Billionaires see fortunes rise by 27% during the pandemic

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: neutronflux

Pay attention, the Department of Justice can challenge the shutdowns as un-Constitutional just as Michigan's was found to be.

The Department of Justice reports to who? Why is this so hard for your to understand?

Ok. And it might go to the Supreme Court before any action can take place.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: neutronflux

Pay attention, the Department of Justice can challenge the shutdowns as un-Constitutional just as Michigan's was found to be.

The Department of Justice reports to who? Why is this so hard for your to understand?

And that’s is the only unlawfully lockdown considering how many states, counties, and cities?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: neutronflux

Pay attention, the Department of Justice can challenge the shutdowns as un-Constitutional just as Michigan's was found to be.

The Department of Justice reports to who? Why is this so hard for your to understand?

Can you list other unlawful lockdowns? Have they started the legal process?

originally posted by: neutronflux
Ok. And it might go to the Supreme Court before any action can take place.

LOL. Do you know what an 'injunction' is? If a lower court places one on the shutdowns they are not in effect during the appeals process while the higher court(s) decides.

Dude, your understanding of our legal system is lacking to say the least.

ETA: Holy crap, stop multi-posting me with your stream of conscious replies, put it in one post.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

"ETA: Holy crap, stop multi-posting me with your stream of conscious replies, put it in one post."

Thanks for the laugh!

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The question was...

Can you list other unlawful lockdowns? Have they started the legal process?


Out of all the citizen based lawsuits against lockdowns, what has shaken out from state to state. City to city?

originally posted by: neutronflux
Can you list other unlawful lockdowns?

I said they were all un-Constitutional. Any lockdown that plays favorites with people's livelihood over others violates the Constitution in my opinion.

Out of all the citizen based lawsuits against lockdowns, what has shaken out from state to state. City to city?

What am I, your personal secretary? Look it up yourself.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Is it true Michigan’s lockdowns were constitutional for the first 28 days. The problem was after the first 28 days the state representatives did no vote to continue the lockdowns. If the state representatives voted to continue the lockdowns, then the lockdown would have been constitutional. Is that false.

a reply to: neutronflux

Why do you continue to ask me questions that you can easily look up yourself?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Then the lockdown was constitutional until it went pass 28 dayS with not being voted into law by the state representatives. Is that false.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: neutronflux
Exactly how did the bailouts take anything from the middle class?

Seriously? When a national retailer can file for Federal assistance but then layoff employees who then end up on unemployment making less who made out on the deal?

You think Amazon, Lowes, Home Depot, Dollar Tree, Dollar General and Walmart are seeing record earnings because of some shrewd market decisions? They are getting fat on the fact that small businesses were closed or went out of business because they weren't 'essential'.

plus money grows on trees . trillion here ,trillion there who cares?

certainly the middle class will not have to pay for all these bailouts. the middleclass always gets away with not picking up the burden of govt wasteful spending.

the only time the two party agree with each other is when it comes for bigger govt or more spending.

originally posted by: neutronflux
The the lockdown was constitutional until it went pass 28 day with not being voted into law by the state representatives. Is that false.

See my last reply. It seems you want to argue with yourself at this point.

originally posted by: interupt42
plus money grows on trees . trillion here ,trillion there who cares?

certainly the middle class will not have to pay for all these bailouts. the middleclass always gets away with not picking up the burden of govt wasteful spending.

the only time the two party agree with each other is when it comes for bigger govt or more spending.

We're their inflatable plastic toy and they don't take turns, they both have fun at the same time.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: neutronflux
The the lockdown was constitutional until it went pass 28 day with not being voted into law by the state representatives. Is that false.

See my last reply. It seems you want to argue with yourself at this point.

I’ll answer for you.

Yes. The first 28 days was constitutional.

That means this is a false statement by you.

I said they were all un-Constitutional.

The reason the Michigan lockdown was found unconstitutional is that it went pass 28 days without being voted into law.

Which makes this true.

The president has no power under existing law to countermand lawful orders from state governments, nor can he unilaterally force private businesses to open their doors against their will, legal experts say. The structure of the U.S. Constitution reserves considerable powers to the states, and gives individuals and businesses significant protections against coercive government actions.


www.wsj.com...

Which makes your original statement of this

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: neutronflux
How would a federal president stop state shutdowns?

Executive Power.

Wrong

That’s is when you moved the goalpost to DOJ and lawsuits.

originally posted by: dug88
Well would ya look at that. While the world's been hiding, going broke, losing their homes and businesses, being corralled and penned like little sheep, the billionaires of the world have seen their profits soaring higher than ever. I guess without those pesky small businesses getting in the way, they've just been watching the numbers climb.

www.bbc.com...

Billionaires have seen their fortunes hit record highs during the pandemic, with top executives from technology and industry earning the most.

The world's richest saw their wealth climb 27.5% to $10.2trn (£7.9trn) from April to July this year, according to a report from Swiss bank UBS.

That was up from the previous peak of $8.9trn at the end of 2017 and largely due to rising global share prices.

UBS said billionaires had done "extremely well" in the Covid crisis.

It also said the number of billionaires had hit a new high of 2,189, up from 2,158 in 2017.

It comes as a World Bank report on Wednesday showed extreme poverty is set to rise this year for the first time in more than two decades due to the pandemic.

Among the billionaires, the biggest winners this year have been industrialists, whose wealth rose a staggering 44% in the three months to July.

"Industrials benefited disproportionately as markets priced in a significant economic recovery [after lockdowns around the world]," UBS said.

Tech billionaires have also had a good pandemic, seeing their wealth soar 41%. UBS said this was "due to the corona-induced demand for their goods and services" and social distancing accelerating "digital businesses [and] compressing several years' evolution into a few months".

Healthcare billionaires also benefited as the crisis put drug makers and medical device companies in the spotlight.

The rise in fortunes reflects the generally strong performance of global stock markets since late March, despite most countries continuing to suffer sharp recessions.

Amazon boss Jeff Bezos and Tesla founder Elon Musk - both multi-billionaires - saw their wealth hit new highs this summer thanks to growth in the price of their companies' stock

But again, these are the same people funding organizations telling us all to be scared and stay home. The same people lobbying governments to enforce lockdowns and closures.

But it's for our own safety right? Nobody wants this, we're all in this together right? Isn't that what they keep saying?

Billionaires have seen their wealth increase because they are heavily invested in the markets. The stock market came back quite nicely from it's lows earlier this year. Only idiots panic sold...

Most people's 401ks are doing well too...

On the flip side, there are also a lot of very wealthy people who have seen their fortunes crushed. Go look up some of the major companies that are on the brink of bankruptcy. Cruise liners. Movie theatres. Restaurant chains

The companies that are doing well are those that could adapt to the new environment. Amazon is crushing it since so many people are ordering stuff online. Some companies are having record years due to changes in behavior related to the lockdown.

originally posted by: neutronflux
Yes. The first 28 days was constitutional.

And I would argue that any lockdown that favors one citizen or business over another is un-Constitutional prima facia and would want the Department of Justice to contesr this point. Just because a law is on the books and unchallenged does not mean it abides by the Constitution. I would have wanted the Department of Justice to challenge this on day 1.

Additionally why didn't the Department of Justice challenge it on day 29 even if they agreed with it?

I'm glad you support totalitarian measures and will support these measures to uphold your partisan beliefs, it shows who is actually a danger.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: neutronflux
Yes. The first 28 days was constitutional.

And I would argue that any lockdown that favors one citizen or business over another is un-Constitutional prima facia and would want the Department of Justice to argue this point. Just because a law is on the books and unchallenged does not mean it abides by the Constitution.

Additionally why didn't the Department of Justice challenge it on day 29 even if they agreed with it?

I'm glad you support totalitarian measures and will support these measures to uphold your partisan beliefs, it shows who is actually a danger.

What does any of that have to do with you stating you think Trump is crushing the middle class because you were wrong in thinking Trump could wish away the lockdowns by executive order?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

And didn’t the GOP, Trump’s party, have lawsuits in at the state level.

*shrugs* What do folks expect, they have people in their employ whos soul reason for employment is to make certaain they keep making money.

Be it legally avoiding taxes to knowing who to lay off, to greasing the right politicians hands to get ahand out when it occurs.

originally posted by: neutronflux
What does any of that have to do with you stating you think Trump is crushing the middle class because you were wrong in thinking Trump could wish away the lockdowns by executive order?

READ. THIS. SLOW.

All of the lockdowns could have been challenged on day one and moving forward. Were any? No.