Canadian Money Forum banner

121 - 140 of 172 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
415 Posts
The main thing is that the press has to build up to it.

The press needs to explain how hard people had to work trying to agree on printing money.

Agreeing to print 15 Trillion requires a whole lot of exertion and heavy breathing. They just grabbed it out of thin air, but it took hard work.

If it did not take work, then what value is it?

The press is going to spend the next while explaining the "Work Process" and baptize the 15 Trillion with holy water. (In God We Trust)

It is only a computer blurp on a monitor but the press needs to have it appear as holding some value. (It has no value.)

Nancy Pelosi will appear at the microphone and seem to be almost out of breath. Gasping with excitement after working so hard .....

The press will tell us that it was really-really touch and go. A whole bunch of determination and skill. Work-Work-Work and finally an agreement between the Capitalists.

The press will canonize McConnell and Pelosi as very hard workers.

There are 12 Apostles at the Last Supper ..... and today we got 12 Federal Reserve Seats.

The press is going to give the Federal Reserve Sainthood.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
415 Posts
I am quite positive that you will all agree that I worked hard composing the above post, but it has no value.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,496 Posts
I didn't see that quote in my study.

I question the definition of "implicit bias".
Given that different populations experience different health issues, I would expect and HOPE to see differences in interactions. What's important is if the outcome is appropriate.

I am interested in differential sentencing, even small problems should be investigated.
You see that's your implicit bias. You're assuming that different populations would have something like different pain thresholds based on.... what exactly? If you noticed, in the study, there was assumptions that minorities were exaggerating symptoms and they were provided with lower dosage of painkillers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,496 Posts
I didn't see that quote in my study.

I question the definition of "implicit bias".
Given that different populations experience different health issues, I would expect and HOPE to see differences in interactions. What's important is if the outcome is appropriate.

I am interested in differential sentencing, even small problems should be investigated.
Yes, I edited it after I posted when I realize I was quoting a different study.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,496 Posts
Last names correspond to family and as explained in the study, correlate strongly to the respective races.
First names are more an indicator of culture and SES, which they ALSO addressed in the study.

Apparently you didn't read the study.
Read it, don't agree with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,349 Posts
Read it, don't agree with it.
So there is a published study, and since it doesn't show what you want, you reject it.
It isn't about the facts and the data, you have an opinion, you want to see a certain result.
Bit close minded. I should have listened when you said that you weren't participating in good faith.

I'm just an optimist and can't help but hope people will open their minds and learn.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,349 Posts
You see that's your implicit bias. You're assuming that different populations would have something like different pain thresholds based on.... what exactly? If you noticed, in the study, there was assumptions that minorities were exaggerating symptoms and they were provided with lower dosage of painkillers.
Different populations are different, there's something called "science" and "data" that shows this.

Did you know that.
Different populations experience different diseases at different rates?
Did you know that some diseases present different symptoms in some people?
Did you know that there is evidence some drugs and treatments work better in some populations?

It's important to note that "different populations" includes the same person at different times throughout their life?

You want to see racism and "implicit bias", as if every difference is due to some unconscious thoughts that people just can't control.

Sorry, but if you're dealing with a man, you should be less inclined to consider the possibility of pregnancy. That's not "implicit bias", or "sexist", that's acknowledging that different populations are likely to experience different issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,349 Posts
You have explained exactly why they will print $15 trillion more. And if you look at the lower classes, it's much more than 3/10 adults who are pissed off.

Printing money, suffering some inflation, but putting cash into people's hands -- and making them feel better -- is a thousand times better than civil war and violent societal collapse.

Sadly, America is now dealing with the consequences (a long-time-coming) of the enormous wealth disparity, and poverty that's developed in the lower classes.

I never want Canada to go down that road, which is why I always argue for providing strong social support, services, and welfare for people in need. I am very happy to pay my taxes, and share the wealth I earn, to ensure that my neighbours are comfortable. I think this leads to a better society, and therefore, better quality of life for ME too.
"Suffering some inflation". Do you know what happens when you have hyperinflation?

The problem with the "wealth disparity" is that some people are just lots better at creating value.
The argument to flatten out wealth is the argument that Steve Jobs should have never been allowed to make the iPhone, Sam Walton should have never been allowed to make Walmart, Ford shouldn't have made Ford, Musk should not be allowed to make Tesla or SpaceX.

