newswars--2020-03-25--The Central Bank Playbook is Played Out

The Central Bank Playbook is Played Out

The Federal Reserve launched QE infinity this week .
The Fed has committed to buy an “ unlimited ” amount of US Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities .
But that ’ s not all .
The central bank also announced it will buy some corporate bonds for the first time ever .
In effect , this is money-printing on a massive scale .
And of course , pumping trillions of dollars into the economy will have ramifications .
We may well be on the path to hyperinflation .
But the Federal Reserve is not alone .
The European Central Bank , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interest rates and launching bond-buying programs of their own .
This is on top of the easy-money policies that have been ongoing for years .
This is the only fork the central bankers know .
Cut interest rates , print money out of thin air and hope that the “ stimulus ” keeps the economic bubbles inflated .
But as economist Joakim Book wrote in an article originally published on the Mises Wire , the central banks are running out of options .
The playbook is played out .
In fact , Book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this monetary experiment by activist central banks .
The following article by Joakim Book was originally published by the Mises Wire .
The opinions expressed for your consideration are Book ’ s and do not necessarily reflect those of Peter Schiff or SchiffGold .
Corona fears have shifted the world ’ s central banks into hyperdrive .
Talk more , do more , lend more—and buy everything that moves .
One after the other , the major central banks took to the barricades , manned the canons , fired their bazookas , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think of .
Nobody stopped to think whether the policies that they quickly and loudly announced would work .
Nobody investigated whether they could be prevented from reaching their increasingly desperate creators ’ desired recipients—nevermind the much bigger questions of whether these goals are desirable or whether central banks ought to do what they ’ re doing in the first place .
“ What if , ” asked nobody at any central bank during the last few chaotic weeks , “ some crucial stage of our lengthy stimulus chains won ’ t operate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all , it ’ s not like neatly laid or hastily arranged government plans have ever backfired before .
The mad desire to deal with the crisis , to do something—or at least be seen as doing something—overshadowed anything else .
The European Central Bank delivered an increase in its €2.6 trillion ( $ 2.9 trillion ) bond-buying program and offered loans to eurozone banks at –0.75 percent—lower than its already zero interest rate refinancing facilities and below the rate of its previous liquidity-providing and stimulus-enhancing lending facilities .
But markets panicked .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasn ’ t the ECB ’ s task to manage interest rate spreads between German and Italian bonds ( “ we are not here to close spreads ” ) , and at the same time tried to offload some responsibility on fiscal authorities .
Lagarde quickly backtracked , and the ECB wrote press releases to clarify what she had said and assured that the full range of ECB ’ s monetary arsenal stood at the ready .
What exactly that arsenal consisted of was still unclear , as there didn ’ t seem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hyperstimulating central bank to do .
On Wednesday they brought out the even bigger guns , from the same tired and dysfunctional arsenal , containing—you guessed it—efforts to buy even more stuff in the form of government and private sector bonds : €750 billion ( over $ 800 billion ) , a monumental sum , to supply financial markets with extra liquidity .
Yet again , Italian and Green bond yields spiked as investors panicked .
Something is not working .
On the other side of the Atlantic , the Fed hasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 15 , it launched its major crisis-fighting attack by dropping the fed funds rate to the 0–0.25 percent bound and announcing that it would buy $ 500 billion in Treasurys and $ 200 billion in mortgage-backed securities , dropping reserve requirements and liquidity buffers .
Stock markets , perhaps unexpectedly in some select corners of the Fed-watching universe , reacted with the second-largest crash in living memory .
And here our silly monetary overlords thought that stimulating the economy , providing unfathomably large quantities of liquidity and promises in every way they could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off the impending chaos that we lived through .
Not so much .
The Fed acted out of desperation ; it truly panicked : here is all we ’ ve got , guys .
Treasury , take it from here !
For each of the next few days , the Fed offered repo operations of $ 500 billion—except that almost no bank made use of them .
What is an all-powerful central bank to do if the pesky commercial banks won ’ t cooperate ?
This week it extended the earlier facilities by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mario Draghi ’ s infamous “ whatever it takes ” stance during the 2012 eurozone crisis .
The Fed also added credit market facilities , with the Treasury footing the bill for losses up to $ 30 billion .
We ’ ll see how that monetary bazooka unfolds .
But the most striking corona-fighting story is from the Swedish Riksbank , this hardly admired institution of monetary mischiefs that recently gave up on its failed experiment with negative interest rates .
The Riksbank offered upwards of 10 percent of GDP in direct zero-interest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major banks , which already have business relations with the vast majority of all small- and medium-sized businesses .
Banks “ better use this facility , ” warned Finance minister Magdalena Andersson , and Riksbank governor Stefan Ingves proclaimed that this was “ pretty much free money for the banks.
” Except that it wasn ’ t .
First , it wasn ’ t free .
Banks needed to post collateral in the form of Swedish government bonds—the very securities that the Riksbank ’ s own QE programs have made a more endangered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government bonds trade in negative territory , exposing to losses the banks who buy them on the market in order to take advantage of the Riksbank ’ s emergency funding program .
Analysts at the major banks calculated that taking the Riksbank ’ s “ free money ” was roughly 20–60 basis points more expensive than the bank ’ s normal market funding .
No , thanks , said Nordea , the largest Nordic bank formally under the jurisdiction of the ECB , and pointed to its even cheaper funding from Frankfurt .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Riksbank wanted the banks to relend these funds to businesses so that they , in turn , could weather the impending storm .
In theory , this is clever .
The operation is fast and effective : the banks can quickly forward the Riksbank ’ s funds to their existing clients , and the Riksbank avoids exposing itself to losses .
The banks still hold the default risk , as the Riksbank declined to take that on kindly enough , presuming that making a loan is a simple matter of interest rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loans on the condition that they lend them on to businesses struggling ( from a government-mandated shut down , I might add ) , would have exposed the banks to much higher losses than they were willing to stomach .
This obstacle the Fed tried to avoid by invoking its infamous Section 13 ( 3 ) clause and offering loans directly to “ investment grade companies.
” In desperation , the Riksbank made the facility limitless for three months—perhaps a bigger tasteless carrot will work ?
—and launched another QE program involving treasuries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thursday another one involving direct purchases of corporate debt and lending in dollars through its currency swap agreement with the Fed ) .
As if yields weren ’ t rock bottom already and the available stock of government bonds weren ’ t alarmingly low already ( not that national governments couldn ’ t solve that shortage by running extreme deficits , which , by all accounts , they seem to be doing anyway ) .
Sovereign governments can force their citizens and companies to do ( or refrain from doing ) all sorts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ banks usually don ’ t have .
They can merely regulate , print money , and dangle cheap credit in front of banks—loans that well-capitalized banks are often in a position to reject .
Central banks have one dusty old playbook with about three moves .
None of them seems to work now .
We have truly reached the end of this monetary experiment of activist central banks .
I wonder when central bankers will realize that .
Joakim Book is an economics graduate of the University of Glasgow and is currently a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He writes regularly at Life of an Econ Student .
Alex Jones presents footage from the Rose Garden of the White House where President Trump discusses ending the coronavirus lockdown sooner than later .

