The Coronavirus thread - Page 16

Reopening too soon....here we go main act part 2 incoming.

Can potentially reopen partially if you bomb tests and masks a lot of the US is not dense

We have people here complaining its too hot for masks

On April 18 2020 07:26 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On April 17 2020 19:18 mdb wrote:   On April 11 2020 12:26 Mortensen8 wrote: Let the people who are too weak die this is natural. The solution is not global fascism we can't continue in this unsustainable way anyway the problem is that people are afraid to die. Thats the most stupid thing I`ve ever read. Ironically, Baal is outraged at these kinds of statements yet he advocates for the same thing in the end, he just uses obfuscating language like "the government is too big, its inefficient" which means: "let the for-profit corporations and Our Mighty Capitalist Overlords run society as much as possible please". This hides the same social darwinistic ideology, where those who are the most useful to generate profits are the "strongest" and create the structures and the rules that further rewards them, while those who are the least useful to the generation of private profits live short lives filled with toil and suffering and might be left to die in their own puke and excrements on the streets or in for-profit prisons or factory farms. I much prefer Mortensen's candidness, and at least his views are not nearly as popular. When a worldview nearly as stupid and inhumane is at least 10 times more popular, it's effectively much worse. A right to housing, food, clean water and air, any sort of dignified life -- nope, let's not pursue that. Capital is all that matters -- all needs to be privatized. Don't worry though, without the state in the way, the ultrarich will be philanthropic and eradicate poverty! Also everyone knows billionaires love disabled people who are useless to capital, so they'll definitely have a lot of charities running for those people and not let them die.

Wrong.

States are inefficient and so are corporations, they only exist because they use the state, proof of this is the current bailouts to airlines, that is no free market, the state stealing peoples money to bailout megacorporations to "protect the workers" is on your tankie isle bud.

Boeing et al should fail, their investors should lose their money, their assets should be auctioned so that new fresh companies arise from the fertile ashes.

A right for housing, food, healthcare, entertainment, hookers and blow would be great... but these things dont fall from the sky, they require resources and effort, you aren't entitled to other's people work.

Its not a good time to be arguing against rich philantnropist... these people with less than 1% of the resources the states have have done sooooo much more, but yeah I'm sure the FDA, the WHO and the CDC... but yeah I suppose the Department of off and on-shore low yield fishing/mining and domestic marine protection are going to save you, not the brilliant minds that push the world forward like evil Elon Musk and Bill Gates it is the bureaucrats that will spread your social justice... according to each hability and to each needs, I'm sure this time millions won't starve to death again.

Or the government could protect and maintain established organizations that allow people to buy tickets around the world for 500 dollars and operate coach class at a loss instead of letting a random germ disproportionately blow up certain industries and destroy people's livelihoods because they were stupid enough to go to pilot school

This is airline's fault they should have invested more money in sars vaccines if they didn't want to go bankrupt

The only reason Boeing was saved is because it would help the US's national interest, it's not because its an " established organization" nor cause it " allows people to buy ticket around the world for 500$" ( which also sounds like a bullshit statement as if we'd have to credit an airplane manufacturer for something like that it would be Airbus)


The germ is already destroying the livelihoods of people as millions of people already lost their jobs, yet you don't see the government injecting billions into mid-class businesses, that would save many more people, do you?

Also if such injections are made they should either be loans or the government should be nationalizing the business. The first one would probably leave Boeing failing again in a few years, while the second is something that will start a civil war in the US

On April 25 2020 17:45 YoMeR wrote: Reopening too soon....here we go main act part 2 incoming.

My state is reopening restaurants and retail stores tomorrow (at 50% capacity)

It feels very short sighted and dumb. I fear a likely 2nd wave will just make everything even worse than it currently is

On April 26 2020 20:46 Spitfiree wrote: The only reason Boeing was saved is because it would help the US's national interest, it's not because its an " established organization" nor cause it " allows people to buy ticket around the world for 500$" ( which also sounds like a bullshit statement as if we'd have to credit an airplane manufacturer for something like that it would be Airbus)

when someone starts doing this infantile nitpicky quoting you just know they're incapable of comprehending any thought that isn't their own (if applicable) but thanks for butting in

Okay got it it's okay to bail out Airbus and not Boeing because they're the half of the duopoly that I like

The point is not difficult at all if you can open your fucking head for one second

You can let shit like airlines die because bailing it out would cost the taxpayer but the consumer would absorb the cost anyway when they buy a 2 grand ticket from Phoenix airlines

The germ is already destroying the livelihoods of people as millions of people already lost their jobs, yet you don't see the government injecting billions into mid-class businesses, that would save many more people, do you?

Sure I do

Neither is exclusive please graduate elementary school

But okay you're right I agree government intervention is great because it helps millions of people. EXCEPT if the failing business is huge and the backbone of an entire sector because much occupy wall street

Im saying its retarded to bail out either company, but if based on your argument it still makes no sense to bail out Boeing, also sorry for literally quoting your entire statement but its apparently nitpicking. What a joke you are


Also yes, totally not exclusive, there is plenty of examples in US history of them inserting money into the middle class... oh wait

Also please do explain how a ticket will go from 500$ to 2k$ because a plane manufacturer goes bankrupt?

Do you know what bankruptcy is and what happens when you declare insolvency? The company is just going to disappear and nobody is going to take their market share am I right?

On April 25 2020 17:45 YoMeR wrote: Reopening too soon....here we go main act part 2 incoming.

Main act was healthcare not managing
Thing supplies ventilators etc. should be bought
So wave2 isn't really an issue if healthcare can handle it?

It's on individual people to risk death + contracting it just like with other diseases

Obviously laws about financial support for affected people aside

On April 26 2020 17:52 Santafairy wrote: Or the government could protect and maintain established organizations that allow people to buy tickets around the world for 500 dollars and operate coach class at a loss instead of letting a random germ disproportionately blow up certain industries and destroy people's livelihoods because they were stupid enough to go to pilot school This is airline's fault they should have invested more money in sars vaccines if they didn't want to go bankrupt

Why should the tax payers give their money away to plane manufacturers and airlines while other thousands of businesses going broke get shit?

A pandemic isn't even a blackswan event we have outbreaks quite often and airlines would be hardly affected but they were stupid enough to not hedge against tail risks and it blew in their faces, so the stockholders should lose their money the company should be bought or liquidated and their assets sold to other companies that hopefully in the future will handle their business better.

And no producing vaccines isn't a hedge, there are literal insurance and there are many ways to hedge against it like actually keeping a healthy amount of cash instead of stock buybacks so you don't go belly up the second anything doesn't go according to plan.

Airlines are just brands, the planes are there, the staff is there they will be simply managed by a different company that will supply the demand.

On April 27 2020 10:10 TimDawg wrote: Show nested quote + On April 25 2020 17:45 YoMeR wrote: Reopening too soon....here we go main act part 2 incoming. My state is reopening restaurants and retail stores tomorrow (at 50% capacity) It feels very short sighted and dumb. I fear a likely 2nd wave will just make everything even worse than it currently is

Fun fact, the 1st wave of the spanish influenza was mild, the 2nd wave however was brutal, the virus mutated and the mortality skyrocketed killing specifically young people.

On April 28 2020 08:45 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On April 27 2020 10:10 TimDawg wrote:   On April 25 2020 17:45 YoMeR wrote: Reopening too soon....here we go main act part 2 incoming. My state is reopening restaurants and retail stores tomorrow (at 50% capacity) It feels very short sighted and dumb. I fear a likely 2nd wave will just make everything even worse than it currently is Fun fact, the 1st wave of the spanish influenza was mild, the 2nd wave however was brutal, the virus mutated and the mortality skyrocketed killing specifically young people.

Yes. I've read about that some.

It seems that with the probable (?) timing of the 2nd wave that it could coincide with the flu season as well from what I understand

The second wave was caused by WW1 ending all the troops going home, thus spreading it. If you have to look at it in today's context, we have a much faster and larger transport network. I don't think we can necessarily compare the two events

Theoretically, if we have open borders it should spread much faster than the Spanish flu did, if they spread the same way that is. Except almost every country has closed their borders atm.

On April 28 2020 08:43 Baalim wrote: Airlines are just brands, the planes are there, the staff is there they will be simply managed by a different company that will supply the demand.

No,no,no how dare you, tickets will just become unaffordable cause they bankrupted, no turning back. If PanAm didn't bankrupt the plane tickets would've been free now.

On April 27 2020 20:19 Spitfiree wrote: Im saying its retarded to bail out either company, but if based on your argument it still makes no sense to bail out Boeing, also sorry for literally quoting your entire statement but its apparently nitpicking. What a joke you are Also yes, totally not exclusive, there is plenty of examples in US history of them inserting money into the middle class... oh wait

they are not mutually exclusive beliefs. they aren't contradictory ideas. you can support both.

bush gave stimulus checks during the financial crisis, the ppp provides loans/grants to small businesses to stay open and pay workers during the corona pandemic... smarmy asswipe

On April 27 2020 20:19 Spitfiree wrote: Also please do explain how a ticket will go from 500$ to 2k$ because a plane manufacturer goes bankrupt?

hey shit for brains did you actually read my post saying "airlines" before you barged in here going BOEING BOEING BOEING BOEING. we get it you hate boeing. so edgy

On April 27 2020 20:19 Spitfiree wrote: Do you know what bankruptcy is and what happens when you declare insolvency? The company is just going to disappear and nobody is going to take their market share am I right?

if a company were to take boeing market share it would be airbus which is not an american company and therefore not something the american government would be eager to encourage because no other company knows how to make huge airliners

do you know what "barrier to entry" means

spit "joker" firee it's simple we replace the 100 year old 150k employee aerospace giant

yeah all that intellectual capital? century of experience? economies of scale? supply chain? long term planning and R&D? bollocks

it can't be that hard to start designing and manufacturing en masse a family of airliners that carry hundreds of people

oh what about the huge legacy fleet oh shit my 777 is broken oh just take it back to the boeing 777 factory oops it's gone

do you know why airbus and boeing are a duopoly now? you fucking idiot? the same reason other companies don't penetrate the market now is the same reason one wouldn't supplant boeing. they can't make a reliable product at a competitive price without huge investments of time and capital. same with airlines. what are you TALKING ABOUT

if you want new airlines the consumer will have to teach them how to be efficient by investing the consumers' time and capital which will be more expensive than actually the streamlined efficient industry we have now

i can see the ads now

fly our new Dohing 666 here which has had 0 crashes and 0 flights at phoenix airlines for the low low price of $800 to visit one of america's decaying airports

great economic leadership

Supporting both ideas in reality is quite retarded since one of the ideas will always get backed and the other will always be ignored (obv corporations bailout wins). So yeah in theory you're right, in theory many things sounds cool.

Also yeah, thanks for pointing out all of the obvious complications when a big company dies, no shit the market won't recover the next day who would've thought. The thing is you see it as an end to the market while I see it as an opportunity for other companies. History backs me up, while your arguments are backed up by fear alone.

P.S. obviously massive infrastructures that have huge demand wont die even if Boeing goes bankrupt, regardless of whether they were the previous owner, that's just a bullshit statement. Private businesses are profit driven, they wont just ingest a company and simply get rid of all of its assets and know-how, rofl


you know you backed urself into a corner thus starting with the ad hominem, sad stuff

On April 28 2020 13:43 Santafairy wrote: if a company were to take boeing market share it would be airbus which is not an american company and therefore not something the american government would be eager to encourage because no other company knows how to make huge airliners do you know what "barrier to entry" means spit "joker" firee it's simple we replace the 100 year old 150k employee aerospace giant yeah all that intellectual capital? century of experience? economies of scale? supply chain? long term planning and R&D? bollocks it can't be that hard to start designing and manufacturing en masse a family of airliners that carry hundreds of people oh what about the huge legacy fleet oh shit my 777 is broken oh just take it back to the boeing 777 factory oops it's gone do you know why airbus and boeing are a duopoly now? you fucking idiot? the same reason other companies don't penetrate the market now is the same reason one wouldn't supplant boeing. they can't make a reliable product at a competitive price without huge investments of time and capital. same with airlines. what are you TALKING ABOUT if you want new airlines the consumer will have to teach them how to be efficient by investing the consumers' time and capital which will be more expensive than actually the streamlined efficient industry we have now i can see the ads now fly our new Dohing 666 here which has had 0 crashes and 0 flights at phoenix airlines for the low low price of $800 to visit one of america's decaying airports great economic leadership

The duopoly exist precisely because of their bribe the government into maintaining it like it is now with the bailout.

The company doesn't dissapear nor Airbus is going to buy all the assets of a company when they themselves are in financial trouble lol, the company scale down, the rest of the assets are bough by smaller companies which will be far more efficient and better than Boeing.

You have it all backwards you think massive monopolies embedded with the state are the epitome of efficiency, "oh but who will have the experience!" lol dumbass, especially in an age where Tesla blew out of the water auto makers far bigger and older than Boeing, and then Space X takes the space exploration lead in the world with a team of young engineers and scientists.

The talented engineers in Boeing will get jobs in the upcoming aerospace industry, the dead weight labor will be left behind.

The economy doesn't need state leadership, quite the contrary it needs the state to get the fuck out of the way.

