One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: truthiness
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 42 next>>
Mar 22, 2020 23:29:41   #
BigMike wrote:
Uh...they like being lied to and taken advantage of?

Maybe they believe in a two caste system in which they are the servitors?

Hmmm...


...
As usual there is another side to the story:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/top-democrats-say-they-re-not-yet-ready-sign-c****av***s-n1166021
"Just before Sunday morning's meeting, Democrats revealed what they are still opposed to in the stimulus package. According to a person familiar with the negotiations, Democrats say the language would allow for corporations to keep bailout money while still firing workers, that the bailout money would have virtually no restraints and that there are very weak stock buyback restrictions.

A senior Democratic aide told NBC News that Democrats are concerned that the bill lacks specific provisions to protect people from evictions, foreclosure or forbearance and that it would allow for only three months of unemployment insurance."
Go to
Mar 20, 2020 20:25:06   #
Radiance3 wrote:
==============
The problems on the Banking System is huge and different. Here are the status how banks were created.

In 1791, Congress chartered the First Bank of the United States. The bank, which was jointly owned by the federal government and private stockholders, was a nationwide commercial bank which served as the bank for the federal government and operated as a regular commercial bank acting in competition with state banks.

Consequently, when First Bank of the United States' charter came up for renewal in 1811, meet opposition.

The Second Bank of the United States opened in January 1817, six years after the First Bank of the United States lost its charter. The predominant reason that the Second Bank of the United States was chartered was that in the War of 1812, the U.S. experiencedsevere inflation and had difficulty in financing military operations. Subsequently, the credit and borrowing status of the Treasury was at its lowest level ever.

The Federal Reserve System is the central bank of the United States. It was founded by Congress in 1913 to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system. Over the years, its role in banking and the economy has expanded. The Federal Reserve is run the Chairman of the 7 Board of Directors running the system. The Federal Reserve is called our Central Bank.

Until at present we are carrying this complicated banking system both corporate and government.
Our objective here is to remove private equity and run the system based on government monetary system. In my opinion, the Federal Reserve system must be changed by removing the private corporate holdings.
============== br i The problems on the Banking S... (show quote)

....
Thank you for the history lessons.
Have a nice day.
Go to
Mar 20, 2020 04:27:48   #
Radiance3 wrote:
=============
We are a capitalist country. Thus, our country became the wealthiest country over 2 centuries. Recently, this C****av***s sunk all countries economy worldwide. We became the victims.

In the economist point of view, you have the brain of a SOCIALIST.

The reasons why the companies are given incentives and bailouts: Example like the banks in the housing industries, the shipping or tourism companies, a many other adversely affected.

This is to inject capital to these industries to put them back work so that our economy will come back. The capital provided is an investment to put them operate again, and employ people and to expand the economy.

When you put money directly into the hands of the people, it will just disappear, once they spend it. That will never return. Then they are broke and hungry again. Fact is that has been the bait all Socialist countries due to their people until all their resources are consumed. Then they become broke, they fight and r**t, ens***ed, or run away to other capital countries like the US. All Socialist and c*******t countries started that way by luring them and giving them bait.

**However, the president understands the need of those people who lost their wages and nothing to depend on. Most companies will give pay to people while they are out of work or production. But those who lost jobs with no other sources, the president is providing them money to sustain them until the economy is restored and they are back to work. They are also covered with unemployment insurance.

This is the right kind of conservatism. Invest stimulus to capital production, while sustaining the people from the government for its loss of wages.

When you give to the companies engage in business, they use it as an investment to make money, employ people, they pay their taxes, and thus our economy restores our economy. It grows wealth.

This is about consumption versus production. Consumption when given to the people, but production when given to the companies to produce more. That is capitalism.

During the 2008-2009 Subprime crisis, banks and companies were bailed out too. And people who lost their homes were given incentives to pay off loans to some extent, and allowed to retrieve back their homes from foreclosures.

