The "herd immunity" strategy is looking worse and worse. A lot of dead people. Plus heart and other lifelong health problems for many of the people who survive it. btw, Bolsonaro now has covid. Despite the fact "that he took both hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin... and credited the controversial drug for his well-being". LOL.
It is? The epidemic is pretty much over in Sweden. And according to CDC's latest reports, our current US death rate is below epidemic proportions in the US.
ps - Could I get some of the drugs you're smoking?
Quote: "In July 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump's administration established new guidelines for hospitals to report COVID-19 patient information that eliminates the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as the leader of data collection".
The CDC can't report data it no longer has access to. The epidemic isn't over by a long shot. In Sweden or the United States. I think you must have a defective brain. One that is highly susceptible to fake news. And I don't use drugs.
They may not be the "leader", but they certainly get the data. And perhaps now it will be useful data... after all, the CDC's current reporting system says, "It's over".
I'm sure the administration will send the data over to the CDC. AFTER they're certain it says what they want it to say. Which is "it's over". The cover up is now fully in force. I will assume that anything the CDC says now is bullshit. When the investigation of the Dotard administration's incompetent and CRIMINAL handling of the pandemic is investigated the result should absolutely be that people go to prison.
Interesting that you say the data is now "useful" (now that it's going through the Dotard administration first) -- because it supports your narrative. But I wouldn't expect a nihilist to give two shits about the truth.
Regarding the change in who gets the data, "some Democratic lawmakers also raised fears that the administration would delay releasing bad news on the pandemic or even manipulate virus data to try to put the president in a better light" (Source: "Hiding or manipulating coronavirus data would be a new low for the Trump administration").
WHY change who gets the data (from a relatively independent federal agency to the administration) if the purpose isn't to manipulate it? The CDC is the CENTER for disease control (or it is supposed to be). NOT the White House.
Capitalism doesn't have an agenda of making money via the sale of goods and services? Who knew?
More on the agenda of capitalism (from Wikipedia): "...it establishes power in the hands of a minority capitalist class that exists through the exploitation of the majority working class and their labor; it prioritizes profit over social good, natural resources and the environment; and it is an engine of inequality, corruption and economic instabilities".
AKA "no agenda". So what is the purpose of the Dotard tariffs you support? If capitalism has no agenda, it should require zero regulations.
Based upon the now exposed and soon to be indicted treason in the FBI, IC, and DOJ, why should we trust Deep State operatives in CDC? 'Oficialismo' in data sources is a fallacy.
Besides the CDC work FOR the White House. Shouldn't they follow the Executive chain of command like every other government agency that's not part of the Courts or Legislature?
Exactly. And once it becomes a "free" market, the agenda's leading to corruption, etc., will be GONE. They don't call it the "invisible hand" for nothing.
So, you're opposed to tariffs? That's not what you've been saying for the last 3 years (that I've been reading comments by you). You changed your mind? (Free market = no tariffs). Additionally, no regulations = corporations free to be as corrupt as they want to be. Apparently you're in favor of corporations poisoning the environment, cheating and killing customers and workers, hiring illegal immigrants, etc.
Also, there has been no "soon to be indicted treason in the FBI, IC, and DOJ". If Toady Barr trumps up any indictments as an election stunt, Biden's AG with throw them out.
F*ck your "Executive chain of command". The reason for the change is so Dotard can hide the data regarding covid deaths. This isn't about "chain of command", it's about the corrupt Dotard administration manipulating/hiding data that should go to the CDC first (as it always has) for political purposes.
Wikipedia entry, Free Market: Proponents of the concept of free market contrast it with a regulated market in which a government intervenes in supply and demand through various methods such as tariffs used to restrict trade and to protect the local economy. [end Wikipedia excerpt].
lol! That's one definition. Another would be a trade barrier behind which there is no government or regulation in the markets and only goods not available in said market could be imported.
I support regulations. They protect workers, consumers and competitors. aka everyone. For the record, I say that I support regulations as a general statement. Are there bad regulations? Of course. Those can be looked at and modified or repealed. Simply getting rid of regulations because there are "too many" is a bad idea, however.
Once a market becomes regulation free, those with a corrupt agenda will be very happy.
So you support corporate tax breaks as they can be construed as protecting current workers, consumers and competitors. Good to know who's side you are on. You're a status quo guy. You do know what creative destruction is?
It depends on what the tax breaks are for. As for the status quo (under the Dotard administration), I strongly oppose it. I'm not a Dotard supporter. I thought you were. And would therefor be happy that he has slashed corporate taxes and is rolling back regulations that protect consumers, workers and the environment.
For a person devoid of 'virtue' (Plato, "Laches"), you certainly spend a lot of time gardening at the base of Eden's tree of knowledge of good & evil. :)
Plato, "Laches" "SOCRATES: But then, my dear friend, if a man knew all good and evil, and how they are, and have been, and will be produced, would he not be perfect, and wanting in no virtue, whether justice, or temperance, or holiness? He would possess them all, and he would know which were dangers and which were not, and guard against them whether they were supernatural or natural; and he would provide the good, as he would know how to deal both with gods or men.
NICIAS: I think, Socrates, that there is a great deal of truth in what you say.
Your quote above is Socrates arguing against corporate regulations? Is he also arguing in favor of tariffs? I think your application of the quote is bullshit. I was talking about corporate regulations being beneficial to society. Not in the sense of "good vs evil". btw, I'm not really interested in hearing about what is virtuous from a White Supremacist Dotard supporter.
In order for corporate regulations to be beneficial to society they would have to produce "the good." So what is the good? Do you know? Are politicians "virtuous" enough to know?
There are many benefits to regulations. Protecting workers and the environment from the poisonous by products from manufacturing processes, for one. Poisons we are able to identify can be regulated. Why wouldn't politicians be able to know? How virtuous do you think they'd need to be to realize that the voters don't like being poisoned? Maybe it wouldn't take that much virtue at all, just a concern about not getting reelected if they did nothing?
Poisons we are able to identify can be regulated. Like marijuana? Fentanyl? Carbon? Tobacco? How's that regulation going for ya?
As Isaiah Berlin noted, many values are incommensurable. "Given, then, a situation with incommensurable values, one must simply choose."
The relevance of Berlin's position for classical liberalism should now be clear. Classical liberals can no longer judge competing regimes as inferior, since they may embody competing, incommensurable values. "What does follow from the truth of pluralism is that liberal institutions can have no universal authority" (p. 155). Those who find congenial the classical liberal emphasis on liberty are free to espouse an "agonistic liberalism" for themselves; but that is all.
And you and I and out collective representatives in government are certainly NOT agnostic...
I specifically mentioned "byproducts of the manufacturing process". Then you proceeded to mention a bunch of things that aren't byproducts of the manufacturing process. Excepting carbon dioxide. Because you don't believe in global warming? What about acid rain and smog? You're a fan? You must also be a fan of corporations allowing toxic chemicals to seep into the groundwater, resulting in lots of people getting cancer.
Carbon isn't a poison in its' raw form. And anything can be MADE into a poison through some form of manufacturing process. Lead weights are cool, in paint and gasoline additives, not so much (if kids are stupid enough to eat it, and motorists burn it). But good luck regulating every single one of THOSE possibilities.
ps - wouldn't likely be just as effective to warn the consumer instead of banning the product. Look how many people have died from malaria from the ban on DDT. Imagine if DDT use had been restricted to housing interiors instead of aerial spraying... When it comes to environmental poisons, Epimetheus is currently our teacher. Promethean bans can do more harm than good.
So you ARE a fan of acid rain, smog and companies dumping toxic cancer-causing chemicals into the groundwater? Sorry, consumer, you have to drink bottled water from now on. Also shower with it. You've been warned.
Dupont went out of business? Who knew? Is the Dotard administration decision to allow companies to break pollution laws a trick to put them out of business (after consumers find out who polluted they won't buy from them any longer)?
The Chinese burn leaded gasoline? Countries other than Yemen, Slgeria and Iraq still burn leaaded gasoline? Glad the USA regulated the rest of the world....
So, because we can't stop other countries from polluting we should pollute as well? To to hell with it? According to you the citizens of these countries should be demanding unleaded gas. You did claim that "consumers won't buy polluting products". How can anyone in the countries you cite "burn leaded gasoline" if they refuse to buy it?
Why would the gas companies ever have taken the lead out to begin with? Do consumers in Yemen, Slgeria and Iraq buy leaded gasoline because that's all that is available, or do they buy it because there is a choice (and they WANT leaded gasoline)?
No.
ReplyDeletelol! Boo!
ReplyDelete;p
ReplyDeleteThe "herd immunity" strategy is looking worse and worse. A lot of dead people. Plus heart and other lifelong health problems for many of the people who survive it. btw, Bolsonaro now has covid. Despite the fact "that he took both hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin... and credited the controversial drug for his well-being". LOL.
ReplyDeleteIt is? The epidemic is pretty much over in Sweden. And according to CDC's latest reports, our current US death rate is below epidemic proportions in the US.
ReplyDeleteps - Could I get some of the drugs you're smoking?
Quote: "In July 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump's administration established new guidelines for hospitals to report COVID-19 patient information that eliminates the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as the leader of data collection".
ReplyDeleteThe CDC can't report data it no longer has access to. The epidemic isn't over by a long shot. In Sweden or the United States. I think you must have a defective brain. One that is highly susceptible to fake news. And I don't use drugs.
They may not be the "leader", but they certainly get the data. And perhaps now it will be useful data... after all, the CDC's current reporting system says, "It's over".
ReplyDeleteI'm sure the administration will send the data over to the CDC. AFTER they're certain it says what they want it to say. Which is "it's over". The cover up is now fully in force. I will assume that anything the CDC says now is bullshit. When the investigation of the Dotard administration's incompetent and CRIMINAL handling of the pandemic is investigated the result should absolutely be that people go to prison.
ReplyDeleteDotard, given that his handling of this pandemic has resulted in lives lost (significantly more than if his administration had handled the pandemic competently), should be executed for mass murder.
Interesting that you say the data is now "useful" (now that it's going through the Dotard administration first) -- because it supports your narrative. But I wouldn't expect a nihilist to give two shits about the truth.
I'm no nihilist. I simply admire agenda-less systems, like capitalism and Nature.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the change in who gets the data, "some Democratic lawmakers also raised fears that the administration would delay releasing bad news on the pandemic or even manipulate virus data to try to put the president in a better light" (Source: "Hiding or manipulating coronavirus data would be a new low for the Trump administration").
ReplyDeleteWHY change who gets the data (from a relatively independent federal agency to the administration) if the purpose isn't to manipulate it? The CDC is the CENTER for disease control (or it is supposed to be). NOT the White House.
Capitalism doesn't have an agenda of making money via the sale of goods and services? Who knew?
ReplyDeleteMore on the agenda of capitalism (from Wikipedia): "...it establishes power in the hands of a minority capitalist class that exists through the exploitation of the majority working class and their labor; it prioritizes profit over social good, natural resources and the environment; and it is an engine of inequality, corruption and economic instabilities".
AKA "no agenda". So what is the purpose of the Dotard tariffs you support? If capitalism has no agenda, it should require zero regulations.
Based upon the now exposed and soon to be indicted treason in the FBI, IC, and DOJ, why should we trust Deep State operatives in CDC? 'Oficialismo' in data sources is a fallacy.
ReplyDeleteBesides the CDC work FOR the White House. Shouldn't they follow the Executive chain of command like every other government agency that's not part of the Courts or Legislature?
ReplyDelete"...it should require zero regulations."
ReplyDeleteExactly. And once it becomes a "free" market, the agenda's leading to corruption, etc., will be GONE. They don't call it the "invisible hand" for nothing.
“The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”
ReplyDelete― Tacitus, "The Annals of Imperial Rom"
So, you're opposed to tariffs? That's not what you've been saying for the last 3 years (that I've been reading comments by you). You changed your mind? (Free market = no tariffs). Additionally, no regulations = corporations free to be as corrupt as they want to be. Apparently you're in favor of corporations poisoning the environment, cheating and killing customers and workers, hiring illegal immigrants, etc.
ReplyDeleteAlso, there has been no "soon to be indicted treason in the FBI, IC, and DOJ". If Toady Barr trumps up any indictments as an election stunt, Biden's AG with throw them out.
F*ck your "Executive chain of command". The reason for the change is so Dotard can hide the data regarding covid deaths. This isn't about "chain of command", it's about the corrupt Dotard administration manipulating/hiding data that should go to the CDC first (as it always has) for political purposes.
Few doesn't mean none.
ReplyDeleteAnd the laws are for restricting ENTRY into the free market.
ReplyDeleteWikipedia entry, Free Market: Proponents of the concept of free market contrast it with a regulated market in which a government intervenes in supply and demand through various methods such as tariffs used to restrict trade and to protect the local economy. [end Wikipedia excerpt].
ReplyDeletelol! That's one definition. Another would be a trade barrier behind which there is no government or regulation in the markets and only goods not available in said market could be imported.
ReplyDeleteI support regulations. They protect workers, consumers and competitors. aka everyone. For the record, I say that I support regulations as a general statement. Are there bad regulations? Of course. Those can be looked at and modified or repealed. Simply getting rid of regulations because there are "too many" is a bad idea, however.
ReplyDeleteOnce a market becomes regulation free, those with a corrupt agenda will be very happy.
So you support corporate tax breaks as they can be construed as protecting current workers, consumers and competitors. Good to know who's side you are on. You're a status quo guy. You do know what creative destruction is?
ReplyDeleteIt depends on what the tax breaks are for. As for the status quo (under the Dotard administration), I strongly oppose it. I'm not a Dotard supporter. I thought you were. And would therefor be happy that he has slashed corporate taxes and is rolling back regulations that protect consumers, workers and the environment.
ReplyDeleteTax breaks that encourage good behavior are good. An across the board slashing of the corporate tax rate (as Dotard did) is bad.
ReplyDeleteFor a person devoid of 'virtue' (Plato, "Laches"), you certainly spend a lot of time gardening at the base of Eden's tree of knowledge of good & evil. :)
ReplyDeletePlato, "Laches" "SOCRATES: But then, my dear friend, if a man knew all good and evil, and how they are, and have been, and will be produced, would he not be perfect, and wanting in no virtue, whether justice, or temperance, or holiness? He would possess them all, and he would know which were dangers and which were not, and guard against them whether they were supernatural or natural; and he would provide the good, as he would know how to deal both with gods or men.
NICIAS: I think, Socrates, that there is a great deal of truth in what you say.
Your quote above is Socrates arguing against corporate regulations? Is he also arguing in favor of tariffs? I think your application of the quote is bullshit. I was talking about corporate regulations being beneficial to society. Not in the sense of "good vs evil". btw, I'm not really interested in hearing about what is virtuous from a White Supremacist Dotard supporter.
ReplyDeleteIn order for corporate regulations to be beneficial to society they would have to produce "the good." So what is the good? Do you know? Are politicians "virtuous" enough to know?
ReplyDeleteThere are many benefits to regulations. Protecting workers and the environment from the poisonous by products from manufacturing processes, for one. Poisons we are able to identify can be regulated. Why wouldn't politicians be able to know? How virtuous do you think they'd need to be to realize that the voters don't like being poisoned? Maybe it wouldn't take that much virtue at all, just a concern about not getting reelected if they did nothing?
ReplyDeletePoisons we are able to identify can be regulated. Like marijuana? Fentanyl? Carbon? Tobacco? How's that regulation going for ya?
ReplyDeleteAs Isaiah Berlin noted, many values are incommensurable. "Given, then, a situation with incommensurable values, one must simply choose."
The relevance of Berlin's position for classical liberalism should now be clear. Classical liberals can no longer judge competing regimes as inferior, since they may embody competing, incommensurable values. "What does follow from the truth of pluralism is that liberal institutions can have no universal authority" (p. 155). Those who find congenial the classical liberal emphasis on liberty are free to espouse an "agonistic liberalism" for themselves; but that is all.
And you and I and out collective representatives in government are certainly NOT agnostic...
...and to dream of a one world order is to prevent an exploration of multiple value systems for one totalitarian vision.
ReplyDeletebtw - Did you get that B-Cel/ T-Cell difference thing, yet?
ReplyDeleteI specifically mentioned "byproducts of the manufacturing process". Then you proceeded to mention a bunch of things that aren't byproducts of the manufacturing process. Excepting carbon dioxide. Because you don't believe in global warming? What about acid rain and smog? You're a fan? You must also be a fan of corporations allowing toxic chemicals to seep into the groundwater, resulting in lots of people getting cancer.
ReplyDeleteCarbon isn't a poison in its' raw form. And anything can be MADE into a poison through some form of manufacturing process. Lead weights are cool, in paint and gasoline additives, not so much (if kids are stupid enough to eat it, and motorists burn it). But good luck regulating every single one of THOSE possibilities.
ReplyDeleteps - wouldn't likely be just as effective to warn the consumer instead of banning the product. Look how many people have died from malaria from the ban on DDT. Imagine if DDT use had been restricted to housing interiors instead of aerial spraying... When it comes to environmental poisons, Epimetheus is currently our teacher. Promethean bans can do more harm than good.
So you ARE a fan of acid rain, smog and companies dumping toxic cancer-causing chemicals into the groundwater? Sorry, consumer, you have to drink bottled water from now on. Also shower with it. You've been warned.
ReplyDeleteConsumers won't buy polluting products, provided they KNOW about it. Why else would "cultural capitalism" gain such a following, globally?
ReplyDeleteDupont went out of business? Who knew? Is the Dotard administration decision to allow companies to break pollution laws a trick to put them out of business (after consumers find out who polluted they won't buy from them any longer)?
ReplyDeleteThe Chinese burn leaded gasoline? Countries other than Yemen, Slgeria and Iraq still burn leaaded gasoline? Glad the USA regulated the rest of the world....
ReplyDeleteSo, because we can't stop other countries from polluting we should pollute as well? To to hell with it? According to you the citizens of these countries should be demanding unleaded gas. You did claim that "consumers won't buy polluting products". How can anyone in the countries you cite "burn leaded gasoline" if they refuse to buy it?
ReplyDeleteIf we had no regulations in the US saying gas needs to be unleaded, you think (if petroleum companies produced it) no US consumer would buy it? LOL.
ReplyDeleteSure, some would. But 98% wouldn't. That's why Starbucks only buys Responsibly Grown & Fair Trade coffee and Starkist, dolphin safe tuna. It's the 'better' brand.
ReplyDeletebtw - Do you really believe that organic fruit is any better than GMO? lol.
ReplyDeleteWhy would the gas companies ever have taken the lead out to begin with? Do consumers in Yemen, Slgeria and Iraq buy leaded gasoline because that's all that is available, or do they buy it because there is a choice (and they WANT leaded gasoline)?
ReplyDeleteThey buy it because their engines run smoother with it.
ReplyDeleteLead is an additive, not a natural quality of gasoline.
ReplyDeleteTHAT and the fact that their countries are desert wastelands already.