Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Whitley]

I personally don't think we're in a materially different position with pristine federal response. I personally think the cake was fucking baked when it hit NYC. And, make no mistake, the NYC metro area IS the epicenter. It's not Florida or Georgia or California. I think what's happening in NYC was written. And, for that matter, I think what we (both as American and human) are going to ultimately experience is pretty much unavoidable. The cases are going to happen. The deaths are going to happen. The numbers are the fucking numbers.

We've done a good job of creating hosptial capacity. We did a good job of making sure we didn't have people that were refused treatment. We're in a good position to deal with the numbers.

So, when I hear complaints about the federal or state or local response, my ultimate response is -- so what? it wouldn't have made a difference. It's like being a Western Carolina fan and complaining about the playcalling against Alabama. Sure, there were some spots that weren't good or could have been better, but you were going to lose by 50 no matter what the fuck you did. Maybe with better playcallling it's 59-10 instead of 56-3. Nonmaterial.

Actually, I think an actual good federal response would have been this.

1) Do not get rid of the pandemic response team in the first place. The pittance they are paid would have been far more worth it. It is like insurance. You have it just in case you need. And I would have actually made sure I had the supplies after drawing off the strategic reserve, and ordered more after giving some to China (which was the right impulse). Sure we might have been gotten to the same place but it would have taken longer to get there (as far as supplies go).

2) When learning of it coming into the US, actually take this seriously and start talking about it and what steps are going to be needed to combat it.That everyone is going to need to do their part and the governments on the state and national level will do what it takes to make sure we can get through this time (being more vague at first and providing more details as it gets more serious).

Now that would have helped with the medical supply side of things. Now, this what the feds should have done (and could still do) when the shit hits the fan.

3) I would have said long and hard that the major corporations that got hit hard with this that they would be taken care but for the moment they would have to wait. Why? Because this American economy runs on consumer confidence and is a service economy. And I would be taking a bottom up approach. Again because 60% of the jobs in the American economy are small businesses and they need to be taken care (along with the working class) first. Those are the ones that probably don't have a huge margin of error to begin with. Small businesses would still have the loans (that would turn into grants if taking care of payroll) and I would say that if the money ran out we would add more to it. I would not say 75% of your money has to be spent on payroll (which the intent was good but that could be manipulated in a bunch of ways)---I would say that you have to retain 80+% of your workforce on payroll/furloughed without cutting wages. Once that is done you can spend the extra however you wish and if you do that throughout the pandemic then your loans turn into grants (from the feds).

4) Unemployment deal that went through I think is fine and if needed you revisit this in June and July about extending extra $600/week.

5) Those that are considered "essential" workers (and I would define that as having a job that you HAVE to conduct face to face). They would be getting hazard pay on top of their wages. The government would issue a debit card that would be mailed to their physical address (ie something akin to postal banking). There would be X amount on it every month during the course of this pandemic. They would have to call a number or go online to activate the card (just like a credit card). This card would reload every month and if there was money on it it would roll over. This would get money flowing into mostly the working class incomes and those people are going to spend it so it would be a force multiplier in the economy.

6) Would say that no one during the course of the pandemic is going to be evicted from their place of residence, lose their utilities (and I would include internet in that) or face repossession on their cars/trucks and student loans going into default (I give credit to the feds here they did that with their loans). Also that these payments are not going to stack up and wait for you and the end of this. It will just be tacked on to the end of your term/lease (ie if you have 19 years and 1 month and this lasts 5 months you have 19 years and 6 months).

7) Say anyone that winds up in the hospital because of Covid 19 will not have to worry about going bankrupt over this. If you don't have insurance that will cover this (and I would press all insurance companies to pick up the tab here) then the federal government will do.

8) Stimulus check I liked the idea but the execution on the state level (going via the IRS) was horrible on the state level. Still would do it.

Now with these things several things have been accomplished. 1) I have taken away fear of losing your home/job etc. (at least the vast majority of it), 2) I have put money into the economy from the bottom up giving it a force multiplier (because these people will be spending it) so the economy will not going full bore has more money flowing through it than right now and 3) I have insured those lower down on the economic ladder don't have to worry about medical bankruptcy because of this.

