lewrockwell--2020-03-30--Corona: The Case Number Game

Corona: The Case Number Game

In this episode of public health bureaucrats go crazy , let ’ s look at their numbers .
Let ’ s accept their reality for the moment—the reality they claim to be working from—and trace the implications .
Buckle up .
Start with Europe and just plain flu .
Not COV .
According to the World Health Organization ( WHO ) Europe [ 1 ] , “ During the winter months , influenza may infect up to 20 % of the population… ” That ’ s ordinary seasonal flu .
The population of Europe is 741 million people .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ordinary flu .
Not once .
Every year .
EVERY YEAR .
According to statista.com [ 2 ] , “ As of March 23 , 2020 , there have been 170,424 confirmed cases of coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) across the whole of Europe since the first confirmed cases in France on January 25.
” I urge readers to roll those comparative figures around in their minds , and realize that ordinary flu has never been called a pandemic , and has certainly never resulted in locking down countries .
Sofia + Sam Multi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we take the COV Europe numbers I just quoted , which cover a period of two months , and multiply by six , to estimate the number for a year , we arrive at 1,022,544 cases .
Even if you want to build up this figure by claiming it ’ s accelerating , do you really believe it ’ ll reach 148 million for the year , the number of ordinary flu cases ?
And again , 148 million is the estimate for EVERY YEAR .
Every year—and no mention of a pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go to Italy .
According to statista.com [ 3 ] , “ Italy has the highest amount of confirmed [ COV ] cases in Europe with 59,138… ” That ’ s as of March 23 .
If you multiply by six , to get the annual figure , you arrive at 360,000 cases .
You want to blow that up , because of acceleration ?
Go ahead .
How about a million cases for the year ?
Two million .
Three million .
Now let ’ s look at ordinary flu cases for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to sciencedirect.com [ 4 ] , “ In the winter seasons from 2013/14 to 2016/17 , an estimated average of 5,290,000 ILI [ influenza-like illness ] cases occurred in Italy , corresponding to an incidence of 9 % .
” That ’ s 5 million plus each year .
Not just once .
Was a seasonal flu pandemic declared in Italy ?
Ever ?
Was the whole country ever locked down as a result ?
No .
Finally , let ’ s look at figures for ordinary flu , for the whole planet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Pharmacy and Therapeutics [ 5 ] , states , “ Influenza is a highly contagious respiratory illness that is responsible for significant morbidity and mortality .
Approximately 9 % of the world ’ s population is affected annually , with up to 1 billion infections , 3 to 5 million severe cases , and 300,000 to 500,000 deaths each year.
” A BILLION cases EVERY YEAR .
Is this called a pandemic ?
Is the whole world locked down every year ?
No .
Ergonomic Foot Rest Cu ... Buy New $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of COV cases as time passes .
As I write this , the number is 392,286 , and deaths are 17,147 .
Let me know when the COV case number reaches A BILLION for the year and the number of deaths passes 300,000 .
Then keep me posted on how the one billion COV cases are repeated EVERY YEAR with at least 300,000 deaths annually .
And that concludes this episode of public health officials go crazy and wreck economies and lives in the process .
There should be a tracking “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ figures .
Sources : [ 1 ] .
[ Europe ] 2018–2019 influenza season : what we know so far [ 2 ] .
Number of new coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) cases in Europe from January 25 to March 26 , 2020 , by date of report [ 3 ] .
Coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) in Italy – Statistics & Facts [ 4 ] .
Investigating the impact of influenza on excess mortality in all ages in Italy during recent seasons ( 2013/14–2016/17 seasons ) [ 5 ] .
Influenza Update : A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ T. 2011 Oct ; 36 ( 10 ) : 659-662 , 665-668 , 684 . )
The Best of Jon Rappoport

In this episode of public health bureaucrats go crazy, let’s look at their numbers. Let’s accept their reality for the moment—the reality they claim to be working from—and trace the implications. Buckle up.
Start with Europe and just plain flu. Not COV. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) Europe [1], “During the winter months, influenza may infect up to 20% of the population…” That’s ordinary seasonal flu.
The population of Europe is 741 million people. This works out to 148 million cases of ordinary flu. Not once. Every year. EVERY YEAR.
According to statista.com [2], “As of March 23, 2020, there have been 170,424 confirmed cases of coronavirus (COVID-19) across the whole of Europe since the first confirmed cases in France on January 25.”
I urge readers to roll those comparative figures around in their minds, and realize that ordinary flu has never been called a pandemic, and has certainly never resulted in locking down countries. Sofia + Sam Multi Task... Buy New $44.96 (as of 08:57 UTC - Details)
If we take the COV Europe numbers I just quoted, which cover a period of two months, and multiply by six, to estimate the number for a year, we arrive at 1,022,544 cases. Even if you want to build up this figure by claiming it’s accelerating, do you really believe it’ll reach 148 million for the year, the number of ordinary flu cases? And again, 148 million is the estimate for EVERY YEAR. Every year—and no mention of a pandemic. No lockdowns.
Let’s go to Italy. According to statista.com [3], “Italy has the highest amount of confirmed [COV] cases in Europe with 59,138…” That’s as of March 23. If you multiply by six, to get the annual figure, you arrive at 360,000 cases. You want to blow that up, because of acceleration? Go ahead. How about a million cases for the year? Two million. Three million.
Now let’s look at ordinary flu cases for Italy in a given year. According to sciencedirect.com [4], “In the winter seasons from 2013/14 to 2016/17, an estimated average of 5,290,000 ILI [influenza-like illness] cases occurred in Italy, corresponding to an incidence of 9%.” That’s 5 million plus each year. Not just once. Was a seasonal flu pandemic declared in Italy? Ever? Was the whole country ever locked down as a result? No.
Finally, let’s look at figures for ordinary flu, for the whole planet. A study published in the journal, Pharmacy and Therapeutics [5], states, “Influenza is a highly contagious respiratory illness that is responsible for significant morbidity and mortality. Approximately 9% of the world’s population is affected annually, with up to 1 billion infections, 3 to 5 million severe cases, and 300,000 to 500,000 deaths each year.”
A BILLION cases EVERY YEAR. Is this called a pandemic? Is the whole world locked down every year? No.
Ergonomic Foot Rest Cu... Buy New $10.99 (as of 08:57 UTC - Details) Feel free to track the purported number of COV cases as time passes. As I write this, the number is 392,286, and deaths are 17,147. Let me know when the COV case number reaches A BILLION for the year and the number of deaths passes 300,000. Then keep me posted on how the one billion COV cases are repeated EVERY YEAR with at least 300,000 deaths annually.
And that concludes this episode of public health officials go crazy and wreck economies and lives in the process.
There should be a tracking “world-o-meter” providing live updates on THOSE figures.
NUMBER OF ECONOMIES WRECKED BY PUBLIC HEALTH LEADERS—
NUMBER OF LIVES WRECKED BY PUBLIC HEALTH LEADERS—
Sources:
[1]. [Europe] 2018–2019 influenza season: what we know so far
[2]. Number of new coronavirus (COVID-19) cases in Europe from January 25 to March 26, 2020, by date of report
[3]. Coronavirus (COVID-19) in Italy – Statistics & Facts
[4]. Investigating the impact of influenza on excess mortality in all ages in Italy during recent seasons (2013/14–2016/17 seasons)
[5]. Influenza Update: A Review of Currently Available Vaccines (P T. 2011 Oct; 36(10): 659-662, 665-668, 684.)
Reprinted with permission from Jon Rappoport’s blog.
The Best of Jon Rappoport


lewrockwell--2020-03-30--COVID-19 Case Fatality Rate ‘May Be Considerably Less Than 1%’ – Dr. Anthony Fauci

