People are OK in Japan, so why worry?

Old people don't get violent, right?

This made me laugh a little because Romania doesn't have a single ocean port. — Zophie

From the Black Sea you can get to an ocean. Here's a Romanian port.

Good idea but unfortunately totally illegal and no national law is going to set it aside. No discrimination between types of bond holders. — Benkei

Well, Trump could easily do it, if he was given the option. After all, according to Trump China was behind the pandemic. I think that Trump would be extremely happy to do it and his followers would be ecstatic that finally Trump. But of course, the Trump team is totally against these kind of ideas were rich people would make losses.

That Minnesota University report gave interesting scenarios. Was widely noted even here with the local authorities agreeing with it. Interesting to see how it works out in reality.

Scenario 1: The first wave of COVID-19 in spring 2020 is followed by a series of repetitive smaller waves that occur through the summer and then consistently over a 1- to 2-year period, gradually diminishing sometime in 2021. The occurrence of these waves may vary geographically and may depend on what mitigation measures are in place and how they are eased. Depending on the height of the wave peaks, this scenario could require periodic reinstitution and subsequent relaxation of mitigation measures.

Scenario 2: The first wave of COVID-19 in spring 2020 is followed by a larger wave in the fall or winter of 2020 and one or more smaller subsequent waves in 2021. This pattern will require the reinstitution of mitigation measures in the fall in an attempt to drive down spread of infection and prevent healthcare systems from being overwhelmed. This pattern is similar to what was seen with the 1918-19 pandemic. During that pandemic, a small wave began in March 1918 and subsided during the summer months. A much larger peak then occurred in the fall of 1918. A third peak occurred during the winter and spring of 1919; that wave subsided in the summer of 1919, signaling the end of the pandemic. The 1957-58 pandemic followed a similar pattern, with a smaller spring wave followed by a much larger fall wave (Saunders-Hastings 2016). Successive smaller waves continued to occur for several years. The 2009-10 pandemic also followed a pattern of a spring wave followed by a larger fall wave.

Scenario 3: The first wave of COVID-19 in spring 2020 is followed by a “slow burn” of ongoing transmission and case occurrence, but without a clear wave pattern. Again, this pattern may vary somewhat geographically and may be influenced by the degree of mitigation measures in place in various areas. While this third pattern was not seen with past influenza pandemics, it remains a possibility for COVID-19. This third scenario likely would not require the reinstitution of mitigation measures, although cases and deaths will continue to occur.

Whichever scenario the pandemic follows (assuming at least some level of ongoing mitigation measures), we must be prepared for at least another 18 to 24 months of significant COVID-19 activity, with hot spots popping up periodically in diverse geographic areas. As the pandemic wanes, it is likely that SARS-CoV-2 will continue to circulate in the human population and will synchronize to a seasonal pattern with diminished severity over time, as with other less pathogenic coronaviruses, such as the betacoronaviruses OC43 and HKU1, (Kissler 2020) and past pandemic influenza viruses have done.

I'm starting to wonder if we're going to slide into a great depression.

Thoughts? — frank

We already have slid to an economic downturn, a depression.

We just won't call it a "great depression" as that is basically a historical term. Even the economic depression after the 2007-2008 financial crisis is called now "The Great Recession".

Just think for a moment. From very low unemployment the US bounced up to high unemployment. In Europe there are estimated about 40 million unemployed. Here the unemployment is like 12% now. That has a huge effect on aggregate demand.

Then think about the pandemic. Even if the quarantine is lifted, social distancing continues. The pandemic wil continue. Hence people are going to be timid. That means this is here to stay, even if an idiot Trump thinks that people will flock back to spending and the economy will recover and he won't lose to sleepy Joe. I think a Minnesota study released now think the pandemic will be for two years (see article). WHO is now looking at Sweden as the model for going forward.

Dr Mike Ryan, the WHO's top emergencies expert, was asked about Sweden's strategy of shunning lockdowns and allowing most schools and businesses to remain open, told a virtual news conference on Wednesday: "If we are to reach a 'new normal', in many ways Sweden represents a future model."

That means basically means that we are in for a long haul, at least a year I guess. A year with downsized demand (as people continue social distancing) and with unemployment and the threat of unemployment guarantees a severe economic downturn.

And finally, we have still all the problems of the 2007/2008 crisis unresolved as the speculative bubble was artificially kept afloat. The private sector will deleverage and downsize.

Hope you made it great economically in the 2010's. At least the start of this decade will suck.

Too bad, I think he was a decent contributor to the forum.