The Federal Reserve launched QE infinity this week. The Fed has committed to buy an “unlimited” amount of US Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities.
But that’s not all. The central bank also announced it will buy some corporate bonds for the first time ever.
In effect, this is money-printing on a massive scale. And of course, pumping trillions of dollars into the economy will have ramifications. We may well be on the path to hyperinflation.
But the Federal Reserve is not alone. The European Central Bank, along with many others, are slashing interest rates and launching bond-buying programs of their own. This is on top of the easy-money policies that have been ongoing for years.
This is the only fork the central bankers know. Cut interest rates, print money out of thin air and hope that the “stimulus” keeps the economic bubbles inflated.
But as economist Joakim Book wrote in an article originally published on the Mises Wire, the central banks are running out of options. The playbook is played out.
In fact, Book believes we have truly reached the end of this monetary experiment by activist central banks.
The following article by Joakim Book was originally published by the Mises Wire. The opinions expressed for your consideration are Book’s and do not necessarily reflect those of Peter Schiff or SchiffGold.
Corona fears have shifted the world’s central banks into hyperdrive. Talk more, do more, lend more—and buy everything that moves. One after the other, the major central banks took to the barricades, manned the canons, fired their bazookas, and every other military metaphor you can think of.
Nobody stopped to think whether the policies that they quickly and loudly announced would work. Nobody investigated whether they could be prevented from reaching their increasingly desperate creators’ desired recipients—nevermind the much bigger questions of whether these goals are desirable or whether central banks ought to do what they’re doing in the first place. “What if,” asked nobody at any central bank during the last few chaotic weeks, “some crucial stage of our lengthy stimulus chains won’t operate the way we planned?”
After all, it’s not like neatly laid or hastily arranged government plans have ever backfired before.
The mad desire to deal with the crisis, to do something—or at least be seen as doing something—overshadowed anything else.
The European Central Bank delivered an increase in its €2.6 trillion ($2.9 trillion) bond-buying program and offered loans to eurozone banks at –0.75 percent—lower than its already zero interest rate refinancing facilities and below the rate of its previous liquidity-providing and stimulus-enhancing lending facilities. But markets panicked.
Why? President Lagarde hinted that it wasn’t the ECB’s task to manage interest rate spreads between German and Italian bonds (“we are not here to close spreads”), and at the same time tried to offload some responsibility on fiscal authorities. Lagarde quickly backtracked, and the ECB wrote press releases to clarify what she had said and assured that the full range of ECB’s monetary arsenal stood at the ready.
What exactly that arsenal consisted of was still unclear, as there didn’t seem to be much left for an already hyperstimulating central bank to do. On Wednesday they brought out the even bigger guns, from the same tired and dysfunctional arsenal, containing—you guessed it—efforts to buy even more stuff in the form of government and private sector bonds: €750 billion (over $800 billion), a monumental sum, to supply financial markets with extra liquidity. Yet again, Italian and Green bond yields spiked as investors panicked.
Something is not working.
On the other side of the Atlantic, the Fed hasn’t fared much better. On March 15, it launched its major crisis-fighting attack by dropping the fed funds rate to the 0–0.25 percent bound and announcing that it would buy $500 billion in Treasurys and $200 billion in mortgage-backed securities, dropping reserve requirements and liquidity buffers.
Stock markets, perhaps unexpectedly in some select corners of the Fed-watching universe, reacted with the second-largest crash in living memory. And here our silly monetary overlords thought that stimulating the economy, providing unfathomably large quantities of liquidity and promises in every way they could, would stabilize financial markets, stave off the impending chaos that we lived through.
Not so much. The Fed acted out of desperation; it truly panicked: here is all we’ve got, guys. Treasury, take it from here!
For each of the next few days, the Fed offered repo operations of $500 billion—except that almost no bank made use of them. What is an all-powerful central bank to do if the pesky commercial banks won’t cooperate? This week it extended the earlier facilities by making them “unlimited,” mirroring Mario Draghi’s infamous “whatever it takes” stance during the 2012 eurozone crisis. The Fed also added credit market facilities, with the Treasury footing the bill for losses up to $30 billion.
We’ll see how that monetary bazooka unfolds.
But the most striking corona-fighting story is from the Swedish Riksbank, this hardly admired institution of monetary mischiefs that recently gave up on its failed experiment with negative interest rates.
The Riksbank offered upwards of 10 percent of GDP in direct zero-interest loans to businesses, administered through the major banks, which already have business relations with the vast majority of all small- and medium-sized businesses. Banks “better use this facility,” warned Finance minister Magdalena Andersson, and Riksbank governor Stefan Ingves proclaimed that this was “pretty much free money for the banks.”
Except that it wasn’t.
First, it wasn’t free. Banks needed to post collateral in the form of Swedish government bonds—the very securities that the Riksbank’s own QE programs have made a more endangered species than black rhinos. Even ten-year government bonds trade in negative territory, exposing to losses the banks who buy them on the market in order to take advantage of the Riksbank’s emergency funding program. Analysts at the major banks calculated that taking the Riksbank’s “free money” was roughly 20–60 basis points more expensive than the bank’s normal market funding.
No, thanks, said Nordea, the largest Nordic bank formally under the jurisdiction of the ECB, and pointed to its even cheaper funding from Frankfurt. We’ll pass.
Second, the Riksbank wanted the banks to relend these funds to businesses so that they, in turn, could weather the impending storm. In theory, this is clever. The operation is fast and effective: the banks can quickly forward the Riksbank’s funds to their existing clients, and the Riksbank avoids exposing itself to losses. The banks still hold the default risk, as the Riksbank declined to take that on kindly enough, presuming that making a loan is a simple matter of interest rate.
Showering commercial banks with seemingly cheap loans on the condition that they lend them on to businesses struggling (from a government-mandated shut down, I might add), would have exposed the banks to much higher losses than they were willing to stomach. This obstacle the Fed tried to avoid by invoking its infamous Section 13(3) clause and offering loans directly to “investment grade companies.”
In desperation, the Riksbank made the facility limitless for three months—perhaps a bigger tasteless carrot will work?—and launched another QE program involving treasuries and municipal bonds (and late on Thursday another one involving direct purchases of corporate debt and lending in dollars through its currency swap agreement with the Fed). As if yields weren’t rock bottom already and the available stock of government bonds weren’t alarmingly low already (not that national governments couldn’t solve that shortage by running extreme deficits, which, by all accounts, they seem to be doing anyway).
Sovereign governments can force their citizens and companies to do (or refrain from doing) all sorts of things, a power that central banks usually don’t have. They can merely regulate, print money, and dangle cheap credit in front of banks—loans that well-capitalized banks are often in a position to reject.
Central banks have one dusty old playbook with about three moves. None of them seems to work now. We have truly reached the end of this monetary experiment of activist central banks.
I wonder when central bankers will realize that.
Joakim Book is an economics graduate of the University of Glasgow and is currently a graduate student at the University of Oxford. He writes regularly at Life of an Econ Student.
Alex Jones presents footage from the Rose Garden of the White House where President Trump discusses ending the coronavirus lockdown sooner than later.


newswars--2020-03-25--The End of Civilization?

The End of Civilization?