As soon as the World Health Organization put out a case fatality rate of 3.4 % for the new coronavirus , multiple academics jumped in and criticized the projection .
Most notably , three medical professors from Stanford University .
Dr. Eran Bendavid and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya , two professors of medicine at Stanford University recently published an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal entitled , “ Is the coronavirus as deadly as they say ?
” In it , they provide reasons for why the fatality rate might be significantly lower than the projection given by the World @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not to say they weren ’ t criticized , after these Stanford medical professors published their opinion , many took to YouTube in an attempt to explain why they were wrong .
But if we stick to the experts , and scientific analysis , it ’ s safe to assume that the original case fatality rate put out by the WHO may be off by a significant margin .
John P. A. Ioannidis , a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford , recently published an article entitled “ A fiasco in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ takes hold , we are making decisions without reliable data.
“ In the article , he also argues that there is simply not enough data to make claims about reported case fatality rate .
Boston C Concentrate b ... Buy New $ 76.00 ( $ 14.34 / Ounce ) He states that rates , “ like the official 3.4 % rate from the World Health Organization , cause horror — and are meaningless .
Patients who have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 are disproportionately those with severe symptoms and bad outcomes .
As most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ selection bias may even worsen in the near future.
” He states that the real death rate of this virus could be five or more times lower , at 0.025 percent to 0.625 percent .
The main idea is that the number of people infected with the new coronavirus is most likely much higher than we know right now , which would drastically drop the case fatality rate .
According to an article recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine by Dr. Anthony S. Fauci , Dr. H. Clifford Lane , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case fatality rate may be less than one percent , and the clinical consequences of Covid-19 may be more similar to that of a severe seasonal influenza .
On the basis of a case definition requiring a diagnosis of pneumonia , the currently reported case fatality rate is approximately 2 % .
In another article in the Journal , Guan et al .
report mortality of 1.4 % among 1099 patients with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 ; these patients had a wide spectrum of disease severity .
If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as high as the number of reported cases , the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1 % .
This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza ( which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1 % ) or a pandemic influenza ( similar to those in 1957 and 1968 ) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS , which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10 % and 36 % , respectively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ share this information because what we are seeing right now is a lot of hysteria , and a lot of fear from people .
That ’ s not to say it ’ s not warranted , but we must remember that there ’ s a good chance that this is not going to turn out as bad as so many people believe when it comes to death rates , and perhaps there is something more behind this full economic shutdown .
With all of the models out there , it ’ s important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and models that promote such deadly scenarios from this new coronavirus have been contested by other scientists .
That being said , there are models that have been published that show a much less cause for concern .
VitaBetter Liposomal V ... Buy New $ 33.99 ( $ 6.70 / Fl Oz ) A study , from the Nuffield Department of Medicine at the University of Oxford , used data on the number of deaths and reported cases in the early stages of the epidemic in Italy and the UK .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rates by fitting a “ susceptible—infected—recovered ” model of epidemics to the number of deaths seen .
The researchers showed outcomes generated from different assumptions , including a reproduction number of 2.25 and 2.75 , and setting the proportion of the population at risk of death or severe disease at 1 % or 0.1 % .
The study was led by Sunetra Gupta , professor of theoretical epidemiology at the University of Oxford .
One of the models in the study suggests that that millions may have already been affected by the new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that the virus is actually in the later stage .
If this is true , like all of the information above in this article suggests , then the death rate is much lower .
Approximately 150,000 people die every day , worldwide .
That ’ s 13 million people that have died so far this year .
Coronavirus has killed 22,000 people worldwide so far this year .
Perhaps this can offer a little perspective .
Deborah Leah Birx , an American physician and diplomat who serves as the response coordinator for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems to contradict some mainstream media narratives , as well as all of the models that have predicted such doom and gloom and dire situations compared to what they are seeing on the ground , in real time .
The predictions of the models don ’ t match the reality on the ground in either China , South Korea , or Italy .
We are about five times the size of Italy , so , if we were Italy and you did all those divisions , Italy should have close to 400,000 deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ achieving that .
So these are things kinds of thins we ’ re trying to understand , models are models , we ’ re adapting now , there ’ s enough data now of the real experience with the coronavirus on the ground , to really to really make these predictions much more sound .
So when people start talking about 20 percent of the population getting infected , it ’ s very scary , but we don ’ t have data that matches that based on the experience .
DACHA Nutrition Natura @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the end of the day , we have to ask ourselves why certain narratives and opinions are being ridiculed .
Dr. Ron Paul , for example , Dr. Ron Paul has received multiple “ Fake News ” strikes for sharing his opinions about the coronavirus .
According to him , “ people should ask themselves whether this coronavirus “ pandemic ” could be a big hoax , with the actual danger of the disease massively exaggerated by those who seek to profit – financially or politically – from the ensuing panic.
” What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowed to share opinions , while others are not .
I ’ d also like to add in , again , when the final numbers come out they will most likely not account for all those infected or who have been infected .
Furthermore , why is mainstream media not mentioning what ’ s been happening with vitamin C ?
Why are they ridiculing it instead of exploring it ?
Where does government allegiance lie , with pharmaceutical companies or with the people ?

As soon as the World Health Organization put out a case fatality rate of 3.4% for the new coronavirus, multiple academics jumped in and criticized the projection. Most notably, three medical professors from Stanford University. Dr. Eran Bendavid and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, two professors of medicine at Stanford University recently published an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal entitled, “Is the coronavirus as deadly as they say?” In it, they provide reasons for why the fatality rate might be significantly lower than the projection given by the World Health Organization (WHO).
This is not to say they weren’t criticized, after these Stanford medical professors published their opinion, many took to YouTube in an attempt to explain why they were wrong. But if we stick to the experts, and scientific analysis, it’s safe to assume that the original case fatality rate put out by the WHO may be off by a significant margin.
John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford, recently published an article entitled “A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data.“ In the article, he also argues that there is simply not enough data to make claims about reported case fatality rate. Boston C Concentrate b... Buy New $76.00 ($14.34 / Ounce) (as of 08:58 UTC - Details)
He states that rates, “like the official 3.4% rate from the World Health Organization, cause horror — and are meaningless. Patients who have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 are disproportionately those with severe symptoms and bad outcomes. As most health systems have limited testing capacity, selection bias may even worsen in the near future.”
He states that the real death rate of this virus could be five or more times lower, at 0.025 percent to 0.625 percent.
The main idea is that the number of people infected with the new coronavirus is most likely much higher than we know right now, which would drastically drop the case fatality rate.
According to an article recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine by Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Dr. H. Clifford Lane, and Dr. Robert R. Redfield, the case fatality rate may be less than one percent, and the clinical consequences of Covid-19 may be more similar to that of a severe seasonal influenza.
On the basis of a case definition requiring a diagnosis of pneumonia, the currently reported case fatality rate is approximately 2%. In another article in the Journal, Guan et al. report mortality of 1.4% among 1099 patients with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19; these patients had a wide spectrum of disease severity. If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.
I felt it was important to share this information because what we are seeing right now is a lot of hysteria, and a lot of fear from people. That’s not to say it’s not warranted, but we must remember that there’s a good chance that this is not going to turn out as bad as so many people believe when it comes to death rates, and perhaps there is something more behind this full economic shutdown.
With all of the models out there, it’s important to remember that modelling is quite controversial, and models that promote such deadly scenarios from this new coronavirus have been contested by other scientists. That being said, there are models that have been published that show a much less cause for concern. VitaBetter Liposomal V... Buy New $33.99 ($6.70 / Fl Oz) (as of 08:58 UTC - Details)
A study, from the Nuffield Department of Medicine at the University of Oxford, used data on the number of deaths and reported cases in the early stages of the epidemic in Italy and the UK. The researchers used mathematical modelling to estimate infection rates by fitting a “susceptible—infected—recovered” model of epidemics to the number of deaths seen. The researchers showed outcomes generated from different assumptions, including a reproduction number of 2.25 and 2.75, and setting the proportion of the population at risk of death or severe disease at 1% or 0.1%. The study was led by Sunetra Gupta, professor of theoretical epidemiology at the University of Oxford. One of the models in the study suggests that that millions may have already been affected by the new virus with little or no symptoms, and that the virus is actually in the later stage. If this is true, like all of the information above in this article suggests, then the death rate is much lower.
Approximately 150,000 people die every day, worldwide. That’s 13 million people that have died so far this year. Coronavirus has killed 22,000 people worldwide so far this year. Perhaps this can offer a little perspective.
Deborah Leah Birx, an American physician and diplomat who serves as the response coordinator for the White House Coronavirus Task Force also seems to contradict some mainstream media narratives, as well as all of the models that have predicted such doom and gloom and dire situations compared to what they are seeing on the ground, in real time.
She makes some interesting points.
The predictions of the models don’t match the reality on the ground in either China, South Korea, or Italy. We are about five times the size of Italy, so, if we were Italy and you did all those divisions, Italy should have close to 400,000 deaths, we’re not close to achieving that. So these are things kinds of thins we’re trying to understand, models are models, we’re adapting now, there’s enough data now of the real experience with the coronavirus on the ground, to really to really make these predictions much more sound. So when people start talking about 20 percent of the population getting infected, it’s very scary, but we don’t have data that matches that based on the experience.

The Takeaway
At the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves why certain narratives and opinions are being ridiculed. Dr. Ron Paul, for example, Dr. Ron Paul has received multiple “Fake News” strikes for sharing his opinions about the coronavirus. According to him, “people should ask themselves whether this coronavirus “pandemic” could be a big hoax, with the actual danger of the disease massively exaggerated by those who seek to profit – financially or politically – from the ensuing panic.”
What’s interesting is how some are allowed to share opinions, while others are not. I’d also like to add in, again, when the final numbers come out they will most likely not account for all those infected or who have been infected.
Furthermore, why is mainstream media not mentioning what’s been happening with vitamin C? Why are they ridiculing it instead of exploring it? Where does government allegiance lie, with pharmaceutical companies or with the people?
Reprinted with permission from Collective Evolution.


