Is the killer coronavirus now disease X? World Health Organization expert warns the infection is 'rapidly' fitting category for the mysterious pathogen scientists fear will kill 80million
Historically the first term of a party holding the White House has over a 90% success rate at holding onto the White House. Carter being the only exception in 12 cases since the start of the 20th century.
I suspect Trump being POTUS improves the Dems chances of regaining the office, but does it improve it to 45% with Sanders as the candidate? I don't think so.
I think the market is if anything overestimating Sanders chances.
How about George H W Bush?
Trump is the most unpopular president at this stage of his presidency since records began.
His campaign objective is not about trying to be popular, he simply wants to make the other guy even more unpopular. Its a tactic that seems to be working for the right across the globe, not helped by centre left political parties picking some nutters and shifting leftwards.
"The fact some people might hold views as to whether this is within the 'spirit' of the sport is irrelevant."
UK Athletics chiefs were aware of it. They could have stopped him but it was legal so they didnt. No story here. (No idea if there is an unproven story yet to be told or not but it needs evidence of breaking the WADA rules not pushing the spirit of the sport.)
Is it me or does it feel like we've had the same (stormy) weather system for about the past month now ?
It's a sequence of four or five I believe. Set to continue for the next two weeks then expected to move to a settled period through mid-March*. Thank goodness.
(*According to the Met Office long range forecast.)
Is it me or does it feel like we've had the same (stormy) weather system for about the past month now ?
It's a sequence of four or five I believe. Set to continue for the next two weeks then expected to move to a settled period through mid-March*. Thank goodness.
(*According to the Met Office long range forecast.)
Spring can’t come soon enough. I am fed up with washing the dog.
These people would be an asset to the UK. Highly skilled, democratic in orientation and very pro-British. Even Brexiteers should support them coming here. It would also endorse their claim they want the UK to be a beacon of liberty and a player on the world stage.
Oddly for a slightly right of centre centrist I find myself rather hoping that Bernie wins. Someone with left of centre views in the Whitehouse might be a good thing for the world
On thread. Theoretically, I think Mike makes a good point. I can see Bernie's appeal to the sort of WWC voters that switched to Trump in 2016 in places like Michigan and Pennsylvania (I am less convinced re WIsconsin - Bernie's performance in Iowa doesn't bode that well). He probably also gets some more younger voters who didn't vote in 2016.
However, I think he may lose enough 2016 HRC voters because they see him as too left-wing and / or threatening to their wealth (I am thinking wealthy suburban, relatively progressive Democrat types). So I could see him losing Virginia (especially given the issues there), possibly Colorado and Nevada. I also think he could lose Minnesota (again, read-across from Iowa).
Plus (1) Trump was an unknown in 2016, he isn't now and (2) Trump has also been making a massive outreach effort.
Historically the first term of a party holding the White House has over a 90% success rate at holding onto the White House. Carter being the only exception in 12 cases since the start of the 20th century.
I suspect Trump being POTUS improves the Dems chances of regaining the office, but does it improve it to 45% with Sanders as the candidate? I don't think so.
I think the market is if anything overestimating Sanders chances.
How about George H W Bush?
Trump is the most unpopular president at this stage of his presidency since records began.
His campaign objective is not about trying to be popular, he simply wants to make the other guy even more unpopular. Its a tactic that seems to be working for the right across the globe, not helped by centre left political parties picking some nutters and shifting leftwards.
I am a card carrying member of the centre-left. I despise Corbynism and movements like it. But it is hard to see Sanders as being a nutter. Universal insurance is the mainstream position elsewhere. A $15 minimum wage is nothing too far out there. He embraces democracy and criticized regimes on right and left for authoritarianism.
Historically the first term of a party holding the White House has over a 90% success rate at holding onto the White House. Carter being the only exception in 12 cases since the start of the 20th century.
I suspect Trump being POTUS improves the Dems chances of regaining the office, but does it improve it to 45% with Sanders as the candidate? I don't think so.
I think the market is if anything overestimating Sanders chances.
How about George H W Bush?
Trump is the most unpopular president at this stage of his presidency since records began.
These people would be an asset to the UK. Highly skilled, democratic in orientation and very pro-British. Even Brexiteers should support them coming here. It would also endorse their claim they want the UK to be a beacon of liberty and a player on the world stage.
Historically the first term of a party holding the White House has over a 90% success rate at holding onto the White House. Carter being the only exception in 12 cases since the start of the 20th century.
I suspect Trump being POTUS improves the Dems chances of regaining the office, but does it improve it to 45% with Sanders as the candidate? I don't think so.
I think the market is if anything overestimating Sanders chances.
How about George H W Bush?
Trump is the most unpopular president at this stage of his presidency since records began.
His campaign objective is not about trying to be popular, he simply wants to make the other guy even more unpopular. Its a tactic that seems to be working for the right across the globe, not helped by centre left political parties picking some nutters and shifting leftwards.
I am a card carrying member of the centre-left. I despise Corbynism and movements like it. But it is hard to see Sanders as being a nutter. Universal insurance is the mainstream position elsewhere. A $15 minimum wage is nothing too far out there. He embraces democracy and criticized regimes on right and left for authoritarianism.
Nutters is too strong and probably the wrong word anyway so my mistake/laziness. They are nutty only as Presidential/PM candidates not as people or even politicians. The three characteristics US voters say they are least likely to vote for as President are over 70, socialist and atheist. Why on earth pick Sanders when that is known?
Historically the first term of a party holding the White House has over a 90% success rate at holding onto the White House. Carter being the only exception in 12 cases since the start of the 20th century.
I suspect Trump being POTUS improves the Dems chances of regaining the office, but does it improve it to 45% with Sanders as the candidate? I don't think so.
I think the market is if anything overestimating Sanders chances.
Now who is cherry picking? If you change this to an incumbent President who loses a presidential election, you add Bush Snr and Gerald Ford to this list. If you you include pulling out during the primaries then LBJ has to be added as well.
