I can't even bring myself to think ahead for more than 24 hours at this point

That's why his followers love him as he doesn't at all sound like a politician. And he is a great communicator for his followers. And he's a genuine populist. — ssu

Yes. He has a tremendous connection to the common people of this country. He connects with them. Yes he acts like a carnival barker with his rubes, but I think that's just an act. He did reality tv for ten years, he knows what Americans like. He gives it to him. But underneath that he's a very shrewd judge of things. He blasted through the cream of the crop of the Republican party before he beat Hillary. No rube does that.

say that his instincts are against globalization.
— fishfry
That's the basic agenda in modern populism. — ssu

I used to be a globalist. t's only recently that I've started to question it. Globalism was a good idea for a while but now it seems to be just a mechanism for the elite to stripmine the wealth of society for themselves. People are starting to notice. Trump's riding that wave. Brexit's was a precursor. The peasants are breaking out the pitchforks.

A month ago nobody knew that China makes a huge percentage of the pharmaceuticals we use.
— fishfry
That sounds like a Trumpism. — ssu

LOL!! Yes it IS Trumpism! And he's right! He was the first major public figure to call out China's trade practices. I'm on record as believing that Trump's tough talk on trade may have kept the Chinese military out of Hong Kong. Trump got Xi's attention. I believe personally that in this, Trump has been historic. It's the bookend to Nixon going to China. Trump is the first president to stand up to China. To seriously renegotiate our relationship. I don't see anyone on the political landscape who I'd rather have doing this.

Perhaps one could assume that making cheap simple industrial things hasn't been very popular in the US. Manufacturing has left the country for cheaper labor, you know. — ssu

Aha. This is exactly how I used to think. The world's gotten small. We have transportation and communication that couldn't be dreamed of a century ago. Someone sneezes in China and Kleenex stock ticks up in Manhattan. Total connectivity. It's inevitable, so why fight it?

But that is a myth. The wholesale offloading of the US manufacturing sector to China was a plan, not a historical inevitability. Globalists do not care about their own country. That's the definition of a globalist. The heartland was gutted. Not because technology made it inevitable; but rather because powerful interests planned it that way for their own benefit, and to the detriment of the country.

That is how we got Donald Trump. He speaks for the victims of globalism. I've come to understand and agree with this point of view. And, not to put too fine a point on it, the obscene Federal bailout of debt-ridden businesses with literally crumbs for the workers is the proof. Of the reported $2.2T bailout, probably around $360B is going for the peasants and the rest, $1.8T or whatever, goes to big corporations to bail them out of their own mistakes and greed. I swear, I am with AOC when she railed against this awful bill today.

The fat cats slaughtered the sheep again. 2008 on steroids. And Trump signed it. What else could he do? A lot of times the deep state is too big even for him. He gets to be a hero though, the bailout's very popular at the moment. That guy Massie, the only guy in the Senate who stood up and said, "Hey, what the hell are we doing?" was literally branded an enemy of the state.

It's like living in Soviet Russia near the end. Every public act is a charade to hide the evil that can no longer be hidden.

I did. And I've right from the start said this: in 1968/1969 about 100 000 Americans died in the Hong Kong flu pandemic. It's a thing hardly anyone knows. A pandemic in 1968-1969??? Never heard. That's how things have changed. It's simply we don't take as granted that oh well, old people die. — ssu

The hysteria is beyond belief. I take all the recommended precautions, I'm a stay-at-home anyway so my lifestyle's barely affected except that my formerly lively little beach town is now a ghost town. But the hysteria out there frightens me. So WHY has an official national hysteria been planned? One that required the overnight cessation of our entire economy except for the titans of industry lining up for their taxpayer-provided bailouts. You'd almost think someone's using this medical panic to fleece the public. But what kind of person could be that cynical at a time like this?

