COVID19

[kas1]

I've also been saying we need to cautiously bring back workforce with PPE/masks for all public yet the states have poor/no plans not involving that. Specifically saying there needs to be a better plan.

Wearing masks is not a plan, seeing as how not even you are claiming that it will be sufficient to contain the outbreak, and we don't have 300 million masks lying around regardless. It takes ~5 days on average for symptoms to develop, and people become infectious ~2 days before symptoms appear, leaving a solid window for identifying people before they become contagious. Nearly 50% of transmission is estimated to occur during the presymptomatic period. The only reliable way to break the chain of transmission is to identify and isolate a sick person before they become infectious. Otherwise there will be exponential spread and we will have to continue doing lockdowns every couple months. The "better plan" you are looking for is testing, which you are virulently opposed to for precisely no reason at all.

[WoodDraw]

I've also been saying we need to cautiously bring back workforce with PPE/masks for all public yet the states have poor/no plans not involving that. Specifically saying there needs to be a better plan.

Wearing masks is not a plan, seeing as how not even you are claiming that it will be sufficient to contain the outbreak, and we don't have 300 million masks lying around regardless. It takes ~5 days on average for symptoms to develop, and people become infectious ~2 days before symptoms appear, leaving a solid window for identifying people before they become contagious. Nearly 50% of transmission is estimated to occur during the presymptomatic period. The only reliable way to break the chain of transmission is to identify and isolate a sick person before they become infectious. Otherwise there will be exponential spread and we will have to continue doing lockdowns every couple months. The "better plan" you are looking for is testing, which you are virulently opposed to for precisely no reason at all.

It's very normal to wear masks in other countries to avoid spreading germs.

It won't stop the spread, but it will significantly help.

[Riverite]

Yeah this is right. That's not how dividends work

I get that you don’t think I understand what a dividend is. I can assure you I do. If you would please tell me what was inaccurate about my statement I’d be happy to change and acknowledge.

Two things I understand that dividends can be paid more than once on a reoccurring basis. Also when I said taxed I meant the companies should be taxed more if they have money for dividends. We have a system where some of the biggest companies are paying hardly any tax at all, I find it gross that instead of reinvesting profits they are giving people money for stocks when they are already getting capital gains.

Back to loans, if a business gets a loan it shouldn’t be used for dividends or buybacks, as neither are true financial obligations. There is precedent where even preferred stockholders are not paid. Besides it’s a waste of resources. Money used to pay workers more to increase productivity or expand to new markets is more beneficial for the company and the economy.

"Dividends are just an example of waste. If you have extra money, you should invest it or pay the workers more. The stockholders are still making money on ownership of the capital. If they are really not going to use it then it should be taxed, that way less money is taken out of the economy and siphoned offshore"

If you think that's accurate than there isn't much of a discussion to have. You're equating like five different discussions into one. All of them are good discussion to have, but if that's how you think these things work it's just fundamentaly a waste of time to talk about this because it's wrong.

It’s quite disappointing, that instead of educating me to your viewpoint you just return sawing my logic is fundamentally flawed with no proof. It doesn’t make me think higher of your viewpoint FYI.

I understand that someone who looks at things from an older business point of view doesn’t think it’s meaningful to take externalities into account, but I can assure you it is. I don’t have a problem that people disagree with me, but you aren’t offering any sort of challenge, instead just saying I’m wrong.

If the issues are worth discussing separately then they are worth discussing as a whole. I’m pretty done with this conversation to be honest. You don’t seem like you like it when someone challenges your worldview.

[kas1]

I've also been saying we need to cautiously bring back workforce with PPE/masks for all public yet the states have poor/no plans not involving that. Specifically saying there needs to be a better plan.

Wearing masks is not a plan, seeing as how not even you are claiming that it will be sufficient to contain the outbreak, and we don't have 300 million masks lying around regardless. It takes ~5 days on average for symptoms to develop, and people become infectious ~2 days before symptoms appear, leaving a solid window for identifying people before they become contagious. Nearly 50% of transmission is estimated to occur during the presymptomatic period. The only reliable way to break the chain of transmission is to identify and isolate a sick person before they become infectious. Otherwise there will be exponential spread and we will have to continue doing lockdowns every couple months. The "better plan" you are looking for is testing, which you are virulently opposed to for precisely no reason at all.

It's very normal to wear masks in other countries to avoid spreading germs.

It won't stop the spread, but it will significantly help.

Not saying it won't. Wearing masks is likely an importance piece of the puzzle. But it's only one piece.

[earthling]

^There you go with the spin again. Have said across various posts requiring masks nationwide would be the easiest method for US to pull off as the minimum requirement to start with, not the only tool.

[grovester]

^There you go with the spin again. Have said across various posts requiring masks nationwide would be the easiest method for US to pull off as the minimum requirement to start with, not the only tool.

No, you imply that masks by themselves would be a solution.

No tests, no solution.

[WoodDraw]

I get that you don’t think I understand what a dividend is. I can assure you I do. If you would please tell me what was inaccurate about my statement I’d be happy to change and acknowledge.

Two things I understand that dividends can be paid more than once on a reoccurring basis. Also when I said taxed I meant the companies should be taxed more if they have money for dividends. We have a system where some of the biggest companies are paying hardly any tax at all, I find it gross that instead of reinvesting profits they are giving people money for stocks when they are already getting capital gains.

Back to loans, if a business gets a loan it shouldn’t be used for dividends or buybacks, as neither are true financial obligations. There is precedent where even preferred stockholders are not paid. Besides it’s a waste of resources. Money used to pay workers more to increase productivity or expand to new markets is more beneficial for the company and the economy.

"Dividends are just an example of waste. If you have extra money, you should invest it or pay the workers more. The stockholders are still making money on ownership of the capital. If they are really not going to use it then it should be taxed, that way less money is taken out of the economy and siphoned offshore"

If you think that's accurate than there isn't much of a discussion to have. You're equating like five different discussions into one. All of them are good discussion to have, but if that's how you think these things work it's just fundamentaly a waste of time to talk about this because it's wrong.

It’s quite disappointing, that instead of educating me to your viewpoint you just return sawing my logic is fundamentally flawed with no proof. It doesn’t make me think higher of your viewpoint FYI.

I understand that someone who looks at things from an older business point of view doesn’t think it’s meaningful to take externalities into account, but I can assure you it is. I don’t have a problem that people disagree with me, but you aren’t offering any sort of challenge, instead just saying I’m wrong.

If the issues are worth discussing separately then they are worth discussing as a whole. I’m pretty done with this conversation to be honest. You don’t seem like you like it when someone challenges your worldview.

You're correct that I should have addressed your post honestly.

You called dividends waste and that makes no sense. You said they should invest or pay the workers more instead and that also makes no sense. Or that it should be taxed away. That also makes no sense.

Your seem to be equating dividends, wages, investment, and taxes all into one category.

I can say that Google should be investing less, paying emloyees more, pay a fair tax, and return money to its shareholders and all of those work together just fine.

But you said as a shareholder I should either have my money taxed or my money invested in something. That makes no sense. There's nothing wrong with returning money to the owners of the company.

[earthling]

^^Pressing for mask requirement in public as a minimum requirement doesn't imply only solution.

Have said at times testing when possible but it apparently has 20%+ false negatives so can't rely on as only solution. And Cumo says NY labs don't have near enough capacity to test enough people and 'never' will. Masks/face coverings are easier to pulloff as a minimum requirement to start with in public and also have brought up additional PPEs in workplace. Is amazing that isn't a national mandate. Also said several times that antibodies test will be very useful to get workforce back though may not end up as useful if it turns out re-infection is possible. Also said several times that contact tracing is ideal but that the US likely can't pull that off broadly, and so far hasn't. Mass has the greatest contact tracing effort so far yet infection rates have increased since. MN is also attempting tracing yet cases still increasing too.Even if a state succeeds, needs to be national effort and close off hotspot regions as Asia and Italy did, which we don't do - domestic flights also still on. Haven't once said masks as only solution, is foolish to say there is only one.

What does seem to be happening in this thread is an undertone of partisan sides for approach. And that because I favor opening sooner than later (more safely approach than red states are taking) I'm a rightie, which I hardly am. Moderates seek a reasonable balance, not caught up in one-sided partisan idealism.

[grovester]

I don't think you're a righty, I think you're an investor. I get it.

You have to have enough testing to know whether the decision to re-open is working or not.

I have been happy to see that the national testing numbers have spiked recently. A good sign.

Last 4 days per https://coronavirusbellcurve.com/ 164,109 135,859 373,453 318,898

[earthling]

An investor who doesn't support corporate welfare. Am in long term private equity, pulled out of the market before COVID hit (because it was way overvalued) so not driving to reopen for reasons you might think. Partly concerned about overreaction that ends up in economic suicide, including impacting those living paycheck to paycheck. Each week that lockdown goes by it will get worse. We can find reasonable balance to avoid economic suicide while finding reasonable approaches to safely reopen. How much testing is needed to re-open? Cuomo is saying there can 'never' be enough testing. There has to be some level of accepting risk but red states aren't even requiring masks statewide when re-opening.

[grovester]

When we are at 150k daily, I was hearing that we'd need triple, so round up to 500k per day nationally.

Tangentially, I think you need access to enough testing to defeat the perception of shortages so that localitiesorganizations start lowering the threshold to get tested.

It seems logical that every single nursing home and VA center needs every person/employee tested daily for 2 weeks minimum. I'd apply that to meat packing plants as well. Any positives would have to then be traced and their contacts tested.

[mgsports]

https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/ ... ZpMGc9PSJ9

[phuqueue]

You could substitute any word with either salutory or pejorative connotation in my argument upthread. Introducing slavery is just a strawman, not an argument.

It's not a strawman, it's an illustration of a fact that you just unwittingly admitted yourself, that your own argument had no actual substance to it. "We've done this for hundreds of years" doesn't mean anything. "There will be a bloodbath" doesn't prove a point. Since we're talking about strawmen now, let's properly identify these as appeals to tradition and consequences, respectively.

It is a strawman -- introducing an unrelated topic (slavery) to a discussion on equity dividends.

Dividends are an agreement between an investor and an investment, usually a company. I don't know why you think that arrangement lacks substance. It's a private agreement between two parties. Also a longstanding financial arrangement, the dissolution or prohibition of which would cause significant disruption to the nature of US investors and the equity markets. Sorry if you disagree.

I don't "disagree" with the fact of what a dividend is, or that dividends have been around for a long time, or that restricting them would upset a lot of people. These are indeed all true facts. I'm just saying that your position that dividends aren't a problem doesn't logically follow from any of the facts you've provided. Pointing out your faulty logic isn't a strawman. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can say this.

Let's directly link your premises with your conclusion in simple sentences: "Dividends have been around for hundreds of years, so they are not a problem." Do you see how that doesn't actually make sense? "People will be mad if we get rid of dividends, so they are not a problem." What? "Dividends are an agreement between an investor and an investment, so they are not a problem." Come again?

If dividend payments have left companies with too little cash on hand to weather an economic crisis, then dividends are a problem. You don't have to agree with that, but it's a coherent thought. Do you see the difference?

[FangKC]

Researchers at the University of Washington have published estimates for when every U.S. state can consider safely easing social distancing measures during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new study.
...
“This date can be viewed as the earliest time that locations could consider easing social distancing restrictions – conditional on containment measures already in place to avert potential resurgence of the virus. Such necessary containment efforts include extensive testing, robust contact tracing and isolation of new cases, and maintaining restrictions on mass gatherings of people.”
...
Utah, Arizona, Texas, Florida, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, Georgia, South Carolina, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island may have to wait until June 8 or later to lift restrictions, according to the model.


http://www.healthdata.org/covid/updates

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/corona ... YYgzIcogTw

[herrfrank]

"Dividends are an agreement between an investor and an investment, so they are not a problem." Come again?

If dividend payments have left companies with too little cash on hand to weather an economic crisis, then dividends are a problem. You don't have to agree with that, but it's a coherent thought. Do you see the difference?

The US Constitution guarantees citizens the right to and protection of private property. Shareholder investments are private property, and the agreement between an investor and the company that pays dividends to that shareholder is essentially a private contract. The various government entities may not contravene that agreement. They can tax it, but they cannot disallow it. That's the coherent thought from the status quo.

[im2kull]

Two things I understand that dividends can be paid more than once on a reoccurring basis.

To simplify:
A publicly traded company has no sole owner, it is instead owned by common individuals who each own X amount of a share of that company, totalling 100% of the ownership. When the company makes profit and monies exceeding what they have spent for the year the company can either keep the cash on hand, in a fund for the owners to decide what to do with.. or pay that profit out to it's owners as every company large to small does around the world. That is, unless Momma Mia, owner of Ma's Baked Goods .. the bakery down the street.. doesn't actually keep the cash her customers give her to pay for the baked goods they're purchasing. Ma takes that money in, and decides what to do with it. Shareholders, as owners, do the same. They're paid the profits and then each get to determine what to do with those profits.

The profits are the dividends.

Also when I said taxed I meant the companies should be taxed more if they have money for dividends. We have a system where some of the biggest companies are paying hardly any tax at all, I find it gross that instead of reinvesting profits they are giving people money for stocks when they are already getting capital gains.

The profits paid out ARE taxed, and heavily so, at the cost of the owners receiving them. The company is effectively paying tax on their dividend disbursements (By way of the companys owners paying tax on them). Also, the vast majority of those profits and dividends are reinvested. Automatically at that.

[im2kull]

..should a president be using sarcasm during a live press briefing during a pandemic that is killing thousands of Americans? And apparently, his sarcasm wasn't evidence to Americans watching because the CDC was receiving calls from the public the comments.

Not to point out the obvious, but anyone thinking they can ingest sanitizers and disinfectants directly is probably not capable of picking up on sarcasm either..

If everything you said was dumbed down for the lowest denominator, then you wouldn't speak. You would sit there in silence. So obviously no, that isn't the answer. Perhaps better education or less coddling is? Sarcasm and various figures of speech aren't rocket science...

[TheLastGentleman]

If everything you said was dumbed down for the lowest denominator, then you wouldn't speak.

.....Unless you are in a position of authority during a national emergency where you need your message understood clearly by every member of society. Yes, even those in the "lowest denominator."

[Riverite]

Two things I understand that dividends can be paid more than once on a reoccurring basis.

To simplify:
A publicly traded company has no sole owner, it is instead owned by common individuals who each own X amount of a share of that company, totalling 100% of the ownership. When the company makes profit and monies exceeding what they have spent for the year the company can either keep the cash on hand, in a fund for the owners to decide what to do with.. or pay that profit out to it's owners as every company large to small does around the world. That is, unless Momma Mia, owner of Ma's Baked Goods .. the bakery down the street.. doesn't actually keep the cash her customers give her to pay for the baked goods they're purchasing. Ma takes that money in, and decides what to do with it. Shareholders, as owners, do the same. They're paid the profits and then each get to determine what to do with those profits.

The profits are the dividends.

Also when I said taxed I meant the companies should be taxed more if they have money for dividends. We have a system where some of the biggest companies are paying hardly any tax at all, I find it gross that instead of reinvesting profits they are giving people money for stocks when they are already getting capital gains.

The profits paid out ARE taxed, and heavily so, at the cost of the owners receiving them. The company is effectively paying tax on their dividend disbursements (By way of the companys owners paying tax on them). Also, the vast majority of those profits and dividends are reinvested. Automatically at that.

Okay two things, let’s not pretend like corporations are always taxed at a fair rate. Also dividends aren’t profits, they are a portion of profits. The net profit can also be retained earnings. I’m getting the sense that we have a fundamental disagreement based on the nature of capital.

It seems that a few here feel that by investing an amount, probably not a majority or anything close. That you are the most important part of a company and are owed the all the profits. Whereas in reality people buy stocks generally in portfolios as an investment of capital. When the stock rises they can sell it for more money. I simply mean that I think companies should retain all their earnings to reinvest or pay workers more to boost productivity. It raises the value of the company thus the stock price and your overall investment. You lose nothing.

If you don’t think a significant amount of money is offshored then I don’t know what to say. You are either blissfully unaware, or an investor without enough capital to make it a worthwhile endeavor.

Any money taken out of the company hurts it. I feel like you must think I’m some blithe socialist who doesn’t care about investors, I assure you I’m not. I work in business, and simply believe in doing what’s best for the economy. Some industries like healthcare are more productive socialized, but I don’t believe many or most industries should be. I think corporations should pay there fair tax because they use roads utilities and many other things in the country they preside or sell in.

[WoodDraw]

“ Any money taken out of the company hurts it.”

What the hell? Lol