Talk Vikes and Other MN Sports Talk Vikes and Other MN Sports

Forums  Register  Login  My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums 

Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ  Ticket List  Log Out

RE: Covid 19 and those infected

 
Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> Vikes Talk >> RE: Covid 19 and those infected Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 8/7/2020 11:29:45 AM   
David F.


Posts: 10861
Joined: 12/31/2007
Status: online
I don't understand the concept of a quarantine 'shutting down the economy' or 'the solution being worse than the problem'. It seems to me that the supply of food, water, energy, people, and natural resources is a constant. The only thing that changes in a quarantine is how, where, and at what rate money changes hands. Money is a man-made concept that theoretically should be able to be suspended for a short period of time for the health and safety of the people. Capitalism and a capitalist health care system doesn't seem to be able to handle a pandemic like this. It could be suspended for a short period of time until we have this thing licked.

_____________________________

I wouldn't give ANY qb $30-50+ mil unless that QB had won me a Super Bowl. Did you win a Super Bowl on your rookie deal? Yes? Great! Here's your hugenormous contract. F it let's just run victory laps and love life. No? Good luck. Next!
Post #: 151
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 8/7/2020 11:56:04 AM   
kgdabom

 

Posts: 33742
Joined: 7/29/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

You guys need to stop being fukking *******s!

See what I did there?

yeah, but he started it.

_____________________________

"So let it be written.
So let it be done."
Post #: 152
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 8/7/2020 11:59:05 AM   
kgdabom

 

Posts: 33742
Joined: 7/29/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

I don't understand the concept of a quarantine 'shutting down the economy' or 'the solution being worse than the problem'. It seems to me that the supply of food, water, energy, people, and natural resources is a constant. The only thing that changes in a quarantine is how, where, and at what rate money changes hands. Money is a man-made concept that theoretically should be able to be suspended for a short period of time for the health and safety of the people. Capitalism and a capitalist health care system doesn't seem to be able to handle a pandemic like this. It could be suspended for a short period of time until we have this thing licked.

Good post DF. I think it's a question of degree. No sane person is saying we should take no precautions. However, how much precautions are needed is debatable. Sturgis IMO should not be happening, but it is. I hope the results are not as catastrophic as I think they may be. On the other hand I do think pro sports should be happening.

_____________________________

"So let it be written.
So let it be done."
Post #: 153
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 8/7/2020 1:26:49 PM   
unome

 

Posts: 985
Joined: 5/7/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

I don't understand the concept of a quarantine 'shutting down the economy' or 'the solution being worse than the problem'. It seems to me that the supply of food, water, energy, people, and natural resources is a constant. The only thing that changes in a quarantine is how, where, and at what rate money changes hands. Money is a man-made concept that theoretically should be able to be suspended for a short period of time for the health and safety of the people. Capitalism and a capitalist health care system doesn't seem to be able to handle a pandemic like this. It could be suspended for a short period of time until we have this thing licked.


Not be be mean, but you could have just stopped at "I don't understand". The economy is something so complex and vast that you could have a PHD in Finance or Macroeconomics and still only know so much.

Right off the bat, the supply of almost everything is NOT a constant. Farmers will grow more of this food or that food if the prices are right. Marginal land will be planted if the prices are high and lay fallow or used for cattle feed if prices are lower. We saw just this year that pig farmers actually killed baby pigs because the prices were too low to raise them and make money doing so.

If there is a greater demand for water, prices rise and more expensive ways of getting water, like desalinization, become economically viable.

Same with energy. Cost of energy goes up and solar panels become more viable. Building a new nuclear plant, or oil field or wind farm becomes more viable.

People will want more money if the demand goes up for labor and also if costs go up.

Health care is trickier because if the only way to save yourself or your loved one, you want to pay any price. Government certainly has to be involved in a more substantial way in health care because supply and demand are not going to work as well since supply can be controlled by patents and demand is almost completely price inelastic for life-saving drugs and services. Inelastic meaning that you would pay almost any price, but you also would not buy more if they were cheap because you only need one heart surgery if that is all you need. You are not having another one because of a BOGO sale!

The damage that shutting down the economy does is huge, but every business is different. The easy ones to see is how quarantine harms anyone in the travel or tourism industries. Also, the restaurant and bar business. Events, concerts, etc. This affects the commercial real estate market, the ability for people to pay rent, the ability of landlords to pay mortgages.