Now it would be time to deal with the big corporations. Of course, we need corporations. They take care of 40% of the jobs in the US. And while it is not their fault that this pandemic happened--they should be able to handle something like this than small businesses.

1) If you are a corporation that does not headquarter here it is going to be harder for you to get this money (not impossible but someone like Carnival Cruises who HQs elsewhere because they can get away easier with having awful working conditions/treatment of workers will have a very skeptical eye on them) that is not unreasonable.

2) If you were a corporation that got a bailout last time around (the Great Recession), we are going to take a long hard look why you need one now. What did you do with the money that was given to you last time? And there are going likely going to be more strings attached to your company than one appearing here the first time.

3) Any corporation that takes money from the federal government is going to give up some equity in it to the feds. The percentage can be negotiated (along with voting rights and other things) but you are going to give up some of it. If you don't want to do that then I guess you don't need the federal money that bad then.


Now, that the short and medium term have been dealt with economically. Time to look to the longer term, and realize that not every business is going to make it through this so there are going to be people unemployed (likely millions). So you start a conversation about maybe some public works that can be done. The infrastructure in this country needs a lot of work, maybe you start looking at doing a massive infrastructure and a training program (money given straight to Community colleges) to get the numbers of people needed for a massive amount. I am talking like WPA and CCC type of things.

[iam416]

In terms of the response to the actual medical issue, I don't take much issue. However, I stand firmly behind this:

So, when I hear complaints about the federal or state or local response, my ultimate response is -- so what? it wouldn't have made a difference. It's like being a Western Carolina fan and complaining about the playcalling against Alabama. Sure, there were some spots that weren't good or could have been better, but you were going to lose by 50 no matter what the fuck you did. Maybe with better playcallling it's 59-10 instead of 56-3. Nonmaterial.

Your criticisms and proposals are all perfectly fine re the medical side, but I don't think they matter much.

The economic stuff is where this going to be a huge policy debate. A lot of it is one-size fits all and that just doesn't make sense. I think it's ludicrous that people who are still gainfully employed get a stimulus check (like me!). I think it's ludicrous that people paying rent who are still gainfully employed don't have to pay rent. I think if you're going to do something re rent you have to do something re landlords which ultimately means mortgage companies eat the hit.

And re economic stuff -- the disagreements are fine,. You and I are not close when it comes to matters like that, but you generally take the time to make solid, fair even-keeled posts. So, I do appreciate the time you take to post your economic thoughts even if I'm in disagreement.

In any event, I've yet to see a compelling argument that we are materially worse off -- medically -- as a result of our actions. When it comes to the economy, that's another issue.

[iam416]

The article makes it sound like some people at the hospital staged the line, not CBS. CBS issued a full-throated denial and the hospital never responded.

Unfortunately what they did fits right into O'Keefe's own narrative that the vast majority of COVID deaths are being faked.

Ummm, veritas is, like, roman for "truth" and/or "in your fucking face." So, yeah, any group called Project VERITAS is to be trusted.

[Dr. Strangelove]

In terms of the response to the actual medical issue, I don't take much issue. However, I stand firmly behind this:



Your criticisms and proposals are all perfectly fine re the medical side, but I don't think they matter much.

The economic stuff is where this going to be a huge policy debate. A lot of it is one-size fits all and that just doesn't make sense. I think it's ludicrous that people who are still gainfully employed get a stimulus check (like me!). I think it's ludicrous that people paying rent who are still gainfully employed don't have to pay rent. I think if you're going to do something re rent you have to do something re landlords which ultimately means mortgage companies eat the hit.

In any event, I've yet to see a compelling argument that we are materially worse off -- medically -- as a result of our actions. When it comes to the economy, that's another issue.

That was just a hard choice between getting money out in time for May rents and getting it out to ONLY those who truly needed it. Maybe instead of the cash payment you use the same amount of money to subsidize state unemployment systems instead? But if you're set on the cash payment it seems like they probably did the best they could given the urgency.

[iam416]

Yeah, for sure, DSL. Personally, I'm more along the lines of being a little more patient and taking the unemployment subsidizing route..

