Reaping the whirlwind

The video is on the simplistic side but is accurate enough. The point is that spending of itself doesn’t make your economy grow and more especially, able to repay a loan. Only value adding investment does that, investments where every dollar spent leads to output whose value is greater than a dollar. virtually no government ever does that, and when occasionally some government does, that government is not run by Daniel Andrews, nor, unfortunately, by Scott Morrison.

Let me continue along the same line of thought with this from Mises.org: Central Banks Are Destroying What Was Left of Free Markets. It is a more sophisticated version of what I wrote about earlier: “The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency”. The author here is Alasdair Macleod, “the Head of Research at Goldmoney”.

Those receiving subsidies and loan guarantees are no doubt grateful, though they probably see it as the government’s duty and their right. But someone has to pay for it. In the past, the redistribution of wealth through taxes meant that the haves were taxed to give financial support to the have-nots, at least that was the story. Today, through monetary debasement nearly everyone benefits from monetary redistribution.

This is not a costless exercise. Governments are no longer robbing Peter to pay Paul. They are robbing Peter to pay Peter as well. You would think this is widely understood, but the Peters are so distracted by the apparent benefits they might or might not get that they don’t see the cost. They fail to appreciate that printing money is not just the marginal source of financing for excess government spending, but that it has now become mainstream.

I will take you to the final para which ought to make you think very hard about where we are heading, but you may have to read the part in between, and perhaps also my own previous article to make sense of it. No one can know for sure, but why would you trust a central bank?

Earlier in the descent into the socialization of money, nations had opportunities to change course. Unfortunately, they had neither the knowledge nor the guts to divine and implement a return to free markets and sound money. Those opportunities no longer exist, and there can be only one outcome: the total destruction of fiat currencies, accompanied by all the hardships that go with it.

And while you are considering all this, let me bring this up as well: The Worldwide Lockdown May Be the Greatest Mistake in History.

The forcible prevention of Americans from doing anything except what politicians deem “essential” has led to the worst economy in American history since the Great Depression of the 1930s. It is panic and hysteria, not the coronavirus, that created this catastrophe. And the consequences in much of the world will be more horrible than in America.

Oh, really? How so?

The lockdown is “possibly even more catastrophic (than the virus) in its outcome: the collapse of global food-supply systems and widespread human starvation” (italics added). That was published in the left-wing The Nation, which, nevertheless, enthusiastically supports lockdowns. But the American left cares as much about the millions of non-Americans reduced to hunger and starvation because of the lockdown as it does about the people of upstate New York who have no incomes, despite the minuscule number of coronavirus deaths there. Or about the citizens of Oregon, whose governor has just announced the state will remain locked down until July 6. As of this writing, a total of 109 people have died of the coronavirus in Oregon….

Michael Levitt, professor of structural biology at Stanford Medical School and winner of the 2013 Nobel Prize in chemistry, recently stated, “There is no doubt in my mind that when we come to look back on this, the damage done by lockdown will exceed any saving of lives by a huge factor.”

To the left, anyone who questions the lockdown is driven by preference for money over lives. Typical of the left’s moral shallowness is this headline on Salon this week:

“It’s Time To Reject the Gods of Commerce: America Is a Society, Not an ‘Economy,’” with the subhead reading, “America Is About People, Not Profit Margins.”

And, of course, to smug editors and writers of The Atlantic, in article after repetitive article, the fault lies not with the lockdown but with President Donald Trump. The most popular article in The Atlantic this week is titled “The Rest of the World Is Laughing at Trump.” The elites can afford to laugh at whatever they want. Meanwhile, the less fortunate — that is, most people — are crying.

Maybe a year from now we will be looking back at all this and laughing. Or maybe not.

Remember the rule: only pay heed to those who you agree with

I got the rule from my friend Peter Smith. Everyone follows that rule, unconsciously or not. For us conservatives, it means that anyone who seems to side with the left on key issues can no longer be trusted in discussing other issues.

For those of us on the right, the rule does not mean that we never get to hear what the left believes and what its latest delusions are. Not only do we know what these beliefs are, it’s essential to understand pretty well all of what they believe if for no other reason than just as a means to protect ourselves from whatever forms of madness is their latest fad belief.

