Jump to content

Do you need to vent about things COVID-19?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

*****ing *****ed up mother *****ers are *****ing the whole *****ing *****ed up ****sucking *****head *****s. And then some.

Cutting in with a rando side comment because I haven’t kept up - I’m tired of all the conspiracy theories behind it, and all the Americans on my feeds (note: I am also an American) pointing fingers at

You are out over your skis here Saucey. Babies with jaundice receive UV/Blue phototherapy because exposing blood to UV aids oxidation of the toxic bilirubin in it. A significant volume of blood reache

Posted Images

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Dhyaanee said:

Capitalism is inherently exploitative, unsustainable, creates economic inequality, anti-democratic, leads to an erosion of human rights, and it incentivizes imperialist expansion and war. Other than that it's just dandy!

If there is no need to have a loser (someone who dies, starves, lives in squalor), then why have one?

If you think people in America are living in such terrible conditions why don't you and other socialist countries open up immigration for them to come and live there and your socialist country can take care of them since they're "starving" and "dying"?  

It's a fair question.  

Edited by FairreLilette
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

At the moment, most of those jobs are just waiting for the governors to stop the self-inflicted madness and allow the businesses to reopen

in the USA this is a outcome of the grassroots republic form of representative democracy.  The USA is probably the most democratic country in the world today from the grass roots pov. It is multi-layered. From the federal level, down thru the states to the city and county levels, and down further to towns within the counties. Lots of levels of elected leadership. The consequence of this is lots of people pulling in different directions. Directions that they see as in the best interests of their territory, occupied by those who live there and elected them

unlike in New Zealand where I live.  We only have two levels. Parliament and regional councils. Parliament is supreme. We only have one House of Parliament. There is no upper house. So decisions that effect the nation as a whole are decided and implemented quite quickly, relative to the pace of decision-making and implementation in multi-layered democracies like the USA> Our system works for us, and I think in the main the USA system works for US people. I doubt very that people in the US would be interested in a lesser layered system similar to ours, just because of this kind of crisis. Is a cultural thing built on the history of the nation

which is why in NZ we went to lock down early without a lot of fuss, and are coming out of lockdown now. We are down to Level 2 now and things are going ok for us. Lots of people are still being cautious tho. The shops and malls still don't have a lot of customers in them. Physical distancing, to a lesser degree than under Levels 4 and 3, is in place in the establishments still and most owners are being cautious and observant. We will find out more tonight, as is Friday today. We will see what the numbers are for bars and clubs it being the first weekend since lockdown that people can go out socialising in these establishments

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

But will those jobs still be around in a few months - and would they be around now even if the United States never shut down at all? Let's think about this...

It's important to remember that the Greatest Economy in History we were enjoying before the pandemic was based on consumers, business and government all being up to their gonads in debt in order to support their daily operations.

Let's take the red pill (which is actually a cinnamon Tic-Tac) and decide that Covid-19 was/is completely overrated and that not shutting down wouldn't have caused any problems worse than they are now. The problem is that Europe and Asia still would have shut down. Travel/leisure and other businesses relying on overseas trade still would have taken a major hit, and that would have started bleeding some jobs. Businesses don't have a lot of margin. An airplane not stuffed like a sardine can is probably losing money on every trip.

Now think about the fact that many other jobs are in retail. The red pill's magic powers don't extend to making Sears/K-mart anything better than a shambling zombie of a business, with Macys and J.C. Penney not being a whole lot better. A lot of malls were in dire straits even during the "boom time." Any sort of economic downturn would have been the death blow for a lot of bricks-and-mortar retailers, and there go more jobs. Commercial landlords are in the frying pan now too.

With more and more people losing jobs, people are suddenly going to think "Gee, maybe I shouldn't invest in a birthday cake for my dog after all," so the Dog Birthday Cake Lady* goes out of business. And so on, and so on, and so on...

I'm not saying that all of the decisions on closing down parts of the economy were the best ones possible - I have no way of knowing that. However,  I think it takes a sort of willful blindness to think that all of the problems we're facing would have vanished if we hadn't.

_____________

*Actual real-life business that I saw mentioned in an article.

Interesting idea.  Let's run some numbers.

Exports account for just over 12% of our economy.  Thus far, the drop in exports (goods and services) is 9.2%, which works out to just over a 1% hit to the US economy as a whole lost due to exports falling off in your scenario.  While surely some of that loss is due to reduced production for exports caused by shuttered businesses, let's assume the total hit to the economy is the full 1%.  So, in your hypothetical situation, the US economy loses 1%, but, since the US economy was growing by over 2% previously, it still grows, albeit at a slower pace.