[Jeff Buchanan]

On the quality of the federal response - I'm not sure I trust the feds to expound on how great the material response was and is or the media to report how bad it was and is. Hard to find the truth so, revert to the mean. They were OK.

The data shows that hospital beds, ICU beds and ventilators were never in short supply despite the dire warnings coming from a lot of places. That includes a reliable and well spoken voice of NY governor Cuomo. His early takes on in the spread of the virus and accompanying shortages were an over-reaction. He certainly wans't alone among governors. So, OK, he over-reacted. I kinda get that.

I'm a bit confused about the PPE ordeal (among others like drugs, testing materials, etc). I really believe that is, in part, a local issue, a local failure if there wasn't enough. I've harped on this before but I don't think there is a JCAHO accredited hospital that hasn't developed a crisis or mass casualty plan, practiced it and had it monitored by federal or state officials who pass out the accreditation - without which you have to curtail your operations.

Yes, the fed should be involved. I'm not letting them off the hook. But how and to what extent? So, I started digging around to find unbiased, informed commentary on DHHS pandemic, national bio-crisis plans - and, no surprise, there are some. In fact, a quick read of them demonstrate how robust they actually are and how current the latest updates are (2018). So, what went wrong?

Well, the scope of the Corona virus pandemic was part of the problem and to that end talent is correct that the results in NYC for example were "baked in." I'd extend that take nationally. No pre-planning or effective execution of the plan from the federal level - as far as the information and insight [planners had going in - could have prevented the material shortages we have heard about - and these are real.

However, there was a stock-pile, it was managed, the dire media reports that N95 masks were shipped from the stock pile and then found to be out of date, not usable, etc. were, IMO, over-blown, like everything else they do. What was stock-piled was delivered. There just wasn't enough of it to go around to state agencies panicking over the, now we find out, terrible modeling.

Experts commenting on these shortages - people outside the terribly uninformed press with their hot takes, it seems to me - note that supply chain problems were the main culprit in failing to deliver, on demand, PPE, pharmaceuticals, testing materials and other supplies as national and state stock piles became exhausted.

What were these "problems?" (1) For the US, among other governments who followed similar approaches, outsourcing manufacture of them off-shore/globally to the lowest bidder, (2) The natural centralization by capital markets of the means of production for these materials within China and India (Germany, Italy and others have smaller production facilities but not as large as China's and India's), (3) A global shortage of raw materials (e.g., the polyester fiber for N95 masks, drugs, testing agents and stabilizers) and global competition for it and the end products themselves. The US government was one of those global competitors, in an effort to re-stock dwindling national supplies, along with other countries and, in the US, states looking to restock their exhausted supplies. The combined effect of these three things produced a lack of resiliency in the supply chain beyond the control of the US government - or any government for that matter.

So, IMO, the failure of the fed getting materials to states, is way more complicated than pointing the finger at the Trump administration and saying they fucked up. One can say that if all people want is a hot take. There are mistakes that were made along the way, I mean decades worth, of developing, and then executing strategic plans in the current virus pandemic. Those early planning errors condemned and predetermined the outcomes we are seeing play out.

Experts are saying in the lessons learned department - bring back to US shores or near shores the manufacture of critical national emergency/crisis supplies including the raw materials that make up the anticipated need for the end products (see strategic oil reserves). Broaden off shore manufacturing points so that what happened in the current pandemic (consolidation of the majority of material supplies in China and India) is mitigated. Avoid taking the lowest price bid on material supplies for strategic, national stock-piles and by doing that, lock in contracts with first delivery of those material to the US on demand guaranteed.

Simple, right?

[Hannibal]

[Dr. Strangelove]

An hour or so ago in the Oval Office Trump said that the Administration has no intention of modifying its position on Obamacare which is going before the Supreme Court. They want the entire law struck down. The deadline to modify their stance is today.

Reportedly there's a number of people worried about this. Barr seems to think they are going to lose, probably based on what Chief Roberts has already written about the law. Secondly some of Trump's aides are worried about how it's going to play politically in the Fall to see the Administration fighting to destroy Obamacare in the midst of what might be a covid resurgence.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/05/politics/william-barr-obamacare-supreme-court/index.html

[Ghengis Jon]

Please Donnie Two Scoops, ignore your aides.