The Finest Decade

Desperately boring times , but very healthy ones .
No parties , no girls , not too much boozing , lots of smoking and reading very late into the night .
And nonstop training and sport .
What else can one do when locked in with one ’ s wife and one ’ s son and with nostalgic thoughts of a time when people gathered in groups ?
It seems very long ago , but do any of you remember when people gave parties ?
Desperate times demand desperate measures and make for desperate columnists .
Meditation might be good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ correspondents need to get out and get the story .
The only thing to report nowadays is the sleeping habits of cows ( standing up ) , plow horses ( ditto ) , and Swiss peasants ( with one eye open , in case some billionaire foreigner robs them of their hay ) .
For some strange reason I keep thinking back to my youth and the ’ 50s , the best decade since the Golden Age of the Athenians in 430 BC .
Hemingway was alive and Fitzgerald was making a posthumous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plays such as Venus Observed fascinated , not to mention The Lady ’ s Not for Burning .
The London Journal of James Boswell revealed that the biographer was a horny little guy who tried to pick up girls nonstop and bragged about the size of his you-know-what .
Budge Patty , Frank Sedgman , Vic Seixas , Jaroslav Drobny , Tony Trabert , and Lew Hoad ( twice ) won Wimbledon , followed by Ashley Cooper and Neale Fraser , all gents and all really nice guys .
( Well , Drobny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my mentor for a while—then we had girl trouble . )
Husband Pillow - Light ... Buy New $ 79.95 Unlike the unreadable crap posing as novels today , the ’ 50s produced Graham Greene ’ s The End of the Affair , J.D .
Salinger ’ s The Catcher in the Rye , William Faulkner ’ s Requiem for a Nun , William Styron ’ s Lie Down in Darkness , and—hooray—Nikos Kazantzakis ’ The Greek Passion .
T.S .
Eliot ’ s verse play The Cocktail Party opened on Broadway , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ South Pacific , The King and I , and Call Me Madam .
I was through with school and on my way to university in 1955 , playing junior tennis tournaments , dating three great Hollywood beauties—Linda Christian , our very own Joan Collins , and Janet Leigh—and attending the premiere of The Bridge on the River Kwai with Dame Joan in the Big Bagel .
Yep , those were the days—and nights , especially the latter at El Morocco , where the system was hardly first-come-first-serve .
The near side of banquets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the far side , or Siberia , for the rest .
I know , I know , this is 2020 , and the Extinction Rebellion creeps might not like it , but to hell with them .
Graham Greene forewarned us with a small masterpiece about foreign entanglements , The Quiet American , and Vladimir Nabokov preempted Mr. Epstein with Lolita .
The Best of Taki Theodoracopulos

Desperately boring times, but very healthy ones. No parties, no girls, not too much boozing, lots of smoking and reading very late into the night. And nonstop training and sport. What else can one do when locked in with one’s wife and one’s son and with nostalgic thoughts of a time when people gathered in groups? It seems very long ago, but do any of you remember when people gave parties?
Desperate times demand desperate measures and make for desperate columnists. Meditation might be good for philosophers and their ilk, but correspondents need to get out and get the story. The only thing to report nowadays is the sleeping habits of cows (standing up), plow horses (ditto), and Swiss peasants (with one eye open, in case some billionaire foreigner robs them of their hay).
For some strange reason I keep thinking back to my youth and the ’50s, the best decade since the Golden Age of the Athenians in 430 BC. Hemingway was alive and Fitzgerald was making a posthumous comeback. Christopher Fry’s verse plays such as Venus Observed fascinated, not to mention The Lady’s Not for Burning. The London Journal of James Boswell revealed that the biographer was a horny little guy who tried to pick up girls nonstop and bragged about the size of his you-know-what. Budge Patty, Frank Sedgman, Vic Seixas, Jaroslav Drobny, Tony Trabert, and Lew Hoad (twice) won Wimbledon, followed by Ashley Cooper and Neale Fraser, all gents and all really nice guys. (Well, Drobny was a prick, but he was my mentor for a while—then we had girl trouble.) Husband Pillow - Light... Buy New $79.95 (as of 08:58 UTC - Details)
Unlike the unreadable crap posing as novels today, the ’50s produced Graham Greene’s The End of the Affair, J.D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye, William Faulkner’s Requiem for a Nun, William Styron’s Lie Down in Darkness, and—hooray—Nikos Kazantzakis’ The Greek Passion.
T.S. Eliot’s verse play The Cocktail Party opened on Broadway, and my parents took me to see South Pacific, The King and I, and Call Me Madam. I was through with school and on my way to university in 1955, playing junior tennis tournaments, dating three great Hollywood beauties—Linda Christian, our very own Joan Collins, and Janet Leigh—and attending the premiere of The Bridge on the River Kwai with Dame Joan in the Big Bagel.
Yep, those were the days—and nights, especially the latter at El Morocco, where the system was hardly first-come-first-serve. The near side of banquets was reserved for “superior” people, the far side, or Siberia, for the rest. I know, I know, this is 2020, and the Extinction Rebellion creeps might not like it, but to hell with them. Graham Greene forewarned us with a small masterpiece about foreign entanglements, The Quiet American, and Vladimir Nabokov preempted Mr. Epstein with Lolita.
Read the Whole Article
The Best of Taki Theodoracopulos


lewrockwell--2020-03-31--Americans Will Have To Cure the Coronavirus Epidemic on Their Own

It is difficult to believe public health authorities are doing all that can be done to prevent disease , save lives and promote health .
That is because what is obvious , what is essentially free ( sunshine vitamin D ) , and what is logical , is not being done .
The Centers for Disease Control ( CDC ) is a one-trick pony – – vaccination .
Inject a little bit of a disease into people under the presumption all will develop antibodies against infectious diseases .
Everyone on the planet is expected to hold their breath , metaphorically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine that will , by my predictions , end up hospitalizing many and leading hundreds of thousands of high-risk individuals ( diabetics , smokers , drinkers , the frail elderly ) to their early demise because these are the people who do not develop sufficient antibodies following vaccination .
I penned a prior report , extrapolating from published flu studies , which predicts that 6/10ths-to-1.3 % serious side effects after mandated coronavirus vaccination among the nation ’ s 72.6 million senior adults would hospitalize 435,000-943,000 and a subsequent 1.4 % mortality rate would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospitalizations and deaths are not necessarily caused by a toxic vaccine , which is always pre-tested for safety among healthy adults who DO respond to vaccination by making antibodies , but from weak immunity among certain known risk groups .
The only thing that is done to provoke a stronger immune response is to load up vaccines with toxic heavy metals called adjuvants ( aluminum , thimerosal/mercury ) .
These vaccine-initiated side effects , leading to hospitalization and death , would then be blamed on the virus in circulation rather than the vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what is the solution ?
Here are four ways the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic could have already been brought to a “ dead stop.
” Notice the central role zinc is playing in the prevention and treatment of coronavirus .
Zinc has only come out of the closet as a last resort .
Yet it has been available for decades .
Studies involving zinc lozenges have produced mixed results , but it has been noted that only zinc acetate lozenges that deliver a given amount of zinc have been found effective .
Most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deliver sufficient dosage to quell a viral infection .
About 75-92 milligrams a day has been shown to be effective when given in a slow-release lozenge .
It is difficult to come to any other conclusion than public health agencies , aren ’ t operating in the public ’ s best interest .
In fact , either by issuance of bad policies and health edicts or neglect of less problematic and more economical remedies , Americans can ’ t rely on public health agencies for the best advice how to avoid or treat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media parrots health policies to the public without question says Americans are being delivered nothing but high-end propaganda and need to obtain health information from other sources .
Don ’ t listen to politicians who complain about a lack of hospital ventilators .
According to one emergency room physician , 70-90 % of virally infected patients with pneumonia that are placed on ventilators die .
Ventilators are a last-ditch effort to buy time and hope for a cure .
Americans will have to cure the coronavirus epidemic on their own .
Fear will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coerce the population into forced vaccination and 100 % monitoring of our whereabouts , which was the objective of the plannedemic from the beginning .
Because fear trumps information and logic .
But just in case you value logic , you might want to watch this short YouTube about a new malady called SKIDMARKS disease .

It is difficult to believe public health authorities are doing all that can be done to prevent disease, save lives and promote health. That is because what is obvious, what is essentially free (sunshine vitamin D), and what is logical, is not being done.
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is a one-trick pony – – vaccination. Inject a little bit of a disease into people under the presumption all will develop antibodies against infectious diseases. Everyone on the planet is expected to hold their breath, metaphorically speaking, and wait for a future vaccine that will, by my predictions, end up hospitalizing many and leading hundreds of thousands of high-risk individuals (diabetics, smokers, drinkers, the frail elderly) to their early demise because these are the people who do not develop sufficient antibodies following vaccination.
I penned a prior report, extrapolating from published flu studies, which predicts that 6/10ths-to-1.3% serious side effects after mandated coronavirus vaccination among the nation’s 72.6 million senior adults would hospitalize 435,000-943,000 and a subsequent 1.4% mortality rate would then result in 54,202-111,493 deaths. Flamingo 10,000 Lux Br... Best Price: $193.19 Buy New $209.00 (as of 04:40 UTC - Details)
These hospitalizations and deaths are not necessarily caused by a toxic vaccine, which is always pre-tested for safety among healthy adults who DO respond to vaccination by making antibodies, but from weak immunity among certain known risk groups.
The only thing that is done to provoke a stronger immune response is to load up vaccines with toxic heavy metals called adjuvants (aluminum, thimerosal/mercury).
These vaccine-initiated side effects, leading to hospitalization and death, would then be blamed on the virus in circulation rather than the vaccine itself.
Enough of describing the problem, what is the solution?
Here are four ways the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic could have already been brought to a “dead stop.”
Notice the central role zinc is playing in the prevention and treatment of coronavirus. Zinc has only come out of the closet as a last resort. Yet it has been available for decades. Studies involving zinc lozenges have produced mixed results, but it has been noted that only zinc acetate lozenges that deliver a given amount of zinc have been found effective. Most zinc lozenges on the market do not deliver sufficient dosage to quell a viral infection. About 75-92 milligrams a day has been shown to be effective when given in a slow-release lozenge.
It is difficult to come to any other conclusion than public health agencies, aren’t operating in the public’s best interest. In fact, either by issuance of bad policies and health edicts or neglect of less problematic and more economical remedies, Americans can’t rely on public health agencies for the best advice how to avoid or treat coronavirus infections. Given that the news media parrots health policies to the public without question says Americans are being delivered nothing but high-end propaganda and need to obtain health information from other sources. Don’t listen to politicians who complain about a lack of hospital ventilators. According to one emergency room physician, 70-90% of virally infected patients with pneumonia that are placed on ventilators die. Ventilators are a last-ditch effort to buy time and hope for a cure. Americans will have to cure the coronavirus epidemic on their own.
Fear will be played to the hilt now to coerce the population into forced vaccination and 100% monitoring of our whereabouts, which was the objective of the plannedemic from the beginning. Because fear trumps information and logic. But just in case you value logic, you might want to watch this short YouTube about a new malady called SKIDMARKS disease.
Zicam Cold Remedy Oral... Buy New $13.99 (as of 06:31 UTC - Details) Super Wellness Immune ... Buy New $23.90 (as of 04:40 UTC - Details) Alpha Chemicals Zinc S... Buy New $11.49 (as of 04:40 UTC - Details)


lewrockwell--2020-03-31--Will Coronavirus End the Fed?

Will Coronavirus End the Fed?

September 17 , 2019 was a significant day in American economic history .
On that day , the New York Federal Reserve began emergency cash infusions into the repurchasing ( repo ) market .
This is the market banks use to make short-term loans to each other .
The New York Fed acted after interest rates in the repo market rose to almost 10 percent , well above the Fed ’ s target rate .
The New York Fed claimed its intervention was a temporary measure , but it has not stopped pumping money into the repo market since September @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been expanding its balance sheet since September .
Investment advisor Michael Pento called the balance sheet expansion quantitative easing ( QE ) “ on steroids.
” I mention these interventions to show that the Fed was taking extraordinary measures to prop up the economy months before anyone in China showed the first symptoms of coronavirus .
The Great Ron Paul : Th ... Horton , Scott Best Price : $ 45.43 Buy New $ 19.99 Now the Fed is using the historic stock market downturn and the ( hopefully ) temporary closure of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase its interventions in the economy .
Not only has the Fed increased the amount it is pumping into the repo market , it is purchasing unlimited amounts of Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities .
This was welcome news to Congress and the president , as it came as they were working on setting up trillions of dollars in spending in coronavirus aid/economic stimulus bills .
This month the Fed announced it would start purchasing municipal bonds , thus ensuring the state and local government debt bubble will keep growing for a few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ created three new loan facilities to provide hundreds of billions of dollars in credit to businesses .
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell has stated that the Fed will lend out as much as it takes to revive the economy .
The Fed is also reducing interest rates to zero .
We likely already have negative real interest rates because of inflation .
Negative real interest rates are a tax on savings and thus lead to a lack of private funds available for investment , giving the Fed another excuse to expand its lending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may appear to mitigate some of the damage of the coronavirus panic .
However , by flooding the economy with new money , expanding asset purchases , and facilitating Congress and the president ’ s spending sprees , the Fed is exacerbating America ’ s long-term economic problems .
The Federal Reserve is unlikely to end these emergency measures after the government declares it is safe to resume normal life .
Consumers , businesses , and ( especially ) the federal government are so addicted to low interest rates , quantitative easing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effort by the Fed to allow rates to rise or to stop creating new money will cause a severe recession .
Eventually the Federal Reserve-created consumer , business , and government debt bubbles will explode , leading to a major crisis that will dwarf the current coronavirus shutdown .
The silver lining is that this next crisis could finally demolish the Keynesian welfare-warfare state and the fiat money system .
The Federal Reserve ’ s unprecedented interventions in the marketplace make it more urgent than ever that Congress pass , and President Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This would finally allow the American people to learn the truth about the Fed ’ s conduct of monetary policy .
Audit the Fed is a step toward restoring health to our economic system by ending the fiat money pandemic that facilitates the welfare-warfare state and the unstable , debt-based economy .
Swords Into Plowshares ... Paul , Ron Best Price : $ 4.00 Buy New $ 15.99 End The Fed Ron Paul Best Price : $ 2.18 Buy New $ 5.68 The Best of Ron Paul

September 17, 2019 was a significant day in American economic history. On that day, the New York Federal Reserve began emergency cash infusions into the repurchasing (repo) market. This is the market banks use to make short-term loans to each other. The New York Fed acted after interest rates in the repo market rose to almost 10 percent, well above the Fed’s target rate.
The New York Fed claimed its intervention was a temporary measure, but it has not stopped pumping money into the repo market since September. Also, the Federal Reserve has been expanding its balance sheet since September. Investment advisor Michael Pento called the balance sheet expansion quantitative easing (QE) “on steroids.”
I mention these interventions to show that the Fed was taking extraordinary measures to prop up the economy months before anyone in China showed the first symptoms of coronavirus. The Great Ron Paul: Th... Horton, Scott Best Price: $3.80 Buy New $7.98 (as of 08:14 UTC - Details)
Now the Fed is using the historic stock market downturn and the (hopefully) temporary closure of businesses in the coronavirus panic to dramatically increase its interventions in the economy. Not only has the Fed increased the amount it is pumping into the repo market, it is purchasing unlimited amounts of Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities. This was welcome news to Congress and the president, as it came as they were working on setting up trillions of dollars in spending in coronavirus aid/economic stimulus bills.
This month the Fed announced it would start purchasing municipal bonds, thus ensuring the state and local government debt bubble will keep growing for a few more months.
The Fed has also created three new loan facilities to provide hundreds of billions of dollars in credit to businesses. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell has stated that the Fed will lend out as much as it takes to revive the economy.
The Fed is also reducing interest rates to zero. We likely already have negative real interest rates because of inflation. Negative real interest rates are a tax on savings and thus lead to a lack of private funds available for investment, giving the Fed another excuse to expand its lending activities.
The Fed’s actions may appear to mitigate some of the damage of the coronavirus panic. However, by flooding the economy with new money, expanding asset purchases, and facilitating Congress and the president’s spending sprees, the Fed is exacerbating America’s long-term economic problems.
The Federal Reserve is unlikely to end these emergency measures after the government declares it is safe to resume normal life. Consumers, businesses, and (especially) the federal government are so addicted to low interest rates, quantitative easing, and other Federal Reserve interventions that any effort by the Fed to allow rates to rise or to stop creating new money will cause a severe recession.
Eventually the Federal Reserve-created consumer, business, and government debt bubbles will explode, leading to a major crisis that will dwarf the current coronavirus shutdown. The silver lining is that this next crisis could finally demolish the Keynesian welfare-warfare state and the fiat money system.
The Federal Reserve’s unprecedented interventions in the marketplace make it more urgent than ever that Congress pass, and President Trump sign, the Audit the Fed bill. This would finally allow the American people to learn the truth about the Fed’s conduct of monetary policy. Audit the Fed is a step toward restoring health to our economic system by ending the fiat money pandemic that facilitates the welfare-warfare state and the unstable, debt-based economy.
Swords Into Plowshares... Paul, Ron Best Price: $4.00 Buy New $15.99 (as of 11:36 UTC - Details) End The Fed Ron Paul Best Price: $2.18 Buy New $5.68 (as of 09:55 UTC - Details)
The Best of Ron Paul, MD