But those who were extremely not qualified buying homes but used some trick to obtain loans. They lost their homes. It took 8 years, Mr. Obama gathered around 46 million households on Food Stamps program.
============= br i We are a capitalist country. T... (show quote)

.....
Radiance, thanks for responding. Since you made several claims (as opinions without any evidence per usual), it will take several posts for me to respond.

You claim: "In the economist point of view, you have the brain of a SOCIALIST."

Since this is a claim aimed at me personally (which I do not find offensive, just incorrect), I have to answer in a personal context which is at best boring to most readers, but there is no other way.
I was weaned politically in a midwestern county that is as conservative as Orange County used to be. As a young teacher I reveled in the works of Ludwig von Mises (https://mises.org/library/human-action-0) and Friedrich Hayak. Faithfully every month I read 'The Freeman' published through The Foundation for Economic Education (https://fee.org/about/) by its founder-saint Leonard Read (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ ). I still have monographs autographed by Read.

If you check out these references, you will find that I am much further from being a socialist than you are as you promote the US government as conservative as they promote social security, medicare, an 8-hour work day, the post office, etc. Crayons is the only person at OPP who I recall claims that she does not use these government "handouts." Forgive me and correct me, Crayola, if I have misquoted you.

Rad says, "We are a capitalist country."
This, of course, is not true if she means that economic-political system of the US is a pure capitalistic system because the US is correctly called a plutocracy (https://davidkorten.org/plutocracy/ ) as well as an oligarchy
(https://bulletin.represent.us/u-s-oligarchy-explain-research/ ) in addition to being socialistic as indicated above.

Rad further states that because of capitalism, "...our country became the wealthiest country over 2 centuries."
Capitalism being the cause of the wealth in the US is not everyone's opinion.
For instance, biographers of James Madison and the Founders and other historians would place the Constitution way ahead of capitalism.

Another historian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Hartz) attributes the success of the American experiment in liberty (and therefore wealth) to the absence of the European traditions feudalism, an official state church (i.e., the mandate of religious liberty), and a landed royalty.

Another approach is that of my Mormon neighbor who regularly (gently) harangues me (he would probably call it proselytizing) with the idea that God preserved the American continents for a liberty-loving people who would forever be free of kings and this would lead to the great prosperity that some of us enjoy. Come to think of it, maybe he means just North America since the Aztecs and the Incas certainly had kings. (Perhaps there is a Mormon among us on OPP who can validate my neighbor; there certainly are many Mormons who support conservatism (https://news.gallup.com/poll/125021/mormons-conservative-major-religious-group.aspx ).

So there are reasons other than capitalism that Americans attribute to the country's prosperity.

Radiance 3, I hope I have convinced you that I am not a socialist and much more importantly that the American economic system is anything but pure capitalism. I am not sure why your adherence to this erroneous idea persists in so many conservatives because it makes them at best pseudo-conservatives in that they try to conserve something that does not exist. Perhaps it is a myth that the egalitarian autocrats/plutocrats want you to adhere to. (Our OPP colleague Scicilianthing probably attaches an even more sinister cabal to it.)

That's enough for tonight, Rad3.

t
Go to
Mar 19, 2020 15:57:55   #
eden wrote:
Excellent post. Thank you.


You're welcome. Thanks for reading and posting.
Go to
Mar 19, 2020 00:18:03   #
Why don’t conservatives act like conservatives?

Housing Bubble
The housing crisis was creating problems in the economy, so the government wants to step in. The government asks itself, “should we give money directly to the home owners who will lose their houses? Or should we give the money to the banks will forgive the debts causing the problem?” They gave it to the banks and what did the banks do? Save the homeowners from losing their houses? Of course not. They gave the government money to the banks who then foreclosed on the homeowners and then bought the houses at foreclosed prices. Example: Steven “King of Foreclosure” Mnuchin:
https://mondediplo.com/openpage/steven-mnuchin-foreclosure-king-of-america .

Cruise Line Sobs
Well, here go again. Now we are talking about bailing out the cruise lines for their losses incurred by the v***s. Bail out the industry that pays hardly any taxes as they register their boats in foreign countries?
https://thehustle.co/the-economics-of-cruise-ships/ .
The response will be that the cruise lines employ lots of people. Right, so if you want to give money away, give it directly to those people and forget the middle-man cruise line or its banks.