It's the argument basically we shouldn't have innovation and progress, or allow people the fruits of their own labour.

As far as government and taxes, I have a responsibility to make the best use of my resources. The government isn't the best use, therefore I have a moral obligation to redeploy elsewhere.

The "I am happy to pay my taxes" rarely comes from people who give to charity, and they NEVER give to the government.
When Bernie Sanders was asked about sharing his millions in book profits he got indignant that it was "his money".

james, I'd bet that you have NEVER clicked the box to send your tax refund to the government as a donation.

I'm happy to help people, provide services and support. I do give to charity, and I do volunteer. But I don't think the government is particularly good at providing these services.
We have government funded groups doing a LOT of things I don't approve of. Plus the government already has too much money. They literally don't know what do with all the money they have, and they waste billions, and give away billions more. If the government got their act together and actually focused on helping people, instead of stupid wasteful projects, I could consider supporting more taxes.

One thing I hope will come out of COVID19 is that the cities and provinces will be short on money and have to cut the dumb programs that don't help people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,392 Posts
Discussion Starter #130
Matt, I think you're strawmanning the idea of reducing income disparity. No one (or hardly anyone) is saying that Jobs or Walton should not have been permitted to engaging in their entrepreneurship. Or even that they ought to benefit substantially from their financial success. It's not about confiscation. It's about less unequal societies being stronger and better to live in, even for the wealthiest. And I doubt that Jobs or Walton would have decided to forego their efforts if they ended up with half or even 10% of their wealth in the end in an alternate universe. Do you think Jobs was especially motivated by money--they guy who wore levis and a black turtleneck every day?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,522 Posts
For balance, I watch 30 minutes of CNN's coverage and watch Cooper, Cuomo and Lemon lecture how people should favorably view the protestors, and then switch over to Fox News for 30 minutes to watch Carlson, Hannity or Ingraham lecture people on how outraged they should be by it all.

After an hour or so, I decide to watch a movie or listen to a podcast instead.

About half the US population watches CNN and the other half FOX. Both sides are rooted in cement on their sides.

Bridge the gap........LOL, like that is ever going to happen.

Warren Buffet quipped he won the "birth lottery" being born male and white.

I am thinking Canadians also won a birth lottery, so we sit and watch the three ring circus in the US.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,349 Posts
Matt, I think you're strawmanning the idea of reducing income disparity. No one (or hardly anyone) is saying that Jobs or Walton should not have been permitted to engaging in their entrepreneurship. Or even that they ought to benefit substantially from their financial success. It's not about confiscation. It's about less unequal societies being stronger and better to live in, even for the wealthiest. And I doubt that Jobs or Walton would have decided to forego their efforts if they ended up with half or even 10% of their wealth in the end in an alternate universe. Do you think Jobs was especially motivated by money--they guy who wore levis and a black turtleneck every day?
Glad you grabbed the Jobs example. You realize that his massive wealth is what gave him the ability to take charge at Apple and push the innovation.
Walton wasn't about making money, it was about helping people.

That's the problem, people think it's about greed, not about having the resources to build and create.

The real problem isn't Capitalism vs Communism. It's Builders and Creators vs Zero Summers.

"You" (generally not specifically) think it's about being rich and having financial success.
Capitalists like Elon Musk see it as getting the resources to create and accomplish great things.

Is Elon Musk risking his fortune to become even richer, or is he trying to save the earth, and trying to build for the long term survival of humanity (by colonizing Mars)?

The problem isn't that the rich are building too much wealth and creating too much.
Bill Gates is using his (and many others) billions to attack problems.

There are far fewer people living in poverty today than at any time in history. This is due to the ongoing wealth creation of Capitalism, we're all objectively better off than we were a generation ago.

Things are so good, we're inventing problems to be upset about, "First world problem" isn't just a meme, it's a flag of success.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,496 Posts
Different populations are different, there's something called "science" and "data" that shows this.

Did you know that.
Different populations experience different diseases at different rates?
Did you know that some diseases present different symptoms in some people?
Did you know that there is evidence some drugs and treatments work better in some populations?

It's important to note that "different populations" includes the same person at different times throughout their life?