You can shut all of this down, and we virtually did, but huge amount of people are employed in these industries. And they take the money they make in profits and wages and spend it in other areas of the economy.

Let's say you shut down 10% of the economy. What will happen? A recession. A huge one. Why? Because you cannot make the economy 10% smaller and not have a smaller pie for everyone to get a piece of.

And the effects are worse than just a lost 10%. So many businesses have fixed costs that cannot be changed so losing 10% of revenue could be the difference of making a decent amount of money or losing a large amount of money. When businesses start losing money that was not planned for, they only have a few options. They can dip into reserves if they have them, but after that they have to reduce expenses. They cannot pay less in rent or mortgage because they could be evicted and they cannot charge more for their products because competition will not let them. So they may have to let some employees go. And this just compounds the overall economic problem.

You just cannot suspend all of these realities because they have bad results during government shutdowns. And, when the government tries to intervene, it normally goes horribly wrong.

The first shutdowns were somewhat necessary to stop the surge and to figure out the full extent of the problem and how to treat it. We are way past the point where that makes any sense in a larger sense. But, there are clearly some areas that are, and should be, still shuttered. Bars and nightclubs. Full stadiums. But even these activities should be seen as a trade off where we are purposefully hurting our economy and people in those industries because the solution is better than the problem created.

But, at some point, in most learned people's opinion, there gets to be a point where the the solution of forced shutdowns is worse than the problem. This is easier to see in economic ventures, but harder to measure in educational ones. Hoiseth sniffs that lives are more important than times tables and this false choice is correct, but pointless. The point is how much damage are we created to our population and country if we teach large percentages of our population less over, say, a whole year, what happens over the long term?

But, there is not a short-term economic effect of not teaching children much for a year. The damage will happen in the future. I guess that is the point with all education, isn't it? In the short-term it is an expense with no immediate return and the benefits are all future based.
Post #: 154
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 8/7/2020 1:34:30 PM   
unome

 

Posts: 985
Joined: 5/7/2013
Status: offline
Also, I said business can dip into reserves if they have them, but in uncertain times, you want more reserves, not less. You do not know when things are going to get better so you cut back on personal spending AND try and reduce expenses like labor. These choices will have ripple effects in the economy as well. I just read how the economy is being hurt right now, in part, because rich people have cut back on their spending. Now, no one feels bad if a Mercedes or yacht is not purchased, but if you make or sell products like that, you feel it. And then that money goes into the economy at large.

We went from the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years in February to the highest unemployment rate since the 1930s in TWO MONTHS! And all we needed to do was have a government-mandated shutdown to change the best jobs economy in our lifetime to the worst.

< Message edited by unome -- 8/7/2020 1:38:30 PM >
Post #: 155
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 8/7/2020 1:35:58 PM   
David F.


Posts: 10861
Joined: 12/31/2007
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

I don't understand the concept of a quarantine 'shutting down the economy' or 'the solution being worse than the problem'. It seems to me that the supply of food, water, energy, people, and natural resources is a constant. The only thing that changes in a quarantine is how, where, and at what rate money changes hands. Money is a man-made concept that theoretically should be able to be suspended for a short period of time for the health and safety of the people. Capitalism and a capitalist health care system doesn't seem to be able to handle a pandemic like this. It could be suspended for a short period of time until we have this thing licked.


Not be be mean, but you could have just stopped at "I don't understand". The economy is something so complex and vast that you could have a PHD in Finance or Macroeconomics and still only know so much.

Right off the bat, the supply of almost everything is NOT a constant. Farmers will grow more of this food or that food if the prices are right. Marginal land will be planted if the prices are high and lay fallow or used for cattle feed if prices are lower. We saw just this year that pig farmers actually killed baby pigs because the prices were too low to raise them and make money doing so.

If there is a greater demand for water, prices rise and more expensive ways of getting water, like desalinization, become economically viable.

Same with energy. Cost of energy goes up and solar panels become more viable. Building a new nuclear plant, or oil field or wind farm becomes more viable.

People will want more money if the demand goes up for labor and also if costs go up.

Health care is trickier because if the only way to save yourself or your loved one, you want to pay any price. Government certainly has to be involved in a more substantial way in health care because supply and demand are not going to work as well since supply can be controlled by patents and demand is almost completely price inelastic for life-saving drugs and services. Inelastic meaning that you would pay almost any price, but you also would not buy more if they were cheap because you only need one heart surgery if that is all you need. You are not having another one because of a BOGO sale!