For the left, that is all they know and are never allowed to hear what their critics say. Living in a world populated by conservatives seldom harms the lives of anyone on the left. In fact, it is all that protects them from their own idiocies and beliefs. Living in a world as they conjure it would plunge them, along with everyone else, into deep pockets of misery and destitution, as has happened often enough.

Here is the basic truth: everyone is conservatives about things they know something about, especially about things which will affect their lives and livelihoods. It is actual personal knowledge about some subject that makes one a conservative, but for those without a conservative disposition, only about that particular subject, tending to limit wild flights of unrealistic conjecturing about things they know from personal experience. I think this quote expresses the same sentiment quite well:

Like Aristotle, conservatives generally accept the world as it is; they distrust the politics of abstract reason – that is, reason divorced from experience.

And more fully, there is a quote from John Stuart Mill that was first stated during a Parliamentary debate in 1866, which given the re-branding of various political inclinations in today’s world, is now best stated in this way:

I did not mean that people on the left are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally on the left.

Anyone who genuinely tries to think about the problems of society and how to solve them cannot base their solutions on more than a handful of people ever acting other than in their own interests, with the subtext being that people acting in their own interests are not likely, when acting in a social setting, to lead a community into chaos and ruin, political leaders aside. They may wish to do good but all to often do not. But even without doing good being their intention, they usually cannot go too far because in the end everyone else will stop. Or at least they usually will, but unfortunately not always.

“More people will die from the measures than from the virus”

An interview with Yoram Lass, “the former director of Israel’s Health Ministry, on the hysteria around Covid-19”: ‘Nothing can justify this destruction of people’s lives’ at Spiked. Read it all, but this is how it opens – I have left out the questions that these are the answers to:

Yoram Lass: It is the first epidemic in history which is accompanied by another epidemic – the virus of the social networks. These new media have brainwashed entire populations. What you get is fear and anxiety, and an inability to look at real data. And therefore you have all the ingredients for monstrous hysteria.

It is what is known in science as positive feedback or a snowball effect. The government is afraid of its constituents. Therefore, it implements draconian measures. The constituents look at the draconian measures and become even more hysterical. They feed each other and the snowball becomes larger and larger until you reach irrational territory. This is nothing more than a flu epidemic if you care to look at the numbers and the data, but people who are in a state of anxiety are blind. If I were making the decisions, I would try to give people the real numbers. And I would never destroy my country.

Mortality due to coronavirus is a fake number. Most people are not dying from coronavirus. Those recording deaths simply change the label. If patients died from leukaemia, from metastatic cancer, from cardiovascular disease or from dementia, they put coronavirus. Also, the number of infected people is fake, because it depends on the number of tests. The more tests you do the more infected people you get.

The only real number is the total number of deaths – all causes of death, not just coronavirus. If you look at those numbers, you will see that every winter we get what is called an excess death rate. That is, during the winter more people die compared to the average, due to regular, seasonal flu epidemics, which nobody cares about. If you look at the coronavirus wave on a graph, you will see that it looks like a spike. Coronavirus comes very fast, but it also goes away very fast. The influenza wave is shallow as it takes three months to pass, but coronavirus takes one month. If you count the number of people who die in terms of excess mortality – which is the area under the curve – you will see that during the coronavirus season, we have had an excess mortality which is about 15 per cent larger than the epidemic of regular flu in 2017.

Compared to that rise, the draconian measures are of biblical proportions. Hundreds of millions of people are suffering. In developing countries many will die from starvation. In developed countries many will die from unemployment. Unemployment is mortality. More people will die from the measures than from the virus. And the people who die from the measures are the breadwinners. They are younger. Among the people who die from coronavirus, the median age is often higher than the life expectancy of the population. What has been done is not proportionate. But people are afraid. People are brainwashed. They do not listen to the data. And that includes governments.

Much more at the link. And speaking of outcomes of Biblical proportions, there is also this to think about.

Two weeks ago, when looking at the recent flurry of chapter 11 filings and a striking correlation between the unemployment rate and loan delinquencies, we said that a “biblical” wave of bankruptcies is about to flood the US economy.

It now appears that the wave is starting to coming because according to Fitch, the monthly tally of defaults in the U.S. leveraged loan market has hit a six-year high, as companies are either missing payments or filing for bankruptcy because of the fallout from the coronavirus pandemic.

Speaking biblically again, there is no doubt that governments around the world have sown the wind. You know what comes next.

There is a lot more going on than we so far know

Two consecutive stories at Instapundit.

AUSTRALIAN RESEARCHERS SEE VIRUS DESIGN MANIPULATION: “A forthcoming Australian scientific study concludes that the coronavirus causing the global pandemic contains unique properties suggesting it was manipulated in a Chinese laboratory and was not the result of a natural occurrence.“

`
`
GRANDMA-KILLER CUOMO: AP count: Over 4,300 virus patients sent to NY nursing homes. “More than 4,300 recovering coronavirus patients were sent to New York’s already vulnerable nursing homes under a controversial state directive that was ultimately scrapped amid criticisms it was accelerating the nation’s deadliest outbreaks, according to a count by The Associated Press. AP compiled its own tally to find out how many COVID-19 patients were discharged from hospitals to nursing homes under the March 25 directive after New York’s Health Department declined to release its internal survey conducted two weeks ago.”“That’s right — people who were still contagious with a disease that is especially deadly to the old and sick were placed in facilities that were full of the old and sick.”

`

People on the left never disagree with each other

As near as I can tell, people on the left never disagree with each other. They certainly disagree with people on the right, but other than in relation to to all the things they all agree about amongst themselves, where are the internal debates so that you can find examples of one person on the left saying something that another person, still on the left, disagrees with, and yet both remain on the same side of politics.

On the left there is a single acceptable position and after that, no deviation is permitted. That they believe themselves to be critical thinkers is only because they all collectively disagree with people who disagree with any element of the common set of beliefs.

One does not have to be on the left to believe that climate change is a problem. Or that gay marriage should be legal. Or that many aspects of the market economy are unacceptable. Or that Donald Trump is not a nice person. On the right, all these are open for debate. On the left, they are fixed positions, in no sense open for discussion.

This is a depiction of conservatism as I see it, written by Irving Kristol. Titled The right stuff, it explains the difference between the conservative perspective in the US and in the UK. Being from the New World myself, and Australians fit into this pattern as well, I find myself siding here with Kristol.

Conservatism in the US today is a movement, a popular movement, not a faction within any political party. Although most conservatives vote Republican, they are not party loyalists and the party has to woo them to win their votes. The movement is issue-oriented. It will happily combine with the Republicans if the party is “right” on the issues. If not, it will walk away. This troubled relationship between the conservative movement and the Republicans is a key to the understanding of American politics today. The conservative movement is a powerful force within the party, but it does not dominate. And there is no possibility of the party ever dominating the movement.

American conservatism after the second world war begins to take shape with the American publication of Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom in 1943 and the founding in 1955 of William F Buckley’s National Review. Previously, there had been a small circle who were admirers of the Jeffersonian, quasi-anarchist, teaching of the likes of Albert Jay Nock, but no one paid much attention to them. Hayek’s polemic against socialism did strike a chord, however, especially among members of the business community. There may have been people converted from statism to anti-statism by that book, but my impression is that most admirers of the book were already pro-free market. What Hayek did was to mobilise them intellectually, and to make their views more respectable.

I will take you to the final para which seems more relevant today than when it was first written in 1996.

The US today shares all of the evils, all of the problems, to be found among the western democracies, sometimes in an exaggerated form. But it is also the only western democracy that is witnessing a serious conservative revival that is an active response to these evils and problems. The fact that it is a populist conservatism dismays the conservative elites of Britain and western Europe, who prefer a more orderly and dignified kind of conservatism. It is true that populism can be a danger to our democratic orders. But it is also true that populism can be a corrective to the defects of democratic order, defects often arising from the intellectual influence and the entrepreneurial politics, of our democratic elites. Classical political thought was wary of democracy because it saw the people as fickle, envious and inherently turbulent. They had no knowledge of democracies where the people were conservative and the educated elites that governed them were ideological, always busy provoking disorder and discontent in the name of some utopian goal. Populist conservatism is a distinctly modern phenomenon, and conservative thinking has not yet caught up with it. That is why the “exceptional” kind of conservative politics we are now witnessing in the US is so important. It could turn out to represent the “last, best hope” of contemporary conservatism.

Whether it is the best hope or not is uncertain, but that it may be the last hope is looking all to possible all the time.

This is beyond spooky

It’s the very template of what we have seen for ourselves in real life. The only difference is that the motives behind the virus created is to benefit the news networks. Not this time. Much more sinister. It’s about the election in November.

I picked up the video from Steve Hayward at Powerline Loose ends 109. Pretty straightforward, right? Wrong!

Googled “the simpsons apocalipse meow” which suggested “did you mean apocalypse meow” and went straight to its suggested set of words. There was everything about a Simpsons episode from 1993 but nothing about the one posted at Powerline. So went back to this.

Showing results for the simpsons apocalypse meow
Search instead for the simpsons apocalipse meow

I chose the “search instead” option and ended up with a page entirely in Spanish with this the first entry:

41 melhores imagens de Simpsons | Os simpsons, Bart, lisa e …br.pinterest.com › anakelbh2 › simpsons
16 de out de 2018 – Explore a pasta “Simpsons” de anakelbh2 no Pinterest. Veja mais ideias sobre Os simpsons, Bart and lisa e Desenho dos simpsons. … Zombie. onde comprar. ZumbiBonecasDesenhosBart SimpsonOs SimpsonsToy ArtApocalipse ZumbiFaça Você Mesmo DescoladoArte Urbana … Right Meow! =^.

And beyond that, the images under “Images for the simpsons apocalipse meow” were also all in Spanish as well.

Verificamos: É falso que Os Simpsons previram a chegada do novo ...

And even the first frame would refer you to the wrong episode of the Simpsons, as did the heading over the images:

Did you mean: the simpsons apocalypse meow

The one that mattered was, in fact, Season 22 Episode 6. And when was it aired? From Wikipedia:

The Simpsons’ twenty-second season began airing on Fox on September 26, 2010 and ended on May 22, 2011.

This, by the way, is the edited version of the episode found on Google:

Incredible and terrifying.

What if this was just a practice run?

This is taken from Instapundit.

HUBRIS AND MISCALCULATIONS ARE A GIVEN WITH THE LEFT. BUT EVEN I DIDN’T REALIZE THEY’D BE SO STUPID AND EVIL AS TO WANT TO DESTROY ALL OF ECONOMY AND STARVE PEOPLE JUST TO GET ORANGE MAN BAD:  Hubris and miscalculation: The left’s bid to exploit the virus to defeat Trump.

`
This is from the article cited:

Freedom is what we rightfully take for granted. There are too many on the left who want to see the Bill of Rights abrogated in the name of social justice or identity politics or whatever. They eschew the freedom to which we are all entitled and they cannot prevail. They’ve made inroads, but now is the time to fight back against the revealed despots who have attained high offices. The oft-quoted sentence of Ben Franklin is vital to remember at this moment in time:

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Humankind will never be free of viruses; they are a natural part of all life. The left cannot be allowed to oppress us, to restrict our freedoms, because of COVID-19. Vote them all out, every last one of them. They do not mean well.

We should truly be worried about the future, but not because of this virus which was a pushover. It’s the politics we have been exposed to that should truly worry us. Daniel Andrews is a sensational incompetent who has bankrupted Victoria, but he still believes he has been our saviour and knows what’s best. If our political leaders are not prepared, even now, to call off their viral dogs when there is now nothing at all to save us from, what defence really is there against the politics of the lockdown any time some political leader wants to call one on?

“The facts that we know for sure”

Pompeo tells Salena Zito the world must ‘impose costs on China’ for coronavirus. More specifically he said this:

Let me start with the facts that we know for sure. We know this. We know that the virus originated in Wuhan, China. We don’t know precisely where inside of that, but we know that the Chinese Communist Party has been ruthless in denying us the ability to determine that very fact. Whether that began with their failure to provide information in a timely fashion to the World Health Organization. Whether that was them coercing the World Health Organization to be quiet about the scope and nature of this pandemic or taking doctors who were prepared to talk about what they were seeing in their offices and in their laboratories and denying them the ability to speak publicly, essentially disappearing them. Those are all things we know for sure. And then, we know that there were cases as far back, for sure, as December.

And there is more after that, lots more, including this.

This week, I was on the phone with a group of democracies that represent a significant piece of the globe’s GDP with my Indian counterpart, my South Korean counterpart, Brazil … I said India. Goodness. Japan, Australia. These are countries who all are staring at the same problems, that recognize that for decades, we ignored the threat from the Chinese Communist Party. That’s not partisan, that was both political parties ignored the risks connected to the Chinese Communist Party, who now are coming to recognize that the world needs to take a different path as we move forward from this current pandemic.

Go back to work and not incidentally preserve our freedom

This is my agenda which I just mailed off to a colleague.

If I might say so, dealing with the logic of the lockdown will not save us from this massive assault on our freedoms. The theory is plain enough. If there is an epidemic in which each person individually can pass on the disease to someone else by our proximity to each other, then to limit the reach of the disease, one must limit proximity. If there is more to it than that, I have not noticed. Beyond that basic premise, there were from the start an incredible flow of statistical projections that have turned out not just to be wrong, but overwrought. Every one of these projections has been abandoned. I wish I could say that therefore the rule of “the expert” is now at an end. It actually looks like it is only now just getting into full swing. This, in my view, is a large part of what should concern us.

If you want an economics analogy, we saw the same rule of expertise after the Global Financial Crisis. The supposed economic pandemic disappeared within half a year, but the destructive long-term effects of the various stimulus packages have continued to weigh our economies down to this day.

The problem is, if I may say so, rule by public servants who never have any accountability applied to any errors they make. There is much more that could be said on that, but will just leave it at that. There seems to be no means to unwind what has been set in motion, especially since this has been so monstrously politicised. And with every political leader there has been an associated political agenda, not one of which has done a single bit of good.

Yet we have our own agenda, and this may be the time we bring this agenda into the national conversation. Our agenda is that we should decentralise decision making, allow individual initiative to lead in the search for solutions and medical cures, remove the restraints placed on the economy by the various policies to enforce “social distancing”, and we should open up the market place and allow everyone to get back to work, or to do whatever else they might choose to do. In the meantime, isolate those who are most at risk, and apply certain precautions especially on air travel.

The downside may be some additional deaths and a slightly longer duration of the corona virus within the population, although herd immunity will this way kick in sooner. But my near certainty is that the CV is now past the peak of its virulence. States that open up will not appear any worse off than those that do not. But we should be using this moment to emphasise the elements of our political, economic and social systems for what they are, the greatest protection that each and every person has. We should state clearly that the approach that has been adopted is a losers’ strategy which has no obvious end in sight, and we should be seeking a free and open society, in which everyone understands the risks that are inevitably there, and in which everyone does what they can to secure their own safety. We should make it clear that the government cannot protect you.

The government should obviously remain active in gathering and providing information on how each of us individually needs to act to limit the risks we face. By arguing against a lockdown and in favour of a freedom-based approach would not only be the best solution to the problem of the spread of the corona virus, but would also be in keeping with our own philosophies.

This seems to be similar to the approach suggested by Conrad Black: A Farrago of Democrat Delusions Will Bury Them in 2020.

In a month, Trump had invoked the National Emergencies and War Production Acts to get instant testing, now being conducted 300,000 times a day, and had General Motors and others manufacturing pulmonary ventilator machines. He “flattened the curve,” produced a formidable financial assistance plan for the shut-down country, and now urges everyone to work and school, as we now know that for the eighty percent of people beneath the age of 60 without compromised immune systems, the fatality rate is one for every 22,000 people.

Here is the contrast:

This is the Democrats’ plan: pretend Trump was responsible for the pitiful state of crisis medical response that he inherited, and that he didn’t act promptly in reducing the flow of incoming people from coronavirus-afflicted countries; pretend that he didn’t build an entire emergency medical service in three weeks; pretend that scores of millions of people should remain idle for months for the sake of a statistically very small number of potential deaths among the 260 million healthy Americans beneath the age of 60; pretend that it is Trump’s duty to impoverish a third of his countrymen as he sacrifices himself politically; and pretend that the revelation of unprecedented skulduggery by the Obama administration and the Clinton campaign in 2016 in corrupting the FBI and intelligence agencies and using them to try to influence and then undo a presidential election is just a red herring designed to distract the country.

We need to not just open our economies, we need to return to an open society as soon as we possibly can.