Imports account for about 15% of our economy.  Thus far, those are down 6% overall.  Using the same math as above, this works out to a 0.9% hit to our economy.  Now, assuming both these hits in full, the US economy is almost flatlining, but not shrinking.  In addition, there is a dynamic between imports and exports that is difficult for a non economists (such as us) to quantify.  For instance, if we don't import cars from Germany and Japan due to Covid, doesn't that quite likely drive up demand for domestic cars, thereby creating more jobs (or at least more overtime) for US autoworkers?  Similarly, many low end industrial products are made overseas, while higher quality versions are made here.  Some of the lost imports is certainly made up by switching to US sources, creating more jobs.  Many products (such as petroleum and especially agricultural products) are both imported AND exported, so, again, lost imports are offset by lost exports.

But, again, let's take worst case scenario, and assume the full impact is felt on our GDP.  GDP growth is then flat/slightly upwards through the pandemic.

At the end of 2019, there were 1.4 million more available jobs than available workers in the US.  At the time, there were roughly 164 million workers in the US workforce.  Assuming that 1.9% creates a similar percentage of lost jobs, that's 3.1 million jobs lost (1.9% of the 164M + 1.9% of the 1.4M) - a tenth what we've seen so far.  An excess of a 1.7  million workers is hardly an economic calamity.  In fact, that's where the US was in 2015.  I don't recall 2015 as an economic catastrophe, do you?  Would you rather be back in 2015, or where we are right now, in terms of the economy?  Not really a hard choice.

As far as your examples of retail businesses on the edge - that has been happening for 2 decades now - it would have and will continue to happen regardless of Covid, as retail continues to go the way of the manual transmission (still available, still preferred by some, but only 13% of car models offer it as an option).

No, all our current problems would not have vanished if we hadn't shut down, but they clearly would have been MUCH less than they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

If you think people in America are living in such terrible conditions why don't you and other socialist countries open up immigration for them to come and live there and your socialist country can take care of them since they're "starving" and "dying"?  

It's a fair question.  

i take this as fair question

in New Zealand we have accepted a lot of migrants from all over the world. 500,000 in the last 7 years. This on a population of then 4.5 million. We have just gone over the 5 million mark. Compared to big countries 500,000 is not lot relatively.  0.5 on 4.5 tho is truckloads

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

in the USA this is a outcome of the grassroots republic form of representative democracy.  The USA is probably the most democratic country in the world today from the grass roots pov. It is multi-layered. From the federal level, down thru the states to the city and county levels, and down further to towns within the counties. Lots of levels of elected leadership. The consequence of this is lots of people pulling in different directions. Directions that they see as in the best interests of their territory, occupied by those who live there and elected them

unlike in New Zealand where I live.  We only have two levels. Parliament and regional councils. Parliament is supreme. We only have one House of Parliament. There is no upper house. So decisions that effect the nation as a whole are decided and implemented quite quickly, relative to the pace of decision-making and implementation in multi-layered democracies like the USA> Our system works for us, and I think in the main the USA system works for US people. I doubt very that people in the US would be interested in a lesser layered system similar to ours, just because of this kind of crisis. Is a cultural thing built on the history of the nation

which is why in NZ we went to lock down early without a lot of fuss, and are coming out of lockdown now. We are down to Level 2 now and things are going ok for us. Lots of people are still being cautious tho. The shops and malls still don't have a lot of customers in them. Physical distancing, to a lesser degree than under Levels 4 and 3, is in place in the establishments still and most owners are being cautious and observant. We will find out more tonight, as is Friday today. We will see what the numbers are for bars and clubs it being the first weekend since lockdown that people can go out socialising in these establishments

Locking down an island 3,800 kilometers from the nearest continent is also a tad easier than locking down a country with around 14,000 kilometers of land borders that also happens to account for 1/7th of the total global economy.  But the loss of overseas trade doubtless had hurt your economy even more than it has the US.

As for our form of government, we've become so dysfunctional that I'm starting to think a return to good old fashioned monarchy would be preferably.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

The consequence of this is lots of people pulling in different directions. Directions that they see as in the best interests of their territory, occupied by those who live there and elected them

I live in Southern California.  I am under the jurisdiction of a Governor of the state and I live in a county called The County of Los Angeles and it is run by a Mayor.  Our Mayor and Governor are working on our re-opening and we are in Level 2 as well as you say above.  What also governs me is a state Constitution and a state Supreme Court, as well as our countries' constitution, a Bill of Rights, a Congress that makes up bills, a President who can sign them (the bills) into power or veto them, and a Supreme Court so it is very complicated.   It's difficult for me to understand it all but I think I have it correct.  Currently my rights would go to my own state's Supreme Court.  

I don't feel pulled in different directions.  Our Governor and Mayor are doing their best at re-opening as my county, The County of Los Angeles, is somewhat near the whole population of New Zealand for one county alone.  But two Southern California counties together our population is double the population of your country for only two counties.  

Your country took in a bit more immigrants in 2016-17 at around 70,000 for the nearest I can found on immigration at this time while my state alone took in 11 million immigrants.  

This was not really a needs an answer post...I just wanted to tell you Los Angeles county is preparing to re-open and it sounds very much like how your country is and I found that interesting.   We are doing all those same levels also.  

I also wanted to say I feel like I live in the United Nations.  All nations live here in Southern California.  I've met people from everywhere.  It's a cool place.  

Edited by FairreLilette
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

But the loss of overseas trade doubtless had hurt your economy even more than it has the US.

one of our biggest earners is tourism. We are going to get on hammered on this, even when international travel routes are re-opened unrestricted. People are not going to travel for leisure reasons as much as they did before in the numbers previously. Our tourist numbers may come back to previous levels but is not going any time soon

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

one of our biggest earners is tourism. We are going to get on hammered on this, even when international travel routes are re-opened unrestricted. People are not going to travel for leisure reasons as much as they did before in the numbers previously. Our tourist numbers may come back to previous levels but is not going any time soon

All you need is for Peter Jackson to make a trilogy out of the Silmarillion there, and tourism will be back in no time.

Of course, if he bastardizes it the way he did The Hobbit, I just might feed him to sharks.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

The County of Los Angeles, is somewhat near the whole population of New Zealand for one county alone.  But two Southern California counties together our population is double the population of your country for only two counties

size can lead to strange things happening

a long time ago now our Parliament declared that New Zealand would be nuclear free.  Which caused a real problem for the USA. Nuclear powered ships and weapons. The US Navy has a nuclear non-confirm policy. They will not confirm or deny that any ship is equipped with nuclear weapons.  Were the US Navy to observe the  nuclear-free zone then it would indirectly lead to confirming the absence of nuclear weapons on any of their ships entering the zone. Something that the US Navy refused

so the diplomatic pressure went on, to have New Zealand remove the nuclear-free zone. Successive governments refused. Which ultimately resulted in New Zealand being suspended from the ANZUS defence pact. Australia - New Zealand - United States

over the years working relationships were patched up with other branches of the US military. Five Eyes. Access staging to Antartica. Afghanistan, etc.  But not with the US Navy, who held firm. We were excluded from any interaction with the US Navy. This went on for years

the US Navy stages naval war games in the Pacific based out of Pearl Harbour.  Lots of countries get invited to participate. Japan, Germany, Italy, Russia, Mexico, Britain, etc. All countries that have at one time or another fought a hot or cold war against the USA in its history

not us tho. We are the mortal enemy of the US Navy

a few years ago, after the rise of China in the Pacific, the US Administration told the US Navy to invite NZ to the naval exercise.  So off our brave little navy went. One whole little ship

our ship gets to Hawaii and gets directed by the Admiral of the Fleet to tie up at the Honolulu oil depot, not in the naval base with everyone else. Seems we are still the mortal enemy with cooties on

so our little ship ties up there. A US navy officer there to greet them and who is little bit embarrassed and apologises

the commander of our ship says: No worries mate.  Please relay to the Admiral that the enemy has arrived. If the Admiral hops in a taxi and comes over here, I will surrender my ship to save the lives of my crew. Then we can all go to the pub for some beers

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

MIT is a respectable institution, but it is hardly "right wing".  For instance, one of the authors of this essay is the left-leaning Tax Policy Center's Chairman, and a brief review of the other's affiliations and research interests also indicates he is left of center.  Using these two to represent a "push from the right" is a bit like NPR using David Brooks as their "conservative" voice - he's only conservative compared to most people in New York City.

 

i just come back to this

there is a whole lot of articles and papers explaining negative income tax, who it works, what the benefits and drawbacks are in the different ways it can be implemented

 Here is another one from Business Insider. The article quotes JPMorgan's Jamie Dimon who thinks there is merit in it. A person who is hardly a paragon of socialism

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/how-negative-income-tax-earned-income-tax-credit-works-2017-1?r=US&IR=T

the article also touches on a form of negative income tax. The US Earned Income Tax Credit. Begun under US President Gerald Ford and continued by successive administrations including the Trump Administration

in NZ we have a similar sort of system which I linked to earlier

the difference between these kinds of systems and universal systems is that the current systems are targeted at different sectors of the community. Carve outs into different programs administered by different government departments

this carve out approach leads to bloat in bureaucracy to administer payments, eligibilty, etc

the first rationale for UBI (universal basic income) and MI (minimum income) like systems is technical. Reduce bureaucracy. Keep it simple. There is only one kind of public assistance. And only one government agency (like the IRS) to administer it
 
why we end up with carve outs is because of the politics. The big politic is the moralising in the minds of the people: The deserving and undeserving poor

why should some lazy person get as much as me. I work, they don't. I am deserving, they are not. If those girls kept their legs crossed then they wouldn't have had a kid which I end up paying for. I am deserving, they are not. If that person racked up a mountain of debt like I did to get my qualifications then I wouldn't have to support them. I am deserving, they are not. How come that migrant family got public assistance before me, they just walked in off the boat. I am deserving, they are not. And on and on

the second rationale for universal systems is to remove this moralising. That for all the reasons why a person might be impoverished doesn't change the fact that they are

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

You make it sound like there is something wrong with a competitive capitalist market creating both winners and losers

not quite

it isn't that competition (of any kind) produces winners and losers. It does

the question is: how can we harness competition to deliver for the widest number of people ? In the merchantilist view we don't. There can be only one. Sovereignties for example are the most merchantile of systems. There is only one. The sovereign. Everybody else can only win when the sovereign lets them

 

i will relate a real world situation about market competition in a capitalist society and what happens when the participants don't act as capitalists, and how they can change to acting as capitalists for the benefit of the widest number of people

quite a few years ago, the Auckland City Council owned the electricity power utility. It owned the grid and supplied electricity to the citizens (households and business premises). A monopoly

there were lots of outages due to grid failure. The reason was because of the relationship between the customers and the nominal owners. The electors (customers) and the nominal owners (the elected representatives). The electors wanted cheap power and the representatives wanted to get re-elected

result: the utility never had enough money to maintain the grid. When it broke down then days and weeks later it got fixed when the few staff could get to repairing it, assuming they had the materials to do so.  And because there was no money in the utility's reserve then little upgrading and renewal work got done either. The grid deteriorating ever more as time went on

this almost incestuous (and sometimes debilitating) relationship between electors and representatives who nominally own in the name of the people, plays out all across the world

so what to do ?

first the grid was separated from power supply. People could buy power directly from the electricity generating companies and have it delivered to their premises over the grid.  Which worked out pretty well, the generating companies competed on price to get customers. Which they still do

the grid was turned into a business run on commercial lines overseen by a board of directors. The business is owned by the citizen customers as non-enumerated shareholders. Each shareholder having exactly one vote in the board elections.  Being non-enumerated the share is non-transferable. Leave the city and you are no longer a shareholder in the utility

the grid utility charges the citizens (households and premises) a line connection fee and charges the power companies to use the grid to supply power to the citizens. Being a business it is in the business of making a profit. Which it does. And after putting money into its cash reserve as it should, it then distributes the surplus as a dividend to its shareholders, which it does on an annual basis like any other company. I get a annual dividend paid into my bank account

in the capitalist system, large public companies are owned collectively. Two forms. Enumerated transferable shareholdings and non-enumerated non-transferable shareholdings

it is not the market per se that determines who benefits from the winning and losing from competition. It is who owns and who doesn't own that is the beneficiary determinant

in addition to my grid company, my bank is also a non-enumerated shareholding - should I close my account then I am no longer a shareholder.  As are my tribal lands - when I die then my share is redistributed among my tribe. My shares have no capital value

like my grid company, my bank and tribal lands are run as commercial enterprises, competing in the market. I benefit not from them doing this. I benefit because I am an owner - I get my owner's share of the profits

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

Interesting idea.  Let's run some numbers.

Exports account for just over 12% of our economy.  Thus far, the drop in exports (goods and services) is 9.2%, which works out to just over a 1% hit to the US economy as a whole lost due to exports falling off in your scenario.  While surely some of that loss is due to reduced production for exports caused by shuttered businesses, let's assume the total hit to the economy is the full 1%.  So, in your hypothetical situation, the US economy loses 1%, but, since the US economy was growing by over 2% previously, it still grows, albeit at a slower pace.

Imports account for about 15% of our economy.  Thus far, those are down 6% overall.  Using the same math as above, this works out to a 0.9% hit to our economy.  Now, assuming both these hits in full, the US economy is almost flatlining, but not shrinking.  In addition, there is a dynamic between imports and exports that is difficult for a non economists (such as us) to quantify.  For instance, if we don't import cars from Germany and Japan due to Covid, doesn't that quite likely drive up demand for domestic cars, thereby creating more jobs (or at least more overtime) for US autoworkers?  Similarly, many low end industrial products are made overseas, while higher quality versions are made here.  Some of the lost imports is certainly made up by switching to US sources, creating more jobs.  Many products (such as petroleum and especially agricultural products) are both imported AND exported, so, again, lost imports are offset by lost exports.

But, again, let's take worst case scenario, and assume the full impact is felt on our GDP.  GDP growth is then flat/slightly upwards through the pandemic.

At the end of 2019, there were 1.4 million more available jobs than available workers in the US.  At the time, there were roughly 164 million workers in the US workforce.  Assuming that 1.9% creates a similar percentage of lost jobs, that's 3.1 million jobs lost (1.9% of the 164M + 1.9% of the 1.4M) - a tenth what we've seen so far.  An excess of a 1.7  million workers is hardly an economic calamity.  In fact, that's where the US was in 2015.  I don't recall 2015 as an economic catastrophe, do you?  Would you rather be back in 2015, or where we are right now, in terms of the economy?  Not really a hard choice.

As far as your examples of retail businesses on the edge - that has been happening for 2 decades now - it would have and will continue to happen regardless of Covid, as retail continues to go the way of the manual transmission (still available, still preferred by some, but only 13% of car models offer it as an option).

No, all our current problems would not have vanished if we hadn't shut down, but they clearly would have been MUCH less than they are.

So, your theory is that all economic activity is interchangeable in the short term and all jobs and sources of income can be converted from one segment of the economy to another in a fraction of a year? One of the cutter-drapers in our costume shop is retiring in December - would you like her job?

Edited by Theresa Tennyson
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I found out tonight that there was 5 other people that were supposed to report for work last Sunday night but decided to refuse..

I thought it was just us 12 all week,I didn't realize there were others that laid out..

Well they told us not to come in next week and they would keep us updated each week.. I also found out that we were hand picked by the plant manager over the others because we all were versatile and effective..

Two of the ones that laid out have been there for over 35 years.. They both got email as well did the other three, that they were permanently laid off..

They wanted to make that better money rather than keep their job I guess..

The bad thing is,refusing work  will more than likely give them problems with their unemployment now..

Sometimes i wonder what goes through someones mind to risk so much for a few more dollars..

In normal times there would be jobs out there..but right now there is going to be lines for jobs with most places only opening up partially.,

Goodbye 401k's also..those get hit hard when they get cashed in early.

I feel bad for them ,but at the same time want to say to them..what were you thinking you big dummy.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Mollymews said:

a long time ago now our Parliament declared that New Zealand would be nuclear free.  Which caused a real problem for the USA. Nuclear powered ships and weapons. The US Navy has a nuclear non-confirm policy. They will not confirm or deny that any ship is equipped with nuclear weapons.  Were the US Navy to observe the  nuclear-free zone then it would indirectly lead to confirming the absence of nuclear weapons on any of their ships entering the zone. Something that the US Navy refused

I am not a military person but the little people here in America don't have a whole to do with the military other than perhaps protesting something.  Here in California, many residents are anti-nuclear.  San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant has been shut down for quite some time, thankfully.  I was just thinking the other day that I don't even know why man needs all these weapons to use against one another.  It's insane to me.  I could not come up with one specific answer other than perhaps some kind of greed.  

There have been problems with Germany since World War 1 (not II) 1.  England had built some kind of a super-duper naval ship and Germany wanted to know what it was about.  I believe that World War 1 just turned out to be a giant arms race.  And that's when all these arms races and weapons started to be built up, World War 1.  And it didn't even involve the USA.  It was Germany afraid of a naval ship that belonged to England but, again, it started one of the greatest arms races ever, and it continued as you know.  

I also wanted to say something else.  I don't feel pulled in different direction by my Governor and Mayor...it's the media.  It's the media pulling me in all different directions and I hate it.  I hate being manipulated by the media because they are known liars.   Coronavirus is a serious thing as is the economic fallout from all of this.  Younger people could have life long effects from it as it doesn't just involve the lungs and too much is still unknown but I feel I will still be pulled all over the place by the media.  It sucks!  

As far as nuclear, don't give up.  It's useless and it's toxic effects could last on this planet forever.  I think the internet has helped in so many ways in that we hear more of the truth just by talking with one another than the news bs media.  