The damage that shutting down the economy does is huge, but every business is different. The easy ones to see is how quarantine harms anyone in the travel or tourism industries. Also, the restaurant and bar business. Events, concerts, etc. This affects the commercial real estate market, the ability for people to pay rent, the ability of landlords to pay mortgages.

You can shut all of this down, and we virtually did, but huge amount of people are employed in these industries. And they take the money they make in profits and wages and spend it in other areas of the economy.

Let's say you shut down 10% of the economy. What will happen? A recession. A huge one. Why? Because you cannot make the economy 10% smaller and not have a smaller pie for everyone to get a piece of.

And the effects are worse than just a lost 10%. So many businesses have fixed costs that cannot be changed so losing 10% of revenue could be the difference of making a decent amount of money or losing a large amount of money. When businesses start losing money that was not planned for, they only have a few options. They can dip into reserves if they have them, but after that they have to reduce expenses. They cannot pay less in rent or mortgage because they could be evicted and they cannot charge more for their products because competition will not let them. So they may have to let some employees go. And this just compounds the overall economic problem.

You just cannot suspend all of these realities because they have bad results during government shutdowns. And, when the government tries to intervene, it normally goes horribly wrong.

The first shutdowns were somewhat necessary to stop the surge and to figure out the full extent of the problem and how to treat it. We are way past the point where that makes any sense in a larger sense. But, there are clearly some areas that are, and should be, still shuttered. Bars and nightclubs. Full stadiums. But even these activities should be seen as a trade off where we are purposefully hurting our economy and people in those industries because the solution is better than the problem created.

But, at some point, in most learned people's opinion, there gets to be a point where the the solution of forced shutdowns is worse than the problem. This is easier to see in economic ventures, but harder to measure in educational ones. Hoiseth sniffs that lives are more important than times tables and this false choice is correct, but pointless. The point is how much damage are we created to our population and country if we teach large percentages of our population less over, say, a whole year, what happens over the long term?

But, there is not a short-term economic effect of not teaching children much for a year. The damage will happen in the future. I guess that is the point with all education, isn't it? In the short-term it is an expense with no immediate return and the benefits are all future based.


tl;dr

_____________________________

I wouldn't give ANY qb $30-50+ mil unless that QB had won me a Super Bowl. Did you win a Super Bowl on your rookie deal? Yes? Great! Here's your hugenormous contract. F it let's just run victory laps and love life. No? Good luck. Next!
Post #: 156
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 8/7/2020 1:42:34 PM  2 votes
Daniel Lee Young

 

Posts: 13818
Status: offline
Jebuz, and to think I used to be the one charged with incompetent ranting...

I happily surrender that title to the new co- champions unome and kgb.



_____________________________

"Thou shall not bear false witness”
I am WRATH, incarnate.
@RlyeeNicole’sDad
Post #: 157
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 8/7/2020 1:46:13 PM   
unome

 

Posts: 985
Joined: 5/7/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

tl;dr


Too long, didn't read.

And now we know why you don't know. ;)

I tried to explain supply and demands affect on supply, the effect of shutdowns on business, people and the economy as a whole and touch on how this effect is different and harder to measure for educational shutdowns or distance learning. My long post was shorter than a Cliff Notes version of those things. You cannot explain hard and complex things in a paragraph.

Let's just hope the people making these decisions are OK reading longer and more complex ideas or we are in big trouble.
Post #: 158
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 8/7/2020 1:48:19 PM   
unome

 

Posts: 985
Joined: 5/7/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Daniel Lee Young

Jebuz, and to think I used to be the one charged with incompetent ranting...

I happily surrender that title to the new co- champions unome and kgb.




I fail to see how what I wrote was a "rant". I was trying to explain economic and financial concepts related to the current unique situation that is the topic of this thread. Not the normal stuff of rants, is it?
Post #: 159
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 8/7/2020 2:03:46 PM   
Daniel Lee Young

 

Posts: 13818
Status: offline
Dude...

Explain to me without using fifteen single spaced paragraphs, why the supposed financial cost is worth the risk of a massive number of unwitting or witless asymptomatic carriers spreading a killer disease because it’s too inconvenient to adapt to a dire circumstance?

/ begin rant, CPA...