Governments all over the world are using the alleged threat of a COVID-19 pandemic to shut down the world ’ s economy .
Daniel Lacalle , an authority on energy economics , writes : “ The decision to shut down air travel and close all nonessential businesses is now a reality in major global economies .
The United States has banned all European flights as Italy enters a complete lockdown , Spain declares a state of emergency , and France closes all nonessential public places and businesses.
” Further , he points out , governments can ’ t solve the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ programs and bigger deficits .
These policies make things worse : “ Governments will implement large demand-side policies that are the wrong answer to a shutdown of the economy .
Most businesses will suffer from the collapse in sales and subsequent working capital build , and none of that will be solved with deficit spending .
You can not mitigate a supply shock with demand policies , which increase debt and overcapacity in the already indebted and bloated sectors and do not help the sectors that are suffering an abrupt collapse in activity.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ i.e.
, outright inflationism , is even more dangerous .
Lacalle ’ s remarks bring to mind the trenchant comments on Ludwig von Mises .
He warns against attempts to shore up disastrous policies by printing more money .
Mises says , “ No emergency can justify a return to inflation .
Inflation can provide neither the weapons a nation needs to defend its independence nor the capital goods required for any project .
It does not cure unsatisfactory conditions .
It merely helps the rulers whose policies brought about the catastrophe to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a policy of inflationism will end : “ Inflation is the fiscal complement of statism and arbitrary government .
It is a cog in the complex of policies and institutions which gradually lead toward totalitarianism.
” Bill Sardi emphasizes the criminal folly of US government policy .
The federal government , he says , is “ willing to crash the economy , kill businesses , particularly churches and restaurants that are unlikely to have the resources to re-open their establishments , and coerce people to stay indoors , a practice that will further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ widespread infection and death among retirees.
” States and cities have rushed to follow suit .
Los Angeles and San Francisco , for example , are now under drastic “ shelter-in-place ” orders that require “ non-essential businesses ” to close and forbid dining in restaurants .
To understand more fully what is happening , we need the guidance of two great thinkers , Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard .
They teach us a vital lesson .
Civilization depends on the international division of labor .
To destroy the division of labor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as we know can not survive under a system of economic autarky .
Rothbard explains this key principle in “ Freedom , Inequality , Primitivism , and the Division of Labor : ” No one can fully develop his powers in any direction without engaging in specialization .
The primitive tribesman or peasant , bound to an endless round of different tasks in order to maintain himself , could have no time or resources available to pursue any particular interest to the full .
He had no room to specialize , to develop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in which he was most interested .
Two hundred years ago , Adam Smith pointed out that the developing division of labor is a key to the advance of any economy above the most primitive level .
A necessary condition for any sort of developed economy , the division of labor is also requisite to the development of any sort of civilized society .
The philosopher , the scientist , the builder , the merchant — none could develop these skills or functions if he had had no scope for specialization .
Furthermore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a society enjoying a wide range of division of labor can possibly employ his powers to the fullest .
He can not concentrate his powers in a field or discipline and advance that discipline and his own mental faculties .
Without the opportunity to specialize in whatever he can do best , no person can develop his powers to the full ; no man , then , could be fully human .
While a continuing and advancing division of labor is needed for a developed economy and society , the extent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the degree of specialization that any given economy can have .
There is , therefore , no room for a physicist or a computer engineer on a primitive island ; these skills would be premature within the context of that existing economy .
As Adam Smith put it , ‘ the division of labor is limited by the extent of the market.
’ Economic and social development is therefore a mutually reinforcing process : the development of the market permits a wider division of labor , which in turn enables of further extension @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same lines : “ The fundamental social phenomenon is the division of labor and its counterpart human cooperation .
Experience teaches man that cooperative action is more efficient and productive than isolated action of self-sufficient individuals .
The natural conditions determining man ’ s life and effort are such that the division of labor increases output per unit of labor expended.
” The division of labor , Mises tells us , is the key to the development of civilization .
He says , “ We conceive what incentive induced people not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ struggle for the appropriation of the limited supply of means of subsistence made available by nature .
We realize what has impelled them and permanently impels them to consort with one another for the sake of cooperation .
Every step forward on the way to a more developed mode of the division of labor serves the interests of all participants.
” Now , governments all over the world want us to give this up .
Abandoning the international division of labor will hit Africa , dependent on trade for bare survival , especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world ’ s carefully wrought economic system being dismantled ?
Does the spread of COVID-19 require us to destroy the world ’ s economy ?
Here we can learn from another outstanding thinker , Ron Paul , who is a medical doctor and can give an expert analysis of government medical propaganda .
He says : “ On Face the Nation , [ Dr. Anthony ] Fauci did his best to further damage an already tanking economy by stating , ‘ Right now , personally , myself , I wouldn ’ t go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for closing the entire country down for 14 days .
Over what ?
A virus that has thus far killed just over 5,000 worldwide and less than 100 in the United States ?
By contrast , tuberculosis , an old disease not much discussed these days , killed nearly 1.6 million people in 2017 .
Where ’ s the panic over this ?
If anything , what people like Fauci and the other fearmongers are demanding will likely make the disease worse .
The martial law they dream about will leave people hunkered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outdoors or to the beach where the sunshine and fresh air would help boost immunity .
The panic produced by these fearmongers is likely helping spread the disease , as massive crowds rush into Walmart and Costco for that last roll of toilet paper.
” Ben Swann supports Ron Paul ’ s skepticism with a careful analysis of World Health organization statistics in this important video : Even if the COVOID-19 virus turns out to be more severe than the skeptics give us reason to think it is , we can get through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end of the division of labor .
It would be the finish of civilization as we know it .
The Chinese Communist Party Official Spokesperson at the Ministry of Truth released an official statement below :

Governments all over the world are using the alleged threat of a COVID-19 pandemic to shut down the world’s economy.
Daniel Lacalle, an authority on energy economics, writes: “The decision to shut down air travel and close all nonessential businesses is now a reality in major global economies. The United States has banned all European flights as Italy enters a complete lockdown, Spain declares a state of emergency, and France closes all nonessential public places and businesses.”
Further, he points out, governments can’t solve the problems they have created through massive spending programs and bigger deficits. These policies make things worse: “Governments will implement large demand-side policies that are the wrong answer to a shutdown of the economy. Most businesses will suffer from the collapse in sales and subsequent working capital build, and none of that will be solved with deficit spending. You cannot mitigate a supply shock with demand policies, which increase debt and overcapacity in the already indebted and bloated sectors and do not help the sectors that are suffering an abrupt collapse in activity.” And government printing of money, i.e., outright inflationism, is even more dangerous.
Lacalle’s remarks bring to mind the trenchant comments on Ludwig von Mises. He warns against attempts to shore up disastrous policies by printing more money. Mises says, “No emergency can justify a return to inflation. Inflation can provide neither the weapons a nation needs to defend its independence nor the capital goods required for any project. It does not cure unsatisfactory conditions. It merely helps the rulers whose policies brought about the catastrophe to exculpate themselves.” He tells us where a policy of inflationism will end: “Inflation is the fiscal complement of statism and arbitrary government. It is a cog in the complex of policies and institutions which gradually lead toward totalitarianism.”
Bill Sardi emphasizes the criminal folly of US government policy. The federal government, he says, is “willing to crash the economy, kill businesses, particularly churches and restaurants that are unlikely to have the resources to re-open their establishments, and coerce people to stay indoors, a practice that will further lower vitamin D levels and result in widespread infection and death among retirees.” States and cities have rushed to follow suit. Los Angeles and San Francisco, for example, are now under drastic “shelter-in-place” orders that require “non-essential businesses” to close and forbid dining in restaurants.
To understand more fully what is happening, we need the guidance of two great thinkers, Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. They teach us a vital lesson. Civilization depends on the international division of labor. To destroy the division of labor would plunge us into chaos. Life as we know cannot survive under a system of economic autarky.
Rothbard explains this key principle in “Freedom, Inequality, Primitivism, and the Division of Labor:” No one can fully develop his powers in any direction without engaging in specialization. The primitive tribesman or peasant, bound to an endless round of different tasks in order to maintain himself, could have no time or resources available to pursue any particular interest to the full. He had no room to specialize, to develop whatever field he was best at or in which he was most interested. Two hundred years ago, Adam Smith pointed out that the developing division of labor is a key to the advance of any economy above the most primitive level. A necessary condition for any sort of developed economy, the division of labor is also requisite to the development of any sort of civilized society. The philosopher, the scientist, the builder, the merchant — none could develop these skills or functions if he had had no scope for specialization. Furthermore, no individual who does not live in a society enjoying a wide range of division of labor can possibly employ his powers to the fullest. He cannot concentrate his powers in a field or discipline and advance that discipline and his own mental faculties. Without the opportunity to specialize in whatever he can do best, no person can develop his powers to the full; no man, then, could be fully human.
While a continuing and advancing division of labor is needed for a developed economy and society, the extent of such development at any given time limits the degree of specialization that any given economy can have. There is, therefore, no room for a physicist or a computer engineer on a primitive island; these skills would be premature within the context of that existing economy. As Adam Smith put it, ‘the division of labor is limited by the extent of the market.’ Economic and social development is therefore a mutually reinforcing process: the development of the market permits a wider division of labor, which in turn enables of further extension of the market.”
Mises writes along the same lines: “The fundamental social phenomenon is the division of labor and its counterpart human cooperation. Experience teaches man that cooperative action is more efficient and productive than isolated action of self-sufficient individuals. The natural conditions determining man’s life and effort are such that the division of labor increases output per unit of labor expended.” The division of labor, Mises tells us, is the key to the development of civilization. He says, “We conceive what incentive induced people not to consider themselves simply as rivals in a struggle for the appropriation of the limited supply of means of subsistence made available by nature. We realize what has impelled them and permanently impels them to consort with one another for the sake of cooperation. Every step forward on the way to a more developed mode of the division of labor serves the interests of all participants.”
Now, governments all over the world want us to give this up. Abandoning the international division of labor will hit Africa, dependent on trade for bare survival, especially hard. To what end is the world’s carefully wrought economic system being dismantled? Does the spread of COVID-19 require us to destroy the world’s economy? Here we can learn from another outstanding thinker, Ron Paul, who is a medical doctor and can give an expert analysis of government medical propaganda. He says: “On Face the Nation, [Dr. Anthony] Fauci did his best to further damage an already tanking economy by stating, ‘Right now, personally, myself, I wouldn’t go to a restaurant.’ He has pushed for closing the entire country down for 14 days.
Over what? A virus that has thus far killed just over 5,000 worldwide and less than 100 in the United States? By contrast, tuberculosis, an old disease not much discussed these days, killed nearly 1.6 million people in 2017. Where’s the panic over this?
If anything, what people like Fauci and the other fearmongers are demanding will likely make the disease worse. The martial law they dream about will leave people hunkered down inside their homes instead of going outdoors or to the beach where the sunshine and fresh air would help boost immunity. The panic produced by these fearmongers is likely helping spread the disease, as massive crowds rush into Walmart and Costco for that last roll of toilet paper.” Ben Swann supports Ron Paul’s skepticism with a careful analysis of World Health organization statistics in this important video:
Even if the COVOID-19 virus turns out to be more severe than the skeptics give us reason to think it is, we can get through it. We cannot survive the end of the division of labor. It would be the finish of civilization as we know it.
The Chinese Communist Party Official Spokesperson at the Ministry of Truth released an official statement below:


newswars--2020-03-25--The “Experts” Have No Crystal Ball

The “Experts” Have No Crystal Ball

On the night of Tuesday , November 8 , 2016 , and in the wee hours of Wednesday , November 9 , 2016 , Donald Trump became US president-elect .
I am not aware of a single media source that predicted that .
Many predicted Hillary Clinton would win .
Some stayed out of the fortune-telling game .
The most striking thing was the lack of admission running up to election night that the experts were all making guesses .
“ Of course they were making guesses , no one has a crystal ball , ” the rational observer might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to making the social sciences and all of their guesswork appear like , well , “ science.
” That means that it ’ s all very measurable and clear , when it actually isn ’ t .
Science , on the other hand , is science .
Observable details can be used to solidify hypotheses into theory .
Sometimes facts are even arrived at , though theory is usually the best a scientist can hope for .
And then there is the murky area between the two , where scientists use models to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look a lot like when psephologist ( election scientist ) , sabermetrician , and prognosticator Nate Silver in the weeks and months before the 2016 election replaced the term “ algorithm ” with the suggestion of fact , or referenced a peer-reviewed , proprietary model that one is supposed to believe tells the future .
There is no question that the vast portion of social scientists who make predictions want their model to be seen as a crystal ball .
“ Algorithm ” is a fancy word for “ guess.
” “ Model @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guess.
” The work is built on presumptions that are not philosophically or logically solid , but then a lot of math is used to cover up the illogical and unsteady foundations .
Hundreds of academic authors that I encounter over the course of a year can not have a logically sound conversation or write logically sound arguments .
They fail at the foundation of their arguments , yet proceed to built atop that unsteady foundation , knowing that few will notice .
This is intellectual dishonesty , also known as lying .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientist ’ s belief that their field is a science and that modeling can plausibly predict the future that some may not even be aware of the fundamental shortcomings of such a professional outlook .
Yes , perhaps they themselves do not even notice the lie that they profess .
There are economists that put lots of math on top of bad presumptions .
Metrics can be incredibly valuable in understanding a discipline or theory .
When the logical foundation is faulty , though , the metrics may simply be window-dressing that adds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can have the same purpose .
Laymen have long understood that con-artist politicians , con-artist salesmen , and con-artist academics alike have opaque jargon , the use of which seems to demonstrate an unwillingness to be understood .
Warwick McKibbin and Roshen Fernando of Australian National University , the authors of a paper about the tens of millions who will die from coronavirus that has been widely cited in the media ( “ The Global Macroeconomic Impacts of COVID-19 : Seven Scenarios ” ) show off their crystal ball .
To their credit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job of stating pretty clearly : “ We don ’ t really know what we are talking about ; we are really just guessing ” ( actual quote : “ These results are very sensitive to the assumptions in the model , to the shocks we feed in and to the assumed macroeconomic policy responses in each countries [ sic ] ” ) , and “ Our scary death counts are not reliable and are not even the focus of our work or this paper , we are doing this to provide some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start working with ” ( actual quote : “ The goal is not to be definitive about the virus outbreak but to provide important information about a range of possible economic costs of the disease .
At the time of writing this paper , the probability of any of these scenarios and the range of plausible alternatives are highly uncertain .
In the case where COVID-19 develops into a global pandemic , our results suggest that the cost can escalate quickly ” ) .
They also openly admit , “ Our intent is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ structures in health and medicine and to call for shifts toward better funded and socialized medical systems ” ( Actual quote : “ Many governments have been reluctant to invest sufficiently in their health care systems , let alone public health systems in less developed countries….This study indicates the possible costs that can be avoided through global cooperative investment in public health in all countries ” ) .
The most important takeaway from the paper is not a prognostication , but an observation from the past , the notion that social contagion is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outbreak , not the contagion itself : “ From studying many outbreaks , the real risk is not the disease but public and governmental reaction to the fear of the disease , ” ( Actual quote : “ The fear of an unknown deadly virus is similar in its psychological effects to the reaction to biological and other terrorism threats and causes a high level of stress , often with longer-term consequences ( Hyams et al.
, 2002 ) .
A large number of people would feel at risk at the onset of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk of dying from the disease is low.
” ) If you read the 44-page paper , uncertainty around the data and biases are disclosed by the authors .
But the media took it and ran with it for a salacious headline .
The Chicken Littles of the world ran with it .
The politicians , emergency services , military , and public health bureaucrats , seeking greater control for themselves , ran with it .
This is all predictable .
What is far from predictable is whether you or I will believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t need to fall for it .
We can look at the prognostication of 15 million deaths by corona , along with anyone who cites it as if it were fact , and challenge them quietly or openly as a heretofore discredited and unreliable person using an unreliable source in a moment where reliable journalism and sources are so badly needed .
Generations , centuries , millennia of humans around the globe have known what November 2016 reminded an entire country of : no one has a crystal ball .
Let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quickly .
Will you be a willing megaphone to Chicken Little ?
Will you laugh at the nonsense , or will you be among those who chase Chicken Little into the henhouse where he belongs ?
Whatever you choose , any person lying to you—economist , social scientist , prognosticator—deserves the same skeptical treatment across disciplines , because charlatans find their way into every discipline .
No matter how much modeling they do , the underlying truth is that no one has a crystal ball .
Everyone is guessing .
The experts didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election would shape up .
The experts don ’ t know now how corona will shape up .
Don ’ t sacrifice basic liberties to an expert claiming to have a crystal ball .
Don ’ t sacrifice your basic sense of self to an expert claiming to have a crystal ball .
Don ’ t offer the power of your fear , the power of your belief , and certainly not the power of your trust to an expert claiming to have a crystal ball .
Skepticism is the proper tool to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ball .
That is true , regardless of the complexity of the algorithm that they claim shows irrefutable proof of what the future will bring one day from now , one year from now , or one century from now .
The future is unknown to us and investing all of a society ’ s options in one path is detrimental to a successful outcome .
One way that free societies have long prospered is by allowing individuals to produce many varying paths , some of which work , some of which fail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of freedom and individual choice .
A single , unified path that no one may oppose removes a great deal of risk mitigation and forces many to make a single bet on a single path .
That is a truly foolish idea given the fact that no one has a crystal ball .
To believe in the utility of central planning you must be able to fall for the idea that someone somewhere has a crystal ball .
Individual freedom is not only moral , it provides utility and risk mitigation in moments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we now face .
American federalism provides for fifty experiments .
Individual freedom in America provides for 330 million experiments .
Some win , some lose .
That ’ s life .
Authoritarianism that drags everyone down a common path merely ensures that all will eventually lose .