lewrockwell--2020-03-31--The Politics of the Coronavirus

The Politics of the Coronavirus

A friend in Germany just wrote about how political correctness has persisted in his country despite the Corona Pandemic .
Although Chancellor Angel Merkel spent years responding to critics of her generous welcoming policy toward Muslim migrants by insisting that borders are fluid , she has now sealed those very borders .
Apparently German borders are no longer fluid because of the coronavirus , even to fellow-Europeans .
But the German administration has kept its once-fluid borders open to migrants from the Third World , although assurances have been given that these prospective “ new settlers ” will be “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not carrying the virus .
Not surprisingly , such “ testing ” will not be available to Frenchmen or Austrians trying to cross into Germany .
Fascism : The Career of ... Gottfried , Paul Best Price : $ 41.28 Buy New $ 40.07 In the United States , political biases have also been evident in responses to the virus .
Republicans are stressing the dire economic consequences of the shutdown and warn about doing irreparable destruction to our material well-being .
Republicans have also played down gloomy predictions about the possible spread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disproportionate impact on different sections of the country .
Sometimes these messages downplay what is still a serious health problem .
One might also notice that much of the party ’ s base consists of the owners of small businesses .
Republicans are also trying to win over a working class that is now sitting home and which the Democrats have abandoned in favor of intersectional politics .
Still and all , the warnings from economically concerned Republicans seem motivated by something other than partisan opportunism or , as in the German case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interview with Mayor Bill DeBlasio of New York two nights ago one heard what has become a characteristically leftist combination of panic and complaints about insufficient action from the Trump administration .
DeBlasio begins by telling us that half of the reported Corona cases in the U.S. have come from the New York City area .
But this , he maintains , has nothing to do with anything peculiar to New York ( for example , that it ’ s a sanctuary city loaded with illegals in which the residents are densely packed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reach the rest of the country and possibly infect many millions of people , with a severity comparable to what has been seen in New York City .
DeBlasio also called for a large National Guard presence throughout the country , as a first step toward dealing with a health crisis that may go on for years .
Encounters : My Life wi ... Paul Gottfried Best Price : $ 5.20 Buy New $ 5.60 The Best of Paul Gottfried

A friend in Germany just wrote about how political correctness has persisted in his country despite the Corona Pandemic. Although Chancellor Angel Merkel spent years responding to critics of her generous welcoming policy toward Muslim migrants by insisting that borders are fluid, she has now sealed those very borders. Apparently German borders are no longer fluid because of the coronavirus, even to fellow-Europeans. But the German administration has kept its once-fluid borders open to migrants from the Third World, although assurances have been given that these prospective “new settlers” will be “tested” to make sure they are not carrying the virus. Not surprisingly, such “testing” will not be available to Frenchmen or Austrians trying to cross into Germany.
Fascism: The Career of... Gottfried, Paul Best Price: $41.28 Buy New $40.07 (as of 03:55 UTC - Details) In the United States, political biases have also been evident in responses to the virus. Republicans are stressing the dire economic consequences of the shutdown and warn about doing irreparable destruction to our material well-being. Republicans have also played down gloomy predictions about the possible spread of the pandemic and note its obviously disproportionate impact on different sections of the country. Sometimes these messages downplay what is still a serious health problem. One might also notice that much of the party’s base consists of the owners of small businesses. Republicans are also trying to win over a working class that is now sitting home and which the Democrats have abandoned in favor of intersectional politics. Still and all, the warnings from economically concerned Republicans seem motivated by something other than partisan opportunism or, as in the German case, exercises in virtue-signaling.
In an interview with Mayor Bill DeBlasio of New York two nights ago one heard what has become a characteristically leftist combination of panic and complaints about insufficient action from the Trump administration. DeBlasio begins by telling us that half of the reported Corona cases in the U.S. have come from the New York City area. But this, he maintains, has nothing to do with anything peculiar to New York (for example, that it’s a sanctuary city loaded with illegals in which the residents are densely packed together). The virus will eventually reach the rest of the country and possibly infect many millions of people, with a severity comparable to what has been seen in New York City. DeBlasio also called for a large National Guard presence throughout the country, as a first step toward dealing with a health crisis that may go on for years.
Read the Whole Article
Encounters: My Life wi... Paul Gottfried Best Price: $5.20 Buy New $5.60 (as of 08:10 UTC - Details)
The Best of Paul Gottfried


lewrockwell--2020-03-31--Turn the Economy Back On; Even Fauci Is Confessing

Correction : The New England Journal of Medicine article , by Dr. Anthony Fauci , from which I took a quote , was first published a month earlier than the March date I gave .
Why NEJM chose to republish it a month later is unexplained .
The very low COVID case fatality rate Fauci offers could have changed , by his estimate , in the month since its original publication .
It could have gone up or down .
For example , if the number of new cases ballooned , with relatively few deaths , the case fatality rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reach through my screen and physically shake people with this news , I would .
Dr. Anthony Fauci , the US front man for managing the “ pandemic , ” has just written an article that ought to be titled : I WAS WRONG AND THIS IS MY CONFESSION .
Fauci , New England Journal of Medicine , March 26 , “ Covid-19 — Navigating the Uncharted ” : LETSCOM Bluetooth Head ... Best Price : $ 17.55 Buy New $ 19.98 “ If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the number of reported cases , the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1 % .
This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza ( which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1 % ) or a pandemic influenza ( similar to those in 1957 and 1968 ) … ” In case there is any doubt , those “ pandemic influenza seasons ” of 1957 and 1968 did NOT result in any lockdowns .
People went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in stadiums .
They went to their jobs .
SO TURN THE ECONOMY BACK ON NOW .
End the insanity .
Unfortunately , no surprise , the major media are still highlighting fear , so it ’ s up to people to spread this message in any and every way they can : TIME TO GO BACK TO WORK .
TURN ON THE ECONOMY .
When the man in charge of an unprecedented global operation says the product he was selling was defective , when he admits the whole basis for it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expect Fauci to apologize abjectly and lie down in the street and let a steamroller flatten him .
Understand ?
This is as good as it ’ ll get .
Don ’ t wait for anything more .
You ’ re already on your computer .
Get out the message .
TURN THE ECONOMY BACK ON NOW .
In case you haven ’ t noticed , major media have been shoving the devastating economic effects of the global lockdowns into the background .
They aren ’ t leading their daily coverage with people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re pushing case numbers and new COVID horror stories .
This is not an accident .
This is conscious policy .
Network bosses have sent down the word .
Don ’ t emphasize the economic human wreckage .
Instead , it ’ s : we ’ ll all get through this , we ’ re all in this together .
Here are seven steps you can take when you ’ re washing your hands .
It ’ s robot city .
Introducing Echo Buds ... Buy New $ 129.99 After a hurricane @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you the rubble and the families with their belongings in sacks wandering through torn roads .
Reporters interview mothers who are sitting on curbs in a daze… But this time , not so .
They don ’ t want people to grasp viscerally what loss of jobs and businesses and money actually means .
They want passive acceptance .
Don ’ t let them get away with it .
Wake people up out of their trance .
TURN THE ECONOMY BACK ON NOW .
LET ’ S GO BACK TO WORK .
The @ @ @ @

Correction: The New England Journal of Medicine article, by Dr. Anthony Fauci, from which I took a quote, was first published a month earlier than the March date I gave. Why NEJM chose to republish it a month later is unexplained. The very low COVID case fatality rate Fauci offers could have changed, by his estimate, in the month since its original publication. It could have gone up or down. For example, if the number of new cases ballooned, with relatively few deaths, the case fatality rate would have dropped.
If I could reach through my screen and physically shake people with this news, I would.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, the US front man for managing the “pandemic,” has just written an article that ought to be titled: I WAS WRONG AND THIS IS MY CONFESSION.
Fauci, New England Journal of Medicine, March 26, “Covid-19 — Navigating the Uncharted”:
LETSCOM Bluetooth Head... Best Price: $17.55 Buy New $19.98 (as of 06:26 UTC - Details) “If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968)…”
In case there is any doubt, those “pandemic influenza seasons” of 1957 and 1968 did NOT result in any lockdowns. People went outdoors. They mingled. They sat in stadiums. They went to their jobs.
SO TURN THE ECONOMY BACK ON NOW. End the insanity.
Unfortunately, no surprise, the major media are still highlighting fear, so it’s up to people to spread this message in any and every way they can: TIME TO GO BACK TO WORK. TURN ON THE ECONOMY.
When the man in charge of an unprecedented global operation says the product he was selling was defective, when he admits the whole basis for it was over-promoted…that is gigantic. Don’t expect Fauci to apologize abjectly and lie down in the street and let a steamroller flatten him. Understand? This is as good as it’ll get. Don’t wait for anything more.
You’re already on your computer. Get out the message. TURN THE ECONOMY BACK ON NOW.
In case you haven’t noticed, major media have been shoving the devastating economic effects of the global lockdowns into the background. They aren’t leading their daily coverage with people’s lives being destroyed. They’re pushing case numbers and new COVID horror stories. This is not an accident. This is conscious policy. Network bosses have sent down the word. Don’t emphasize the economic human wreckage. Instead, it’s: we’ll all get through this, we’re all in this together. Here are seven steps you can take when you’re washing your hands. It’s robot city. Introducing Echo Buds ... Buy New $129.99 (as of 06:26 UTC - Details)
After a hurricane or an earthquake, the news shows you the rubble and the families with their belongings in sacks wandering through torn roads. Reporters interview mothers who are sitting on curbs in a daze…
But this time, not so. They don’t want people to grasp viscerally what loss of jobs and businesses and money actually means. They want passive acceptance.
Don’t let them get away with it.
Wake people up out of their trance.
TURN THE ECONOMY BACK ON NOW. LET’S GO BACK TO WORK.
Reprinted with permission from Jon Rappoport’s blog.
The Best of Jon Rappoport