_____________________________

"Thou shall not bear false witness”
I am WRATH, incarnate.
@RlyeeNicole’sDad
Post #: 160
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 8/7/2020 2:20:38 PM   
David F.


Posts: 10861
Joined: 12/31/2007
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

tl;dr


Too long, didn't read.

And now we know why you don't know. ;)

I tried to explain supply and demands affect on supply, the effect of shutdowns on business, people and the economy as a whole and touch on how this effect is different and harder to measure for educational shutdowns or distance learning. My long post was shorter than a Cliff Notes version of those things. You cannot explain hard and complex things in a paragraph.

Let's just hope the people making these decisions are OK reading longer and more complex ideas or we are in big trouble.


You assumed I didn’t understand economics. You could have just said ‘it’s to complex to suspend the changing hands of money temporarily’ and then I would have disagreed and said we very easily could so long as the top 1% of the wealthy were made to slow down or suspend their wealth accumulation and risk it that the majority of Americans didn’t decide they liked a resource based economy better than the existing capilism.

_____________________________

I wouldn't give ANY qb $30-50+ mil unless that QB had won me a Super Bowl. Did you win a Super Bowl on your rookie deal? Yes? Great! Here's your hugenormous contract. F it let's just run victory laps and love life. No? Good luck. Next!
Post #: 161
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 8/7/2020 2:36:48 PM  2 votes
bohumm

 

Posts: 5705
Joined: 10/28/2007
From: Altadena, CA
Status: offline
The argument that we shut down and we can't afford to do it again is false. We didn't shut down while fully complying with universal infection control practices at the public health level; we've been uneven, sporadic, and incomplete from Day 1, and as long as we continue that path, our economy will continue to die the death of a thousand cuts. "I couldn't afford to make that necessary repair" turns into an exponentially more expensive necessary repair down the road that leads to other expensive repairs, compounding the problem.

We don't necessarily have to go all McMurphy at this point, but we need to go more there than where we are right now, or we will eventually have to go all McMurphy and maybe beyond eventually. Epidemiology is a complex discipline but getting it wrong leads to a simple outcome: the problem in its current form never goes away.
Post #: 162
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 8/7/2020 5:13:59 PM   
unome

 

Posts: 985
Joined: 5/7/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Daniel Lee Young

Dude...

Explain to me without using fifteen single spaced paragraphs, why the supposed financial cost is worth the risk of a massive number of unwitting or witless asymptomatic carriers spreading a killer disease because it’s too inconvenient to adapt to a dire circumstance?

/ begin rant, CPA...


Looking at the record high unemployment rate that happened two months after a record low unemployment rate, the rate of business closings and the lack of openings, the commercial rent and residential rent default and the mortgage default rate and putting the word "supposed" in front of the words "financial costs" would be laughable if any of this was funny.

We have saved hundreds of thousands of lives with the different levels of shutdowns and that is great, but the financial costs could be close to 10 trillion dollars to do so.

If we saved 500,000 people, that is $20 million per person. It that worth it? Sure, but that does not mean it is not a high price that we are paying. And not a supposed cost at all.
Post #: 163
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 8/7/2020 5:30:39 PM   
unome

 

Posts: 985
Joined: 5/7/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.



You assumed I didn’t understand economics. You could have just said ‘it’s to complex to suspend the changing hands of money temporarily’ and then I would have disagreed and said we very easily could so long as the top 1% of the wealthy were made to slow down or suspend their wealth accumulation and risk it that the majority of Americans didn’t decide they liked a resource based economy better than the existing capilism.


I read what you wrote. And I know you do not understand economics and finance. Or capitalism. Most people don't so it is hardly something to feel defensive about. When you cannot express a one sentence macroeconomic opinion without talking about the top 1%, I know that you are a political guy and not a finance guy.

There is a reason why Clinton and Obama did not change too much about the economic structure that JFK favored, Reagan set up and Clinton refined: it largely works.

The reality is that if we have a great economy that and the 99% are doing well, the top 1% will do great. If the top 1% are struggling, the 99% will be struggling, but moreso. JFK said: "a rising tide raises all ships".

You could confiscate all the wealth of top 1% and it would not lead us into national prosperity and, while looking at other people's success and being resentful is a very common human trait, that is no way to discern good economic policy.

