MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Exclusive– Congressman: Nancy Pelosi Blocking Investigation into Chinese Coronavirus Origins, Tax Money to Wuhan Lab

Posted by M. C. on May 4, 2020

Anthony Fauci’s NIAID was involved in funds going to the Wuhan lab.

Yet this epidemic centered at this lab was a big surprise. Why?

Power, money, big government wanting to control the plebs?

So are we back to everyone’s first guess-Bio-weapons research? How deep is Fauci’s involvement in bio-weapons?

Are you getting the feeling that anywhere there is a government funded lab researching cures-there are bio-weapons lurking in a dark corner?

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/05/03/congressman-nancy-pelosi-blocking-investigation-chinese-coronavirus-origins/

by Matthew Boyle

Appearing on Breitbart News Saturday on SiriusXM 125 the Patriot Channel, Reschenthaler discussed his efforts to investigate tax dollars that flowed through a New York firm to the Wuhan lab. He said that Pelosi and House Democrats are not interested in holding the Chinese Communist Party accountable and, instead, want to focus their oversight efforts on politically harming President Trump again just like they tried and failed with the partisan impeachment last year and earlier this year…

Reschenthaler wrote a letter this week to Secretary of Defense Mark Esper inquiring about a Pentagon grant to EcoHealth Alliance, Inc., a New York firm that has had a history of funding the Wuhan Institute of Virology with subgrants from American taxpayers. The Pentagon grant the congressman was inquiring about was for research into bat-borne zoonotic diseases and their potential as weapons of mass destruction or biological weapons. While it is unclear if that grant saw U.S. taxpayer money flowing from it out to the Wuhan lab, it is known that another grant that EcoHealth Alliance received did partially spend U.S. tax dollars in the Chinese lab….

That grant, from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) — in particular the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which is run by the now-famous Dr. Anthony Fauci — saw U.S. tax dollars sent to EcoHealth Alliance for researching coronaviruses from bats flow out to the Chinese lab in Wuhan…

Be seeing you

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Blob Attacks: Gaslighting or Just Gasbagging? | The American Conservative

Posted by M. C. on May 4, 2020

“In Defense of the Blob” is filled with so many straw men, lies, and misdirections that the only takeaway is that we must have hit one hell of a nerve this time. The authors’ peculiar attempt to gaslight their critics, suggesting that we are seeing things that aren’t there, is weak. Like: 

Blob theorists view the establishment as a club of like-minded elite insiders who control everything, take care of one another, and brush off challenges to conventional wisdom. In reality, the United States actually has a healthy marketplace of foreign policy ideas. Discussion over American foreign policy is loud, contentious, diverse, and generally pragmatic—and as a result, the nation gets the opportunity to learn from its mistakes, build on its successes, and improve its performance over time.

No, no, and no. As a reporter in this ecosystem for more years than I care to admit, I can say with absolute certainty the reality is the opposite.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/state-of-the-union/the-blob-attacks-gaslighting-or-just-gasbagging/

After a 75-year-run of failure, the foreign policy elite is on the wane, with some clearly taking it harder than others.

It’s always fun to see the Washington foreign policy and Nat-Sec establishment get up on its hind legs at their critics. It doesn’t happen often, and when it does it’s usually when someone has touched a raw nerve, penetrating the bubble, if only momentarily. One time that comes to mind is when TAC’s Andrew Bacevich—he’s really good at this—called out elite bubble denizens Peter Feaver and Hal Brands for what he said was “close to being a McCarthyite smear” against realist thinkers in a Commentary piece entitled, “Saving Realism from the So-Called Realists.”

The two men (Feaver cut his teeth in George W. Bush’s National Security Council during the height of the Iraq War; Brands is an academic with a perch at the neoconservative AEI) implored TAC to publish a response, writing: “The stakes of debates about American grand strategy are high, and so it is entirely proper that these debates be conducted with passion and intensity. But it is equally vital that they be conducted without resort to the sort of baseless ad hominem attacks that impede intellectual discourse rather than encouraging it.”

Hrumph. It is not surprising now that both Feaver and Brands (joined by William Inboden, also in Bush’s wartime NSC), are at it again, this time with a longer treatise in Foreign Affairs, entitled, “In Defense of the Blob.”  The last four years have been rough for the establishment. President Trump, after running on a platform of getting out of endless wars, is a Jacksonian who refuses to hide his contempt for this entrenched policy class and all of their attending courtiers and courtesans, most of whom are leftovers from the Obama, Bush and even Clinton Administrations. Their “accumulated” knowledge means nothing to this president, as he has plowed his own mercurial course in North Korea, Syria, Iran and the Middle East.

If that wasn’t bad enough, Trump’s rip in the Washington Blob’s time-space-continuum has allowed realists and restrainers to quantum leap into the space like no other administration before. Suddenly, conservatives of all stripes are talking TAC’s language. Money is pouring into colleges and think tanks now, all with the goal of pursuing approaches outside the status quo of hyper-militarization and American hegemony. The wars have been largely maligned as failures of the two previous administrations and their “experts.” The Quincy Institute, populated by scholars from both the Right and Left, has risen up to directly challenge the idea of a necessary militarized “liberal world order” to secure peace across the globe.

“In Defense of the Blob” is filled with so many straw men, lies, and misdirections that the only takeaway is that we must have hit one hell of a nerve this time. The authors’ peculiar attempt to gaslight their critics, suggesting that we are seeing things that aren’t there, is weak. Like:

Blob theorists view the establishment as a club of like-minded elite insiders who control everything, take care of one another, and brush off challenges to conventional wisdom. In reality, the United States actually has a healthy marketplace of foreign policy ideas. Discussion over American foreign policy is loud, contentious, diverse, and generally pragmatic—and as a result, the nation gets the opportunity to learn from its mistakes, build on its successes, and improve its performance over time.

No, no, and no. As a reporter in this ecosystem for more years than I care to admit, I can say with absolute certainty the reality is the opposite. The major policy think tanks in Washington are rife with three sources of funding: government, private defense companies, and very wealthy neoliberal and neoconservative foundations (think Carnegie on the left, Scaife on the right). The National Security and “Grand Strategy” programs at elite schools are no different. They all have one thing in common: the status quo. As a result, the output is hardly dynamic, it’s little more than dogmatic, conventional thinking about world problems that keep bureaucrats in jobs and always meddling, the military amped up with more hammers and nails to hit, and politicians (and attending administrative class) favorable to either or both of these goals in Washington, preferably in power.

This is a closed club that offers only gradations of diversity just like Democrats and Republicans during the war: No one argued about “liberating” Iraq, only about the tactics. That was why it was so easy for Hillary Clinton’s Nat Sec team in-waiting to create the Center for a New American Security in 2008 and transition to an Obama think tank shop in 2009. Plug and play one for the other, counterinsurgency under Bush? Meh. Under Obama? Let’s do this! They all had a plan for staying in Afghanistan, and they made sure we were, until this day.

