Guest Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 All coronavirus discussion should be conducted in another socially isolated location. haha fair enough!
rb Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 Why does that matter? I'll assume you have experiences that are biasing your knowledge base. Now, keep in mind, I do too. ;) No I don't base my statement on biases like you do. Just facts. The TLDR on this is that there's nothing that special about China. Also nothing too exceptional about the US. These are just stories we tell ourselves. The US is a moderately affluent country. But they have a lot of people. So great power. China is actually a very average country. Almost the definition of average. They're about as affluent as other big names such as Turkmenistan, the Dominican Republic, Palau and Serbia. Somewhat below the great Belarus and well below some other great places like Bulgaria! But there's a lot of them so great power. The thing is nobody put China in power. They put themselves in power by achieving the incredible feat of being average and under performing Bulgaria. All that China had to do was to stop shooting themselves in the foot with cultural revolution type shit. It was inevitable. Now you might argue that other "types" of administrations would have been able to suppress China through economic and military wars. That worked in the case of Cuba, but sucked in the case of a larger country like Vietnam. My guess is that it would have really sucked in the case of China.
LC Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 I don't want the Establishment country back. They are the ones that put China in power in the first place. I thought that was the Deep State. I must be getting my nameless, hidden-in-plain-sight, pseudo-government entities of Democrat carpetbaggers pulling the strings of Democracy from the confines of leather armchairs, fireplaces and Great Danes at the Bilderberg estate...confused. If you think "the Establishment" put a country of 1 billion people with a rich history of productivity, who performed incredibly cheap labor at high cost to themselves for decades, to the benefit of the western nations "in power" and their citizens - then I would argue you are ignoring factors which represent 95% of China's rise to geopolitical power, in favor of <5% of the factors which you are fitting into your narrative.
Guest Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 Why does that matter? I'll assume you have experiences that are biasing your knowledge base. Now, keep in mind, I do too. ;) No I don't base my statement on biases like you do. Just facts. The TLDR on this is that there's nothing that special about China. Also nothing too exceptional about the US. These are just stories we tell ourselves. The US is a moderately affluent country. But they have a lot of people. So great power. China is actually a very average country. Almost the definition of average. They're about as affluent as other big names such as Turkmenistan, the Dominican Republic, Palau and Serbia. Somewhat below the great Belarus and well below some other great places like Bulgaria! But there's a lot of them so great power. The thing is nobody put China in power. They put themselves in power by achieving the incredible feat of being average and under performing Bulgaria. All that China had to do was to stop shooting themselves in the foot with cultural revolution type shit. It was inevitable. Now you might argue that other "types" of administrations would have been able to suppress China through economic and military wars. That worked in the case of Cuba, but sucked in the case of a larger country like Vietnam. My guess is that it would have really sucked in the case of China. Everyone's opinion is based on personal biases. At least some of us can admit to it. If we had even trade with China (no surplus or deficit) I would guess that the US would be more stable (more middle class jobs here) and China would be less prosperous. Yeah, yeah, the stock market wouldn't have gone up as much but big deal. Perhaps jobs would have moved over to other countries but the move probably wouldn't have been as extreme - since those other countries have far few people.
Guest Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 I don't want the Establishment country back. They are the ones that put China in power in the first place. I thought that was the Deep State. I must be getting my nameless, hidden-in-plain-sight, pseudo-government entities of Democrat carpetbaggers pulling the strings of Democracy from the confines of leather armchairs, fireplaces and Great Danes at the Bilderberg estate...confused. If you think "the Establishment" put a country of 1 billion people with a rich history of productivity, who performed incredibly cheap labor at high cost to themselves for decades, to the benefit of the western nations "in power" and their citizens - then I would argue you are ignoring factors which represent 95% of China's rise to geopolitical power, in favor of <5% of the factors which you are fitting into your narrative. You don't think that the folks in power wanted to make these moves so that we would have "economic growth?" All of these displaced folks will just get new training they said. Well, guess what, the factories shut down and they were left in the cold. Guess you benefited? Stockholders. How about we leave stockholders out in the cold too by not consistently bailing out the market? I have no problem with people fending for themselves...if the playing field is equal. Like I said, I would prefer no bailouts for anyone - ever. That's fair. Do I think this is some multi-decade conspiracy? No. Do I think the system is quite corrupt? Yes. The Democrats didn't want Bernie so they teamed up against him. Look at all of the connections Epstein and Weinstein had. The government has set up stockholders and the wealthy (any guesses as how many folks running the country own stocks?) to win and the middle and lower classes to lose. That is wrong. The Republicans also didn't want Trump but they let nature take it's course. And, as I've said many times, I have never voted for Trump (and would prefer not to). Trump getting rid of the Fiduciary Rule for financial planners was a giant middle finger to populism (as are his tax cuts). Don't get me wrong, I've benefited tremendously through this broken system but that doesn't mean I agree with it. By, I'll try to respect the thread and will try to go back to speaking only about the virus from here on out.
LC Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 Sorry but eventually, Adam Smith always wins. You don't get to blame the Democrats or Republicans for a lesson as old as time itself: you can't beat change (or comparative advantage). For decades China was (and is) able to supply low cost inputs for global consumption. The entire world - including the mean (and median) US citizen and corporation - is better off as a result. Even the ones laid off when "they took our jobs".
DooDiligence Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 Sorry but eventually, Adam Smith always wins. You don't get to blame the Democrats or Republicans for a lesson as old as time itself: you can't beat change (or comparative advantage). For decades China was (and is) able to supply low cost inputs for global consumption. The entire world - including the mean (and median) US citizen and corporation - is better off as a result. Even the ones laid off when "they took our jobs". This, and the entitled sheep will continue to piss & moan & ignore their prosperity.
Guest Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 Sorry but eventually, Adam Smith always wins. You don't get to blame the Democrats or Republicans for a lesson as old as time itself: you can't beat change (or comparative advantage). For decades China was (and is) able to supply low cost inputs for global consumption. The entire world - including the mean (and median) US citizen and corporation - is better off as a result. Even the ones laid off when "they took our jobs". If you mean "better off" by the amount of crap people can buy, sure. If you mean "better off" by having a job you take pride in, then I'll have to disagree. The fact that drug deaths and suicides are up make me believe that a lot of folks are not better off. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/images/databriefs/351-400/db356_fig1.png It looks like it is better off under Trump here. But hey, Congresses' stocks are up, CEOs are paid way (way) more than deserve. Let's parttty! Okay...I'm hoping this one really is my last non-virus post on this thread Sorry all!
LC Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 If you mean "better off" by the amount of crap people can buy, sure. If you mean "better off" by having a job you take pride in, then I'll have to disagree. The fact that drug deaths and suicides are up make me believe that a lot of folks are not better off. I'd suggest reviewing 70 year data on resident population growth, immigration growth, unemployment rates, real GDP per capita, infant mortality rates, and average life expectancy. Maybe overlay that with qualitative factors such as access to education, access to healthcare, voter's rights, and representation by demographic group in government. You're ignoring literal mountains of evidence in favor of sentimentalism. Okay...I'm hoping this one really is my last non-virus post on this thread Sorry all! I'd want to change the subject too, if I were arguing your position :D
Liberty Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 "Deaths among the elderly in Sweden have been painfully high. In a more densely populated country like the United States, and with a larger proportion of vulnerable people, the human toll of a herd immunity strategy could be devastating" Also:
Guest Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 If you mean "better off" by the amount of crap people can buy, sure. If you mean "better off" by having a job you take pride in, then I'll have to disagree. The fact that drug deaths and suicides are up make me believe that a lot of folks are not better off. I'd suggest reviewing 70 year data on resident population growth, immigration growth, unemployment rates, real GDP per capita, infant mortality rates, and average life expectancy. Maybe overlay that with qualitative factors such as access to education, access to healthcare, voter's rights, and representation by demographic group in government. You're ignoring literal mountains of evidence in favor of sentimentalism. Okay...I'm hoping this one really is my last non-virus post on this thread Sorry all! I'd want to change the subject too, if I were arguing your position :D lc...you're dragging me back in. What does 70 year data have to do with anything? China was allowed free trade by Clinton in 2000. And through most of that time we've had artificially low interest rates and huge deficits to maintain our broken system. If I were wrong, we wouldn't have the current leadership we do now either. ;)
Liberty Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 Australian intelligence officials tell Sydney Morning Herald that U.S. briefings on Wuhan lab theory are mostly write-ups of news reports and "contained no material from intelligence gathering." https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australian-intelligence-knocks-back-us-government-s-wuhan-lab-virus-claim-20200504-p54pk3.html
Liberty Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 Trump brags about doing things that are consensual. Trump has never bragged about assault. The women disagree with you that it was consensual, including the 13 yr old girl that Trump allegedly raped in Jeffery Epstein's apartment: The number of women who have accused Trump of rape or sexual assault is at least 12 https://www.mic.com/articles/156669/how-many-women-have-accused-donald-trump-of-rape-or-sexual-assault#.KujVwb2jl Whoever thinks Trump was bragging about consensuel stuff, I have a bridge I’d like to sell them.
LC Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 If you mean "better off" by the amount of crap people can buy, sure. If you mean "better off" by having a job you take pride in, then I'll have to disagree. The fact that drug deaths and suicides are up make me believe that a lot of folks are not better off. I'd suggest reviewing 70 year data on resident population growth, immigration growth, unemployment rates, real GDP per capita, infant mortality rates, and average life expectancy. Maybe overlay that with qualitative factors such as access to education, access to healthcare, voter's rights, and representation by demographic group in government. You're ignoring literal mountains of evidence in favor of sentimentalism. Okay...I'm hoping this one really is my last non-virus post on this thread Sorry all! I'd want to change the subject too, if I were arguing your position :D lc...you're dragging me back in. What does 70 year data have to do with anything? China was allowed free trade by Clinton in 2000. And through most of that time we've had artificially low interest rates and huge deficits to maintain our broken system. If I were wrong, we wouldn't have the current leadership we do now either. ;) I would further suggest some historical review of China. Chinese international economic trends began far before the year 2000. Mao's policy in the 50s-60s spurred a lot of industrialization in China at the expense of individual workers. International impact was thin during this era and you can use it to establish a baseline case for the status of the US without China as a superpower. Post-Mao in the 70s China began a market-based economic model which leveraged and exploited this foundation from Mao. Rapid, de-centralized industrialization at cost (with human and environmental externalities - the price they paid). This was a rapidly expanding era that has essentially continued to-date. If you think a pre-China world is somehow better for the US, you can take a look at the 50s-60s statistics which I have suggested as they apply to the USA, and compare them to the 70s-2020 era. In almost every case, US has progressed incredibly during the time period coinciding with China's rise to power. It is one of the poster-child examples of how the theory of comparative advantage benefits both participants. A lot of this is due to China taking over low-skill work previously done within the US. But, I understand that politically, this fact does not sit well in red states of mind. Coincidentally, when speaking of red states (of mind), you can compare/contrast the USA during this pre- and post-China era and the USA during the pre- and post-Civil war era. During the Civil war, Confederate agriculture simply could not (or actually, would not) adapt to changing times and the rise of industrial manufacturing. This gave the Union a strong economic advantage.
Liberty Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-04/coronavirus-causes-blood-clots-harming-organs-from-brain-to-toes Another threat from the lung virus that causes Covid-19 has emerged that may cause swift, sometimes fatal damage: blood clots. Doctors around the world are noting a raft of clotting-related disorders -- from benign skin lesions on the feet sometimes called “Covid toe” to life-threatening strokes and blood-vessel blockages. Ominously, if dangerous clots go untreated, they may manifest days to months after respiratory symptoms have resolved. The clotting phenomenon is “probably the most important thing that’s emerged over the last perhaps month or two,” said Mitchell Levy, chief of pulmonary critical care and sleep medicine at the Warren Albert School of Medicine at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island.
elliott Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 some Americans became obsessed with Japan in the 80s, before that it was the Soviet Union, now it is China and life goes on by the way, China was already a super power many centuries ago
Guest Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 If you mean "better off" by the amount of crap people can buy, sure. If you mean "better off" by having a job you take pride in, then I'll have to disagree. The fact that drug deaths and suicides are up make me believe that a lot of folks are not better off. I'd suggest reviewing 70 year data on resident population growth, immigration growth, unemployment rates, real GDP per capita, infant mortality rates, and average life expectancy. Maybe overlay that with qualitative factors such as access to education, access to healthcare, voter's rights, and representation by demographic group in government. You're ignoring literal mountains of evidence in favor of sentimentalism. Okay...I'm hoping this one really is my last non-virus post on this thread Sorry all! I'd want to change the subject too, if I were arguing your position :D lc...you're dragging me back in. What does 70 year data have to do with anything? China was allowed free trade by Clinton in 2000. And through most of that time we've had artificially low interest rates and huge deficits to maintain our broken system. If I were wrong, we wouldn't have the current leadership we do now either. ;) I would further suggest some historical review of China. Chinese international economic trends began far before the year 2000. Mao's policy in the 50s-60s spurred a lot of industrialization in China at the expense of individual workers. International impact was thin during this era and you can use it to establish a baseline case for the status of the US without China as a superpower. Post-Mao in the 70s China began a market-based economic model which leveraged and exploited this foundation from Mao. Rapid, de-centralized industrialization at cost (with human and environmental externalities - the price they paid). This was a rapidly expanding era that has essentially continued to-date. If you think a pre-China world is somehow better for the US, you can take a look at the 50s-60s statistics which I have suggested as they apply to the USA, and compare them to the 70s-2020 era. In almost every case, US has progressed incredibly during the time period coinciding with China's rise to power. It is one of the poster-child examples of how the theory of comparative advantage benefits both participants. A lot of this is due to China taking over low-skill work previously done within the US. But, I understand that politically, this fact does not sit well in red states of mind. Coincidentally, when speaking of red states (of mind), you can compare/contrast the USA during this pre- and post-China era and the USA during the pre- and post-Civil war era. During the Civil war, Confederate agriculture simply could not (or actually, would not) adapt to changing times and the rise of industrial manufacturing. This gave the Union a strong economic advantage. I have no problem with competitive or comparative advantages. I have a problem with the government putting the wealthy over the middle and lower classes. Do you really think market valuations would be where they are if the government had interest rates at normal levels? Do you think home prices on the coasts would be where they are compared to the rest of the country? Why should the government create debt and lower interest rates to prop up stocks but not to prop up manufacturing? If you are going to just let markets happen, then it should be all markets - not just what the higher ups like.
Liberty Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 Good reminder by Talet that people are mixing up various things and forgetting the relationships (or lack of) between them.
Mephistopheles Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 Let's move the thread back to coronavirus. There is no convincing people in politics of your opinion. Everyone sticks to their beliefs. Use the politics forum to rant and fight.
rb Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 About that reopening https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-texas/texas-back-in-business-barely-yall-as-malls-restaurants-empty-idUSKBN22H19K
Jurgis Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 About that reopening https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-texas/texas-back-in-business-barely-yall-as-malls-restaurants-empty-idUSKBN22H19K The problem is as follows: if mall/whatever reopened, I would go there if I knew I'd be the only person in the mall. But then store(s) don't get enough business. OTOH, if everyone rushes in, then I wouldn't go there. So likely you can't get many people there. It's also possible that there will be a bad feedback loop: people don't go to malls, cases don't rise, people think that it's safe and go to malls, then cases rise again, rinse, repeat? Restaurants are more complicated than stores. Even if I'm the only customer there, there is a risk of getting infected from the staff. More risk than if I ordered for delivery. So screw going to restaurant.
dwy000 Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 If you mean "better off" by the amount of crap people can buy, sure. If you mean "better off" by having a job you take pride in, then I'll have to disagree. The fact that drug deaths and suicides are up make me believe that a lot of folks are not better off. I'd suggest reviewing 70 year data on resident population growth, immigration growth, unemployment rates, real GDP per capita, infant mortality rates, and average life expectancy. Maybe overlay that with qualitative factors such as access to education, access to healthcare, voter's rights, and representation by demographic group in government. You're ignoring literal mountains of evidence in favor of sentimentalism. Okay...I'm hoping this one really is my last non-virus post on this thread Sorry all! I'd want to change the subject too, if I were arguing your position :D lc...you're dragging me back in. What does 70 year data have to do with anything? China was allowed free trade by Clinton in 2000. And through most of that time we've had artificially low interest rates and huge deficits to maintain our broken system. If I were wrong, we wouldn't have the current leadership we do now either. ;) I would further suggest some historical review of China. Chinese international economic trends began far before the year 2000. Mao's policy in the 50s-60s spurred a lot of industrialization in China at the expense of individual workers. International impact was thin during this era and you can use it to establish a baseline case for the status of the US without China as a superpower. Post-Mao in the 70s China began a market-based economic model which leveraged and exploited this foundation from Mao. Rapid, de-centralized industrialization at cost (with human and environmental externalities - the price they paid). This was a rapidly expanding era that has essentially continued to-date. If you think a pre-China world is somehow better for the US, you can take a look at the 50s-60s statistics which I have suggested as they apply to the USA, and compare them to the 70s-2020 era. In almost every case, US has progressed incredibly during the time period coinciding with China's rise to power. It is one of the poster-child examples of how the theory of comparative advantage benefits both participants. A lot of this is due to China taking over low-skill work previously done within the US. But, I understand that politically, this fact does not sit well in red states of mind. Coincidentally, when speaking of red states (of mind), you can compare/contrast the USA during this pre- and post-China era and the USA during the pre- and post-Civil war era. During the Civil war, Confederate agriculture simply could not (or actually, would not) adapt to changing times and the rise of industrial manufacturing. This gave the Union a strong economic advantage. I have no problem with competitive or comparative advantages. I have a problem with the government putting the wealthy over the middle and lower classes. Do you really think market valuations would be where they are if the government had interest rates at normal levels? Do you think home prices on the coasts would be where they are compared to the rest of the country? Why should the government create debt and lower interest rates to prop up stocks but not to prop up manufacturing? If you are going to just let markets happen, then it should be all markets - not just what the higher ups like. The idea that you are not absolutely voting for Trump is a joke. You started out with that comment simply to imply that you're coming from some objective position. And then every post since then has been wrapped in a MAGA t-shirt. At least be upfront that you're a rally-going, shoot-someone-on-5th-avenue, nothing he does it wrong Trump supporter. It's a least more honest. But then again honesty and Trump....understood.
StubbleJumper Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 About that reopening https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-texas/texas-back-in-business-barely-yall-as-malls-restaurants-empty-idUSKBN22H19K The problem is as follows: if mall/whatever reopened, I would go there if I knew I'd be the only person in the mall. But then store(s) don't get enough business. OTOH, if everyone rushes in, then I wouldn't go there. So likely you can't get many people there. It's also possible that there will be a bad feedback loop: people don't go to malls, cases don't rise, people think that it's safe and go to malls, then cases rise again, rinse, repeat? Restaurants are more complicated than stores. Even if I'm the only customer there, there is a risk of getting infected from the staff. More risk than if I ordered for delivery. So screw going to restaurant. I wouldn't worry at all about going to malls. My observation is that I don't have much trouble staying 6+ feet away from the next guy at a shopping mall except during the Christmas rush and at lunchtime at the food court. But a mall during May in Canada? You could shoot a cannon down the mall and not hit anybody during May. It's a bit of a similar thing with most restaurants at lunch time during May and from Monday-Wednesday at supper time. One table out of two might be occupied. But, for restaurants it is more hit-and-miss. There are some that are jammed all of the time, so you'd have to be a bit selective. SJ
Liberty Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 President Donald Trump said Tuesday that his administration blocked Dr. Anthony Fauci from testifying in the House because the chamber is full of “Trump haters,” contradicting the White House claim that the key health official is too busy to appear at a hearing on the U.S. coronavirus response. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/05/coronavirus-trump-blocked-anthony-fauci-house-testimony-because-of-haters.html Great reason not to have a top expert in charge of the US response to a pandemic not inform elected representatives of the people who are sick, tens of thousands dying, and footing the huge bill.
Recommended Posts