Posts by rowdyranger44

Charles Ramos7 said:What supply chains? Passenger travel is blocked, not freight.

We’ve been dealing with passenger travel being either totally blocked or severely restricted this whole time, so once again, we’re stuck in a complete circus. It doesn't matter... I'm certain this will blow over quickly too... maybe two or three weeks at most...

Charles Ramos7 said:What kind of "drastic move" is just suspending flights for two or three weeks?

With global supply chains already crumbling at our feet, I really don't think we need to descend into more panic by slapping on yet another measure like a multi-week travel ban.

Gerald Chavez7 said:It’s definitely important, but the only thing we can say with any real certainty is that it’s more contagious—likely because it manages to bypass existing immunity.

Restricting travel from Africa and ramping up active track&trace efforts makes sense as a short-term move.

Even if this just triggers a temporary surge, the booster rollout will reach several dozen million more people, which might buy us some time until spring or the next seasonal update.

Oh, come on, how much longer are we supposed to stay locked down?! Are you actually aware that taking such drastic measures does far more damage to the economy than any defense against this virus ever could? And you're practicing this kind of "strictness" on Africa, where these types of moves literally plunge entire populations into poverty overnight?!

Susan Martin4 said:Everyone keeps harping on about how much more contagious it is or how fast it spreads. But honestly, does anyone actually care about what kind of illness it causes?
If the R value hits 5 but all it does is give people a runny nose and a cough—basically just a bad cold that keeps people out of the ER because they're staying home instead—then I don't see why there needs to be this massive panic or freakout.

Oh, please. Hold on a second... Now they're going to start sugarcoating the data to make it look way more terrifying than it actually is.😁

Gerald Chavez7 said:So, we're starting with that article from India.
Submitted: April 27, 2020; Accepted: August 12, 2020; Published: September 16, 2020

It stands to reason, then, that within... South AsiansIt looks like the way certain hosts react to SARS-CoV-2 actually leans much closer to the patterns seen in East or Southeast Asians rather than what we see in Europeans or Americans.

we're talking about the Indian subcontinent here.

And then, following all that, India ends up hitting the highest mortality rate in the world—in absolute numbers, at least. It's because they're already immune...

Meanwhile, in China, they’ve wrapped up all their business and reported somewhere between Rwanda and the Maldives just 98,762 cases to this day...

There has to be something in their immunity; it's simply impossible to have such low infection rates in the Far East while we're all essentially using the same measures. That is, except for China, where you can't trust a single official figure anymore.

Richard Campbell3 said:It’s quite amusing how we see ten cases pop up globally and suddenly everyone is an expert on who the virus targets and how dangerous it actually is. Yet, nobody is calling for a lockdown anymore. I just read an article speculating about how many cases China would have seen if they had behaved like Europe, but strangely, no one thought to write an article suggesting that if Europe and the rest of the world had acted like China did back then, we wouldn't even be dealing with this mess today. But of course, that’s unthinkable... the economy would have collapsed, or so they say, even though it clearly hasn't yet.

Everyone seems to be ignoring the very likely possibility that the Far East might possess some level of partial immunity to this virus, simply because their population has clearly encountered a similar strain in the recent past. Think back to the last WHO outbreak.

If Europe and the USA had implemented the exact same strategies as China, God knows what the fallout would have been. Shutting down such a massive territory would undoubtedly be far more devastating than the current disorganized mess we're dealing with, primarily because you wouldn't be able to maintain the distribution chains for essential goods and services—which, ironically, would just create more opportunities for the virus to spread further.

When it comes to actually solving massive, systemic issues, we’re usually stuck waiting months or even years just to see if politicians will bother to lift a finger. But when Omicron hits? The speed at which they pivot is nothing short of fascinating. You honestly can't find that level of coordinated action even within a small neighborhood HOA...

ironraven452 said:And frankly, that’s because we live under a government that functions more like a playground bully than a regulator. If you snatch a candy bar from the corner store, you're looking at a night in jail, but if you orchestrate a massive takeover of the entire chocolate factory, suddenly you're considered a pillar of the American economy...🙄

Which is precisely why the only way to actually fix this mess is to shrink the government until there's as little federal interference as possible when these types of cases arise.

Carl Turner2 said:The reality is that stalling on payments or simply ignoring suppliers is essentially the cheapest interest-free loan one can grab, and honestly, I think that's where the heart of most of these issues lies.

Precisely. It’s all a direct consequence of being unable to achieve any meaningful growth in markets where they already hold a dominant position; instead, the whole machine just has to keep pedaling along while constantly servicing its creditors. Once they finish acquiring Walmart, things are only going to get even more precarious.

brightheron64 said:As long as owners are busy dreaming about owning massive estates and picturing themselves as some kind of American Blake Carrington... their workers will be absolutely bled dry. Nothing is going to shift until there's a fundamental change in the collective mindset—until we see a shift toward something like: "I'm doing well, so let's make sure you're doing well too, because if you thrive, I thrive..."

What kind of "mindset" are we even talking about here?! You guys are missing the forest for the trees. Maybe you'll get your wish sooner than you think. The New York Times is already speculating that Walmart's credit arrangements with JPMorgan Chase might be thrown into jeopardy due to the latest sanctions against Russia. If that happens, our very own Blake Carrington might just be forced off the stage entirely... and frankly, I'd love to see if that actually stops the bleeding...

brightheron64 said:If it weren't for Tony Robbins, there would probably be a whole sea of local corner stores employing at least 50% more staff. Honestly, even without him, companies like PepsiCo, Nestlé, and Starbucks would still be standing tall...

Have you ever actually found yourself in a situation where your neighborhood bodega is completely dead because someone like Tony Robbins, Kerry, or another giant wiped them out, leaving you forced to drive all the way to the nearest massive shopping mall just to pick up two liters of soda, a bag of salt, or some sugar?

And once our friend Tony Robbins decides to shift those 60,000 profitable manufacturing jobs over to Mexico, Canada, or China... well, we'll be the ones left feeling the consequences...

It’s frustrating, really—in a nation of the blind, the short-sighted are in charge while guys like Tony Robbins just keep collecting the cash, the influence, and the territory...

If the grandmother had been a man, she’d be named Doug... I'm not defending Tode, but even without him, the trend toward retail and food industry consolidation would have played out roughly the same way. Maybe the pace would differ and there'd be more players involved, but ultimately, you'd end up with a situation nearly identical to this one. Do you honestly think Walmart would be any different if they were the sole market leader? Or would Coca-Cola have even survived in its current form without Kroger?

As for Tode, he simply did a meticulous job of copying the homework assigned by Western multinationals. The real issue is that he copied it so perfectly that now he's swallowing everything in his path, especially since the markets he operates in have zero room for organic growth, and creditors are constantly squeezing him...

The second problem is that the rest of the economy is so rotten that Tode's retail and food empire has become the primary economic engine. But these sectors will never see enough explosive growth to provide massive profits for the owner alongside high-paying jobs. I mean, do you really expect a cashier at Kroger to ever earn a decent wage? Or a warehouse worker at Coca-Cola? These are mostly low-paying, part-time gigs for students, retirees, and immigrants.

Megan Lewis45 said:The truth is, voters couldn't care less about all these endless referendums, elections, signature drives—whatever you want to call this "democracy" that feels anything but democratic. In Venice, we dealt with five or six of these nonsense cycles in just six months. Once the media starts coming at you with constant threats and intimidation, staying home isn't just an option—it’s the only logical response.

I don't know about that, Braco. If the fact that they’re stripping away the last bit of open space available for the city to actually grow doesn't give you enough motivation to show up at the polls—regardless of how much the media spins it—then I honestly don't know what else there is to say.

James Lee77 said:Alright, we also need to think back to that The New York Times front page on the day of the referendum. Honestly, it’s almost a shame the referendum didn't pass, because I bet we would've seen exactly how they'd find a loophole to bypass it. I mean, I really don't doubt they would've found a way.

Since everyone keeps bringing up the Mount Rainier situation and the European Union in the same breath, we should probably remember that based on the rules for an EU referendum, there wouldn't be any golf on Mount Rainier. Or, looking at it the other way, if we followed the rules for the golf course at Mount Rainier, we wouldn't have joined the European Union. So, it seems pretty obvious there's both institutional rule-bending going on and massive media pressure pushing things toward whatever the elites want.

It might have been slightly more difficult for them to sidestep the issue if a significant number of people had actually shown up for the referendum. Say, something like 70-75%, with a majority voting against it.

As it stands, the residents of Venice simply showed their lack of interest, and then subsequently turned out in massive numbers to vote for the lists supporting the project. Thus, this grand coalition is perfectly logical, and the rushed approval from City Hall regarding the Golf course at Mount Rainier serves as a confirmation of the electoral will.

Jessica Kelly4 said:Seems that way to me too. The referendum happened, the people spoke, and it would be wrong for politicians to go against them—even if we think turning the area around Mount Rainier into apartments isn't exactly great for the European Community. Most Venice residents clearly feel differently, and there's no reason to meddle in their local affairs.

Precisely. We have no grounds for outrage here. The people of Venice had two distinct opportunities within a single month to demonstrate exactly how much this project matters to them. Both times, through their decision to show up or stay home, they made it clear that the project is moving forward—and that is the entire crux of the matter. Time will tell who was actually right about all this.

Patrick Taylor9 said:These election results were a foregone conclusion. They had to satisfy those "investors" who greased their palms to make it happen. The Democratic Party was never a powerhouse in cities like New York, and after this, they won't even scrape together two seats in the next cycle. On the flip side, the GOP voters are such irrational creatures; you can talk down to them all you want, and they’ll still vote the exact same way. Their last line of defense is always that tired cliché about how they "built this country."
The only hope for New York is a coalition of citizens (and maybe some progressives) who will scoop up the leftist votes next time around. It might already be too late for Manhattan, but there’s still enough green space left for those "strategic investors" to set their sights on.

Personally, I also believe the Mount Rainier project brings nothing but headaches to Venice in the long run, but the voters have made themselves clear on two separate occasions. First, through that massive boycott of the referendum, and second, by voting for options that explicitly signaled their support for the project. That’s why this coalition makes sense. Anything else would just be a blatant disregard for the will of the people.

urbanotter, the ones who walked away with the biggest slice of the pie are the very same people who spent years suffocating any semblance of fair market competition. They’ve been rigging the regulatory framework like they're getting a custom suit hand-tailored just for them. The Federal Government has more than proven its track\\s incompetence over the last two decades. It is high time they stepped back and actually fixed the things that would benefit everyone. Let them start by fixing the judicial system. That would do far more good than them continuing to play the big shot in our national economy.

urbanotter, there aren’t any easy fixes here, no magic tricks where you pull a rabbit out of a hat to solve everything. If you start cranking up the printing presses, you’re essentially murdering the savers while simultaneously handing current debtors a massive break through internal devaluation. It’s a massacre either way. Someone is bound to get slaughtered before we can establish a new equilibrium that actually aligns with how competitive the American economy is on the global stage.

Printing money would only be a justifiable move if it were funneled directly into projects with rapid returns—things that export goods and services to foreign markets. Dumping that cash into infrastructure? That’s a total catastrophe. It creates this pathetic illusion of reducing national debt, when in reality, you're just stripping away the wealth of anyone actually producing something tangible.