You want to see racism and "implicit bias", as if every difference is due to some unconscious thoughts that people just can't control.

Sorry, but if you're dealing with a man, you should be less inclined to consider the possibility of pregnancy. That's not "implicit bias", or "sexist", that's acknowledging that different populations are likely to experience different issues.
Did you know that people with certain experiences will be biased?
Here's the thing. All of what you said is irrelevant to the paper. It was about interactions and how people are treated differently:

Some White health care providers maintain problematic explicit ideas about their Black American patients, viewing them as less intelligent, less able to adhere to treatment regimens, and more likely to engage in risky health behaviors than their White counterparts. Hispanic/Latino/Latina patients too were viewed as unlikely to accept responsibility for their own care and more likely to be noncompliant with treatment recommendations. Yet, even if explicit attitudes are modified, implicit bias among providers toward people of color is likely to remain and influence care in ways that perpetuate disparity and inequity. Thus, even if explicit attitudes demonstrate a desire to provide equitable care, health care providers may unintentionally interact with patients of color less effectively than with White patients, which may contribute to health disparities.

Because it was not published, I reject your unpublished study.
You mean this one? [PDF] Discrimination at the Intersection of Age, Race, and Gender: Evidence from a Lab-in-the-field Experiment | Semantic Scholar

I figure this interview is appropriate to the topic: https://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/waneek-horn-miller-oka-crisis-racism-canada-1.5598757.
"When we're talking about racism in Canada, it's not like what you face in the United States. It's more subtle. It's the indifference. It's the insensitivity. Or people saying they don't see colour."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,349 Posts
Did you know that people with certain experiences will be biased?
Here's the thing. All of what you said is irrelevant to the paper. It was about interactions and how people are treated differently:
Of course interactions will be different, but that isn't implicit bias.
My interactions with my current doctor are significantly different that with my last doctor. As well my spouses interactions are also different with each.
There are many reasons.
1. My spouse and I are from distinct populations with different health concerns.
2. I had a lot in common with my previous doctors spouse.
3. My SES has changed in that time.
4. My family situation has changed.
5. My age has changed.
6. My address and community have changed.
7. My education and speech patterns have changed.

Due to the above factors, I would fully expect to have a significantly different interactions with a doctor. It would have little to do with "implicit bias",and more to do with simply doing their job.


"When we're talking about racism in Canada, it's not like what you face in the United States. It's more subtle. It's the indifference. It's the insensitivity. Or people saying they don't see colour."
When you say that treating people the same is "racism", you've lost me.

Yeah, I'm indifferent to your race, I literally don't care. Why should I?
What is there to be sensitive to? Every person in the world has different experiences.

Maybe we should treat people like individual people with their own unique lives and experiences.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,349 Posts
Some White health care providers maintain problematic explicit ideas about their Black American patients, viewing them as less intelligent, less able to adhere to treatment regimens, and more likely to engage in risky health behaviors than their White counterparts.
I think what you meant to say was "hate fact".

"Elderly African Americans reported that they followed physician instructions on how to take medications less frequently than did elderly whites, even after adjusting for differences in demographic characteristics, health literacy, depression, and social support. "




Given that African Americans reported they are less likely to follow physician instructions, wouldn't it be prudent to consider that in creating a treatment plan that more appropriately aligns with the patients needs?
That's not implict bias. That's proper treatment.

I personally was prescribed a treatment that I would not be able to complete as directed, upon informing the medical professional, an alternate, and more appropriate treatment plan was developed. A good doctor should ensure that compliance is realistic for all patients.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,392 Posts
Discussion Starter #136
Glad you grabbed the Jobs example. You realize that his massive wealth is what gave him the ability to take charge at Apple and push the innovation.
Walton wasn't about making money, it was about helping people.

That's the problem, people think it's about greed, not about having the resources to build and create.

The real problem isn't Capitalism vs Communism. It's Builders and Creators vs Zero Summers.

"You" (generally not specifically) think it's about being rich and having financial success.
Capitalists like Elon Musk see it as getting the resources to create and accomplish great things.

Is Elon Musk risking his fortune to become even richer, or is he trying to save the earth, and trying to build for the long term survival of humanity (by colonizing Mars)?

The problem isn't that the rich are building too much wealth and creating too much.
Bill Gates is using his (and many others) billions to attack problems.