[iam416]

This would ordinarily be a big deal, but the US Women's soccer players were bitchslapped last week. When one reads the actual facts it's astounding the case even proceeded. ASTOUNDING. But, there is an extremely powerful narrative that must be enforced come hell or high water.

The District Court's decision is here: https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...3/Document.pdf

Perhaps the 9th Circuit will overturn, but I dunno....the facts are pretty one-sided.

[Dr. Strangelove]

This would ordinarily be a big deal, but the US Women's soccer players were bitchslapped last week. When one reads the actual facts it's astounding the case even proceeded. ASTOUNDING. But, there is an extremely powerful narrative that must be enforced come hell or high water.

The District Court's decision is here: https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...3/Document.pdf

Perhaps the 9th Circuit will overturn, but I dunno....the facts are pretty one-sided.

Only thing I heard is that when you broke everything down, the women were actually being paid more than the men? (Haven't looked at the decision yet)

[Hannibal]

This would ordinarily be a big deal, but the US Women's soccer players were bitchslapped last week. When one reads the actual facts it's astounding the case even proceeded. ASTOUNDING. But, there is an extremely powerful narrative that must be enforced come hell or high water.

The District Court's decision is here: https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...3/Document.pdf

Perhaps the 9th Circuit will overturn, but I dunno....the facts are pretty one-sided.

It's astounding that the idea isn't immediately laughed off of the public stage, knowing how much money the men's World Cup brings in relative to the women's, and how much money men's sports bring in relative to women's. Society is in the midst of a mass psychosis right now.

[iam416]

Only thing I heard is that when you broke everything down, the women were actually being paid more than the men? (Haven't looked at the decision yet)

Well, yes. The thing is they are paid under different pay structures that were NEGOTIATED. The judged noted that the women would make more under the men's structure and the men would make more under the women's structure produce quite the anomalous situation where US Soccer is discriminating against every motherfucker!

So, the men's team is a "pay for play" structure. They only get paid if they're on a roster, practicing and playing games. They get big bonuses for these games and the more you play the more, well, you make. This makes sense for the men because they have good salaries in other pro leagues. So, they look at this like bonus income. The women negotiated a salary arrangement which required at least 24 players on an annual payroll, insurance, injury guarantees and other things. This makes sense because, well, a lot of these players don't have great salaries and benefits in other leagues.

For the particular time frame at issue, the women played more games and were more successful than the men. So, if they were operating under the "pay for play" structure they would have been paid more. Meanwhile, the men were rampant failures and didn't play many games. They would have made more money under the women's salary structure. Thus, under the women's theory, US Soccer was so evil they were discriminating against BOTH men and women!

The judge basically boiled it down correctly -- the women's team wants all the upside of the "pay for play" (the basis of the lawsuit) without any risk (without giving up their salaries, insurance and other shit). That's not the way this works. US Soccer was fair with both teams. Negotiated a CBA with both teams that took into account the wishes and desires of each team -- wishes and desires that were not the same.

I didn't fully appreciate how fucking awful this case was until I read the facts. I mean, FFS.

I reiterate though -- the day anyone in the mainstream media takes Megan Rapinoe to task for a bullshit lawsuit. It's absolutely apparent to me that they thought they could capitalize on their success and completey beholdent media to basically have their cake and eat it, too.

Good luck finding that story anywhere by FOX or National Review. In fact, I'm quite sure the pandering will continue. Facts be damned.

[iam416]

It's astounding that the idea isn't immediately laughed off of the public stage, knowing how much money the men's World Cup brings in relative to the women's, and how much money men's sports bring in relative to women's. Society is in the midst of a mass psychosis right now.

So, set that aside. Read my post above. You're talking about two very different pay structures that were negotiated to accomodate the interests of each team. It's appalling.

Again, the women would have made more under the men's structure and the men would have made more under the women's structure, thus, under the women's theory of the case, US Soccer is liable under the Equal Pay Act to BOTH men and women!

[AlabamAlum]