"You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine."

[Copper]

@xenon said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":

I can’t stand people who focus on grievances - and that’s all Trump does.

You're thinking of Jimmy Carter.

Mr. Trump spreads sunshine.

[Larry]

@taiwan_girl said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":

@Jolly

I had a long discussion with Horace in the old forum board, but do you really think that the economy is strictly due to President Trump? I did not hear you saying how good President Obama did with stock market employment, etc. were pretty good during his term.

Most numerical measures at 40 months of their presidency are better for President Obama than for President Trump.

at this point in their presidents term, who had the better return at the stock market?
President Trump or President Obama?

at this point in their presidents term, who had the better positive change in unemployment?
President Trump or President Obama?

Now I realize that the reply will be "because Corona!!" And that is true, but............

My point is this - if a leader (President Trump, President Obama, President Bush, President Clinton, etc) is going to talk about how good things are and take credit when things are going well, they also have to step up and take responsibility when things are not going well.

You cannot say - economy was great until Jan 2020. That is ONLY because of me. Economy doing bad now - that NOT because of me.

I do add the President Trump is not alone like this. Probably EVERY world leader acts the same. President Obama took too much credit when things went well and was quick to blame others when it did not go so well.

The notion that presidents don't have much influence on the economy is a fallacy that's put forth by the party that's in the White House when the economy is not doing well. It can be either party making the claim, but it's usually democrats because usually the economy isn't doing well when a Democrat is in the White House.

But it's not true. Presidents have a major impact on how the economy performs. As for the argument that they should accept blame when it's bad if they're going to take credit when it's good... it's not that simple. Good or bad depends on why. If the reason for a downturn is due to something out of his control, why should a president take the blame for it?

[xenon]

@Larry I disagree. And also if you just look at the numbers historically - GDP growth has been higher under Democrat’s.

But I disagree with the premise.

[Jolly]

@Doctor-Phibes said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":

@Jolly said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":

Then there is no reason to elect or change leaders of any country, is it? We're all on autopilot and nothing ever makes a difference.

The main reason to regularly change leaders is to stop them from becoming dictators. We've all seen examples of idealistic people becoming monsters, and in democracies there's a point at which you say of even the best leaders, 'Stick a fork in his ass, he's done'.

There's also a well known saying about diapers and politicians being changed for the same reason.

That's just the flip side of the coin from TG. In her world, national leaders make little difference. In yours, they ascend to ultimate authority and impact.

[Larry]

@xenon said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":

@Larry I disagree. And also if you just look at the numbers historically - GDP growth has been higher under Democrat’s.

But I disagree with the premise.

You can disagree all you want, but it won't change reality. Tell me which Democrat president caused the economy to improve, and I'll tell you what really happened.

[xenon]

The U.S. economy does not have a man at the helm pulling levers. To the extent that Congress and the President change the country, it's based on long-term consequences of meaningful legislation and overwhelmingly driven by the energy and talents of Americans.

Sure, in time of crisis they can have outsized influence.

Fundamental things like capital formation, incentives to create new businesses, the cost and outcomes of healthcare policy - these things Presidents and Congress definitely shape - but the effects are felt in the long term.

The fundamentals of a country do not change with a new administration. Hypothetically, you couldn't rotate the government personalities of the UK, Canada and U.S. and start getting American-like economy figures coming out of Canada by putting Trump into place there.

It's like moving a lumbering ocean liner. You can change the path by a few degrees and change where the ship will end up - but your destination is way off in the future.

Doesn't it fundamentally go against conservative philosophy to think that one man in the government is in control of our economic destiny?

[Rainman]

If the president has marginal effect on the economy, then why was just about everyone saying that the economy would crash if Trump were to be elected? Even the night of the election, there was teeth-gnashing about how the dow futures were down hundreds of points, and how this was just the beginning of what was about to happen.
Was anyone wrong with this prediction? /sarcasm
How many times have experts been wrong about Trump?

[xenon]

I'd feel like I'd owe you an explanation if I was the opinion section of the NYT.

Plenty of real experts that factor the likely effect of government into their business decisions have continued to make gobs of money.

Also - wouldn't the left be naturally more prone to government-power worship relative to the right?

Also - isn't the fact that there was a widespread belief that Trump would tank the market upon election (but didn't), more evidence that people put too much stock into the power of the Presidency?

[Doctor Phibes]

@Rainman said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":

If the president has marginal effect on the economy, then why was just about everyone saying that the economy would crash if Trump were to be elected? Even the night of the election, there was teeth-gnashing about how the dow futures were down hundreds of points, and how this was just the beginning of what was about to happen.
Was anyone wrong with this prediction? /sarcasm
How many times have experts been wrong about Trump?

