Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2020 9:41:12 GMT -8
I have been reading about this and Japan's response regarding the PRC and WHO's cover ups and suppressing information regarding Taiwan. Please don't stop sharing this important information. People need to see this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2020 9:57:24 GMT -8
There has been a lot of confusion throughout the world regarding the Covid-19 virus. And I am not being facetious. But take a look at the Chinese Governments cover up and the time line of their response and reporting to the world. W.H.O. wasn't exactly helping either. The first outbreak could have been as far back as November. What's alarming and extremely disturbing is a 175,000 Chinese from Wuhan were able to leave in one day on January 1st. Why and how were that many people leaving the epicenter of the Corvid-19 outbreak? Wuhan has 21 direct flights to other countries. That information was reported by the NYT study of cellphone data. Jan 1st "According to a New York Times study of cellphone data from China, 175,000 people leave Wuhan that day. According to global travel data research firm OAG, 21 countries have direct flights to Wuhan. In the first quarter of 2019 for comparison, 13,267 air passengers traveled from Wuhan, China, to destinations in the United States, or about 4,422 per month. The U.S. government would not bar foreign nationals who had traveled to China from entering the country for another month." This might explain how this coronavirus outbreak spread so quickly and in some cases unnoticed throughout the world. This article is a couple of weeks old and is not opinion. It has multiple sources including the NYT. www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/chinas-devastating-lies/
|
|
|
Post by zurac315 on Apr 6, 2020 13:04:41 GMT -8
Anecdotal reports of treatment successes are meaningless when it comes to large populations.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Apr 6, 2020 13:15:17 GMT -8
Anecdotal reports of treatment successes are meaningless when it comes to large populations. Esp. without a control group... eg, there is no way of knowing in these anecdotal cases if the patients were going to recover without *any* treatment. In scientific practice, there is no way to know if the treatments maybe even lengthened the recovery time... without a control group.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Apr 6, 2020 13:26:16 GMT -8
It's not about a vaccine it is about effective treatment. Any vaccine will come at a time to stop next year's problem. Effective treatment can reduce the coronavirus to nothing worse than a flu. I am cautiously optimistic that we will find something within the next two weeks. Blood plasma of those recovered contain antibodies. Hydrochloriquin Has been showing excellent results.
|
|
|
Post by tonatiuh on Apr 6, 2020 14:49:52 GMT -8
It's funny you mention you want to keep the political gibberish out of this thread, but the article you show is from the Washington Post, and they are no better than the New York Times for political gibberish! So, who are we to believe? If you ignore the opinion columns (they are conveniently labeled "opinion" not "objective news") those institutions practice some of the best journalism in this country (moreso the NYT, but the WaPo isn't bad). Not perfect, but very good. The fact that they don't sync with your personal opinions and ideology doesn't make them bad or wrong. So, you are assuming I called the Washington Post wrong? I only made a comment. And, if you believe that the article which was written did not have any opinion stated in it then you need to read it more carefully yourself! Where some of those speaking say,"I think...", or" I don't anticipate.." which is their opinion on the subject and not true facts. So, even if the writer did not intend to post an opinion column what he wrote does have soiten opinions in it by various people. And, I don't care what they say. That's their opinion. All I am saying is that it was opinion!
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Apr 6, 2020 16:16:52 GMT -8
Labor is not as big of an input in economic production as it was 90 years ago during the great depression. Lots of labor can be done mostly by machines, or remotely through a computer. A lot of economic production is for discretionary purchases that are not necessary for survival. Lending institutions and landlords are freezing leases, allowing people to forego payments for cars and apartment rent. If the government gives people money monthly, and orders that lenders stop collecting debt payments until this crisis is over, the current state of affairs could very easily go on for another year. The big losers in all of this would be owners of rental properties and banks - but that doesn't mean that this couldn't continue. If needed, the government could raise money through a wealth tax as well.
