______
#4 | Posted by DANNI at 2020-07-04 04:52 PM
Republicans are so distant from Eisenhower they will let him get away with it. Dwight D. Eisenhower would be ashamed of them today.

Very true.

Dwight D. Eisenhower wouldn't spit on Reagan if he was on fire.

Not true at all. Eisenhower was actually a mentor of political novice Reagan, and very much promoted his presidential ambitions, especially after 1964 Goldwater disaster.

______
She is owner of Rifle, Colorado "Shooters Grill of Rifle, famous for it's armed waitresses and great food."

"Armed waitresses" must be a part of the show. "Shooters" is just one letter off from a famous joint, Hooters Restaurants, where waitresses are "armed" with different "weapons of mass distraction".

QAnon vs Trumpian? Weird, ha? Does that sound a little like "Superman vs Batman" or "Mothra vs Godzilla" or such?
______

______
Maybe we should do a DR poll.
#2 | Posted by SNOOFY at 2020-06-27 02:50 PM

If you think that DR is representative, and that all DR people will see your post and respond, and if the sample will be large enough, sure... otherwise, it's a waste of time that will only be misleading, like polls that were conducted by Drudge to push Trump in 2016 - which he seems to be regretting now.
______

People should be more careful here. Some of BLM's tactics, like blocking traffic when people are just trying to get some place (home, work, store, hospital) or that have been used by gangs of looters and vandals, are repugnant and likely have been, at least in part, responsible in 2016 for marginal electoral win of The Dotard Trump.

Demands of reparations, or special treatment as euphemism for "equality" or "defunding" police (which already caused spikes in crime rate in certain districts and regions) and defacing and/or dismantling the statues of just about anyone white (or Hispanic like Junipero Serra) from 150 - 250 years ago may just pixx a lot of people off. Now, that alone probably wouldn't save Dotard's 2020 election but it may permanently alienate enough people (including "minorities" which now or soon will count whites, male and female) who are currently not on the "other side" simply with their tactics and unreasonable demands, which would only reinforce stereotypes for generations and slow down or impede genuine progress for color-blind society.

The rise of Nazis in the wake of Trump's election (like some "very fine people" in Charlottesville) show it didn't work well for Trump and supremacists. BLM (and some others) should not be a mirror image.

Pendulum swings - as we saw in 2016 - we don't want it to swing too far, in any direction.

"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket."

People should be more careful here. Some of BLM's tactics, like blocking traffic when people are just trying to get some place (home, work, store, hospital) or that have been used by gangs of looters and vandals, are repugnant and likely have been, at least in part, responsible in 2016 for marginal electoral win of The Dotard Trump.

Demands of reparations, or special treatment as euphemism for "equality" or "defunding" police (which already caused spikes in crime rate in certain districts and regions) and defacing and/or dismantling the statues of just about anyone white (or Hispanic like Junipero Serra) from 150 - 250 years ago may just pixx a lot of people off. Now, that alone probably wouldn't save Dotard's 2020 election but it may permanently alienate enough people (including "minorities" which now or soon will count whites, male and female) who are currently not on the "other side" simply with their tactics and unreasonable demands, which would only reinforce stereotypes for generations and slow down or impede genuine progress for color-blind society.

The rise of Nazis in the wake of Trump's election (like some "very fine people" in Charlottesville) show it didn't work well for Trump and supremacists. BLM (and some others) should not be a mirror image.

Pendulum swings - as we saw in 2016 - we don't want it to swing too far, in any direction.

"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket."

divid = divde

______
If only by race... Trump's entire history is "divide and conquer" - the only time he "wins" is to see others "lose" even when he loses materially in the process. Isn't the entire "Apprentice" premise based on dividing people into groups / "corporations" with The Dotard being the final arbiter of who stays and who is FIRED?

He is visibly happiest when he gets to divid people into "losers" and "biggest losers" whatever any other criteria may be.
______

#10 | Posted by humtake at 2020-06-18 12:20 PM
So now people are understanding how trickle down works and that it DOES have an impact on our economy?