Btw Finland had an experiment on Universal Basic Income done a few years ago. Here's the results.



In the end the experiment was rather inconclusive and basically viewed as a failure by some. Why it was only unemployed in the experiment makes it by my reasoning strange if the idea is really universal basic income.

In the end, the trial only involved people (2000 residents) who were already receiving Finland's standard conditional benefits — things like unemployment benefits, housing allowances, social assistance, and illness compensation that are afforded to unemployed residents by law.

A control group of unemployed people (around 5,000 residents) continued to receive these services. The treatment group, meanwhile, received a portion (but not all) of the same conditional benefits they had been getting before, in addition to small basic-income payments of 560 euros ($640) per month.

In 2017, that resulted in the control group receiving 7,300 euros ($8,000) in unemployment benefits and 1,300 euros ($1,400) in social assistance. The treatment group, meanwhile, only received 5,800 euros ($6,400) in unemployment benefits and 940 euros ($1,000) in social assistance that year.

One participant, Sini Marttinen, told the New York Times that her income only rose by 50 euros ($55) per month during the experiment.

"They were interested in the question that basically boiled down to: If you replaced conditional unemployment benefits with unconditional unemployment benefits, do you get increased employment?" Stynes said. By the end of the experiment, the basic-income recipients were no more likely to get a job than those in the control group.

This effect is always mentioned and I have never ever seen research into it proving it. — Benkei

It is quite true. Long term unemployment creates social exclusion.

From the point of view of poverty, curbing long-term unemployment is the key. The potential for finding jobs for the long-term unemployed is non-existent. The number of long-term unemployed who have had to fall back on labour market assistance after the maximum period of daily unemployment allowance is already over 100,000. Some of them have no working history because there was no such requirement in the previous basic daily allowance system. According to Santamäki-Vuori, the rise of long-term unemployment is introducing 'inherited poverty' into Finland. Deprivation, gloom and lack of prospects are transmitted to the children of the long-term unemployed and a poor class could be making a comeback into Finnish society. Lack of prospects is an integral element in poverty. A new phenomenon which has emerged side by side with traditional rural poverty is urban poverty, a phenomenon which might well propagate a variety of 'poverty sub-cultures' in Finland, as it has elsewhere.

(from publication POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN FINLAND
IN THE 1990S, MINISTRY OF SOCIAL AFFAIRS AND HEALTH
HELSINKI 1999)

Of course, not having any such system creates likely even more and worse problems.

Did Finland install its generous social safety early on? My guess is that it did. — Bitter Crank

The positive attitude towards welfare programs started early in the Nordic countries. I guess here it started with a huge land reform which was put actually through by the winners of the civil war, the whites, in 1918. That was the first sign that the classic liberalism (libertarianism) never was so close to heart even for the right-wing in Finland. The Nordic idea (typically referred to Sweden) of the Folkhemmet (the people's home) emerged at the start of the 20th Century and gained popularity especially in the 1920's.

The equivalent system to the American Social Security was launched in Finland in 1937 (two years after the US system). Unemployment benefits were started to be given in 1917. In the health care sector child health care centers were started first in the 1920's, the maternity packages were started to be given in 1930's and came to be given to all families with newborns from 1949. Universal Health Care started in it's present form I guess in the 1960's. I'd say basically Finland wanted to follow on the steps of Sweden, but WW2 made the plans to be implemented only in the 1960's as the country got more prosperous.

The idea is to give every adult in the US $1000/month. The numbers: 330M people, roughly three quarters of which are adults, times $12,000 equals about $3T dollars. Per year. But how to keep from ruining the dollar? — tim wood

Likely it wouldn't ruin the dollar. A lot of that would be raise the aggregate demand, so what's the problem?

What basically universal income does is that the threshold to take a job increases. This is obvious even more clear with unemployment benefits. In a welfare state like mine one if paid unemployment benefits to perpetuity (as long as one lives) with the social welfare net paying your rent for a small apartment in the capital or a larger house in the countryside. What really can happen is that it alienates some people not to work, but at least they won't be beggars on the streets and homeless (which is a huge advantage, actually). The logic is quite reasonable: if you go to work at McDonalds, basically you are going to be left with a similar amount of money, but you have far less spare time to uhh.... discuss universal basic income in PF.

I'm not saying not to do it. I'm saying you need to solve this problem. — Benkei

OK, in order to understand what we are talking about, let's look at the case of the US and what they could do and how their debt is owned, who are the lenders. First the size of public, private (household) and corporate debt compared to each other:


Note that the above is the aggregate debt as a percentage of the GDP starting with the US Government being the huge expender with fighting WW2, then it's portion decreased as the total debt increased. Let's divide the above into the different categories.

