Recently there was an article titled "The Left-Wing Case Against Lockdowns" that explains in detail why genuine leftists and progressives should oppose extending these coronavirus lockdown policies. It basically echoes what we at the TSAP has been saying for weeks now, namely that these policies have not aged very well and are doing more harm than good in the long run. And the empirical evidence actually bears this out: non-lockdown countries are generally outperforming lockdown countries on average, and within the USA, non-lockdown states have also been outperforming lockdown states in terms of coronavirus case and death rates per capita.
The supposed effectiveness of lockdowns (compared to far less extreme restrictions) in terms of slowing or stopping the spread of coronavirus has been called into serious question lately by more recent studies.
Such studies have found there is at best no correlation, and perhaps a perverse effect between the two defining features of hard lockdowns (stay-home orders and closures of all non-essential businesses) and COVID-19 cases and deaths per capita after other factors such as less-extreme policies are accounted for. The benefits are thus nothing more than a statistical mirage that does not stand up to scrutiny--much like the supposed benefits of the 21 drinking age vis-a-vis DUI deaths in the long run.
Meanwhile, the collateral damage (economic depression, inequality, poverty, alcohol and other drug abuse, domestic violence, child abuse, loneliness, poor mental health, delayed medical treatment, etc.), which also kills people too by the way, continues to mount with each passing week of lockdown, making an utter mockery of practically all progressive and even basic humanitarian priorities. And that's to say nothing of the civil rights and liberties, as well as community cohesion, that progressives generally support. It seems that the "cure" is quickly becoming far worse than the disease as time goes on.
(And that's just for the affluent countries. For poorer countries, the collateral damage will most likely be at least an order of magnitude worse and deadlier.)
As for the disease itself, here is what we already know: The horse has already bolted long ago, the train has left the station, the genie is out of the bottle, and herd immunity is ultimately inevitable at some point (if we're not already there in some places). That is the only way the pandemic will finally end for good, since any effective vaccine or miracle cure will most likely come far too late. Fortunately though, the true infection fatality rate is revealed to be far lower than was originally believed, and most likely somewhere between seasonal flu and pandemic flu (though still nothing to, um, sneeze at of course).
Thus, whatever the original merits of these sweeping, medieval-style quarantines (unprecedented on such a large scale and for such an extended period of time), there is really nothing "woke" or progressive about extending them any further than yesterday. It is no longer "merely" about lives versus livelihoods anymore, but increasingly about lives versus lives.
So what would a progressive reopening plan look like? At the TSAP, we believe that the following schedule should be the case:
Phase 1: End of stay-home orders and "bubbles", and gatherings of up to 10 people permitted. Construction, manufacturing, and select retail reopened with restrictions, with priority given to small businesses. Masks required in all public places where six feet of distance cannot be maintained. Parks and beaches reopened with restrictions.
Phase 2: Gatherings of up to 20 people permitted. All retail stores reopened with social distancing and 50% occupancy restrictions. Restaurants, but not bars, reopened with 25% occupancy restrictions. Masks required for all employees and customers of reopened businesses whenever practical. Select places of amusement reopened with restrictions.
(Somewhere around this point, reduce the six-foot rule to three feet, in line with the World Health Organization's recommendation of one meter distance.)
Phase 3: Gatherings of up to 50 people permitted. All retail stores reopened with social distancing and some occupancy restrictions. Salons, barber shops, and other "hands-on" businesses along with gyms and fitness centers reopened with strict hygiene standards and occupancy restrictions. Restaurants reopened with 50% occupancy restrictions, select bars reopened with 50% occupancy restrictions and table service only. Nightclubs and casinos remain closed. Places of amusement reopened with restrictions. All schools and educational facilities reopened, and all daycares and camps reopened as well regardless. Some professional sports leagues at least partially resume, without the fans of course.
Phase Out: Gatherings of up to 100, then 500 people permitted. Everything including nightclubs and casinos reopened, albeit with some occupancy restrictions. Bar service now permitted. Mask wearing is now voluntary, except on public transit and for employees of higher-risk businesses, where it will remain mandatory at least at first. Six-foot rule is now just a common-sense and non-absolute guideline rather than a hard and fast rule. Hand and respiratory hygiene still taken as seriously as ever. All schools and educational facilities reopened, period. Professional sports leagues fully resume, without fans until at least Labor Day, then fans very gradually reintroduced to stadiums/arenas.
Each of the first three phases will last two weeks (or one week each for both Phases 1 and 2, if the onset of Phase 1 happens to be delayed until June 15 or later), while Phase Out is indeterminate but will likely last for 90 days or more. Ideally, Phase 1 would not have begun until a state is at least two weeks post-peak, but after June 1st states may not have the luxury of waiting any longer to begin reopening (if they wish to avoid irreversible economic damage and a long-term depression). If during any phase there is any resurgence in disease there should be a further pause between moving to the next phase, but otherwise full steam ahead with no backtracking after June 1st.
(Any reimposition of tighter restrictions after June 1st should be limited to the local level only, not statewide or nationally.)
Indoor gatherings, which are riskier than outdoor gatherings, should probably have a tighter limit. For example, thet could have a cap of 10 people indoors vs. 50 people outdoors for Phase 3, or 50 people indoors vs. 500 people outdoors in Phase Out.
At all phases, mask and sanitizer kiosks should be available everywhere, and/or there should be a Taiwan-style free mask rationing app available for everyone. And Taiwan-style temperature checks to enter most places should prevail through the first three phases and much of Phase Out as well. (Hey, they must be doing something right over there, and with no lockdown or shutdown either.)
And while we clearly need to scale up testing and contact tracing, quite frankly the time to do that was weeks if not months ago, and we can no longer afford the luxury of time at this point. We will simply need to make do with what capacity we have right now and in the immediate future, even if we have to do it the Japanese way of focusing mainly on the larger clusters instead of every single case out there, which is far less resource- and labor-intensive.
As for vulnerable populations (elderly, immunocompromised, and/or those with underlying health conditions), the lockdowns have utterly failed to protect them, so extending the lockdowns will not benefit them at all. Rather, they should be encouraged (but not forced) to stay home as much as possible and avoid crowds during Phase 1 and 2 (and possibly 3), and nursing homes should continue to ban visitors or allow only one designated visitor per family during at least the first three phases of reopening. And for the love of all that is good, immediately stop discharging still-contagious hospital patients into nursing homes! Shame on any policymakers (New York, I'm looking mainly at you) who thought that was somehow a good idea!
The TSAP also supports a far more robust stimulus that includes Universal Basic Income and Medicare For All, and the rest of Rodger Malcolm Mitchell's Ten Steps to Prosperity. We also support expanded unemployment benefits, expanded Social Security, and a Green New Deal. And of course the HEROES Act. It is not too late to prevent the greatest depression the world has ever seen--but only if we both reopen reasonably soon and implement such programs sooner. It is NOT an either-or.
Also, it should really go without saying of course, but we at the TSAP do NOT support any sort of reckless behavior, rioting, violence, or death threats against Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan or any other governor or government official regardless of how much we dislike their policies. We hereby denounce and condemn such behavior, period. Peaceful protests which follow proper health and safety precautions, fine, but anything else has no place in our movement or any other movement worth its salt.
UPDATE: The TSAP does NOT support Trump's Fourth of July military parade or any other parade, campaign rally, or mass gathering of similar size at this time, as it is really far too soon and thus very, very ill-advised. We believe that even the best-performing states and localities who appear to be almost out of the proverbial woods in terms of the pandemic should still do their darnedest to avoid gatherings of more than 50 people before July 4, and more than 500 people after that until at least Labor Day at the earliest. The deadly lessons of the 1918 flu pandemic loom large. But if we must have a second wave, which Dr. Fauci himself claims is somehow (but hopefully not) inevitable, frankly better it should happen in the summer when the virus is less virulent than in the fall or winter, and as a bonus, those Trump supporters who will be earning Darwin Awards will thus "thin the herd before" they can vote in November. Unfortunately, these fools also put others at risk as well--they should at least be wearing masks to protect others even if they don't care one iota about themselves. (At least it won't fall on the conscience of progressives this time.)
JUNE UPDATE: It looks like several states are seeing spikes in COVID-19 in recent weeks following reopening. While some of it is due to increased testing, the very large spikes in Texas, Arizona, Florida, California, and some other states also show increases in hospitalization rates*, so at least some states are seeing real increases. And those are generally the ones who reopened before even reaching their peaks, while California's early flattening of their curve seems to have merely delayed the bulk of their infection burden. And interestingly, Georgia had not seen any real spikes until very recently, despite being the first state to reopen. Meanwhile many states, most notably New York and New Jersey, have not seen any spikes at all despite increased testing and massive protest rallies in recent weeks. Both were among the first states to have mandatory mask requirements, and were also the earliest and hardest-hit states.
(*Even the increase in hospitalization numbers may be less than meets the eye.)
Thus, it may not even be due to the timing and pace of reopening at all, but rather due to how many people are wearing masks, and simply that states that were hit harder earlier, the epidemic has largely run its course, while the states that started with milder outbreaks simply still have a ways to go yet. And overcrowded bars and nightclubs seems to be the biggest culprits in the new hotspots lately.
It is notable that death rates are still dropping nationwide despite the apparent surge in daily cases to new record highs. Even in the new hotspot states, deaths are generally low and flat or declining, and even Arizona's death rates are still following the same old slow-burn pattern they had before reopening despite being the fastest-growing state in terms of positive test results lately. Most new cases are coming from younger people (under age 35), a possible reason for the apparent decoupling of infection rates from death rates, and suggesting herd immunity likely occurring sooner rather than later. Or perhaps we have learned (often the hard way) better ways to treat the disease, thus saving more lives. Or the virus itself could simply be getting tired and losing its "mojo" after circulating so much for so long.
Also, here is another good article for any anti-lockdown leftist or progressive. And another.
