Coronavirus RESPECTFUL Discussion Only! (Mod edit: Closed)

[PatsFanInVa]

I don't know how to exactly interpret this but deaths have been increasing at a rate of 1.5 times per day over the last six days. I'm praying that it slows down significantly.

Welllll... the "obvious" read is that unlike number of cases, number of dead is fairly tied to the actual spread of the virus... so ultimately, this number is what it is, the number of deaths growing exponentially. There might be some divergence as you get spread through an older population or something, say, if the big increase in cases were all happening in a state that skews older. But we can't see the actual case increase - it is only the sum of the reported increase and some number of unreported increase. "Reported" is proportionately greater to the extent that we are testing... we've started, but we're a long way from capturing the lion's share of cases.

So short answer: it just is what it is. More people are dying of it. It means, probably, that more people caught it a certain length of time ago, incubated it (while shedding virus), became symptomatic, "fought" it, and died.

The only comforting part is that it could be explained 100% by virus spread; there's no evidence that it's becoming "more fatal."

I thought so, but no. Not according to TommyBrady12.

Hey anyway, shouldn't he be posting on a Tampa site?

I honestly don't know for sure, but I tend to stick to independent content creators on YouTube. Why? Well, the MSM is desperately trying to shut down independent journalism because they go against the MSM narrative and expose it for the ******** it really is. Also, they are not financed by mega corporations and only have their reputation to rely on for income. If they ruin their rep, they make no money.

The most middle of the road fence sitter that I know of is Tim Pool.

I agree. I rely solely on an amateur rapper and a day trader's podcast for my news. I only quote reputable sources because the MSM controls so many other people.

Tell me what "the MSM narrative" is. You know, expose it for what it really is, you firebrand you.

Finland, Sweden, and Norway all have heavy nationalization of certain industries and all are social democracies. Hell, Richard Nixon nationalized the railroad industry. This is what I mean by saying "socialism" being useless though; to me, socialism is a completely different way of ordering production (and therefore reordering society). But to most people it's like heavy state command of the economy, mainly because it's looked at on a spectrum from free market to Soviet Union. But that's really just state capitalism, it's just the state holding the capital and exploiting workers through the wage rather than some private person or group of joint stock holders. Social democracy is clearly preferable to me over the current state of affairs, but I'm for a completely different world, not just the present one with the edges sanded off.

Thank you for getting what socialism is, which people rarely get here. We use it here as a shorthand for social programs. The shorthand we hear is "more socialism" or "less socialism." In American parlance, & therefore on Patsfans, we refer to progressive taxation as "socialism." Adam Smith, America's first Socialist, right?

Prime's right - you know you're getting a socialist feature in society, in modern parlance, when the state takes over a company. I say that to distinguish our modern idea of socialism from models that aren't statist. And who's nationalizing the means of production? DJT is now announcing various plans to nationalize companies, which cracks me up in terms of his far right base.

I never got the argument that the Nazis really were actual socialists. They weren't, but to be fair they did nationalize industries. Nationalists apparently aren't shy about this either.

All that said, whichever ism goes with whichever program, and we'll fight about this until the cows come home, I am wondering why TF no pudgy old men are out in the streets calling on us all to "teabag" the white house. Maybe because that would put their lives at risk, one of those perils that the patriots who started this country embraced... but which might be a little extreme for purposes of screaming about the constitution.

Still, you'd think the people who think the 2nd amendment means they can own an F-16 would be more concerned about the presently disappearing right to assemble.

Weird. I think we DO have to shelter in place, but the constitutional breach of all these curbs to assembly is not being noticed. Huh.

Countries whose cultures are more focused on community are more likely to pull this off, no? I mean, the US is IMO a square peg/round hole situation since concepts of individual triumph and personal self-preservation are so ingrained in the vast majority of the country (including myself.)

Population-wide, right on. Here and there you find free thinkers (more among the young) who can weigh different systems for what they are, without spazzing out and screaming about China (when people talk Sweden).

I wonder if this is one of the things that Lurker tries to deprogram himself about by watching youtube videos to get his news.

I mean, you can say it's "right" to be anti-socialist. That's fine, that's an opinion. What you can't say is that it's the only way to think about it - but our culture is close to unanimous on the subject.