Then here's how the private household debt is divided. Notice that the vast majority of this debt is mortrages and then student loans. And notice the deleveraging that took place once the financial crisis of 2007-2008 hit home, then finally went back to the same levels before the pandemic:



Then there is the national debt, carried by the federal government of the United States. Only a third of the lenders are private people and institutions. This means that the haircut that ordinary people take (or ordinary pension funds take who's assets are made up of ordinary people's pensions) can easily take a smaller haircut while the fed and the US, and also those untrustworthy foreigners can get shafted. Who cares about those foreign investors stupid enough to invest in US Treasuries etc! A 2/3 debt jubilee certainly have an effect.



And last there is the corporate debt. Now this is very interesting as in my view NOTHING explains better the business cycle than corporate debt. Notice that this ends in 2018, two years ago.


This above ought to tell that this isn't just the pandemic, but a natural situation where an economic downturn would happen. The first credit cycle peak was the roaring 80's, next one was popping of the Tech bubble, then the popping of the Housing bubble and finally the popping of the bubble with the corona virus. The pandemic will put the corporate sector to deleverage again (I assume). And this is why I've said that the pandemic to be the perfect trigger of the next economic downturn. There will be a massive deleveraging if nothing is done, just look at the situation of household debt and corporate debt.

Large PSAs and banks are large holders of government bonds that they hold on behalf of pensions for everybody. Especially low paying jobs that don't naturally manage to save money will be hit hardest if their pensions are wiped out. So what's your solution to this? — Benkei

First, pension schemes aren't piggy banks. Especially the state versions simply pay with the contributions of the working the pensions of the present pensioners. And even private pension schemes can quit well make schemes to pensions that will be only paid decades from now.

Banks have to hold high quality liquid assets to meet regulatory obligations; mostly leverage ratio and capital requirements. They mostly hold that in bonds as well. So a debt jubilee will wipe out their capital base, making them much less safe vehicles for financing activities in the real economy. So you need to relax those rules or think of something else. — Benkei

You think after a debt jubilee there wouldn't be customers for banks? Financial sector would prevail. I'm sure of that.

Again the "German debt jubilee" is a great example just why the Western Allies would agree to this: the debt was mainly in the hands of Nazis or bankers close to the Nazis, hence when West Germany was established, the Western Allies had no desire to have those people having a say in the country's economy (as bankers do). Yet I agree that one thing that could be relaxed is things like mark-to-market. I don't know, perhaps have the ability just like now I can to deduct from capital gains taxes investment losses for some years. The debt jubilee is already quite spectacular accounting phenomenon. And then again, we have a fiat monetary system.

Here's Michael Hudson about the subject:

America’s 2008 bank crash offered a great opportunity to write down the often fraudulent junk mortgages that burdened many lower-income families, especially minorities. But this was not done, and millions of American families were evicted. The way to restore normalcy today is a debt write-down. The debts in deepest arrears and most likely to default are student debts, medical debts, general consumer debts and purely speculative debts. They block spending on goods and services, shrinking the “real” economy. A write-down would be pragmatic, not merely moral sympathy with the less affluent.

Critics warn of a creditor collapse and ruinous costs to government. But if the U.S. government can finance $4.5 trillion in quantitative easing, it can absorb the cost of forgoing student and other debt. And for private lenders, only bad loans need be wiped out. Much of what would be written off are accruals, late charges and penalties on loans gone bad.

It will also evaporate most pensions so you need to think of something there. — Benkei

Benkei...you really care for rich people? Besides, the system is fractional reserve banking. It's not like it's just your savings that the bank lends forward.

Simply have the debt jubilee with a default on the debt. Or make it a one off wealth tax: Below 100 000$ you get one to the dollar, below 1 000 000$ you get 0,90c to the dollar and over million you get 0,5c to the dollar. How many people have for example US Treasuries to the tune of over 1 million USD?

Or do it like the Germans. They had their "debt jubilee" after WW2 with their 1948 with their currency reform when they replaced the Reichsmark with the Deutsche Mark. I think you remember how good and stable the DM was, which made the backbone of the Euro (or so we thought). 90% of German government and private debt was wiped out! And then they had the "Economic Miracle" afterwards in West Germany. So yes, debt jubilees do work! Just ask yourself, Benkei, are you on the side of the bankers or of the people?