Here is a bit of copy and paste as to the shutting down of the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant.   I hope it doesn't re-open but I would have not much control over it if it does.  However, there are many residents of Southern California who are anti-nuclear activists and who have worked for decades to get this plant shut down.  It finally shut due to their efforts.  Jackson Browne is a hero.  He is an anti-nuclear activist and I have been to several of his charity concerts.  Jackson has mostly done charity concerts for the past 25 years.  He is an amazing person and activist.  Many of us here in Southern California would stand with New Zealand's stance to be non-nuclear.  How we can help?  I'm not sure.  WAIT:  Now I remember an organization Jackson Browne may have started and/or been involved in starting - it's called MUSE.  Try getting ahold of MUSE. 

The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) is a closed nuclear power plant located south of San Clemente, California, on the Pacific coast, in Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV. The plant was shut down in 2013 after replacement steam generators failed; it is currently in the process of decommissioning.

The plant is owned by Southern California Edison. Edison International, parent of SCE, holds 78.2% ownership in the plant; San Diego Gas & Electric Company, 20%; and the City of Riverside Utilities Department, 1.8%. When fully functional, it employed over 2,200 people.[5] Located between the ocean and Interstate 5, the station is a prominent landmark because of its twin hemispherical containment buildings, which were designed to contain any unexpected releases of radioactive material from the power generators.

The plant's first unit, Unit 1, operated from 1968 to 1992.[6] Unit 2 was started in 1983 and Unit 3 started in 1984. Upgrades designed to last 20 years were made to the reactor units in 2009 and 2010; however, both reactors were shut down in January 2012 after premature wear was found on more than 3,000 tubes in replacement steam generators that had been installed in 2010 and 2011. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is currently investigating the events that led to the closure.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Here is a bit about Jackson Browne: 

In spring of 1978, Browne appeared at the site of the Barnwell, South Carolina, nuclear reprocessing plant to perform a free concert the night before a civil disobedience action; he did not participate in the action. In June 1978 he performed on the grounds of the Seabrook Station Nuclear Power Plant construction site in New Hampshire for 20,000 opponents of the reactor.[14]

220px-Jackson_Browne_2008.jpg
 
Browne performing in 2008

Soon after the Three Mile Island nuclear accident, during March 1979, Browne joined with several musician friends to found the antinuclear organization Musicians United for Safe Energy.[15] He was arrested protesting against the Diablo Canyon Power Plant near San Luis Obispo. 

 

Edited by FairreLilette
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

The extra unemployment benefits are a lie. Hubby was laid off last week. His benefits are $151.00 US per week.

did he get his first payment yet?

If you are just looking at his weekly benefit amount on say ,their website, it won't show the extra 600 there..All it will show is his actual weekly benefit amount..

If he already received his payment and was only 151.00..They should give him the extra 600 on his next payment along with his 151.00 and the 600 for that week also..

 

I'm sure things are different in each state, but there may be a delay with the extra when first starting out with a claim..

I know a few people that had that happen and they made up for it in their next payment..

 

 

Edited by Ceka Cianci
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

CNN let us know that the lockdowns could result in 1.5 million more dying of TB.

Honestly I don't know when the economy should open up again, but I trust Fauci (an infection disease specialist) and Birx over Trump and his minions of Trump-supporting doctors. And Fauci is saying (at least as of May 12) that it's a bit too risky at this time.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-grill-fauci-admin-officials-reopening-videoconference/story?id=70619278

As to economic problems from lockdown, well the government could have actually supported the economy for awhile, even enabling those businesses they love to stay afloat so they can easily rehire when it's safer to open up (they are doing this in some other countries). Then there would not have been as much lockdown trauma they are so "concerned" with. Of course they didn't/don't want to present this option -- it goes against their conservative principles of every man for himself and and little to none interference by government.
So basically the ship has pretty much sailed -- many of the businesses are already failed that could have been saved had our leaders done what many other countries have done -- kept them afloat until they could hire again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, Tolya Ugajin said:
21 hours ago, Dhyaanee said:

Capitalism is inherently exploitative, unsustainable, creates economic inequality, anti-democratic, leads to an erosion of human rights, and it incentivizes imperialist expansion and war. Other than that it's just dandy!

If there is no need to have a loser (someone who dies, starves, lives in squalor), then why have one?

and yet capitalism has lifted more people out of extreme poverty in the last 20 years than all the global social programs combined, while socialism has proven time and again to lead to starvation and tyranny the loss of rights and no socialist country in history has ever been a democracy.  But, hey, you keep wrapping yourself in comfortable lies, while those who understand history know that in the 20th century the countries with capitalistic economies largely gave up their "imperialist expansion", while the National Socialists in Germany started a rather large war as it embarked on rapid imperialist expansion, the United Soviet Socialist Republic took over Eastern Europe and fomented war throughout Latin America and Asia, and currently China, which at least has the honesty to call its ruling (and sole) party Communist uses imperialistic expansion (via economic means mostly) like nobody's business in Africa while bullying around its Asian neighbors.  But, hey, at least they all have strict gun control and socialized medicine.

Well that depends on the metrics one uses to define 'poverty' - there are debates about just how much capitalism per se has helped.

Neither unfettered capitalism, socialism, or communism by themselves is the answer. We need something new. Unregulated capitalism simply isn't working now -- it only works with growth, and we can't keep growing anymore because the earth has limits (and there's no more Native Americans to steal from, and no Black people to exploit slave labor from, and fewer and fewer little countries outside the US to exploit in the name of freedom). Since pure unfettered capitalism is based on growth to survive, we have a problem.

Today, in the USA, the richest 1 per cent own 34 per cent of the wealth and the richest 10 per cent own 74 per cent of the wealth. In the UK, the richest 1 per cent own 12 per cent of the wealth and the richest 10 per cent own 44 per cent of the wealth. In France the figures are 24 cent and 62 per cent respectively. The richest 1 percent own 35 percent of the wealth in Switzerland, 24 per cent in Sweden and 15 percent in Canada. Although there are important variations, other developed countries show similar patterns of inequality within this range.

(Data are for 2010 and from the Credit Suisse Research Institute (2012). And Piketty in 2014)

Edited by Dhyaanee
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:
21 hours ago, Dhyaanee said:

If there is no need to have a loser (someone who dies, starves, lives in squalor), then why have one?

That only applies to small businesses. Any time capitalism risks letting a small business become a "loser" -- such squealing you'd think some unnatural act was being perpetrated on the free market.

One thing about hyping lockdown-triggered mental illness is that it's a powerfully self-fulfilling prophecy: the more it's promoted as "widespread" the more widespread it becomes, as the expectation of distress spreads among the vulnerable. There's plenty of reason to feel distress, too, but it's a choice to encourage psychological misery as the victimhood of patriots.

Worse, though, is the fanciful "self inflicted" notion that the lockdown, not the virus, caused the economic disruption. If governments (and I definitely include Canada here) hadn't fiddle-fluffed around, stalling for weeks before finally enacting lockdowns, the whole disruption could have been over in a month or so.* Instead, we let the virus spread like wildfire in the cities, extending the duration of the lockdowns and making it many times more difficult to unwind the economic disaster we face now. And it is a disaster. How long before automobile production returns to pre-COVID levels? Detroit is predicting end of 2022 -- and that's if everything goes perfectly and a vaccine is widely available by end of this year. So yeah, hurry and get those barbershops and tattoo parlors and coffeeshops open again because that'll turn everything right around, you betcha.

______________
* and that's allowing for WHO and governments (other than Taiwan) to be deluded by the early suppression of information from China, despite having their own intelligence showing epidemic spread was already underway.

Laughs. They worship the structure (businesses, corporations) which ultimately enables them to procure the biggest piece of the pie. The other losers  outside their prized system designed for maximum profit through exploitation simply don't count.

Right, they so bungled initial responses to the crisis yet want us to trust their plan now!!??  Uh, no!

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, FairreLilette said:
21 hours ago, Dhyaanee said:

Capitalism is inherently exploitative, unsustainable, creates economic inequality, anti-democratic, leads to an erosion of human rights, and it incentivizes imperialist expansion and war. Other than that it's just dandy!

If there is no need to have a loser (someone who dies, starves, lives in squalor), then why have one?

If you think people in America are living in such terrible conditions why don't you and other socialist countries open up immigration for them to come and live there and your socialist country can take care of them since they're "starving" and "dying"?  

It's a fair question.  

I pointed out the many faults of capitalism in it's raw form. Most countries have elements of both capitalism and socialism, and those are balanced according to what residents of any country believe is important - we mitigate free markets.
Free markets (capitalism in its raw form) do not a society make - they do create winners and losers INITIALLY through competition, but we do not need to have losers if our society mitigates the markets.  When our society deems something important we subsidize it, and that is adding elements of socialism where the concerns of the common good or well-being of a society overall come into play. In other words, society assumes ownership of where the goods of society goes in these cases -- assuming ownership for the common good is socialism defined.