FYI: I too have problems with any given individual's concept of democratic socialism (e.g., Bernieism). I do see in myself, however, exactly this cultural bias.

But what's hilarious is that Trump is at present light years past Bernie when it comes to calls for state control over industries. Mr. "America will never be a Socialist country."

I guess this sentiment is SO "dog bites man" that he had to figure out a way, however improbable, to be lying about it.

Ideology aside, I think there might be something in him that actually delights in the idea that there's no solid ground, and that reality is what he decides it is for that show.

Exactly. It would be okay if every American got this virus..... if it happened over 5-10 years. However if 20% get it all at once, we are screwed.

We wouldn’t have the hospital rooms or the ventilators, healthcare workers would be overworked and some would catch it, it would spread at as faster rate.

Beyond that, say you get in a car accident and need medical care. Hospital rooms are packed, all the hospitals are full of sick people. Something easily preventable could become fatal over this.

That's the whole idea behind the "flatten the curve" effort. More has to be mandatory, and I'm gratified to see so many dense population centers going to full lock-downs.

Disagree about 100% saturation, I want that hope of the roughly 50-50 (& thereabouts) predictions for selfish reasons. You could really just put out the lights on my wife, write her name in the Big Virus Book, and be done with it, if it's 100% infection.

She's in hospice to begin with, & one of her biggest things is "never put me on a vent." Well frankly she's sick enough that no hospital would put her on one, even if she were to revoke her hospice agreement (which pretty much says comfort care only, thanks.) You either get curative care or hospice, that's how they do.

So I guess in theory she could get a mild case, but if it's not mild, game over man. I just keep telling her she's earned a death of her own, not a footnote death where they put the day's bodies out in the pool that night and light em up. Sorry that was a bit much. But you guys know what I mean.

ok that's all I got

 

[lancerman]

Sure it is. It’s just a less extreme form of socialism. There are differences with socialism just like there are different, and more extreme forms, of communism. Just because it’s less extreme doesn’t mean it isn’t socialist.

No it’s not. Socialism by definition is about ownership of the means of productions. It’s so fundamental to it that you can’t separate it out of the equation and every equal socialism against. It’s like taking oxygen out of water.

We already have taxes. Sanders has never in a campaign or while in office made an effort to raise taxes to 100%. Ever. He’s advocated for adding new taxes, but never close to what is being described. Unless you think taxes are fundamentally socialist. In which case nearly every society for about a thousand years is socialist.

Medicare for All is expanding a current program to all people. It treats healthcare as a utility. To call this socialist you would have to concede that we are already socialist for having a Medicare program and also we lost the Cold War because you would then have to define nearly all of Europe as socialist as well. Also you’d have to have very uncomfortable discussions about other services we treat as utilities.

Free college. We already have free K-12. We’ve also already bailed out federal debts and banks before. This not different.

Most of this is expansions of things we’ve already done

 

[lancerman]

Do you honestly believe that? FDR was leading us into a socialist ****hole had he lived. We'd be 50 years further into the welfare state and would definitely be a 3rd world nation by now.

I'm only basing it on fiat currency. There's no other fiat currency that the rest of the world has faith in. China constantly manipulates it currency to f^ck everyone else over.

I think you would find very few historians who would agree with you and I think you can almost universally trace the success of one of the two major parties to his ideas.

This isn’t me making up **** either. You can easily find aggregations on Presidential rankings from historians and universities, polls, etc.

You would be in a stark minority on this

 

[fnordcircle]

My biggest issue with a lot of right-leaning people's takes on what they deem runaway socialism when a new program is suggested is that it is so grounded in what has already been normalized that it's hard to take their opinions seriously.

Public funding health care - A dangerous, anti-Jesus final step in the Stalinist incantation to resurrect Lenin and enforce homosexual Sharia law on all whites.

Public funding firefighters, cops, military, roads, emergency response, border protection, safety services, etc - Very cool Kanye, thank you.

 

[LuRkeR1978]

I think you would find very few historians who would agree with you and I think you can almost universally trace the success of one of the two major parties to his ideas.

This isn’t me making up **** either. You can easily find aggregations on Presidential rankings from historians and universities, polls, etc.

You would be in a stark minority on this

I'm fine with that. Most people thought Hillary would win.

 

[lancerman]

I'm fine with that. Most people thought Hillary would win.

