Economics not bicycle tech

On 4/9/2020 2:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/9/2020 12:47 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/9/2020 11:36 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/8/2020 10:34 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 08 Apr 2020 20:11:54 -0500, AMuzi
wrote:

On 4/8/2020 7:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 12:16:06 -0700 (PDT),
"
wrote:

On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 3:08:57 PM UTC-5, Tom
Kunich wrote:

Trump's tax cuts were not supposed to help you. Is
that what ticks you off? That people in the top 10%
actually lost money in the so-called tax cuts? That
they were designed to help America and not some dumb
ass special interest group. For the first time in
modern history a President worked FOR the electorate
and that's what you don't like.



You think the people in the top 10% income actually
lost money due to the 2018 Tax Act?ÂÂ* And you have
been touting yourself on this board as being a genius
and super smart.ÂÂ* The top 10% income own about 90% of
all the stock market.ÂÂ* And the 2018 Tax Act cut the
corporate tax rate to 20%.ÂÂ* Big reduction.ÂÂ* So
corporations instantly had more profit.ÂÂ* And that
usually translates to higher stock prices.ÂÂ* Of course
in 2018 Trump caused the SP500, Dow, Nasdaq to all
lose money.

As for working for the Electorate, when did companies
get a vote? Did the Republicans pass that law
recently?ÂÂ* Giving votes to companies based on how
much money they donated to Trump?ÂÂ* The 2018 Tax Act
was a corporate tax cut.

Ah but the top of the pile is paying far more than
their share
https://tinyurl.com/renqn2b
The top 10 percent pays 53.3 percent of all federal
taxes. And, 68% of
the federal income taxes.

The top 1 percent pays 24 percent of all federal taxes
and 35 percent
of all federal income taxes.


Yep, noted here frequently.

The US of A has one of the most radically progressive tax
systems on earth (AOC or Red Bernie diatribes
notwithstanding)

Well, one sure fire way to get elected is to argue that
if elected you
WILL reduce taxes!

(I've always thought that tithing might be the fairest
scheme :-)


Different argument entirely.

In reality, USA has among the most radically progressive
tax schemes in the world. You can embrace or decry that
situation but it's true nonetheless.

Tax schemes vary tremendously country by country. Rating how
progressive they are is not an easy task.

But it certainly seems to be true that income inequality and
wealth inequality are quite high in the U.S. compared to
most other westernized countries. Progressive taxes,
properly done, seem a way to address that.

It also seems likely that a wealthy minority surrounded by a
poverty stricken minority is bad for society. It's a recipe
for trouble, and it led to the election of a demagogue in 2016.

How long before a lot of those desperate poor voters realize
they've been scammed? How long before the mansions are
surrounded by crowds with torches and pitchforks? Or, more
realistically, AR-15s?

Hmm. Maybe I should buy stock in a guillotine company.



And yet.
Despite the few top earners[1] paying the overwhelming bulk of income
taxes, people with a bent toward finding inequality keep finding it.
Everywhere. If our extremely punitive rates for high earners are not a
solution, maybe we've attacked the wrong problem or done so in the wrong
way?Â* I don't know but since the recommended remedy was tried and has
utterly failed what do you suggest?

Kill all the kulaks? That was tried, didn't work either.
State ownership of productive assets? Been tried, repeatedly, in endless
permutations, never works.

Please see:
https://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/f...rogressive.jpg

Ah, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.

See https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...son_Foundation
"Peter G. Peterson, born June 5, 1926, is a controversial Wall Street
billionaire who uses his wealth to underwrite a diversity of
organizations and PR campaigns to generate public support for slashing
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, citing concerns over
"unsustainable" federal budget deficits."

Too bad he wasn't able to convince the Republicans that the huge tax cut
package was a bad idea, eh?

Nonetheless, those federal numbers are progressive. There are other
taxes that matter (e.g. sales taxes, other state and city taxes). And
there's the overall question about whether those are sufficiently
progressive.

The U.S. is experiencing tremendous differences in income and wealth,
terrific disparities between the richest and poorest. It's long been
experiencing a decrease in social mobility - that is, poor people have a
harder and harder time rising up the scale, no matter how hard they
work. It's harder and harder to survive on the minimum wage, let alone
to afford a good education and subsequent chance at a higher paying job.
Sometimes it seems that for every inner city woman having to waste an
hour on bus rides to her part time Walmart job, there's a CEO making
twenty times what his predecessor did in the 1970s.

Those people at the bottom were a big cohort voting for Trump. They were
scammed.

Anyone who wants to
discuss tax simplification with fewer
subsidies/carve-outs/entitlements/credits and so on write me directly as
that's another thing too.

That could be a reasonable step. It's awfully hard to do, though, when
the wealthy can so easily afford to buy congressmen. Oh, and congresswomen.

Also note that the well known distribution in graph above has become
more slopey in the past 50 years such that, as Governor Cuomo noted
recently, punitive tax rates result in taxpayer behavior changes and
hence lower revenues.

Yeah, it's complicated. That doesn't mean the current situation is good.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/9/2020 2:52 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 10:47:11 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Tax schemes vary tremendously country by country. Rating how progressive
they are is not an easy task.

But it certainly seems to be true that income inequality and wealth
inequality are quite high in the U.S. compared to most other westernized
countries. Progressive taxes, properly done, seem a way to address that.

It also seems likely that a wealthy minority surrounded by a poverty
stricken minority is bad for society. It's a recipe for trouble, and it
led to the election of a demagogue in 2016.

How long before a lot of those desperate poor voters realize they've
been scammed? How long before the mansions are surrounded by crowds with
torches and pitchforks? Or, more realistically, AR-15s?

Hmm. Maybe I should buy stock in a guillotine company.

So the poorer and less productive a country is the better they handle taxes. Is that what you're saying? It takes a real level of stupidity to believe that income inequality proves that wealth is a zero sum game. That if someone has more money that others of necessity have less. It would NEVER occur to you that all ships are floated by the same tide.

Well, my modest little ship is floating quite well at the moment. How's
yours? Are you still living in that hell hole?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/9/2020 4:41 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 1:29:12 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/9/2020 2:48 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 10:20:08 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/9/2020 12:13 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 6:55:23 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/8/2020 8:02 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 10:20:53 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 7:35:32 PM UTC-7, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 9:03:19 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 07 Apr 2020 19:03:33 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

You could embrace the new religion, face Mosinee Wisconsin
and give thanks for the sacred toilet paper we send out to
redeem the world. It's suddenly the only sacred artifact in
the nation.

(I don't understand this phenomenon either. It's mystical.)

Did y'all "send out" toilet paper? I thought that it was hoarded by
the multitudes and was no longer available in the "the land of the
free and the home of the brave (with dirty bums)"?

Oh, they're sending it out. My long haul trucker friend posted a
photo of a line of tractor trailers maybe a quarter mile long. They
were lined up to pick up shipments of toilet paper.

We went to the grocery today. On the twenty foot long double shelves
that are usually filled with packs of toilet paper, we saw two packs
of Charmin (6 rolls each) and maybe 20 individual discount rolls.
We snagged one Charmin pack. Woo hoo!

One interesting aspect: If this scare suddenly ends, the toilet paper
factories will have to shut down for a month or more. Nobody will
need to buy any for a long time.

- Frank Krygowski


I think it will actually work out well for them. The toilet paper factories
are running flat out now. Once everybody has too much and the virus
situation continues to worsen, they can let their staff run off of their
banked overtime and stay home with pay.

Ralph, It appears that 3 out of 4 people have immune systems that react very rapidly to this virus and they cannot become infected. They are primed by the fact that Covid-19 is very similar to the cold virus so immunity is pretty much built-in.

Of the 25% of the population left, 80% of them had no or very mild symptoms. The remaining 20% is unclear since they are not properly testing people but it appears that the virus CAN be fatal to about 3% of them however the treatment methods look to be working very well. Perhaps this is the reason that there seems to be a sharp drop in fatalities. Though perhaps it can be more widespread testing which increases the baseline and makes the mortality rate calculations.

What if rather than 80% having little to no symptoms, only 5% do and only 3% of those are in danger? And treatment appears to be working on 80% of those?

I am quite upset at the apparently total fake claims from the CDC. It now appears that we will have fewer than 10% of the predicted fatalities from the CDC and that is not just room for error but totally missing the mark.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
World wide, of the 418,136 cases which, to date, have had an outcome:
329,731 (79%) Recovered
88,405 (21%) died
But don't worry folks Tommy says there is no danger.

In California
https://coronavirus.app/tracking/california
there are have been 18,909 cases diagnosed and 495 deaths and no
recoveries.
But don't worry folks Tommy says there is no danger.
--
cheers,

John B.


a larger perspective:

https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2020/04...death-numbers/

Note that CDC now wants any death from any cause listed as
Wuhan virus COVID19, if that tests as present.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

That is rather outdated but the percentages are more or less the same. But that's OK, according to all of the people in the know here, covid-19 is so dangerous we have to shut down the entire economy in order to defeat it. They do not know the mortality rates, they don't know how many people are naturally immune and they don't know the numbers of people who are not naturally immune that have had it or have it but they are positive that the sky is falling.

Are all those reported COVID deaths imaginary?

If not all, can you tell us what percentage are imaginary?

That younger cycling friend of mine is still on a ventilator. I think
it's been a couple weeks now. If this isn't real, I should try to get
word to him.

Always curious when you purposely misrepresent what is being said.

If you die from a heart attack while infected by the flu the cause of death is going to be recorded as you died from a heart attack and perhaps an extenuating circumstance, breathing difficulty causes by the flu.

Not surprisingly, the CDC says otherwise. From
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/faq.htm
"What are seasonal influenza-related deaths? Seasonal influenza-related
deaths are deaths that occur in people for whom influenza infection was
likely a contributor to the cause of death, but not necessarily the
primary cause of death."

If you die from the same heart attack which infected with covid-19 the cause of death is NOT recorded as a heart attack which was the underlying health problem that killed you, but by covid-19.

You really should research a bit before you post. Instead, your
information all seems to originate either in your own imagination, or on
Fox News.

--
- Frank Krygowski

My information came directly from the CDC who said precisely that.

And your proof is - what? That you "remember" it?

Give a link. We don't trust your memory. You shouldn't either.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/9/2020 3:50 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
AMuzi wrote:
On 4/9/2020 12:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/9/2020 12:13 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 6:55:23 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/8/2020 8:02 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 10:20:53 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 7:35:32 PM UTC-7, Ralph
Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 9:03:19 PM UTC-4, John
B. wrote:
On Tue, 07 Apr 2020 19:03:33 -0500, AMuzi
wrote:

You could embrace the new religion, face Mosinee
Wisconsin
and give thanks for the sacred toilet paper we send
out to
redeem the world. It's suddenly the only sacred
artifact in
the nation.

(I don't understand this phenomenon either. It's
mystical.)

Did y'all "send out" toilet paper? I thought that it
was hoarded by
the multitudes and was no longer available in the
"the land of the
free and the home of the brave (with dirty bums)"?

Oh, they're sending it out. My long haul trucker
friend posted a
photo of a line of tractor trailers maybe a quarter
mile long. They
were lined up to pick up shipments of toilet paper.

We went to the grocery today. On the twenty foot long
double shelves
that are usually filled with packs of toilet paper,
we saw two packs
of Charmin (6 rolls each) and maybe 20 individual
discount rolls.
We snagged one Charmin pack. Woo hoo!

One interesting aspect: If this scare suddenly ends,
the toilet paper
factories will have to shut down for a month or more.
Nobody will
need to buy any for a long time.

- Frank Krygowski


I think it will actually work out well for them. The
toilet paper factories
are running flat out now. Once everybody has too much
and the virus
situation continues to worsen, they can let their
staff run off of their
banked overtime and stay home with pay.

Ralph, It appears that 3 out of 4 people have immune
systems that react very rapidly to this virus and they
cannot become infected. They are primed by the fact
that Covid-19 is very similar to the cold virus so
immunity is pretty much built-in.

Of the 25% of the population left, 80% of them had no
or very mild symptoms. The remaining 20% is unclear
since they are not properly testing people but it
appears that the virus CAN be fatal to about 3% of them
however the treatment methods look to be working very
well. Perhaps this is the reason that there seems to be
a sharp drop in fatalities. Though perhaps it can be
more widespread testing which increases the baseline
and makes the mortality rate calculations.

What if rather than 80% having little to no symptoms,
only 5% do and only 3% of those are in danger? And
treatment appears to be working on 80% of those?

I am quite upset at the apparently total fake claims
from the CDC. It now appears that we will have fewer
than 10% of the predicted fatalities from the CDC and
that is not just room for error but totally missing the
mark.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
World wide, of the 418,136 cases which, to date, have
had an outcome:
329,731 (79%) Recovered
88,405 (21%) died
But don't worry folks Tommy says there is no danger.

In California
https://coronavirus.app/tracking/california
there are have been 18,909 cases diagnosed and 495
deaths and no
recoveries.
But don't worry folks Tommy says there is no danger.
--
cheers,

John B.


a larger perspective:

https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2020/04...death-numbers/


Note that CDC now wants any death from any cause listed as
Wuhan virus COVID19, if that tests as present.

That is rather outdated but the percentages are more or
less the same. But that's OK, according to all of the
people in the know here, covid-19 is so dangerous we have
to shut down the entire economy in order to defeat it.
They do not know the mortality rates, they don't know how
many people are naturally immune and they don't know the
numbers of people who are not naturally immune that have
had it or have it but they are positive that the sky is
falling.

Are all those reported COVID deaths imaginary?

If not all, can you tell us what percentage are imaginary?

That younger cycling friend of mine is still on a
ventilator. I think it's been a couple weeks now. If this
isn't real, I should try to get word to him.



It's a real problem and a death by drowning is not most
people's first choice of method. However, to take NY State
and NYC for example, total deaths from all causes are lower
than last year and reported influenza deaths are
significantly down. Despite a real and lamentable loss of
life, Wuhan virus death numbers are inflated, by how much no
one can say, but it is certainly the case.


Notwithstanding dying of boredom, wouldn’t you expect “death by all other
causes� to go down when people are staying home, not driving, etc?

There are other weirdnesses at work. According to this article, there's
been a drop in people showing up at ER for heart attacks and strokes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/w...ck-stroke.html

Maybe they're just afraid of getting COVID in the hospital - who knows?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/9/2020 3:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/9/2020 3:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/9/2020 1:02 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

BTW, some arguments seem strangely identical to what's
described in this paragraph:

"After first downplaying the threat of the coronavirus, then
accusing Democrats of overhyping it to hurt President Trump,
then claiming the “cure� of shutting down the economy
could be worse than the disease, Fox News’ hosts now seem
to be following a new set of marching orders when discussing
the deadly pathogen: questioning whether all that many
people are really dying from it."



Every Monday morning quarterback woulda called that play
better? Everyone 'knew' stocks would drop? Not!

Besides DiBlasio, Cuomo and other notables, New Orleans
Mayor LaToya Cantrell famously urged people to ignore the
virus risk and party on for Mardi Gras. Now she blames Mr
Trump, who didn't stop her from saying that!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-outbreak.html


Politicians are not alone in this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjNVuRoEBPs

Many people are stone cold guilty of lacking clairvoyance.
(me, f'rinstance)

Mr Trump was roundly castigated as a racist fearmonger for
banning inbound from China before any other country. And
that was 3-1/2 weeks before Mardi Gras, back when Dr Fauci
was saying 'not to worry, just a flu'. At some point
actions matter, or ought to.

Interesting use of the passive voice. Doubtlessly "Mr. Trump
was castigated as a racist" by some people. Simultaneously,
other people were doubtlessly saying he was not doing
enough. Those objecting to the administration's tactics are
not a monolithic block.

Yes, in the early days, there was not enough information to
tell how this was going to play out. Yes, some early
statements are now seen to be too mild (although heavily
edited video clips that remove context are not the best way
of documenting that.)

But science being what it is, information and data kept
arriving. Scientists and medical professionals being what
they are, their statements and recommendations changed in
response.

One problem with this administration was its sticking to a
Pollyanna message that directly ignored the most recent data
and professional recommendations. ("Just a few cases, and
the number is dropping.") That was in addition to its prior
moves that slowed response time and terribly limited testing
capacity. Oh, and subsequent moves, like redefining the
national stockpiles according to Jared's whim; and forcing
states to bid against each other for needed equipment.

And all that doesn't even touch on Trump's personal
leadership style - calling the governor of Washington a
"snake" (what other president has done that??); implying
that governors need to show obeisance to get federal help;
calling multiple reporters' questions "nasty." (Dude, if you
can't handle a tough question, you're in the wrong job!)

Trump is the polar opposite of a leader. There is no "buck
stops here" on his desk. That's partly why his crisis
response poll numbers are so much lower than those of W, of
Bush I, etc.

Is it Monday morning quarterbacking? Call it that if you
like. But that's what's been done, and is still being done,
with every president since Washington. (I'm still ticked off
about the Whiskey Rebellion.) Again, if someone wants to be
a World Leader, they should be smart enough to expect that.
Trump can't stand it because he wants only adulation. Sorry,
that's for monarchies, not democracies.

(BTW, when did Fauci say "it's just a flu"? I can't seem to
find that.)




I did not recall his words verbatim. Here are actual Dr
Fauci quotations.

"Dr. Fauci speaking to News Max reporter Greg Kelly on
January 21. Kelly addresses Fauci, “Bottom line. We don’t
have to worry about this one, right?”

Fauci replies, “Well, obviously you need to take it
seriously. And do the kinds of things that the CDC and the
Department of Homeland Security are doing, but this is not a
major threat for the people of the United States and this is
not something that the citizens of the United States right
now should be worried about.”

Mo

"One week earlier, on January 14, WHO Director-General
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, a second “expert” announced that
Chinese authorities had seen “no clear evidence of
human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus.”

(It was on New Years Day that Dr Li was picked up and
charged for 'spreading rumors' when he warned other doctors
of human to human contagion.)
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 13:20:02 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 12:54:50 PM UTC-7, Sepp Ruf wrote:
AMuzi wrote:
On 4/9/2020 12:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/9/2020 12:13 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 6:55:23 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:

https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2020/04...death-numbers/


Note that CDC now wants any death from any cause listed as
Wuhan virus COVID19, if that tests as present.

That is rather outdated but the percentages are more or
less the same. But that's OK, according to all of the
people in the know here, covid-19 is so dangerous we have
to shut down the entire economy in order to defeat it.
They do not know the mortality rates, they don't know how
many people are naturally immune and they don't know the
numbers of people who are not naturally immune that have
had it or have it but they are positive that the sky is
falling.

Maybe the "elite" are simply waiting to collect enough antibodies (for
themselves, first) from fully recovered patients.

Are all those reported COVID deaths imaginary?

If not all, can you tell us what percentage are imaginary?

That younger cycling friend of mine is still on a
ventilator. I think it's been a couple weeks now. If this
isn't real, I should try to get word to him.

You seem to be using your struggling friend as a human shield for your cheap
rhetoric. That's almost as bad as the conspicuous lack of supplying the
terrorized public with complete sets of (anonymous) patient data about each
and every recorded victim of Wuhan virus infection.

It's a real problem and a death by drowning is not most
people's first choice of method. However, to take NY State
and NYC for example, total deaths from all causes are lower
than last year and reported influenza deaths are
significantly down. Despite a real and lamentable loss of
life, Wuhan virus death numbers are inflated, by how much no
one can say, but it is certainly the case.

If anyone attempts to complain again about calling it the "Wuhan" virus,
point them to this:
https://youtu.be/t-QsyDdLUYw?t=5m59s
Or just call it the "Djung-guoa" virus to put clueless question marks on
their foreheads:
https://youtu.be/t-QsyDdLUYw?t=1h4m50s


--
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/understanding-cycles/gates-stupid-or-diabolical/

I think you're expressing the point I have been trying to make against a terrible headwind of hate.

The basic statistics that we presently have on the covid-19 are absolute garbage. They mean only that of the numbers of "confirmed" cases (arguing that most cases are not confirmed by the tests is not a valid argument since these come from places other than the US because here we are as a rule only testing people that have pretty descriptive symptoms) we can say that of these cases the mortality rate wonders between 1 and 3.5% depending upon the reporting period.

Tom, you have to be one of. if not the, stupidest persons in the
entire U.S.A.

No, they are not going to test the population of California, for
example, for the Virus. One, it would be too time consuming and two,
it would cost too much money. So they test those who exhibit symptoms
of the disease.

Tell us Tommy, have you ever been tested for Malaria? Well, of course
not... you have never exhibited any of the symptoms.

In Germany I would expect them to have a far more accurate idea but this is harmed by the fact that there are few cases to begin with so the actual infection rate may be relatively tiny with the population of 25% of the US and a far more homogenous society plus a less dense population which would normally limit the infection rates.

I really do want a Congressional investigation of the CDC after the next election when the Democrats are unable to politicize such an investigation.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 1:57:11 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/9/2020 3:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/9/2020 1:02 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

BTW, some arguments seem strangely identical to what's
described in this paragraph:

"After first downplaying the threat of the coronavirus, then
accusing Democrats of overhyping it to hurt President Trump,
then claiming the “cure†of shutting down the economy
could be worse than the disease, Fox News’ hosts now seem
to be following a new set of marching orders when discussing
the deadly pathogen: questioning whether all that many
people are really dying from it."



Every Monday morning quarterback woulda called that play better?
Everyone 'knew' stocks would drop? Not!

Besides DiBlasio, Cuomo and other notables, New Orleans Mayor LaToya
Cantrell famously urged people to ignore the virus risk and party on for
Mardi Gras. Now she blames Mr Trump, who didn't stop her from saying that!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-outbreak.html


Politicians are not alone in this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjNVuRoEBPs

Many people are stone cold guilty of lacking clairvoyance.
(me, f'rinstance)

Mr Trump was roundly castigated as a racist fearmonger for banning
inbound from China before any other country. And that was 3-1/2 weeks
before Mardi Gras, back when Dr Fauci was saying 'not to worry, just a
flu'. At some point actions matter, or ought to.

Interesting use of the passive voice. Doubtlessly "Mr. Trump was
castigated as a racist" by some people. Simultaneously, other people
were doubtlessly saying he was not doing enough. Those objecting to the
administration's tactics are not a monolithic block.

Yes, in the early days, there was not enough information to tell how
this was going to play out. Yes, some early statements are now seen to
be too mild (although heavily edited video clips that remove context are
not the best way of documenting that.)

But science being what it is, information and data kept arriving.
Scientists and medical professionals being what they are, their
statements and recommendations changed in response.

One problem with this administration was its sticking to a Pollyanna
message that directly ignored the most recent data and professional
recommendations. ("Just a few cases, and the number is dropping.") That
was in addition to its prior moves that slowed response time and
terribly limited testing capacity. Oh, and subsequent moves, like
redefining the national stockpiles according to Jared's whim; and
forcing states to bid against each other for needed equipment.

And all that doesn't even touch on Trump's personal leadership style -
calling the governor of Washington a "snake" (what other president has
done that??); implying that governors need to show obeisance to get
federal help; calling multiple reporters' questions "nasty." (Dude, if
you can't handle a tough question, you're in the wrong job!)

Trump is the polar opposite of a leader. There is no "buck stops here"
on his desk. That's partly why his crisis response poll numbers are so
much lower than those of W, of Bush I, etc.

Is it Monday morning quarterbacking? Call it that if you like. But
that's what's been done, and is still being done, with every president
since Washington. (I'm still ticked off about the Whiskey Rebellion.)
Again, if someone wants to be a World Leader, they should be smart
enough to expect that. Trump can't stand it because he wants only
adulation. Sorry, that's for monarchies, not democracies.

(BTW, when did Fauci say "it's just a flu"? I can't seem to find that.)

Knock off the bull**** you're usually passing out. One of the Lame Stream Media programs stated that Trump was saying that covid-19 was a hoax in October of 2019 when no one was even aware that there WAS such a thing and it wasn't until half-way through December before a Chinese surgeon sounded the alarm and a Chinese blogger carried the message to the world. And both of them have been disappeared.

The Lame Stream Media has labeled this "Trump's Virus" among other similar labels. This sounds like the sort of thing you most enjoy - lies to the limit.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...tail&FORM=VIRE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa7Q...=emb_rel_pause

You not only allow yourself to be used as nothing more than a tool of the left but you think it a prestigious position.

On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 2:26:30 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/9/2020 2:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/9/2020 12:47 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/9/2020 11:36 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/8/2020 10:34 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 08 Apr 2020 20:11:54 -0500, AMuzi
wrote:

On 4/8/2020 7:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 12:16:06 -0700 (PDT),
"
wrote:

On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 3:08:57 PM UTC-5, Tom
Kunich wrote:

Trump's tax cuts were not supposed to help you. Is
that what ticks you off? That people in the top 10%
actually lost money in the so-called tax cuts? That
they were designed to help America and not some dumb
ass special interest group. For the first time in
modern history a President worked FOR the electorate
and that's what you don't like.



You think the people in the top 10% income actually
lost money due to the 2018 Tax Act?ÂÂ* And you have
been touting yourself on this board as being a genius
and super smart.ÂÂ* The top 10% income own about 90% of
all the stock market.ÂÂ* And the 2018 Tax Act cut the
corporate tax rate to 20%.ÂÂ* Big reduction.ÂÂ* So
corporations instantly had more profit.ÂÂ* And that
usually translates to higher stock prices.ÂÂ* Of course
in 2018 Trump caused the SP500, Dow, Nasdaq to all
lose money.

As for working for the Electorate, when did companies
get a vote? Did the Republicans pass that law
recently?ÂÂ* Giving votes to companies based on how
much money they donated to Trump?ÂÂ* The 2018 Tax Act
was a corporate tax cut.

Ah but the top of the pile is paying far more than
their share
https://tinyurl.com/renqn2b
The top 10 percent pays 53.3 percent of all federal
taxes. And, 68% of
the federal income taxes.

The top 1 percent pays 24 percent of all federal taxes
and 35 percent
of all federal income taxes.


Yep, noted here frequently.

The US of A has one of the most radically progressive tax
systems on earth (AOC or Red Bernie diatribes
notwithstanding)

Well, one sure fire way to get elected is to argue that
if elected you
WILL reduce taxes!

(I've always thought that tithing might be the fairest
scheme :-)


Different argument entirely.

In reality, USA has among the most radically progressive
tax schemes in the world. You can embrace or decry that
situation but it's true nonetheless.

Tax schemes vary tremendously country by country. Rating how
progressive they are is not an easy task.

But it certainly seems to be true that income inequality and
wealth inequality are quite high in the U.S. compared to
most other westernized countries. Progressive taxes,
properly done, seem a way to address that.

It also seems likely that a wealthy minority surrounded by a
poverty stricken minority is bad for society. It's a recipe
for trouble, and it led to the election of a demagogue in 2016.

How long before a lot of those desperate poor voters realize
they've been scammed? How long before the mansions are
surrounded by crowds with torches and pitchforks? Or, more
realistically, AR-15s?

Hmm. Maybe I should buy stock in a guillotine company.



And yet.
Despite the few top earners[1] paying the overwhelming bulk of income
taxes, people with a bent toward finding inequality keep finding it.
Everywhere. If our extremely punitive rates for high earners are not a
solution, maybe we've attacked the wrong problem or done so in the wrong
way?Â* I don't know but since the recommended remedy was tried and has
utterly failed what do you suggest?

Kill all the kulaks? That was tried, didn't work either.
State ownership of productive assets? Been tried, repeatedly, in endless
permutations, never works.

Please see:
https://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/f...rogressive.jpg

Ah, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.

See https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...son_Foundation
"Peter G. Peterson, born June 5, 1926, is a controversial Wall Street
billionaire who uses his wealth to underwrite a diversity of
organizations and PR campaigns to generate public support for slashing
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, citing concerns over
"unsustainable" federal budget deficits."

Too bad he wasn't able to convince the Republicans that the huge tax cut
package was a bad idea, eh?

Nonetheless, those federal numbers are progressive. There are other
taxes that matter (e.g. sales taxes, other state and city taxes). And
there's the overall question about whether those are sufficiently
progressive.

The U.S. is experiencing tremendous differences in income and wealth,
terrific disparities between the richest and poorest. It's long been
experiencing a decrease in social mobility - that is, poor people have a
harder and harder time rising up the scale, no matter how hard they
work. It's harder and harder to survive on the minimum wage, let alone
to afford a good education and subsequent chance at a higher paying job.
Sometimes it seems that for every inner city woman having to waste an
hour on bus rides to her part time Walmart job, there's a CEO making
twenty times what his predecessor did in the 1970s.

Those people at the bottom were a big cohort voting for Trump. They were
scammed.

Anyone who wants to
discuss tax simplification with fewer
subsidies/carve-outs/entitlements/credits and so on write me directly as
that's another thing too.

That could be a reasonable step. It's awfully hard to do, though, when
the wealthy can so easily afford to buy congressmen. Oh, and congresswomen.

On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 2:43:27 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/9/2020 3:50 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
AMuzi wrote:
On 4/9/2020 12:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/9/2020 12:13 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 6:55:23 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/8/2020 8:02 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 10:20:53 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 7:35:32 PM UTC-7, Ralph
Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 9:03:19 PM UTC-4, John
B. wrote:
On Tue, 07 Apr 2020 19:03:33 -0500, AMuzi
wrote:

You could embrace the new religion, face Mosinee
Wisconsin
and give thanks for the sacred toilet paper we send
out to
redeem the world. It's suddenly the only sacred
artifact in
the nation.

(I don't understand this phenomenon either. It's
mystical.)

Did y'all "send out" toilet paper? I thought that it
was hoarded by
the multitudes and was no longer available in the
"the land of the
free and the home of the brave (with dirty bums)"?

Oh, they're sending it out. My long haul trucker
friend posted a
photo of a line of tractor trailers maybe a quarter
mile long. They
were lined up to pick up shipments of toilet paper.

We went to the grocery today. On the twenty foot long
double shelves
that are usually filled with packs of toilet paper,
we saw two packs
of Charmin (6 rolls each) and maybe 20 individual
discount rolls.
We snagged one Charmin pack. Woo hoo!

One interesting aspect: If this scare suddenly ends,
the toilet paper
factories will have to shut down for a month or more.
Nobody will
need to buy any for a long time.

- Frank Krygowski


I think it will actually work out well for them. The
toilet paper factories
are running flat out now. Once everybody has too much
and the virus
situation continues to worsen, they can let their
staff run off of their
banked overtime and stay home with pay.

Ralph, It appears that 3 out of 4 people have immune
systems that react very rapidly to this virus and they
cannot become infected. They are primed by the fact
that Covid-19 is very similar to the cold virus so
immunity is pretty much built-in.

Of the 25% of the population left, 80% of them had no
or very mild symptoms. The remaining 20% is unclear
since they are not properly testing people but it
appears that the virus CAN be fatal to about 3% of them
however the treatment methods look to be working very
well. Perhaps this is the reason that there seems to be
a sharp drop in fatalities. Though perhaps it can be
more widespread testing which increases the baseline
and makes the mortality rate calculations.

What if rather than 80% having little to no symptoms,
only 5% do and only 3% of those are in danger? And
treatment appears to be working on 80% of those?

I am quite upset at the apparently total fake claims
from the CDC. It now appears that we will have fewer
than 10% of the predicted fatalities from the CDC and
that is not just room for error but totally missing the
mark.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
World wide, of the 418,136 cases which, to date, have
had an outcome:
329,731 (79%) Recovered
88,405 (21%) died
But don't worry folks Tommy says there is no danger.

In California
https://coronavirus.app/tracking/california
there are have been 18,909 cases diagnosed and 495
deaths and no
recoveries.
But don't worry folks Tommy says there is no danger.
--
cheers,

John B.


a larger perspective:

https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2020/04...death-numbers/


Note that CDC now wants any death from any cause listed as
Wuhan virus COVID19, if that tests as present.

That is rather outdated but the percentages are more or
less the same. But that's OK, according to all of the
people in the know here, covid-19 is so dangerous we have
to shut down the entire economy in order to defeat it.
They do not know the mortality rates, they don't know how
many people are naturally immune and they don't know the
numbers of people who are not naturally immune that have
had it or have it but they are positive that the sky is
falling.

Are all those reported COVID deaths imaginary?

If not all, can you tell us what percentage are imaginary?

That younger cycling friend of mine is still on a
ventilator. I think it's been a couple weeks now. If this
isn't real, I should try to get word to him.



It's a real problem and a death by drowning is not most
people's first choice of method. However, to take NY State
and NYC for example, total deaths from all causes are lower
than last year and reported influenza deaths are
significantly down. Despite a real and lamentable loss of
life, Wuhan virus death numbers are inflated, by how much no
one can say, but it is certainly the case.


Notwithstanding dying of boredom, wouldn’t you expect “death by all other
causes� to go down when people are staying home, not driving, etc?

There are other weirdnesses at work. According to this article, there's
been a drop in people showing up at ER for heart attacks and strokes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/w...ck-stroke.html

Maybe they're just afraid of getting COVID in the hospital - who knows?


--
- Frank Krygowski

So, you demonstrate what I've been saying and then imply that there is no such thing?

On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 11:52:13 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 10:47:11 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/9/2020 11:36 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/8/2020 10:34 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 08 Apr 2020 20:11:54 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 4/8/2020 7:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 12:16:06 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 3:08:57 PM UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote:

Trump's tax cuts were not supposed to help you. Is that what ticks
you off? That people in the top 10% actually lost money in the
so-called tax cuts? That they were designed to help America and
not some dumb ass special interest group. For the first time in
modern history a President worked FOR the electorate and that's
what you don't like.



You think the people in the top 10% income actually lost money due
to the 2018 Tax Act?* And you have been touting yourself on this
board as being a genius and super smart.* The top 10% income own
about 90% of all the stock market.* And the 2018 Tax Act cut the
corporate tax rate to 20%.* Big reduction.* So corporations
instantly had more profit.* And that usually translates to higher
stock prices.* Of course in 2018 Trump caused the SP500, Dow,
Nasdaq to all lose money.

As for working for the Electorate, when did companies get a vote?
Did the Republicans pass that law recently?* Giving votes to
companies based on how much money they donated to Trump?* The 2018
Tax Act was a corporate tax cut.

Ah but the top of the pile is paying far more than their share
https://tinyurl.com/renqn2b
The top 10 percent pays 53.3 percent of all federal taxes. And, 68% of
the federal income taxes.

The top 1 percent pays 24 percent of all federal taxes and 35 percent
of all federal income taxes.


Yep, noted here frequently.

The US of A has one of the most radically progressive tax
systems on earth (AOC or Red Bernie diatribes notwithstanding)

Well, one sure fire way to get elected is to argue that if elected you
WILL reduce taxes!

(I've always thought that tithing might be the fairest scheme :-)


Different argument entirely.

In reality, USA has among the most radically progressive tax schemes in
the world. You can embrace or decry that situation but it's true
nonetheless.

Tax schemes vary tremendously country by country. Rating how progressive
they are is not an easy task.

But it certainly seems to be true that income inequality and wealth
inequality are quite high in the U.S. compared to most other westernized
countries. Progressive taxes, properly done, seem a way to address that.

It also seems likely that a wealthy minority surrounded by a poverty
stricken minority is bad for society. It's a recipe for trouble, and it
led to the election of a demagogue in 2016.

How long before a lot of those desperate poor voters realize they've
been scammed? How long before the mansions are surrounded by crowds with
torches and pitchforks? Or, more realistically, AR-15s?

Hmm. Maybe I should buy stock in a guillotine company.

So the poorer and less productive a country is the better they handle taxes. Is that what you're saying? It takes a real level of stupidity to believe that income inequality proves that wealth is a zero sum game. That if someone has more money that others of necessity have less. It would NEVER occur to you that all ships are floated by the same tide.

You are absolutely right. All ships are floated by the tide/

But some paddled their own canoe and now enjoy a much more gracious
life style than those who just sat there.

Frank, for example, is retired, owns his own house, his children seem
to have grown up as normal decent human beings and he seems quite
satisfied with his lot in life.

You, on the other hand, are a querulous old man, living in your
mother's house, in a California slum, unable to find employment and
worrying about how to pay for groceries.
--
cheers,

John B.