It's kind of ironic, isn't it? The researchers set out to "prove" that the "rich" (the 25% of population, top quartile!) "tanked the economy" by not spending on discretionary items, by choice (bad, bad rich!) - yet they actually made the case for supply-side economics (since it's a supply-driven recession, unlike mostly demand-driven recessions in the past)... and also that we may be seeing the actual snippet of "John Galt" phenomena (though indirect) - this involves loss of discretionary spending in economy, as well as loss of "essential talent" when people shut down their SMB businesses, or some which we may never know / learn about, as is the case in immigration, for instance - how many first or second/third generation immigrants started small to large businesses employing (some say "exploiting") millions of Americans.

#6 | Posted by JPW at 2020-06-18 02:11 AM

(continued)
FTA : It spells trouble for the people who work in those nice restaurants or other service-oriented businesses. Hendren's team found big job losses specifically among workers, many of whom don't make a lot of money but who worked in high-income neighborhoods.

Yes, again, nothing to do with the "rich" (most dine-in restaurants include big chains and family places that cater mostly to middle class, not the very rich) and they were all shut down, and many (current estimates are 25% to 50%) will not survive. Some exist on takeouts, delivery and pickups, but may not last beyond 60 days. Most high-end restaurants are still shut as there is no economic sense for them to operate at less than 85% capacity.

FTA : That makes this very different from an ordinary recession, when spending on higher-touch services doesn't dry up so quickly.

Sure, but we already knew that, but it's no fault of the "rich" not wanting to spend money who, according to this research, "tanked the economy" - it's just that the nature of the economy itself changed very drastically and very fast, primarily due to the governments' (mostly states, muni and also federal) actions and mandates - not that I blame them, though it might have possibly been handled less heavy-handed or restrictively - maybe a little less NY or CA and little more Sweden, or some different mix, or maybe little less TX and FL and little more CO, or maybe in the U.S. and federalism, it's impossible, therefore the economy's recovery is / will be "uneven" as Fed's chair Powell conceded?

If authors made this research about the changes in "discretionary spending" behavior (on any income level) instead of the "rich" not wanting to spend and thus "tanking the economy" it would be different, because that's where the percentages and the difference between the "essential" and "non-essential" spending shows up - in their data as well as all other data.

But it seems they wanted to make a clumsy point, blaming the "rich" for the problems in economy.

BTW, economy was not that great even before COVID-19, as I posted several times on this site, despite glowing pronouncements about "best economy in generations" or supposedly great unemployment numbers, while the very nature of "gig economy" made those economic numbers unreliable and misleading as was obvious from declining average hours worked, productivity and some other, little more obscure economic indicators.

#6 | Posted by JPW at 2020-06-18 02:11 AM

Think outside the box a bit. Go beyond the stated conclusions.

I usually do, but stated conclusions were exactly the point of the research and article, and on top of that they were based on data which is upside down, i.e., cause and effect were reversed (as I will show) which makes this research is even worse than useless.

"The Rich Have Stopped Spending And That Has Tanked The Economy" - that's right off the bat, in the title and through the article, so that was the main conclusion that research wanted and made it a point to make. IOW, the "research" was only there to support the original premise / conclusion, so they tried to fit the data to it, and made a horrible job of that, too.

What this is saying is that our economy is way way worse than we thought.

That's a given, only it's not worse than we thought, it's worse than the usual cheerleaders, in government and media, are telling us it is - but we can see that from standard economic data, not that there is anything about it in the article - it's not the point of this "research" as they made it obvious.

e.g., 30% of people have missed mortgage / rent payments in June alone - no, things are far from great, but that's not what research is trying to prove.

... even with the core 80% (more?) of the population spending the same
... maintained by the majority of the country maintaining their ways.

That's not the number they could possibly mean by "people at the bottom of the income ladder."