Those Yang Republicans

Andrew Yang , the son of immigrants from Taiwan , is a lawyer , entrepreneur , and philanthropist who founded the nonprofit organization Venture for America ( VFA ) in 2011 .
Yang left the organization in 2017 and filed with the Federal Election Commission ( FEC ) on November 6 to run for president of the United States .
Although Yang participated in seven of the first eight Democratic presidential debates , on February 11 , 2020 , shortly after the New Hampshire primary , he suspended his presidential campaign .
A week later he joined CNN as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign focus was how the federal government should respond to the increasing automation of the economy .
According to Yang2020 : I ’ m proud of the work I did at VFA .
But during my time there , it became clear to me that job creation will not outpace the massive impending job loss due to automation .
So I went to Washington , and I visited Congressional leaders .
I presented them with the hard facts .
78 % of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck , 40 % can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and so many live one medical emergency away from bankruptcy .
A wave of automation is coming that will displace even more American jobs .
I asked , “ What will our government do ?
” And here is what he thinks the federal government should do : The Free Society Laurence M. Vance Best Price : $ 13.55 Buy New $ 17.54 Republicans baulked at Yang ’ s idea , just like they have generally run from other universal basic income ( UBI ) proposals .
However , this does not mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ giving Americans cash in their pocket .
The federal government twice under President George W. Bush—with overwhelming Republican support—sent Americans money .
In 2001 , as part of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act , the federal government sent a $ 300 check to single individuals and $ 600 to married couples .
In 2008 , under the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 , the federal government sent a $ 600 check to single individuals and $ 1,200 to married couples .
Taxpayers with children eligible for the Child Tax Credit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 300 per dependent child .
And just recently—with practically unanimous Republican support—Congress passed , and President Trump signed into law , the Coronavirus Aid , Relief , and Economic Security Act or “ CARES Act.
” Amid hundreds of pages of pork , it directs the federal government to send checks ( or make direct deposits ) of $ 1,200 to single individuals and $ 2,400 to married couples .
Taxpayers with children eligible for the child credit will receive an additional $ 500 per dependent child .
If Republicans were honest , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when there is a public health crisis .
It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when they need it .
It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when the economy needs a stimulus .
It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when there is a pandemic .
It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when unemployment claims drastically increase .
It is wrong for the federal government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an economic downturn .
It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except in extenuating circumstances .
It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when there are severely distressed sectors of the U.S. economy .
It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when the economy collapses .
It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when there is a recession .
Free Trade or Protecti ... Laurence M. Vance Best Price : null Buy New $ 5.95 It is wrong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money—except when many Americans need economic relief .
It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when there is a financial panic .
It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when the stock market tanks .
It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when there is a depression .
It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when Americans are hurting .
It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when certain industries need a bailout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government to give Americans money—except when Republicans vote to do so .
None of these Republican-supported government handouts should be viewed as surprising .
Republicans have for decades supported the federal government giving Americans money in the form of welfare .
Indeed , we already have a universal basic income in the Earned Income Tax Credit ( EITC ) that Republicans wholeheartedly support and increase every year .
Republicans have no philosophical objection to the federal government giving Americans cold hard cash .
Don ’ t be surprised if round two of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans , amidst all the pork it will contain , courtesy of the Republicans .
The Best of Laurence M. Vance

Andrew Yang, the son of immigrants from Taiwan, is a lawyer, entrepreneur, and philanthropist who founded the nonprofit organization Venture for America (VFA) in 2011. Yang left the organization in 2017 and filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) on November 6 to run for president of the United States. Although Yang participated in seven of the first eight Democratic presidential debates, on February 11, 2020, shortly after the New Hampshire primary, he suspended his presidential campaign. A week later he joined CNN as a political commentator.
Yang’s main campaign focus was how the federal government should respond to the increasing automation of the economy. According to Yang2020:
I’m proud of the work I did at VFA. But during my time there, it became clear to me that job creation will not outpace the massive impending job loss due to automation. So I went to Washington, and I visited Congressional leaders. I presented them with the hard facts. 78% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, 40% cannot afford an unexpected $400 bill, and so many live one medical emergency away from bankruptcy. A wave of automation is coming that will displace even more American jobs. I asked, “What will our government do?”
And here is what he thinks the federal government should do: The Free Society Laurence M. Vance Best Price: $13.55 Buy New $17.54 (as of 04:55 UTC - Details)
As president, my first priority will be to implement the big solutions America needs to get back on track. To start, I’d enact the Freedom Dividend: $1,000 a month, no strings attached, for every American 18 and older, paid for by a new tax on the companies benefiting most from automation.
Republicans baulked at Yang’s idea, just like they have generally run from other universal basic income (UBI) proposals. However, this does not mean that they oppose on principle the government giving Americans cash in their pocket.
The federal government twice under President George W. Bush—with overwhelming Republican support—sent Americans money.
In 2001, as part of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, the federal government sent a $300 check to single individuals and $600 to married couples.
In 2008, under the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, the federal government sent a $600 check to single individuals and $1,200 to married couples. Taxpayers with children eligible for the Child Tax Credit (CTC) received an additional $300 per dependent child.
And just recently—with practically unanimous Republican support—Congress passed, and President Trump signed into law, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act or “CARES Act.” Amid hundreds of pages of pork, it directs the federal government to send checks (or make direct deposits) of $1,200 to single individuals and $2,400 to married couples. Taxpayers with children eligible for the child credit will receive an additional $500 per dependent child.
If Republicans were honest, they would say things like:
It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when there is a public health crisis.
It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when they need it.
It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when the economy needs a stimulus.
It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when there is a pandemic.
It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when unemployment claims drastically increase.
It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when there is an economic downturn.
It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except in extenuating circumstances.
It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when there are severely distressed sectors of the U.S. economy.
It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when the economy collapses.
It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when there is a recession. Free Trade or Protecti... Laurence M. Vance Buy New $5.95 (as of 04:55 UTC - Details)
It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when many Americans need economic relief.
It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when there is a financial panic.
It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when the stock market tanks.
It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when there is a depression.
It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when Americans are hurting.
It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when certain industries need a bailout.
It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when Republicans vote to do so.
None of these Republican-supported government handouts should be viewed as surprising. Republicans have for decades supported the federal government giving Americans money in the form of welfare. Indeed, we already have a universal basic income in the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) that Republicans wholeheartedly support and increase every year.
Republicans have no philosophical objection to the federal government giving Americans cold hard cash. Don’t be surprised if round two of the CARES Act results in more checks to Americans, amidst all the pork it will contain, courtesy of the Republicans.
The Best of Laurence M. Vance


lewrockwell--2020-03-31--What Would Rothbard Say About the COVID-19 Panic?