I am sorry if that was too many words. It is hard to talk about macroeconomics and finance and keep it to a Twitter post or two.
Post #: 164
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 8/7/2020 5:38:24 PM  3 votes
TJSweens


Posts: 44972
Joined: 7/16/2007
Status: online
We had some of the greatest economies in the history of the US with the 1% paying 90% on their top tier of income. What Reagan set up did not work. It stagnated middle income and started the process of eroding the middle class and accelerated the flow of money up hill. The country got set on the path of deficit spending and massive debt. Don't try to tell me it works.

_____________________________

"The eternal fate of the noble and enlightened: to be brutally crushed by the armed and dumb."
Post #: 165
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 8/7/2020 5:47:20 PM   
unome

 

Posts: 985
Joined: 5/7/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

The argument that we shut down and we can't afford to do it again is false. We didn't shut down while fully complying with universal infection control practices at the public health level; we've been uneven, sporadic, and incomplete from Day 1, and as long as we continue that path, our economy will continue to die the death of a thousand cuts. "I couldn't afford to make that necessary repair" turns into an exponentially more expensive necessary repair down the road that leads to other expensive repairs, compounding the problem.

We don't necessarily have to go all McMurphy at this point, but we need to go more there than where we are right now, or we will eventually have to go all McMurphy and maybe beyond eventually. Epidemiology is a complex discipline but getting it wrong leads to a simple outcome: the problem in its current form never goes away.


It is not false and you have not certainly not presented any evidence to this effect whatsoever.

Not that any of this even matters, because what you or McMurfy want won't happen.

The reality is that you are extremists in the same way some of the idiot Trumpers are extremists. You want all or nothing. Whether it is not wearing masks as a sort of constitutional right or shutting everything down as a panacea, these are both wrong headed and both will cost us so much in unneeded loss of life or economic resources.

Should Trump have done a better job in March and April? Sure, but he failed, and will likely be voted out of office because of it.

But, we do not need to be extreme. We can take smart moderate action. Any Governor in a state with a big COVID HAS TO take action on stuff like masks and shutting down obvious infectious activities. If he or she does not, the President should step in. He won't, but he should.

We can get this problem manageable, but we do not need a death from a thousand cuts or one big death blow; we need smart, prolonged, moderate action and we will have cases drop and we will not get the eventual backlash of loss of freedom you see from heavy handed government action.
Post #: 166
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 8/7/2020 6:07:28 PM  1 votes
unome

 

Posts: 985
Joined: 5/7/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

We had some of the greatest economies in the history of the US with the 1% paying 90% on their top tier of income. What Reagan set up did not work. It stagnated middle income and started the process of eroding the middle class and accelerated the flow of money up hill. The country got set on the path of deficit spending and massive debt. Don't try to tell me it works.


The top 1% never paid 90% of their income. They are not stupid, they just put it into tax shelters, municipal funds and the like. What you had back them was stratified wealth. It was hard to get rich, and if you were rich, you just managed your principal and tried to reduce the amount of money that would be taxed.

I know you are old enough to remember the feeling in the country in the 70s to early 80s. The middle class decline was in full effect. High-paying manufacturing jobs had already started leaving, first to Japan, then to Korea and lastly, to China and they were never coming back.

The country was on the fast track to nowhere. The country under Carter was at a real low point.

What changed our course?

Was it the return of high-paying manufacturing jobs?

Obviously, no.

The eroding of the middle class, as you put it, was really the death of the manufacturing worker's middle class. I know a guy from Ohio and he said that guys with a high school degree used to be able to pull down $80,000 a year with benefits. Sounds great, but that was never sustainable, and, even if we had protected those jobs through high tariffs, they would still be going away with automation.

Talking about the "top 1%" just shows that a person is into the politics of resentment and not looking at what really works. Taxes are like interest. Too few taxes and you do not raise enough money, but too much and you were going to choke off the very thing you need to succeed.

In some ways the Laffer Curve is not disputable. Put the tax rate high enough and you just will make less tax revenue because people will not bother. How much foreign investment would you get with 90% tax rates? Zip. How much offshoring of profits would you get? Tons.

And you are not going to take any risks if the idiots in Washington will tax you at 90%. Start Amazon, SpaceX, MicroSoft, etc.? Why risk your principal if your return is going to be almost nothing? Sure, if you KNEW Amazon was going to be Amazon, you would still invest, but that is not how it works.
Post #: 167
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 8/7/2020 6:22:22 PM   
kgdabom

 

Posts: 33742
Joined: 7/29/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Daniel Lee Young

Jebuz, and to think I used to be the one charged with incompetent ranting...