We could be at 30% economic contraction for a year and be Okay from a fiscal perspective, so long as the government continues to provide cash transfers to citizens.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Apr 6, 2020 16:24:59 GMT -8
Labor is not as big of an input in economic production as it was 90 years ago during the great depression. Lots of labor can be done mostly by machines, or remotely through a computer. A lot of economic production is for discretionary purchases that are not necessary for survival. Lending institutions and landlords are freezing leases, allowing people to forego payments for cars and apartment rent. If the government gives people money monthly, and orders that lenders stop collecting debt payments until this crisis is over, the current state of affairs could very easily go on for another year. The big losers in all of this would be owners of rental properties and banks - but that doesn't mean that this couldn't continue. If needed, the government could raise money through a wealth tax as well. We could be at 30% economic contraction for a year and be Okay from a fiscal perspective, so long as the government continues to provide cash transfers to citizens. It's not labor, it's the service industry. Millions of people, maybe tens of millions, work retail, food & hospitality, repairs, etc. You can't do those jobs from home. And most landlords are NOT freezing rent payments. Insurance companies can't, by law, give away free insurance (that falls under rebating, which is a very bad thing unless you don't mind losing your insurance license, or it just goes outside of the company's rate filing, which leads to massive fines for the company). And while some lenders are giving people extra time for car and home payments that money is going to have to get caught up later on in balloon payments, which most people won't be able to afford, or it will tack on months and months on to loans and that will have negative consequences down the line as well. We need to get the economy - and society - up and running again by July. And we will.
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Apr 6, 2020 20:49:58 GMT -8
My point is that the only reason that people need to get back to work is in order to make money, in order to pay the bills and purchase goods. If you give people monthly payments instead of working, economic output is only reduced by 20 or 30 percent. What I am saying is, with only 20-30% of the population working, you can still be at 70-80% of GDP output - as long as there are government transfer payments that give everyone money to spend in the consumption sector of our economy.
Regarding rent payments, California and several other states are preventing evictions due to non payment of rent. Congress has already enacted wartime controls of factories to ramp up production of ventilators and masks. They can suspend landlords ability to collect rents by government mandate. I know that in the commercial sector, landlords have already suspended leases.
I'm not saying that it is a good or bad thing that we are in a shutdown - what I am saying is that our economy still has the ability to function with only a portion of the population working, so long as there are cash transfers.
Without government cash transfers to citizens the system collapses. The bickering between politicians over the fiscal stimulus packages does greatly threaten our livelihoods in that sense. We need to do another cash stimulus package ASAP.
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Apr 6, 2020 21:02:54 GMT -8
The other point about the service industry is that there are often substitutes that can be purchased instead. Instead of going out to dinner, you can cook at home. Instead of purchasing a haircut, your significant other can cut your hair. Instead of going on a vacation, you can purchase a gaming system. Instead of watching sports you can read a book. You get the idea. All of these non-essential services can be substituted - and if they can't, then they probably are essential.
Do these substitute activities lower GDP? Often, but that is okay.
Do these substitute activities lower employment? Often, but with government transfer payments that is okay.
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Apr 6, 2020 21:13:33 GMT -8
I want to make another point.
As a country, we need to pivot away from service jobs, to essential jobs.
We need more doctors, more nurses, more engineers, more scientists, more researchers, more computer scientists.
I have a friend who is very smart, 90th percentile test taker type, who applied to 20 medical schools and didn't get into one of them. I know someone else who applied to 50 medical schools and got into 2 schools.
We need more medical schools, more nursing schools. We need to provide students with more financial resources to get through college, and we need better public schools to set them up for college.
We need to expand the amount of research that we do as a country, not only to develop cures for viruses, but also in order to facilitate more scientific breakthroughs.
We need bigger Ph.D programs. We need more essential, high quality jobs in this country.
We need to invest more into our youth and create a world where less people are working low pay service jobs and more people are working jobs that afford them a decent lifestyle.