Murray Newton Rothbard died on the January 7 , 1995 .
What would “ Mr .
Libertarian ” say today about the government measures against the corona epidemic ?
As a response to the epidemic , Western governments have infringed upon private property rights to an unprecedented degree in peace times .
They have expropriated and confiscated medical equipment and material , they have taken control of private health companies and hospitals , they have decreed the forced closure of private businesses , such as private kindergartens , schools , universities , or retail stores .
They have even ordered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Moreover , they have severely restricted the freedom of movement .
What can be said about these measures from a libertarian point of view ?
Can they be justified ?
Regarding the freedom of movement , it could be argued that most streets are government property and that the government has the right to restrict freedom of movement on its streets in order to protect the health of its citizens .
Indeed , the public ownership of streets is a problem from a libertarian perspective .
Streets should be private .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decide who could use them and under what conditions .
As Rothbard puts it in The Ethics of Liberty ( 1982 , p. 119 ) : The Ethics of Liberty Rothbard , Murray N. Best Price : $ 9.63 Buy New $ 19.00 In other words , in a libertarian world private street owners would decide which streets would remain open , to whom , and under what conditions .
Yet we live in a world where the majority of streets are public .
However , even with public streets Rothbard´s verdict is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McDonald ’ s restaurant opening and residents protesting the gathering of its customers on the streets , Rothbard writes : In Rothbard ’ s view , citizens and taxpayers have the right to use public streets .
Governments are not justified in restricting movement on their streets , because in fact the street is not even the just property of the state : In short , the state has no right to determine who can use public streets and who can not .
A curfew is a blatant violation of private property rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a libertarian world with private streets and private businesses , the owners impose the rules .
In the case of an epidemic , they may close their property completely to the public .
Or they could invite people conditionally to their property .
For instance , they could limit the number of people who can access it .
They could require tests before entering the property or declare that entering is at their own risk .
They could also impose certain conditions , such as an age restriction or the required wearing of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : ... Robert Higgs Best Price : $ 7.96 Buy New $ 7.42 Let us discuss the other restrictions that have been implemented in the wake of the COVID-19 epidemic , such as the required closing of bars , hotels , and other shops .
Politicians ’ argument in favor of the closures is the following : out of solidarity with the rest of the population , especially with the elderly , people should help bring the rate of infection down , because otherwise many people will die due to the limited capacities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lack of provision for such an epidemic .
People staying at home , confined to their houses , would save lives .
They would thereby help others .
And as people can not be expected to help others and stay at home voluntarily , the state has the right to enforce a confinement that saves lives .
Now , the essential ethical question is the following : is anyone allowed to use violence in order to ensure that people will help their fellow men ?
Can the use of coercion to make people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to this question in The Ethics of Liberty is unequivocal : Note that for Rothbard and libertarians in general , the concept of “ rights ” is purely negative .
Rights protect the radius of a person ’ s action that no one else can interfere with using aggressive violence .
Property rights demarcate the area in which an individual can act freely .
The Tragedy of the Eur ... Bagus , Philipp Best Price : $ 14.03 Buy New $ 11.00 If that is not enough evidence , Rothbard gives two examples @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence to make someone help another person .
First , he discusses an example provided by Friedrich A. von Hayek .
In this example there exists a “ monopolist ” owner of water in an oasis .
Rothbard points out that the owner has the right not to sell the water to customers .
The owner is within his rights in reserving the water for himself and can not be forced to help thirsty people by selling the water : Let us apply this reasoning to the current situation : the owner of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
The owner of a garden has the right to use it and the pedestrian has the right to walk on the street .
They are only responsible for their own actions and their own property and not for the existence of the coronavirus or for the fact that government hospitals are mismanaged .
Of course , it is a different case if someone knows that he is infected and opens his business with the intention of infecting and doing harm to the customers .
This would be criminal behavior and defensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business by the threat of force , would be justified .
But how do we know that the opening of the business is really an act of aggression on part of an infected owner ?
As Rothbard point out , the burden of proof is on the people using violence : We only know if someone is a criminal when he is convicted .
Until people are convicted they must enjoy all the rights of innocents , such as being allowed to leave their houses or open their stores .
As Rothbard ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ they are innocent until proven guilty.
” Rothbard provides a second example for his claim that no one can be forced to help others .
This example is about an epidemic and , therefore , is worth quoting in full : Deep Freeze : Iceland & r ... Howden , David Best Price : $ 6.57 Buy New $ 10.95 Suppose that there is only one physician in a community , and an epidemic breaks out ; only he can save the lives of numerous fellow-citizens—an action surely crucial to their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them if ( a ) he refuses to do anything , or leave town ; or ( b ) if he charges a very high price for his curative services ?
Certainly not .
There is , for one thing , nothing wrong with a man charging the value of his services to his customers , i.e.
, what they are willing to pay .
He further has every right to refuse to do anything .
While he may perhaps be criticized morally or aesthetically , as a self-owner of his own body @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cure or to do so at a high price ; to say that he is being “ coercive ” is furthermore to imply that it is proper and not coercive for his customers or their agents to force the physician to treat them : in short , to justify his enslavement .
But surely enslavement , compulsory labor , must be considered “ coercive ” in any sensible meaning of the term .
If the physician can not be forced to help during an epidemic , then a fortiori a normal citizen can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is certainly possible that one could help others in these times by staying home , by closing businesses , or by donating medical equipment .
Yet forcing people to stay at home , closing their businesses , and expropriating medical equipment are violations of property rights .
They are crimes , plain and simple .
No one has the right to confine another ( innocent ) person to his house or oblige him to close his business .
The argument that central planning through confinement or other forms of violence would save @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ignores the problem of economic calculation .
These infringements of private property involve ( subjective ) costs that can not be calculated and compared to the benefits in a nonarbitrary way .
For instance , being confined to one ’ s own four walls , with the corresponding lack of physical exercise , will lead to increased cardiovascular disease , high blood pressure , strokes , and thromboses , among other things .
Moreover , the psychological burden of being locked up is immense .
The psychological strain can cause divorces and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are created .
Domestic violence and child abuse are expected to surge .
In sum , some people may die due to these infringements of private property ; others may be saved .
Moreover , the economic havoc created by these measures is potentially devastating .
It is true that there would have been an economic crisis anyway due to the distortions created by monetary policy .
The epidemic is only the trigger of the crisis .
Nevertheless , the crisis is made harsher by the government infringements on private property rights .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because they can not leave their homes or open their businesses , production falls .
Business owners who see their lifetime achievement destroyed by the political reaction to the virus could suffer heart attacks , fall into depression , commit suicide , or become alcoholics .
Similar consequences may await workers who become unemployed due to the political measures .
Furthermore , the standard of living will fall as economic activity is suffocated by the confinement .
There will be less goods and services available to maintain , let alone improve , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will simply not be produced .
And if the economy of the Western world collapses , the West will buy less goods and services from poor countries .
The living standard will therefore also fall in the third world , where it may mean the difference between life and death for many .
In general , poverty means reduced longevity .
Rich people tend to live longer than poor people .
But that is not all .
Governments all over the world are advancing on the road to serfdom , controlling their populations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private sector via increased public spending and new regulations .
According to the “ ratchet effect , ” defined by Robert Higgs , government power usually increases in crisis times .
However , when the crisis recedes , government power is not reduced to its initial position .
Thus , the long-term victim of the government intrusion may be liberty .
More socialist regimes may be instituted .
And in these regimes life expectancy is shorter .
The greater the power of government , the lower will be the quantity and quality of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the capitalist West Germans had a life expectancy that was about three years longer than that of their East German counterparts .
It is , of course , true that government coercion may increase the life expectancy of some people in the short run .
Enforcing confinement in an epidemic is only one example .
There are other possibilities .
The government may prohibit smoking , or subsidize fruits , vegetables or sports classes .
It may use tax revenue to improve the medical treatments of the population , thereby increasing life expectancy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of public health is enough ?
For instance , how much of GDP should be spent on healthcare ?
Five percent , 10 percent , 50 percent , or 90 percent of GDP ?
Certainly spending more might increase life expectancy .
But how can the government official know the correct percentage ?
Similarly , how much of GDP shall be sacrificed in an epidemic by more or less drastic confinement measures ?
Shall 5 percent , 10 percent , 50 percent , or 90 percent of productive activities stop in order to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
There is no nonarbitrary way for a central planner to decide these matters .
All government measures come with costs that can not be quantified .
There is only one alternative to the arbitrary central planning of government , with its violation of private property rights .
This alternative is the libertarianism , the alternative that Murray Rothbard always staunchly defended : the voluntary decisions of private property owners .
Note : The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute .
The Best of Philipp Bagus

Murray Newton Rothbard died on the January 7, 1995. What would “Mr. Libertarian” say today about the government measures against the corona epidemic?
As a response to the epidemic, Western governments have infringed upon private property rights to an unprecedented degree in peace times. They have expropriated and confiscated medical equipment and material, they have taken control of private health companies and hospitals, they have decreed the forced closure of private businesses, such as private kindergartens, schools, universities, or retail stores. They have even ordered the closure of private parks and gardens. Moreover, they have severely restricted the freedom of movement.
What can be said about these measures from a libertarian point of view? Can they be justified?
Regarding the freedom of movement, it could be argued that most streets are government property and that the government has the right to restrict freedom of movement on its streets in order to protect the health of its citizens. Indeed, the public ownership of streets is a problem from a libertarian perspective. Streets should be private. If streets were private, the owners would decide who could use them and under what conditions. As Rothbard puts it in The Ethics of Liberty (1982, p. 119): The Ethics of Liberty Rothbard, Murray N. Best Price: $9.63 Buy New $19.00 (as of 02:25 UTC - Details)
In the libertarian society…streets would all be privately owned, the entire conflict could be resolved without violating anyone’s property rights: for then the owners of the streets would have the right to decide who shall have access to those streets, and they could then keep out “undesirables” [in our case people suspected of being infected with viruses] if they so wished.
In other words, in a libertarian world private street owners would decide which streets would remain open, to whom, and under what conditions.
Yet we live in a world where the majority of streets are public. However, even with public streets Rothbard´s verdict is clear. Discussing the case of a McDonald’s restaurant opening and residents protesting the gathering of its customers on the streets, Rothbard writes:
as taxpayers and citizens, these “undesirables” [the customers] surely have the “right” to walk on the streets, and of course they could gather on the spot, if they so desired, without the attraction of McDonald’s.” (1982, p. 119)
In Rothbard’s view, citizens and taxpayers have the right to use public streets. Governments are not justified in restricting movement on their streets, because in fact the street is not even the just property of the state:
as a criminal organization with all of its income and assets derived from the crime of taxation, the State cannot possess any just property. (1982, p. 183)
In short, the state has no right to determine who can use public streets and who cannot. A curfew is a blatant violation of private property rights and cannot be justified.
In a libertarian world with private streets and private businesses, the owners impose the rules. In the case of an epidemic, they may close their property completely to the public. Or they could invite people conditionally to their property. For instance, they could limit the number of people who can access it. They could require tests before entering the property or declare that entering is at their own risk. They could also impose certain conditions, such as an age restriction or the required wearing of masks and gloves. Crisis and Leviathan: ... Robert Higgs Best Price: $7.96 Buy New $7.42 (as of 05:25 UTC - Details)
Let us discuss the other restrictions that have been implemented in the wake of the COVID-19 epidemic, such as the required closing of bars, hotels, and other shops. Politicians’ argument in favor of the closures is the following: out of solidarity with the rest of the population, especially with the elderly, people should help bring the rate of infection down, because otherwise many people will die due to the limited capacities of the public health systems and the lack of provision for such an epidemic. People staying at home, confined to their houses, would save lives. They would thereby help others. And as people cannot be expected to help others and stay at home voluntarily, the state has the right to enforce a confinement that saves lives.
Now, the essential ethical question is the following: is anyone allowed to use violence in order to ensure that people will help their fellow men? Can the use of coercion to make people help others be justified?
Rothbard´s answer to this question in The Ethics of Liberty is unequivocal:
it is impermissible to interpret the term “right to life,” to give one an enforceable claim to the action of someone else to sustain that life. In our terminology, such a claim would be an impermissible violation of the other person’s right of self-ownership. (1982, p. 99)
Note that for Rothbard and libertarians in general, the concept of “rights” is purely negative. Rights protect the radius of a person’s action that no one else can interfere with using aggressive violence. Property rights demarcate the area in which an individual can act freely.
Rothbard continues:
No man can therefore have a “right” to compel someone to do a positive act, for in that case the compulsion violates the right of person or property of the individual being coerced….As a corollary, this means that, in the free society, no man may be saddled with the legal obligation to do anything for another, since that would invade the former’s rights; the only legal obligation one man has to another is to respect the other man’s rights. (1982, p. 99)
The Tragedy of the Eur... Bagus, Philipp Best Price: $14.03 Buy New $11.00 (as of 06:28 UTC - Details) If that is not enough evidence, Rothbard gives two examples to argue that no one may use violence to make someone help another person. First, he discusses an example provided by Friedrich A. von Hayek. In this example there exists a “monopolist” owner of water in an oasis. Rothbard points out that the owner has the right not to sell the water to customers. The owner is within his rights in reserving the water for himself and cannot be forced to help thirsty people by selling the water:
The situation may well be unfortunate for the customers, as are many situations in life, but the supplier of a particularly scarce and vital service is hardly being ´coercive´ by either refusing to sell or by setting a price that the buyers are willing to pay. Both actions are within his rights as a free man and as a just property owner. The owner of the oasis is responsible only for the existence of his own actions and his own property; he is not accountable for the existence of the desert or for the fact that the other springs have dried up. (1982, p. 221)
Let us apply this reasoning to the current situation: the owner of a business has the right to open it. The owner of a garden has the right to use it and the pedestrian has the right to walk on the street. They are only responsible for their own actions and their own property and not for the existence of the coronavirus or for the fact that government hospitals are mismanaged.
Of course, it is a different case if someone knows that he is infected and opens his business with the intention of infecting and doing harm to the customers. This would be criminal behavior and defensive violence, such as closing down the business by the threat of force, would be justified. But how do we know that the opening of the business is really an act of aggression on part of an infected owner?
As Rothbard point out, the burden of proof is on the people using violence:
the burden of proof that the aggression has really begun must be on the person who employs the defensive violence. (1982, p. 78)
We only know if someone is a criminal when he is convicted. Until people are convicted they must enjoy all the rights of innocents, such as being allowed to leave their houses or open their stores. As Rothbard (1982, p. 82) reminds us, “they are innocent until proven guilty.”
Rothbard provides a second example for his claim that no one can be forced to help others. This example is about an epidemic and, therefore, is worth quoting in full: Deep Freeze: Iceland&r... Howden, David Best Price: $6.57 Buy New $10.95 (as of 06:28 UTC - Details)
Suppose that there is only one physician in a community, and an epidemic breaks out; only he can save the lives of numerous fellow-citizens—an action surely crucial to their existence. Is he “coercing” them if (a) he refuses to do anything, or leave town; or (b) if he charges a very high price for his curative services? Certainly not. There is, for one thing, nothing wrong with a man charging the value of his services to his customers, i.e., what they are willing to pay. He further has every right to refuse to do anything. While he may perhaps be criticized morally or aesthetically, as a self-owner of his own body he has every right to refuse to cure or to do so at a high price; to say that he is being “coercive” is furthermore to imply that it is proper and not coercive for his customers or their agents to force the physician to treat them: in short, to justify his enslavement. But surely enslavement, compulsory labor, must be considered “coercive” in any sensible meaning of the term.
If the physician cannot be forced to help during an epidemic, then a fortiori a normal citizen cannot be forced to help either. It is certainly possible that one could help others in these times by staying home, by closing businesses, or by donating medical equipment. Yet forcing people to stay at home, closing their businesses, and expropriating medical equipment are violations of property rights. They are crimes, plain and simple. No one has the right to confine another (innocent) person to his house or oblige him to close his business.
The argument that central planning through confinement or other forms of violence would save lives is also highly problematic, because it ignores the problem of economic calculation. These infringements of private property involve (subjective) costs that cannot be calculated and compared to the benefits in a nonarbitrary way.
For instance, being confined to one’s own four walls, with the corresponding lack of physical exercise, will lead to increased cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, strokes, and thromboses, among other things. Moreover, the psychological burden of being locked up is immense. The psychological strain can cause divorces and break up families; traumatization and depression are created. Domestic violence and child abuse are expected to surge. In sum, some people may die due to these infringements of private property; others may be saved.
Moreover, the economic havoc created by these measures is potentially devastating. It is true that there would have been an economic crisis anyway due to the distortions created by monetary policy. The epidemic is only the trigger of the crisis. Nevertheless, the crisis is made harsher by the government infringements on private property rights. If people are not allowed to produce, because they cannot leave their homes or open their businesses, production falls.
Business owners who see their lifetime achievement destroyed by the political reaction to the virus could suffer heart attacks, fall into depression, commit suicide, or become alcoholics. Similar consequences may await workers who become unemployed due to the political measures.
Furthermore, the standard of living will fall as economic activity is suffocated by the confinement. There will be less goods and services available to maintain, let alone improve, quality of life, because these goods will simply not be produced. And if the economy of the Western world collapses, the West will buy less goods and services from poor countries. The living standard will therefore also fall in the third world, where it may mean the difference between life and death for many. In general, poverty means reduced longevity. Rich people tend to live longer than poor people.
But that is not all. Governments all over the world are advancing on the road to serfdom, controlling their populations and increasing their power relative to the private sector via increased public spending and new regulations. According to the “ratchet effect,” defined by Robert Higgs, government power usually increases in crisis times. However, when the crisis recedes, government power is not reduced to its initial position. Thus, the long-term victim of the government intrusion may be liberty. More socialist regimes may be instituted. And in these regimes life expectancy is shorter. The greater the power of government, the lower will be the quantity and quality of life ceteris paribus. For instance, the capitalist West Germans had a life expectancy that was about three years longer than that of their East German counterparts.
It is, of course, true that government coercion may increase the life expectancy of some people in the short run. Enforcing confinement in an epidemic is only one example. There are other possibilities. The government may prohibit smoking, or subsidize fruits, vegetables or sports classes. It may use tax revenue to improve the medical treatments of the population, thereby increasing life expectancy.
Yet, how much artificially increasing of public health is enough? For instance, how much of GDP should be spent on healthcare? Five percent, 10 percent, 50 percent, or 90 percent of GDP? Certainly spending more might increase life expectancy. But how can the government official know the correct percentage?
Similarly, how much of GDP shall be sacrificed in an epidemic by more or less drastic confinement measures? Shall 5 percent, 10 percent, 50 percent, or 90 percent of productive activities stop in order to slow down the propagation of the virus? There is no nonarbitrary way for a central planner to decide these matters. All government measures come with costs that cannot be quantified.
There is only one alternative to the arbitrary central planning of government, with its violation of private property rights. This alternative is the libertarianism, the alternative that Murray Rothbard always staunchly defended: the voluntary decisions of private property owners.
Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.
The Best of Philipp Bagus