Most people voted for her

 

[Kontradiction]

No it’s not. Socialism by definition is about ownership of the means of productions. It’s so fundamental to it that you can’t separate it out of the equation and every equal socialism against. It’s like taking oxygen out of water.

We already have taxes. Sanders has never in a campaign or while in office made an effort to raise taxes to 100%. Ever. He’s advocated for adding new taxes, but never close to what is being described. Unless you think taxes are fundamentally socialist. In which case nearly every society for about a thousand years is socialist.

Medicare for All is expanding a current program to all people. It treats healthcare as a utility. To call this socialist you would have to concede that we are already socialist for having a Medicare program and also we lost the Cold War because you would then have to define nearly all of Europe as socialist as well. Also you’d have to have very uncomfortable discussions about other services we treat as utilities.

Free college. We already have free K-12. We’ve also already bailed out federal debts and banks before. This not different.

Most of this is expansions of things we’ve already done

The idea behind Democratic Socialism is that the means of production are managed by the working class as a whole. That is a form of socialism, albeit a different form. They didn’t add the word “Socialism” in there to give the name a little razzle dazzle. There are elements of socialism involved. Again, it’s just not as extreme. It’s much in the same way that Republicans are right wing, but they’re not far right (I.E., Nazis or the Imperial Japanese in WWII).

 

[Joker]

enough of this crap...back to Budapest....I don't want any ghoul hash, I don't give a shyt about architecture,could care less about the friggin' countryside. It's the broads....I just wanna know about all those beautiful Hungarian tarts with mischief in their eyes...to wit..

 

[PatsFanInVa]

That’s fine but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t elements of socialism within those countries re: ownership of the means of production. Arguing that Democratic Socialism isn’t socialism is brain dead.

It is. But what we cant get our heads around in the U.S. is, to use shorthand, that there's "bad socialism" and "good socialism."

I know people want it to be "bad socialism" and "worse socialism." Eh, your mileage will vary. Capitalism looks that way to some, doesn't to others.

We want it to be absolute; it ain't.

Sweden ain't China. Sweatshops in Malaysia ain't a decent but not glorious collection of gigs in the U.S. Of course, U.S. Capitalism is once again in flux, but that's a whole nother kettle of fish.

I'm for our economy, with a broad and deep recovery as soon as possible, to be clear on where I stand... and if I can wave a magic wand, some security and some decent standard of living for those who need it most (who are ALWAYS dealing with what so many people are just dealing with now).

I think the reason people embrace any of their isms is that they recognize something's out of kilter, and for fcks sake, we can put a man on the moon, we can make a society where people aren't constantly feeling like the walls are closing in.

We can argue the particulars, but the need I'd build from is full belly, roof over our heads, untroubled sleep, no fear, for everybody.

Good luck figuring out how to get there, but that's what I'd love to be the guiding light.

 

[primetime]

Prime's right - you know you're getting a socialist feature in society, in modern parlance, when the state takes over a company. I say that to distinguish our modern idea of socialism from models that aren't statist. And who's nationalizing the means of production? DJT is now announcing various plans to nationalize companies, which cracks me up in terms of his far right base.

I never got the argument that the Nazis really were actual socialists. They weren't, but to be fair they did nationalize industries. Nationalists apparently aren't shy about this either.

The Nazis called themselves national socialists as a marketing tool. They literally were like "hey the SDP is really popular, so what if we used their name to sound legitimate and fool some rubes." There's correspondence between all the originals saying that. It's ironically funny to see people buy their marketing when they say "the Nazis were socialists too, it's in the name!" Fascism began, after all, as a violent middle-class reaction to rising communism among workers; trade unionists, communists, and social democrats were their first targets. (Germany also, obviously, added a hefty dose of race science and antisemitism to the mix.)

To Marx and his contemporaries, socialism and communism (the two were basically synonyms, but communism was used by Marx and Engels to differentiate themselves from the Proudhonists and Owenites who they dismissed as 'utopian socialists'; watch The Young Marx, it's a good movie and it's all about this stuff!) were ways of reordering production and, because production is at the heart of the way the world is ordered, the world. Be it modern Sweden, Gilded Age America, or the Soviet Union of the 1950s, production is being carried out in a capitalist manner, though sometimes the capital is advanced by the state (which is sometimes ruled by a party that labels itself socialist or communist). That doesn't make it socialist in a true sense.

Recommend Ursula LeGuin's The Dispossessed for a science fiction treatment of all of this. Really profound book, and LeGuin's neither preachy nor boring.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

My biggest issue with a lot of right-leaning people's takes on what they deem runaway socialism when a new program is suggested is that it is so grounded in what has already been normalized that it's hard to take their opinions seriously.

Public funding health care - A dangerous, anti-Jesus final step in the Stalinist incantation to resurrect Lenin and enforce homosexual Sharia law on all whites.

Public funding firefighters, cops, military, roads, emergency response, border protection, safety services, etc - Very cool Kanye, thank you.

Definitely...there is absolutely a socialist element to every government. If there weren't, it wouldn't be a government.

Opposition to socialism from the people you're pointing out is totally random; it has absolutely nothing to do with principles and is more of a tribal idea.

The opposition to expanded socialism from more libertarian/capitalist minded people is pretty simple: if things are too expensive (education, health care, for example), the solution isn't to continue within this overly expensive service and just throw a bunch of pooled money into it. The solution is to figure out why these institutions and services are not cost competitive and why the free market is not acting as designed, which would, in theory (and often in practice) create more competition and efficiency, benefiting the consumer/citizen.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

enough of this crap...back to Budapest....I don't want any ghoul hash, I don't give a shyt about architecture,could care less about the friggin' countryside. It's the broads....I just wanna know about all those beautiful Hungarian tarts with mischief in their eyes...to wit..

That's fine until you realize that she's statistically likely to descend directly from Attila. Sorry. I just typed that and realized (1) that characterization was about Genghis Khan & Mongolians, and (2) it is not fair to stereotype modern Hungarian strippers by any putative ancient hun ancestry. I apologize to our Hungarian (and Mongolian) Patsfans.

 

[Deus Irae]

The Nazis called themselves national socialists as a marketing tool. They literally were like "hey the SDP is really popular, so what if we used their name to sound legitimate and fool some rubes." There's correspondence between all the originals saying that. It's ironically funny to see people buy their marketing when they say "the Nazis were socialists too, it's in the name!" Fascism began, after all, as a violent middle-class reaction to rising communism among workers; trade unionists, communists, and social democrats were their first targets. (Germany also, obviously, added a hefty dose of race science and antisemitism to the mix.)

To Marx and his contemporaries, socialism and communism (the two were basically synonyms, but communism was used by Marx and Engels to differentiate themselves from the Proudhonists and Owenites who they dismissed as 'utopian socialists'; watch The Young Marx, it's a good movie and it's all about this stuff!) were ways of reordering production and, because production is at the heart of the way the world is ordered, the world. Be it modern Sweden, Gilded Age America, or the Soviet Union of the 1950s, production is being carried out in a capitalist manner, though sometimes the capital is advanced by the state (which is sometimes ruled by a party that labels itself socialist or communist). That doesn't make it socialist in a true sense.

Recommend Ursula LeGuin's The Dispossessed for a science fiction treatment of all of this. Really profound book, and LeGuin's neither preachy nor boring.

Wait, just for the sake of my laughter, are you trying to claim that Nazism isn't a form of Socialism?

You guys are being extra funny today.

 

[primetime]

Wait, just for the sake of my laughter, are you trying to claim that Nazism isn't a form of Socialism?

You guys are being extra funny today.

I mean, you're one of the rubes that would have been goosestepping right along back then, so this reply seems apt.

 

[fightingirish595]

Sheesh there’s a lot to unpack here...

 

[lancerman]

The idea behind Democratic Socialism is that the means of production are managed by the working class as a whole. That is a form of socialism, albeit a different form. They didn’t add the word “Socialism” in there to give the name a little razzle dazzle. There are elements of socialism involved. Again, it’s just not as extreme. It’s much in the same way that Republicans are right wing, but they’re not far right (I.E., Nazis or the Imperial Japanese in WWII).

There are elements involved, but we are also pretty close to a social democracy anyways. Social Security and Medicare almost always rank as the top two government programs

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Definitely...there is absolutely a socialist element to every government. If there weren't, it wouldn't be a government.