I happily surrender that title to the new co- champions unome and kgb.



What are you talking about. I haven't ranted one tiny bit. Bohumm is the ranter. Unome has been sharing some rather intensive information, but it doesn't seem like ranting.

_____________________________

"So let it be written.
So let it be done."
Post #: 168
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 8/7/2020 6:25:05 PM   
kgdabom

 

Posts: 33742
Joined: 7/29/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

tl;dr


Too long, didn't read.

And now we know why you don't know. ;)

I tried to explain supply and demands affect on supply, the effect of shutdowns on business, people and the economy as a whole and touch on how this effect is different and harder to measure for educational shutdowns or distance learning. My long post was shorter than a Cliff Notes version of those things. You cannot explain hard and complex things in a paragraph.

Let's just hope the people making these decisions are OK reading longer and more complex ideas or we are in big trouble.

On a message board I don't read long posts either. However, just because it's long doesn't mean it's a rant.

_____________________________

"So let it be written.
So let it be done."
Post #: 169
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 8/7/2020 6:30:14 PM  1 votes
unome

 

Posts: 985
Joined: 5/7/2013
Status: offline
Let me say something that are important for the big government people to hear:

You cannot win.

Now, big government people could be Republicans that want to ban all abortion or Democrats that want to bring back the 'good old days' of 90% tax rates. But freedom will beat all your intentions to take away things from other people.

Ban abortion and women will be buying RU-486 over the Internet like 60 year-old men buy Viagra. You are not taking away what they see as their right. No way. That ship has sailed.

Raise the tax rates to 90%? You will crash the economy and see what massive amounts of capital flight looks like. It is so easy for the ultra rich or multinational corporations to take their profits in a different country that you will raise far LESS money by taxing much more.

And who will get hurt? Not the rich. They will either have money offshore or just have less takehome pay and be A-OK. You will hurt all of the rest of us because the next Microsoft will be headquartered in Hydrabad and so many potentially good ideas will not get funded. You do not risk millions for a big potential return if that return will be taxed at 90%.

Maybe the best way to understand all of this is look at what an investor looks at when judging a new investment: the required after-tax rate of return. What do you think a 90% tax rate does to the required rate of return? Plug in some numbers. It essentially makes ANY investment with risk in it a poor one! Good luck growing an economy like that.

Clinton and the Republicans in Congress refined Reaganomics by smartly changing one thing: raised the highest tax rate for the rich, but reduced the capital gains tax. This spawned greater investment in all the companies that are so crucial to America's success today. It also made investors more long-term focused, which is always a good thing.

I know, I know. Too many words. Even the older people are becoming like the Twitter and TikTok generation. Tell me in one paragraph how the economy works.

Well, that is not going to happen.
Post #: 170
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 8/7/2020 6:35:31 PM   
kgdabom

 

Posts: 33742
Joined: 7/29/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

Let me say something that are important for the big government people to hear:

You cannot win.

Now, big government people could be Republicans that want to ban all abortion or Democrats that want to bring back the 'good old days' of 90% tax rates. But freedom will beat all your intentions to take away things from other people.

Ban abortion and women will be buying RU-486 over the Internet like 60 year-old men buy Viagra. You are not taking away what they see as their right. No way. That ship has sailed.

Raise the tax rates to 90%? You will crash the economy and see what massive amounts of capital flight looks like. It is so easy for the ultra rich or multinational corporations to take their profits in a different country that you will raise far LESS money by taxing much more.

And who will get hurt? Not the rich. They will either have money offshore or just have less takehome pay and be A-OK. You will hurt all of the rest of us because the next Microsoft will be headquartered in Hydrabad and so many potentially good ideas will not get funded. You do not risk millions for a big potential return if that return will be taxed at 90%.

Maybe the best way to understand all of this is look at what an investor looks at when judging a new investment: the required after-tax rate of return. What do you think a 90% tax rate does to the required rate of return? Plug in some numbers. It essentially makes ANY investment with risk in it a poor one! Good luck growing an economy like that.

Clinton and the Republicans in Congress refined Reaganomics by smartly changing one thing: raised the highest tax rate for the rich, but reduced the capital gains tax. This spawned greater investment in all the companies that are so crucial to America's success today. It also made investors more long-term focused, which is always a good thing.

