That was right after a certain American member of the US government claimed it was manufactured by the Chinese. Tit for tat, methinks. Just stupid politics at kindergarten level.

They tried. It went underground. So much for that great idea.

You mistake local government action to not look bad in the eyes of the Party with a policy by the Party to cover it up.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/18/japanese-flu-drug-clearly-effective-in-treating-coronavirus-says-china

Latest I've heard. In the Netherlands they're testing an existing vaccin (I forgot which one) for a different drug that tends to put people's immune system into hyperdrive, possibly allowing them to resist the disease themselves.

Chinese doctors are advising European doctors and sharing test results. The Chinese are donating face masks to Italy and the Netherlands that I know of.

They're not the bad guys with respect to this pandemic.

It's old news so I didn't take any notice. This was reported in the news a month ago. Google translate this: Chloroquine

It's not a flu. Different strain of virus. But I suppose your job demands you to parrot Trump.

I'm pretty sure he meant intelligent.

There are no more tools available (nor the prospect of until now "unthought of" tools) that can encourage traders to believe the free market will be stabilized by collectivists schemes of one form or another. — boethius

There are plenty of tools available. The problem is that solutions are based on stochastic models for a global economy that is too complex to be caught in such models. So the cure doesn't cure or creates a lot of unwanted side effects.

So... hypothetically, such an investor could sell off all his airline stock at a lower price than the current market value, or would those lower prices be the new share price? — creativesoul

Why would he sell at a lower price than the at market price? But yes, depending on the stock exchange rules either the highest bid price will be the new share price (and conversely the seller would receive a higher price than he asked) or it is settled at the low price of the seller.

Let's hope not.

We had a pretty decent speech yesterday from the Prime Minister. The goal is maximum control so that our health system can cope. They want to avoid a full lock down because not getting any sick means next time corona passes by your have the same problem. So get people sick while the health care system can cope and get some level of group immunity, hopefully the first time it passes through the Netherlands.

The numbers officially reported for the Netherlands are way off, except the deaths of course. The test is not accurate when you don't show symptoms because of low viral load so they decided to not test many people early on. I suspect over 10.000 infected here.

What and/or who determines the selling price?

In the world that I live in the seller does that, and only drops the purchase/sales price if they see fit for whatever reason. That reason is never ever to intentionally reduce profitability or consumer confidence. That reason is never to sell my product as a means to render my customer at a financial loss. — creativesoul

All sellers and buyers make a market. They all put in orders to buy or sell at a certain price. The price you see on the stock market is the last price at which a buyer and seller meet (eg. they put in orders for the same price).

Sellers will be willing to sell at lower and lower prices because of expectations of either market sentiment or performance of the underlying company. (this doesn't concern bonds obviously, which is in some ways more complicated and in others simpler).

In uncertain times a lot of investors like to invest in more stable investments and are prepared to "take a loss". They end up buying gold and AAA-rated government bonds (hooray for Germany and the Netherlands).

Tim, it is easier to arbitrage in a digital world because price information is more readily accessible.

Shawn, arbitrage does nothing for bubbles. Bubbles are structural imbalances in the market and arbitrage only ensures price differentials (which can exist through correlation not just dual listings) are closed. High speed traders do nothing else and they're having a field day in such a volatile market.

Virtu, Citadel, IMC, Optiver, Flow Traders are all interesting stock at the moment because of it.

Italy is already at 3000 deaths — boethius

1800+ as of yesterday. I can't find if there's a separate number for triage deaths though.

Tell every zombie ever.

So Whoopi is secretly a fan of Trump?

I get it. I can get tired of certain subjects as well. Cheers.

Obamacare specifically made things worse for young people to a degree never before seen. — fishfry

How?

Isn't that what Medicare did already? And you've noted it but I'm not sure what your ethical position is in it.

From a pure numbers game, the greater the group mutualising the risk the cheaper the insurance becomes. This explains why, on average, healthcare costs rose less than the years before Obamacare.

For me, policy that benefits the greatest amount of people at the least cost makes the most sense economically. Besides, young people grow old. They will benefit eventually and they can see it as paying more now so they can pay less later for coverage. So I also see a benefit at the personal level.

The modern welfare state was introduced, by and large, by religious conservatives in reaction to the growing power of unions and socialist parties who ran on a platform of those ideas. Socialist "innovation" implemented by conservatives to retain power. Learn some history.

Keynesian economics is a theory not an institution.

Europe has no such institutions. But then again, stealing liberal innovations and stamping it with the “socialist” label is par for the course. — NOS4A2

Oh boy. Here we go again. What liberal institutions are you talking about?

If people were used to voting based on policy, Hillary would've won. Your what-ifs don't relate to reality enough to be plausible I'm afraid.