There are far fewer people living in poverty today than at any time in history. This is due to the ongoing wealth creation of Capitalism, we're all objectively better off than we were a generation ago.

Things are so good, we're inventing problems to be upset about, "First world problem" isn't just a meme, it's a flag of success.
I'm not so concerned about wealth, but about disparities in consumption. Should we be happy with a society where a tiny minority live in opulence like Louis XIV? You can't say that today's plutocrats deserve that wealth and were solely responsible for it. The societies in which those billionaires found themselves contributed greatly to their success. Would Jobs have been as successful if he was born in Syria (where is biological father was from) rather than adopted by a well-to-do Californian family? Or consider this quote from Warren Buffet:

I personally think that society is responsible for a very significant percentage of what I've earned. If you stick me down in the middle of Bangladesh or Peru or someplace, you find out how much this talent is going to produce in the wrong kind of soil... I work in a market system that happens to reward what I do very well - disproportionately well. Mike Tyson, too. If you can knock a guy out in 10 seconds and earn $10 million for it, this world will pay a lot for that. If you can bat .360, this world will pay a lot for that. If you're a marvelous teacher, this world won't pay a lot for it. If you are a terrific nurse, this world will not pay a lot for it. Now, am I going to try to come up with some comparable worth system that somehow (re)distributes that? No, I don't think you can do that. But I do think that when you're treated enormously well by this market system, where in effect the market system showers the ability to buy goods and services on you because of some peculiar talent - maybe your adenoids are a certain way, so you can sing and everybody will pay you enormous sums to be on television or whatever -I think society has a big claim on that.
There is, however, a legitimate concern about the amount of influence that enormous wealth brings. Lonewolf is at least partially correct in his criticism of Gates on that point. I don't think Gates has any nefarious motivation, but we largely lucked out that Gates seems like a decent person.

And when you consider that there is compelling reason to believe that the US is more a plutocracy than it is a democracy, in that moneyed interests usually win out over popular will, it is concerning that we allow so much power to be concentrated in the hands of so few with lack of accountability. And it effectively magnified the power of those wealthy individuals, who can achieve so much more with the resources available to the state than they could with their own resources. It is shockingly cheap for people with tens of billions to buy the levers of power. And is this problem only going to get worse when we eventually have trillionaires?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,349 Posts
I'm not so concerned about wealth, but about disparities in consumption. Should we be happy with a society where a tiny minority live in opulence like Louis XIV? You can't say that today's plutocrats deserve that wealth and were solely responsible for it. The societies in which those billionaires found themselves contributed greatly to their success. Would Jobs have been as successful if he was born in Syria (where is biological father was from) rather than adopted by a well-to-do Californian family? Or consider this quote from Warren Buffet:
I think the world benefits when people are best able to use their talents.
No Jobs wouldnt' have been as successful if he was born elsewhere, and if the systems weren't set the way they are, we'd all be worse off for it.

I don't care about a tiny minority living in opulence, why should I?
Their wealth doesn't take anything from me.
If anything their wealth facilitates the creation of new technologies which benefits all of us.
Are we better or worse off that Elon Musk, with his opulent lifestyle, has also helped make Electric cars a feasible technology?
He has so changed the world for the better, the amount "wasted" on his personal opulence is relatively insignificant. Even then, to spend all that money created lots of jobs. There is no loser here.

I do care, greatly, that quality of life is dramatically better, for everyone.

There is, however, a legitimate concern about the amount of influence that enormous wealth brings. Lonewolf is at least partially correct in his criticism of Gates on that point. I don't think Gates has any nefarious motivation, but we largely lucked out that Gates seems like a decent person.

And when you consider that there is compelling reason to believe that the US is more a plutocracy than it is a democracy, in that moneyed interests usually win out over popular will, it is concerning that we allow so much power to be concentrated in the hands of so few with lack of accountability. And it effectively magnified the power of those wealthy individuals, who can achieve so much more with the resources available to the state than they could with their own resources. It is shockingly cheap for people with tens of billions to buy the levers of power. And is this problem only going to get worse when we eventually have trillionaires?
I'm terrified of that, absolutely terrified.
There is a systematic attack by the ruling elites on freedom of speech.
They know that the strongest possible weapon the people have against their authoritarian rule is information and speech. Every advance in human rights was accomplished with speech, and it's the first thing the dictators and authoritarians want to shut down.