Oil’s Fats
Well, here we go again—soon we will hear from the oil companies, who even after the bonanza of the trump’s tax cuts, went out and borrowed more. Now our “friends” the Russians won’t cooperate in a production deal with OPEC, so our “friends” the Saudis are increasing production having the effect of driving down prices that has the effect of putting the over-leveraged oil companies in financial jeopardy. On top of this, look at the tax breaks the oil companies get for making money on minerals that belong to the people of the United States:
https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs
https://psmag.com/news/trumps-tax-plan-provided-massive-tax-breaks-to-the-oil-industry
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2016/05/26/138049/it-is-time-to-phase-out-9-unnecessary-oil-and-gas-tax-breaks/

Airlines
Same situation: the airlines put over 90% of their tax savings from the trump tax cut back into stock buy-back
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/airline-bailout-c****av***s-share-buyback-debate-trump-economy-aoc-2020-3-1029006175

Since trickle-down is a myth, https://www.russellsage.org/sites/all/files/chartbook/Income%20and%20Earnings.pdf ,
Since economists want cash put back into the economy now (as opposed going into stock buy-backs or executive bonuses),
Let’s hope that the f**e conservatives (exemplified by Lee, Paul) of the senate, give the money to worker households where it will do the most good and in the shortest time.

In fact, if you are a true fiscal conservative who believes in free market principles you should say for companies what you so quickly and easily say for individuals: compete or be replaced by more efficient entities. Why should inefficient companies with their grubby paws forever in the till get tax breaks and individuals get few if any?
Go to
Mar 15, 2020 04:24:44   #
Owl32 wrote:
You name is a misnomer.

"Your" ???
As usual from you owl, lots of opinion and no data.
Go to
Mar 13, 2020 17:41:17   #
Skiladi wrote:
Next you will say the C****a v***s is Trump's fault...


Of course the v***s per se is not trump's fault although he slowed the response to it.
On the other hand, in spite of saying that we all need to work together as Americans, Trump, as usual, blames others for the current situation:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-passes-blame-obama-administration-shortcomings-c****av***s-response/story?id=69577433
Go to
Mar 8, 2020 20:03:03   #
Hug wrote:
Republicans police their party, Democrats don't.


Scotus: one citizen, one v**e.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ginsburg-slaps-gorsuch
Go to
Mar 8, 2020 19:27:19   #
Sicilianthing wrote:
Guess who doesn’t wash their hands less than Americans ?

Guess who’s dirtier than Americans ?


Mike Pence?
https://www.thedailybeast.com/sarasota-student-quarantined-days-after-classmates-shook-mike-pences-hand-report-says
Go to
Mar 7, 2020 00:59:57   #
bggamers wrote:
The government pays OUR farmer to not grow crops so we have to buy from other companys


Please explain the logic and economics of this.
Go to
Mar 6, 2020 13:40:05   #
permafrost wrote:
Hi Parky, nice table..

but I see no point..

Are you saying that the data on the C****av***s which is still developing is concise enough to be campared to the others listed?

Or are you looking at the number of deaths and feeling relieved?

remember, this is a new problem and still progressing. no one knows how it will turn out..

Personally, I hope trump is correct, not because his has any redeeming quality but for the health of the country. My country..

In addition to death and loss.. the economy, now a bit shaky because of uncertainty, may have to deal with a real disruption in the supply chain.. if parts are not forthcoming from China/Asia/elsewhere, the economy could take a large tumble..