No. What's really going to get under the American collective skin is if on average more people will die in the US than in other countries. If China gets away with thousands of dead, and in the US it's over hundred thousand (let's hope not), that's going to be a real irritant for Trump. We'll see how it goes in the next two months I guess. — ssu

Yeah, who the heck knows what's going on anyway. Nobody trusts the Chinese numbers. And how many of infections a country has is more a factor of how many people get tested than how many actual infections. We're not even measuring the right thing. Everyone's flying in the dark, people are dying, the media are whipping up hysteria, and the politicians just sold out even more of the country to the rich. What's going to happen is that the elite will prosper with the bailouts but main street will be in a depression. The rich will buy up the cheap assets just like they did after 2008. They are doing it again but on a much bigger scale. This is truly outrageous. I'm upset but what can I do? I stay home and hope I don't get the damn virus, just like everyone else.

Because what Trump does now will have an effect on his re-election. Being even a decent leader would surely make him win the re-election. If the US muddles through this pandemic, it's going to be fine. But if the response is far worse than Katrina, then it's a different story. — ssu

Trump's approval is up. I think the bailouts and Fed liquidity (QE-infinity) will probably goose at least a short term recovery before the election. I think it's Trump in a landslide right now. But if this whole thing goes south, Joe Biden could become president.

How do people think THAT's going to work out? The Hillary/Obama wing of the party back in power with a weak president who will do anything they say?

I regard that as a very frightening and very real possibility.

Trump is weirdly intuitive about things. Whether it's luck or skill, I'd say skill. Nobody puts up buildings in NYC without some smarts about people and things.
— fishfry
That seems to be what Trump lovers believe. Confirmation bias is a many splendored thing. — Relativist

I find the phrase "Trump lovers" the mark of a TDS sufferer. I would say that people who make an effort to understand Trump's appeal, without being blind to his many flaws, could understand why I made the remark I did. You're wrong. I don't love Trump. I understand why he's popular. And I'm disgusted by what's become of Democrats. Starting with this "Trump lover" crap.

Rather than try to understand why Trump is popular, the Dems would rather go on about Russiagate and Stormy and Cohen and racism and one hysteria after another; as an alternative to trying to understand why they lost such a winnable election against a complete political amateur.

I regard this as a fatal loss of vision and integrity that's led to three futile years of childish hysteria, culminating in the likely nomination of Joe Biden as their presidential candidate. That's your answer to "Trump lovers?" Joe Biden? If you made an effort to understand Trump's popularity you might have found a decent candidate.

So how do you like your chances with Joe? And how about that rape charge? You believe the woman?

And he's right! He was the first major public figure to call out China's trade practices. — fishfry

I'm not so sure about that. In the end it's the same discourse as we heard about NAFTA long time ago:


During that time China's economy was a little bigger than the Netherlands, I guess, so China wasn't on the forefront yet.

You'd almost think someone's using this medical panic to fleece the public. But what kind of person could be that cynical at a time like this? — fishfry

I don't think that it's that. As I said at the time when I didn't believe this would be serious, this is the only way governments can react. They cannot say "This isn't our problem". They cannot say "We aren't interested". And from that they will really do whatever they can. Which I still believe is the right thing to do.

Yeah, who the heck knows what's going on anyway. Nobody trusts the Chinese numbers. And how many of infections a country has is more a factor of how many people get tested than how many actual infections. We're not even measuring the right thing. — fishfry

I believe there is a truth to them. Even in China, there is a limit how much you can suppress the truth.
Unfortunately epidemics/pandemics can have different outcomes in different countries. One country takes a huge hit where another is left nearly untouched in an pandemic. The wrong way to think about it is that the country that has less infections has done it's job better than the other. That's why we didn't take the lessons learned from SARS etc. to heart as those countries that took a hit.

The complacency of Trump is quite understandable. Preventing pandemics (SARS, MERS, Ebola) had worked pretty well.

How do people think THAT's going to work out? The Hillary/Obama wing of the party back in power with a weak president who will do anything they say?

I regard that as a very frightening and very real possibility. — fishfry

The people who are outraged at the administration will only change.