How Ludwig Erhard did it:

The old Reichsmark and Rentenmark were exchanged for the new currency at a rate of DM 1 = RM 1 for the essential currency such as wages, payment of rents etc., and DM 1 = RM 10 for the remainder in private non-bank credit balances, with half frozen. Large amounts were exchanged for RM 10 to 65 Pfennig. In addition, each person received a per capita allowance of DM 60 in two parts, the first being DM 40 and the second DM 20,

This man shows the way:


Let's have those midget banks in Wall Street with little or no assets. After all, once the US would do a similar default like Germany in 1948, all those banksters would still come to lend it. Who else would they lend to? And who would argue with the US? Would China want to start a war with the US? Nope, US still has a good nuclear deterrence and the largest armed forces anywhere.

(I've tried to look for a clear explanatory lecture, seminar or article about the issue, but usually it's just a promo on helping the Third World or something. If anyone finds a clear and in-depth article etc. about the issue, I would be interested.)

What it means in the financial forecast is that the money borrowed is paid back down stream. Our kids and grandkids are going to be paying it.
The damages to any society that are emotion based are much harder to heal from than any problem money can solve. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Of course, there is the option of a) inflation, b) default.

How about a debt jubilee?

Or is it going to be again a bailout of the extremely rich and with more people falling to the "barely surviving" category?

I think we have had the dead cat bounce now (from -30% back up to -15% from the all time highs). But of course, does any fed supported asset prices reflect reality?

↪praxis ↪ssu SSU, pay attention to this prediction please, that will be #2. :joke:

Corona. Next stop Brasil. I think the contenders for most deaths in the short term are Brasil and Iran. In the long run it will be India and China but that's once it's become seasonal. — Benkei

You might be right.

Yet I think both of these countries will try to hide the real numbers (especially Iran). It will be as murky as the number how many Iraqi children died because of the UN sanctions in Iran.

The ability of the average guy to be heard is much higher today than it was when there were just newspapers and a few major television stations. The only way to be heard back then was to write a letter to the editor that might or might not be published. Now, all I have to do is write whatever bullshit I want and some guy in the Netherlands starts offering me his perspective (which I do appreciate). — Hanover

Is it higher?

If (and that's a big if) you got back then your letter to the editor being published in a major newspaper, I guess you were far more heard than discussing it here with our Dutch companion. You know the time when people read newspapers, the comment section was read by a lot of people.

Some economists believe that a relatively low growth rate is normal for a rich nation, because there’s less of an incentive to work, people have fewer children, and so on — praxis

A poor country can indeed get more easily higher growth figures. Getting people to earn 2$ a day from 1$ a day is quite easy. Getting people earn from 100$ to 200$ is another thing. What's the "some" here for? I guess that is quite reasonable.

and that a declining GDP will increase inequality to destabilizing levels if unmitigated by policies that include wealth redistribution. — praxis

Actually, in an economic recession (declining GDP) income inequality typically decreases. The poor stay poor, but the rich aren't getting the profits. This happened for example in my country when we had a serious economic depression (thanks to speculative bubble and a banking crisis) in the 1990's.

You're either not understanding what I'm saying, not reading, or not caring. — h060tu

Actually, I did understand that likely you didn't intend to saying that United Fruit / the US wanted to kill ALL Guatemalans, but saying that the "intent was to kill the Guatemalan people" can interpreted literally. That the Guatemalan junta wanted to kill all leftist rebels, their sympathizers and anyone helping them is a better way to put it. When in an insurgency the government response is unrestrained violence, the outcome can indeed be something approaching a genocide. But the intent then isn't genuine genocide of "lets eradicate all the people of this ethnicity/religion/class and we have solved our problem". There are examples of those genocides: the Holocaust, the Holodomor, the genocide against Armenians, Cambodia, Rwanda etc.

I didn't say that there weren't different visions within the Oligarchic structure. There are. Wilsonianism is one of those. - I always say that there are different factions, sects and interest groups within the superstructure of the Oligarchy which do different things and want different things — h060tu

And that's a great start, which I agree with.

But note what impact the above has on a lot of conspiracy theories. Yes, there might be a cabal of people trying to promote and advance their agenda, but large events are effected by a myriad of groups having their own agenda. Things can have unintended consequences. And you have to show that one specific cabal is really calling all the shots and all other actors are playing along. Conspiracy lovers seldom want to hear details that go in other direction from their conspiracy narrative. Simply put it, source criticism and detail are important.

Hence one of the errors we make is to assume a consensus among a large group of people who don't share a common agenda. We easily generalize and simplify and talk for example about "the CIA" doing this or "Moscow", "London" or "Beijing" doing that.