Not good for anyone..

so let us all hang in and get much more information before we draw conclusions on how bad or mild this p******c will become..
Hi Parky, nice table.. br br but I see no point..... (show quote)

...
Parky has trouble getting his point across. He says he lives in Champaign IL, the home of the University of Illinois where he can get help on his presentations including his graphs and tables.
Go to
Mar 6, 2020 13:27:43   #
I notice Parky that you say you are located in Champaign Ill, the home of a great university. Universities like the U of I have entire departments that help writers make better presentations, recommends how to avoid plagiarism, how to show attribution clearly, how to include citations so readers can quickly ascertain value of sources, how to clearly include one's opinion to take responsibility for authorship. You may not be faculty or even a student at the U of I, Parky, but you probably pay taxes---I'm sure the help-your-communication department at the U would take some time to help you upgrade your lack of sk**ls.

I remain interested in your progress,
Albert
Go to
Mar 6, 2020 01:31:35   #
Parky60 wrote:
I see that reading comprehension is not your forte.


My comprehension is fine and so is the need for attribution. Who is Hiltzick? What is his expertise in this matter?
Why not give us a URL or at least the name of the journal, paper, or rag that you allegedly extracted this from. Especially since Hiltzick does have previous articles that give citations for reports that deal with the subject.

Now I apologize for giving you credit for putting this article together since you may have reproduced Hiltzik's article verbatim. If you did, then it really deserves a citation. Since you made no distinction where the article ends, then we must assume that the last paragraph "Uber, Lyft services ...[are] not good for everybody" is Hiltzik's conclusion, not yours. So after quoting this entire article, we don't even know what your conclusion is and why you agree or disagree.

You may disagree, but it is pretty common on this site to provide URLs or at least references to articles. Interesting article; presentation pretty shoddy.
Go to
Mar 5, 2020 18:44:24   #
Liberty Tree wrote:
Or i******s getting government benefits


Of course!
Go to
Mar 5, 2020 18:05:30   #
Parky60 wrote:
Ride sharing companies were the darling children of Sustainable Development and Smart City policies to ‘save the world’, but they have done just the opposite: increase pollution and traffic congestion. Patrick Woods

Uber, Lyft Cause More Congestion And Pollution In Cities
Michael Hiltzik ~ March 5, 2020
Uber and Lyft owe their great popularity to customer-friendly features such as short waiting times, low fares and the convenience of hailing a cab and paying by smartphone.

But with these virtues come multiple drawbacks, which state and local officials are struggling to deal with.

Recent studies have found that when Uber and Lyft enter a market, their fleets are more polluting than autos on average, contribute to more traffic congestion particularly in the central cities, undermine public t***sit systems and devastate the local taxi industry. The ride-hailing firms say that some studies have come to opposite conclusions or that those impacts are outweighed by the advantages they bring to local t***sportation markets.

Yet government regulators have been hard-pressed to combat these problems, partially because they've tied their own hands.

"We've let them do what they want," Paul Koretz, a Los Angeles councilman who has been concerned about the firms' effect on taxi services, told me.

The issue is especially acute in California, where the Public Utilities Commission took the initiative in 2013 of carving out a separate regulatory regime for the ride-hailing industry, categorized as "t***sportation network companies."

That forestalled local initiatives to equalize ride-hailing regulations with those of taxis. Cabdrivers are generally subject to more stringent background checks and vehicle inspections than ride-hailing drivers.

But the PUC has had difficulty overseeing the new industry, as commission President Michael Picker, who took office after the PUC's action, later acknowledged, calling ride-hail regulation not "something we can do effectively."

Let's take a look at the key impacts confronting state and local officials when Uber, Lyft and other such services come into their markets.

Start with congestion. A study by Gregory D. Erhardt and colleagues at the University of Kentucky in conjunction with the city of San Francisco found that average speed within the city decreased to 22.2 miles per hour in 2016 from 25.6 mph in 2010, and that "vehicle hours of delay" increased by 63% in that period.

Although there were myriad contributors to the change, including population and employment growth, the researchers blamed it chiefly on the entry of the ride-sharing firms. The worst increase in congestion occurred in the central business district, where Uber, Lyft and other services were prevalent.

Most trips on those services "are adding new cars to the road," they found. Most ride-hail drivers, moreover, lived outside San Francisco, so their commute into the city was another factor.

A similar trend showed up in New York City, where Uber, Lyft and other app-based services added 50,000 vehicles to the roads, according to a study by t***sportation consultant Bruce Schaller.

The arrival of ride-hailing services in a city is generally accompanied by a decline in mass t***sit. Studies of public t***sit ridership in major cities published last year by Erhardt's team concluded that once the services arrive in a market, rail ridership declines by an average of 1.3% and bus ridership by 1.7%.

The effect "builds with each passing year," the researchers found, to the point where even significant expansion of t***sit systems isn't enough to reverse the decline; after eight years, t***sit systems would have to expand service by 25% just to keep ridership from falling. "T***sit agencies are fighting an uphill battle," they wrote.

In Los Angeles, a rise in t***sit ridership that began in 2004 flattened out or reversed after Uber entered the L.A. market in 2012, especially in rail. (Bus ridership had begun to decline as early as 2007.) Total ridership declined more than 22% from its peak in 2013 through 2019, from 478.1 million riders to 370.5 million, according to the L.A. County Metropolitan T***sportation Authority.

A 2018 study for the Southern California Assn. of Governments called the companies "a plausible culprit in t***sit's decline" in the region, though not the sole culprit.

The ride-hailing companies maintain that their services actually can help local t***sit networks by ferrying passengers to t***sit depots. Uber and Lyft have begun to add maps of t***sit stops to their apps, ostensibly to help their passengers coordinate their car trips with t***sit schedules.

The companies generally argue that their contribution to congestion is relatively slight. "While ridesharing is part of congestion, we believe our impact is on the margin of a vastly larger contribution from private vehicle use," Uber told me by email.

The company also said it believes that "stronger investments in public t***sportation can help ease traffic. If we can get people out of using their personal cars and into public t***sit or other active modes of t***sportation like bikes and scooters, we believe ridesharing can be an effective complement that helps ensure travelers always have means to get from point A to B."

Lyft echoed those sentiments. "We remain focused on making car ownership optional, supporting t***sit, investing in shared rides, adding bikes and scooters, and partnering with cities on thoughtful policy solutions," spokeswoman Campbell Matthews told me.

But Uber also has made clear that it views itself as an alternative to public t***sit. In the registration statement it filed prior to its 2019 initial public stock offering, the firm stated that it competes with "traditional t***sportation services, including taxicab companies and taxi-hailing services ... and public t***sportation."

Uber expressed the ambition to "rapidly scale our network in new cities by attracting consumers to our platform and away from personal vehicles or public t***sportation."

Lyft, which has long sought to frame itself as the kinder, gentler ride-hailing service in contrast to Uber, downplayed the competitive aspect of its service in the registration statement for its 2019 IPO and played up its potential to enhance "multimodal" t***sportation.

Pollution is another issue, caused mainly by idling and cruising by ride-hail vehicles without a passenger. The California Air Resources Board calculates that even though vehicles used for ride-sharing tend to be newer and are mostly light cars rather than gas-guzzling SUVs, their emissions are 50% higher than California vehicles per passenger mile traveled.

Among the key factors are that the ride-share cars have lower average passenger occupancy than the statewide fleet, and spend nearly 40% of their time on the road without a passenger in the car — "deadhead miles," in industry parlance.

By far the most immediate impact of the ride-hailing firms is on taxis. "We're on the brink of the whole industry collapsing because there's so little revenue," says Leon Slomovic, 63, who has been a taxi driver since 2001 and is the spokesman for the Taxi Workers Alliance of Los Angeles.

Taxi ridership in the city has declined by an estimated 77% since the advent of ride-sharing, according to a Los Angeles Dept. of T***sportation study (Arguably the taxi industry was ripe for competition, saddled as it was with a reputation for poor service.)

As the ride-hail apps made inroads into the Los Angeles market, local taxi drivers spent more time at LAX, where demand for their services remained robust. "Over the last five years, that became a crutch for the entire industry," says Eric Spiegelman, chairman of the Los Angeles Taxicab Commission.

The crutch was kicked out from under the cabbies in last year, when the airport's management ended curbside pickups of passengers inside the terminal area and moved the taxis and ride-hail cars to LAXit, a centralized pickup zone next to the Southwest Airlines terminal.