It's accepted that 70% of the GDP ("economy") is driven by consumers, then 30% is business financial services, manufacturing and B2B services not directly involving the consumer - much of both stopped functioning normally, i.e., this is not a demand-driven recession (people still wanted to consume services), it's a supply-driven recession - transactions and services people and/or businesses usually consume or exchange in, were simply shut down.

Here is one example of upside-down data in the research : FTA : ... before the pandemic were spending a significant chunk of that going to nice restaurants, the theater, or traveling and staying in nice hotels."

It's not that "rich" (they are for some reason defined as whopping 25% of population) got greedy and didn't want to spend this money on nice restaurants or theaters - they couldn't because of lockdowns. And by the way, it's not just specific or limited to the U.S., the same story was everywhere else in the world where lockdowns were the norm... would be interesting to compare this to Sweden or Iceland, for example where lockdowns didn't occur and they tried "herd immunity" experiment which didn't seem to work well, as they now acknowledge.

FTA: "When the stimulus checks went out, you see that spending by lower-income households went up a lot," said Nathan Hendren, a Harvard economist and co-founder of the Opportunity Insights research team. - Well, duh! $1200 is not really a "stimulus" for someone "rich" but for someone who lost income it is money that could be spent on necessities.

Then there also needs to be taken into account that sharp drop in the market rendered someone "rich on paper" due to accumulated stock wealth, like in 401(k), IRA or options-based "pension" plan, and/or possibly with a mortgage or student debt and potentially at risk of losing their job would not consider themselves "rich" any more - any financial uncertainty would close the wallets to discretionary spending.
(continued)

They found that people at the bottom of the income ladder are now spending nearly as much as they did before the coronavirus pandemic.

Did they, really? By definition, lower-income people are spending much higher proportion, if not all, of their income for essential basic needs and necessities - rent / shelter, utilities, food, clothes, transportation etc.

That's called research? That's Econ101. "Rich" tanked the economy? How many middle class people who, again, spend a higher percentage of their income on some discretionary expenditures than rich after the basics are taken care off, have been laid off and couldn't afford discretionary spending any more, while rich have still been buying and selling multimillion homes and $100M art pieces?

The whole parts of the economy (like leisure and non-essential farming, manufacturing, education and other production has stopped dead in its tracks) but garbage "research" is still going on.

Shame on Harvard and NPR for promoting this "research."

Any corticosteroid will relieve symptoms of acute pulmonary disease, especially in otherwise healthy organisms - this is just another one of hundreds nothingburgers we'll keep hearing day after day from any research lab or company, big and tiny, who are looking for fame and fortune in discovering a definitive "cure" or "treatment" or "vaccine" from multifaceted virus.

Coming soon:
$DOW 26,000
$SPX 3,200
$TRUMP 20,000

I will continue to stay home and avoid contact with those who don't. I'm not going to allow any Trump supporter to be within 15 feet of me.
#4 | Posted by danni at 2020-05-09 01:32 PM

And that's your choice, Danni, which I respect. Other people should be able to make their choice, as long as it doesn't affect you and your well-being, and doesn't present a danger to "society". Your choice doesn't intrude on theirs.

There is no such thing as 100 percent safety, but as long as most people have a self-interest in being safe as well as being able to engage in services they deem essential or important enough for them - most people will act in their own and societal interests.

It's easy to say "NON" to opening, if you don't run a business that is considered non-essential by someone else / government.

The thing is, it may be relatively easy for SOME small businesses to comply with safety guidelines an still provide service which many / enough people would patronize, with benefit shared by customers, business owner and employees, and the city / state - fewer unemployed, more tax revenues.

The cost / benefit analysis of risks to individuals and risk to "society" clearly belongs to the people who want / need and provide the services. Many businesses are not attended well even where partial openings have already occurred - clearly people are making choices on what the risks are as well as what is "essential" to them at this time, after lockdowns. Not every decision has to be made by the government, outside of what can should be done with safety in mind.

E.g., why the vitamins or toilet paper can be bought in Costco, but not in a small ACME store?