OSP at it again

[inkman]

The gift that keeps giving

 

 

 

Democrat & Chronicle: Geese 1, Golisano 0: Billionaire loses tax assessment battle

 

https://on.rocne.ws/2sTkvnm

[darksabre]

Good. Eff that old, rich douche. 

[That Aud Smell]

On 11/14/2017 at 9:31 AM, inkman said:

Scouring a Denny's near you for more sugar packets.

It is difficult to imagine the possibility that a man like Ross, who Forbes estimates is worth some $700 million, might steal a few million from one of his business partners. Unless you have heard enough stories about Ross. Two former WL Ross colleagues remember the commerce secretary taking handfuls of Sweet’N Low packets from a nearby restaurant, so he didn’t have to go out and buy some for himself.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2018/08/06/new-details-about-wilbur-rosss-businesses-point-to-pattern-of-grifting/

[Eleven]

11 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

It is difficult to imagine the possibility that a man like Ross, who Forbes estimates is worth some $700 million, might steal a few million from one of his business partners. Unless you have heard enough stories about Ross. Two former WL Ross colleagues remember the commerce secretary taking handfuls of Sweet’N Low packets from a nearby restaurant, so he didn’t have to go out and buy some for himself.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2018/08/06/new-details-about-wilbur-rosss-businesses-point-to-pattern-of-grifting/

True story:  The Spot Coffee in Amherst, near where my parents live, keeps the Splenda behind the counter so that people don't steal it.

The Spot Coffee near where I live, and the one near where I work, both of which are in Buffalo, do not do this.

Hmmm.

[Stoner]

16 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

It is difficult to imagine the possibility that a man like Ross, who Forbes estimates is worth some $700 million, might steal a few million from one of his business partners. Unless you have heard enough stories about Ross. Two former WL Ross colleagues remember the commerce secretary taking handfuls of Sweet’N Low packets from a nearby restaurant, so he didn’t have to go out and buy some for himself.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2018/08/06/new-details-about-wilbur-rosss-businesses-point-to-pattern-of-grifting/

Wilbur. Sugar packets. Ross, one letter off from Hoss. They. THEY!!!!!

[Doohicksie]

Thrifty.  It's called thrifty.

[ubkev]

1 minute ago, Doohickie said:

Thrifty.  It's called thrifty.

Cheap . It's called cheap .

[Wilbur]

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

Wilbur. Sugar packets. Ross, one letter off from Hoss. They. THEY!!!!!

Woof!

 

 

 

 

 

squirrel!

[darksabre]

YESSSS

[Sabres Fan in NS]

18 minutes ago, darksabre said:

YESSSS

WOOF!!!!!

Wilbur ........

[Stoner]

I can't believe Wilbur has 60 posts. That's like 420 human posts.

[inkman]

Maybe we should change his nickname form Ol Sugar Packets to Grim Reaper: 

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-03-25/billionaires-want-workers-coronavirus

The damages of keeping the economy closed as it is could be worse than losing a few more people,” said Golisano

Wut? ?

[dudacek]

The rich and powerful have been putting other people's lives at risk to protect and increase their pile of beans since before we killed our last woolly mammoth.

[Stoner]

Honest, anyway.

[Weave]

27 minutes ago, dudacek said:

The rich and powerful have been putting other people's lives at risk to protect and increase their pile of beans since before we killed our last woolly mammoth.

Sad truth.  Too many people are prioritizing money over people.  It’s been that way as long as trade has been around.

[nfreeman]

That article, and some of the comments upthread, rely on an assumption that isn't supported by anything OSP said:  that OSP's comments are motivated by self-interest, not by concern for the population generally.

I think it's much more likely that OSP's point was that the country generally -- not the wealthy -- will be better off if people get back to work more quickly, even if there is some loss of life due to the virus that would've been avoided if we all stayed home.

It's a valid point to make, and one that many others have been making recently.  We shouldn't pretend that this economic shutdown won't result in terrible consequences for millions of people.  At the very least it should spur an honest cost-benefit conversation without people immediately assuming that OSP is looking at this like Mr. Burns would.

[dudacek]

2 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

That article, and some of the comments upthread, rely on an assumption that isn't supported by anything OSP said:  that OSP's comments are motivated by self-interest, not by concern for the population generally.

I think it's much more likely that OSP's point was that the country generally -- not the wealthy -- will be better off if people get back to work more quickly, even if there is some loss of life due to the virus that would've been avoided if we all stayed home.

It's a valid point to make, and one that many others have been making recently.  We shouldn't pretend that this economic shutdown won't result in terrible consequences for millions of people.  At the very least it should spur an honest cost-benefit conversation without people immediately assuming that OSP is looking at this like Mr. Burns would.

On the contrary, with lives on the line, you cannot have this conversation without considering the possibility that Golisano and others like him are doing exactly that.

History is rife with examples.

[Weave]

Cost benefit when the costs on one side is lives lost and the other side is economic health.  Or prioritizing monetary health over physical health.  The roots in that certainly lie in greed.

[nfreeman]

21 minutes ago, Weave said:

Cost benefit when the costs on one side is lives lost and the other side is economic health.  Or prioritizing monetary health over physical health.  The roots in that certainly lie in greed.

I don't think it's as black-and-white as this though.  When people lose jobs and can't find work, there are significant increases in addiction, family breakups, depression and a host of other destructive consequences that also result in increased mortality.

 

25 minutes ago, dudacek said:

On the contrary, with lives on the line, you cannot have this conversation without considering the possibility that Golisano and others like him are doing exactly that.

History is rife with examples.

Well, certainly we can consider that possibility.  But using that possibility -- especially when there are also many non-billionaires asking these questions -- to shut down a debate over important issues that affect the entire country isn't wise.

[Weave]

2 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

I don't think it's as black-and-white as this though.  When people lose jobs and can't find work, there are significant increases in addiction, family breakups, depression and a host of other destructive consequences that also result in increased mortality. 

And these also would require action to mitigate.  What other reason would we choose not to do this other than it would cost us more money?

[dudacek]

10 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

I don't think it's as black-and-white as this though.  When people lose jobs and can't find work, there are significant increases in addiction, family breakups, depression and a host of other destructive consequences that also result in increased mortality.

 

Well, certainly we can consider that possibility.  But using that possibility -- especially when there are also many non-billionaires asking these questions -- to shut down a debate over important issues that affect the entire country isn't wise.

It shouldn't shut down debate, only inform it.

As to the bolded, have you noticed how these things tend to become issues for the comfortable only when their comfort is threatened?

[nfreeman]

7 minutes ago, Weave said:

And these also would require action to mitigate.  What other reason would we choose not to do this other than it would cost us more money?

I think the answer here is that the efficacy of programs that are designed to mitigate those destructive consequences is pretty limited, so you're not really going to be able to meaningfully reduce the societal price that would be inflicted by a huge increase in joblessness.

 

1 minute ago, dudacek said:

It shouldn't shut down debate, only inform it.

As to the bolded, have you noticed how these things tend to become issues for the comfortable only when their comfort is threatened?

In fact I haven't noticed that, although I have noticed that these types of assumptions and insinuations about people's motives and character do tend to surface, regrettably, in these types of conversations.

To the immediate point, I don't expect that OSP's comfort is at much if at all threatened by the current economic upheaval -- but I do think that OSP, given his age, is much more vulnerable to the risks presented by the virus to his physical well-being than to the risks to his economic comfort -- and that he's well aware of those relative vulnerabilities.

[Weave]

7 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

I think the answer here is that the efficacy of programs that are designed to mitigate those destructive consequences is pretty limited, so you're not really going to be able to meaningfully reduce the societal price that would be inflicted by a huge increase In joblessness.

And you think that these societal consequences would be less after the loss of several million of our friends, children, spouses, and siblings?

[nfreeman]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

And you think that these societal consequences would be less after the loss of several million of our friends, children, spouses, and siblings?

First, I don't think there has been any kind of established conclusion that the virus is likely to cause death on that scale.

Second, the key question is the loss of life that would result from reopening the economy relative to the loss of life that would result from continuing as we are now.  And in calculating the 2nd half of that equation, the increases in mortality from the factors I mentioned that result from joblessness have to be taken into account.

 

[Weave]

2 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

First, I don't think there has been any kind of established conclusion that the virus is likely to cause death on that scale.

Second, the key question is the loss of life that would result from reopening the economy relative to the loss of life that would result from continuing as we are now.  And in calculating the 2nd half of that equation, the increases in mortality from the factors I mentioned that result from joblessness have to be taken into account.

 

Numbers of deaths in the millions absolutely are the projections being made if we cannot flatten the curve.  I’m honestly surprised you haven’t come across these numbers.