An expansion of government spending, for research and development, for space exploration, for infrastructure, would be highly welcome at this point. It might even stem the long term negative economic consequences of this pandemic.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Apr 6, 2020 21:28:39 GMT -8
My point is that the only reason that people need to get back to work is in order to make money, in order to pay the bills and purchase goods. If you give people monthly payments instead of working, economic output is only reduced by 20 or 30 percent. What I am saying is, with only 20-30% of the population working, you can still be at 70-80% of GDP output - as long as there are government transfer payments that give everyone money to spend in the consumption sector of our economy. Regarding rent payments, California and several other states are preventing evictions due to non payment of rent. Congress has already enacted wartime controls of factories to ramp up production of ventilators and masks. They can suspend landlords ability to collect rents by government mandate. I know that in the commercial sector, landlords have already suspended leases. I'm not saying that it is a good or bad thing that we are in a shutdown - what I am saying is that our economy still has the ability to function with only a portion of the population working, so long as there are cash transfers. Without government cash transfers to citizens the system collapses. The bickering between politicians over the fiscal stimulus packages does greatly threaten our livelihoods in that sense. We need to do another cash stimulus package ASAP. The national debt would become so large if we did monthly payouts like you suggest that this country would be unable to function within 2 years. We'd lose our ability to borrow money from other countries, and the government would collapse. We can't just print as much money as we want and still have it be worth anything. Ever hear of hyperinflation??
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Apr 6, 2020 22:09:52 GMT -8
We don't need to print money to finance cash transfers.
209,128,094 adults in the US Give each adult $1,200 a month for the next 9 months (basically until the end of the year)
2.2 trillion dollars = $2,258,583,415,200
For reference the Federal Budget was 3.8 trillion dollars in the year 2015. So it would be a 57.8% expansion of our federal budget from 2015 (for just the year 2020). Similar expansions in spending have occurred in wartime economies. We could finance it by selling more government bonds (increasing the federal deficit). We could also generate revenue by increasing taxes on the wealthy through an increase of the corporate tax rate, an increase in the top income bracket tax rate, and/or a wealth tax.
All of this can be done without printing money. Printing money increases the money supply and is a form of monetary policy - generally considered to be very poor policy.
When the government sells bonds to run a deficit, the money supply does not expand or contract. Investment money goes into government coffers and then is distributed to people. These wealth transfers are money supply neutral - the money supply does not change, it is merely redistributed.
Printing money to pay for deficits usually only occurs when a country is in extremely dire straights and is close to financial ruin. Often this occurs near the end of a war where the losing country is bankrupt and prints money to pay its debts.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Apr 6, 2020 23:22:01 GMT -8
We don't need to print money to finance cash transfers. 209,128,094 adults in the US Give each adult $1,200 a month for the next 9 months (basically until the end of the year) 2.2 trillion dollars = $2,258,583,415,200 For reference the Federal Budget was 3.8 trillion dollars in the year 2015. So it would be a 57.8% expansion of our federal budget from 2015 (for just the year 2020). Similar expansions in spending have occurred in wartime economies. We could finance it by selling more government bonds (increasing the federal deficit). We could also generate revenue by increasing taxes on the wealthy through an increase of the corporate tax rate, an increase in the top income bracket tax rate, and/or a wealth tax. All of this can be done without printing money. Printing money increases the money supply and is a form of monetary policy - generally considered to be very poor policy. When the government sells bonds to run a deficit, the money supply does not expand or contract. Investment money goes into government coffers and then is distributed to people. These wealth transfers are money supply neutral - the money supply does not change, it is merely redistributed. Printing money to pay for deficits usually only occurs when a country is in extremely dire straights and is close to financial ruin. Often this occurs near the end of a war where the losing country is bankrupt and prints money to pay its debts. I get that, but in modern times the money is in the computer, not printed. It's the same net effect, money is being created where there was none. This 50% increase in the Federal budget is being done as a deficit - money we don't have. That can't be done for months on end, not without serious consequences. And there won't be a need for it, either, as the Coronavirus threat will likely diminish monthly starting sometime in May.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2020 6:52:13 GMT -8
As a country, we need to pivot away from service jobs, to essential jobs. Fellow AztecMesa poster Without trying to be condescending, I don't think you really understand the economic impact the service industry has on the U.S. economy. It goes far beyond restaurant services which there are nearly 14 million in that sector alone. Here's a little information for you. www.statista.com/statistics/270072/distribution-of-the-workforce-across-economic-sectors-in-the-united-states/The U.S. might be able to phase out a small portion, but I don't think as a nation we can just pivot away from the service industry.