This doesn’t even include the orbit of research centers like RAND and the Center for Naval Analysis, which actually get government funding to churn out reports and white papers, teach officer classes, lead war gaming, and put on conferences. Do you really think they call for less funding, killing programs, eliminating lily pads, or egads, pulling out of entrenched strategic relationships that might not make sense anymore? Never. The same players get the contracts and produce just what the government wants to hear, so they can get more money. If they don’t get contracts they don’t survive. It’s how the swamp works.

As for it being a cabal? This ecosystem—the Blob—is a revolving door of sameness, a multigenerational in-crowd of status-driven groupthink inhabiting a deep state that is both physical and of the mind. It’s a lifestyle, and a class. To get anywhere in it, you not only have to have the right pedigree, but the right way of thinking. Ask anyone who has attempted to break in with the “wrong credentials,” or marched off the reservation in the early years of Iraq only to be flung to the professional margins. Conference panels, sanctioned academic journals, all run by the same crowd. Check the Council on Foreign Relations yearbook, you’ll catch the drift. You can be a neocon, you can be a “humanitarian” interventionist, but a skeptic of American exceptionalism and its role in leading the post-WWII international system? Ghosted.

The worst element of the Feaver/Brands/Inboden protest is not so much their pathetic attempt to suggest that sure, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya “were misconceived and mishandled,” but they were “no worse” than failures in the preceding decades, like the “bloody stalemate in Korea,” or “catastrophic war in Vietnam.” (This completely denies that the same consensus thinking has been leading our global and military policies for the last 75 years, therefore the same people who blundered us into Vietnam were also responsible for backing the contras in Nicaragua, and then blowing up wedding parties in Pakistan three decades later).

No, the worst is the straw man they present when they suggest that “scrapping professionalism for amateurism would be a disaster.” No one has ever suggested that was on offer. If anything, there has been every attempt, by TAC and the aforementioned new movements, to shift new voices—academics, military strategists, politicians, policy wonks and journalists—who represent fresh, outside thinking into the forefront, at the levers of power, to make a difference. People like Andrew Bacevich, Stephen Walt, Doug Macgregor, Chris Preble, Mike Desch, are hardly lightweights, but to the Borg, they are antibodies, therefore amateurs.

But Bacevich, Walt, et. al,  did not keep their mouths shut or try to obfuscate the truth during 18 years of failure in Afghanistan. That was left to the friends and colleagues of our esteemed Feaver, Brands, and Inboden. They cannot deny the Blob’s sins because it’s all in black & white in the Afghanistan Papers. That’s what has really hit a nerve, the raw exposure. Still, they cry, the Blob is “not the problem,” but the “solution.” We think not. And we think they protest too much.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Is Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai Trying To Splinter The Health Freedom Movement? – Collective Evolution

Posted by M. C. on May 4, 2020

For most of us I think this dismay is easily solved, when we decide to do our own research, and make our own evaluations about who is truly seeking unity and who is seeking division.

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2020/05/01/is-dr-shiva-trying-to-splinter-the-health-freedom-movement/

In Brief

  • The Facts:Dr. Shiva Ayyaduri and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., both who consider themselves a part of the Health Freedom Movement, are in a battle questioning each other’s motives.
  • Reflect On:Can we use this situation to hone our discernment and therefore be effective participants in grassroots movements?

We are at a time in history when we are being called upon to consciously join together to restore our natural and inherent freedoms. I use ‘restore’ with hesitation, since we have to acknowledge the fact that human beings have scarcely ever fully enjoyed their natural freedoms within their society. The United States after the American Revolution may have been the closest thing to it, although the abolition of slavery almost a century later would have to be considered an essential aspect of a truly free society. And by that time, powerful external interests had already begun their infiltration with an agenda to regain control and slowly erode the freedom of American citizens.

Nonetheless, this article is not meant to be a history lesson, but rather an examination of the reality we are facing here and now. Just as independent states united in the name of individual freedoms always needed to be extremely vigilant about deceptive wolves in sheep’s clothing intent on derailing that freedom, the grassroots movements of today need to be extremely discerning in order to recognize those within the movement that are actually agents provocateur with an agenda to derail the movement in the interests of the powerful overlords they serve.

Discernment of Motive

The characteristics of true and authentic participants in any grassroots freedom movement is the desire for unity. These participants respect the differences of others as a prerequisite to fostering that unity within the community. People are free to have and express their views, and true participants tend to be tolerant of signs of ignorance or even egocentricity, as long as it seems that the person has a real desire to arrive at the truth and help to promote freedom.

In a sense, this is what makes it easy to infiltrate grassroots movements. There are no established ‘leaders’ of these movements who decide who can be part of the movement and by what criteria. Certainly, some figures rise to positions of prominence within these movements due to their expertise and effective communication; but if these figures are true participants they maintain a sense of humility within the group, understanding that their opinion is not ‘more important’ than someone else’s, and only has value insofar as it helps lead the community to the truth.

The agent provocateur, on this other hand, has the goal of disunity and fragmentation of the community. Such a person may be a ‘sleeper’ within a community for a given period of time, and tends to be ‘on their best behavior’ at first in order to gain status and trust within the community. When activated, this person will try to divide the group, often by accusing those who are gaining status and respect of actually being the infiltrators and part of a ‘controlled opposition.’ This refers to people that publicly speak out against the powerful oppressors of freedom but ultimately do so in a limited/controlled way so that at crucial moments the full power of the movement is thwarted. The ‘controlled opposition’ may eventually get sussed out by the more conscious participants of the group, but by that time the agent may have succeeded at preventing the movement from spreading widely with their polarizing black and white accusations directed at others. In the past, this type of strategy has often been very successful in undermining a grassroots movement.

Of course, there are many internal disruptors within movements that are not agents of powerful forces, they are simply involved for their own self-aggrandizement. They want to ‘stand out’ in opposition to others who are gaining status, often accusing those others of being untruthful about their motives.

Either way, if we want to effectively support or participate in grassroots movements in the age of rapid social media communication, it is critical that we develop a high level of discernment in distinguishing between those who would foment division for their own ulterior motives, and those who are making tremendous efforts required to foster unity.

Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai vs Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

According to Wikipedia, Dr. Shiva Ayyaduri is an Indian-American scientist, engineer, entrepreneur, and promoter of conspiracy theories and unfounded medical claims. He holds four degrees from MIT, and garnered 3.4% of the vote as an independent candidate in the 2018 United States Senate election in Massachusetts. He is running as a Republican in the 2020 U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts.

In other words, Dr. Shiva is both someone who gets the attention of people interested in discovering the hidden truths in the sociopolitical arena, and someone who is running for a place in the political establishment. I first encountered Dr. Shiva in a video in which he was discussing details of the Climate Change agenda as a money-making hoax. I found him to be intelligent and articulate.