I used to be a globalist. t's only recently that I've started to question it. Globalism was a good idea for a while but now it seems to be just a mechanism for the elite to stripmine the wealth of society for themselves. — fishfry

That's just capitalism. Give me a single economic policy of "globalism" that's not motivated by the interests of capitalism.

To seriously renegotiate our relationship. I don't see anyone on the political landscape who I'd rather have doing this. — fishfry

So, what has been negotiated so far?

but rather because powerful interests planned it that way for their own benefit, and to the detriment of the country. — fishfry

And just who are those powerful interests?

But the hysteria out there frightens me. So WHY has an official national hysteria been planned? — fishfry

How do you know it has been planned? Of those members here who support Trump, you're one of the interesting one's (actually, I think you're the only interesting one). Please don't tell me you've gone off the deep end.

How do people think THAT's going to work out? The Hillary/Obama wing of the party back in power with a weak president who will do anything they say?

I regard that as a very frightening and very real possibility — fishfry

How is that different from 8 years of Obama?

I regard this as a fatal loss of vision and integrity that's led to three futile years of childish hysteria, culminating in the likely nomination of Joe Biden as their presidential candidate. That's your answer to "Trump lovers?" Joe Biden? If you made an effort to understand Trump's popularity you might have found a decent candidate. — fishfry

I think I partially agree with you here, but I don't think understanding Trump's success really helps much unless you want to emulate Trump. It's a movement borne of disaffection and anger. Hard to turn that into something genuinely positive (not that I think the DNC are a bunch of saints).

I can't even bring myself to think ahead for more than 24 hours at this point — Maw

Would it help you to know that I was considering Yang? :victory:

I don't know — 180 Proof

I will take this under serious consideration maybe even my Mantra.
I hope you are well my friend :flower:

Would it help you to know that I was considering Yang? :victory: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Well, undeniably better than Trump

You as well, Tiff. :strong:

I hope nobody wins the nomination, but if it has to be someone, then Sanders

I hope nobody wins the nomination, — darthbarracuda

Your hoping that Bernie loses the least or what?

That's just capitalism. Give me a single economic policy of "globalism" that's not motivated by the interests of capitalism. — Echarmion

I didn't think I'd have to explain to anyone that our economic system is as far from capitalism as can be. I've seen it described as corporate socialism. Not to pick one example over another but just the other day I ran across a story. Capital One ("What's in YOUR Wallet?) made a horrible bet and lost a billion dollars. If they had to declare the loss their stockholders would be wiped out. Don't worry, though. The government did some financial chicanery to protect them.

CFTC Quietly Bails Out Capital One

Exclusive: Capital One got CFTC waiver after oil price plunge increased swap exposure - sources

So, what has been negotiated so far? — Echarmion

Are you being disingenuous? Trump has reconfigured our trade relationship with China using strong words during his campaign and tariffs now that he's president. If you're unaware of these ongoing developments, President Xi certainly isn't.

And just who are those powerful interests? — Echarmion

Read your Chomsky. Or maybe this is the first time anyone told you that the CIA writes the news you read. What kind of magic fairyland do people think we live in where everything's like it's supposed to be in high school civics, which I hear they don't even bother to try to teach anymore.

But the hysteria out there frightens me. So WHY has an official national hysteria been planned?
— fishfry

How do you know it has been planned? Of those members here who support Trump, you're one of the interesting one's (actually, I think you're the only interesting one). Please don't tell me you've gone off the deep end. — Echarmion

Thank you for the kind words. You're absolutely right. I meant to write "declared." Why have the media declared a national hysteria? In another post I suggested that it's not out of the question that the response is part of a larger globalist plan. But for me, "not out of the question" is never confused with "I know." I do like to speculate, and to try to put current events into the historical context of powerful people doing nasty things for their own benefit. An economic crash in an election year is always bad for the incumbent, especially one like Trump who brags about the stock market. (When he was running for president he accurately pointed out that the whole thing was a house of cards, but he evidently forgot that).