I know, I know. Too many words. Even the older people are becoming like the Twitter and TikTok generation. Tell me in one paragraph how the economy works.

Well, that is not going to happen.

I read it all. You are doing a great job talking sense here.

_____________________________

"So let it be written.
So let it be done."
Post #: 171
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 8/7/2020 6:39:14 PM   
unome

 

Posts: 985
Joined: 5/7/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

On a message board I don't read long posts either.


It has become pretty obvious that I am the wrong person in the wrong place talking about the wrong things to the wrong people.

What really breaks my heart is that I have spent a lot of time in China and the Chinese are generally much more entrepreneurial than most Americans are!

They ditched their planned central economy and allowed private incentives to help grow their economy as fast as any country in history. Despite this, a lot of people in the USA want to go the other way! I am sure that will work out well.

Immigrants to the US are four times more likely to be millionaires than native-born Americans. Why? Because immigrants are far more likely to open a business.

The American Dream is still alive, but many Americans are too stupid or lazy to go after it. We have to import people smart enough and hard-working enough to succeed. And then Trump tries to cut that off also. It is like both parties are trying to outdumb each other. And they are both winning.
Post #: 172
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 8/7/2020 6:40:23 PM   
unome

 

Posts: 985
Joined: 5/7/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

I read it all. You are doing a great job talking sense here.


Thanks, I take back all the nasty things bohumm said about you. ;)
Post #: 173
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 8/7/2020 6:55:44 PM   
thebigo


Posts: 28293
Joined: 7/14/2007
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

Let me say something that are important for the big government people to hear:

You cannot win.

Now, big government people could be Republicans that want to ban all abortion or Democrats that want to bring back the 'good old days' of 90% tax rates. But freedom will beat all your intentions to take away things from other people.

Ban abortion and women will be buying RU-486 over the Internet like 60 year-old men buy Viagra. You are not taking away what they see as their right. No way. That ship has sailed.

Raise the tax rates to 90%? You will crash the economy and see what massive amounts of capital flight looks like. It is so easy for the ultra rich or multinational corporations to take their profits in a different country that you will raise far LESS money by taxing much more.

And who will get hurt? Not the rich. They will either have money offshore or just have less takehome pay and be A-OK. You will hurt all of the rest of us because the next Microsoft will be headquartered in Hydrabad and so many potentially good ideas will not get funded. You do not risk millions for a big potential return if that return will be taxed at 90%.

Maybe the best way to understand all of this is look at what an investor looks at when judging a new investment: the required after-tax rate of return. What do you think a 90% tax rate does to the required rate of return? Plug in some numbers. It essentially makes ANY investment with risk in it a poor one! Good luck growing an economy like that.

Clinton and the Republicans in Congress refined Reaganomics by smartly changing one thing: raised the highest tax rate for the rich, but reduced the capital gains tax. This spawned greater investment in all the companies that are so crucial to America's success today. It also made investors more long-term focused, which is always a good thing.

I know, I know. Too many words. Even the older people are becoming like the Twitter and TikTok generation. Tell me in one paragraph how the economy works.

Well, that is not going to happen.

I read it all. You are doing a great job talking sense here.


I'll second that.
Post #: 174
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 8/7/2020 7:34:59 PM  1 votes
jbusse

 

Posts: 1309
Joined: 9/11/2013
From: Atlanta, GA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

On a message board I don't read long posts either.


It has become pretty obvious that I am the wrong person in the wrong place talking about the wrong things to the wrong people.

What really breaks my heart is that I have spent a lot of time in China and the Chinese are generally much more entrepreneurial than most Americans are!

They ditched their planned central economy and allowed private incentives to help grow their economy as fast as any country in history. Despite this, a lot of people in the USA want to go the other way! I am sure that will work out well.

Immigrants to the US are four times more likely to be millionaires than native-born Americans. Why? Because immigrants are far more likely to open a business.

The American Dream is still alive, but many Americans are too stupid or lazy to go after it. We have to import people smart enough and hard-working enough to succeed. And then Trump tries to cut that off also. It is like both parties are trying to outdumb each other. And they are both winning.

The independent thought that comes through your explanations is to be commended. These days, most pick a side on an issue based on whatever is consistent with the narrative pushed by their political affiliation.
Post #: 175
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> Vikes Talk >> RE: Covid 19 and those infected Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode