Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
gogogosandiego
ParticipantIn places like San Diego the limited overall and available supply of housing is the main driver of prices, not the Fed’s policies.
ParticipantBingo. Which is exactly why the Fed is independent “within” the Government. Things like taxation, regulation, wages, price controls and most of the rest of the stuff that shapes our country and economy are under the control of Congress.
ParticipantThe Feds mandates come from Congress. The Fed does what it can using Monetary Policy to attempt to carry out those mandates. Most of the things you are concerned with such as people not being able to afford homes could be at least aided by Congress. Congress has not mandated that the Fed make homes affordable.
ParticipantThe Fed is independent of our Government (but accountable to Congress) by design. The Fed’s mandates are set by Congress. The Fed only controls Monetary Policy while Congress controls Fiscal Policy. See where this is going?
Participant[quote=livinincali][quote=spdrun]Since the US (outside of NY and a few other states) can’t seem to handle basic fucking precautions like wearing masks, the cynic in me says maybe it’s best to let it go, infect and kill where it may, burn out, so we can return to normal standards of healthcare. I can understand not liking full lockdowns, but I feel like the anti-mask, anti-science crowd has made its bed. Let them lie in it with a bucket full of bedbugs.
We in the NY area should just institute hard border controls to keep ‘zonies from coming in.[/quote]
The CDC itself doesn’t believe in face masks preventing anything. Handwashing it fairly proven but that’s hard to measure with viral photos, wearing facewmasks is easy. You can public shame someone for not wearing a facemask but hand washing not so much.
[quote]
Face MasksIn our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51–1.20; I2 = 30%, p = 0.25) (Figure 2). One study evaluated the use of masks among pilgrims from Australia during the Hajj pilgrimage and reported no major difference in the risk for laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection in the control or mask group (33). Two studies in university settings assessed the effectiveness of face masks for primary protection by monitoring the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza among student hall residents for 5 months (9,10). The overall reduction in ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza cases in the face mask group was not significant in either studies (9,10). Study designs in the 7 household studies were slightly different: 1 study provided face masks and P2 respirators for household contacts only (34), another study evaluated face mask use as a source control for infected persons only (35), and the remaining studies provided masks for the infected persons as well as their close contacts (11–13,15,17). None of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the face mask group (11–13,15,17,34,35). Most studies were underpowered because of limited sample size, and some studies also reported suboptimal adherence in the face mask group.
Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (36). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.
[/quote]Bottom line Covid ain’t going away and a vaccine is unlikely to work. It’s probably time to just live with it and let the cards fall where they may. Thinking another couple of months of social distancing and face masks is going to resolve it is a pipe dream.[/quote]
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html
Participant[quote=spdrun]Since the US (outside of NY and a few other states) can’t seem to handle basic fucking precautions like wearing masks, the cynic in me says maybe it’s best to let it go, infect and kill where it may, burn out, so we can return to normal standards of healthcare. I can understand not liking full lockdowns, but I feel like the anti-mask, anti-science crowd has made its bed. Let them lie in it with a bucket full of bedbugs.
We in the NY area should just institute hard border controls to keep ‘zonies from coming in.[/quote]
ParticipantI was going off memory and I used 1.5% b/c I thought the actual rate was something like 1.2% or 1.3%.
A 1% growth rate is basically a rounding error. A nothing.
Where the intelligence factor comes in is when someone doesn’t like or understand that 1.1% is a nothing burger they start going on about “LA Basin’s worth of people” as if that somehow changes the argument. Smart people understand percentages. Dumb people think “well golly that’s a lot of people”.It’s 1% of what we already have.
For some context the LA Basin size wise is about 5k square miles. The US as a country is close to 4m square miles. (Yes, I looked up both but feel free to check them). And we’re talking a worldwide growth rate.
Participant[quote=barnaby33]
Keep in mind that all things being equal ideas like making birth control more available, better education for women, access to abortion etc. all take decades to work their way through to results.
Ideas do take time, which means they actually have to be implemented before you can watch them take action over time. No disagreement on this point. My disagreement is that we haven’t taken action at all and most of the last 30 years is a public food fight around access to birth control and abortion for women. No real discussion of birth control for men, which is both easily attainable, and would cut un-necessary births MUCH faster. Think Vasalgel.
Again, keep in mind that most developed countries have large proportions of their populations that are older with the younger folks not making babies at a rate to keep up with their deaths. This gets worse in ~10 years.
So what? Just because our current social support mechanisms are based on ever growing populations doesn’t mean they can’t be changed. Your life has a dollar value to your fellow citizens, lets make that a bit more explicit. It would shore up medicare and SS and be a shot across the bow of the fantasy of unlimited growth and unlimited entitlements. You can’t put 25 cents into social security and expect 1 dollar out, that’s the crime right there.
I do find it appalling that someone or some government would try to tell me how many kids I can have (and I’m male).
Well at least you’re appalled by something. The govt tells you you can’t marry your cousin either, why doesn’t that appall you? It also says you can’t own anti-tank weapons even though the 2nd amendment explicitly guarantees your right to bear arms. I for one find that super galling when I’m stuck in traffic. Societies only function with compromises. The larger and more specialized the society, the more compromises must be made. Specifically with regards to children, the compromise is that you feed them and society has to pay to educate them. I laugh every time I hear a parent complain about the costs of raising children, because society as in all of us is bearing a huge chunk of that cost. I have zero children. I’m happy to pay, knowing I get a better class of human to live alongside, but that absolutely gives me (via govt) the right to vote on how many kids you produce. I don’t think there are nearly enough restrictions on who has kids. Historically tax policy, war and ecological collapse are the only 3 mechanisms which effectively control peoples behavior. The latter two are much more natural yet I’d rather avoid their use. Tax policy is the least bad of all options. Have 1 kid get a tax break, have two and lets make it neutral, have more than two start paying up motherfucker!