So it's not out of the question that a nasty flu came around (even Dr Fauci is now admitting that the death rate could be more like 0.1%, rather than the ten-times-worse 1% he announced last week) and the powers that be said, "This is it, tell the country to shut down all commerce, tank Wall Street AND Main Street, and Trump will be thrown out of office). I not only believe that's possible, I regard at as strongly possible. I'd go so far as to say likely.

After all the stock market was totally ready for a big fall. Everyone knows it was a Fed-induced bubble. Now the Fed's blowing yet another, bigger bubble. It's not clear whether it's going to inflate this time though.

But point being that I DO believe certain powerful interests wouldn't mind a huge financial crash this year; and certainly we didn't shut down the economy in 2016 when 80,000 Americans died of the flu (official CDC number).

So with that in the back of my mind, I said the hysteria was planned when in that particular context, declared made more sense. What I mean is, why didn't the media declare a hysteria in 2018? I'd really like a rational answer to that. 80,000 dead is a lot. I never even heard about it till the CDC announced the number in 2019. Why not? I'm curious.

How is that different from 8 years of Obama? — Echarmion

He had his foot on the throat of the economy the entire time. In fact Obama is somewhat correct when he takes clam for Trump's (pre-crash) economy. It was the economy we would have had if Obama had let it happen. Obama did a lot of bad things, this isn't the time to go into all that but his foreign policy was Bush's 3rd and 4th terms and that's exactly what the Obama/Hillary wing would bring back if Biden became president. More wars, and the left won't say a peep if they get a few social justice programs and plenty of social justice rhetoric.

I don't want another 8 years of Obama. And neither, let me point out, did the American people.

I think I partially agree with you here, but I don't think understanding Trump's success really helps much unless you want to emulate Trump. It's a movement borne of disaffection and anger. Hard to turn that into something genuinely positive (not that I think the DNC are a bunch of saints). — Echarmion

The Dems prefer to call the heartland racists and deplorables, rather than come to terms with the neoliberal selling out of that very heartland the past 30 years. You say disaffection and anger. Over what? The Dems will tell you it's anger over minorities and gays. That's bs. The Dems won't come to terms with the consequences of their own economic policies. This is what the 2016 election is about and it's what the 2020 election is about. The Dems hate the country they claim to want to lead. Strong words. I'll stand by them. I've been seriously radicalized watching the Dems in action lately.

I didn't think I'd have to explain to anyone that our economic system is as far from capitalism as can be. I've seen it described as corporate socialism. Not to pick one example over another but just the other day I ran across a story. Capital One ("What's in YOUR Wallet?) made a horrible bet and lost a billion dollars. If they had to declare the loss their stockholders would be wiped out. Don't worry, though. The government did some financial chicanery to protect them. — fishfry

That's the old argument of "it isn't true capitalism". But that's about as convincing as the equal and opposite "real socialism has never been tried". The fact of the matter is that capitalism has always included state intervention. Capitalists try to capture the state using their economic power. It's in their interest to do so. The mythical "pure capitalism" that has never existed is nothing but a fairy tale used to conceal the downsides of the real and existing economic system.

I call the system we have right now capitalism. You can disagree with the name, but it doesn't matter what we call it. The fact is the policies you blame on "globalism" are motivated by economic interests. The interests of the holder of capital. If you don't want to contest that point, you can call the economic system whatever you like.

Are you being disingenuous? Trump has reconfigured our trade relationship with China using strong words during his campaign and tariffs now that he's president. If you're unaware of these ongoing developments, President Xi certainly isn't. — fishfry

That's not a negotiation though. That's the administration using what tools they have to try and get a reaction. I have yet to see evidence that anything of substance has or will come of it. The hard reality is that the american standard of living depends on outsourcing production to countries with cheap labour. If you want to get the manufacturing jobs back, you have to accept a significant reduction in the standard of living.

Read your Chomsky. Or maybe this is the first time anyone told you that the CIA writes the news you read. What kind of magic fairyland do people think we live in where everything's like it's supposed to be in high school civics, which I hear they don't even bother to try to teach anymore. — fishfry

That's not an answer. Are you saying the CIA is outsourcing jobs?