What is funny is that for someone so behemently anti-socialist like Santafiry he sure has quite socialistic ideas:

The mother land's plane-building factory must be saved by the state in order to keep its legacy and protect its workers... lol.

On April 29 2020 06:28 Baalim wrote: What is funny is that for someone so behemently anti-socialist like Santafiry he sure has quite socialistic ideas: The mother land's plane-building factory must be saved by the state in order to keep its legacy and protect its workers... lol.

That's the thing, he s not anti-socialist, he s pro-establishment

On April 29 2020 06:23 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On April 28 2020 13:43 Santafairy wrote: if a company were to take boeing market share it would be airbus which is not an american company and therefore not something the american government would be eager to encourage because no other company knows how to make huge airliners do you know what "barrier to entry" means spit "joker" firee it's simple we replace the 100 year old 150k employee aerospace giant yeah all that intellectual capital? century of experience? economies of scale? supply chain? long term planning and R&D? bollocks it can't be that hard to start designing and manufacturing en masse a family of airliners that carry hundreds of people oh what about the huge legacy fleet oh shit my 777 is broken oh just take it back to the boeing 777 factory oops it's gone do you know why airbus and boeing are a duopoly now? you fucking idiot? the same reason other companies don't penetrate the market now is the same reason one wouldn't supplant boeing. they can't make a reliable product at a competitive price without huge investments of time and capital. same with airlines. what are you TALKING ABOUT if you want new airlines the consumer will have to teach them how to be efficient by investing the consumers' time and capital which will be more expensive than actually the streamlined efficient industry we have now i can see the ads now fly our new Dohing 666 here which has had 0 crashes and 0 flights at phoenix airlines for the low low price of $800 to visit one of america's decaying airports great economic leadership The duopoly exist precisely because of their bribe the government into maintaining it like it is now with the bailout. The company doesn't dissapear nor Airbus is going to buy all the assets of a company when they themselves are in financial trouble lol, the company scale down, the rest of the assets are bough by smaller companies which will be far more efficient and better than Boeing. You have it all backwards you think massive monopolies embedded with the state are the epitome of efficiency, "oh but who will have the experience!" lol dumbass, especially in an age where Tesla blew out of the water auto makers far bigger and older than Boeing, and then Space X takes the space exploration lead in the world with a team of young engineers and scientists. The talented engineers in Boeing will get jobs in the upcoming aerospace industry, the dead weight labor will be left behind. The economy doesn't need state leadership, quite the contrary it needs the state to get the fuck out of the way.

By picking Tesla for your example you are proving the exact opposite point that you wish to prove. Tesla's success was predicated on state leadership both directly and indirectly. They received a government loan for 465 million dollars in 2009. This loan was granted at the most critical time, during the period between research and innovation, better known as "The valley of death". And guess what? This was a guaranteed loan. Similar financing was given around the same time to Solyndra who went bankrupt, and it was taxpayers who had to pick up the bill.

In terms of indirect investments, the myths surrounding tech companies like Tesla and Apple are quite easy to debunk. So much of the technologies they use have been developed with support from the state:



The state also played a role to give such companies competitive advantages, e.g. policies supporting Apple computers and software in schools since the 90s, and on a global level granting access to new markets like Japan and shielding them from potential competition. And when large corporations are not given insane tax breaks by the government, they are masters of tax evasion, so that an increase in wealth tax at a national level--even if it could get through-- would be futile.


More on Tesla/Musk:

"Tesla Motors, SolarCity and SpaceX, all led by entrepreneur Elon Musk, are currently surfing a new wave of state technology. Together, these high-­tech ventures have benefited from $4.9 billion in local, state and federal government support, such as grants, taxbreaks, investments in factory construction and subsidized loans.The State also forges demand—creates the market—for their products by granting tax credits and rebates to consumers for solar panels and electric vehicles and by contracting $5.5 billion worth of procurement contracts with SpaceX and $5.5 billion for the National Aeronautics and Space Ad-­ministration (NASA) and the US Air Force. While some of this govern-mental support has recently been the focus of news articles, two things have passed relatively unnoticed (Hirsch 2015). First, that Tesla Motors also benefited for a massive publicly funded guaranteed loan of $465 million. Secondly Tesla, SolarCity, and SpaceX have also benefited from direct investments in radical technologies by the US Department of Energy, in the case of battery technologies and solar panels, and by NASA, in the case of rocket technologies. Technologies that SpaceX is now using in its business dealings with the International Space Station. " (from Mariana Mazzucato, economics professor)