A great classic, a small booklet by Major General Smedley Butler called War is a Racket gives nice perspective on these issues. However my point is not to look at events from just from one viewpoint and with one narrative in mind. For example, studying history which has been written from different perspectives gives a far more clear view about these issues. Many times the history of Latin America, especially Central America is quite "US centric". Yet a lot of the structural weaknesses and societal problems come from earlier times of Spanish rule. And if a native American state would have somehow survived to this day without colonization, just like Ethiopia in Africa (as the Italians didn't hold all of the area during their occupation), the problems would likely still be there (just look at the history of Ethiopia). And when the "conspiracy theories" come up from various different approaches, that tells that they indeed have happened. That our historical understanding from other countries is usually even more limited doesn't help.

We cannot model mathematically a person behavior. And so, we can draw conclusions from the fact (from the objective situation) without answering what’s the reason. — philosopher4hire

Your reasoning that because we cannot model an individuals behaviour, mathematical modelling is useless is simply wrong. It's not a fact. It would be like saying these times that epidemiology is useless because it cannot predict if one person gets the virus or not, hence it's useless.

For a science you need to scientifically (that is: mathematically) move from one point to the next one. You need a mathematical PROOF. — philosopher4hire

This is a really bizarre rigid understanding of the scientific method. (Note also that in math there are unprovable objects and many things are uncomputable.)

I think it's pointless to go further with this discussion as it seems that you are not open to other views on the subject once you make such grand and decisive conclusions.

Trump's environmental record so far:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/03/how-trump-is-changing-science-environment/ — Xtrix

Thanks for the link. Oooh... Trump has done something for the environment! Ooooh...

President Donald Trump signed a bill that provides protections to over two million acres of lands across the United States. The massive package was well-received by environmental groups, hunting and angling groups, and lawmakers from both parties; before Trump signed, it had easily passed in both the House and the Senate.

The package touches nearly every state, designating 1.3 million new acres of wilderness lands across several western states; creating new national monuments in Mississippi and Kentucky; and protecting hundreds of miles of rivers under the Wild and Scenic Rivers program. In addition, the bill guarantees authorization for the popular Land and Water Conservation Fund, a program that uses revenues from offshore oil and gas drilling to fund public lands and conservation efforts nationwide.

Likely at start the proposal was 13 million acres, but still.

Yes it was. That was the intent. Just like Madeline Albreight admitted, on tape, that a few hundred thousand if not a million Iraqis dying was a "sacrifice she was willing to make" or something to that effect. Yes, they knew what would happen if they installed a murderous dictator and directed him to kill the population. They knew, and they thought the sacrifice worth the action. — h060tu

You make my case.

First, it's Madeleine Albright. Second, the quote you refer Albright saying was about UN Sanctions, which were put on after the Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. Later Albright was against the invasion of Iraq, so what has that do to with Guatemala, really? And thirdly, how about that the Carter administration barred all sales of military equipment to Guatemala and later extended the ban to commercial sales because of the atrocities? Even if Reagan came along later, you still simply cannot make these kind of simplified generalizations that don't go with the facts. Or, when you say that the intent was to kill the Guatemalan people, who would then pick the Banana's? Did the United Fruit Company, according to you, have an idea to replace the people with new ones or what?

What I earlier forgot to mention is also the omnipotence that conspiracy theorists give to the elites, the Illuminati and/or the US. How nothing happens by chance/accident and especially how nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING happens in other countries because of domestic actors due to their own agendas, which can be totally unrelated from the conspiracy discourse. No, those people are mere stooges and lackeys of the CIA and the powerful elites. Every tragedy in the World happens because of evil elites. That's the basic conspiracy theorists punchline today.

It means, we start with something that cannot be modeled mathematically. - can we model 2, 3, 5 persons? No. We cannot. The science based on mathematics is helpless here. — philosopher4hire

Perhaps you should give a clearer reason for this as we do see that math can be used in modelling especially behavior of large groups. And statistics and probability theory do work.

The problem you describe as: "Our understanding of what happens when materials burn doesn't effect how materials burn. But our understanding of how the economy works DOES, when looked from the aggregate level, effect how the economy works."
Is known to science for example as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It DOES NOT prevent the real science from using mathematical models. — philosopher4hire

Still, going from quite exact calculations to probabilities does tell something. Besides, this is a far more simple issue. It isn't the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, as this doesn't need at all quantum mechanics.

Many economists shove aside the problem with similar answers, assume probabilities or assume a game theoretic min-max solution or some dynamic models which gives a stable solution. But in doing so they make premises, that cannot be taken into account in all situations of the real world. That the social sciences are also subjective is a big problem.

