congressional response to the pandemic has been bipartisan and pretty decisive inasmuch as devoting 20% of GDP to the response is decisive.
So to sum up, I agree there is a problem with polarization generally. But I disagree that it has been an issue to date specifically in terms of the response to COVID-19. There may be many reasons our economy has cratered, but I don't see evidence that the congressional response is one of them.
BC
RE: Stupid conspiracy theories - Mick - 04-26-2020
(04-26-2020, 04:41 PM)stupac2 Wrote: Making low-income people choose between their safety and their finances is morally questionable...
Perhaps. But shouldn't they have that choice, versus enforced safety and crippled personal finances and perhaps homelessness? I don't want to mandate anyone to go to work if they don't feel safe, and no one is questioning that. After all, there's 26 million+ workers available for work. A fair number of them would probably want to work.
(04-26-2020, 05:02 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: But my own thought is that deflation is far more likely than inflation. Money just isn't circulating anymore. My last tank of gas is likely to last 60 days.
You're right, I think velocity has been dropping like a rock. And since 70% of an economy is fueled by consumers -- and we're throwing them out of work in record numbers -- deflation is certainly possible, particularly if we have the "Nike swoosh" economic growth curve. If it's the "V" curve, inflation. If it's the "Nike swoosh" then deflation. Barron's says inflation. Financial Times says deflation.
GR, this is an internet first. You talked me into it. Because I think we're far more likely to have the Nike swoosh rebound than the V-style rebound that the people on this board have been implicitly promising, I agree with you. Deflation it is.
(04-26-2020, 05:26 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(04-26-2020, 02:27 PM)Mick Wrote: Yes, the five anecdotes you cite make it appear that the two parties cooperate. In reality, that's not the case. George Washington warned against it, John Adams feared it, and (starting with the 2010 midterms) America has split into two very different parties. This Atlantic article, "America is Now the Divided Republic that the Framers Feared," published earlier this year and written by Lee Drutman makes the case far better than I could.
In short, for most of the country's existence, the two parties were able to cooperate. There were different factions and coalitions in each party that would seek common ground.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/two-party-system-broke-constitution/604213/
Not to be pedantic, but you stated categorically that our two parties "refuse to work together", and I clearly identified examples where that was not the case. More importantly, they were relevant examples. They were examples of the two parties working together to fight this very crisis. If your original point was a general observation of the two parties becoming more sorted and less likely to work together as a matter of course, I agree with you, and I will cite two books (from opposite ends of the spectrum).
So I don't disargee that generally we are more polarized than before. I imagine that while in the acute phase the two parties will be able to come together to pass legislation, this is a transient stage, and once the worst is passed, and especially after we start rebuilding, that ideological differences between the parties will reassert their prominence, and by 2021, no matter who wins, you will see bipartisanship wane substantially.
But the question prompt that triggered your response was "Is there a response we could be making that wouldn't crater the economy?", citing partisan dysfunction seems a bit odd, since in this very narrowly tailored formulation, partisan dysfunction in congress has more or less been a complete non-issue. Congressional response to the pandemic has been bipartisan and pretty decisive inasmuch as devoting 20% of GDP to the response is decisive.
So to sum up, I agree there is a problem with polarization generally. But I disagree that it has been an issue to date specifically in terms of the response to COVID-19. There may be many reasons our economy has cratered, but I don't see evidence that the congressional response is one of them.
BC
The parties worked together solely because they had a gun to their collective heads, not out of a spirit of collaboration or cooperation. That is the only reason the bills got passed. It was the same as declaring war on Japan on December 8, 1941. If either Congress hadn't voted nearly unanimously, there would have been a collective mutiny in the country.
The fallout will be as expected. The Left will blame Trump for everything under the sun and give him no credit for anything in an effort to take over both houses of Congress and the Presidency? Why? So they legislate without the odious presence or participation of the right. Just as the Right does the few times they've owned all three.
Evidence: The Left wants people to shelter in place. The Right wants people to go back to work. There will be fighting and skirmishing all along, but one thing won't exist...cooperation on that topic.
RE: Stupid conspiracy theories - stupac2 - 04-26-2020
(04-26-2020, 04:59 PM)Goose Wrote:(04-26-2020, 04:41 PM)stupac2 Wrote: That's why I tend to think reopening is a sideshow, we'd be better off just following the advice of the epidemiologists, but also do some crazy stimulus that makes what we've done so far look timid. It doesn't seem like this is forthcoming, which is depressing, because I think that leaves us with a menu composed mostly of various flavors of shit sandwiches.
Unfortunately, a crazy stimulus at some point makes the money worthless with Weimar Republic inflation levels. Or, for more recent cases, see Argentina. Until we have an economy that can actually open to do business, it isn't a "stimulus". It is just keeping people from starving. We have to do it, but confusing it with a stimulus is IMHO an error. There is an underlying reality that can't be ignored. I think the menu is composed exclusively of shit sandwiches. There is no "obvious" good choice. It is difficult to know which set of choices is least bad.
As GR says, right now deflation is a much bigger worry than rapid inflation. It's also been, what, 20 years since we've seen inflation reach (gasp!) 4%? I just don't see any reason to worry about it, especially if the stimulus is coming from the fed so they can just turn off the spigot if needed. Really, what I'd like to see is a law instructing the fed to start nominal GDP targeting (where you target nominal, that is non-inflation-adjusted, GDP growth per year) and authorizing them to send payments to individuals (with whatever caveats you like, I personally don't care about means testing, especially in this context, because the only downside is inflation and money sent to rich people has a very low fiscal multiplier because it's just saved, but if you had to do it then so be it). Not only would that help a lot currently (well, you know, if the NGDP targeting hypothesis is true, anyway) but it would be a powerful tool for fighting future recessions.
You'd also want to do a bunch of fiscal-side stuff. Hard to say what would be best there if you did the above proposal but I'm sure there are a bunch of good things you could do, infrastructure and investments and various types of aid to distressed organizations (or governments) and whatnot.
Basically, with inflation and interest rates very very low it seems like the real worry is doing too little vs too much.
(04-26-2020, 08:24 PM)Mick Wrote:(04-26-2020, 04:41 PM)stupac2 Wrote: Making low-income people choose between their safety and their finances is morally questionable...
Perhaps. But shouldn't they have that choice, versus enforced safety and crippled personal finances and perhaps homelessness? I don't want to mandate anyone to go to work if they don't feel safe, and no one is questioning that. After all, there's 26 million+ workers available for work. A fair number of them would probably want to work.
Sure, but it would have to be a somewhat fair choice (not being put into a "pay rent or risk getting covid" situation), and I'm not sure how that could actually be arranged. It would require some needle-threading, that's for sure.
RE: Stupid conspiracy theories - Goose - 04-26-2020
(04-26-2020, 08:51 PM)stupac2 Wrote: Basically, with inflation and interest rates very very low it seems like the real worry is doing too little vs too much.The problem is that if you do things that don't actually stimulate the economy, you create debt with little or no benefit. While inflation won't happen immediately, it will if you keep applying the money flow and nothing happens. Argentina basically is a good example of this. People were so afraid of inflation that hadn't yet happened, they fled the currency. The only thing that may save us is that there is no place to flee towards. That said, there are other options besides V and Nike. The "down and stays there" option exists. That is basically what happened in the Great Depression.
RE: Stupid conspiracy theories - stupac2 - 04-27-2020
(04-26-2020, 09:43 PM)Goose Wrote:(04-26-2020, 08:51 PM)stupac2 Wrote: Basically, with inflation and interest rates very very low it seems like the real worry is doing too little vs too much.The problem is that if you do things that don't actually stimulate the economy, you create debt with little or no benefit. While inflation won't happen immediately, it will if you keep applying the money flow and nothing happens. Argentina basically is a good example of this. People were so afraid of inflation that hadn't yet happened, they fled the currency. The only thing that may save us is that there is no place to flee towards. That said, there are other options besides V and Nike. The "down and stays there" option exists. That is basically what happened in the Great Depression.
The issue of debt is one of the reasons I like the idea of doing it via the fed so much, increasing the monetary supply doesn't make any debt, the only potential downside is inflation, which will show up rapidly and the fed can respond rapidly. If we start seeing inflation creep much above 2% then the economy has probably recovered and we don't need the special measures anyway.
RE: Stupid conspiracy theories - 2006alum - 04-27-2020
Missed a lot of this over the weekend so not going to try to respond to specific posts, but my general thoughts:
1. Re: more stimulus checks, I am in agreement with Stupac, as I've said before. In the short to medium term (the period we are talking about), there is zero risk of currency flight from USD. Where is it going to go? Yen? Yuan? Euro? Pound Sterling? I don't even think I need to explain why those currencies are no better than ours, and in many ways worse. I don't think Argentina is a worthy comparator for this reason.
2. Re: partisanship, Nancy Pelosi and Steve Mnuchin have worked very effectively together - look to signals from them, not Schumer, McConnell, or even Trump (who doesn't care enough about the details to get involved). Who knows if that will continue, but thus far partisanship on Capitol Hill has not been the problem. However, it will be as soon as we move to things like funding for states and localities and vote by mail, because then the GOP is likely to want to block anything they think helps the Dems politically (the opposition to vote by mail being motivated essentially by a desire to suppress the vote).
3. The left will blame Trump because Trump never extends an olive branch and always takes the low road, because he'd prefer to pander to his base at all time. Trump has to be the first mover because he's a solo operator. The Dems have lots of medium-profile politicos but no equivalent to Trump, who spends half his time insulting Dems, calling them stupid nick names, railing against the press, etc. He invites no opportunity for compromise. Even if a single politician like Gavin Newsom says he has worked well with Trump/the feds, that doesn't move the needle. But Trump won't do this, so there we are. Folks criticized the Obama Beer Summit, but that single act showed more willingness to listen and be open to the other side's position than 3+ years of Trump combined.
Seriously: ask yourself how many times Nancy Pelosi has insulted Trump as compared to how many times he's insulted her. It's not even close.
RE: Stupid conspiracy theories - 2006alum - 04-27-2020
This is exemplary of what I'm talking about - how in the world to we "unite" with tweets like this?
[tweet]https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1254814846450794496?s=20[/tweet]