Josh[/quote]According to this site the rate hasn’t been above 2% since the early 70’s so I’m not sure why you are so concerned with the last 30 years.
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
Again, we’ve known the rate is dropping and we know it gets close to flat at some point due to one generation (at least in developed countries). The primary issue we haven’t taken action on relative to this is not abortion but immigration reform. In most of the country you can have an abortion which helps keep births down. A more efficient Legal Immigration process would allow the population to grow despite the low organic rate.
What you’re proposing with Social Security would mean a lower standard of living for everyone. The opposite of what you claim a lesser population would do. Similar to inflation we’d ideally want a steady gain of something like 2-3% and then tweak from there where needed. That’s sustainable.
Maybe you don’t literally mean outlawing having kids but I would view that in the same way I would denying a woman an abortion. Neither scenario is comparable to traffic nor what kind of guns you can own. Very few people would agree with this “absolutely gives me (via govt) the right to vote on how many kids you produce”. Please show me a politician or any reputable organization that supports that stance.
BTW – the 2nd amendment guarantees your right to bear arms in the context of a well regulated militia.
Participant[quote=barnaby33]
LOL. The worlds population is growing at less than 2% per year and that rate is declining.
Wait until the baby boomers and similar generations die off. We’re going to be begging people to have kids.
Rates and levels, they both matter. Even if the rate of growth is slowing there are still too many people. I’m going out on a limb (a very small limb, more like a shrubbery) to say that all of the people in the world would like a higher standard of living. That isn’t remotely possible for the people who are here now, let alone another 1.5% next year. So the level here is more important than the rate. There is nothing sustainable about how the western world lives. Adding more people who we will convince to want what we have is even crazier; they’ll never be able to have it and if they actually tried would crater our standard of living.
Most folks prefer to go through life believing in a techno narcissist fantasy. One that peddles the belief that technology can save us. If we just make things a bit more efficient we can save ourselves from ourselves. Mostly what we use improvements in efficiency for is to build bigger (fatter) and dumber (less aware of the world around them) citizens. This religion is patently false first and wouldn’t even mostly be necessary if we showed enough self restraint to live within our ecological means. Technology isn’t inherently bad, but we never recycle to gains for the future, we just spend the gains in the present.
So to the poster who snarkily said, population is only increasing at 1.5% a year I say good on you sir! You’re belief in the goodness of the status quo is helping to kill us all, quite quickly! I’m guessing you have or want more than 2 kids!
Josh[/quote]
I’ll play.
I posted the rate b/c many people who want to decrease the population think it’s growing out of control. So let’s talk level. What’s your plan to (I assume) get it down? Keep in mind that all things being equal ideas like making birth control more available, better education for women, access to abortion etc. all take decades to work their way through to results. What number do we need to get to and by when?
Again, keep in mind that most developed countries have large proportions of their populations that are older with the younger folks not making babies at a rate to keep up with their deaths. This gets worse in ~10 years.
As for me I have one kid. Would have liked another but it didn’t pan out. Maybe if I had 2 I’d want a third. Who knows. No one I know is being killed by a 1.5% growth rate.
I do find it appalling that someone or some government would try to tell me how many kids I can have (and I’m male).
Participant[quote=svelte][quote=gogogosandiego][quote=svelte][quote=barnaby33] I think the problems people are focusing on are distractions to avoid dealing with the real issues in front of us. Overpopulation…
Josh[/quote]I am continually amazed at how many of the “save the planet” folks do not even MENTION overpopulation, or at least population growth.
That is the one thing that will do the most to preserve the planet in the long term, and the one thing that never leaves their lips.[/quote]
LOL. The worlds population is growing at less than 2% per year and that rate is declining.
[/quote]That is 156 million more people EACH YEAR.
The entire Los Angeles metropolitan area is 13 million people.
That means we add twelve Los Angeles basins worth of people. Each and every year. Year after year.[/quote]
OMG. Sounds horrible. 156M is sooo much worse than ~1.5%.
Participant[quote=svelte][quote=barnaby33] I think the problems people are focusing on are distractions to avoid dealing with the real issues in front of us. Overpopulation…
Josh[/quote]I am continually amazed at how many of the “save the planet” folks do not even MENTION overpopulation, or at least population growth.
That is the one thing that will do the most to preserve the planet in the long term, and the one thing that never leaves their lips.[/quote]
LOL. The worlds population is growing at less than 2% per year and that rate is declining.
Wait until the baby boomers and similar generations die off. We’re going to be begging people to have kids.
ParticipantSure the left does it too but this is a horrible attempt at an example.
“I found a study that proved my point…” lol
The Earth’s population is growing at about 1% which is going to become problematic in a few decades.
ParticipantWell…
“A network of right-leaning individuals and groups, aided by nimble online outfits, has helped incubate the fervor erupting in state capitals across the country. The activism is often organic and the frustration deeply felt, but it is also being amplified, and in some cases coordinated, by longtime conservative activists, whose robust operations were initially set up with help from Republican megadonors.”
ParticipantIt gets complicated. Some beaches are county, some are individual town beaches. Some are state. My friend is a lifeguard. He was telling me about open beaches with closed parking lots which means people were parking all over the streets. Fights were breaking out over parking.
Some of the beach areas here are known as being a hangout for people from East County, Others attract gangbangers (or at least want-to-be gangbangers) from the South County. Both groups were out in force this past weekend per my friend.
There was a protest in PB where a good chunk of the people were from the Temecula area. The “news” about these protests are circulating on social media and attracting any and all nutjobs from the region to descend on the beach.
Opening beaches in the middle of stay at home guidance was a disaster waiting to happen.
-
AuthorPosts