I'm very happy for not having to choose between Biden and a Third party candidate. :smile:

Happy with my own President, voted for him now twice (and he won both times). Even if I disagree with his stance on NATO, that's peanuts compared to the insane bleach-injector Trump. Rather OK even with the leftist-centrist administration in dealing with the pandemic.

Yes...I should shut up now.

?
If you refer to me, I did (the link above).

And I just wanted to give a logical reason why social sciences differ and cannot reach the objectivity of natural sciences. This limitation hardly makes the topic studied somehow less important.

Did you understand my point?

In the actual article you make the correct point that economics is different:

economics, which subject is a product of the human behavior (mind) are something completely different from physics, chemistry, biology or engineering. That is sciences dealing with ‘the behaviors’ of the matter. This is the main thought contained in this text.

The simple fact is that economics or sociology simply cannot be like natural sciences. Our understanding on how the moons of Jupiter rotate don't effect the rotation of the moons of Jupiter. Our understanding of what happens when materials burn doesn't effect how materials burn. But our understanding of how the economy works DOES, when looked from the aggregate level, effect how the economy works. In economics as in social sciences there is this subjectivity which we cannot avoid. The models (typically mathematical) have this inherent limitation: they can model something in the real World rather well, but then the World and our behaviour can change. Chemistry doesn't change the same way.

And if you say economics isn't a science, well, history isn't a science. But I think without any understanding of history, you and me would be quite clueless about what is happening around us. In every respectable university they still study history.

Uh, except there are literally documents which show that there are things that are planned. — h060tu

And what you have to use is source criticism. There are indeed conspiracies, and then there are those that aren't. And one has to understand which are true and which are not. Yet everything isn't planned and few things are conspiracies. The leaders are quite clueless about the future.

For example, the 1954 coup in Guatemala was planned to destroy the government, and kill the population to protect US crop interests. — h060tu

Taken literally what you said above, doesn't make sense at all. Really, to kill the Guatemalan population? Like Hitler with his "final solution" with the Jews? Likely that wasn't your intent, but this is what source criticism is like. That the civil war in Guatemala was the longest in Latin America 1960-1996 and about two hundred thousand died wasn't the intent. This is the typical error that conspiracy theorists make: the agenda of someone is inherently evil, totally diabolical. It's not just a bad policy or immoral and unethical, it is genuinely evil. This passionate stance destroys objectivity. You really have to make a credible argument that someone really planned to have a civil war going on for 36 years and the objective was genocide. Because otherwise the normal history of Guatemala holds: that the United Fruit Company, the largest landowner in Guatemala, protested that the government of Guatemala began expropriating unused Company land to landless peasants, lobbied and then got the CIA to orchestrate a military coup that lead to a long civil war. That the United Fruit company wanted to change the demographics of Guatemala like Hitler wanted with Europe sounds very peculiar.



In a way conspiracy theorists go a notch further than let's say Noam Chomsky, an archetypal long term critic of the US establishment who sees as his role to criticize the US in every aspect. In fact there's a surprising equivalence between Noam Chomsky and Alex Jones. A lot of the points are the same, which are facts. But then there's the difference. Chomsky doesn't see 9/11 as an "inside job", doesn't see that the Illuminati want to decrease the population by all the bad things happening in the World. Chomsky might see as the only good thing that the US funded and AIDS program under Bush (or similar events), but typically real conspiracy theorists don't see anything good. Except Trump when it comes to Alex Jones.

Yes. I think the scare of Corona-virus will fade away once it isn't hyped by the media AND when the worst is over. At least next year we are tired about the whole pandemic. But then people will be worried about the jobs and the economy will simply suck. At least for a couple of years.

But think of the positive things: The recession decreases dramatically carbon emissions!

In China, carbon emissions were down an estimated 18 percent between early February and mid-March due to falls in coal consumption and industrial output, according to calculations first published by climate science and policy website CarbonBrief. That slowdown caused the world’s largest emitter to avoid some 250 million metric tons of carbon pollution—more than half the annual carbon emissions of the United Kingdom.

Meanwhile, in the European Union, declining power demands and depressed manufacturing could cause emissions to fall by nearly 400 million metric tons this year, a figure that represents about 9 percent of the EU’s cumulative 2020 emissions target, according to a preliminary forecast issued last week.

It's been estimated that the pandemic could trigger the largest ever annual fall in CO2 emissions this year, more than during any previous economic crisis or period of war. At least, air pollution levels are notably lower.

Next Trump rally maybe. — Hanover

That indeed! Alhough Trump rallies aren't tourism. Perhaps for some Americans...

Plenty of time for Gavin Newsome, Gretchen Witmer, Andrew Cuomo or someone else (but for fartin' fuck's sake NOT Shillary!) who hasn't already campaigned & dropped-out to be recruited / dragooned into cleaning-up tRump's disasters. — 180 Proof

In your dreams.

That would mean that the DNC would a) admit their failure, b) make dramatic changes and c) take risks. The geriatric leadership of the DNC will follow their selected path with Biden while patting themselves on the back just how easily they avoided Bernie being a problem.

Hence the last thing is to hope that they pick a good vice-presidential candidate. When President Biden has to take a "sick leave".

Isn't sexually harassing women a precondition to be a president of the US? I guess for American male politicians, who typically are quite old, it's important to show to be virile.

Those naturally who cannot work because of the lockdown and have bills to pay. I assume that the hardest hit is the service sector. Travel, restaraunts etc. It will be some time before tourists will flock to Northern Italy, you know.

When will we see these kinds of crowds? In a few years perhaps, likely not this year and the next...

since there's no way crazy ideas like critical thinking and freedom could have caught on without some kind of nefarious agenda like that. — Pfhorrest

This is the problem typically with conspiracy theories. Everything that happens has to have been planned by someone, who basically is against the "ordinary" people. It has to be the Jews, the Illuminati, the Freemasons, the Globalists, the Communists, the Cultural Marxists, the liberals, whoever acting as the instigators and following their hideous sinister plans.

The idea that large changes can happen without someone having planned them is far too difficult to understand.

I assume many countries will start loosening up their restrictions and adapt more of the approach that Sweden has. I think they are starting to be confident that their health care systems won't collapse.

A lot of countries are planning to open schools etc. Spain is ending it's strict curfew. France is planning to open school at the 11th of May. Austria on the 18th of May. Norway is opening primary schools I think today. And for example here the "lock down" hasn't been a curfew with places like barber shops having been open and there has been always the possibility of going outside to exercise, just remembering that social distancing.

In a time when there wasn't freedom of speech and people had to be very careful what they said in public, it is no wonder that secret societies were very much in need during the 18th Century. That the "Founding Fathers" were Freemasons is quite understandable during the time.

Also, that the political, cultural or economic elite is in any country a rather small group shouldn't be a surprise. Having networks is and has been totally reasonable for the elite in history as it's now. Networks actually create an elite.

And knowing Americans, who naturally (thanks to their history) don't have an aristocracy, have always yearned for one (just think about the fascination with the Kennedy family), joining a "secret" society which has had so many US Presidents starting from the first one as it's members creates envy and interest to join. And finally conspiracy theories too. Especially when the political elite isn't so appreciated today in the society.

The not so secret society:

Cash won't evaporate, it will go to the rich people. :grin:

And there's a long way to get universal income especially to the US. What likely will happen, actually quite unintentionally (even if many will disagree with the unintentionality), is socialism for the rich. Because what the central bank will do and is doing right now is not to let this become a banking crisis. And what Trump easily understands is that if people's savings are lost (if the stock market plunges), that has a huge impact on a lot of voters. And btw, on Trump's own wealth too. Hence we will see many stimulus packages to come.

These awkward stimulus packages to "ordinary" people are going be done with the efficiency equivalent to universal corona-testing program. But once or twice done time stimulus won't go far.

We are seeing this now. The S&P500 Index is below the top only -16%. In truth the worst economic situation for decades isn't really comparable just to a -16% drop from the all time highs, but that's the issue. Asset inflation was the answer last time, and they'll try it again.

the idea that Trump would shake up the system is only based on their idea that because Trump is so incompetence it would destroy the fundamentals of government, and then everyone rebuilds a new government upon it. — Christoffer

I disagree.

People had watched Trump, the reality TV star, and thought he was a competent businessman. He was a billionaire, so someone that Americans look up to. Never mind the actual reality, which is "fake news" to those who believe in Trump. Besides, an incompetent and inept president cannot destroy the fundamentals of government. The agenda of Stephen Bannon never was really picked up and wasn't executed as in reality for a President to have any impact on the government he has to have at least some leadership qualities. Trump doesn't have any. But he's a great showman.

The Trump of his supporters:

I cannot see their reasoning behind it as anything other than idiocy and uneducated emotional outburst to blame someone for their own shitty lives. — Christoffer

If you think so, what is then your answer? Not having a democratic elections or what?

Hopefully this moron of a president will finally get into his small head that he is doing damage to his image by these daily appearances where everybody can see how totally clueless and stupid he is. A blabbering fool.

Agustino wasn't blind to Trump's faults but accepted them as a necessary evil to shake up the system — Benkei

How long people will believe that utterly stupid line? Trump hasn't shaken up the system. Not a bit. On the contrary, corruption flourishes extremely well under an inept and defunct administration. All he has been able to do is that tax cut for the rich.

It's only a problem if the small percentage of people who "own" the resources decide not to share them. then there's an immediate trickle down effect, resulting in no jobs. That's a type of hoarding which could be triggered by fear, as we saw with the hoarding of toilet paper. I think there would only be a serious economic depression if the fear snowballs. — Metaphysician Undercover

? ? ?

Sharing? I'm not so sure what your idea is.

First of all, let's think about this just from the US point of view. Those 26 million or basically 30 million now newly unemployed, which constitute roughly about 15% of the workforce, have already put the economy on a downward trend. The measures taken to fight the corona virus have triggered the collapse of the speculative bubble which has been propped up since the Great Recession of 2008. Hence all won't come back to normal even if every country would ease the restrictions to fight the pandemic.

You think those now unemployed people will spend as they did before? How many are going to go take that trip in the summer? How many in general are going to take that trip somewhere next summer? How many people in general are going to make huge investments like buying a house now? The vast majority will postpone trips and people simply will spend less. And when tens of millions of Americans doing that, it has huge consequences, no matter if the 0,01% are doing OK.

People spending less will mean that the aggregate demand will plunge and hence the economy won't recover in a V-shaped manner. This will mean that only a portion of those now unemployed will get their jobs back. There will be an economic recession.

Then add the fact that this is happening around the World. It will be a global recession. The central banks can save the banks, they can get prop up the stock markets, but they cannot get unemployed to spend as they were when employed.

Just a small anecdote that shows how US Stimulus packages work in real life:

With the first "small business" stimulus package roughly 80% of the money went to 4% of the applicants. How did that happen? Well, US banks wanted profits, of course:

Four class-action lawsuits have been filed against banks doling out federal stimulus funds earmarked for small businesses, accusing them of channeling funds to the largest companies to collect bigger fees.

Wells Fargo, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and U.S. Bancorp “rigged the loan process to benefit their bottom line,” the Stalwart Law Group, which filed the lawsuits Sunday in federal court in Los Angeles, said in a statement.

The banks failed to process applications for the taxpayer money on a first-come, first-served basis ― as the Trump administration required ― and instead prioritized requests from the biggest companies because they would get larger loans and generate bigger banking fees, according to the complaints. Banks collect a percentage based on the size of the loan.

That left thousands of small businesses — 90% of applicants, according to the suits — with nothing as the $349 billion in funds for the Paycheck Protection Program ran dry on Friday, less than 14 days after it launched. The program is part of the $2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act.

Yes. That's why we invent labour saving devices - because employment stinks. I bet you thought it was so we could do more work. :roll: — unenlightened

I think you try to be sarcastic.

I think we do have an economic depression now around us. Only later will it be admitted. The pandemic has only been the trigger for it.

* * *

On another note, on Friday I went to the local hospital for an x-ray checkup.

It was quite an experience.

First, there were huge signs in red before entering the hospital that urged people NOT to come into the hospital if they had any cough or flew symptoms and a number to call if they had them. The large reception area was totally empty besides one clerk sitting behind the reception stand. Before there had been at least some patients smoking a cigarette at the entrance of the hospital or somebody going into or out of the hospital, even during night time (and now it was daytime). Now there was nobody except that one person. It was as if the hospital was totally closed. When I walked to the elevators there was a sign: "WARNING! Please use the stairs is possible." The X-ray waiting room did have some people who were sitting separately and finally some hospital staff around. What was noticeable was that the hospital staff didn't wear facemasks. This hospital wasn't treating any COVID-19 patients. (There aren't many of those now, yet anyway.)

The hospital felt a far safer place than the supermarket I drove to afterwards.

There were almost 40,000 new cases of COVID in the US yesterday. I think that's a new daily high. I'm ready to call that the revised-down 60,000 deaths calculation was way off and we're looking at 100,000+ deaths in the US by the end of the summer. — Baden

Soon the total cases will be over 1 million in the US I guess.

Panic not. The economic thing is largely nonsense. — unenlightened

So you think the unemployment is nonsense?

An economic depression is a bad thing, if you don't have a job and wealth.