First term incumbency for the party is the critical part. Neither HW Bush, nor Ford had the first term incumbency bonus. They both followed on from Presidents who DID win re-election as first term for the party incumbents.
As for LBJ he did face a first term re-election himself in 1964 and won by an absolute landslide! He got 486 electoral college votes compared to Goldwater's 52. I fail to see how that counters my argument.
Historically the first term of a party holding the White House has over a 90% success rate at holding onto the White House. Carter being the only exception in 12 cases since the start of the 20th century.
I suspect Trump being POTUS improves the Dems chances of regaining the office, but does it improve it to 45% with Sanders as the candidate? I don't think so.
I think the market is if anything overestimating Sanders chances.
How about George H W Bush?
Trump is the most unpopular president at this stage of his presidency since records began.
His campaign objective is not about trying to be popular, he simply wants to make the other guy even more unpopular. Its a tactic that seems to be working for the right across the globe, not helped by centre left political parties picking some nutters and shifting leftwards.
I am a card carrying member of the centre-left. I despise Corbynism and movements like it. But it is hard to see Sanders as being a nutter. Universal insurance is the mainstream position elsewhere. A $15 minimum wage is nothing too far out there. He embraces democracy and criticized regimes on right and left for authoritarianism.
Nutters is too strong and probably the wrong word anyway so my mistake/laziness. They are nutty only as Presidential/PM candidates not as people or even politicians. The three characteristics US voters say they are least likely to vote for as President are over 70, socialist and atheist. Why on earth pick Sanders when that is known?
Is the killer coronavirus now disease X? World Health Organization expert warns the infection is 'rapidly' fitting category for the mysterious pathogen scientists fear will kill 80million
Usual low quality stuff from the DM. They start with 77,150 cases in China, add a few thousand worldwide which brings their "World wide total" up to 76,793 instead of 79,500(ish)
Historically the first term of a party holding the White House has over a 90% success rate at holding onto the White House. Carter being the only exception in 12 cases since the start of the 20th century.
I suspect Trump being POTUS improves the Dems chances of regaining the office, but does it improve it to 45% with Sanders as the candidate? I don't think so.
I think the market is if anything overestimating Sanders chances.
How about George H W Bush?
Trump is the most unpopular president at this stage of his presidency since records began.
His campaign objective is not about trying to be popular, he simply wants to make the other guy even more unpopular. Its a tactic that seems to be working for the right across the globe, not helped by centre left political parties picking some nutters and shifting leftwards.
I am a card carrying member of the centre-left. I despise Corbynism and movements like it. But it is hard to see Sanders as being a nutter. Universal insurance is the mainstream position elsewhere. A $15 minimum wage is nothing too far out there. He embraces democracy and criticized regimes on right and left for authoritarianism.
Is that it or is there more under the bonnet?
Warren is an absolute nutter with her wealth tax. Does Sanders support anything like that?
Historically the first term of a party holding the White House has over a 90% success rate at holding onto the White House. Carter being the only exception in 12 cases since the start of the 20th century.
I suspect Trump being POTUS improves the Dems chances of regaining the office, but does it improve it to 45% with Sanders as the candidate? I don't think so.
I think the market is if anything overestimating Sanders chances.
How about George H W Bush?
Trump is the most unpopular president at this stage of his presidency since records began.
His campaign objective is not about trying to be popular, he simply wants to make the other guy even more unpopular. Its a tactic that seems to be working for the right across the globe, not helped by centre left political parties picking some nutters and shifting leftwards.
I am a card carrying member of the centre-left. I despise Corbynism and movements like it. But it is hard to see Sanders as being a nutter. Universal insurance is the mainstream position elsewhere. A $15 minimum wage is nothing too far out there. He embraces democracy and criticized regimes on right and left for authoritarianism.
Nutters is too strong and probably the wrong word anyway so my mistake/laziness. They are nutty only as Presidential/PM candidates not as people or even politicians. The three characteristics US voters say they are least likely to vote for as President are over 70, socialist and atheist. Why on earth pick Sanders when that is known?
Is he an atheist?
He says no, but in an ambiguous manner which will make most of those who wont vote for an atheist think he is one.
Historically the first term of a party holding the White House has over a 90% success rate at holding onto the White House. Carter being the only exception in 12 cases since the start of the 20th century.
I suspect Trump being POTUS improves the Dems chances of regaining the office, but does it improve it to 45% with Sanders as the candidate? I don't think so.
I think the market is if anything overestimating Sanders chances.
How about George H W Bush?
Trump is the most unpopular president at this stage of his presidency since records began.
His campaign objective is not about trying to be popular, he simply wants to make the other guy even more unpopular. Its a tactic that seems to be working for the right across the globe, not helped by centre left political parties picking some nutters and shifting leftwards.
I am a card carrying member of the centre-left. I despise Corbynism and movements like it. But it is hard to see Sanders as being a nutter. Universal insurance is the mainstream position elsewhere. A $15 minimum wage is nothing too far out there. He embraces democracy and criticized regimes on right and left for authoritarianism.
Nutters is too strong and probably the wrong word anyway so my mistake/laziness. They are nutty only as Presidential/PM candidates not as people or even politicians. The three characteristics US voters say they are least likely to vote for as President are over 70, socialist and atheist. Why on earth pick Sanders when that is known?
Is he an atheist?
More of an agnostic who has said religious values shaped him in his upbringing. He often pointedly includes mention of religious minorities alongside ethnic ones in his speeches, perhaps also knowing that he has to make a point about something not automatically sitting well with many metropolitan liberal graduate voters, but better with many working-class recent immigrant communities.
Historically the first term of a party holding the White House has over a 90% success rate at holding onto the White House. Carter being the only exception in 12 cases since the start of the 20th century.
I suspect Trump being POTUS improves the Dems chances of regaining the office, but does it improve it to 45% with Sanders as the candidate? I don't think so.
I think the market is if anything overestimating Sanders chances.
How about George H W Bush?
Trump is the most unpopular president at this stage of his presidency since records began.
His campaign objective is not about trying to be popular, he simply wants to make the other guy even more unpopular. Its a tactic that seems to be working for the right across the globe, not helped by centre left political parties picking some nutters and shifting leftwards.
I am a card carrying member of the centre-left. I despise Corbynism and movements like it. But it is hard to see Sanders as being a nutter. Universal insurance is the mainstream position elsewhere. A $15 minimum wage is nothing too far out there. He embraces democracy and criticized regimes on right and left for authoritarianism.
Is that it or is there more under the bonnet?
Warren is an absolute nutter with her wealth tax. Does Sanders support anything like that?
A wealth tax is completely reasonable when you are in the US. Warren's proposals have detailed forecasts of tax avoidance from academics that study wealth tax. The real world finds it's far lower than right wingers claim.
On thread. Theoretically, I think Mike makes a good point. I can see Bernie's appeal to the sort of WWC voters that switched to Trump in 2016 in places like Michigan and Pennsylvania (I am less convinced re WIsconsin - Bernie's performance in Iowa doesn't bode that well). He probably also gets some more younger voters who didn't vote in 2016.
However, I think he may lose enough 2016 HRC voters because they see him as too left-wing and / or threatening to their wealth (I am thinking wealthy suburban, relatively progressive Democrat types). So I could see him losing Virginia (especially given the issues there), possibly Colorado and Nevada. I also think he could lose Minnesota (again, read-across from Iowa).
Plus (1) Trump was an unknown in 2016, he isn't now and (2) Trump has also been making a massive outreach effort.
Last poll in Virginia found Sanders up by 9 vs Trump. Up by 10 in Colorado. Up by 3 in Nevada. Up by 9 in Minnesota.
My God the American health system is terrible, and more of this and maybe Sanders has a very good chance.
He should have just got a blood test done in China tbh.
I had a blood test in Chengdu in 2004 or so, was less than the excess on my travel insurance there. $3000 is absolute robbery anywhere in the world.
It's the lack of price regulation that's the main issue with US health provision, IAUI.
There's lots wrong with the US healthcare system, but the key driver is that, unlike almost all other advanced economies, there is no universal coverage, government-mandated cradle-to-grave system. Obamacare is a sticking plaster that doesn't fundamentally change the parameters.
Historically the first term of a party holding the White House has over a 90% success rate at holding onto the White House. Carter being the only exception in 12 cases since the start of the 20th century.
I suspect Trump being POTUS improves the Dems chances of regaining the office, but does it improve it to 45% with Sanders as the candidate? I don't think so.
I think the market is if anything overestimating Sanders chances.
How about George H W Bush?
Trump is the most unpopular president at this stage of his presidency since records began.
His campaign objective is not about trying to be popular, he simply wants to make the other guy even more unpopular. Its a tactic that seems to be working for the right across the globe, not helped by centre left political parties picking some nutters and shifting leftwards.
I am a card carrying member of the centre-left. I despise Corbynism and movements like it. But it is hard to see Sanders as being a nutter. Universal insurance is the mainstream position elsewhere. A $15 minimum wage is nothing too far out there. He embraces democracy and criticized regimes on right and left for authoritarianism.
Is that it or is there more under the bonnet?
Warren is an absolute nutter with her wealth tax. Does Sanders support anything like that?
A wealth tax is completely reasonable when you are in the US. Warren's proposals have detailed forecasts of tax avoidance from academics that study wealth tax. The real world finds it's far lower than right wingers claim.
Riiiiighhtttt . . . so its not just about $15 minimum wage?
A wealth tax is completely insane when you are in the USA which is why its not been done. Wealth creators gravitate to the USA as the best place to create wealth which can then be taxed a plethora of ways. Now Warren intends to confiscate that wealth at rates that exceed the ability to grow for most investments and you think that's not much to talk about?
Why bother creating an Amazon in the USA if you're going to have 6% of it PER ANNUM confiscated off you? Long term most investments don't grow at 6% per annum.
Historically the first term of a party holding the White House has over a 90% success rate at holding onto the White House. Carter being the only exception in 12 cases since the start of the 20th century.
I suspect Trump being POTUS improves the Dems chances of regaining the office, but does it improve it to 45% with Sanders as the candidate? I don't think so.
I think the market is if anything overestimating Sanders chances.
How about George H W Bush?
Trump is the most unpopular president at this stage of his presidency since records began.
His campaign objective is not about trying to be popular, he simply wants to make the other guy even more unpopular. Its a tactic that seems to be working for the right across the globe, not helped by centre left political parties picking some nutters and shifting leftwards.
I am a card carrying member of the centre-left. I despise Corbynism and movements like it. But it is hard to see Sanders as being a nutter. Universal insurance is the mainstream position elsewhere. A $15 minimum wage is nothing too far out there. He embraces democracy and criticized regimes on right and left for authoritarianism.
Nutters is too strong and probably the wrong word anyway so my mistake/laziness. They are nutty only as Presidential/PM candidates not as people or even politicians. The three characteristics US voters say they are least likely to vote for as President are over 70, socialist and atheist. Why on earth pick Sanders when that is known?
Is he an atheist?
He says no, but in an ambiguous manner which will make most of those who wont vote for an atheist think he is one.
Is the killer coronavirus now disease X? World Health Organization expert warns the infection is 'rapidly' fitting category for the mysterious pathogen scientists fear will kill 80million
Usual low quality stuff from the DM. They start with 77,150 cases in China, add a few thousand worldwide which brings their "World wide total" up to 76,793 instead of 79,500(ish)
I wonder what other details they have wrong?
I travelled Africa Cape to Cairo in 2006-7 and was struck by the amount of Chinese infrastructure work going on even then. At risk of usurping eadric's role I have to say that I think the chances that Africa is not already riddled with it are nil, unless it cannot survive at all in (sub)tropical climates.