As a doctor, he has advocated for freedom of choice when it comes to our health. He has recently made criticisms about members of the Health Freedom Movement, labeling some of them as “controlled opposition.”

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a long-standing and highly respected vaccine safety advocate, had been enduring these criticisms for months without responding, but when his colleagues began to be attacked by Dr. Shiva, he was motivated to write an article entitled “Critical Questions for Dr. Shiva About His Attempts to Splinter the Health Freedom Movement.” His article opened like this:

For many months I have remained silent in the face of defamatory and dishonest attacks against me by Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai. My approach was to ignore the sniping to preserve the unity of the Health Freedom Movement. However, Shiva has expanded his malevolent campaign to include venomous salvos against our community’s most prominent and effective leaders, including Del Bigtree, Mark Blaxill, Dr. Rashid Buttar, Polly Tommey and Samoan-Australian activist Taylor Winterstein. Because he now has some of our outstanding spokesmen in his gun-sites, and because his poisonous volleys have begun to damage the solidarity that is critical to our success, I reluctantly make this response.

Dr. Shiva soon created a response to the article in a Youtube video entitled ‘Dr.SHIVA and Young Pharaoh DESTROY RACIST Robbie Kennedy, Jr. Party Over!‘ which currently has almost 50,000 views.

Testing Your Discernment

Comments about this battle on social media show that it is certainly causing confusion and dismay for many. Some are quite polarized in one camp or the other. Others are saying they don’t know who to believe. For most of us I think this dismay is easily solved, when we decide to do our own research, and make our own evaluations about who is truly seeking unity and who is seeking division. For our part, simply reading headlines on social media and following along with narratives that seem to match our own is not the way to truly support grassroots initiatives that we believe in.

Here’s a very valuable exercise for those who would like to consider themselves active participants in the Health Freedom Movement: Read RFK jr.’s article, watch Dr. Shiva’s response, and decide for yourself about who is truly seeking truth and unity and who is actually seeking to divide. By diving deep into the facts of any story like this, you are participating in an exercise in expanding your discernment that helps make it more difficult for infiltrators to break up these grassroots movements, and hence increases the ability of honest and dedicated human beings to come together and make the world a better place.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

‘Bill Gates seeks to microchip humanity!’ Russian Oscar-winning director pushes vaccine conspiracy… loosely-based on REAL patent — RT World News

Posted by M. C. on May 4, 2020

https://www.rt.com/news/487634-mikhalkov-bill-gates-microchip-implants/

Russian director Nikita Mikhalkov claims billionaire Bill Gates might be seeking to implant humanity with microchips under the guise of vaccination, seeking to control people and ultimately “solve” overpopulation.

The ongoing coronavirus crisis has produced a number of wild conspiracy theories, as some are trying to find the “secret” reasons behind the pandemic. A handful of them revolve around Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and his efforts to develop a vaccine against Covid-19.

One Microsoft patent that recently received international recognition has been found by many ‘truth-seekers’ to be particularly alarming. The patent WO/2020/060606 describes a “Cryptocurrency system using body activity data” – basically, a device which can be used to ‘mine’ some digital coins using one’s body. Or, rather, “award cryptocurrency to the user whose body activity data is verified,” as the patent abstractly puts it.

The patent did not escape Nikita Mikhalkov, renowned Oscar-winning film director, who pushed quite a theory in a new issue of ‘Besogon TV’ (roughly translated as ‘demon banisher’, dubbed, ‘In whose pocket the state is?’ The episode was aired by the Rossiya 24 TV channel on Friday, but was then quietly taken down from its schedule and not repeated – something Mikhalkov has taken for an act of “censorship.” 

Mikhalkov claims the very name of the patent has an occult meaning in it, accusing Gates of actually seeking to implant humans with microchips to control them, and tying it to his potential vaccination program.

The 060606 part is somewhat alarming. You probably understand this, right? Is this a coincidence or an intentional selection of such a symbol, which in the Apocalypse of John is called the ‘number of the beast’ – the 666.

Mikhalkov then goes on a rant about a dystopian future where digitized (and microchipped) society is split into two unequal parts, namely the elite and the human drones they control. In search of Gates’ global “co-conspirators,” he squarely points finger at Herman Gref, the head of Russia’s state-owned bank Sberbank, a known proponent of the digitalization of society. The director’s theory falls short of explaining how that system would solve the overpopulation problem, though – or why Russia would be keen to follow the American business magnate’s lead, for that matter.

Like any other outrageous theory peddled by a celebrity, the new issue of ‘Besogon TV’ went viral online, getting around 700,000 views in less than in a day.

Mikhalkov’s conclusions might be quite far-fetched, and the patent WO/2020/060606 is not directly linked to Gates, who has technically stepped down from Microsoft’s board to focus on running his and his wife’s Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Neither does it mention microchipping, instead describing “sensors” coupled with a “device” to register the body activity. One alleged purpose of such a technology described is to encourage healthy lifestyle with users awarded cryptocurrency for exercising.

Should that be a hype killer then? Hardly, as some would still be freaked out by the potential Black Mirror-esque applications of this tech, while the discussion on the encroachment of technology (and various forms of controls) on our daily lives has never been more relevant. And those who fear being forcefully microchipped by an evil corporation, should probably first check their own pockets for a little “tracking device” called a smartphone, which they had purchased and carry around voluntarily.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Chinagate is the New Russiagate | Liberty Blitzkrieg

Posted by M. C. on May 4, 2020

When the premier empire on the planet starts blaming external enemies for its internal problems, you know it’s almost always an excuse to let your own elites off the hook and further erode civil liberties. While it appears the novel coronavirus covid-19 did in fact come from China, and China tried to discourage other countries from taking decisive action in the early days, our internal political actors blaming China for their own lack of preparation and timely reaction is patently ridiculous.

Chinagate is far more dangerous than Russiagate because very serious fundamental problems within the U.S.-China economic relationship do exist. I don’t deny this, and I’m in favor of actual policies that would incentivize the American people to become producers and builders as opposed to castrated debt zombies.

https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2020/04/27/chinagate-is-the-new-russiagate/

Michael Krieger

I’ve become convinced the next major event that’ll be used to further centralize power and escalate domestic authoritarianism will center around U.S.-China tensions. We haven’t witnessed this “event” yet, but there’s a good chance it’ll occur within the next year or two. Currently, the front runner appears to be a major aggressive move by China into Hong Kong, but it could be anything really. Taiwan, the South China Sea, currency, economic or cyber warfare; the flash points are numerous and growing by the day. Something is going to snap and when it does we better be prepared to not act like mindless imbeciles for the fourth time this century.

When that day arrives, and it’s likely not too far off, certain factions will try to sell you on the monstrous idea that we must become more like China to defeat China. We’ll be told we need more centralization, more authoritarianism, and less freedom and civil liberties or China will win. Such talk is nonsense and the wise way to respond is to reject the worst aspects of the Chinese system and head the other way.