Why have the media declared a national hysteria? — fishfry

It gets people to watch more media.

n another post I suggested that it's not out of the question that the response is part of a larger globalist plan. But for me, "not out of the question" is never confused with "I know." I do like to speculate, and to try to put current events into the historical context of powerful people doing nasty things for their own benefit. — fishfry

I cannot think of many powerful people that benefit from an economic downturn. Powerful people are, by and large, rich people, and rich people like to make money.

So it's not out of the question that a nasty flu came around (even Dr Fauci is now admitting that the death rate could be more like 0.1%, rather than the ten-times-worse 1% he announced last week) and the powers that be said, "This is it, tell the country to shut down all commerce, tank Wall Street AND Main Street, and Trump will be thrown out of office). I not only believe that's possible, I regard at as strongly possible. I'd go so far as to say likely. — fishfry

Right. And I guess the "powers that be" simultaneously control the US, Europe, China, India etc. Do you really believe in a world conspiracy? You're only one step away from "it's the jews" at this point.

But point being that I DO believe certain powerful interests wouldn't mind a huge financial crash this year; and certainly we didn't shut down the economy in 2016 when 80,000 Americans died of the flu (official CDC number). — fishfry

Current deaths in the US are 900 a day and rising. It'll take less than 3 months to pass 80.000 deaths.

So with that in the back of my mind, I said the hysteria was planned when in that particular context, declared made more sense. What I mean is, why didn't the media declare a hysteria in 2018? I'd really like a rational answer to that. 80,000 dead is a lot. I never even heard about it till the CDC announced the number in 2019. Why not? I'm curious. — fishfry

Because we have been dealing with the flu for centuries. The health care system can deal with infections from the flu. It cannot deal with infections from the flu and an additional viruse that is more infectious and several times more deadly than the flu. LIke, do you watch international news at all? Do you think Italy and Spain are currently putting on a show for the benefit of american voters?

I don't want another 8 years of Obama. And neither, let me point out, did the American people. — fishfry

I guess we'll never know, since Obama wasn't up for reelection.

You say disaffection and anger. Over what? The Dems will tell you it's anger over minorities and gays. That's bs. — fishfry

Aren't evangelical christians central to the powerbase of the republican party? Without their religious feelings concerning gays, abortion etc., the republican party wouldn't win a single election.

he Dems won't come to terms with the consequences of their own economic policies. — fishfry

How have the democratic economic policies been different from republican ones? Reagan is the father of neoliberalism, after all.

The Dems hate the country they claim to want to lead. Strong words. I'll stand by them. I've been seriously radicalized watching the Dems in action lately. — fishfry

I'd say you have been seriously radicalised by entering a filter bubble on the extreme right wing.

I'm not so sure about that. In the end it's the same discourse as we heard about NAFTA long time ago: — ssu

And Ross Perot was right! He talked about the loss of jobs from the US and he talked a lot about our crazy aunt in the basement, the national debt. Which is a heck of a lot bigger today than it was back then. How long to people think this can go on? Longer than anyone thought, but not forever.

Ah Ross Perot. Cost Bush 41 his reelection and gave us the Clintons. Of course some argue that point too, but I think Perot pulled the fiscal conservatives from Bush.

During that time China's economy was a little bigger than the Netherlands, I guess, so China wasn't on the forefront yet. — ssu

We're talking Nixon? I think if he knew how China was going to turn out he wouldn't have bothered. The dream of "good world citizen China" isn't working at all. Nixon did see how big they'd be though. Maybe it's still too soon to know.

You'd almost think someone's using this medical panic to fleece the public. But what kind of person could be that cynical at a time like this?
— fishfry
I don't think that it's that. — ssu

Well of course YOU are not the kind of terrible person who would even voice a speculative idea like that. I am, of course. It was Obama's Chicago buddy Rahm Emanuel who said, "Never let a crisis go to waste." Surely you can't believe NO ONE's using this medical panic to fleece the public. Right? So we're both somewhere along the continuum, but I'm a pretty cynical observer of politics.

As I said at the time when I didn't believe this would be serious, this is the only way governments can react. They cannot say "This isn't our problem". They cannot say "We aren't interested". And from that they will really do whatever they can. Which I still believe is the right thing to do. — ssu

Ok. Just tell me this. Why wasn't there a national panic and stay-at-home orders when 80,000 died of the flu in 2016. Yes R-zero and flatten the curve and exponential growth and death rates and so forth, I read the papers too. But really, 80,000's a lot. Nobody said a word. Why is that, exactly?

Yes I know the government has to "do something." I don't say I'd run things any better. I can't refute your point but I'm very uneasy about what's going on. Just from a civil liberties point of view, this is all disturbing.

I believe there is a truth to them. Even in China, there is a limit how much you can suppress the truth.
Unfortunately epidemics/pandemics can have different outcomes in different countries. One country takes a huge hit where another is left nearly untouched in an pandemic. The wrong way to think about it is that the country that has less infections has done it's job better than the other. That's why we didn't take the lessons learned from SARS etc. to heart as those countries that took a hit.

The complacency of Trump is quite understandable. Preventing pandemics (SARS, MERS, Ebola) had worked pretty well. — ssu

I don't get that he was or is complacent. I seem to recall him restricting Chinese immigration while the Dems were busy impeaching him and calling him a racist for his troubles. You mistake his expressed optimism and hope for complacency. Didn't he form a coronavirus task force in January during the impeachment? I confess I don't run down every rabbit hole of point-counterpoint in these political squabbles. You use the word complacent, I say you are assuming facts not in evidence.

The people who are outraged at the administration will only change. — ssu

You are saying nothing's at stake. Maybe you're right. I don't agree. I might have formerly felt that way. I the past three years the Democrats and the left have frightened me very much. I actively oppose them now. I think the upcoming election matters a lot.

The fact of the matter is that capitalism has always included state intervention. Capitalists try to capture the state using their economic power. It's in their interest to do so. The mythical "pure capitalism" that has never existed is nothing but a fairy tale used to conceal the downsides of the real and existing economic system. — Echarmion

:clap:

That's not a negotiation though. That's the administration using what tools they have to try and get a reaction. I have yet to see evidence that anything of substance has or will come of it. The hard reality is that the american standard of living depends on outsourcing production to countries with cheap labour. If you want to get the manufacturing jobs back, you have to accept a significant reduction in the standard of living. — Echarmion

This is of course interesting. A significant reduction in the standard of living because you can buy less cheap crap. But what would a society win if it has a strong manufacturing base? That really depends on what it would look like of course. What if it comes with increased respect for the working class, better working conditions etc.? The "less stuff" may be outweighed by intangible benefits.

CFTC Quietly Bails Out Capital One

Exclusive: Capital One got CFTC waiver after oil price plunge increased swap exposure - sources — fishfry

That first one is really a very misleading title. They've relaxed rules for posting of collateral, which is temporary regulatory relief. Capital Requirements for banks have also been relaxed.

:up: :100:

We're talking Nixon? I think if he knew how China was going to turn out he wouldn't have bothered. The dream of "good world citizen China" isn't working at all. Nixon did see how big they'd be though. Maybe it's still too soon to know. — fishfry

No, actually the time of Perot. China's economy was still rather small in 1990. Or lets say that Netherlands GDP is actually large, the 17th biggest in the World. China was small back then. Remember that the country feared famine in the 1970's and even 1980's.

Shanghai traffic in the 1970s, note the horse drawn wagon:


Shanghai in the 1980s, still bicycles:


Shanghai traffic in the 2010s:

Ok. Just tell me this. Why wasn't there a national panic and stay-at-home orders when 80,000 died of the flu in 2016. Yes R-zero and flatten the curve and exponential growth and death rates and so forth, I read the papers too. But really, 80,000's a lot. Nobody said a word. Why is that, exactly? — fishfry

1) Because we have the capability to prevent pandemics.
2) Because we don't tolerate the idea of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands dying because of a pandemic in this Century.