Historically the first term of a party holding the White House has over a 90% success rate at holding onto the White House. Carter being the only exception in 12 cases since the start of the 20th century.
I suspect Trump being POTUS improves the Dems chances of regaining the office, but does it improve it to 45% with Sanders as the candidate? I don't think so.
I think the market is if anything overestimating Sanders chances.
How about George H W Bush?
Trump is the most unpopular president at this stage of his presidency since records began.
His campaign objective is not about trying to be popular, he simply wants to make the other guy even more unpopular. Its a tactic that seems to be working for the right across the globe, not helped by centre left political parties picking some nutters and shifting leftwards.
I am a card carrying member of the centre-left. I despise Corbynism and movements like it. But it is hard to see Sanders as being a nutter. Universal insurance is the mainstream position elsewhere. A $15 minimum wage is nothing too far out there. He embraces democracy and criticized regimes on right and left for authoritarianism.
Is that it or is there more under the bonnet?
Warren is an absolute nutter with her wealth tax. Does Sanders support anything like that?
What are the odds that by the end of his term our Bozo will have flirted with both a wealth tax and a universal basic income?
Historically the first term of a party holding the White House has over a 90% success rate at holding onto the White House. Carter being the only exception in 12 cases since the start of the 20th century.
I suspect Trump being POTUS improves the Dems chances of regaining the office, but does it improve it to 45% with Sanders as the candidate? I don't think so.
I think the market is if anything overestimating Sanders chances.
How about George H W Bush?
Trump is the most unpopular president at this stage of his presidency since records began.
His campaign objective is not about trying to be popular, he simply wants to make the other guy even more unpopular. Its a tactic that seems to be working for the right across the globe, not helped by centre left political parties picking some nutters and shifting leftwards.
I am a card carrying member of the centre-left. I despise Corbynism and movements like it. But it is hard to see Sanders as being a nutter. Universal insurance is the mainstream position elsewhere. A $15 minimum wage is nothing too far out there. He embraces democracy and criticized regimes on right and left for authoritarianism.
Nutters is too strong and probably the wrong word anyway so my mistake/laziness. They are nutty only as Presidential/PM candidates not as people or even politicians. The three characteristics US voters say they are least likely to vote for as President are over 70, socialist and atheist. Why on earth pick Sanders when that is known?
Because he'll be going up against Trump, who's hardly in a great position to play a religious card except maybe among the cross-burning crackers whose votes he can already bank, who is over 70 himself, and who as a billionaire businessman may not find the middle ground responds in unison "Hell yeah" if he urges people to vote for him because the alternative is socialism.
47% say they could back a socialist. Trump won with 46%.
Trump does well with the religious groups, not because they like him or respect him but because he will appoint judges they like and respect.
Historically the first term of a party holding the White House has over a 90% success rate at holding onto the White House. Carter being the only exception in 12 cases since the start of the 20th century.
I suspect Trump being POTUS improves the Dems chances of regaining the office, but does it improve it to 45% with Sanders as the candidate? I don't think so.
I think the market is if anything overestimating Sanders chances.
How about George H W Bush?
Trump is the most unpopular president at this stage of his presidency since records began.
His campaign objective is not about trying to be popular, he simply wants to make the other guy even more unpopular. Its a tactic that seems to be working for the right across the globe, not helped by centre left political parties picking some nutters and shifting leftwards.
I am a card carrying member of the centre-left. I despise Corbynism and movements like it. But it is hard to see Sanders as being a nutter. Universal insurance is the mainstream position elsewhere. A $15 minimum wage is nothing too far out there. He embraces democracy and criticized regimes on right and left for authoritarianism.
Is that it or is there more under the bonnet?
Warren is an absolute nutter with her wealth tax. Does Sanders support anything like that?
A wealth tax is completely reasonable when you are in the US. Warren's proposals have detailed forecasts of tax avoidance from academics that study wealth tax. The real world finds it's far lower than right wingers claim.
Riiiiighhtttt . . . so its not just about $15 minimum wage?
A wealth tax is completely insane when you are in the USA which is why its not been done. Wealth creators gravitate to the USA as the best place to create wealth which can then be taxed a plethora of ways. Now Warren intends to confiscate that wealth at rates that exceed the ability to grow for most investments and you think that's not much to talk about?
Why bother creating an Amazon in the USA if you're going to have 6% of it PER ANNUM confiscated off you? Long term most investments don't grow at 6% per annum.
To have more money than you could ever spend? (bar acquiring more businesses and assets).
Historically the first term of a party holding the White House has over a 90% success rate at holding onto the White House. Carter being the only exception in 12 cases since the start of the 20th century.
I suspect Trump being POTUS improves the Dems chances of regaining the office, but does it improve it to 45% with Sanders as the candidate? I don't think so.
I think the market is if anything overestimating Sanders chances.
How about George H W Bush?
Trump is the most unpopular president at this stage of his presidency since records began.
His campaign objective is not about trying to be popular, he simply wants to make the other guy even more unpopular. Its a tactic that seems to be working for the right across the globe, not helped by centre left political parties picking some nutters and shifting leftwards.
I am a card carrying member of the centre-left. I despise Corbynism and movements like it. But it is hard to see Sanders as being a nutter. Universal insurance is the mainstream position elsewhere. A $15 minimum wage is nothing too far out there. He embraces democracy and criticized regimes on right and left for authoritarianism.
Is that it or is there more under the bonnet?
Warren is an absolute nutter with her wealth tax. Does Sanders support anything like that?
What are the odds that by the end of his term our Bozo will have flirted with both a wealth tax and a universal basic income?
We already effectively have a quasi universal basic income anyway. Done right I 100% back a universal basic income - the question is what do you mean by it?
On thread. Theoretically, I think Mike makes a good point. I can see Bernie's appeal to the sort of WWC voters that switched to Trump in 2016 in places like Michigan and Pennsylvania (I am less convinced re WIsconsin - Bernie's performance in Iowa doesn't bode that well). He probably also gets some more younger voters who didn't vote in 2016.
However, I think he may lose enough 2016 HRC voters because they see him as too left-wing and / or threatening to their wealth (I am thinking wealthy suburban, relatively progressive Democrat types). So I could see him losing Virginia (especially given the issues there), possibly Colorado and Nevada. I also think he could lose Minnesota (again, read-across from Iowa).
Plus (1) Trump was an unknown in 2016, he isn't now and (2) Trump has also been making a massive outreach effort.
Last poll in Virginia found Sanders up by 9 vs Trump. Up by 10 in Colorado. Up by 3 in Nevada. Up by 9 in Minnesota.
Because we all know state polls in the US are so accurate...
My God the American health system is terrible, and more of this and maybe Sanders has a very good chance.
He should have just got a blood test done in China tbh.
I had a blood test in Chengdu in 2004 or so, was less than the excess on my travel insurance there. $3000 is absolute robbery anywhere in the world.
It's the lack of price regulation that's the main issue with US health provision, IAUI.
There's lots wrong with the US healthcare system, but the key driver is that, unlike almost all other advanced economies, there is no universal coverage, government-mandated cradle-to-grave system. Obamacare is a sticking plaster that doesn't fundamentally change the parameters.
The other systems fall into two categories -
1 Govt-run cradle to grave (UK, Canada, Scandinavia, S Korea, Spain, some others) 2 Govt-regulated private insurance, most people covered (France, Germany, Switzerland, some others).
1 costs less to run but is 'socialist'. So some Tories witter on about the need to 'change' the NHS, by which they mean type 2, hence more red tape and means testing. Funny old world.
Feedback from several ex-customers indicates to me that the recession has started. In previous recessions, certain companies I dealt with saw a sharp downturn 3 to 6 months before the recession. They are showing the same pattern as before.
Feedback from several ex-customers indicates to me that the recession has started. In previous recessions, certain companies I dealt with saw a sharp downturn 3 to 6 months before the recession. They are showing the same pattern as before.
London taxi drivers are full of the same anecdotal news, where they weren't last year.
Riiiiighhtttt . . . so its not just about $15 minimum wage?
A wealth tax is completely insane when you are in the USA which is why its not been done. Wealth creators gravitate to the USA as the best place to create wealth which can then be taxed a plethora of ways. Now Warren intends to confiscate that wealth at rates that exceed the ability to grow for most investments and you think that's not much to talk about?
Why bother creating an Amazon in the USA if you're going to have 6% of it PER ANNUM confiscated off you? Long term most investments don't grow at 6% per annum.
To have more money than you could ever spend? (bar acquiring more businesses and assets).
But you won't if its confiscated off you in perpetuity faster than you can create it, let alone spend it.
Have an investment that loses money? Oh well - we'll still take another 6% off you on top of that! Make 3% return on investment this year? Great job, we'll take all of that, plus the same again, plus you'll have other taxes to pay and cost of living.
Can you give me an example of any country anywhere successfully developing large enterprises while taxing wealth at 6% per annum?
Feedback from several ex-customers indicates to me that the recession has started. In previous recessions, certain companies I dealt with saw a sharp downturn 3 to 6 months before the recession. They are showing the same pattern as before.
London taxi drivers are full of the same anecdotal news, where they weren't last year.
And that was before China (the world's workshop) shut down...
Why didn't you purchase this last year when Smyths had it for around £500 or so..
I have a policy of only buying a lego set once I've my kids have finished a set.
Looks at the various sets I've got in unopened boxes - why would you do that...
I learnt that you need to purchase them when the Maersk cargo container vessel set was discontinued when I wasn't paying attention (granted its a niche set but my Dad's a Naval Architect)..
These people would be an asset to the UK. Highly skilled, democratic in orientation and very pro-British. Even Brexiteers should support them coming here. It would also endorse their claim they want the UK to be a beacon of liberty and a player on the world stage.
My God the American health system is terrible, and more of this and maybe Sanders has a very good chance.
He should have just got a blood test done in China tbh.
I had a blood test in Chengdu in 2004 or so, was less than the excess on my travel insurance there. $3000 is absolute robbery anywhere in the world.
It's the lack of price regulation that's the main issue with US health provision, IAUI.
There's lots wrong with the US healthcare system, but the key driver is that, unlike almost all other advanced economies, there is no universal coverage, government-mandated cradle-to-grave system. Obamacare is a sticking plaster that doesn't fundamentally change the parameters.
The other systems fall into two categories -
1 Govt-run cradle to grave (UK, Canada, Scandinavia, S Korea, Spain, some others) 2 Govt-regulated private insurance, most people covered (France, Germany, Switzerland, some others).
1 costs less to run but is 'socialist'. So some Tories witter on about the need to 'change' the NHS, by which they mean type 2, hence more red tape and means testing. Funny old world.
I think Sanders favours type 1.
“Medicare for all,” one of Sanders’s central policies, has a problem gaining traction even among Democrats. As a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll found, “More Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents would prefer voting for a candidate who wants to build on the A.C.A. in order to expand coverage and reduce costs rather than replace the A.C.A. with a national Medicare-for-all plan.”
Why didn't you purchase this last year when Smyths had it for around £500 or so..
I have a policy of only buying a lego set once I've my kids have finished a set.
Looks at the various sets I've got in unopened boxes - why would you do that...
I learnt that you need to purchase them when the Maersk cargo container vessel set was discontinued when I wasn't paying attention (granted its a niche set but my Dad's a Naval Architect)..
I don't have the time to fully satisfy my Lego love.
I'd end up stop buying Lego if I knew there were several hundred pounds worth of unopened Lego sets.
How can proposed cuts affect current preparedness?
He cut them in his first budget I believe. But to answer your question, you don't start new initiatives if they don't have a long term funding commitment.
That's a worrying poll for unionists, BUT it is quite old. Feb 3rd?!
More importantly, it is before Sinn Fein won in Dublin and started shouting Up the Ra!
I suspect that will drive Norn people back to unionism. But, we shall see
Yes a poll which finished later than that had a bigger lead for No to Irish unity but it is actually encouraging for Unionists No are ahead even with Lucidtalk in NI who have had a few recent polls putting leaving the UK ahead
My God the American health system is terrible, and more of this and maybe Sanders has a very good chance.
He should have just got a blood test done in China tbh.
I had a blood test in Chengdu in 2004 or so, was less than the excess on my travel insurance there. $3000 is absolute robbery anywhere in the world.
It's the lack of price regulation that's the main issue with US health provision, IAUI.
There's lots wrong with the US healthcare system, but the key driver is that, unlike almost all other advanced economies, there is no universal coverage, government-mandated cradle-to-grave system. Obamacare is a sticking plaster that doesn't fundamentally change the parameters.
The other systems fall into two categories -
1 Govt-run cradle to grave (UK, Canada, Scandinavia, S Korea, Spain, some others) 2 Govt-regulated private insurance, most people covered (France, Germany, Switzerland, some others).
1 costs less to run but is 'socialist'. So some Tories witter on about the need to 'change' the NHS, by which they mean type 2, hence more red tape and means testing. Funny old world.
I think Sanders favours type 1.
“Medicare for all,” one of Sanders’s central policies, has a problem gaining traction even among Democrats. As a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll found, “More Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents would prefer voting for a candidate who wants to build on the A.C.A. in order to expand coverage and reduce costs rather than replace the A.C.A. with a national Medicare-for-all plan.”
How can proposed cuts affect current preparedness?
He cut them in his first budget I believe. But to answer your question, you don't start new initiatives if they don't have a long term funding commitment.
Thanks. I had assumed when the tweet was referring to "Trump's budget", it was in the present tense, i.e. not yet approved by congress. The president cuts many things in the budget, but congress often puts them back.
Historically the first term of a party holding the White House has over a 90% success rate at holding onto the White House. Carter being the only exception in 12 cases since the start of the 20th century.
I suspect Trump being POTUS improves the Dems chances of regaining the office, but does it improve it to 45% with Sanders as the candidate? I don't think so.
I think the market is if anything overestimating Sanders chances.
How about George H W Bush?
Trump is the most unpopular president at this stage of his presidency since records began.
e left political parties picking some nutters and shifting leftwards.
I am a card carrying member of the centre-left. I despise Corbynism and movements like it. But it is hard to see Sanders as being a nutter. Universal insurance is the mainstream position elsewhere. A $15 minimum wage is nothing too far out there. He embraces democracy and criticized regimes on right and left for authoritarianism.
Nutters is too strong and probably the wrong word anyway so my mistake/laziness. They are nutty only as Presidential/PM candidates not as people or even politicians. The three characteristics US voters say they are least likely to vote for as President are over 70, socialist and atheist. Why on earth pick Sanders when that is known?
Because he'll be going up against Trump, who's hardly in a great position to play a religious card except maybe among the cross-burning crackers whose votes he can already bank, who is over 70 himself, and who as a billionaire businessman may not find the middle ground responds in unison "Hell yeah" if he urges people to vote for him because the alternative is socialism.
47% say they could back a socialist. Trump won with 46%.
Trump does well with the religious groups, not because they like him or respect him but because he will appoint judges they like and respect.
Sanders' religious' background could become important in the race, however. Israel has developed a sort of totemic importance in America both for US evangelicals and foreign policy and culture warriors, but Sanders is uniquely placed to both at times take a more distant, critical and nuanced stance, that might appeal more to non-white voters, and at other times to affirm his Jewish roots and underlying, fundamental support for the country - and he frequently quite succesfully does both.That's a very difficult position for the right or left to shift.
I have no debts, I don't have a mortgage or rent to pay, I'm allowed the occasional indulgence.
Save 80%!!! Either you have an absolutely massive salary or someone is subsidising you heavily..... living with family and making no contribution for example.
Feedback from several ex-customers indicates to me that the recession has started. In previous recessions, certain companies I dealt with saw a sharp downturn 3 to 6 months before the recession. They are showing the same pattern as before.
London taxi drivers are full of the same anecdotal news, where they weren't last year.
It was pointed out on Twitter the other day that if the virus really kicks in, taxis and Ubers will go out of business. Who will want to step into a closed metal box which has maybe been used by 17 strange people all coughing and sneezing in the last 24 hours?
It's quite possible drivers will refuse to drive. As they will be exposed to risk all day, every day.
The ramifications of a massive outbreak are so obviously enormous, yet so fiendishly unpredictable.
I'd have though usage in London would go through the roof, considering the other option is the sealed incubator of the Tube, shared with hundreds of others, a chunk of whom are foreign tourists.
I have no debts, I don't have a mortgage or rent to pay, I'm allowed the occasional indulgence.
Save 80%!!! Either you have an absolutely massive salary or someone is subsidising you heavily..... living with family and making no contribution for example.
If you aren't paying a mortgage that's not too difficult.
My God the American health system is terrible, and more of this and maybe Sanders has a very good chance.
He should have just got a blood test done in China tbh.
I had a blood test in Chengdu in 2004 or so, was less than the excess on my travel insurance there. $3000 is absolute robbery anywhere in the world.
It's the lack of price regulation that's the main issue with US health provision, IAUI.
There's lots wrong with the US healthcare system, but the key driver is that, unlike almost all other advanced economies, there is no universal coverage, government-mandated cradle-to-grave system. Obamacare is a sticking plaster that doesn't fundamentally change the parameters.
The other systems fall into two categories -
1 Govt-run cradle to grave (UK, Canada, Scandinavia, S Korea, Spain, some others) 2 Govt-regulated private insurance, most people covered (France, Germany, Switzerland, some others).
1 costs less to run but is 'socialist'. So some Tories witter on about the need to 'change' the NHS, by which they mean type 2, hence more red tape and means testing. Funny old world.
I think Sanders favours type 1.
“Medicare for all,” one of Sanders’s central policies, has a problem gaining traction even among Democrats. As a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll found, “More Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents would prefer voting for a candidate who wants to build on the A.C.A. in order to expand coverage and reduce costs rather than replace the A.C.A. with a national Medicare-for-all plan.”
The dilemma is that moving to a system like Canada's would save them a fortune. But building on the ACA maintains or increases the red tape which makes their system so costly for both individuals *and* federal govt.
My God the American health system is terrible, and more of this and maybe Sanders has a very good chance.
He should have just got a blood test done in China tbh.
I had a blood test in Chengdu in 2004 or so, was less than the excess on my travel insurance there. $3000 is absolute robbery anywhere in the world.
It's the lack of price regulation that's the main issue with US health provision, IAUI.
There's lots wrong with the US healthcare system, but the key driver is that, unlike almost all other advanced economies, there is no universal coverage, government-mandated cradle-to-grave system. Obamacare is a sticking plaster that doesn't fundamentally change the parameters.
The other systems fall into two categories -
1 Govt-run cradle to grave (UK, Canada, Scandinavia, S Korea, Spain, some others) 2 Govt-regulated private insurance, most people covered (France, Germany, Switzerland, some others).
1 costs less to run but is 'socialist'. So some Tories witter on about the need to 'change' the NHS, by which they mean type 2, hence more red tape and means testing. Funny old world.
I think Sanders favours type 1.
I think Sanders favours a national health insurance system paid from general taxation and which doesn't charge hypothecated premiums. Provision would be continue to be made by current providers who would be paid out of the central pot. Probably closest to Canada (and Korea, I have just discovered). Germany and France have a national health insurance scheme with hypothecated premiums. Authorities in UK, Sweden and Spain largely provide the healthcare direct to taxpayers.
Obamacare is based on the Swiss system of government regulated private insurance, but without the key requirement of that insurance being compulsory over the whole life.
I have no debts, I don't have a mortgage or rent to pay, I'm allowed the occasional indulgence.
Save 80%!!! Either you have an absolutely massive salary or someone is subsidising you heavily..... living with family and making no contribution for example.
I've been very fortunate in life, I was raised by a mother who views debt as the eighth deadliest sin, I was the last cohort to have my university fees paid for.
My parents/grandparents helped me buy a house in central London in 2000 which I sold for a lot more in 2007 then moved back oop North.
I moved back in with my parents in 2013 and they don't subsidise me and my kids, although they'd like to, they can afford to, but I refuse to let them.
Feedback from several ex-customers indicates to me that the recession has started. In previous recessions, certain companies I dealt with saw a sharp downturn 3 to 6 months before the recession. They are showing the same pattern as before.
London taxi drivers are full of the same anecdotal news, where they weren't last year.
It was pointed out on Twitter the other day that if the virus really kicks in, taxis and Ubers will go out of business. Who will want to step into a closed metal box which has maybe been used by 17 strange people all coughing and sneezing in the last 24 hours?
It's quite possible drivers will refuse to drive. As they will be exposed to risk all day, every day.
The ramifications of a massive outbreak are so obviously enormous, yet so fiendishly unpredictable.
I'd have though usage in London would go through the roof, considering the other option is the sealed incubator of the Tube, shared with hundreds of others, a chunk of whom are foreign tourists.
Very arguable, but the dude on Twitter thought people would either use their own car, use a bike, walk, than do either public transport or cabs
If the virus can survive for days on inanimate surfaces, that is probably right.
The direct business risk spreads widely to retail, restaurants, leisure and travel. Plus the knock on effects to the rest of the economy.
Perhaps there’ll be hordes of Chinese tourists, who have already recovered from it and are hence immune, over here enjoying the bargain cut prices...?
Feedback from several ex-customers indicates to me that the recession has started. In previous recessions, certain companies I dealt with saw a sharp downturn 3 to 6 months before the recession. They are showing the same pattern as before.
My guess is that Q1 will be about +0.4%. The budget will add the thick end of £100bn to infrastructure spending over the next few years and that should be worth about 1% a year on its own according to David Smith. I am not saying we cannot have a recession, its overdue, but I think you are being very pessimistic to suggest we are already in one.
I read a virologist today who says that everyone has to have a OMG moment with a problem like this. That is, when a virus gets menacing enough, the government has to go from Keep Calm and Carry On to scaring the living shits out of us, so that we will be prepared to accept the huge and unpleasant changes, mass quarantine etc
Maybe this will be HMG's OMG on the rest of us
Given your penchant for disaster and chaos, you should try writing novels for a living....
Feedback from several ex-customers indicates to me that the recession has started. In previous recessions, certain companies I dealt with saw a sharp downturn 3 to 6 months before the recession. They are showing the same pattern as before.
My guess is that Q1 will be about +0.4%. The budget will add the thick end of £100bn to infrastructure spending over the next few years and that should be worth about 1% a year on its own according to David Smith. I am not saying we cannot have a recession, its overdue, but I think you are being very pessimistic to suggest we are already in one.
Historically the first term of a party holding the White House has over a 90% success rate at holding onto the White House. Carter being the only exception in 12 cases since the start of the 20th century.
I suspect Trump being POTUS improves the Dems chances of regaining the office, but does it improve it to 45% with Sanders as the candidate? I don't think so.
I think the market is if anything overestimating Sanders chances.
How about George H W Bush?
Trump is the most unpopular president at this stage of his presidency since records began.
His campaign objective is not about trying to be popular, he simply wants to make the other guy even more unpopular. Its a tactic that seems to be working for the right across the globe, not helped by centre left political parties picking some nutters and shifting leftwards.
I am a card carrying member of the centre-left. I despise Corbynism and movements like it. But it is hard to see Sanders as being a nutter. Universal insurance is the mainstream position elsewhere. A $15 minimum wage is nothing too far out there. He embraces democracy and criticized regimes on right and left for authoritarianism.
Is that it or is there more under the bonnet?
Warren is an absolute nutter with her wealth tax. Does Sanders support anything like that?
What are the odds that by the end of his term our Bozo will have flirted with both a wealth tax and a universal basic income?
We already effectively have a quasi universal basic income anyway. Done right I 100% back a universal basic income - the question is what do you mean by it?
I was reading Utopia for Realists and it struck me that it was right down little Dom’s street.
I read a virologist today who says that everyone has to have a OMG moment with a problem like this. That is, when a virus gets menacing enough, the government has to go from Keep Calm and Carry On to scaring the living shits out of us, so that we will be prepared to accept the huge and unpleasant changes, mass quarantine etc
Comments
Not wishing to appear selfish but the markets can feel free to free fall now, just saying.
Edit: tbh I have still kept a 100 Carnival plc shares, which could turn out to be a 'titanic' mistake.
Now about that £600 Lego Star Destroyer...
It's a sequence of four or five I believe. Set to continue for the next two weeks then expected to move to a settled period through mid-March*. Thank goodness.
(*According to the Met Office long range forecast.)
https://amp.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3051995/britain-could-give-hong-kong-bno-passport-holders-right-abode?__twitter_impression=true
However, I think he may lose enough 2016 HRC voters because they see him as too left-wing and / or threatening to their wealth (I am thinking wealthy suburban, relatively progressive Democrat types). So I could see him losing Virginia (especially given the issues there), possibly Colorado and Nevada. I also think he could lose Minnesota (again, read-across from Iowa).
Plus (1) Trump was an unknown in 2016, he isn't now and (2) Trump has also been making a massive outreach effort.
I had a blood test in Chengdu in 2004 or so, was less than the excess on my travel insurance there. $3000 is absolute robbery anywhere in the world.
Must admit, I was hoping for Super with that price tag, but Imperial's not bad.
Getting an interdictor cruiser?
[Sometimes I miss my many EU (ahem) books. Still got the Thrawn and X-Wing Squadron ones but gave the rest away].
As for LBJ he did face a first term re-election himself in 1964 and won by an absolute landslide! He got 486 electoral college votes compared to Goldwater's 52. I fail to see how that counters my argument.
Seriously, fuck off now weather. Begone.
I wonder what other details they have wrong?
Warren is an absolute nutter with her wealth tax. Does Sanders support anything like that?
The sunnily-lit lands are on the other side of the Channel
Pandemic in a POTUS election year?
God alone knows what will happen
A wealth tax is completely insane when you are in the USA which is why its not been done. Wealth creators gravitate to the USA as the best place to create wealth which can then be taxed a plethora of ways. Now Warren intends to confiscate that wealth at rates that exceed the ability to grow for most investments and you think that's not much to talk about?
Why bother creating an Amazon in the USA if you're going to have 6% of it PER ANNUM confiscated off you? Long term most investments don't grow at 6% per annum.
https://tinyurl.com/r77wpwc
https://twitter.com/datatrekmb/status/1231965622550061062?s=21
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-51598235/jail-for-lorry-driver-after-motorway-u-turn
1 Govt-run cradle to grave (UK, Canada, Scandinavia, S Korea, Spain, some others)
2 Govt-regulated private insurance, most people covered (France, Germany, Switzerland, some others).
1 costs less to run but is 'socialist'. So some Tories witter on about the need to 'change' the NHS, by which they mean type 2, hence more red tape and means testing. Funny old world.
I think Sanders favours type 1.
Have an investment that loses money? Oh well - we'll still take another 6% off you on top of that! Make 3% return on investment this year? Great job, we'll take all of that, plus the same again, plus you'll have other taxes to pay and cost of living.
Can you give me an example of any country anywhere successfully developing large enterprises while taxing wealth at 6% per annum?
I have no debts, I don't have a mortgage or rent to pay, I'm allowed the occasional indulgence.
I learnt that you need to purchase them when the Maersk cargo container vessel set was discontinued when I wasn't paying attention (granted its a niche set but my Dad's a Naval Architect)..
Proper Lego: https://www.lego.com/en-us/product/liebherr-r-9800-excavator-42100
“Medicare for all,” one of Sanders’s central policies, has a problem gaining traction even among Democrats. As a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll found, “More Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents would prefer voting for a candidate who wants to build on the A.C.A. in order to expand coverage and reduce costs rather than replace the A.C.A. with a national Medicare-for-all plan.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/23/opinion/bernie-sanders-election.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
I'd end up stop buying Lego if I knew there were several hundred pounds worth of unopened Lego sets.
Greenpeace faces hefty fine after admitting defying court order.
Environmental group’s lawyers said they knew boarding North Sea rig was in contempt of court.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/24/greenpeace-faces-hefty-fine-after-admitting-defying-court-order?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1231987550119657472?s=20
https://twitter.com/BelTel/status/1229745162034782208?s=20
Either you have an absolutely massive salary or someone is subsidising you heavily..... living with family and making no contribution for example.
https://twitter.com/Maomentum_/status/1231991795946487810
Obamacare is based on the Swiss system of government regulated private insurance, but without the key requirement of that insurance being compulsory over the whole life.
My parents/grandparents helped me buy a house in central London in 2000 which I sold for a lot more in 2007 then moved back oop North.
I moved back in with my parents in 2013 and they don't subsidise me and my kids, although they'd like to, they can afford to, but I refuse to let them.
The direct business risk spreads widely to retail, restaurants, leisure and travel. Plus the knock on effects to the rest of the economy.
Perhaps there’ll be hordes of Chinese tourists, who have already recovered from it and are hence immune, over here enjoying the bargain cut prices...?
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1230543030953926658?s=20