– From my 2019 piece: Two Paths Forward with China – The Good and The Bad

As the clownish farce that is Russiagate slinks back into the psyop dumpster from which it emerged, an even more destructive narrative has metastasized following the U.S. government’s incompetent response to covid-19.

It was clear to me from the start that Russiagate was a nonsensical narrative wildly embraced by a variety of powerful people in the wake of Trump’s election merely to serve their own ends. For establishment Democrats, it was a way to pretend Hillary Clinton didn’t actually lose because she was a wretched status quo candidate with a destructive track record, but she lost due to “foreign meddling.” This allowed those involved in her campaign to deflect blame, but it also short-circuited any discussion of the merits of populism and widespread voter dissatisfaction (within both parties) percolating throughout the land. It was a fairytale invented by people intentionally putting their heads in the sand in order to avoid confrontation with political reality and to keep their cushy gravy-train of entrenched corruption going.

Russiagate was likewise embraced by the national security state (imperial apparatus) for similar reasons. Like establishment Democrats, the national security state also wanted to prevent the narrative that the status quo was rejected in the 2016 election from spreading. It was incentivized to pretend Hillary’s loss was the result of gullible Americans being duped by crafty Russians in order to manufacture the idea that U.S. society was healthy and normal if not for some external enemy.

Another primary driver for the national security state was to punish Russia for acting like a sovereign state as opposed to a colony of U.S. empire in recent years. Russia has been an increasingly serious thorn in the side of unipolarism advocates over the past decade by performing acts such as buying gold, providing safe harbor for Edward Snowden, and thwarting the dreams of regime change in Syria. Such acts could not go unpunished.

So Russiagate served its purpose. It wasted our time for much of Trump’s first term and it helped prevent Bernie Sanders from winning the Democratic nomination. Now we get Chinagate.

When the premier empire on the planet starts blaming external enemies for its internal problems, you know it’s almost always an excuse to let your own elites off the hook and further erode civil liberties. While it appears the novel coronavirus covid-19 did in fact come from China, and China tried to discourage other countries from taking decisive action in the early days, our internal political actors blaming China for their own lack of preparation and timely reaction is patently ridiculous.

If Stacy and myself were able to see the situation clearly and respond early, why couldn’t our government? This isn’t rocket science. The Chinese were acting as if the world had ended in cities across the country and we’re supposed to believe U.S. leaders simply listened to what the CCP was saying as opposed to what they were doing? How does that make any sense?

It makes even less sense considering the Trump administration has been in an explicit cold war with China for almost two years. This concept that the American national security state just took China’s word for what was going on in the early days is preposterous. So what’s going on here? Similar to Russiagate, the increased focus on directing our ten minutes of hate at the Chinese provides cover for the elites, but Chinagate is far more dangerous because the narrative will prove far more convincing for many Americans.

Although Russiagate was rapidly embraced by people with severe Trump Derangement Syndrome, most people just didn’t buy into it or care. Only the most dimwitted amongst us actually believed the Russians were responsible for our major problems at home, but when it comes to China the argument can be far more persuasive because many aspects of the economic relationship between the U.S. and China are in fact problematic. Specifically, the U.S. transformed itself from a nation of producers and builders into a nation of debt-driven consumption slaves over the past five decades. While China played a key role in this process, it wasn’t the driver.

Did China force the U.S. to abandon gold convertibility in 1971, thus beginning the transition from an industrial empire into a financial one? Did China convince us to repeal Glass-Steagall, or lie about WMD in Iraq? Did China put a gun to our manufacturing executives’ heads and force them to offshore manufacturing, or did the executives do that with greed filled eyes while earning billions upon billions from labor arbitrage? China may have directly benefited from five decades of avarice-driven policy crimes committed by American “elites,” but they didn’t cause them. They are entirely homegrown.

Chinagate is far more dangerous than Russiagate because very serious fundamental problems within the U.S.-China economic relationship do exist. I don’t deny this, and I’m in favor of actual policies that would incentivize the American people to become producers and builders as opposed to castrated debt zombies. The problem is many of the people ratcheting up the volume on the evils of China (I don’t deny the abundance of evil) aren’t interested in bringing liberty and production back to America. Rather, they’re trying to take away more of your freedoms, economically and politically.

The same people who’ve been in charge of the country for the entire 21st century remain in charge. Presidential politics is pure theater in an empire. Think about it, the same people who brought you endless war, the surveillance panopticon and perpetual Wall Street crime and bailouts are supposed to take on China? The same China that made so many of them fabulously wealthy? Give me a fucking break.

The elitist agenda isn’t to use anger at China to bring freedom and production to our shores, but to use heightened emotional fear to tighten their domestic power grip. The idea is to use Chinese authoritarianism as a model for the U.S.

Unsurprisingly, the usual suspects are already coming out of their snake holes to advocate for exactly that. We saw this a few days ago when Harvard Law Professor and former George W. Bush administration lawyer, Jack Goldsmith, explicitly called for Chinese-like censorship of speech on the internet.

In the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network, China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong. Significant monitoring and speech control are inevitable components of a mature and flourishing internet, and governments must play a large role in these practices to ensure that the internet is compatible with a society’s norms and values.

By all means advocate for a reshuffling of the relationship between the U.S. and China that will lead to more freedom, resilience and economic vitality at home and I’ll support it, but don’t tell me we need to become China in order to defeat China. If we’re dumb enough to fall for that, we’ll get exactly what we deserve. Good and hard.

Be seeing you

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Erie Times E-Edition Article – Spike in COVID-19 cases expected in yellow phase

Posted by M. C. on May 3, 2020

On unemployment, will you still have a job, will there be a job, will there be anything left of your business?

Don’t worry, the almighty (the one in Harrisburg) will tell us…sometime. Meanwhile in Erie County…

Dahlkemper said there is no timeline as to when Erie could move to the “green’’ phase.

Dahlkemper said she is awaiting further state directives

It’s a decision that will be made by the state.

As the county prepares to enter the yellow phase, Dahlkemper said she will seek additional guidance from Wolf’s office on COVID-19 testing.

She said Erie County also needs to build on its contact tracing efforts, and will require additional state guidance for its enforcement and compliance division.

This is the politicians way of saying “no clue, no plan”.

That is how Erie County takes the reins to look out for you.

Don’t feel alone, that is the way it is all over.

A medical crisis that has been brewing in China for years. The CDC, NIH, WHO, CIA, FIB all did NOTHING to prepare and missed an epidemic sweeping China it until it was too late.

THE MASTER PLAN

So the solution chosen by the best medical minds money can buy is lockdown everyone and everything and pray to God (the one NOT in Harrisburg) that some one, some where, some how, some way comes up with a solution.

It was Patton that said If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.

I’ll bet Governor Wolf’s plan will be great once it is figured out.