Friday, May 22, 2020
Wednesday, May 13, 2020
Reborn On The Fourth Of July? (Updated Part Deux)
A little gallows humor: What do Julius Caesar and America as we knew it have in common? Both died on the Ides of March (March 15). That date was, indeed, roughly when America began to shut down to one degree or another. But will America be reborn on (or before) the Fourth of July?
There is much debate lately about how and when to ease lockdown/shutdown restrictions and re-open the country for business. Unfortunately, neither side seems to do nuance very well if at all. Opening up everything or nearly everything all at once overnight would of course be reckless and cavalier, risking a resurgence of the virus (and associated deaths) and eroding much of the progress that has been made thus far. But continuing the status quo indefinitely (or even simply taking too long to ease restrictions) is also not very wise either since that will do irreversible economic damage and likely will still not conquer the virus entirely. Thus, if we wait too long, there may not be anything left to re-open by then, at least for small businesses. And that's to say nothing of the adverse consequences to civil rights and liberties, mental health, and community cohesion as well.
(And you know, slopes are much, much slipperier than they appear, as Orwell spins in his grave.)
The supposed effectiveness of lockdowns (compared to far less extreme restrictions) in terms of slowing or stopping the spread of coronavirus has been called into serious question lately by more recent studies comparing those locations that had lockdowns and those that did not, or differed in the timing. The results strongly imply that the observed declines in COVID-19 deaths (and thus the number of infections three weeks prior) was actually driven by the more moderate social distancing measures that were in place earlier, not the lockdowns, based on the timing. And if there somehow was any extra effectiveness of the most extreme measures such as lockdowns, it is most likely only a short-term effect that eventually reaches a point of diminishing returns after which the "cure" really DOES become worse than the disease.
In other words, lockdowns early enough (and long enough) in the curve to successfully suppress the disease are unnecessary since more moderate measures apparently work just as well when done that early, while belated lockdowns are apparently worse than useless in terms of total excess deaths.
Perhaps the much-maligned Swedish mitigation strategy of moderate social distancing (not to be confused with the mythical "do nothing" strategy) really isn't so crazy after all? The train has clearly left the station long ago for a suppression strategy to work at this point, and herd immunity is ultimately inevitable at some point in most countries (including the USA), if we're not already there in some places.
And support for reopening is clearly NOT just for right-wingers and fringe folks, by the way. An even stronger left-wing and progressive case can also be made for ending the lockdowns sooner than later as well. Keep in mind that Sweden is largely run by progressives, and even their self-proclaimed "conservatives" are still largely to the left of most American Democratic Party politicians today.
Thus, a careful and gradual but fairly speedy easing and re-opening is what is called for, in order to minimize the damage from both the pandemic itself as well as from the restrictions in place to suppress it. The timing should vary by state and locality as well as exactly which types of restrictions to be eased and which types of businesses to re-open. It would probably be best for all states to wait until at least two weeks post-peak (whichever is later) before making any major changes (though baby steps can and should be taken sooner). Some states have already peaked in early to mid-April, others in latw April to early May, while others will not peak until well into May. Hospitals would also have to not be overwhelmed as well (fortunately, very few are). And testing would at least ideally be significantly ramped up along with contact tracing and individual quarantining--which should have been done weeks or even months ago--as well in order to move forward into the later stages of reopening.
(Though at this point, large-scale testing and contact tracing would probably best be put in the "wouldn't that be nice?" category rather than decisive.)
And of course we need a far more massive stimulus, and the Ten Steps to Prosperity that Rodger Malcolm Mitchell recommends. Because even if we re-opened tomorrow, consumers will still be too cautious to come roaring back right away, and the damage is already done. Especially a significant and permanent UBI, which would cure even the worst depression a lot sooner than not implementing a UBI.
Mitchell also recently wrote an article noting that reopening can be done a lot sooner, safer, and more cheaply simply by requiring everyone to wear masks in public (at least when practical to do so) and provide such masks for free to everyone via kiosks. And with a little bit of nuance added to the mix, this seems to make the most sense of all for now.
Trump's latest guidelines for reopening are surprisingly reasonable now, likely because he finally consulted with experts rather than just going with his gut as usual. But his administration is really lagging on providing coronavirus testing kits, which would clearly hinder any reopening strategy. So they really need to speed that up. It was, after all, due to the Trump administration's recklessness and negligence that this pandemic got so far out of control here in the first place, and it is estimated that up to 90% of the deaths could have been averted had they acted sooner and not screwed up so monumentally.
Thus the TSAP recommends that all states gradually lift lockdowns and partially reopen by Memorial Day (with many states doing so in early May) and fully lift all significant restrictions (except perhaps for restrictions on very large gatherings of, say, 500+ people) by the Fourth of July at the latest. While some outlier states like Georgia rushed the reopening process (though interestingly, it still did not turn out to be the disaster that was predicted), most states are being cautious to a fault right now in terms of reopening, and you really can't blame them in the current climate of fear.
At the local (county and municipal) level, some hotspots may choose to still maintain tight restrictions or reimpose them in the event of a resurgence of the virus, but these restrictions should be exactly that--local. In a similar vein, states may also impose modest, New Rochelle-style "containment zones" or "red zones" where local outbreaks or large clusters are observed. As we move past the initial crude "sledgehammer" phase of suppression and into the more refined management phase, we need to be careful in how we calibrate such measures to avoid doing more harm than good in the long run.
As for school closures, that should really be decided locally for the most part. While school closures are known to work very well in the short term in slowing the spread of infectious diseases in general, the longer-term effects are unknown, and children and teens seem to be at relatively low risk from this virus as well as not a particularly significant vector for spreading it to adults. While some evidence strongly suggests that temporary school closures early in the epidemic curve have helped to flatten that curve (even if only indirectly to reduce the number of adults infecting each other), it remains unclear how long such benefits can last (likely not very long). Some countries like Iceland, Denmark, and Taiwan have already reopened schools with no evidence of resurgence of the disease, and Sweden never closed them at all for children under 16. Certainly they should at least plan on reopening in September at the very latest absent evidence of a large second wave of the disease. And the usual summer school programs and even summer camps should be seriously considered as well. At the very least, daycares (if not schools as well) should be opened yesterday, as it is really the only way to get the economy going since so many of American's workforce are parents of young children.
Regardless of the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of lockdowns, simply going straight from red to green overnight would be utterly foolish, since it's really still too soon to safely encourage a massive influx of tourists when the "all-clear" signal is given. So we should thus go from red to orange, then yellow, then green, and we really only need a few weeks (not months) of orange and/or yellow in between. And even green does not preclude very mild restrictions and common-sense precautions as well.
We have already flattened the curve. Now let's keep it flat, without also flattening the economy as well.
UPDATE: It should really go without saying, but we at the TSAP do NOT support any sort of reckless behavior, rioting, violence, or death threats against Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan or any other governor or government official regardless of how much we dislike their policies. We hereby denounce and condemn such behavior, period. Peaceful protests which follow proper health and safety precautions, fine, but anything else has no place in our movement or any other movement worth its salt.
There is much debate lately about how and when to ease lockdown/shutdown restrictions and re-open the country for business. Unfortunately, neither side seems to do nuance very well if at all. Opening up everything or nearly everything all at once overnight would of course be reckless and cavalier, risking a resurgence of the virus (and associated deaths) and eroding much of the progress that has been made thus far. But continuing the status quo indefinitely (or even simply taking too long to ease restrictions) is also not very wise either since that will do irreversible economic damage and likely will still not conquer the virus entirely. Thus, if we wait too long, there may not be anything left to re-open by then, at least for small businesses. And that's to say nothing of the adverse consequences to civil rights and liberties, mental health, and community cohesion as well.
(And you know, slopes are much, much slipperier than they appear, as Orwell spins in his grave.)
The supposed effectiveness of lockdowns (compared to far less extreme restrictions) in terms of slowing or stopping the spread of coronavirus has been called into serious question lately by more recent studies comparing those locations that had lockdowns and those that did not, or differed in the timing. The results strongly imply that the observed declines in COVID-19 deaths (and thus the number of infections three weeks prior) was actually driven by the more moderate social distancing measures that were in place earlier, not the lockdowns, based on the timing. And if there somehow was any extra effectiveness of the most extreme measures such as lockdowns, it is most likely only a short-term effect that eventually reaches a point of diminishing returns after which the "cure" really DOES become worse than the disease.
In other words, lockdowns early enough (and long enough) in the curve to successfully suppress the disease are unnecessary since more moderate measures apparently work just as well when done that early, while belated lockdowns are apparently worse than useless in terms of total excess deaths.
Perhaps the much-maligned Swedish mitigation strategy of moderate social distancing (not to be confused with the mythical "do nothing" strategy) really isn't so crazy after all? The train has clearly left the station long ago for a suppression strategy to work at this point, and herd immunity is ultimately inevitable at some point in most countries (including the USA), if we're not already there in some places.
And support for reopening is clearly NOT just for right-wingers and fringe folks, by the way. An even stronger left-wing and progressive case can also be made for ending the lockdowns sooner than later as well. Keep in mind that Sweden is largely run by progressives, and even their self-proclaimed "conservatives" are still largely to the left of most American Democratic Party politicians today.
Thus, a careful and gradual but fairly speedy easing and re-opening is what is called for, in order to minimize the damage from both the pandemic itself as well as from the restrictions in place to suppress it. The timing should vary by state and locality as well as exactly which types of restrictions to be eased and which types of businesses to re-open. It would probably be best for all states to wait until at least two weeks post-peak (whichever is later) before making any major changes (though baby steps can and should be taken sooner). Some states have already peaked in early to mid-April, others in latw April to early May, while others will not peak until well into May. Hospitals would also have to not be overwhelmed as well (fortunately, very few are). And testing would at least ideally be significantly ramped up along with contact tracing and individual quarantining--which should have been done weeks or even months ago--as well in order to move forward into the later stages of reopening.
(Though at this point, large-scale testing and contact tracing would probably best be put in the "wouldn't that be nice?" category rather than decisive.)
And of course we need a far more massive stimulus, and the Ten Steps to Prosperity that Rodger Malcolm Mitchell recommends. Because even if we re-opened tomorrow, consumers will still be too cautious to come roaring back right away, and the damage is already done. Especially a significant and permanent UBI, which would cure even the worst depression a lot sooner than not implementing a UBI.
Mitchell also recently wrote an article noting that reopening can be done a lot sooner, safer, and more cheaply simply by requiring everyone to wear masks in public (at least when practical to do so) and provide such masks for free to everyone via kiosks. And with a little bit of nuance added to the mix, this seems to make the most sense of all for now.
Trump's latest guidelines for reopening are surprisingly reasonable now, likely because he finally consulted with experts rather than just going with his gut as usual. But his administration is really lagging on providing coronavirus testing kits, which would clearly hinder any reopening strategy. So they really need to speed that up. It was, after all, due to the Trump administration's recklessness and negligence that this pandemic got so far out of control here in the first place, and it is estimated that up to 90% of the deaths could have been averted had they acted sooner and not screwed up so monumentally.
Thus the TSAP recommends that all states gradually lift lockdowns and partially reopen by Memorial Day (with many states doing so in early May) and fully lift all significant restrictions (except perhaps for restrictions on very large gatherings of, say, 500+ people) by the Fourth of July at the latest. While some outlier states like Georgia rushed the reopening process (though interestingly, it still did not turn out to be the disaster that was predicted), most states are being cautious to a fault right now in terms of reopening, and you really can't blame them in the current climate of fear.
At the local (county and municipal) level, some hotspots may choose to still maintain tight restrictions or reimpose them in the event of a resurgence of the virus, but these restrictions should be exactly that--local. In a similar vein, states may also impose modest, New Rochelle-style "containment zones" or "red zones" where local outbreaks or large clusters are observed. As we move past the initial crude "sledgehammer" phase of suppression and into the more refined management phase, we need to be careful in how we calibrate such measures to avoid doing more harm than good in the long run.
As for school closures, that should really be decided locally for the most part. While school closures are known to work very well in the short term in slowing the spread of infectious diseases in general, the longer-term effects are unknown, and children and teens seem to be at relatively low risk from this virus as well as not a particularly significant vector for spreading it to adults. While some evidence strongly suggests that temporary school closures early in the epidemic curve have helped to flatten that curve (even if only indirectly to reduce the number of adults infecting each other), it remains unclear how long such benefits can last (likely not very long). Some countries like Iceland, Denmark, and Taiwan have already reopened schools with no evidence of resurgence of the disease, and Sweden never closed them at all for children under 16. Certainly they should at least plan on reopening in September at the very latest absent evidence of a large second wave of the disease. And the usual summer school programs and even summer camps should be seriously considered as well. At the very least, daycares (if not schools as well) should be opened yesterday, as it is really the only way to get the economy going since so many of American's workforce are parents of young children.
Regardless of the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of lockdowns, simply going straight from red to green overnight would be utterly foolish, since it's really still too soon to safely encourage a massive influx of tourists when the "all-clear" signal is given. So we should thus go from red to orange, then yellow, then green, and we really only need a few weeks (not months) of orange and/or yellow in between. And even green does not preclude very mild restrictions and common-sense precautions as well.
We have already flattened the curve. Now let's keep it flat, without also flattening the economy as well.
UPDATE: It should really go without saying, but we at the TSAP do NOT support any sort of reckless behavior, rioting, violence, or death threats against Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan or any other governor or government official regardless of how much we dislike their policies. We hereby denounce and condemn such behavior, period. Peaceful protests which follow proper health and safety precautions, fine, but anything else has no place in our movement or any other movement worth its salt.
Thursday, April 23, 2020
Reborn On The Fourth of July?
A little gallows humor: What do Julius Caesar and America as we knew it have in common? Both died on the Ides of March (March 15). That date was, indeed, roughly when America began to shut down to one degree or another. But will America be reborn on (or before) the Fourth of July?
There is much debate lately about how and when to ease lockdown/shutdown restrictions and re-open the country for business. Unfortunately, neither side seems to do nuance very well if at all. Opening up everything or nearly everything all at once overnight would of course be reckless and cavalier, risking a resurgence of the virus (and associated deaths) and eroding much of the progress that has been made thus far. But continuing the status quo indefinitely (or even simply taking too long to ease restrictions) is also not very wise either since that will do irreversible economic damage and likely will still not conquer the virus entirely. Thus, if we wait too long, there may not be anything left to re-open by then, at least for small businesses. And that's to say nothing of the adverse consequences to civil rights and liberties, mental health, and community cohesion as well.
(And you know, slopes are much, much slipperier than they appear, as Orwell spins in his grave.)
Even the supposed effectiveness of full lockdowns (compared to far less extreme restrictions) in terms of slowing or stopping the spread of coronavirus has been called into question by more recent studies comparing those locations that had lockdowns and those that did not, or differed in the timing. The results strongly imply that the observed declines in COVID-19 deaths (and thus the number of infections three weeks prior) was actually driven by the more moderate social distancing measures that were in place earlier, not the lockdowns, based on the timing. And if there somehow was any extra effectiveness of the most extreme measures such as lockdowns, it is most likely only a short-term effect that eventually reaches a point of diminishing returns after which the "cure" really DOES become worse than the disease.
Perhaps the much-maligned Swedish mitigation strategy of moderate social distancing (not to be confused with the mythical "do nothing" strategy) really isn't so crazy after all?
Thus, a careful and gradual but fairly speedy easing and re-opening is what is called for, in order to minimize the damage from both the pandemic itself as well as from the restrictions in place to suppress it. The timing should vary by state and locality as well as exactly which types of restrictions to be eased and which types of businesses to re-open. It would probably be best for all states to wait until at least May 1 or two weeks post-peak (whichever is later) before making any major changes (though baby steps can and should be taken sooner). Some states have already peaked in early to mid-April, while others will not peak until early May or so. Hospitals would also have to not be overwhelmed as well. And testing will have to be signifcantly ramped up along with contact tracing and individual quarantining as well in order to move forward into the later stages of reopening.
And of course we need a far more massive stimulus, and the Ten Steps to Prosperity that Rodger Malcolm Mitchell recommends. Because even if we re-opened tomorrow, consumers will still be too cautious to come roaring back right away, and the damage is already done. Especially a significant and permanent UBI, which would cure even the worst depression a lot sooner than not implementing a UBI.
Trump's latest guidelines for reopening are surprisingly reasonable now, likely because he finally consulted with experts rather than just going with his gut as usual. But his administration is really lagging on providing coronavirus testing kits, which would clearly hamper any reopening. So they really need to speed that up. It was, after all, due to the Trump administration's recklessness and negligence that this pandemic got so far out of control here in the first place, and it is estimated that up to 90% of the deaths could have been averted had they acted sooner and not screwed up so monumentally.
Thus the TSAP recommends that all states gradually lift lockdowns and partially reopen by Memorial Day (with many states doing so in early May) and fully lift all significant restrictions (except perhaps for restrictions on very large gatherings of, say, 500+ people) by the Fourth of July at the latest. But states like Georgia that seek to re-open salons, barber shops, gyms, casinos, bars, and stuff like that while it is still April (and they haven"t even peaked yet) are really being foolish, as those riskier businesses should really be the very last ones to re-open after all the others do. They should really wait another few weeks for those types of places and make sure they actually have a plan rather than flying blindly.
At the local (county and municipal) level, some hotspots may choose to still maintain tight restrictions or reimpose them in the event of a resurgence of the virus, but these restrictions should be exactly that--local. In a similar vein, states may also impose modest, New Rochelle-style "containment zones" or "red zones" where local outbreaks or large clusters are observed. As we move past the initial crude "sledgehammer" phase of suppression and into the more refined management phase, we need to be careful in how we calibrate such measures to avoid doing more harm than good in the long run.
As for school closures, that should really be decided locally for the most part. While school closures are known to work very well in the short term in slowing the spread of infectious diseases in general, the longer-term effects are unknown, and children and teens seem to be at relatively low risk from this virus as well as not a particularly major vector for spreading it to adults. Certainly they should at least plan on reopening in September at the latest absent evidence of a large second wave of the disease.
Regardless of the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of lockdowns, simply going straight from red to green overnight would be utterly foolish, since it's really still too soon to safely encourage a massive influx of tourists when the "all-clear" signal is given. So we should thus go from red to orange, then yellow, then green, and we really only need a few weeks (not months) of orange and/or yellow in between. And even green does not preclude very mild restrictions and common-sense precautions as well.
We have already flattened the curve. Now let's keep it flat, without also flattening the economy as well.
There is much debate lately about how and when to ease lockdown/shutdown restrictions and re-open the country for business. Unfortunately, neither side seems to do nuance very well if at all. Opening up everything or nearly everything all at once overnight would of course be reckless and cavalier, risking a resurgence of the virus (and associated deaths) and eroding much of the progress that has been made thus far. But continuing the status quo indefinitely (or even simply taking too long to ease restrictions) is also not very wise either since that will do irreversible economic damage and likely will still not conquer the virus entirely. Thus, if we wait too long, there may not be anything left to re-open by then, at least for small businesses. And that's to say nothing of the adverse consequences to civil rights and liberties, mental health, and community cohesion as well.
(And you know, slopes are much, much slipperier than they appear, as Orwell spins in his grave.)
Even the supposed effectiveness of full lockdowns (compared to far less extreme restrictions) in terms of slowing or stopping the spread of coronavirus has been called into question by more recent studies comparing those locations that had lockdowns and those that did not, or differed in the timing. The results strongly imply that the observed declines in COVID-19 deaths (and thus the number of infections three weeks prior) was actually driven by the more moderate social distancing measures that were in place earlier, not the lockdowns, based on the timing. And if there somehow was any extra effectiveness of the most extreme measures such as lockdowns, it is most likely only a short-term effect that eventually reaches a point of diminishing returns after which the "cure" really DOES become worse than the disease.