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Apr 7, 2020 9:17:12 GMT -8
We don't need to print money to finance cash transfers. 209,128,094 adults in the US Give each adult $1,200 a month for the next 9 months (basically until the end of the year) 2.2 trillion dollars = $2,258,583,415,200 For reference the Federal Budget was 3.8 trillion dollars in the year 2015. So it would be a 57.8% expansion of our federal budget from 2015 (for just the year 2020). Similar expansions in spending have occurred in wartime economies. We could finance it by selling more government bonds (increasing the federal deficit). We could also generate revenue by increasing taxes on the wealthy through an increase of the corporate tax rate, an increase in the top income bracket tax rate, and/or a wealth tax. All of this can be done without printing money. Printing money increases the money supply and is a form of monetary policy - generally considered to be very poor policy. When the government sells bonds to run a deficit, the money supply does not expand or contract. Investment money goes into government coffers and then is distributed to people. These wealth transfers are money supply neutral - the money supply does not change, it is merely redistributed. Printing money to pay for deficits usually only occurs when a country is in extremely dire straights and is close to financial ruin. Often this occurs near the end of a war where the losing country is bankrupt and prints money to pay its debts. I get that, but in modern times the money is in the computer, not printed. It's the same net effect, money is being created where there was none. This 50% increase in the Federal budget is being done as a deficit - money we don't have. That can't be done for months on end, not without serious consequences. And there won't be a need for it, either, as the Coronavirus threat will likely diminish monthly starting sometime in May. Not to be rude, but money in this scenario is not created - it is borrowed. It is the same as if you or I secured a loan to purchase a car - we did not create money, we borrowed it. The borrower (the federal government) owes the treasury holder (a variety of different people - US citizens, foreign citizens, foreign governments even) a debt that they have to repay. Fiscal policy actions (government spending decisions do not create or destroy money). Actions taken by the Federal Reserve increase or decrease the money supply. The federal reserve can increase or decrease the rate at which banks can borrow money (which decreases/increases the money supply respectively), they can increase/decrease the reserve ratio (which decreases/increases the money supply), or they can perform what is called open market operations (purchase/sell treasuries) to (increase/decrease) the money supply. That is where people often get confused, with the manner in which securities work. The Federal Reserve buys or sells treasury notes Independent from the US Treasury. The Treasury buys bonds, and pays bondholders, to manage the federal government's debts. This purchasing and selling of bonds by the Treasury does not increase or decrease the money supply. Money is simply moving through the economy. In this case money is shifted from investors to the federal government (money changes hands). In the case of the Federal Reserve buying and selling bonds, the amount of bonds that the Federal Reserve holds determines the size of the money supply (among other factors). The Federal Reserve buys bonds by taking money that was not a part of the economy (money that is held by the Federal Reserve) and putting it into the economy, trading that money with an investor selling a bond. That is to say that the Federal Reserve has a 'reserve' of greenbacks that it can add to the economy (increasing the money supply) by Buying bonds and giving the bondholder cash. It can also Sell bonds, getting cash in return from an investor (decreasing the money supply). The Federal Reserve, to be clear, Does Not create US Treasury Notes. The US Treasury creates US Treasury notes. Think of the federal reserve as the gateholders to a levy - they can make the water level go up or down. The Federal Reserve controls Monetary Policy. Government spending increases or decreases the size of the government, and increases or decreases our indebtedness to treasury holders. Fiscal Policy is controlled by government spending. Sorry if this is long winded, but the functions of the Federal Reserve, the Treasury and the US Government are easy to confuse, and I wanted to fully explain how they work.