Opposition to socialism from the people you're pointing out is totally random; it has absolutely nothing to do with principles and is more of a tribal idea.

The opposition to expanded socialism from more libertarian/capitalist minded people is pretty simple: if things are too expensive (education, health care, for example), the solution isn't to continue within this overly expensive service and just throw a bunch of pooled money into it. The solution is to figure out why these institutions and services are not cost competitive and why the free market is not acting as designed, which would, in theory (and often in practice) create more competition and efficiency, benefiting the consumer/citizen.

There are a lot of features of libertarian capitalism that capitalist thinkers indicate must be countered by what we would call "socialist" features. Again, the example of Adam Smith favoring progressive taxation.

I bring this up again because there are limits to competition's ability to shape a desireable outcome; indeed, that's precisely the downfall of capitalism. It is good at creating wealth. It is bad at distributing it. Things can become very grim for those flipped off by the invisible hand. Yay for Purrell and grubhub stockholders (or whoever), boo hoo for brick and mortar waiters, actors and directors, etc. The key is, this particular shakeout's drivers will go away -- there is not economic benefit, however, to the misery of the people who "lose." We will want, in large part, to get back those businesses. They're not a feature that had to go away in the first place in some social darwinist way -- even though a bar or a strip club is brick and mortar, so is humans gathering together. Just because we have computers doesn't make happy hour or a lap dance obsolete.

All that to say, we don't get all "good" outcomes from the freest possible market. In addition, we guarantee certain bad outcomes that it does indeed make sense to steer away from.

 

[lancerman]

Definitely...there is absolutely a socialist element to every government. If there weren't, it wouldn't be a government.

Opposition to socialism from the people you're pointing out is totally random; it has absolutely nothing to do with principles and is more of a tribal idea.

The opposition to expanded socialism from more libertarian/capitalist minded people is pretty simple: if things are too expensive (education, health care, for example), the solution isn't to continue within this overly expensive service and just throw a bunch of pooled money into it. The solution is to figure out why these institutions and services are not cost competitive and why the free market is not acting as designed, which would, in theory (and often in practice) create more competition and efficiency, benefiting the consumer/citizen.

But in some cases that side gets a little too dogmatic on their ideology to find a free market answer. There’s a reason why most developer countries already decided to move away from total free market capitalism when it comes to healthcare and why American’s generally pay the most for the worst service amongst peer countries.

 

[italian pat patriot]

Sweden runs a mining enterprise, a pharmaceutical retailer, a broadcast company. In all of those countries, utilities, alcohol retailers, gambling, infrastructure contractors, railways, and airlines are fully or mostly nationalized. The major mobile phone provider in Sweden and Finland is owned in part by both countries. All of the countries have a national bank. Norway has its sovereign wealth fund from oil and nationally owns huge portions of private companies across the world but especially in Norway itself so the country has a presence on many boards of directors. Finland and Sweden both have smaller direct holdings through their national banks.

Seems you know quite well the nordics...
I know them well too...for business i hv been there approx 15 times in Fi No Dk and Se

Good memories

STOCKHOLM is a beauty

Norway very expensive

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

There are a lot of features of libertarian capitalism that capitalist thinkers indicate must be countered by what we would call "socialist" features. Again, the example of Adam Smith favoring progressive taxation.

I bring this up again because there are limits to competition's ability to shape a desireable outcome; indeed, that's precisely the downfall of capitalism. It is good at creating wealth. It is bad at distributing it. Things can become very grim for those flipped off by the invisible hand. Yay for Purrell and grubhub stockholders (or whoever), boo hoo for brick and mortar waiters, actors and directors, etc. The key is, this particular shakeout's drivers will go away -- there is not economic benefit, however, to the misery of the people who "lose." We will want, in large part, to get back those businesses. They're not a feature that had to go away in the first place in some social darwinist way -- even though a bar or a strip club is brick and mortar, so is humans gathering together. Just because we have computers doesn't make happy hour or a lap dance obsolete.

All that to say, we don't get all "good" outcomes from the freest possible market. In addition, we guarantee certain bad outcomes that it does indeed make sense to steer away from.

Sure....this is why pure libertarianism and pure free market capitalism are a turn off to many. Although their ideas are embraced as a general guide, there is need for government intervention in many areas and there is a big downside to this pure dog eat dog system.