Perhaps the much-maligned Swedish mitigation strategy of moderate social distancing (not to be confused with the mythical "do nothing" strategy) really isn't so crazy after all?
Thus, a careful and gradual but fairly speedy easing and re-opening is what is called for, in order to minimize the damage from both the pandemic itself as well as from the restrictions in place to suppress it. The timing should vary by state and locality as well as exactly which types of restrictions to be eased and which types of businesses to re-open. It would probably be best for all states to wait until at least May 1 or two weeks post-peak (whichever is later) before making any major changes (though baby steps can and should be taken sooner). Some states have already peaked in early to mid-April, while others will not peak until early May or so. Hospitals would also have to not be overwhelmed as well. And testing will have to be signifcantly ramped up along with contact tracing and individual quarantining as well in order to move forward into the later stages of reopening.
And of course we need a far more massive stimulus, and the Ten Steps to Prosperity that Rodger Malcolm Mitchell recommends. Because even if we re-opened tomorrow, consumers will still be too cautious to come roaring back right away, and the damage is already done. Especially a significant and permanent UBI, which would cure even the worst depression a lot sooner than not implementing a UBI.
Trump's latest guidelines for reopening are surprisingly reasonable now, likely because he finally consulted with experts rather than just going with his gut as usual. But his administration is really lagging on providing coronavirus testing kits, which would clearly hamper any reopening. So they really need to speed that up. It was, after all, due to the Trump administration's recklessness and negligence that this pandemic got so far out of control here in the first place, and it is estimated that up to 90% of the deaths could have been averted had they acted sooner and not screwed up so monumentally.
Thus the TSAP recommends that all states gradually lift lockdowns and partially reopen by Memorial Day (with many states doing so in early May) and fully lift all significant restrictions (except perhaps for restrictions on very large gatherings of, say, 500+ people) by the Fourth of July at the latest. But states like Georgia that seek to re-open salons, barber shops, gyms, casinos, bars, and stuff like that while it is still April (and they haven"t even peaked yet) are really being foolish, as those riskier businesses should really be the very last ones to re-open after all the others do. They should really wait another few weeks for those types of places and make sure they actually have a plan rather than flying blindly.
At the local (county and municipal) level, some hotspots may choose to still maintain tight restrictions or reimpose them in the event of a resurgence of the virus, but these restrictions should be exactly that--local. In a similar vein, states may also impose modest, New Rochelle-style "containment zones" or "red zones" where local outbreaks or large clusters are observed. As we move past the initial crude "sledgehammer" phase of suppression and into the more refined management phase, we need to be careful in how we calibrate such measures to avoid doing more harm than good in the long run.
As for school closures, that should really be decided locally for the most part. While school closures are known to work very well in the short term in slowing the spread of infectious diseases in general, the longer-term effects are unknown, and children and teens seem to be at relatively low risk from this virus as well as not a particularly major vector for spreading it to adults. Certainly they should at least plan on reopening in September at the latest absent evidence of a large second wave of the disease.
Regardless of the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of lockdowns, simply going straight from red to green overnight would be utterly foolish, since it's really still too soon to safely encourage a massive influx of tourists when the "all-clear" signal is given. So we should thus go from red to orange, then yellow, then green, and we really only need a few weeks (not months) of orange and/or yellow in between. And even green does not preclude very mild restrictions and common-sense precautions as well.
We have already flattened the curve. Now let's keep it flat, without also flattening the economy as well.
Friday, April 3, 2020
Is The Cure Worse Than The Disease?
We know that the Trump administration clearly bungled its response to the coronavirus pandemic. Scratch that, they failed miserably in practically every way possible to contain or suppress this virus, and now the proverbial genie is out of the bottle. But what if the proverbial stopped clock can be right twice a day, particularly the claim that "the cure is worse than the disease" as far as shutdowns and lockdowns are concerned?
As is typical for Republicans, Democrats, and LOLbertarians alike, no one seems to do nuance, nor do they understand Monetary Sovereignty apparently. And the Donald is clearly no exception to the rule either.
That said, there are reasons to be concerned that longer-term shutdowns and lockdowns (some pundits even predict up to 18 months!) can cause a depression that NO amount of federal money can solve until well after such drastic measures are lifted. Because we didn’t quash it early on when we had the chance, there will likely be a long battle against COVID-19, to be sure, but the current “sledgehammer” phase of the battle cannot last indefinitely. Sooner or later we will have to ease or lift restrictions and pivot to case-based interventions rather than population-based ones once any of the following occur: A) the epidemic is largely under control, B) we reach the point of irreversible damage to the economy, or C) the epidemic exceeds 1% of the population and “flattening the curve” thus becomes impossible. Whichever comes first. And at least one of these three will happen within a few weeks from now at most, for better or worse. Lockdowns and shutdowns are best thought of as a short-term tactic, not a long-term strategy.
That’s to say nothing of the cost in terms of individual liberty, which is at *least* as priceless as life itself, as well as the cost in terms of mental health at least in the long run. Economic depression is not the only kind of depression to worry about, after all.
And even for hardcore communitarians who believe that individual liberty is worth absolutely zilch, one also can argue that the social consequences of long-term lockdowns and social distancing are ultimately corrosive to community as well.
And as of early April, option C likely already happened at least in parts of the USA, particularly the greater NYC metro area, plus several other hotspots around the nation. Given how most people who catch the virus experience mild or no symptoms, it is very likely that the number of reported cases is off by a factor of ten or more. Which, of course, makes the case fatality rate lower as well. In any case, the peak will likely happen sometime in mid to late April in much of the country, with some areas in May.
Thus, there will come a point of diminishing returns where the cure really DOES become worse than the disease. When exactly, no one knows for sure. But a good ballpark estimate would be "weeks, not months".
Thus, the TSAP does NOT support the more extreme measures lasting more than a few weeks, nor even the less extreme ones lasting more than a few months at most. And for NO length of time do we support arresting or jailing or shooting people for leaving their homes, suspending habeas corpus or the Constitution, or any form of martial law. Period.
Thus, the TSAP does NOT support the more extreme measures lasting more than a few weeks, nor even the less extreme ones lasting more than a few months at most. And for NO length of time do we support arresting or jailing or shooting people for leaving their homes, suspending habeas corpus or the Constitution, or any form of martial law. Period.
DISCLAIMER: The TSAP are NOT doctors, epidemiologists, or otherwise experts on this matter, so please take our predictions with a grain of salt.
Saturday, March 28, 2020
The Stimulus: Too Little, Too Late--But Still A Good Start
The much awaited stimulus package finally passed Congress and was signed into law by Trump yesterday. While it is a good start, it is far too little and far too late to prevent a coronavirus recession, let alone recover from it--but it may just be enough to prevent or delay it from turning into a full-blown depression. Hopefully, at least.
First, the FERAL Reserve fired their "bazooka" and cut interest rates to 1% and then to zero, restarted QE, and even cut the reserve requirement to zero as well. The stock market still crashed. Then they pledged unlimited cash assistance (via bond and asset buying) to any banks who may need it, a sort of QE on steroids or "UBI for the rich". The stock market continued to tank, though ultimately seemed to reach an (interim) bottom after declining about a third from its mid-February all-time high. Then Congress belatedly realized the need for fiscal stimulus, as the FERAL Reserve's measures really only shore up Wall Street and generally fail to "trickle down" to Main Street. And now the FERAL Reserve is essentially out of ammo in terms of monetary policy.
The CARES Act, the third and most notable of the three coronavirus-related stimulus bills passed so far, among other things bails out businesses big and small, gives relief money to hospitals, expands unemployment benefits, and most famously, gives a one-time $1200 per person to most adults and $500 for children. The whole package is $2.2 trillion dollars total While good, this is still unlikely to be sufficient. Rodger Malcolm Mitchell estimates that we need as much as $7 trillion in newly created dollars to really fix things for good.
What really needs be done are Rodger Malcolm Mitchell's Ten Steps to Prosperity, starting with abolishing FICA, implementing Medicare For All, and implementing Universal Basic Income (UBI), all paid for with new money creation. We also need a Green New Deal and to improve our public health infrastructure as well. Also, we at the TSAP believe that we need to pass an Act of Congress adding another, much more effective tool to the Fed's toolbox: QE For The People, in which the Fed would deposit newly created money directly into the bank accounts of every single American. This can be done in existing bank accounts, via debit cards, and/or by giving everyone with a Social Security number or ITIN an account at the Federal Reserve. The latter was actually recommended by an author at The American Conservative of all places, who even described it as similar to UBI, showing that this idea is not just for leftists anymore, but rather transcends the entire political spectrum. QE For The People will be far more effective than QE for the banks, since it works to stimulate the economy from the bottom up and middle out, not from the top down.
Also, the federal government should use its power of infinite money creation to purchase (at several times the market value) ventilators, masks, PPE, hospital beds, and any other essentials in short supply now, and distribute them for free. And it would literally cost taxpayers nothing. And yet, it took a crisis of such massive proportions to finally and belatedly force the government's hand to even grudgingly give Americans free testing, paid sick leave, and modestly expanded food assistance in the first two stimulus bills. Now is NOT the time to be cheap!
And lest anyone grouse about the National Debt, keep in mind that our Monetarily Sovereign federal can just print (or more accurately, keystroke) the money. Yes, really. That is what it means to be Monetarily Sovereign. Money is just a simple accounting entry nowadays, so make the entry and be done with it.
Yesterday.
And if Fitch or Moody's or S&P threaten any credit rating downgrades for the USA, let them do what they will. Then we should #MintTheCoin (i.e. a multi-trillion-dollar platinum coin) and call their bluff. Problem solved. Done, done, on to the next one.
It's not only about saving the economy from ruin, but now it's also literally a matter of life and death at this point. Seriously. So what are we waiting for?
UPDATE: As of April, the Federal Reserve apparently has also begun helping Main Street as well as Wall Street, and taking unprecedented steps to do so. Not quite full QE For The People yet, but hopefully it will eventually pave the way for it. It's like they finally realized that a fully functioning Wall Street cannot really exist for long without a fully functioning Main Street. After all, a purely FIRE economy cannot exist without an actual physical economy to back it up.
First, the FERAL Reserve fired their "bazooka" and cut interest rates to 1% and then to zero, restarted QE, and even cut the reserve requirement to zero as well. The stock market still crashed. Then they pledged unlimited cash assistance (via bond and asset buying) to any banks who may need it, a sort of QE on steroids or "UBI for the rich". The stock market continued to tank, though ultimately seemed to reach an (interim) bottom after declining about a third from its mid-February all-time high. Then Congress belatedly realized the need for fiscal stimulus, as the FERAL Reserve's measures really only shore up Wall Street and generally fail to "trickle down" to Main Street. And now the FERAL Reserve is essentially out of ammo in terms of monetary policy.
The CARES Act, the third and most notable of the three coronavirus-related stimulus bills passed so far, among other things bails out businesses big and small, gives relief money to hospitals, expands unemployment benefits, and most famously, gives a one-time $1200 per person to most adults and $500 for children. The whole package is $2.2 trillion dollars total While good, this is still unlikely to be sufficient. Rodger Malcolm Mitchell estimates that we need as much as $7 trillion in newly created dollars to really fix things for good.
What really needs be done are Rodger Malcolm Mitchell's Ten Steps to Prosperity, starting with abolishing FICA, implementing Medicare For All, and implementing Universal Basic Income (UBI), all paid for with new money creation. We also need a Green New Deal and to improve our public health infrastructure as well. Also, we at the TSAP believe that we need to pass an Act of Congress adding another, much more effective tool to the Fed's toolbox: QE For The People, in which the Fed would deposit newly created money directly into the bank accounts of every single American. This can be done in existing bank accounts, via debit cards, and/or by giving everyone with a Social Security number or ITIN an account at the Federal Reserve. The latter was actually recommended by an author at The American Conservative of all places, who even described it as similar to UBI, showing that this idea is not just for leftists anymore, but rather transcends the entire political spectrum. QE For The People will be far more effective than QE for the banks, since it works to stimulate the economy from the bottom up and middle out, not from the top down.
Also, the federal government should use its power of infinite money creation to purchase (at several times the market value) ventilators, masks, PPE, hospital beds, and any other essentials in short supply now, and distribute them for free. And it would literally cost taxpayers nothing. And yet, it took a crisis of such massive proportions to finally and belatedly force the government's hand to even grudgingly give Americans free testing, paid sick leave, and modestly expanded food assistance in the first two stimulus bills. Now is NOT the time to be cheap!
And lest anyone grouse about the National Debt, keep in mind that our Monetarily Sovereign federal can just print (or more accurately, keystroke) the money. Yes, really. That is what it means to be Monetarily Sovereign. Money is just a simple accounting entry nowadays, so make the entry and be done with it.
Yesterday.
And if Fitch or Moody's or S&P threaten any credit rating downgrades for the USA, let them do what they will. Then we should #MintTheCoin (i.e. a multi-trillion-dollar platinum coin) and call their bluff. Problem solved. Done, done, on to the next one.
It's not only about saving the economy from ruin, but now it's also literally a matter of life and death at this point. Seriously. So what are we waiting for?
UPDATE: As of April, the Federal Reserve apparently has also begun helping Main Street as well as Wall Street, and taking unprecedented steps to do so. Not quite full QE For The People yet, but hopefully it will eventually pave the way for it. It's like they finally realized that a fully functioning Wall Street cannot really exist for long without a fully functioning Main Street. After all, a purely FIRE economy cannot exist without an actual physical economy to back it up.
Saturday, March 14, 2020
How To Recession-Proof The Economy
With the coronavirus now officially a pandemic, and the stock market in freefall, recession (if not depression) fears are rapidly mounting. But what if we were to tell you that not only depressions, but also nearly all recessions, are fully preventable?
Sounds crazy, but keep in mind that before John Maynard Keynes and his groundbreaking economic policies came on the scene, depressions were once a regular occurrence in the USA and globally. Since 1945, we have not had a single full-blown depression, though we have come very close many times. And even the Great Recession was a near-depression due to not being Keynesian enough, and implementing unnecessary austerity. Thus, the next logical step would be to do the same for recessions, and use the power of federal Monetary Sovereignty to prevent them before they start. Yes, we really can do that.
Almost every recession or depression is fundamentally caused by a shortage of money. That is a proven historical fact. So the solution is to make sure the money supply (via federal "deficit" spending as well as monetary policy) grows fast enough to keep up with and allow for a growing economy, and make up for shortfalls caused by any contractions in business activity due to internal or external shocks.
So what to do this time around? For starters:
Sounds crazy, but keep in mind that before John Maynard Keynes and his groundbreaking economic policies came on the scene, depressions were once a regular occurrence in the USA and globally. Since 1945, we have not had a single full-blown depression, though we have come very close many times. And even the Great Recession was a near-depression due to not being Keynesian enough, and implementing unnecessary austerity. Thus, the next logical step would be to do the same for recessions, and use the power of federal Monetary Sovereignty to prevent them before they start. Yes, we really can do that.
Almost every recession or depression is fundamentally caused by a shortage of money. That is a proven historical fact. So the solution is to make sure the money supply (via federal "deficit" spending as well as monetary policy) grows fast enough to keep up with and allow for a growing economy, and make up for shortfalls caused by any contractions in business activity due to internal or external shocks.
So what to do this time around? For starters:
- As a stimulus, give everyone at least $1000 cash immediately, no strings attached. Repeat a few months later if necessary.
- Implement paid sick leave and paid family leave, yesterday. For ALL workers.
- Provide emergency cash to businesses struggling due to the pandemic.
- Put a moratorium on all evictions and foreclosures during the pandemic.
- Do NOT make any cuts to healthcare, food stamps, unemployment benefits, or any other parts of the social spending budget. Instead, expand them, yesterday.
- Invest massively in free testing for coronavirus, and in research and development for treatment and a vaccine for this virus.
- Resolve shortages by using federal funds to actively incentivize production of any essentials that are in short supply.
Longer-term, implement Rodger Malcolm Mitchell's Ten Steps to Prosperity, starting with abolishing FICA, implementing Medicare For All, and implementing Universal Basic Income for all. All of which would be paid for by new federal money creation. Talk about priming the pump!
We have a choice, so let's make the right one. Whether it's recession or disease (or both in this case), the old adage certainly applies: an ounce of prevention is worth at least a pound of cure.
Wednesday, February 26, 2020
The Crash Of 2020 Has A Silver Lining
Looks like the long-overdue Crash of 2020 is finally here, with the novel coronavirus panic being the catalyst that finally popped the truly massive stock market bubble--scratch that, BOIL--that was several years in the making. And there does not appear to be a firm bottom in sight yet. And shhhh!--don't even talk about the even bigger derivatives bubble yet. In other words, this can get real ugly real fast!
(And not even the FERAL Reserve can delay the inevitable for much longer, it seems.)
But as bad as it gets, better that it should happen several months before the 2020 presidential election rather than after. A big crash and/or recession before the election would virtually guarantee Trump's defeat, and by extension (hopefully) Bernie's victory. And so would finally mark the end of America's 40 year failed experiment with neoliberalism, that was started by Reagan and self-destructed by Trump. Bookended by two unlikely "dark horse" yet celebrity candidates, Reagan and Trump, that both cut their teeth in Hollywood before entering politics late in life, and who both said they would "Make America Great Again" (right!), this will be the end of an era--or more accurately, the end of an ERROR on January 20, 2021. Then we can finally pick up where we left off in 1980 when Carter almost won re-election but for the Reagan campaign's October Surprise dirty tricks (a conspiracy theory that actually turned out to be true, by the way). Yes, you read that correctly.
And thus, America's long, dark night of the soul will finally be over. Not just the past four years, but the past 40 as well. That is, of course, only if enough Americans actually get off their butts and VOTE--not just in the general election, but also in the primaries as well. The basket of deplorables will sure as hell vote regardless, so all progressives and even the fence-sitters need to get out and vote as well.
(And not even the FERAL Reserve can delay the inevitable for much longer, it seems.)
But as bad as it gets, better that it should happen several months before the 2020 presidential election rather than after. A big crash and/or recession before the election would virtually guarantee Trump's defeat, and by extension (hopefully) Bernie's victory. And so would finally mark the end of America's 40 year failed experiment with neoliberalism, that was started by Reagan and self-destructed by Trump. Bookended by two unlikely "dark horse" yet celebrity candidates, Reagan and Trump, that both cut their teeth in Hollywood before entering politics late in life, and who both said they would "Make America Great Again" (right!), this will be the end of an era--or more accurately, the end of an ERROR on January 20, 2021. Then we can finally pick up where we left off in 1980 when Carter almost won re-election but for the Reagan campaign's October Surprise dirty tricks (a conspiracy theory that actually turned out to be true, by the way). Yes, you read that correctly.
And thus, America's long, dark night of the soul will finally be over. Not just the past four years, but the past 40 as well. That is, of course, only if enough Americans actually get off their butts and VOTE--not just in the general election, but also in the primaries as well. The basket of deplorables will sure as hell vote regardless, so all progressives and even the fence-sitters need to get out and vote as well.
Friday, January 10, 2020
The Real Cause of "Secular Stagnation": Extreme Inequality
Much has been made of the concept of "secular stagnation", namely, that the current and future long-term potential for economic growth has slowed dramatically compared with the not-too-distant past. Larry Summers defines it as "a prolonged period in which satisfactory growth can only be acheived by unsustainable financial conditions". And at least since the Great Recession, the data do indeed seem to bear this out. Most notably, for decades now the American economy has been requiring lower and lower interest rates to get the same effect in terms of boosting aggregate demand, the sine qua non of economic growth. One can even argue that, relatively speaking, the United States will have had a whopping "lost two decades" of growth from 2000-2020. We are "turning Japanese", and not in a good way either.
But why is this happening, exactly? Some blame demographic changes, particularly population aging, as one of the causes. But while this theory is interesting, it only seems to explain, at most, a tiny portion of the overall trend of secular stagnation. In fact, a recent study by the American Economic Association found that there is essentially no robust correlation between population aging and economic growth (or lack thereof). Why? Advances in automation and robotics seem to offset the putative adverse effects of an aging workforce to the point where the effect of aging is practically negligible.
In fact, another recent study finds the ideal total fertility rate (TFR) in terms of standards of living overall is in fact in the 1.5-2.0 range, basically the same as what the TSAP has long advocated since our founding nearly a decade ago in 2009. Yes, really. Take that, birth dearthers!
Others blame the decline in EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) as cheap and easy fossil fuels are increasingly less readily available than in the past, as well as the planetary limits to growth. That is indeed true in the very long run at least, and all the more reason to end our inane and insane addiction to growth for the sake of growth, the ideology of the cancer cell which eventually kills its host, by the way. Though meanwhile, renewable energy technologies are making massives strides, which again looks like it will offset such trends at least partially.
In fact, another recent study finds the ideal total fertility rate (TFR) in terms of standards of living overall is in fact in the 1.5-2.0 range, basically the same as what the TSAP has long advocated since our founding nearly a decade ago in 2009. Yes, really. Take that, birth dearthers!
Others blame the decline in EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) as cheap and easy fossil fuels are increasingly less readily available than in the past, as well as the planetary limits to growth. That is indeed true in the very long run at least, and all the more reason to end our inane and insane addiction to growth for the sake of growth, the ideology of the cancer cell which eventually kills its host, by the way. Though meanwhile, renewable energy technologies are making massives strides, which again looks like it will offset such trends at least partially.
But in the relatively near term at least, the biggest elephant in the room by far in terms of the causes of secular stagnation would be the extreme level of economic inequality in this country that is now back at Gilded Age levels. Or should we say, at banana republic levels these days. The top 1% controls roughly 40% of the nation's wealth, the top 20% controls roughly 90%, and the bottom 80% is left to fight over crumbs. Wages have lagged behind the cost of living for decades despite exponential increases in technological progress and resulting increases in labor productivity. The oligarchs at the top took nearly all of the gains. And the rest of us simply cannot afford to keep spending enough to keep the economy going without digging ourselves deeper and deeper in debt. Eventually, something has to give, since there is not enough aggregate demand, and increasing debt clearly cannot be sustained forever.
Thus, a more accurate definition of "secular stagnation", would be, in the words of the Economic Policy Institute, "a chronic shortage of aggregate demand constraining economic growth". They really hit the nail right on the head here. After all, one person's spending is another person's income, by definition, and any business without enough customers will clearly not stay in business for long.
Which, by the way, was also one of the causes of the Great Depression and the long period of secular stagnation that followed until WWII. The Roaring Twenties also had similarly extreme inequality as well, along with a wildly unregulated financial system. And we also had a trade war from 1930-1934, which further deepened the Depression. The only real difference now (aside from the levels of debt today) is the Feral Reserve's monetary policy, but even that will run out of ammo very fast (as interest rates are already low) unless their methods are truly overhauled to accomodate today's realities.
But what about in the long run? Well, the Keynesian punch line to that is, "in the long run, we are all dead". Seriously, though, an inequality-induced chronic shortage of aggregate demand not only reduces actual economic growth in the short run, but also reduces potential growth well in the future as well. That is because less demand today leads to less business investment tomorrow, degrading the economy's productive capacity over time and thus leading to significantly less growth in the long run as well as the short run, creating a vicious cycle and downward spiral. Hoarding such ludicrous amounts of wealth at the top of the pyramid clearly has serious consequences for the economy and society, and with much larger effect sizes than originally thought.
Thus, a more accurate definition of "secular stagnation", would be, in the words of the Economic Policy Institute, "a chronic shortage of aggregate demand constraining economic growth". They really hit the nail right on the head here. After all, one person's spending is another person's income, by definition, and any business without enough customers will clearly not stay in business for long.
Which, by the way, was also one of the causes of the Great Depression and the long period of secular stagnation that followed until WWII. The Roaring Twenties also had similarly extreme inequality as well, along with a wildly unregulated financial system. And we also had a trade war from 1930-1934, which further deepened the Depression. The only real difference now (aside from the levels of debt today) is the Feral Reserve's monetary policy, but even that will run out of ammo very fast (as interest rates are already low) unless their methods are truly overhauled to accomodate today's realities.
But what about in the long run? Well, the Keynesian punch line to that is, "in the long run, we are all dead". Seriously, though, an inequality-induced chronic shortage of aggregate demand not only reduces actual economic growth in the short run, but also reduces potential growth well in the future as well. That is because less demand today leads to less business investment tomorrow, degrading the economy's productive capacity over time and thus leading to significantly less growth in the long run as well as the short run, creating a vicious cycle and downward spiral. Hoarding such ludicrous amounts of wealth at the top of the pyramid clearly has serious consequences for the economy and society, and with much larger effect sizes than originally thought.
Thus, policies designed to tackle economic inequality would be beneficial in this regard. In addition to more progressive taxation of both individuals and corporations (like it was before Reagan) and/or the Universal Exchange Tax and/or Georgist taxation on natural resources, that would also include things like Universal Basic Income (UBI) as well. And nationalizing the Feral Reserve to make it a truly public national bank that creates money interest-free would be even better still, since usury (interest) and debt-based currency are essentially the biggest weapons of the oligarchy. Problem solved.
In fact, in our Monetarily Sovereign federal government, Congress can simply spend new money into existence without the strings of interest attached, and without any corresponding increase in tax revenue either. Rodger Malcolm Mitchell notes this in his Ten Steps to Prosperity, which includes, among other things, Medicare For All, free college for all, and a form of UBI as well. Interest rates can still be used by the central bank as an inflation-fighting tool, but the creation of money will be decoupled from it.
(Note to Japan: You should do the same thing as well, especially the helicopter money (QE for the People) and UBI. Then you will finally get out of your 30 year funk, and possibly even raise your birthrates a bit.)
At the very least, in the meantime, we need to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour to give the lowest-paid workers a boost, which will also have a positive spillover higher up the wage scale. Also, macroeconomic policy (both fiscal and monetary) should seriously prioritize very low unemployment over very low inflation, since tight labor markets have long been known to give workers much more bargaining power relative to employers. And labor unions also need to be revitalized as well. Yesterday.
So what are we waiting for?
In fact, in our Monetarily Sovereign federal government, Congress can simply spend new money into existence without the strings of interest attached, and without any corresponding increase in tax revenue either. Rodger Malcolm Mitchell notes this in his Ten Steps to Prosperity, which includes, among other things, Medicare For All, free college for all, and a form of UBI as well. Interest rates can still be used by the central bank as an inflation-fighting tool, but the creation of money will be decoupled from it.
(Note to Japan: You should do the same thing as well, especially the helicopter money (QE for the People) and UBI. Then you will finally get out of your 30 year funk, and possibly even raise your birthrates a bit.)
At the very least, in the meantime, we need to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour to give the lowest-paid workers a boost, which will also have a positive spillover higher up the wage scale. Also, macroeconomic policy (both fiscal and monetary) should seriously prioritize very low unemployment over very low inflation, since tight labor markets have long been known to give workers much more bargaining power relative to employers. And labor unions also need to be revitalized as well. Yesterday.
So what are we waiting for?
Friday, January 3, 2020
Did Trump Just Start A War With Iran?
On January 2, 2020, Trump apparently ordered a drone airstrike near Baghdad, Iraq, that killed Iran's top general, Qassim Soleimani. This assassination was of very, very questionable legality given that Trump did not notify Congress (or really anyone else, for that matter) before giving the orders. And now Iran is openly threatening (unspecified) revenge and retaliation for this foolish and reckless act of bravado and hubris by the Manchild Who Would Be King.
We are well aware that General Soleimani was not a good person by any stretch of the imagination, nor is his own Revolutionary Guard Quds Force particularly cuddly either. They have in fact been officially designated as a terrorist organization by the United States Department of State years ago due to their notoriously rogue activities in the region, including their support for violent militias in Iraq. But when the "leader" of the USA decides to go rogue himself and arbitrarily assassinate a leader of a sovereign nation that we are NOT actually at war with, that is a dangerous and irresponsible escalation that threatens to unleash a conflagration across the whole region, if not even further. At the very least, it will delay any hope for peace in the region by at least a generation, and at worst can perhaps even trigger World War III.
And of course we can kiss goodbye practically forever any chance of reviving the Iran nuclear deal that, while imperfect, was in fact working to keep Iran from getting their hands on The Bomb for the foreseeable future--before Trump pulled out of it of course. If Iran didn't have a reason to want nukes in the past, well they sure do now! This latest stunt thus clearly does FAR more harm than good, and we at the TSAP condemn his reckless and irresponsible actions.
(As for motives, can you say, "Wag the Dog"?)
We are well aware that General Soleimani was not a good person by any stretch of the imagination, nor is his own Revolutionary Guard Quds Force particularly cuddly either. They have in fact been officially designated as a terrorist organization by the United States Department of State years ago due to their notoriously rogue activities in the region, including their support for violent militias in Iraq. But when the "leader" of the USA decides to go rogue himself and arbitrarily assassinate a leader of a sovereign nation that we are NOT actually at war with, that is a dangerous and irresponsible escalation that threatens to unleash a conflagration across the whole region, if not even further. At the very least, it will delay any hope for peace in the region by at least a generation, and at worst can perhaps even trigger World War III.
And of course we can kiss goodbye practically forever any chance of reviving the Iran nuclear deal that, while imperfect, was in fact working to keep Iran from getting their hands on The Bomb for the foreseeable future--before Trump pulled out of it of course. If Iran didn't have a reason to want nukes in the past, well they sure do now! This latest stunt thus clearly does FAR more harm than good, and we at the TSAP condemn his reckless and irresponsible actions.
(As for motives, can you say, "Wag the Dog"?)
Wednesday, January 1, 2020
State Of The Planet Address 2020
It is now 2020, and this year the TSAP will not waste any time giving our annual State of the Planet Address. Yes, we know it is a bit of a downer to say the least. So sit down, take off your rose-colored glasses, and read on:
Our planet is in grave danger, and has been for quite some time now. We face several serious long term problems: climate change, deforestation, desertification, loss of biodiversity, overharvesting, energy crises, and of course pollution of many kinds. Polar ice caps are melting. Rainforests have been shrinking by 50 acres per minute. Numerous species are going extinct every year. Soil is eroding rapidly. Food shortages have occurred in several countries in recent years. Weather has been getting crazier each year thanks to climate change. We have had numerous and often record-breaking wildfires, floods followed by long periods of drought, and a "storm of the century" at least once a year for the past several years. And it is only getting worse every year. In fact, 2016 has been the hottest year on record, and 2017 was the hottest year without an El Nino. Look no further than the three record-breaking storms in the past 15 years: Katrina (2005, highest storm surge), Sandy (2012, largest diameter), and now Harvey (2017, a 1000-year flood, and overall worst hurricane on record), followed by Irma and Maria which devastated Puerto Rico, for a taste of the not-too-distant future. And that was before Hurricane Michael devastated a rather large chunk of Florida recently.
In fact, on the other side of the world, just a little over two years ago, the worst monsoon season in recent memory has recently displaced 41 million people due to record flooding. At the same time, severe, bone-dry droughts have been plaguing the Horn of Africa for over a decade now. Thus for many, the future is sadly already here to one degree or another.
Australia is on fire right now, with record heatwaves and massive wildfires (with koalas now basically endangerd as a result), and California was recently on fire as well, again.
None of this is an accident of course. These problems are man-made, and their solutions must also begin and end with humans. We cannot afford to sit idly by any longer, lest we face hell and high water in the not-too-distant future. Our unsustainable scorched-earth policy towards the planet has to end. Yesterday.
While we do not invoke the precautionary principle for all issues, we unequivocally do for the issue of climate change and any other environmental issues of comparable magnitude. In fact, for something as dire as climate change, as of 2015 we now support a strong "no regrets" approach. With no apologies to hardcore libertarians or paleoconservatives, in fact. We are not fazed one bit by the naysayers' pseudoscience as it does not really "debunk" the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. The only serious debate is about how fast it will happen, and when the tipping point (or points) will occur. It is not a matter of if, but when. And the less precarious position is to assume it is a real and urgent problem. We need to reduce CO2 emissions to the point where the CO2 concentration is at or below 350 ppm, ASAP. And it is currently at an unsustainably high level of 400+ ppm, and growing rapidly every year.
Given the latest IPCC report, which is truly nothing short of horrifying, the general consensus among climate scientists is that we have only at most 12 years left (now more like 11) to act radically before truly catastrophic climate change is a foregone conclusion. And 2030 will be here before we know it.
Now THAT is a national emergency! And a global one, in fact. Thus, a full-steam-ahead, Green New Deal 2.0 is LONG overdue. We have already squandered a whole decade since Copenhagen, and we cannot afford to squander even one more day, let alone another decade.
Solving the problem of climate change will also help to solve the other ecological crises we are facing, for they all ultimately have the same root causes, not least of which is our insatiable addiction to dirty energy. However, there is a right way to solve it, and several wrong ways. Technology is important, but it won't be decisive on its own (economics geeks may recall Jevons Paradox). The real problem is the paradigm that our society has been following, and that system is based on wetiko, the parasite of the mind and cancer of the soul. It often seems that the only difference between capitalism and cannibalism is the spelling.
The TSAP endorses the ideas embodied in Steve Stoft's new book Carbonomics, most notably a tax-and-dividend system that would tax carbon (i.e. fossil fuels) at the source, and give all Americans an equal share of the revenue generated from this tax. (Note that our proposal to tax natural resources and pay out an Alaska-like citizen's dividend already includes this.) Yes, prices for various things would undoubtedly rise due to this tax, all else being equal, but the dividend will allow Americans to pay for this increase. The average American would in fact break even, but those who (directly or indirectly) use less energy than average will effectively pay less tax, while the energy hogs will effectively be taxed more, as they should be. Thus it is certainly not a regressive tax, and may even be mildly progressive. This is both the simplest and most equitable way to reduce carbon emissions as well as other forms of pollution, not to mention waste of dwindling non-renewable resources. The real challenge is getting the feds to accept something that won't directly benefit them (in the short term). Carbonomics also includes other good ideas, such as improving how fuel economy standards are done, and crafting a better verison of the Kyoto treaty.
In addition to the ideas in Carbonomics, we also support several other measures to help us end our addiction to fossil fuels once and for all. Our Great American Phase-Out plan would phase out all fossil fuels by 2030 at the latest, via alternative energy, efficiency, and conservation. One good idea to further the development of alternative energy would be the use of feed-in tariffs for renewable power sources.
Of course, it is not enough to stop emitting carbon dioxide, we also need to remove the current excess levels of it from the atmosphere as well, as that stuff can otherwise linger for centuries and continue wreaking havoc on the climate. We support ending net deforestation completely, planting a LOT more trees, and putting carbon back in the ground through carbon sequestration. One method is known as biochar, a type of charcoal made from plants that remove carbon dioxide from the air, that is subsequently buried. This is also an ancient method of soil fertilization and conservation, originally called terra preta. It also helps preserve biodiversity. Another crucial method would be regenerative organic farming, which also turns the soil into an effective carbon sink as well. And we will most likely also need to employ higher-tech methods of sucking carbon out of the air as well.
We've said this before, and we'll say it again. Our ultimate goal is 100% renewable energy by 2030, but we need to hedge our bets. We can phase out fossil fuels, or we can phase out nuclear power, but we can't do both at the same time--and fossil fuels need to be phased out first, and quickly. Nuclear is doing a pretty good job of phasing itself out as it is. So let's not get rid of it prematurely.
But the biggest elephant in the room (make that the elephant in the Volkswagen) is overpopulation. It does not make for pleasant dinner conversation, but it must be addressed or else all other causes become lost causes in the long run. We absolutely need to have fewer kids, or nature will reduce our population for us, and the latter will NOT be pleasant to say the least. The TSAP believes in voluntarily reducing the total fertility rate (TFR) to 1.5-1.9 children per woman to do so, but let us be clear that we do NOT support draconian and/or coercive measures of population control (like China has used). We believe that more liberty is the answer, not less. In fact, the two most effective means of reducing the birthrate are poverty reduction and female empowerment.
Fortunately, America's TFR has recently dropped to a record low of about 1.73 with no indication of rising back above replacement rate in the near term. But clearly we cannot keep growing and growing, that's for sure (in fact, we need to shrink). And our insatiable addiction to economic growth (despite being decoupled from well-being) is also every bit as harmful as overpopulation as well, if not more so. Growth for the sake of growth, the ideology of the cancer cell, is clearly one of the most asinine obsessions our nation (and world) has ever had. We clearly need to transition to a steady-state economy, most likely following a period of what Naomi Klein calls "selective degrowth" as well. And to do that, we need a radical paradigm shift to happen yesterday. Put another way, we need to leave room for Nature, lest Nature not leave room for us. We have been warned, decades ago in fact. Unfortunately, such warnings have largely fallen of deaf ears until very recently.
Yesterday is the time to jettison the Twin Big Lies that "everybody must work for a living" and "everybody must procreate". Because doing so is the sine qua non of any realist plan to avert ecological catastrophe.
Last but not least, the TSAP now believes that as long as men remain in charge, we are all merely rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Let's face it, it ain't gonna be us fellas who will save the world, as the past 7000 years or so have shown. We paved paradise and put up a parking lot, we created a desert and called it peace. We devoured and suffocated our own empire, and our proverbial 15 minutes of fame is almost up. Only when women finally take over and reclaim their rightful position as the new leaders of the free world--and they will--will there be any real permanent solution.
Bottom line: we need to take the environment much more seriously than we do now. We ignore it at our own peril. And while the current administration in DC clearly doesn't care, We the People must act nonetheless. With no apologies to the deniosaurs or Big Oil or Big Gas, or Dirty Coal.
Oh, by the way, wanna hear a joke? Peak Oil. Not saying it won't happen, of course--it will eventually peak and decline at some point--but climate change kinda supersedes it. While conventional oil most likely has already peaked, there is more than enough total oil (including unconventional) to deep-fry the Earth--and most of which needs to stay in the ground if we wish to avoid catastrophic climate change. Fossil fuels are, after all, what Buckminster Fuller referred to as our planet's "energy savings account", which we need to wean ourselves off of and save just in case of a planetary emergency--and he first said this in 1941!
So quibble all you want, but the truth must be faced head-on. Hindsight is 2020, and we have a planet to save. So let's roll!
Our planet is in grave danger, and has been for quite some time now. We face several serious long term problems: climate change, deforestation, desertification, loss of biodiversity, overharvesting, energy crises, and of course pollution of many kinds. Polar ice caps are melting. Rainforests have been shrinking by 50 acres per minute. Numerous species are going extinct every year. Soil is eroding rapidly. Food shortages have occurred in several countries in recent years. Weather has been getting crazier each year thanks to climate change. We have had numerous and often record-breaking wildfires, floods followed by long periods of drought, and a "storm of the century" at least once a year for the past several years. And it is only getting worse every year. In fact, 2016 has been the hottest year on record, and 2017 was the hottest year without an El Nino. Look no further than the three record-breaking storms in the past 15 years: Katrina (2005, highest storm surge), Sandy (2012, largest diameter), and now Harvey (2017, a 1000-year flood, and overall worst hurricane on record), followed by Irma and Maria which devastated Puerto Rico, for a taste of the not-too-distant future. And that was before Hurricane Michael devastated a rather large chunk of Florida recently.
In fact, on the other side of the world, just a little over two years ago, the worst monsoon season in recent memory has recently displaced 41 million people due to record flooding. At the same time, severe, bone-dry droughts have been plaguing the Horn of Africa for over a decade now. Thus for many, the future is sadly already here to one degree or another.
Australia is on fire right now, with record heatwaves and massive wildfires (with koalas now basically endangerd as a result), and California was recently on fire as well, again.
None of this is an accident of course. These problems are man-made, and their solutions must also begin and end with humans. We cannot afford to sit idly by any longer, lest we face hell and high water in the not-too-distant future. Our unsustainable scorched-earth policy towards the planet has to end. Yesterday.
While we do not invoke the precautionary principle for all issues, we unequivocally do for the issue of climate change and any other environmental issues of comparable magnitude. In fact, for something as dire as climate change, as of 2015 we now support a strong "no regrets" approach. With no apologies to hardcore libertarians or paleoconservatives, in fact. We are not fazed one bit by the naysayers' pseudoscience as it does not really "debunk" the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. The only serious debate is about how fast it will happen, and when the tipping point (or points) will occur. It is not a matter of if, but when. And the less precarious position is to assume it is a real and urgent problem. We need to reduce CO2 emissions to the point where the CO2 concentration is at or below 350 ppm, ASAP. And it is currently at an unsustainably high level of 400+ ppm, and growing rapidly every year.
Given the latest IPCC report, which is truly nothing short of horrifying, the general consensus among climate scientists is that we have only at most 12 years left (now more like 11) to act radically before truly catastrophic climate change is a foregone conclusion. And 2030 will be here before we know it.
Now THAT is a national emergency! And a global one, in fact. Thus, a full-steam-ahead, Green New Deal 2.0 is LONG overdue. We have already squandered a whole decade since Copenhagen, and we cannot afford to squander even one more day, let alone another decade.
Solving the problem of climate change will also help to solve the other ecological crises we are facing, for they all ultimately have the same root causes, not least of which is our insatiable addiction to dirty energy. However, there is a right way to solve it, and several wrong ways. Technology is important, but it won't be decisive on its own (economics geeks may recall Jevons Paradox). The real problem is the paradigm that our society has been following, and that system is based on wetiko, the parasite of the mind and cancer of the soul. It often seems that the only difference between capitalism and cannibalism is the spelling.
The TSAP endorses the ideas embodied in Steve Stoft's new book Carbonomics, most notably a tax-and-dividend system that would tax carbon (i.e. fossil fuels) at the source, and give all Americans an equal share of the revenue generated from this tax. (Note that our proposal to tax natural resources and pay out an Alaska-like citizen's dividend already includes this.) Yes, prices for various things would undoubtedly rise due to this tax, all else being equal, but the dividend will allow Americans to pay for this increase. The average American would in fact break even, but those who (directly or indirectly) use less energy than average will effectively pay less tax, while the energy hogs will effectively be taxed more, as they should be. Thus it is certainly not a regressive tax, and may even be mildly progressive. This is both the simplest and most equitable way to reduce carbon emissions as well as other forms of pollution, not to mention waste of dwindling non-renewable resources. The real challenge is getting the feds to accept something that won't directly benefit them (in the short term). Carbonomics also includes other good ideas, such as improving how fuel economy standards are done, and crafting a better verison of the Kyoto treaty.
In addition to the ideas in Carbonomics, we also support several other measures to help us end our addiction to fossil fuels once and for all. Our Great American Phase-Out plan would phase out all fossil fuels by 2030 at the latest, via alternative energy, efficiency, and conservation. One good idea to further the development of alternative energy would be the use of feed-in tariffs for renewable power sources.
Of course, it is not enough to stop emitting carbon dioxide, we also need to remove the current excess levels of it from the atmosphere as well, as that stuff can otherwise linger for centuries and continue wreaking havoc on the climate. We support ending net deforestation completely, planting a LOT more trees, and putting carbon back in the ground through carbon sequestration. One method is known as biochar, a type of charcoal made from plants that remove carbon dioxide from the air, that is subsequently buried. This is also an ancient method of soil fertilization and conservation, originally called terra preta. It also helps preserve biodiversity. Another crucial method would be regenerative organic farming, which also turns the soil into an effective carbon sink as well. And we will most likely also need to employ higher-tech methods of sucking carbon out of the air as well.
We've said this before, and we'll say it again. Our ultimate goal is 100% renewable energy by 2030, but we need to hedge our bets. We can phase out fossil fuels, or we can phase out nuclear power, but we can't do both at the same time--and fossil fuels need to be phased out first, and quickly. Nuclear is doing a pretty good job of phasing itself out as it is. So let's not get rid of it prematurely.
But the biggest elephant in the room (make that the elephant in the Volkswagen) is overpopulation. It does not make for pleasant dinner conversation, but it must be addressed or else all other causes become lost causes in the long run. We absolutely need to have fewer kids, or nature will reduce our population for us, and the latter will NOT be pleasant to say the least. The TSAP believes in voluntarily reducing the total fertility rate (TFR) to 1.5-1.9 children per woman to do so, but let us be clear that we do NOT support draconian and/or coercive measures of population control (like China has used). We believe that more liberty is the answer, not less. In fact, the two most effective means of reducing the birthrate are poverty reduction and female empowerment.
Fortunately, America's TFR has recently dropped to a record low of about 1.73 with no indication of rising back above replacement rate in the near term. But clearly we cannot keep growing and growing, that's for sure (in fact, we need to shrink). And our insatiable addiction to economic growth (despite being decoupled from well-being) is also every bit as harmful as overpopulation as well, if not more so. Growth for the sake of growth, the ideology of the cancer cell, is clearly one of the most asinine obsessions our nation (and world) has ever had. We clearly need to transition to a steady-state economy, most likely following a period of what Naomi Klein calls "selective degrowth" as well. And to do that, we need a radical paradigm shift to happen yesterday. Put another way, we need to leave room for Nature, lest Nature not leave room for us. We have been warned, decades ago in fact. Unfortunately, such warnings have largely fallen of deaf ears until very recently.
Yesterday is the time to jettison the Twin Big Lies that "everybody must work for a living" and "everybody must procreate". Because doing so is the sine qua non of any realist plan to avert ecological catastrophe.
Last but not least, the TSAP now believes that as long as men remain in charge, we are all merely rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Let's face it, it ain't gonna be us fellas who will save the world, as the past 7000 years or so have shown. We paved paradise and put up a parking lot, we created a desert and called it peace. We devoured and suffocated our own empire, and our proverbial 15 minutes of fame is almost up. Only when women finally take over and reclaim their rightful position as the new leaders of the free world--and they will--will there be any real permanent solution.
Bottom line: we need to take the environment much more seriously than we do now. We ignore it at our own peril. And while the current administration in DC clearly doesn't care, We the People must act nonetheless. With no apologies to the deniosaurs or Big Oil or Big Gas, or Dirty Coal.
Oh, by the way, wanna hear a joke? Peak Oil. Not saying it won't happen, of course--it will eventually peak and decline at some point--but climate change kinda supersedes it. While conventional oil most likely has already peaked, there is more than enough total oil (including unconventional) to deep-fry the Earth--and most of which needs to stay in the ground if we wish to avoid catastrophic climate change. Fossil fuels are, after all, what Buckminster Fuller referred to as our planet's "energy savings account", which we need to wean ourselves off of and save just in case of a planetary emergency--and he first said this in 1941!
So quibble all you want, but the truth must be faced head-on. Hindsight is 2020, and we have a planet to save. So let's roll!
Wednesday, December 18, 2019
Trump Has Been Impeached
Well, it's now official. As of today, December 18, 2019, Donald Trump is now the third president in US history to be impeached by the House of Representatives. The two articles of impeachment are 1) abuse of power (for abusing his authority to pressure and bully the Ukraine government to investigate Joe Biden and his son to get political dirt on him, thus attempting to get foreign interference in an election), and 2) obstruction of Congress (for blatantly ordering his underlings to ignore Congressional subpoenas relating to the aforementioned matter). It seemed like nothing he did would stick to him, no matter how horrible and outrageous, thus enjoying a level of privilege that very few even dream of, and thus he got even cockier and did this, finally getting himself impeached now.
Trump will then be tried by the Senate in January to decide his fate. And while the Republican-dominated Senate does not likely have enough defectors to have the votes to actually remove him from office, things can always change and stranger things have happened before. And regardless of what the Senate decides, the fact remains that Trump now has an indelible stain on him for all time. In the history books as well as his obituary, impeachment will forever be one of the first things mentioned and recalled about him. Really sucks to be him now!
And even if he "wins" in the Senate, his days are still numbered regardless Come the 2020 election, it is now exceedingly unlikely that he could possibly win with such a stain. Especially if we get a recession before the election. And once he is finally out of office either way, and no longer a sitting president, he will then be vulnerable to criminal charges for his too-numerous-to-mention misdeeds (for which secret and sealed indictiments most likely already exist) at both federal and state levels. Ruh roh.
Looks like you should have done a Nixon and pre-emptively resigned when you had the chance, Donald. Now it's too late for you to save face, regardless of what happens next. Sad!
Trump will then be tried by the Senate in January to decide his fate. And while the Republican-dominated Senate does not likely have enough defectors to have the votes to actually remove him from office, things can always change and stranger things have happened before. And regardless of what the Senate decides, the fact remains that Trump now has an indelible stain on him for all time. In the history books as well as his obituary, impeachment will forever be one of the first things mentioned and recalled about him. Really sucks to be him now!
And even if he "wins" in the Senate, his days are still numbered regardless Come the 2020 election, it is now exceedingly unlikely that he could possibly win with such a stain. Especially if we get a recession before the election. And once he is finally out of office either way, and no longer a sitting president, he will then be vulnerable to criminal charges for his too-numerous-to-mention misdeeds (for which secret and sealed indictiments most likely already exist) at both federal and state levels. Ruh roh.
Looks like you should have done a Nixon and pre-emptively resigned when you had the chance, Donald. Now it's too late for you to save face, regardless of what happens next. Sad!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