On the night of Tuesday, November 8, 2016, and in the wee hours of Wednesday, November 9, 2016, Donald Trump became US president-elect.
I am not aware of a single media source that predicted that. Many predicted Hillary Clinton would win. Some stayed out of the fortune-telling game.
The most striking thing was the lack of admission running up to election night that the experts were all making guesses. “Of course they were making guesses, no one has a crystal ball,” the rational observer might say, but petabytes have been dedicated to making the social sciences and all of their guesswork appear like, well, “science.” That means that it’s all very measurable and clear, when it actually isn’t.
Science, on the other hand, is science. Observable details can be used to solidify hypotheses into theory. Sometimes facts are even arrived at, though theory is usually the best a scientist can hope for.
And then there is the murky area between the two, where scientists use models to predict the future.
This starts to look a lot like when psephologist (election scientist), sabermetrician, and prognosticator Nate Silver in the weeks and months before the 2016 election replaced the term “algorithm” with the suggestion of fact, or referenced a peer-reviewed, proprietary model that one is supposed to believe tells the future. There is no question that the vast portion of social scientists who make predictions want their model to be seen as a crystal ball. “Algorithm” is a fancy word for “guess.” “Model” is a fancy word for “guess.”
The work is built on presumptions that are not philosophically or logically solid, but then a lot of math is used to cover up the illogical and unsteady foundations.
Hundreds of academic authors that I encounter over the course of a year cannot have a logically sound conversation or write logically sound arguments. They fail at the foundation of their arguments, yet proceed to built atop that unsteady foundation, knowing that few will notice. This is intellectual dishonesty, also known as lying. So rooted they are in the social scientist’s belief that their field is a science and that modeling can plausibly predict the future that some may not even be aware of the fundamental shortcomings of such a professional outlook. Yes, perhaps they themselves do not even notice the lie that they profess.
There are economists that put lots of math on top of bad presumptions. Metrics can be incredibly valuable in understanding a discipline or theory. When the logical foundation is faulty, though, the metrics may simply be window-dressing that adds legitimacy where none belongs. Complicated terminology can have the same purpose. Laymen have long understood that con-artist politicians, con-artist salesmen, and con-artist academics alike have opaque jargon, the use of which seems to demonstrate an unwillingness to be understood.
Warwick McKibbin and Roshen Fernando of Australian National University, the authors of a paper about the tens of millions who will die from coronavirus that has been widely cited in the media (“The Global Macroeconomic Impacts of COVID-19: Seven Scenarios”) show off their crystal ball.
To their credit, the corona prognosticators did a good job of stating pretty clearly: “We don’t really know what we are talking about; we are really just guessing” (actual quote: “These results are very sensitive to the assumptions in the model, to the shocks we feed in and to the assumed macroeconomic policy responses in each countries [sic]”), and “Our scary death counts are not reliable and are not even the focus of our work or this paper, we are doing this to provide some sort of economic estimate for people to start working with” (actual quote: “The goal is not to be definitive about the virus outbreak but to provide important information about a range of possible economic costs of the disease. At the time of writing this paper, the probability of any of these scenarios and the range of plausible alternatives are highly uncertain. In the case where COVID-19 develops into a global pandemic, our results suggest that the cost can escalate quickly”).
They also openly admit, “Our intent is to profess political support for global bureaucratic structures in health and medicine and to call for shifts toward better funded and socialized medical systems” (Actual quote: “Many governments have been reluctant to invest sufficiently in their health care systems, let alone public health systems in less developed countries….This study indicates the possible costs that can be avoided through global cooperative investment in public health in all countries”).
The most important takeaway from the paper is not a prognostication, but an observation from the past, the notion that social contagion is the great ill that results from an outbreak, not the contagion itself: “From studying many outbreaks, the real risk is not the disease but public and governmental reaction to the fear of the disease,” (Actual quote: “The fear of an unknown deadly virus is similar in its psychological effects to the reaction to biological and other terrorism threats and causes a high level of stress, often with longer-term consequences (Hyams et al., 2002). A large number of people would feel at risk at the onset of a pandemic, even if their actual risk of dying from the disease is low.”)
If you read the 44-page paper, uncertainty around the data and biases are disclosed by the authors.
But the media took it and ran with it for a salacious headline. The Chicken Littles of the world ran with it. The politicians, emergency services, military, and public health bureaucrats, seeking greater control for themselves, ran with it.
This is all predictable. What is far from predictable is whether you or I will believe any of this salacious nonsense. We don’t need to fall for it. We can look at the prognostication of 15 million deaths by corona, along with anyone who cites it as if it were fact, and challenge them quietly or openly as a heretofore discredited and unreliable person using an unreliable source in a moment where reliable journalism and sources are so badly needed.
Generations, centuries, millennia of humans around the globe have known what November 2016 reminded an entire country of: no one has a crystal ball.
Let us not forget this valuable lesson so quickly.
Will you be a willing megaphone to Chicken Little? Will you laugh at the nonsense, or will you be among those who chase Chicken Little into the henhouse where he belongs?
Whatever you choose, any person lying to you—economist, social scientist, prognosticator—deserves the same skeptical treatment across disciplines, because charlatans find their way into every discipline.
No matter how much modeling they do, the underlying truth is that no one has a crystal ball. Everyone is guessing. The experts didn’t know in 2016 how the election would shape up. The experts don’t know now how corona will shape up. Don’t sacrifice basic liberties to an expert claiming to have a crystal ball. Don’t sacrifice your basic sense of self to an expert claiming to have a crystal ball. Don’t offer the power of your fear, the power of your belief, and certainly not the power of your trust to an expert claiming to have a crystal ball.
Skepticism is the proper tool to use with any holder of any crystal ball. That is true, regardless of the complexity of the algorithm that they claim shows irrefutable proof of what the future will bring one day from now, one year from now, or one century from now.
The future is unknown to us and investing all of a society’s options in one path is detrimental to a successful outcome. One way that free societies have long prospered is by allowing individuals to produce many varying paths, some of which work, some of which fail. That is the risk mitigation method of freedom and individual choice. A single, unified path that no one may oppose removes a great deal of risk mitigation and forces many to make a single bet on a single path. That is a truly foolish idea given the fact that no one has a crystal ball.
To believe in the utility of central planning you must be able to fall for the idea that someone somewhere has a crystal ball. Individual freedom is not only moral, it provides utility and risk mitigation in moments of crisis, precisely like the one we now face.
American federalism provides for fifty experiments. Individual freedom in America provides for 330 million experiments. Some win, some lose. That’s life. Authoritarianism that drags everyone down a common path merely ensures that all will eventually lose.


newswars--2020-03-25--Man Who Licked Products at Walmart Charged with Making Terrorist Threat

A Missouri man who filmed himself licking products at a retail store was reportedly charged with making terrorist threats .
In the video which went viral on social media , Cody Pfister , 26 , asks , “ Who ’ s afraid of the coronavirus ?
” before proceeding to lick several items at a Walmart in Warrenton .
According to police , Pfister ’ s antics prompted anger across the globe , with people from several countries in Europe calling into the Warrenton Police Department to report the heinous act .
“ A local resident who took a video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a ‘ Corona Virus ’ statement at Walmart and posting it to social media has been taken into custody , ” Warrenton police wrote in a Facebook post .
“ This particular video , which won ’ t be shared here , has gained some international attention and we have received numerous reports about the video from locals , nearby residents , as well as people from the Netherlands , Ireland , and the United Kingdom.
” “ We take these complaints very seriously and would like to thank all of those who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be addressed , ” they added .
The Riverfront Times reports Pfister , who made the video on March 11 and has previously been convicted of burglary and firearm theft , was charged with making a terrorist threat , according to court documents .
“ Pfister was taken into custody this week , and Warren County prosecutors charged him today .
The charge is a low-level felony , ” reports The Times ’ Doyle Murphy .
“ Pfister was booked into the Warren County jail without bond.
” Pfister was possibly making the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social media challenge , which had people licking objects such as toilet seats for social media clout .
One YouTuber who took part in the challenge and posted a video of him licking the rim of a public toilet seat reportedly contracted coronavirus following the stunt .
Humanity is not sending its best .

A Missouri man who filmed himself licking products at a retail store was reportedly charged with making terrorist threats.
In the video which went viral on social media, Cody Pfister, 26, asks, “Who’s afraid of the coronavirus?” before proceeding to lick several items at a Walmart in Warrenton.
According to police, Pfister’s antics prompted anger across the globe, with people from several countries in Europe calling into the Warrenton Police Department to report the heinous act.
“A local resident who took a video of themselves licking the merchandise after making a ‘Corona Virus’ statement at Walmart and posting it to social media has been taken into custody,” Warrenton police wrote in a Facebook post.
“This particular video, which won’t be shared here, has gained some international attention and we have received numerous reports about the video from locals, nearby residents, as well as people from the Netherlands, Ireland, and the United Kingdom.”
“We take these complaints very seriously and would like to thank all of those who reported the video so the issue could be addressed,” they added.
The Riverfront Times reports Pfister, who made the video on March 11 and has previously been convicted of burglary and firearm theft, was charged with making a terrorist threat, according to court documents.
“Pfister was taken into custody this week, and Warren County prosecutors charged him today. The charge is a low-level felony,” reports The Times’ Doyle Murphy.
“Pfister was booked into the Warren County jail without bond.”
Pfister was possibly making the video in relation to the new coronavirus social media challenge, which had people licking objects such as toilet seats for social media clout.
One YouTuber who took part in the challenge and posted a video of him licking the rim of a public toilet seat reportedly contracted coronavirus following the stunt.
Follow the author on Gab: https://gab.ai/adansalazar
On Twitter: Follow @AdanSalazarWins
On Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/adan.salazar.735
On Minds: https://www.minds.com/adan_infowars
Humanity is not sending its best.


newswars--2020-03-25--The State Has Seized Many New Powers. It Won’t Let Go of Them Easily.

“ Restaurants sit empty in Chinatowns .
Parents keep children home from school in Toronto .
Asian hotels and airlines reel at dramatic drops in bookings .
Just as the media recently gave us a new and particularly intimate experience of war , we ’ re now getting a new and particularly fearsome experience of a public health crisis….It is one of a large number of viruses that suddenly infect the human population….Given what ’ s happened thus far , the appropriate response is to pursue targeted and aggressive public health measures , while the 99.9 % of us not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives .
This is where China ’ s shocking cover-up has proven so costly .
In any viral outbreak , early identification and containment is essential.
” If you think that this is the news from the trenches of the unfolding coronavirus warfare , you will be mistaken .
This is an excerpt from a 2003 Wall Street Journal article by David Baltimore , one of the leading American epidemiologists and a Nobel laurate .
His paper deals with the contemporary SARS epidemic ( who remembers it now ? )
and the short-term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the government and popular response to the then unknown “ beast ” as a “ media-transmitted epidemic ” that outpaced the risk to public health from the actual virus .
Just like the present coronavirus , the SARS virus ( along with many other earlier brands ) originated in the “ unsafe space ” where humans were butchering , eating , and closely interacting with exotic animals .
In fact , as early as 2007 a group of immunology scientists from the Hong Kong University warned , “ The presence of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bats , together with the culture of eating exotic mammals in southern China , is a time bomb.
” Just like any other virus , SARS infected the human population and , just like others , it eventually burned itself out .
In daily news we see running lines with the numbers infected ( 353,692 confirmed ) and dead ( 15,429 as of March 23 ) .
Unfortunately , the news hardly provides us with the number who have recovered .
You need to do a special search to find out the number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is 100,443 people as of March 23 .
Neither does the news tell you the health state of the deceased or their ages .
What is clear now is that the “ media-transmitted epidemic ” has severely infected us with another powerful “ time bomb ” of statism .
Peter Klein and Darren Nelson stressed this last week .
In the present hysteria environment , any government is naturally prompted to act or show that it is doing something .
Many probably know that coronavirus literally means “ crown virus.
” And that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in real time : the epidemic empowers the governmental crown .
One trillion dollars in financial injections , including the useless inflation-boosting $ 1000 cash allowance to each family ( which the White House has recently increased to $ 1,200 ) , are expected to bring the economy to where it was prior to the panic .
The notorious “ deep state ” has been progressively flexing its muscles .
Trump already treats the epidemic as a war .
Sounds familiar ?
Yes , it is a rerun of the 1933 Great Depression @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when the self-inflicted economic damage kicks in , the same government will again step in to “ save ” us from the crisis .
No wonder such leftist congresspeople as Ilhan Omar have begun to praise Trump for finally acting presidential , especially praising his cash payments and regulation of private businesses .
We are seeing now how the activities of governmental bureaucrats are taking us down the path of economic self-destruction .
Self-quarantines or similar precautions are understandable during an unfolding pandemic .
What is hard to understand is shutting down businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been done in California , New Jersey , and New York City .
For example , California prescribed all working people to stay at home .
I wonder how Amazon , which cheerily hired one hundred thousand more people to counterbalance the suppression of retail trade and restaurant business , will be able to organize delivery service under these draconian conditions .
Informed people know that during the peak of flu season they need to wash their hands often , gargle with alcohol , keep distance , and avoid crowded places .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ without any governmental decrees or orders .
An act of nature , the pandemic-to-panic situation has been snowballing “ organically.
” At first , Trump brushed off the news of the virus as a regular flu .
This immediately contributed to the decline of his popularity .
Populism includes not only rants against the deep state but also the skillful use of an emergency crisis and state power .
Trump soon stepped in and did show himself to be an assertive leader .
As a result , his approval rating has risen from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who are concerned about economic liberty , the aggressive reliance on central state power poses clear and present danger .
With international airlines being shut down and international travel terminated , we are now rapidly sliding down the slippery slope of shutting down out the entire economy .
Economic isolationism , which sped the 1929 Great Depression , had already come into vogue both on the right and on the left prior to January 2020 as a reaction to globalism .
The pandemic simply eased that drift .
In a situation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason and rationality usually evaporate .
Instead , there reigns what Ludwig von Mises described as “ planned chaos.
” During a war or epidemic-driven frenzy , people rarely ask themselves if they will gain more from a shutdown of the economy or by continuing their regular activities while exercising reasonable preventive health measures .
Both governments and people usually opt for the first biopolitical solution .
Again , in a snowball manner , both bureaucrats and “ lay people ” double down , “ infecting ” each other with panic .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adequately describe the net effect of the emergency measures in terms of health : when you treat a flu with a good medicine , you will recover in seven days .
If you do not , you will recover in a week .
In addition to the tremendous economic self-destruction , we might face a ratchet effect , so well described by Robert Higgs : emergency institutions will continue to linger and shapeshift after an emergency situation is long gone .
Like viruses , which have a habit of mutating and staying with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to mutate , multiply , and find new hosts to settle in .
After all , we know full well that after the current “ crown virus ” there will be more viruses .
Since governments have already tasted the power of pandemic regulation , will we experience another economic shutdown and state of emergency during the 2020–21 flu season or coronavirus pandemic ?
Still , I want to be optimistic .
Strange as it may sound , a liberty-loving individual can benefit from the present seemingly grim situation .
On the one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our economy .
Yet , on the other hand , I see in the current prolonged self-quarantine a good liberation potential .
As we know , the expanding practice of working from home is making obsolete the old centralized “ crowd- ” and “ factory-like ” system of labor ( laboring under the same roof ) , and the panic speeds up the whole process .
It is a good thing .
The Department of Education , a useless bureaucracy created by Jimmy Carter in 1977 , too is losing ground : quarantined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homeschooling .
In New York City , which is notorious for its worship of public schooling , parents are now turning to homeschooling resources .
Suddenly people have received the freedom to choose !
Let ’ s make this temporary practice into a liberty “ ratchet effect ” and gradually dethrone the public school system , much of which is specialized in babysitting and indoctrinating young minds .
Scared to death by the epidemics , practically all US universities have shifted to online education ; I will start streaming my lectures next week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and it makes sense to continue this practice .
Leftists , nationalists , and other socialists thrive when they congregate , march , and attack in packs .
The ongoing panic and the individualization of education might “ cancel ” ideologically toxic campus activism and relegate it to online groups .
While the deep state is seeking to empower itself , let ’ s declaw it by exploiting the loopholes that are emerging in its underbelly during this pandemic .
As they say : never let a “ good ” crisis go to @ @

“Restaurants sit empty in Chinatowns. Parents keep children home from school in Toronto. Asian hotels and airlines reel at dramatic drops in bookings. Just as the media recently gave us a new and particularly intimate experience of war, we’re now getting a new and particularly fearsome experience of a public health crisis….It is one of a large number of viruses that suddenly infect the human population….Given what’s happened thus far, the appropriate response is to pursue targeted and aggressive public health measures, while the 99.9% of us not conceivably at risk go on with our lives. This is where China’s shocking cover-up has proven so costly. In any viral outbreak, early identification and containment is essential.”
If you think that this is the news from the trenches of the unfolding coronavirus warfare, you will be mistaken. This is an excerpt from a 2003 Wall Street Journal article by David Baltimore, one of the leading American epidemiologists and a Nobel laurate. His paper deals with the contemporary SARS epidemic (who remembers it now?) and the short-term panic it unleashed.
Baltimore “diagnosed” the government and popular response to the then unknown “beast” as a “media-transmitted epidemic” that outpaced the risk to public health from the actual virus. Just like the present coronavirus, the SARS virus (along with many other earlier brands) originated in the “unsafe space” where humans were butchering, eating, and closely interacting with exotic animals. In fact, as early as 2007 a group of immunology scientists from the Hong Kong University warned, “The presence of a large reservoir of SARS-CoV-like viruses in horseshoe bats, together with the culture of eating exotic mammals in southern China, is a time bomb.” Just like any other virus, SARS infected the human population and, just like others, it eventually burned itself out. In daily news we see running lines with the numbers infected (353,692 confirmed) and dead (15,429 as of March 23). Unfortunately, the news hardly provides us with the number who have recovered. You need to do a special search to find out the number of people who have recovered, which is 100,443 people as of March 23. Neither does the news tell you the health state of the deceased or their ages.
What is clear now is that the “media-transmitted epidemic” has severely infected us with another powerful “time bomb” of statism. Peter Klein and Darren Nelson stressed this last week. In the present hysteria environment, any government is naturally prompted to act or show that it is doing something. Many probably know that coronavirus literally means “crown virus.” And that is exactly what we are witnessing now in real time: the epidemic empowers the governmental crown. One trillion dollars in financial injections, including the useless inflation-boosting $1000 cash allowance to each family (which the White House has recently increased to $1,200), are expected to bring the economy to where it was prior to the panic. The notorious “deep state” has been progressively flexing its muscles. Trump already treats the epidemic as a war. Sounds familiar? Yes, it is a rerun of the 1933 Great Depression rhetoric; I have no doubt that when the self-inflicted economic damage kicks in, the same government will again step in to “save” us from the crisis. No wonder such leftist congresspeople as Ilhan Omar have begun to praise Trump for finally acting presidential, especially praising his cash payments and regulation of private businesses.
We are seeing now how the activities of governmental bureaucrats are taking us down the path of economic self-destruction. Self-quarantines or similar precautions are understandable during an unfolding pandemic. What is hard to understand is shutting down businesses and penalizing them with fines, as has been done in California, New Jersey, and New York City. For example, California prescribed all working people to stay at home. I wonder how Amazon, which cheerily hired one hundred thousand more people to counterbalance the suppression of retail trade and restaurant business, will be able to organize delivery service under these draconian conditions. Informed people know that during the peak of flu season they need to wash their hands often, gargle with alcohol, keep distance, and avoid crowded places. We continue doing these things each year without any governmental decrees or orders.
An act of nature, the pandemic-to-panic situation has been snowballing “organically.” At first, Trump brushed off the news of the virus as a regular flu. This immediately contributed to the decline of his popularity. Populism includes not only rants against the deep state but also the skillful use of an emergency crisis and state power. Trump soon stepped in and did show himself to be an assertive leader. As a result, his approval rating has risen from 43 to 55 percent. Yet for those who are concerned about economic liberty, the aggressive reliance on central state power poses clear and present danger. With international airlines being shut down and international travel terminated, we are now rapidly sliding down the slippery slope of shutting down out the entire economy. Economic isolationism, which sped the 1929 Great Depression, had already come into vogue both on the right and on the left prior to January 2020 as a reaction to globalism. The pandemic simply eased that drift.
In a situation of escalating panic, as Baltimore stressed, reason and rationality usually evaporate. Instead, there reigns what Ludwig von Mises described as “planned chaos.” During a war or epidemic-driven frenzy, people rarely ask themselves if they will gain more from a shutdown of the economy or by continuing their regular activities while exercising reasonable preventive health measures. Both governments and people usually opt for the first biopolitical solution. Again, in a snowball manner, both bureaucrats and “lay people” double down, “infecting” each other with panic. I am afraid that famous flu saying will adequately describe the net effect of the emergency measures in terms of health: when you treat a flu with a good medicine, you will recover in seven days. If you do not, you will recover in a week. In addition to the tremendous economic self-destruction, we might face a ratchet effect, so well described by Robert Higgs: emergency institutions will continue to linger and shapeshift after an emergency situation is long gone. Like viruses, which have a habit of mutating and staying with us forever, temporary bureaucracies too tend to mutate, multiply, and find new hosts to settle in. After all, we know full well that after the current “crown virus” there will be more viruses. Since governments have already tasted the power of pandemic regulation, will we experience another economic shutdown and state of emergency during the 2020–21 flu season or coronavirus pandemic?
Still, I want to be optimistic. Strange as it may sound, a liberty-loving individual can benefit from the present seemingly grim situation. On the one hand, shutting down working spaces disrupts our economy. Yet, on the other hand, I see in the current prolonged self-quarantine a good liberation potential. As we know, the expanding practice of working from home is making obsolete the old centralized “crowd-” and “factory-like” system of labor (laboring under the same roof), and the panic speeds up the whole process. It is a good thing. The Department of Education, a useless bureaucracy created by Jimmy Carter in 1977, too is losing ground: quarantined parents and children are temporarily switching to homeschooling. In New York City, which is notorious for its worship of public schooling, parents are now turning to homeschooling resources. Suddenly people have received the freedom to choose! Let’s make this temporary practice into a liberty “ratchet effect” and gradually dethrone the public school system, much of which is specialized in babysitting and indoctrinating young minds. Scared to death by the epidemics, practically all US universities have shifted to online education; I will start streaming my lectures next week. This is a great thing, and it makes sense to continue this practice. Leftists, nationalists, and other socialists thrive when they congregate, march, and attack in packs. The ongoing panic and the individualization of education might “cancel” ideologically toxic campus activism and relegate it to online groups. While the deep state is seeking to empower itself, let’s declaw it by exploiting the loopholes that are emerging in its underbelly during this pandemic. As they say: never let a “good” crisis go to waste.


newswars--2020-03-25--COVID Alert! Feds Abolished 2nd Amendment By Proxy In 2007 – Now It’s In Action

The Department of Homeland Security left out the Second Amendment rights of Americans in a memorandum listing “ essential ” businesses allowed to stay open during an emergency such as the COVID-19 pandemic .
The DHS ’ s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency ( CISA ) released a directive last week using data and analysis from President George W. Bush ’ s National Infrastructure Advisory Council in 2007 .
According to the CISA website , “ The list does not impose any mandates on state or local jurisdictions or private companies , ” however , cities , counties and states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s memorandum in their own orders .
As a result , firearms dealers and manufacturers are being forced to close by governments who are referring to the memo because they ’ re not included in the list of “ essential ” businesses .
Now , the Second Amendment is being neutered by governments around the country , from the city of Fresno , California to the entire state of New Jersey .
For example , Austin , Texas and Travis County cite “ the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Cyber and Infrastructure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ) Essential Critical Infrastructure Workforce Memorandum dated March 19 , 2020 ” as their source for personnel and industries permitted to continue operating .
Now , Travis County has only left gun shops off the “ essential ” business list , leaving them in a sort of legal limbo in the meantime .
However , more aggressive cities , counties and states are actually listing gun stores and manufacturers as “ non-essential ” businesses , such as Los Angeles County .
In addition , the FBI ’ s National Instant Background Criminal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ struggling to approve background checks in time due to an increase in firearm purchases and workers being told to “ stay at home.
” Once again , more authoritarian governments around the country are shutting down the NICS system completely during the COVID-19 lockdowns .
Anti-gun outlet The Trace proudly reports , “ New Jersey joined a growing number of states to mandate the closure of nonessential businesses , including gun stores , to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus.
” “ But instead of just telling stores to close and hoping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Garden State shut down the gun background check system , rendering firearm sales virtually impossible , ” the article continues .
David Knight covers the Second Amendment crisis resulting from COVID-19 in the following show segment .
Recon Marine and Infowars reporter Tim Reames @ TimReames joins The Alex Jones Show in studio to expose the government gun confiscation programs pushed through local religious leaders .

The Department of Homeland Security left out the Second Amendment rights of Americans in a memorandum listing “essential” businesses allowed to stay open during an emergency such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
The DHS’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) released a directive last week using data and analysis from President George W. Bush’s National Infrastructure Advisory Council in 2007.
According to the CISA website, “The list does not impose any mandates on state or local jurisdictions or private companies,” however, cities, counties and states nationwide are copying language from the agency’s memorandum in their own orders.
As a result, firearms dealers and manufacturers are being forced to close by governments who are referring to the memo because they’re not included in the list of “essential” businesses.
Now, the Second Amendment is being neutered by governments around the country, from the city of Fresno, California to the entire state of New Jersey.
For example, Austin, Texas and Travis County cite “the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Cyber and Infrastructure Security Agency’s (“CISA”) Essential Critical Infrastructure Workforce Memorandum dated March 19, 2020” as their source for personnel and industries permitted to continue operating.
Now, Travis County has only left gun shops off the “essential” business list, leaving them in a sort of legal limbo in the meantime.
However, more aggressive cities, counties and states are actually listing gun stores and manufacturers as “non-essential” businesses, such as Los Angeles County.
In addition, the FBI’s National Instant Background Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is struggling to approve background checks in time due to an increase in firearm purchases and workers being told to “stay at home.”
Once again, more authoritarian governments around the country are shutting down the NICS system completely during the COVID-19 lockdowns.
Anti-gun outlet The Trace proudly reports, “New Jersey joined a growing number of states to mandate the closure of nonessential businesses, including gun stores, to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus.”
“But instead of just telling stores to close and hoping for the best, officials in the Garden State shut down the gun background check system, rendering firearm sales virtually impossible,” the article continues.
David Knight covers the Second Amendment crisis resulting from COVID-19 in the following show segment.
Recon Marine and Infowars reporter Tim Reames @TimReames joins The Alex Jones Show in studio to expose the government gun confiscation programs pushed through local religious leaders.


newswars--2020-03-25--Tech Crunch: Trump Wrong About Hyrdoxychloroquine Because Researchers in China Say So

A tech publisher says President Trump is wrong to push Hyrdoxychloroquine as a potential coronavirus treatment because researchers in China say so .
You can ’ t make this up – and it ’ s a novel example of why public trust in legacy media has reached all-time lows , as China has been lambasted globally for covering up the severity of the coronavirus .
According to the lead sentence of the Tech Crunch article in question ( with emphasis added ) : In a prime example of why President Trump shouldn ’ t be endorsing any unproven potential treatments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ global pandemic , a new small-scale study by researchers in China indicates that the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine actually isn ’ t any more effective than standard , existing best practice for conventional care of patients with the virus .
Given how China has faced near-universal criticism across the entire political spectrum over its handling of the pandemic – particularly its attempts at censorship – anything researchers in China are saying right now should be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism , especially as China does have an agenda against President Trump .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-Trump journalists will take to attack the president , even if it means getting into bed with China .
China has been criticized globally for delaying reports of the outbreak in Wuhan and muzzling whistleblowers who tried to speak out about the coronavirus – and the latter highlights how researchers in China don ’ t have a lot of latitude to say anything that directly challenges China ’ s one-party official narratives .
“ Li Wenliang , a medical doctor and one of the first eight people to warn the public about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the infection , sparking a level of collective anger and grief unseen on Chinese social media , ” reported Aljazeera .
“ Hailed as a national hero , Dr Li was apprehended by Wuhan police for spreading ‘ rumours ’ earlier last month.
” “ He had warned his classmates in a private WeChat message about a SARS-like virus spreading in Wuhan , the epicenter of the epidemic.
” Chinese officials had ordered a cover-up of the outbreak in December , according to the New York Post citing a report .
“ In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ samples from sick patients in Wuhan — the center of the coronavirus outbreak — and noticed alarming similarities between their illnesses and the 2002 SARS virus , the Sunday Times of London reported , citing Chinese business news site Caixin Global , ” the paper reported .
“ The researchers alerted Beijing of their findings — and on Jan. 3 , received a gag order from China ’ s National Health Commission , with instructions to destroy the samples.
” “ Rather than hunkering down to contain the virus , Wuhan officials went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 40,000 families.
” The Chinese Communist Party Official Spokesperson at the Ministry of Truth released an official statement below :

A tech publisher says President Trump is wrong to push Hyrdoxychloroquine as a potential coronavirus treatment because researchers in China say so.
You can’t make this up – and it’s a novel example of why public trust in legacy media has reached all-time lows, as China has been lambasted globally for covering up the severity of the coronavirus.
According to the lead sentence of the Tech Crunch article in question (with emphasis added):
In a prime example of why President Trump shouldn’t be endorsing any unproven potential treatments for the novel coronavirus behind the current global pandemic, a new small-scale study by researchers in China indicates that the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine actually isn’t any more effective than standard, existing best practice for conventional care of patients with the virus.
Given how China has faced near-universal criticism across the entire political spectrum over its handling of the pandemic – particularly its attempts at censorship – anything researchers in China are saying right now should be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism, especially as China does have an agenda against President Trump.
This is another example of what lengths anti-Trump journalists will take to attack the president, even if it means getting into bed with China.
China has been criticized globally for delaying reports of the outbreak in Wuhan and muzzling whistleblowers who tried to speak out about the coronavirus – and the latter highlights how researchers in China don’t have a lot of latitude to say anything that directly challenges China’s one-party official narratives.
“Li Wenliang, a medical doctor and one of the first eight people to warn the public about the novel coronavirus, has died… due to the infection, sparking a level of collective anger and grief unseen on Chinese social media,” reported Aljazeera. “Hailed as a national hero, Dr Li was apprehended by Wuhan police for spreading ‘rumours’ earlier last month.”
“He had warned his classmates in a private WeChat message about a SARS-like virus spreading in Wuhan, the epicenter of the epidemic.”
Chinese officials had ordered a cover-up of the outbreak in December, according to the New York Post citing a report.
“In late December, several genomics companies tested samples from sick patients in Wuhan — the center of the coronavirus outbreak — and noticed alarming similarities between their illnesses and the 2002 SARS virus, the Sunday Times of London reported, citing Chinese business news site Caixin Global,” the paper reported. “The researchers alerted Beijing of their findings — and on Jan. 3, received a gag order from China’s National Health Commission, with instructions to destroy the samples.”
“Rather than hunkering down to contain the virus, Wuhan officials went ahead with their annual potluck dinner for 40,000 families.”
The Chinese Communist Party Official Spokesperson at the Ministry of Truth released an official statement below:


newswars--2020-03-25--Fentanyl the Communist Chinese Dragon Returns With an Official Message Concerning Coronavirus

The Chinese Communist Party Official Spokesperson at the Ministry of Truth released their statement exclusively To Alex Jones and Infowars.com @ @ @ @ @ propaganda outlet Global Times released a propaganda video Monday condemning President Trump for using the @ @ @ @ @ to describe COVID-19 .
Appearing in the communist propaganda piece are CNN ’ s Chris @ @ @ @ @ Richard Engel , failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton , New York City Mayor Bill @ @ @ @ @ Cardi B and other Democrat politicians .
So , China ’ s communist propaganda machine @ @ @ @ @ talking points to attack the President of the United States amid a global pandemic .
@ @ @ @ @ exposing the cozy connection between globalist Democrats and the Chinese government .
Check out the @ @ @ @ @

The Chinese Communist Party Official Spokesperson at the Ministry of Truth released their statement exclusively To Alex Jones and Infowars.com!
Watch:
Meanwhile, Chinese state-run propaganda outlet Global Times released a propaganda video Monday condemning President Trump for using the term “Chinese virus” to describe COVID-19.
Appearing in the communist propaganda piece are CNN’s Chris Cuomo, NBC’s Richard Engel, failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, brain-dead rapper Cardi B and other Democrat politicians.
So, China’s communist propaganda machine is literally using Democrat Party talking points to attack the President of the United States amid a global pandemic.
Coronavirus hysteria is once again exposing the cozy connection between globalist Democrats and the Chinese government.
Check out the Chicom/Democrat propaganda piece below: