Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Billionaire Stuns CNBC Host: “Let Them Get Wiped Out”" video.

  1. He is on the right side of the positions. He saw it coming (a regular price correction was overdue anyway) and maybe he had paid attention regarding the question WHEN not IF a pandemic would strike. the globalized world, China were shopping for trouble. the news were there in January and early Feb. already, but the sophisticated people on the stock exchange and those betting with derivatives still did not "get" it (this would not be contained in the last minute like SARS CoV-1 in 2003). Maybe he watched Contagion (the film in 2011 or 2012, it is very realistic the CDC advised them, and they have a high profile cast - likely they did not have to pay those luminaries a lot but could hire them for the good purpose) Or he has paid attention to MERS in 2012. Or has listened to the warnings of Bill Gates. Or the swine or bird flu. SARS (Severe acute respiratory syndrome relates to the symptoms) SARS-CoV1 in 2002 / 2003 means SARS caused by a corona virus. The harmless common cold is caused by several virus types, one of them is the coronavirus But corona had a mutation in 2002, another one in 2012 (dromedars got it from bats, very high hospitalization rate, 40 - 50 % died - but lucky us: not very contagious). It was a warning shot - one of a few we got - and our "leaders" ignored. China in 2002 also dropped the ball, kept things secret, did not alarm the WHO in time. But the 2002 / 2003 corona strain is easier to contain. It hit Taiwan and Hongkong (they decisively stopped it in Toronto). There is a reason that South Korea reacted WLL this time, they are nearer to where the shit hit the fan in 2003 already. In Italy: Yeah they have problems in China, who knows what their real numbers are, we in Europe can easily handle that with our first world medical system, ..... We were just lucky in 2003, most people were not very infectious (there were some supersperaders, but it was easier to control than SARS CoV 2 of 2019)
    7
  2. if only feckless, timid progressives (and sadly that includes Sanders) would have shouted THAT message from the rooftops. While ! the abomination of bailout for the rich was discussed. It was very soon clear WHERE the good cop / bad cop routine was headed. Nancy Pelosi demanded means testing early on (for the peasants, the oversight for the slush fund they gave the Trump admin for big biz is window dressing, and of course Trump will stand to gain. Of course the rpesident has the last say - and he already fired the admin member that in theory could have called him out and replaced him. Who would have thought he would do that ? Nancy Pelos is either crazy or evil or ton deaf (or all of that). It means red tape, unnecessary delay the IRS could EASILY handle that when the dust has settled. It also means civil servants NOW must work overtime to somehow DO the meanstesting - instead of staying safe and staying home. IRS should take into account the income, or profits of companies over several years to make it FAIR. The obsession of the neoliberal sellouts with means testing for the little people and smaller biz too (they have strings attached ! like the requirement to keep staff and big biz doesn't have that) - while they SHOWER the crooks, speculators, the imprudent companies with money (where are the tax cuts of last year, why haven't the large companies built reserves ?). Means testing = income tax, maybe even a wealth tax. But the R and D defenders of the big donors do not want to have a tax reform on their To-Do-list, the task to burden the affluent LATER. The sheeple might get uppity and demand MORE of that to find the budgets for other programs afer coronoe - while they are at it. The sheeple must never make the experience they can pressure their "leadership" into giving them more than crumbs (and even for that the coporate ghouls made the progressive politicians work really, really hard) Progressive politicians should REFUSE to play the sick game, turn the tables on them (Tea Party fraction during the Obama years anyone - they were not liked by their own party, but they sure had influence). Lindsay Graham had some mean anti-worker provisions. How about not courting and begging the crooks and fighting to get at least 2 crumbs while the big donors get the keys to the kingdom no strings attached.  How about rallying the masses (car protests), sit ins, long lines of people blocking streets, airports, WALLSTREET, etc. How about appealing to the TRUMP voting regular income people. Telling them exactely WHAT Graham is doing, and Trump is obviously O.K. with that. How about organizing protests WHERE Graham LIVES, where his family lives. They could not prevent it (they do not have the numbers), but delay it and they for sure could have DRAWN UNWANTED ATTENTION. Calling a spade a spade - and The Emperor Has No Clothes ! - AOC has an economics degree for crying out loud. Sanders should know those things from his more left phase in the 1970s.
    1
  3. You cannot understand U.S. politics until you remember that BOTH parties are financed by the SAME industries, that nothing is more important than keeping the money flowing in and getting the golden parachutes for ex politicians. That the big donors finance the Corporate Dems to win against progressives and pro worker New Deal style candidates in primaries. Nothing is more important than keeping pro worker Democrats out - not even WINNING the GENERAL. (that is also the reason for the deafening silence of massive voter roll purges, hackable voting machines and elections where you have to believe that the machines and the tabulation later was not rigged - because there is NO way to verify. One would think after allegedly "Russia interfered with U.S. elections" and they (Dems and "liberal" Corporate media) howled about that for years they would be eager to secure the election integrity (Russia is not the problem, it needs insiders to rig the election). But then - Democrats do the voter roll purges "by accident" and close the polling stations too in case of a progressive emergency - they are sitting in the glasshouse. And the big donors do not want the sheeple to get upset and doubt the very base of this "democracy" they want quiet in their empire. So if the Dems lose because of Republican shenanigans (the R's do more of it) the Dems obediently put up with it. _Another red flag: Sanders never dared or bothered to call that out. I rationalized that in recent years, that it is a big no no to even touch the issue to insinsuate that the election and the "democracy" are corrupted. I should not have given Sanders a pass. The organizer in chief to bring about fundamental change did not have the guts or wisdom to make that VERY important issue public. I know that Greg palast contacted the campaign in 2016 after a whistleblower gave him the database for the huge Republican purge in 2016. Operation Crosscheck. Ethnic names purgped by the millions. If one Robert Brown voted in the past in a R governed state (many of them cooperated they kept the D states out of the loop) it was assumed that this ONE voter had committed the crime of voting more than once in the same or different states. it is not possible that in a country with 330 million people there are more than one Robert Brown and that they are ALL eligible to vote (in the same or in other states). Birth dates, middle names etc. or even the restrictions of time and space (one person being in several states at the same time) were ignored. And interestingly those crimes were also NOT prosecuted by the Republican states, they just kicked the voters from the lists. You would think if the R's can come up with a list of millions of names they would proudly show that prove of widespread double voting. Ethnic names = potentially Democratic leaning voters. They did not investigate ! or prosecte one case, and had not explanation when Greg Palast tried to chase them down - he certainly could have used the help of Sanders and the publicity. If a Robert Brown votes in several states on the same day, Republicans cannot claim the person is dead or has moved and kick them off the rolls under that rpetext. Which would be a common and more "plausible" pretext to eliminate superfluent names from the lists). As long as the ballot shows the "choice" of a spineles corporate Dem or a fierce Repub - both beholden to the big donors - the financiers are good. For the donors it does not matter then if tweedle dee or tweedle dum wins the general. And the well connected losers (often Dems) are getting a cushy post as reward. All the more reason for the rookies and the smaller fish to suck up to the big donors and the party "leadership" - so they too will have a chance to get the perks. That is why both parties specialize in one side or the other of gun control, abortion, identitiy politics (white nationalism is a variety of that), LGBTQ rights - it does not cost the big donors anything, no matter how that works out. Rich people can always get abortions, they have armed body guards and money can protect gay people from harrassment. These "cheap" issues are supposed to rile up the respective base and turn them out, and it allows for some form of differentiation for the 2 wings of the one and only big-donor-party. "Mr. Nader does the U.S. need THREE parties ? " Ralph Nader: "No, but it would be good to have TWO ! "
    1
  4. The CEO went soon enough out of the "market" due for correction. But of course he is right. the Stock exchange is NOT the market, it is a mirage. There has been a consolidation of airlines (with worse consumer experience), remember the old man the violently dragged out of the plane because they had overbooked and were too cheap to make anyone a GOOD offer so they would give up a seat voluntarily.
    1
  5. What about the profits and the TAX CUTS ? THEY could have built a nest egg for the rainy day. Then there are provisions (they can pressure their politicians to improve unemployment benefits) that they keep the employees but under unpaid leave. So the pensions and healthcare plans stay in place, the employees get the money as benefits. See ya when this is over. Of course they have maintainance of planes, rent, paying for loans etc. If push comes to shove government needs to buy up shares and they are handed over in form of a co-op to the employees. It gives them a part of the dividends and more importantly it gives them a vote. No individual owns the shares, they cannot take them with them when they leave, or sell them or pass them on. And all people that WORK to make the airline happen MUST be employees (or the would bribe a small part of staff with good contracts so that they vote with the rich shareholders and CEOs and top managment - and someone else does the work w/o the leverage that ownership gives).
    1
  6. If Obama had pushed for such a bailout for big auto or the banks it would have been hard to argue against it. What ?? As voters they are courted, they raise kids, pay off homes, they enlist to die in wars, they are the front line workers doing the hard work in retail and hospitals - but they are allegedly not capable to ALSO have a say where the company is headed ?  if anything the employees make a company MORE PRUDENT. THEY cannot move on to the next lucrative gig like top managment, who have a locust approach. They want the company to STAY IN the country and IN the community. Shareholders can extract as much money in the short term - they can sell. Or they pressure their paid and bought for politicians to bail them out. Top management: the stock options of hyped up share prices is a larger portion of their compensation than their wage (that is a toxic incentive). And OF COURSE they used the Trump tax cuts for stock buybacks to increase share prices. If they did invest (beyond what is inevitable) they invested in OTHER countries.
    1