Take an apartment building, for example. Through the building and management of the building the free market determines the cost of building it, and the price anyone must pay to live there. What do we do, though, when some in society cannot afford to live there, like the mentally or physically disabled, the elderly, or the mother with children? We, the government we elect, will override free market capitalism and subsidize those who cannot pay because it is within our value system to do so. Via socialism we subsidize both wealthy and non-wealthy individuals or companies, sometimes fairly and sometimes unfairly (like the bank bailouts in '08).

We need to subsidize the poor more. A large percentage of the population are food insecure, and most could not come up with an extra $400 for an emergency expense if needed. The richest 10% own 74% of the wealth, and much of the middle class has been destroyed over the last few decades. Wages have not kept up with inflation. We're in sad shape as a nation. Capitalism has run amok and we need to reign it in with more socialism to demonstrate we care as much about people as we do profit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ceka Cianci said:

did he get his first payment yet?

If you are just looking at his weekly benefit amount on say ,their website, it won't show the extra 600 there..All it will show is his actual weekly benefit amount..

If he already received his payment and was only 151.00..They should give him the extra 600 on his next payment along with his 151.00 and the 600 for that week also..

 

I'm sure things are different in each state, but there may be a delay with the extra when first starting out with a claim..

I know a few people that had that happen and they made up for it in their next payment..

 

 

I had wondered about that. Thank you. He hasn't gotten a payment yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Mollymews said:

the first rationale for UBI (universal basic income) and MI (minimum income) like systems is technical. Reduce bureaucracy. Keep it simple. There is only one kind of public assistance. And only one government agency (like the IRS) to administer it
 
why we end up with carve outs is because of the politics. The big politic is the moralising in the minds of the people: The deserving and undeserving poor

why should some lazy person get as much as me. I work, they don't. I am deserving, they are not. If those girls kept their legs crossed then they wouldn't have had a kid which I end up paying for. I am deserving, they are not. If that person racked up a mountain of debt like I did to get my qualifications then I wouldn't have to support them. I am deserving, they are not. How come that migrant family got public assistance before me, they just walked in off the boat. I am deserving, they are not. And on and on

the second rationale for universal systems is to remove this moralising. That for all the reasons why a person might be impoverished doesn't change the fact that they are

Blaming is an art form here in the US   :(    Fortunately the New Deal prevails, but for how long?   And will reality change after Covid-19?

Edited by Dhyaanee
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Two of the ones that laid out have been there for over 35 years.. They both got email as well did the other three, that they were permanently laid off..

They wanted to make that better money rather than keep their job I guess..

The bad thing is,refusing work  will more than likely give them problems with their unemployment now..

Sometimes i wonder what goes through someones mind to risk so much for a few more dollars..

 

If they have been with the company that long, is it possible that they are considered high risk due to their age? Health is more important than money, so my guess would be that is what is going through their minds.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sylvia Tamalyn said:

If they have been with the company that long, is it possible that they are considered high risk due to their age? Health is more important than money, so my guess would be that is what is going through their minds.

Actually, our old company was sold and the deal closed  last November.. so we have been doing a transition even before the deal was closed..

We were told that January 1st everyone in the company was starting with a new slate.. So if you were with the old company for 50 years or 1..That was with the old company..

So it was starting from scratch as if we all just got a job with a new company.. Nobody's bad reports  would carry over, no favoritism of old were going to take place..

Basically, if you have 40 years with the old company, don't think you can walk around like you have 40 years in here with us.. You best be productive..

That's the kick in the ass that a lot of the ones that have been there for awhile really needed, because a lot were just riding on their time thinking they had all this job security because they were around so long..

I got so tired of  someones time getting into an argument as if that was an instant win even though they were wrong..

Breath of fresh air for me..hehehe

 

The reason they were let go is because they were hand picked out of everyone else and told to report to work and they chose not to be there..

It wasn't because they missed Sunday.. They missed the whole week..

3 days and not showing for work or calling in, is instant termination.

This new company is setting examples because the last company sucked at enforcing any of it's rules..so they have to come in hard to show they mean business..

So far since they have taken over, they haven't messed around at all..

And they are a good company to work for..

They have cut down the work load ,gotten rid of a lot of the lazy people and actually making it a drug free place to work rather than just saying it is.. and they already Bumped up everyone's pay,plus the hiring rate..

 

I could go on and on as to how much better it is there now..

If anything, I think a lot of the older ones there were stuck in their ways and had a grudge against the new company and all the changes..

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...