That is why the fight for free speech is so critical.
It's why cancel culture is so toxic.

There is a reason that the ruling elites want to have "approved media", to ensure only their message gets out.

If you think the solution is government, you really need to ask yourself if Trump is the solution you want.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,496 Posts
I think what you meant to say was "hate fact".

"Elderly African Americans reported that they followed physician instructions on how to take medications less frequently than did elderly whites, even after adjusting for differences in demographic characteristics, health literacy, depression, and social support. "




Given that African Americans reported they are less likely to follow physician instructions, wouldn't it be prudent to consider that in creating a treatment plan that more appropriately aligns with the patients needs?
That's not implict bias. That's proper treatment.

I personally was prescribed a treatment that I would not be able to complete as directed, upon informing the medical professional, an alternate, and more appropriate treatment plan was developed. A good doctor should ensure that compliance is realistic for all patients.
Interesting that you think you can generalize the result for a subset of the population "elderly" for the whole population. That's pretty lazy bias there. So, the African Americans in that study were older and poorer. Or the fact that they were more likely to live alone so the social support isn't as strong? Yes, they conclude that social support isn't going to going to help, based on ... nothing really. Even though they've cited a paper where it is helpful.

Basically, you're saying, "they don't understand what's good for them, so why bother?". The paper conclusion isn't so useful. But there is something useful that can be pulled out. I'd say the main confounding variable is health literacy. Of course, that means spending more time with the patient, but when you are predisposed to think that they don't understand what is going on, it's easier to quickly write up a prescription and off they go.

I think the COVID situation has shown some examples where there is a problem at the start when people are rejected for COVID testing and then dying even though they show symptoms and are at risk.

Man with coronavirus symptoms dies after being allegedly turned away from 3 ERs
Beloved Brooklyn teacher, 30, dies of coronavirus after she was twice denied a COVID-19 test
Detroit health care worker dies after being denied coronavirus test 4 times, daughter says
Questions of Bias in Covid-19 Treatment Add to the Mourning for Black Families
Black woman dies after being turned away from hospital she worked at for 31 years
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,349 Posts
Interesting that you think you can generalize the result for a subset of the population "elderly" for the whole population. That's pretty lazy bias there. So, the African Americans in that study were older and poorer. Or the fact that they were more likely to live alone so the social support isn't as strong? Yes, they conclude that social support isn't going to going to help, based on ... nothing really. Even though they've cited a paper where it is helpful.

Basically, you're saying, "they don't understand what's good for them, so why bother?". The paper conclusion isn't so useful. But there is something useful that can be pulled out. I'd say the main confounding variable is health literacy.
Typical troll, assigning claims I didn't make, coming to conclusions nobody made.

The conclusion is simple, after controlling for many items, they still found that African Americans were not following the treatment plan. They don't know what the actual issue is, it isn't any of the "obvious" things they controlled for.

You claim that it's health literacy, though they actually adjusted for that in the study.
Clearly you are unable to read scientific literature, or you're purposely blind to the facts.

You are not having a good faith discussion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,496 Posts
Typical troll, assigning claims I didn't make, coming to conclusions nobody made.

The conclusion is simple, after controlling for many items, they still found that African Americans were not following the treatment plan. They don't know what the actual issue is, it isn't any of the "obvious" things they controlled for.

You claim that it's health literacy, though they actually adjusted for that in the study.
Clearly you are unable to read scientific literature, or you're purposely blind to the facts.

You are not having a good faith discussion.
Let's see, the study was about elderly patients, and you use that as proof that blacks in general are not following the treatment plan. Was that what you were trying to say? If not, then why not just state that this study only applies to elderly patients?

They included this in the paper:

Health care providers should adopt a culturally sensitive, patient-centered approach to identifying and addressing barriers to adherence.

You realize that the paper is pushing the fact that there needs to be positive interaction between the patient and the health care provider to have a positive outcome, whereas the paper that I had presented before pointed out that blacks have had more negative interactions? So what is your point out of this? Mine is that health care providers should provide more understanding rather than just ignore what is being presented as symptoms.

BTW no comments about the lack of COVID testing?
 
121 - 140 of 172 Posts
Top