Erie County needs its own plan. Now

http://tinyurl.com/y6veqmk9,

Spike in COVID-19 cases expected in yellow phase

Erie County Executive Kathy Dahlkemper believes it’s inevitable Erie County will see a spike in COVID-19 cases after it transitions starting Friday to the “yellow” phase of Gov. Tom Wolf’s state coronavirus reopening plan.

Dahlkemper reported two new confirmed COVID-19 cases Saturday, pushing the county’s total number of positive cases to 90. There have been 2,034 negative tests, and 66 people have recovered from the virus. One of the new cases is a person in their 40s and the other a person in their 50s, Dahlkemper said. Both people reside in Erie.

The “yellow” phase to which Erie County and 23 other northwestern and northcentral Pennsylvania counties were elevated to on Friday brings a loosening of restrictions aimed at slowing the spread of the new coronavirus.

“We certainly believe there will be a percentage of people who will relax their efforts with social distancing and wearing masks, and that does concern us,” Dahlkemper said. “We certainly feel people will be out more and around other people more, and when they do go out, they need to maintain that 6-foot distance. It will be up to each one of us. People

Dahlkemper

will probably get more relaxed, and that’s where the concern will be” Friday marked a resumption of the construction industry, and the opening of marinas, golf courses and campgrounds In Erie County.

Dahlkemper said county health department enforcement surveillance teams will monitor campgrounds, marinas and golf courses to observe and ensure residents and businesses are complying with guidelines.

“If they see anything egregious, they will call the business and ask them to correct it immediately,” Dahlkemper said.

Erie County is the most populated of the 24 counties granted “yellow” phase status, Dahlkemper said.

When Erie County partially reopens on Friday under the yellow phase, the county’s stay-at-home order will be lifted in favor of aggressive mitigation measures.

Under the yellow phase, large gatherings of more than 25 are prohibited; in-person retail will be permitted, though curbside pickup and delivery is preferable; restaurants and bars remain limited to carry-out and delivery service; telework will continue where feasible; and businesses with in-person operations must follow business and building safety orders.

Dahlkemper reiterated that businesses such as gyms, spas, hair and nail salons, casinos and theaters likely will not reopen until Erie County moves to the “green” phase of Gov. Wolf’s state reopening guidelines.

Dahlkemper said there is no timeline as to when Erie could move to the “green’’ phase.

Dahlkemper said the Millcreek Mall would likely remain closed under yellow phase restrictions.

“There is no way to control the number of people there,” Dahlkemper said. “How do you control crowds and make sure people are wearing masks? Will there be disinfectant stations available? It’s a decision that will be made by the state.”

Dahlkemper said she is awaiting further state directives on some businesses that fall under a gray area in the yellow phase, such as libraries, dog-grooming facilities and churchrelated activities.

Garden Centers will likely be able to reopen on May 8, she said.

Wolf’s office on Monday is expected to provide additional information on categories of businesses whose operational status is uncertain under the upgraded yellow phase.

As the county prepares to enter the yellow phase, Dahlkemper said she will seek additional guidance from Wolf’s office on COVID-19 testing.

She said Erie County also needs to build on its contact tracing efforts, and will require additional state guidance for its enforcement and compliance division.

Be seeing you

facebook_1568111427238.jpg

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Lockdown Wars: Debating Pandemic Measures in a Failed State | The American Conservative

Posted by M. C. on May 2, 2020

People and governments always invoke the safety and security of the majority when they are taking away rights for “our own good,” just like the Patriot Act did. It’s an old playbook, joined in this century by our First Amendment nannies on social media, who electronically block efforts to organize.

The public beach versus public transportation debate came as a new study showed that NYC’s “multitentacled subway system was a major disseminator—if not the principal transmission vehicle—of coronavirus infection,” seeding the virus throughout the city.

A Stanford doctor nails it: “Strictly protect the known vulnerable, self-isolate the mildly sick and open most workplaces with some prudent large-group precautions. This would allow the essential socializing to generate immunity among those with minimal risk of serious consequence, while saving lives, preventing overcrowding of hospitals, and limiting the enormous harms compounded by continued total isolation.”

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/lockdown-wars-debating-pandemic-measures-in-a-failed-state/

Home/Articles/Politics/Lockdown Wars: Debating Pandemic Measures in a Failed State

Lockdown Wars: Debating Pandemic Measures in a Failed State

If you thought COVID-19 wouldn’t get political, think again.

 

If America has a fast forward button on it, someone should push it ahead to November. We won’t be done with the virus until we’re done with the election. Between prudence and overreaction lies politics.

We bleat about wanting decisions to be based on science, then we do the same dumb red-blue thing, even counting the corona dead differently (nothing left certain but taxes now) to make the numbers seem better or worse depending on shifty politics. Something that should not be about Trump at all is All About Trump.

It’s killing us. There is no other country in the world so driven by a politics so devoid of science. Other countries have good leaders, some not so good. But look at us. Our nation is held hostage to protests and counter-protests, lockdowns and open bowling alleys. There is no other nation where so many are convinced their leader is actively trying to kill them, even imagining he wants them to drink bleach.

The MSM portrays protesters against government restrictions as Trump death cultists who’d rather end up in an ICU than skip a haircut. Such flippancy insults the righteous anger over lost livelihoods. It is an echo of the things that lost 2016 for the Democrats. The people don’t want haircuts. They want to feed their families. They want thought-out targeted restrictions instead of politically driven overreaction and fearmongering. It’s about deep emotional waters, sense of self, a whole lot more than just how the economy will help Trump win or lose. Many also are concerned that their rights, including to assemble, to worship, and to protest, are being controlled by leaders they don’t trust while a media they abandoned years ago mocks them. Beachgoers in a red state are #FloridaMorons; in a blue state it’s #SurfsUp.

But they see this time the Brooklyn elites are going a step further, beyond the deplorable label, to wishing them to catch the virus, figuring the infection will teach them a lesson before they vote wrong again. Wishing death on people you disagree with.

Elsewhere, medical professionals say the protesters have no right to put others’ lives at risk, and think it’s more than OK to physically stop the rallies. That’s called “the heckler’s veto” by the Supreme Court and is not allowed under the First Amendment, whether you’re a hero ER nurse or an abortion protester blocking the door to a clinic. Stopping someone from protesting by shouting them down, driving a car into their crowd, or otherwise trying to interfere with them exercising their rights (including the right to hold a dumb opinion or one you disagree with) is disdainful and unconstitutional.

The medical professionals and their Muppet chorus of journalists sound like some soldiers who felt their sacrifice was made cheap by people who protested the war. Thank you for your service. It does not, however, allow you to choose which people can exercise their rights. When you choose to serve you serve those you don’t define as worthy as well as those you do. It’s bigger than you, doc.

People and governments always invoke the safety and security of the majority when they are taking away rights for “our own good,” just like the Patriot Act did. It’s an old playbook, joined in this century by our First Amendment nannies on social media, who electronically block efforts to organize. If you’re screeching about how rights don’t matter when lives are at stake, you’ve got company. The KKK used that argument to block black people from marching, claiming it was a safety issue. Yet California will no longer issue permits for anti-lockdown protests at any state properties, including the Capitol.

Agree? Just remember what you’re saying now about these redneck inbred gun nuts the next time someone claims a march permit can’t be issued in the interest of public safety to a group you support. It’s the same thing, rights are rights. Because you know what else can spread rapidly if “left unchecked?” Tyranny. Justice Louis Brandeis held free speech is not an abstract virtue but a key element of a democratic society. He ruled even speech likely to result in “violence or in destruction of property is not enough to justify its suppression.” In braver times when Americans challenged the safety vs. liberty argument, the Supreme Court consistently ruled in favor of free speech, reminding us democracy comes with risk. But that was another world ago, before we measured human worth in RTs.

There is science which should be informing decisions. But while claiming a small rally in Denver will cost lives, or Florida will kill people by opening its beaches, the same voices remain silent as NYC keeps its subway running 24/7. The public beach versus public transportation debate came as a new study showed that NYC’s “multitentacled subway system was a major disseminator—if not the principal transmission vehicle—of coronavirus infection,” seeding the virus throughout the city. Without a superspreader like the subway it can be contained locally. It is tragic when the virus rips through a nursing home or meatpacking plant (it is a virus after all, it will go viral), but all of those together barely touch a week’s body count in New York. Shut down mass transport.

We can put most people back to work with limited risk; the protesters are right. The virus kills a very specific patient. About half the dead are over age 65. Less than one percent of deaths are under age 44. Almost 94 percent of the dead in any age group had serious underlying medical issues (about half had hypertension and/or were obese, a third had lung problems). The death toll in NY/NJ under total lockdown: over 27,000. Death toll in much more densely populated Tokyo with “smart” lockdown: 98.

About 22 percent of New Yorkers already have the virus antibody and thus expected immunity. One logical implication of this—that large numbers already have or had the virus, and that it is harmless to them—is simply ignored. Quarantine/social distancing should be for those most vulnerable so we can stop wrecking all of society with cruder measures. Hospitals should separate patients by age. No need to keep kids from school, especially if that means isolating them inside a multigenerational household. Let them wear soggy paper masks to class, even tin foil on their heads, if it makes things easier. Online classes are lame and America doesn’t need a new generation dumber than the current one.

The New York-New Jersey area, with roughly half the dead for the entire nation, practices full-on social distancing while Georgia was one of the last states to implement a weaker stay-at-home policy. Yet as Georgia re-opens, the NY/NJ death count is over 27,000. Georgia is 892. NYC alone continues adding around 500 bodies to the pile every day, even with its bowling alleys closed.

We judge risk versus gain for every other cause of death. We wear condoms. We watch our diets. Time to do the same for the virus. As for lockdowns, we may not even be judging them accurately. Some 22 states have had fewer than 100 deaths. Only 15 states had total deaths for the entire duration of the crisis higher than NYC’s current 500 a day. The original goal of lockdowns, to buy time for the health care system (and most resources were never needed due to over-estimates of the viral impact), has passed. If the new goal is Virus Zero it will never come. If the real goal is to harm Trump we’ll have to put up with this without serious discussion until November.

A Stanford doctor nails it: “Strictly protect the known vulnerable, self-isolate the mildly sick and open most workplaces with some prudent large-group precautions. This would allow the essential socializing to generate immunity among those with minimal risk of serious consequence, while saving lives, preventing overcrowding of hospitals, and limiting the enormous harms compounded by continued total isolation.”

We are fretting and frittering away our national muscle watching TV about a bigamous tiger keeper. There are too many who want this isolation to continue indefinitely, a pathetic nation whose primary industries for its young people are camming and GoFundMe. Politics focuses on viral deaths, but the Reaper keeps a more accurate tally: deaths from despair, from hunger (two million new people became food insecure in NYC since the virus), financial losses (26 million Americans have filed for unemployment), mental health issues, and abuse (domestic murders during the viral months in NYC  outstripped the total from 2019). In some ultimate irony, parents are postponing standard childhood vaccinations for fear of bringing their kids to medical facilities.

It is the reaction to the pandemic that exhausts us, not the pandemic itself. So when someone claims it is Money vs. Life they miss the real answer: It’s both. It should not be taboo to discuss this.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : Why Sweden Has Already Won the Debate on COVID ‘Lockdown’ Policy

Posted by M. C. on May 2, 2020

…but then Boris Johnson came under intense pressure from the media and opposition after the arrival of Imperial College’s notorious “500,000 dead” paper presented to the government by Prof. Neil Ferguson. As a result, UK officials quickly changed course in a “180 degree U-turn,” said Gieseck, who was shocked how an unpublished paper relying on computer models and with no peer review – could have played such a crucial role in altering such an important policy decision. How did that happen? One only has to look at the obvious nexus of funding between the UK government, Imperial College and the Gates Foundation to get a possible answer to that question. 

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2020/may/02/why-sweden-has-already-won-the-debate-on-covid-lockdown-policy/

Written by Patrick Henningsen

As Europe and North America continue suffering their steady economic and social decline as a direct result of imposing “lockdown” on their populations, other countries have taken a different approach to dealing with the coronavirus threat. You wouldn’t know it by listening to western politicians or mainstream media stenographers, there are also non-lockdown countries. They are led by Sweden, Iceland, Belarus, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Surprisingly to some, their results have been as good or better than the lockdown countries, but without having to endure the socio-economic chaos we are now witnessing across the world. For this reason alone, Sweden and others like them, have already won the policy debate, as well as the scientific one too.

Unlike much of the rest of the world who saw fit to unquestioningly follow China’s lead on everything from quarantining, to economic shutdowns, to contact tracing, and PCR mass testing, nonlockdown countries have instead opted for a somewhat lighter touch – preserving their economies and societies, and in doing so avoiding an endless daisy chain of new problems and obstacles deriving directly from the imposition of brutal lockdown policy.

On the European front, the Scandinavian country of Sweden is now garnering more attention than before, and has become an object of both criticism and fascination for those against or in favor of lockdown policy. While countries like the United States and Great Britain continue to top the global tables in terms of COVID-19 death tolls, Sweden has only suffered marginal casualties in comparison, while avoiding the intense strain on society and loss in public confidence which lockdown governments are now grappling with as they continue to push their populations to the limits of social stress and economic tolerance. You could say those governments are already careening over the edge by looking at the latest jobless figures coming out the US with 30 million new people filing for unemployment in the last few weeks.

Unlike many others, Sweden has not enforced any strict mass quarantine measures to contain COVID-19, nor has it closed any of its borders. Rather, Swedish health authorities have issued a series of guidelines for social distancing and other common sense measures covering areas like hygiene, travel, public gatherings, and protecting the elderly and immune compromised. They have kept all preschools, primary and secondary schools open, while closing college and universities who are now doing their work and lectures online. Likewise, many bars and restaurants have remained open, and shoppers do not have to perform the bizarre ritual of queuing around the block standing 2 meters apart in order to buy groceries.

According to the country’s top scientists, they are now well underway to achieving natural herd immunity. It seems this particular Nordic model has already won the debate.

Because Sweden decided to follow real epidemiological science and pursue a common sense strategy of herd immunity, it doesn’t need to “flatten of the curve” because its strategic approach has the added benefit of achieving a much more gradual and wider spread.

Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s government advisor for epidemiology explains, “We are all trying to keep the spread of this disease as low as possible, mainly to prevent our healthcare system from being overstretched, but we have not gone for the complete lockdown. We have managed to keep the number of cases low enough so the intensive care units have kept working and there has always been 20 per cent beds empty and enough protective equipment, even in Stockholm, where there has been a huge stress on healthcare. So in that way the strategy has worked.”

Similarly, it doesn’t have the deal with the newest “crisis” obstacle which lockdown states seem to be using as an excuse not to reopen society and the economy, which the fear of a “second peak” which governments are telling the public will wreak havoc on the nation by “infecting the vulnerable” and will “overwhelm the health services” if everything is suddenly reopened and social isolation and distancing is relaxed.

This catch-22 which countries like the US and UK are caught in is predicated on the belief that the coronavirus might suddenly unleash itself again on the populace. Certainly, there could be a second surge, but it should be noted that this is also a direct result of the decision to impose lockdown in the first place. According to top epidemiologist Dr Knut Wikkowski, the decision to lockdown only delayed the inevitable for countries like the US and UK, and quite possibly made the COVID-19 problem even worse than it would have previously been in the short to midterm, but in the long-term the results would be relatively the same proportionally in term of human casualties.

The penny should have really dropped after it was revealed two weeks ago by Oxford Professor Carl Heneghan, Director for Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, that the peak of the UK’s coronavirus “crisis” actually came a full week before Boris Johnson initiated lockdown on March 23rd.

In fact, if you plug in Sweden’s actual data into Neil Ferguson’s own infamous computer model which sent the UK government into mass-panic mode, here’s what you would get:

undefined
(bigger)

The numbers don’t lie, but statistics can be made to tell any story the narrator wants, especially when the storyteller is government. Just look at the last 50 years of announcements regarding unemployment and inflation levels. One thing we should have learned by now is that government will never let things like facts and real science get in the way of a slow motion train wreck in progress, hence you can see some UK officials still clinging to Ferguson’s initial prediction as some sort of “proof” that the lockdown was necessary to avoid “mass death.”

Outside of popular supposition and media talking points, there is no scientific study which shows that lockdown saved any significant number of lives. Instead, new data strongly suggests quite the opposite.

The Ribbing of Sweden

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Tucker Carlson Is Astonishingly Wrong About Any Looming Threat of Totalitarianism in America

Posted by M. C. on May 2, 2020

In contrast was Rubin. At 14:00, he announced: “I’m quite enthused about the world right now.” About what? This: “There’s a new world coming on the horizon” (14:07). It is a world in people will be able to work where they want because of telecommuting. He offered a 30-second sermon on liberation. He said: “This is still America.” Yes, it is. He had admitted that there is a problem with the suppression of information, but he makes it clear that he does not believe that this is a technological imperative, nor does he believe that it is a political imperative.

https://www.garynorth.com/public/20823.cfm

Gary North

I am impressed with Tucker Carlson.

I don’t watch Fox News, but I watch Carlson’s verbal editorials several times a month.

He has a gift for public speaking. He discusses things rationally. He also has a gift for rhetoric. He doesn’t just state the facts. He interprets them and then gives people encouragement to resist some of the trends of our day. There are a lot of really bad trends in our day. But, then again, there always are.

Recently, he came up with this term: “flu d’tat.” Anyone who could do this is my kind of guy.

He writes his own editorials. No one else could. Then he delivers them verbally.

This video is worth watching. It is worth watching because he skewers some leftists who really deserve to be skewered, including the ever-petulant Mark Zuckerberg. Second, he made a major error that needs to be nipped in the bud.

This is an almost flawless editorial. He showed a clip from the suppressed YouTube video by the physicians. He showed a clip from a YouTube spokeswoman defending the removal of the video. He showed a clip from Zuckerberg on Facebook’s suppression of inconvenient ideas.

He did this to present his case that we are facing a totalitarian movement. We have moved to a new phase of American history.

There was a major flaw in this editorial. You may have missed it. This flaw calls his editorial into question. Did you spot it?

The flaw was the man he interviewed. That man has it right. Carlson has it wrong.

The man was polite. He didn’t call Carlson’s thesis into question. Carlson seemed unaware of the fact that the man was overturning his case for the editorial. His name is Dave Rubin. He has written a book: Don’t Burn This Book (2020).

Rubin is a technician. He is trying to set up alternative sources of online communications to challenge YouTube and Facebook. I don’t think he’s going to be successful in this, but I certainly approve of the attempt. If he can make a profit doing it, so much the better. If he doesn’t make a profit, then it’s a futile effort.

Rubin did not use the word “totalitarian.” He used the word “authoritarian.” This distinction may not seem to be important, but, conceptually speaking, it is the heart of the matter.

Carlson kept bringing up the word “totalitarian.” This was a mistake. It made for a riveting editorial. It was a persuasive rhetorical term. But it made for bad analysis.

Because Rubin is correct, at the end of the interview, he displayed remarkable optimism. It is this optimism that we should adopt. But, before we do this, I must discuss definitions.

GETTING OUR DEFINITIONS RIGHT

Totalitarianism is a very specific kind of political order. It is an order in which the central government not merely undermines but actively destroys voluntary organizations. These organizations possess legitimacy. People trust them to deliver certain benefits in their lives. These organizations therefore possess authority. They are independent of the central government. The central government has to either destroy them or take them over by force. This is what was done in the Soviet Union. It is what was done in Communist China. It is what is done in North Korea.

In contrast, authoritarians recognize that they need the support of independent organizations. They know that they cannot stamp them out entirely. Therefore, they attempt to influence them indirectly. They may even subsidize them. They grant carrots, but there are sticks attached to the carrots. They buy off the leaders of these decentralized agencies of authority. Sometimes, they outlaw certain activities of these organizations, but they do not attempt to stamp them out. The authoritarian recognizes that he needs the support of decentralized organizations that possess legitimacy.

If you want a familiar example of this, consider tax exemption. It is granted by the Internal Revenue Service. This is a tremendous benefit to nonprofit organizations. Donations are tax-deductible. So, more money comes in for the causes. But, in order to get this grant of exemption, the organizations must not indulge in political activity. They can sometimes lose their tax exemption if they pursue certain policies that are considered politically incorrect by the nation’s bipartisan leadership. The threat of the loss of the tax exemption pressures the leaders of these organizations to toe the line on certain issues, but certainly not on all issues. The granting of tax exemption is not a mark of totalitarianism. It is a mark of authoritarianism. There is a difference.

Two generations ago, Hannah Arendt wrote a book: The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951). There is a Wikipedia entry on the book. It is one of the most important books of the 20th century. Wikipedia offers an extract, which is representative. She discussed the character and intellect of totalitarian leaders.

Intellectual, spiritual, and artistic initiative is as dangerous to totalitarianism as the gangster initiative of the mob, and both are more dangerous than mere political opposition. The consistent persecution of every higher form of intellectual activity by the new mass leaders springs from more than their natural resentment against everything they cannot understand. Total domination does not allow for free initiative in any field of life, for any activity that is not entirely predictable. Totalitarianism in power invariably replaces all first-rate talents, regardless of their sympathies, with those crackpots and fools whose lack of intelligence and creativity is still the best guarantee of their loyalty.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Deregulation Is the Path to Increasing the Supply of Medical Services | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on May 2, 2020

As Andreesen Horowitz writes, “Every Western institution was unprepared for the coronavirus pandemic, despite many prior warnings. This monumental failure of institutional effectiveness will reverberate for the rest of the decade, but it’s not too early to ask why, and what we need to do about it.”

https://mises.org/wire/deregulation-path-increasing-supply-medical-services?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=7625af7a75-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-7625af7a75-228343965

Many entrepreneurs and policymakers have embraced the expansion of capacity at hospitals and medical facilities as an answer to the spread of the COVID-19 virus. This effort has been characterized by an overwhelming shift in commercial productivity towards medical equipment (ventilators) and personal protective equipment (PPE). Along the way, however, businesses and medical professionals have endured significant regulatory hurdles.

Surprisingly, governments in some cases have acted to remove these bureaucratic hurdles to allow more expedient action by market actors. For defenders of market freedom this has become an opportunity to expose the relatively unnecessary bureaucracy that has accumulated around the price sector. Our goal now should be to ensure that these bureaucratic hurdles are permanently lifted since this crisis has proven, in some fashion, that these hurdles are counter to the interests of individuals.

Reforms in the United States of America

Despite regulatory reform being a stated goal of the Trump administration, nearly all of the federal administrative state remains intact. The administration’s reforms have left many state regulatory bureaucracies untouched.

However, this global health crisis has exposed some of the flaws in this system, which has been built over a century. Despite partisan bickering, it is the creation of numerous federal and state administrations of both parties, past and present.

These regulatory institutions grew over time in both structure and scope. Each new societal issue becomes fertile ground for a new agency or rule. This ever growing bureaucratic presence becomes problematic in times of crisis, as crises require swift action and flexibility.

During times of peace and prosperity, governments “stress test” so-called critical infrastructure to ensure that systems are prepared for different scenarios. As Andreesen Horowitz writes, “Every Western institution was unprepared for the coronavirus pandemic, despite many prior warnings. This monumental failure of institutional effectiveness will reverberate for the rest of the decade, but it’s not too early to ask why, and what we need to do about it.” The United States fortunately acted swiftly to curb travel between China and the United States, but by the time travel was prohibited, the novel coronavirus had already come to the United States via patient zero.

Regardless of how we feel about the speed of governments’ reactions, the fact remains that the complex web of governmental red tape made it incredibly difficult for the private sector to respond on its own.

James Ketler writes that the Food and Drug Administration granted only the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention emergency use authorization and prohibited other labs from using their own tests. The problem? Many of these CDC tests were ineffective. This blunder led to a delay in testing.

Even when testing began, it was revealed that “the amount of kits distributed at the beginning of February was nowhere near enough to confront the hordes of patients requiring testing by the end of the month. Without sufficient ability to diagnose patients over the course of the month, the crisis quietly intensified.” Fortunately, the FDA approved many more private sector tests in mid-March. By then the virus had been spreading for weeks.

In response to the increasing prevalence of the virus, state and federal regulators have gutted some regulations that posed an undue burden to the practice of medicine and to the operations of some businesses. The following are some examples:

● The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in mid-March effectively waived restrictions on telehealth. The White House announced that it would also stop “enforcing numerous elements of HIPAA, the health privacy law that, until now, heavily regulated providers seeking to deliver care remotely,” writes Stat.

● The United States secretary of health and human services paved the way for medical occupational licensing reform by waiving several rules, one of which “allowed compensation by federally funded programs of physicians and other providers only if they ‘hold licenses in the State in which they provide services.’ Now, providers must only ‘have an equivalent license from another State.’”

● The governor of Massachusetts issued a series of executive orders that allow nurses and some medical professionals who are licensed and qualified in other states to be licensed in Massachusetts within one day.

● According to the Washington Times, thirteen states have issued temporary suspensions or reforms to their certificate of need (CON) laws. CON laws “require healthcare facilities to receive government approval before establishing or expanding their services,” according to the Mises Wire.

● The governor of Texas waived state laws that prohibited alcohol delivery trucks from delivering grocery store supplies.

● Some states have loosened restrictions on the delivery of alcohol, as alcohol revenue is “responsible for 20 to 30 percent of restaurant sales across the country,” according to Eater.

Reforms in Brazil

Brazil has been addressing the pandemic in some similar ways. For example, it has implemented a provisional act that for thirty days permits medical assistance to be conducted online. Although it is not a permanent decision, this effort provides an opening for advocates of online medical services to demonstrate their effectiveness, especially for those who live far from hospitals or other medical care providers.

Meanwhile, although in 2016 the World Economic Forum’s ranked Brazil among the ten countries that most penalize producers and consumers via tariffs, during this global health crisis the Brazilian government has reduced this burden. It has issued decrees that cut the rates to zero for industrialized products, pharmacy and laboratory items, clinical thermometers, and medical gloves. Needless to say, this reduction in tariff barriers will provide Brazilians with cheaper goods and services, and will be instrumental in saving lives.

The Leviathan Still Haunts

Even as Brazil experiences some success in removing barriers to innovation and access to goods and services, calls for entitlement programs continue to expand. Advocates of a universal basic income and socialized healthcare have been growing in popularity. Elected officials throughout Brazil, including governors and mayors, have authorized the payment of vouchers and nutrition assistance to informal workers, students, the unemployed, and other groups.

As lovers of liberty, we must be vigilant to ensure that the recent gains in economic productivity and growth are not eroded during the crisis. Seemingly beneficial programs implemented during this period cannot become long term. As this virus has percolated, for example, there have been instances of Brazilian state agents confiscating factories and other private property under the guise of “preventing owners from being greedy.” As famed economist Thomas Sowell once said, “I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.”

Brazilians and Americans alike must utilize this opportunity to learn that complex rules and barriers hinder our efforts to act in times of crisis. The fewer impediments, taxes, and bureaucratic hurdles, the quicker we, as societies, will be able to respond to future crises.

 

Be seeing you

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »