Economics not bicycle tech

On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 11:48:38 -0700 (PDT), 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.

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.

Wrong again.

The CDC instructions, in the CDC published "Physicians Handbook", in
the section covering filling out a death certificate, states that:

"The cause of death entry is designed to elicit the opinion of the
medical certifier. Cause of death on the certificate represent a
medical opinion that might vary among physicians..."

So, once again you display your ignorance for all the world to see.

You are perfectly fine with accepting these sorts of games being played by the CDC because they happen to fit your purpose. You are willing to tell us that your friends are dying from covid even if they are not because that is your political spin.
--
cheers,

John B.

On 4/9/2020 6:33 PM, AMuzi wrote:
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.)

Again, at the point those things were said, that's what the data was
indicating. As more data became available, the medical experts reacted
to it and changed their advice. This is reasonable behavior. This is
what happens with science.

Certain politicians did not react to the data, and instead reacted to
their political concerns. That was irresponsible behavior. And at times,
those politicians had to be (very carefully) contradicted by medical
professionals. The care was necessary because they knew there was risk
that they might hear "You're fired!" and no longer be able to serve
their country.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 09:13:12 -0700 (PDT), 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.

Tommy, I'm going to tell you a story.

Way back in the 1960's young men were literally flocking out of the
country to avoid the draft, "to be sent to Vietnam to die". One writer
stated that "Estimates of the total number of American citizens who
moved to Canada range from 50,000 to 125,000 This exodus was "the
largest politically motivated migration from the United States since
the United Empire Loyalists moved north to oppose the American
Revolution."

The reality was that in 1968, the worst year of the war, some 16,899
U.S. forces were killed. FOR ONE YEAR.

Now, we are told that in the U.S., for the 75 days that the Virus has
been active, some 16,485 have died. FOR 75 DAYS.
(If you project that rate of death for an entire year you arrive at
the number "80,227")

Forgetting any heart stopping projections, by tomorrow, we will likely
reach a death toll that 50 years ago so terrified the younger
generation that they ran away to Canada.

And you tell us, "Don't worry"?

Tomorrow we can talk about the economic "downturn" caused be the Virus
if you wish.
AFP news, this morning, has it that some 17 million USians have lost
their jobs since mid-March.
--
cheers,

John B.

On 4/9/2020 9:20 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 09:13:12 -0700 (PDT), 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.

Tommy, I'm going to tell you a story.

Way back in the 1960's young men were literally flocking out of the
country to avoid the draft, "to be sent to Vietnam to die". One writer
stated that "Estimates of the total number of American citizens who
moved to Canada range from 50,000 to 125,000 This exodus was "the
largest politically motivated migration from the United States since
the United Empire Loyalists moved north to oppose the American
Revolution."

The reality was that in 1968, the worst year of the war, some 16,899
U.S. forces were killed. FOR ONE YEAR.

Now, we are told that in the U.S., for the 75 days that the Virus has
been active, some 16,485 have died. FOR 75 DAYS.
(If you project that rate of death for an entire year you arrive at
the number "80,227")

Forgetting any heart stopping projections, by tomorrow, we will likely
reach a death toll that 50 years ago so terrified the younger
generation that they ran away to Canada.

And you tell us, "Don't worry"?

There's this interesting animation.:
https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/1812248/



--
- Frank Krygowski

Tom Kunich wrote:
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?


No, the article states that people are not arriving at the ER stating that
they’re having a heart attack. Your statement is the people leaving the ER
in a casket after a heart attack are being tagged as dying from COVID-19.
Different statements.

On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 16:12:19 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

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?Â* And you have
been touting yourself on this board as being a genius
and super smart.Â* The top 10% income own about 90% of
all the stock market.Â* And the 2018 Tax Act cut the
corporate tax rate to 20%.Â* Big reduction.Â* So
corporations instantly had more profit.Â* And that
usually translates to higher stock prices.Â* 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?Â* Giving votes to companies based on how
much money they donated to Trump?Â* 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?* 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

Do you mean like Eisenhower did and it caused massive industrial growth? Like Reagan did and it caused massive industrial growth. Like Trump did and it too triggered massive industrial growth?

Seems to me that you're growing more and more mindless by the minute.

Lets see... Eisenhower drastically cut spending, largely on the
military and refused to make tax cuts.

Reagan, an economy mired in stagflation, a combination of double-digit
economic contraction and double-digit inflation. He aggressively cut
taxes.

Yup, sounds like the same thing.

--
cheers,

John B.

On 4/9/2020 10:03 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 16:12:19 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

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.

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

Do you mean like Eisenhower did and it caused massive industrial growth? Like Reagan did and it caused massive industrial growth. Like Trump did and it too triggered massive industrial growth?

Seems to me that you're growing more and more mindless by the minute.

Lets see... Eisenhower drastically cut spending, largely on the
military and refused to make tax cuts.

Reagan, an economy mired in stagflation, a combination of double-digit
economic contraction and double-digit inflation. He aggressively cut
taxes.

Yup, sounds like the same thing.

We could try Eisenhower's tax rules. What was that top rate again?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 21:47:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/9/2020 9:20 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 09:13:12 -0700 (PDT), 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.

Tommy, I'm going to tell you a story.

Way back in the 1960's young men were literally flocking out of the
country to avoid the draft, "to be sent to Vietnam to die". One writer
stated that "Estimates of the total number of American citizens who
moved to Canada range from 50,000 to 125,000 This exodus was "the
largest politically motivated migration from the United States since
the United Empire Loyalists moved north to oppose the American
Revolution."

The reality was that in 1968, the worst year of the war, some 16,899
U.S. forces were killed. FOR ONE YEAR.

Now, we are told that in the U.S., for the 75 days that the Virus has
been active, some 16,485 have died. FOR 75 DAYS.
(If you project that rate of death for an entire year you arrive at
the number "80,227")

Forgetting any heart stopping projections, by tomorrow, we will likely
reach a death toll that 50 years ago so terrified the younger
generation that they ran away to Canada.

And you tell us, "Don't worry"?

There's this interesting animation.:
https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/1812248/

Interesting. I hadn't realized that it was THAT high.

But as Tommy says, if you subtract all the heart problem deaths from
the Covid-19 numbers it becomes quite a quite benign number.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 9:26:07 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/9/2020 2:32 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 1:54:01 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 3:57:44 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 3:16:03 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 08 Apr 2020 09:57:38 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 3:32:04 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote:
On Tue, 07 Apr 2020 13:08:54 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:


Jay, you can't let a chance go by to show you're crazy can you? Just
the PROPERTY that Trump owns makes him a billionaire.

Does he own them or are they owned by banks?

So among your other talents or lack of such, you cannot look it up?

So you are making another claim that you can not back up. No surprise.

All of Trump's companies own their own buildings and the land they sit on free and clear. Why would you insist otherwise? Trump is slightly more wealthy than Bloomberg which drives Bloomdoggle crazy. Over $50 Billion.

Why are you so willing to invent an entirely new world?

WTF? Even Trump doesn't claim outright ownership of his buildings or a net worth anywhere near $50B. You're unhinged.

-- Jay Beattie.

You mean you believe Trump leases buildings to operate hotels in? If that's true, he's definitely stupid enough to be President. Also, if it is true, old Fred Trump is to blame for not beating young Donald more often and harder. This is a red letter day, the first time in my life I've heard a lawyer say something quite that patently silly. Don't bother to go looking for examples; any you find will be tax shelter arrangements between the right hand and the left hand of the same owner -- definitely at arm's length from each other, and saying otherwise is definitely slander!

Andre Jute
Thanks for the giggle, man


You might be surprised. NYC real estate is amazingly complex
compared to the real world (I have no idea about DJT or any
of the Trump Organizations properties, leases, interests or
partnerships)

I do know that The Empire State Building was built in 1930
on leased land. Yes, the building owners do not own the land
under it, land which changed ownership in 2002 which is when
I learned that.

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

Talk about building on an unstable foundation! -- AJ

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/9/2020 3:54 PM, Sepp Ruf wrote:
AMuzi wrote:
On 4/9/2020 12:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

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.

Well, thanks for that bit of rhetoric. I guess we'll find out if it's
cheap when the bill arrives.

After two weeks on a respirator, chances someone will come out of this alive
and healthy are said to be diminishing. Why was I rude, nonetheless? You
did not respond to Tom's questions which were about data, not individual
risk to your friend. And I had previously asked you about this younger
cyclist's actual health status and level of (possibly excessive) recent
training, but you never answered.

Certain people are repeatedly saying the problem is confined to old
people or people with underlying conditions. I'm providing a
counterexample.

Yes, we've been shown counterexamples, And when we are given more info than
just patient age, they often appear to have been obese, smokers, vapers,
afflicted by other significant, or previously undetected health issues. I'm
absolutely not implying it was a patient's moral fault to fall ill. What
I'm saying is that it's immoral and unfair to clusterbomb the caged-in
citizen with personal stories of unfortunate outcomes while withholding
detailed sets of anonymized, aggregated patient data.