The move aimed to alleviate crowding caused by construction that had taken away two traffic lanes in the terminal access road, but the change eliminated the one significant advantage taxis had over Uber and Lyft — the ability to serve passengers hailing from curbside.

"I told LAX, 'You're putting an end to the taxi industry in Los Angeles,'" Koretz says. "I didn't get a peep in response."

Koretz noted that several classes of passengers find shuttling to LAXit unduly burdensome, including disabled passengers and those traveling with small children. The airport's management has been considering whether to allow taxis to resume curbside pickups at selected terminals, including the Tom Bradley International Terminal, but the idea is still preliminary and no decision has been made.

The drawbacks from the growth of ride-sharing firms may seem remote to passengers reveling in the low cost and high convenience of Uber and Lyft, but they're ignored at our peril. The Air Resources Board warns that the rapid expansion of ride-sharing will make their contribution to greenhouse gas emission ever more significant in the future, which "necessitates formulation of immediate policies." ARB says that increasing occupancy through shared rides and decreasing deadhead miles have the most potential to reduce the services' emissions.

New York and Chicago have implemented congestion fees to reduce traffic in their central cities; New York also has imposed a first-in-the-nation cap on new permits for ride-hail vehicles, while also mandating a minimum wage for their drivers. Taken together, those steps appear to have alleviated congestion, reduced the number of trips, and improved earnings for ride-hail and taxi drivers alike. They may not all be possible in other cities except those with strong public t***sit systems such as San Francisco, Schaller says.

Addressing the taxi crisis may be harder. To a certain extent, the industry itself has contributed to its problems. "They haven't tried any kind of innovative thinking in the last six years to confront this threat head-on," says Spiegelman. Some taxi co-ops have tried online apps similar to those of Uber and Lyft, but not much more.

In some cities, taxis have acquired a reputation for crumminess that may be hard to overturn. Even in New York, where taxis are plentiful and Uber and Lyft don't enjoy a significant price advantage over them, "customers are still v****g with their feet" and choosing the ride-hail services, Schaller says. "Taxis are not competing well on service." Taxi services long have had a reputation for passing minority passengers by, while Lyft and Uber are thought to be less prone to discrimination.

Some experts believe that reducing taxi fares might make them more competitive. That's an option explored by Christopher S. Tang of UCLA's Anderson School of Business, who based his research partially on the impact of the ride-sharing service DiDi in China. He also suggests that public t***sit systems, taxi services, and the ride-hail firms work out single-ticket arrangements allowing passengers to reach their destinations via a combination of travel modes. "That could be a win-win," he told me.

Slomovic is skeptical that taxi fares could come down enough in L.A. to compete with Uber and Lyft, without reducing cabdrivers' income beyond unsustainable levels. Ride-hail fares are destined to rise as the companies reach for profitability. But they're still capable of subsidizing fares with the billions of dollars they've raised from venture investors and stock sales. A taxi cost index used by the L.A. Taxicab Commission to set fares has risen over time, but taxi co-ops have asked the commission to avoid raising fares — they've been kept at $2.70 per mile for the last 10 years, but that's still much higher than Uber or Lyft fares.

Saving the taxi industry is crucial. For one thing, they provide competition for the ride-hailing firms. "If Uber can squeeze out the taxis, they can become a more effective monopoly and raise their prices," says Tang. "That may not be a good idea from the public's perspective."

As a regulated industry, taxis perform services that Uber and Lyft are free to shun. In Los Angeles, which issues franchises to taxi firms, they're required to cover underserved communities such as low-income neighborhoods. Passengers who can't use app-based services because they don't have access to smartphones or don't have bank accounts or credit cards that can be used for payment often rely on taxis instead, because they can pay with cash.

Uber, Lyft and services like them have been a boon for millions of passengers. But they're not good for everybody.
i Ride sharing companies were the darling childre... (show quote)


Thanks for taking the time to quote these interesting stats and studies. How about some citations/references?
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 42 next>>
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.