Just how did you react to 9/11? You see, at other times you could have simply stated that it was a bad thing, yet as a crime it is a police matter: Have the FBI hunt down the perpetrators just like they had with the earlier bombing. Have OBL go to a US jail. No wars.

Just from a civil liberties point of view, this is all disturbing. — fishfry

It might be. What's happening in Hungary is disturbing. But ask if New Yorkers want this experience that they are now experiencing to be a re-occurring event. I don't think they will be OK with that. I think after this pandemic, their attitude will be "never again". And they won't care a shit if you or anybody else comes to say that shelter-in orders or putting people into quarantine when coming from an area with an epidemic is against civil liberties.

This is of course interesting. A significant reduction in the standard of living because you can buy less cheap crap. But what would a society win if it has a strong manufacturing base? That really depends on what it would look like of course. What if it comes with increased respect for the working class, better working conditions etc.? The "less stuff" may be outweighed by intangible benefits. — Benkei

That is an interesting question yes. The other interesting question is what happens to the labourers in the manufacturing countries. Unless we're planning a glorious revolution, just "getting all the jobs back" might be bad for everyone involved. Livelihoods on both sides of the membrane will be seriously compromised.

If we're willing to continue with a market based approach to labour, turning back the clock is, imho, not the right way of thinking. Why not make use of arbitrage to move jobs where they're most desperately needed. Then make sure those jobs have good working conditions and. Pay relatively well.

If there is one good thing about the Corona it is that it puts a damper on the wild rush into globalism. I am old enough to remember a time before China became the world`s factory with its slave labour and environmental armaggedon, and I remember life was not bad then. There IS life without the CCP.

and certainly we didn't shut down the economy in 2016 when 80,000 Americans died of the flu (official CDC number). — fishfry

This is first of all incorrect: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2016-2017.html

28,000 to 61,000 is the right number.

Second, the two diseases are nowhere near comparable. First of all, most people have some resistance to the flu for being exposed to it before, meaning it's less contagious as not everyone will infect another person. For CV in principle any person is capable of infecting another if you don't take precautions. The spread for CV is therefore much faster.

Third, the latest estimate for CV death rate = .66% compared to the .1% for the flu. Doing nothing would mean it would infect about 50-60% of US citizens much less than for the flu because a lot of people have (partial) resistance to the latter (e.g. only 10% is symptomatic, so possibly 20% at the most). The CV death rate would mean 1,079,100 to 1,294,920 deaths on a 327 million population for the US.

And that's still excluding the effects of deaths due to the unavailability of health care resource not directly related to CV.

80,000 is therefore entirely manageable, especially spread out over the entire flu season and the entirity of the USA, where CV is currently still more or less limited to a couple of epicenters. CV is not manageable unless you include social distancing and wait for a cure.

It's nonetheless an important question to ask why indeed there are tens of thousands of deaths from the common flu regardless. I haven't looked into it with any depth, but it does seem that the distribution of death skews heavily towards those in the lowest socio-economic brackets. So while the WhAt AbOuT tHe CoMmOn FlU? Question is stupid and disingenuous, there's lots to be said about the continuity of failure with respect to the treatment of both.

That's the old argument of "it isn't true capitalism". But that's about as convincing as the equal and opposite "real socialism has never been tried". The fact of the matter is that capitalism has always included state intervention. Capitalists try to capture the state using their economic power. It's in their interest to do so. The mythical "pure capitalism" that has never existed is nothing but a fairy tale used to conceal the downsides of the real and existing economic system.

I call the system we have right now capitalism. You can disagree with the name, but it doesn't matter what we call it. The fact is the policies you blame on "globalism" are motivated by economic interests. The interests of the holder of capital. If you don't want to contest that point, you can call the economic system whatever you like. — Echarmion

I agree with you and concede your point that rather than my claiming "this isn't real capitalism,"; on the contrary, what we have now is the inevitable result of capitalism. I'm not up on the details but I gather this would be Marx's prescient critique of late-stage capitalism.

I don't necessarily disagree with my own point, but I do agree with yours. I hold a little of both. What we have isn't capitalism, but maybe it is after all and Marx was right. I don't think Adam Smith anticipated the Fed bailing out the bad bets of private corporations. For what it's worth I'm against that.

That's not a negotiation though. That's the administration using what tools they have to try and get a reaction. I have yet to see evidence that anything of substance has or will come of it. The hard reality is that the american standard of living depends on outsourcing production to countries with cheap labour. If you want to get the manufacturing jobs back, you have to accept a significant reduction in the standard of living. — Echarmion

I don't want to argue with you about Trump's handling of China. I believe that his stance has been historic, reversing decades of US policy for the better. I'll stipulate that you don't agree.

That's not an answer. Are you saying the CIA is outsourcing jobs? — Echarmion

The only thing I don't like about that kind of response is that it forces me to go look up the spelling of non sequitur. That's "not even wrong" as the physicists say.

Why have the media declared a national hysteria?
— fishfry

It gets people to watch more media. — Echarmion

Ok so we're at least in agreement on that. That there are two thing going on: a medical pandemic and a media-induced hysteria driven by agendas having nothing to do with the medical situation. And that it's legitimate to question and analyze the media hysteria. Once you accept that, we have no fundamental disagreement. In fact I'm even surprised you acknowledged that.

I cannot think of many powerful people that benefit from an economic downturn. Powerful people are, by and large, rich people, and rich people like to make money. — Echarmion

Rich people's lives don't change when they lose a billion dollars. If that's what it costs to, say, get rid of Trump or impose various globalist agendas, they can easily handle the loss. Honestly I'm sure this is something you already know. Are you playing naive just as a way of interacting with me? You act like you just fell off the turnip truck.

Right. And I guess the "powers that be" simultaneously control the US, Europe, China, India etc. Do you really believe in a world conspiracy? You're only one step away from "it's the jews" at this point. — Echarmion

[Mod Edit: Expression of extreme outrage and indignation.]

Thank you mod.

@Echarmion, I find your style of discourse distasteful. All the best.

even Dr Fauci is now admitting that the death rate could be more like 0.1% — fishfry

No, he never said that.

even Dr Fauci is now admitting that the death rate could be more like 0.1%
— fishfry

No, he never said that. — Baden

I did think I read what I posted but if I'm wrong so be it. I don't dive too deeply into all the claims and counterclaims. So much conflicting information and politicized spin out there.

Seeing as you made an argument that relies on that data, you're obliged to make sure it's correct.

Anyhow here:

https://www.livescience.com/new-coronavirus-compare-with-flu.html

"The death rate from seasonal flu is typically around 0.1% in the U.S"

"In the study published Feb. 18 in the China CDC Weekly, researchers found a death rate from COVID-19 to be around 2.3% in mainland China. Another study of about 1,100 hospitalized patients in China, published Feb. 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that the overall death rate was slightly lower, around 1.4%"

So, our best estimates right now place the overall death rate from COVID19 at 14 to 23 times that of a seasonal flu. These rates shoot up when health systems get overburdened simply because a larger proportion of people can't get treated and just die because of that. Add to that the extreme virulence of COVID compared to the seasonal flu and that's why without strong measures you are guaranteed a break down in your health systems. And even with strong measures that can still happen. For example, even after a lockdown, the death rate in Italy shot up to 10% (100 times the flu death rate) because of this effect (combined with their older demographic). If they hadn't done anything, they could have easily been heading for half a million dead.

I did think I read what I posted but if I'm wrong so be it. I don't dive too deeply into all the claims and counterclaims. So much conflicting information and politicized spin out there. — fishfry

Fishfry shouting from the rooftops that he has no capacity for critical thinking.