I'm certainly no expert, but when I saw him on TV about 20 years ago, I said 'That guy's a bit of a twat, isn't he?'

I haven't seen anything to make me revise this layman's opinion, except that I'd be willing to concede that I was incorrect in using the qualifier 'a bit of'.

Incidentally, this has nothing to do with politics. You may indeed revel in having your country represented by such a man, if such be your predilection. The ends justify the means, after all.

I know, I know, we should still respect the orifice.

[Copper]

@Rainman said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":

How many times have experts been wrong about Trump?

Every time.

We even have a few here, not experts exactly, but wrong every time.

[Copper]

@Doctor-Phibes said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":

about 20 years ago, I said 'That guy's a bit of a twat, isn't he?'

That is known as occasionally impolite.

[xenon]

@Doctor-Phibes The doc always explains it with more humor than me.

I had a similar experience though. I have a close cousin who LOVED him in the Apprentice in the 2000s and aspired to be a business titan like him. Became obsessed with Wharton.

I was always on the other side explaining to him that the guy is just a shyster.

[Doctor Phibes]

@Copper said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":

@Doctor-Phibes said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":

about 20 years ago, I said 'That guy's a bit of a twat, isn't he?'

That is known as occasionally impolite.

Not where I grew up it's not. And bear in mind, 'a bit of a twat' when re-calibrated for the fact that he was appearing on an American chat-show is roughly equivalent to 'What an unbelievable wanker' in the rest of the world.

'Occasionally impolite' is somebody who burps during mealtimes and doesn't say 'excuse me'. Not somebody who boasts about banging chicks and spends hours telling us how freaking awesome he is. That's the guy that gets his head pushed down the lavatory while there's a turd still floating in the pan.

[Rainman]

@Doctor-Phibes
I don't disagree at all, although not quite sure of what a twat is. I thought that was a derogatory thing to say about a female. Oh well, not in my lexicon anyway.

Where I disagree is where you say, "...this has nothing to do with politics." Seems to me that EVERYTHING is now under this massive tent called Politics, under the auspices of the media. Actually, the sweeping term Politics is about as definable as the term "twat."

[89th]

If the United States had begun imposing social distancing measures one week earlier than it did in March, about 36,000 fewer people would have died in the coronavirus outbreak, according to new estimates from Columbia University disease modelers. And 54,000 had it started two weeks earlier.

I wasn’t sure if I should post this here or in the “US has shitloads” thread.

So 36,000 to 54,000 lives could’ve been saved, and that is only as of May 3rd.

[Rainman]

@89th
"If the United States CCP had begun imposing social distancing measures warned the world even one week earlier than it did in March, about 36,000 fewer people would have died in the coronavirus outbreak, according to new estimates from Columbia University disease modelers. And 54,000 had it started two weeks earlier."

Not sure I was able to FIFY to make my point. Have you been able to find, or come across, the effect that would have occured if China had closed down international commercial flights when they closed down their domestic flights from Wuhan?

[Mik]

The fallacy in 89th's assertion is that the federal government does not impose shutdowns. The states do. Can you imagine if Trump had done that unilaterally? He'd not be just Hitler, but Hitler squared!

[Copper]

@89th said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":

If the United States had begun imposing social distancing measures one week earlier than it did in March, about 36,000 fewer people would have died in the coronavirus outbreak, according to new estimates from Columbia University disease modelers. And 54,000 had it started two weeks earlier.

I wasn’t sure if I should post this here or in the “US has shitloads” thread.

So 36,000 to 54,000 lives could’ve been saved, and that is only as of May 3rd.

If this chart was not politically biased it would tell us how many more would have died if social distancing started a week later

And 2 weeks later

And the title would include "how early action saved lives"

[Larry]

Xenon, your knowledge about the economy comes from what you read. Your knowledge of presidents consists of Obama and Bush. I've watched how presidents affect the economy going all the way back to John F. Kennedy. I sat in line at gas stations. I saw the 21 plus % home loans. I saw the mortgage collapse created by the democrats. I saw the economy take off like a rocket under Reagan. I saw Bill Clinton take credit for the economic improvements created by a Republican Congress. So don't tell me about what you read in a book.

[Larry]

89th, if seat belt laws had been passed prior to the first sale of cars capable of speeds over 25 mph it would have saved more lives. That has just as much truth, and is just as stupid and just as much a piece of worthless information as your chart and your argument.

Hell, lets go back even further... if someone has cut down that apple tree before Eve found it NOBODY would have died...