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Apr 7, 2020 9:41:35 GMT -8
As a country, we need to pivot away from service jobs, to essential jobs. Fellow AztecMesa poster Without trying to be condescending, I don't think you really understand the economic impact the service industry has on the U.S. economy. It goes far beyond restaurant services which there are nearly 14 million in that sector alone. Here's a little information for you. www.statista.com/statistics/270072/distribution-of-the-workforce-across-economic-sectors-in-the-united-states/The U.S. might be able to phase out a small portion, but I don't think as a nation we can just pivot away from the service industry. Yeah no, I'm aware that most of our economy is classified as being a part of the service economy. Services encompasses everything from healthcare professionals to restaurant workers. You correctly identified the meaning behind what I said, which is that we need less low-paying, and less non-essential service jobs - and we need more professional jobs. Basically what I am saying is that we need more doctors, nurses, computer programmers, engineers, researchers.. and less marginal pay restaurant type jobs (with no disrespect meant towards anyone that works in that industry). It's funny - believe it or not, Cuba has both the highest number of doctors per capita in the world, and Cubans have a higher life expectancy then we do - and all of this is despite the fact that their medical facilities are nowhere near as good as ours. We need more doctors per capita in the US. We need more nurses per capita in the US. we need more medical schools - good students shouldn't have to apply to 50 schools to get into 2. The federal government needs to step in and increase the supply of education in this country so that we can have more medical professionals, more scientists, and more researchers. I don't expect anything to happen overnight. But what I do know is the disinvestment in public spending over the last 50 or so years has significantly increased the amount of inequality in this country. Before anyone lashes out about inequality, and haves/have nots, consider this: wouldn't the world be a better place if there Were more professionals - more scientists, doctors, nurses, engineers - more people that were more socioeconomically equal? An economy with more people who are earning more, where more people are spending more money, is a world with a bigger economy, less crime and unhappiness, and a better place for everyone to live in.
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Apr 7, 2020 9:51:47 GMT -8
Also, with regard to the Coronavirus threat - Coronavirus has been kept in check because of the shutdown. In the absence of such a shutdown, it could rapidly spread again. Until a significant portion of the population (50% maybe?) has already been exposed to the virus (either by catching it, or by vaccine), the virus threatens to spread like wildfire if we open up for business as usual.
My guess is that our economy will re-open for business in August. Timing wise, it's also the beginning of the school year - it makes a lot of sense for families to start at that point in time.
The bigger issue is that a large number of people will remain unemployed, a number of businesses will or already have shuttered as a result of this crisis. That is why economic stimulus in the form of cash payments will be necessary for a few months after the economy reopens.
Considering that a lot of the US economy consists of consumer goods, and people are not consuming a lot of goods currently/won't if they don't have a job, it might make sense to give people the resources to consume products.
|
|
|
Post by survalli on Apr 8, 2020 8:17:03 GMT -8
It's not 50 / 50. The far right fringe gets more facetime than they ever have. Teddy Roosevelt, who set up the National Park system, would be considered a Nazi by the right today. DT took protection off the red salmon runs that feed Bristol Bay, which threatens a billion dollar fishery. putting industry insiders in charge of EPA, Interior Department etc. Name the 10 most important far Right innovators of the last 100 years? I could name an endless list of left-leaning and moderates who give the most in society. Without them, no Microsoft, Apple, the greatest scientists who ever lived, the greatest musicians and on and on. What we are seeing now are elements of devolution and the movie Idiocracy being played out. The medal of Freedom was just given to a guy who tells his audience "it's just the common cold folks". There is no equalivancy there. Just another one of your deflection post as usual. And on the political board I admitted Limbaugh did say that but also said I don't care for the guy. But let's not forget what the U.S. leading health official was saying in the beginning that might have played a big roll as to why a lot of people were downplaying the Corvid-19 outbreak. Here's another reminder is case you and the others on this board forgot. Go ahead and fact check it if you want. www.mynews13.com/fl/orlando/news/2020/02/15/disease-expert--flu-a-bigger-risk-in-the-us-than-coronaviruswww.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/02/17/nih-disease-official-anthony-fauci-risk-of-coronavirus-in-u-s-is-minuscule-skip-mask-and-wash-hands/4787209002/This is a really good post with links. (aside from the name calling of your earlier posts) I didnt believe they were telling the truth when these articles came out. its a shame that WHO downplayed the virus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2020 12:50:09 GMT -8
This is a really good post with links. (aside from the name calling of your earlier posts) I didnt believe they were telling the truth when these articles came out. its a shame that WHO downplayed the virus. I have apologized to the the mods for allowing certain people to get the best of me with childish name calling. Some people don't have an argument, they just like to egg people on. I'm old enough to know better. This really has been my argument the whole time since the start of this thread back in late February. That included criticizing the W.H.O. I am just tired and angry of the finger pointing when Americans should be coming together during this horrible time instead of people trying to divide us with an agenda and supporting world leaders and world health officials that have been lying the whole time and continue to do so. Anyway, stay safe!! Thanks!!
|
|