I can't do anything about whether you trust it or not. However, I think it's quite clear it looks at averages so I'm not sure the reasons you offer really are an argument against its conclusions.

There is of course an important choice to make if what you describe is true. Do you mutualise risk across the board resulting in lower health insurance costs on average or do you mutualise per age category allowing for differentiated premiums? And what happens if you develop a condition?

If it wasn't for Medicaid I suspect the premiums for seniors would be through the roof if you'd mutualise only across age category.

There's a psychological problem. There are Bernie voters, regardless, eg. Bernie or bust.

But there are a lot of people not core supporters. They will think their Democratic neighbour is going to vote Biden regardless and they will think then if I vote Bernie I will raise the chances of winning for Trump (because my neighbour doesn't have balls) and to avoid that I will also vote for Biden.

The converse for so-so Biden voters holds true as well. The only way it might not happen is when the core support for either Biden or Bernie is insignificant and the strategic voting fear goes only one way. Since we know it doesn't and core support for either candidate is significant, in every case it will result in a divided democratic vote, offering the presidency on a silver platter to Trump.

this one.

See; https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/071415/did-obamacare-make-premiums-go.asp — Benkei

A Trump win of course. Even so, that may result in an actual shift to the left in the Democratic Party, which in the long run could be good.

The investopedia link I sent does not paint such a black and white picture for Obamacare. It might be worth a read.

Not familiar with the Netherlands at all. What if I said I have no objection in principle to universal state-run health care, but that I deeply distrust the US government to provide it? That might be closer to my actual position. — fishfry

Damn. I should've asked this question pages ago because this fear I can understand, given the system you have.

Do you think the type of welfare State like the Netherlands is better or worse than the USA? And why?

Feel free to shoot questions at me about aspects of Dutch society if you can't tell just yet. I am going to bed now though so I won't answer soon.

Close but no fish. You do recall I don't take you seriously don't you? If this is your trying to get under my skin, please try harder. Maybe some more vulgarity or try to make it more personal. I don't know. Something. This is just boring.

Nice spin of what I actually didn't say and without the context. Remind me again how deep your tongue is in Trump's ass.

By the way what motivates private entities to do well by consumers is competition. — fishfry

This is too rosy. They are also motivated to lobby. To externalise costs, cutting corners and basically arbitraging legal, tax and economic differences between countries. So they evade tax, or lobby for less tax, pollute where they can, or lobby for looser environmental regulations, make you work as much as you can and pay as little as they can or move to a country where they can.

What motivates corporations is PROFIT. They don't like competition at all. Uber is trying to buy a monopoly in the taxi business. Banks have been consolidating so they can get the implicit guarantee that comes with "too big to fail" (and save millions in financing per year). I could continue for 2 hours enumerating examples how corporations often do not work to our benefit.

The market mechanism is great in a mature, predictable and informationally and power balanced market. These markets are pretty rare though and even then there are usually a lot of hidden costs.

Yes, it's telling you that your "positive take" is propaganda and nobody here is falling for it.

I don't vote and I'd certainly not vote for a senile fossil like him. Not my side in any case as the Dens and Reps are two sides of the same coin.

They were "through the roof" before that already. The price increases for Obamacare are exaggerated and actually less than historic trends, with possible outliers in certain states.

See; https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/071415/did-obamacare-make-premiums-go.asp

And doesn't act senile for 6 months. "uh. Uh. You know the thing."

I know the Netherlands only tests if they need to know for treatment and to track transmission of the disease. The registered numbers are not accurate in any way, not even lagging what was the actual infection by 7-8 days as you may expect due to incubation time. I suspect at least 1,500 to 6,000 infected but it could well be double if the Diamond Princess is an indication. About half was infected but asymptomatic.

Corona sex

As a species, we're doomed.

You always blame someone else. Common tactic by now. I wasn't cherrypicking, I was picking up on your general stance against journalism and the following comments in this thread:

Looking at the response of the Chinese, Iranian and Italian governments give me pause to accepting that claim. I think any citizen who was concerned about his health, given sufficient education, may avoid public gatherings without first being told to do so by some bureaucrat. I think the press, those whose job it is to inform the people, have more responsibility than a government. — NOS4A2

But it is the journalist who informs the people of the facts, or at least should. — NOS4A2

Again, I’m speaking about the press, who are better equipped to relay information about current affairs to a vast audience. — NOS4A2

So if your point now is "well, I'm just talking about a theoretical world" (while complaining about issues in the real world) then you really need to just fuck off and stop complaining about whatever any government is doing because they are actually dealing with facts.

Right. So everybody points out your ideas are stupid as fuck but you claim it's because they don't understand you. Or, alternatively, your ideas are indeed stupid or you're incapable of expressing yourself in English.