COVID-19 - READ THE RULES BEFORE REPLYING

[lewdicrous]

6 minutes ago, Big Nav said:

imagine telling  millions people were going to forcefully shut down your ability to provide for yourself and your family because life has risks

That's what you get when you bail out multi million dollar companies instead of those who actually need it.

That's what happened when greed and selfishness outweigh sympathy. 

[Big Nav]

1 minute ago, wkdpaul said:

That's not what people are saying, at all. Again with the disingenuous comments.

 

Life has risks, but it's about mitigating them. The government has ways to provide for a few weeks, it did so for a handful of billionaires a decade ago, why can't it do it again for the general population now? That's what I don't get here.

If most of population is not able to work, how do you think the money will be generated to provide for people? Money can not just magically be created, If the government just prints money it devalues the money making worth less creating a nasty cycle of print more money because it's worth jack squat. Now we need more to buy things so print more devaluing it even further.

[Commodus]

5 minutes ago, Big Nav said:

If most of population is not able to work, how do you think the money will be generated to provide for people? Money can not just magically be created, If the government just prints money it devalues the money making worth less creating a nasty cycle of print more money because it's worth jack squat. Now we need more to buy things so print more devaluing it even further.

It's not worth killing hundreds of thousands of people just to help the economy recover sooner.  Economies can bounce back; you can't resurrect someone's family.  There's no perfectly happy ending here, but it's downright inhuman to value money more than life.

[Big Nav]

14 minutes ago, lewdicrous said:

That's what you get when you bail out multi million dollar companies instead of those who actually need it.

That's what happened when greed and selfishness outweigh sympathy. 

With how it is right now, forcing small business to close and stay close and for some reason we can social distance in a large box-store like Wal-mat but we can not do the same in a mom & pop shop. That would be in essence a bail out for large companies, forcing the business to them and eliminating the competition. So you seem to be arguing against yourself on this point by being for keeping everything locked down because a disease has casualties. Every disease has and every disease will now and forever, some more than others. But you can't shut down the social and economical system because that risk exists.

[lewdicrous]

23 minutes ago, Big Nav said:

With how it is right now, forcing small business to close and stay close and for some reason we can social distance in a large box-store like Wal-mat but we can not do the same in a mom & pop shop. That would be in essence a bail out for large companies, forcing the business to them and eliminating the competition. So you seem to be arguing against yourself on this point by being for keeping everything locked down because a disease has casualties. Every disease has and every disease will now and forever, some more than others. But you can't shut down the social and economical system because that risk exists.

Providing relief to small businesses is a thing.

https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/assistance-for-small-businesses

Quote

The Paycheck Protection Program established by the CARES Act, is implemented by the Small Business Administration with support from the Department of the Treasury.  This program provides small businesses with funds to pay up to 8 weeks of payroll costs including benefits. Funds can also be used to pay interest on mortgages, rent, and utilities.

The Paycheck Protection Program prioritizes millions of Americans employed by small businesses by authorizing up to $349 billion toward job retention and certain other expenses.

Small businesses and eligible nonprofit organizations, Veterans organizations, and Tribal businesses described in the Small Business Act, as well as individuals who are self-employed or are independent contractors, are eligible if they also meet program size standards.

Might not be much in the long term, but it does help. It also gives them time to adapt.

 

Although, funeral homes and the casket/coffin industry will make a killing if everything is opened early, so that's good if you're into that.

[lewdicrous]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200507121353.htm

Quote

Summary:

Researchers analyzed patient data from 10 countries. The team found a correlation between low vitamin D levels and hyperactive immune systems. Vitamin D strengths innate immunity and prevents overactive immune responses. The finding could explain several mysteries, including why children are unlikely to die from COVID-19.

Quote

"The researchers noted that patients from countries with high COVID-19 mortality rates, such as Italy, Spain and the UK, had lower levels of vitamin D compared to patients in countries that were not as severely affected."

https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2020/05/vitamin-d-appears-to-play-role-in-covid-19-mortality-rates/

Quote

"Vitamin D will not prevent a patient from contracting the virus, but it may reduce complications and prevent death in those who are infected.” - Vadim Backman, biomedical engineer.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.08.20058578v3

Quote

Title: The Possible Role of Vitamin D in Suppressing Cytokine Storm and Associated Mortality in COVID-19 Patients

 

The title seems to change in meaning from one place to another, so grains of salt may be necessary.

Also, always keep in mind that correlation =/= causation.

[js23]

1 hour ago, Big Nav said:

If most of population is not able to work, how do you think the money will be generated to provide for people? Money can not just magically be created, If the government just prints money it devalues the money making worth less creating a nasty cycle of print more money because it's worth jack squat. Now we need more to buy things so print more devaluing it even further.

That's where its the large Corporations and billionaires time to pony up and pay back some of the wealth that they sit on back into the society that they took it from, the fact that the government caters to them alone is the reason this will hit most Americans harder than most. Bezos alone is sitting on 142.71 billion dollars, I don't think his standard of living would drop off too much if he was made to give up 100-130 billion, let them boohoo all they want about not being able to buy another yacht. Someone can live quite comfortable with 10 billion alone.

[Zodiark1593]

6 minutes ago, js23 said:

That's where its the large Corporations and billionaires time to pony up and pay back some of the wealth that they sit on back into the society that they took it from, the fact that the government caters to them alone is the reason this will hit most Americans harder than most. Bezos alone is sitting on 142.71 billion dollars, I don't think his standard of living would drop off too much if he was made to give up 100-130 billion, let them boohoo all they want about not being able to buy another yacht. Someone can live quite comfortable with 10 billion alone.

I’m rather curious to hear your proposal on how to make that happen? 

[Big Nav]

2 minutes ago, js23 said:

That's where its the large Corporations and billionaires time to pony up and pay back some of the wealth that they sit on back into the society that they took it from, the fact that the government caters to them alone is the reason this will hit most Americans harder than most. Bezos alone is sitting on 142.71 billion dollars, I don't think his standard of living would drop off too much if he was made to give up 100-130 billion, let them boohoo all they want about not being able to buy another yacht. Someone can live quite comfortable with 10 billion alone.

I see this all the time that rich people are bad they owe people this and that, it's a rooted in envy and jealousy. People who became rich did not take anything from any one. They created a service or product that people then decided to trade their money for. Did Bezos come and take from your home, steal money from your bank account, steal your personal possessions? Or did people buy things from Amazon because it was easy convenient and a service they decided to use over other options they had available to them. And to anyone who wants to use "Amazon is killing other business", guess what when he started out it was a small time operation and he had to contend with the large players in the market at the time of come-up - he just chose to find a way to make it work in spite of those challenges.

[js23]

1 minute ago, Zodiark1593 said:

I’m rather curious to hear your proposal on how to make that happen? 

Ideally an asset cap at 1-10 billion for individuals would be good, and a flexible one for corporations determined by how many employees and how much the minimum pay is, small locally owned businesses would be exempt. The biggest point would be to prevent monopolies from forming. Problem is that there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of that ever happening.

[js23]

3 minutes ago, Big Nav said:

I see this all the time that rich people are bad they owe people this and that, it's a rooted in envy and jealousy. People who became rich did not take anything from any one. They created a service or product that people then decided to trade their money for. Did Bezos come and take from your home, steal money from your bank account, steal your personal possessions? Or did people buy things from Amazon because it was easy convenient and a service they decided to use over other options they had available to them. And to anyone who wants to use "Amazon is killing other business", guess what when he started out it was a small time operation and he had to contend with the large players in the market at the time of come-up - he just chose to find a way to make it work in spite of those challenges.

When he sits on one of the largest individual fortunes when the employees that earn him that fortune every day basically get the scraps in pay, work 60 hour weeks, have to deal with poor working conditions, and risk losing all their job entirely if they dare to speak up about how awful working conditions are, then there is a problem. Do yourself a favor, don't idolize the rich, they don't care about you and would rather see you and hundreds of thousands die from a pandemic before losing their profits, hence why they are pushing reopening so hard. 

[Big Nav]

2 minutes ago, js23 said:

When he sits on one of the largest individual fortunes when the employees that earn him that fortune every day basically get the scraps in pay, work 60 hour weeks, have to deal with poor working conditions, and risk losing all their job entirely if they dare to speak up about how awful working conditions are, then there is a problem. Do yourself a favor, don't idolize the rich, they don't care about you and would rather see you and hundreds of thousands die from a pandemic before losing their profits, hence why they are pushing reopening so hard. 

You do realize if these people hate it so much then stop working there, the business shuts down and collapses. So if they hate the rich and feel they are getting a raw deal why are they there? They can start their own business, work for another, create a product and sell it - they have options no one forcing them to work for Amazon. I had that same experience you are talking about with a large company, so I left will not do business with them or any other company that is under their ownership.

 

You also have mistaken not-demonizing with idolizing.

[Zodiark1593]

30 minutes ago, js23 said:

Ideally an asset cap at 1-10 billion for individuals would be good, and a flexible one for corporations determined by how many employees and how much the minimum pay is, small locally owned businesses would be exempt. The biggest point would be to prevent monopolies from forming. Problem is that there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of that ever happening.

Quite hard to enforce a simple asset cap. Assets can be moved overseas or invested into businesses, which in turn yield even greater returns. How about private ownership of businesses worth well above $10 billion. Even if the assets are not listed under the owner’s name, for all intents and purposes, a private owner still has complete control. 
 

Further, how would such a cap in assets be enforced if $9 billion in investments and stocks turns into $11 billion next year? Force the investor to sell off the investments and turn over proceeds? What’s the motive for a multi-billionaire to invest in businesses if there is zero gain for the risk involved?

 

People that have made billions of dollars tend not to keep their assets in any singular place in liquid form (in either property or in the bank). They tend to move money around via business ventures, investments (overseas and domestic), etc. Does your asset cap only track value of property and bank accounts, or do you desire to take into account assets that are invested as well?

[js23]

15 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Quite hard to enforce a simple asset cap. Assets can be moved overseas or invested into businesses, which in turn yield even greater returns. How about private ownership of businesses worth well above $10 billion. Even if the assets are not listed under the owner’s name, for all intents and purposes, a private owner still has complete control. 
 

Further, how would such a cap in assets be enforced if $9 billion in investments and stocks turns into $11 billion next year? Force the investor to sell off the investments and turn over proceeds?

 

People that have made billions of dollars tend not to keep their assets in any singular place in liquid form (in either property or in the bank). They tend to move money around via business ventures, investments (overseas and domestic), etc. Does your asset cap only track value of property and bank accounts, or do you desire to take into account assets that are invested as well?

That's the point, all assets stocks, real estate, investments etc, would have to be counted into it for it to work, it would also have to follow you as a us citizen/us national, then the problem is that one could just move and renounce citizenship. But like I said, would never happen, so no point in drafting an entire law.

[Big Nav]

24 minutes ago, js23 said:

That's the point, all assets stocks, real estate, investments etc, would have to be counted into it for it to work, it would also have to follow you as a us citizen/us national, then the problem is that one could just move and renounce citizenship. But like I said, would never happen, so no point in drafting an entire law.

Who would be in charge of dictating where those funds/capital/assets went, and how much went where?

[Sauron]

2 hours ago, Big Nav said:

With how it is right now, forcing small business to close and stay close and for some reason we can social distance in a large box-store like Wal-mat but we can not do the same in a mom & pop shop.

One of those is necessary for people to survive, the other isn't. If you have a problem with Walmart pushing small shops out of business then perhaps you have an issue with corporations and should have had it long before the pandemic.

39 minutes ago, Big Nav said:

You do realize if these people hate it so much then stop working there, the business shuts down and collapses. So if they hate the rich and feel they are getting a raw deal why are they there?

Because otherwise they will starve. Do you think people who work at Amazon had their pick of jobs to choose from and chose retail? Amazon stockholders can survive for years if not decades without income (Bezos himself could survive for millenia if he wasn't going to die of old age before then), their workers can't.

 

People strike from time to time but it's not easy, especially considering the hostility towards unions in countries like the US.

1 hour ago, Zodiark1593 said:

I’m rather curious to hear your proposal on how to make that happen? 

Taxes. Actually enforcing them this time.

 

Also they could pull the billions in incentives they give out to companies like Tesla for no reason.

[Big Nav]

@Sauron You have take both out of contexts and removed them from over arching idea that is presented in the full text. I'd appreciate if you had a rebuttal to the entire idea presented rather than just one or sentences with in the idea itself.

[Commodus]

5 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Also they could pull the billions in incentives they give out to companies like Tesla for no reason.

I generally agree with pulling incentives, but I'm all in favour of green incentives like those for Tesla (although I can't help but think those should be revised in light of Musk's behaviour).  The problem is when they're arbitrary or even harmful, such as oil industry incentives.

[Sauron]

44 minutes ago, Commodus said:

I generally agree with pulling incentives, but I'm all in favour of green incentives like those for Tesla (although I can't help but think those should be revised in light of Musk's behaviour).  The problem is when they're arbitrary or even harmful, such as oil industry incentives.

Tesla isn't doing anything especially positive for the environment, it makes luxury cars that most people can't afford and in minuscule quantities. That money would be better spent in renewable energy (electricity for Tesla cars still needs to be produced somehow). If it must be spent on research and development of EVs then that r&d shouldn't be conducted by a private entity which is primarily out to make a profit and keeps its technology for itself.

 

More contentious take:

Spoiler

It's way past time of waiting for private corporations to spontaneously stop destroying the environment. If EVs are the solution (I doubt it but they would help) then we should just seize Tesla's technology, share it with all manufacturers and impose that they make EVs exclusively starting next year or whenever gives them the minimum time necessary to make the switch. But we don't, because we care more about billionaires getting more money than we do about the environment, human lives or anything else really.

 

[Zodiark1593]

58 minutes ago, Sauron said:

 

 

More contentious take:

  Hide contents

It's way past time of waiting for private corporations to spontaneously stop destroying the environment. If EVs are the solution (I doubt it but they would help) then we should just seize Tesla's technology, share it with all manufacturers and impose that they make EVs exclusively starting next year or whenever gives them the minimum time necessary to make the switch. But we don't, because we care more about billionaires getting more money than we do about the environment, human lives or anything else really.

 

Referring to taxes here, the US tax code is immensely complex, allowing for various deductions. Sort of like finding a bug in a program or OS, tax accountants are very good at finding deductions (what some call “loopholes”) that are both intentionally implemented, and occasionally found through unforeseen means. So long as fraud isn’t actually committed, using exploits in tax law is entirely legal, if potentially unethical. 
 

IRA could probably launch a bug bounty of sorts for the US tax code. Or perhaps require explicit approval for deductions to be taken. 

 

Regarding the seizure of Tesla’s technology, Eminent Domain actually allows for the taking of intellectual property for the public use/good. However, invoking Emminent Domain requires the government to pay reasonable compensation to the former owner, as imposed by the 5th Amendment. Elon Musk will probably fight the case tooth and nail in court (both on the validity of taking the IP, and the compensation) and has the resources to do so, potentially making the acquisition extremely costly and time consuming for the Federal Government. 
 

A nice pipe dream though. 

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, Big Nav said:

imagine telling  millions people were going to forcefully shut down your ability to provide for yourself and your family because life has risks

 

5 hours ago, Big Nav said:

If most of population is not able to work, how do you think the money will be generated to provide for people? Money can not just magically be created, If the government just prints money it devalues the money making worth less creating a nasty cycle of print more money because it's worth jack squat. Now we need more to buy things so print more devaluing it even further.

Economies will bounce and people don't die from poor economies, they die from poor government.

Stop caring about money more than people.  Both directed at you and your fucking government. It's too busy passing laws to favor the highest bidder and pushing down good policy's like public health services to bother with preparing for a disease outbreak or other emergency that your over paid military can't defend against.

 

 

[mr moose]

And before people go, but Australia had it easy is an island and all the other misguided and ill formed opinions.

We had 1000 infected people walk of the ruby princess straight into Sydney (highest population density in Australia). That's on top of the all the other people flying in from aspen/Europe etc.  But because the government was all over it like flies on shit they had in in control within weeks and the countries death toll is still below 100.  

[Big Nav]

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

*snip*

I'm not going to address the political aspect of this, because it's not in the spirit of this thread. And frankly some good points where made but at the end of the day America will take take of it's own to that divide.

 

The issue I have is with the last bit here about your readiness. Lets compare Australia to Texas, with Texas having about 2-3 million more people. Texas had 39,869 confirmed cases and 1,100 deaths that a mortality rate of 0.027% -- Compared to Australia's 8,176 confirmed cases and 179 deaths with a mortality rate of 0.022%

 

That's only a 0.005% difference in mortality rate - which is well within the margin of error. Numbers don't lie, if you get it Australia your odds of beating it are the same. So your not out-shinning the United states in any kind of way. And according to you, your county was stock piling and dooms day prepping for this.

 

 Also, the people in Texas have no where near the land mass to spread out like you do in Australia based on a population stand point, making more sense of the higher infection ratio. 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by wkdpaul

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Big Nav said:

I'm not going to address the political aspect of this, because it's not in the spirit of this thread. And frankly some good points where made but at the end of the day America will take take of it's own to that divide.

 

The issue I have is with the last bit here about your readiness. Lets compare Australia to Texas, with Texas having about 2-3 million more people. Texas had 39,869 confirmed cases and 1,100 deaths that a mortality rate of 0.027% -- Compared to Australia's 8,176 confirmed cases and 179 deaths with a mortality rate of 0.022%

 

That's only a 0.005% difference in mortality rate - which is well within the margin of error. Numbers don't lie, if you get it Australia your odds of beating it are the same. So your not out-shinning the United states in any kind of way. And according to you, your county was stock piling and dooms day prepping for this.

 

 Also, the people in Texas have no where near the land mass to spread out like you do in Australia based on a population stand point, making more sense of the higher infection ratio. 

 

 

We've only had 98 people die in Australia so far, not 179.   I don't know where the deaths are centered in the US but in Australia majority of them were outbreaks in old peoples homes (they didn't have a chance).

 

The other thing is there are much more factors than pop density,  as I said before,  we had 1000 infected people wall of the ruby princess straight into Sydney.  That influx of cases should have turned Sydney into a new york like situation (going on the numbers)

[Big Nav]

13 minutes ago, mr moose said:

We've only had 98 people die in Australia so far, not 179.   I don't know where the deaths are centered in the US but in Australia majority of them were outbreaks in old peoples homes (they didn't have a chance).

 

The other thing is there are much more factors than pop density,  as I said before,  we had 1000 infected people wall of the ruby princess straight into Sydney.  That influx of cases should have turned Sydney into a new york like situation (going on the numbers)

So what did Sydney do to prevent an outbreak if 1,000 infected people where introduced into the populous?