lewrockwell--2020-05-15--Can a Common Cold Make a Person ‘Immune’ to COVID-19?

It has long been known that benign coronavirus species cause 15 % of common colds .
This reality was recently mentioned by an internationally-famous virologist from Germany , in an interview where he also admitted that laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 is next to impossible given the high incidence of both false-positive COVID PCR swab tests and false positive COVID serum antibody tests .
Apparently , neither test seems to be able to distinguish between the benign coronavirus that causes common colds and the more serious coronavirus that causes COVID-19 !
!
Dr Fauci ’ s ignorance of ( or his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his oft-repeated assertion as he did his media rounds and White House press conferences prior to the economic shut-down : “ I think we should be overly aggressive ( even if we ) get criticized for overreacting .
I think Americans should be prepared … to hunker down.
” Anthony Fauci , as everybody should know , is the long-time director of the CDC ’ s NIAID ( National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases .
He is , significantly , also a holder of many HIV vaccine patents and the holder of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Dengue virus vaccine that recently killed 600 Philippine children . )
Another expert , Dr Christian Drosten , pictured above , is the Director of Berlin University ’ s Institute of Virology .
He is known at “ Germany ’ s real face of the coronavirus crisis ” .
The quotes came during an interview that Drosten made last month , in which he revealed that the benign coronavirus that causes the common cold can not be differentiated by the COVID test kits , over 200 of which are currently in development @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The interview can be read here .
“ Some virologists now assume that there are people who have become immune to COVID-19 unnoticed because they have had a relatively harmless corona cold in the past.
” “ It is quite the case that we expect that there may be an unnoticed background immunity – due to cold coronaviruses , because they are related to the SARS CoV-2 virus in a certain way.
” “ 15 percent of common colds are caused by well-known coronaviruses .
These are so similar to the current ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause false positive antibody tests.
” “ It could be that certain people who had a cold virus a year or two ago are protected in an unprecedented way.
” Covid-19 ’ s Phony Death Numbers are the justification for unprecedented lockdown measures , euthanasia of the elderly , social distancing , detrimental masking , possible mandatory vaccines of dubious effect , all of which are causing the destruction of life and livelihood .
But , why do this ?
And whose interests are being served ?
Not only are the coronavirus models @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( WHO ) and most national health agencies based on highly dubious methodologies , and not only are the tests being used of wildly different quality-only confirming evidence of a COVID-19 infection-but now the actual designations of deaths related to COVID-19 are being revealed to be equally problematic for a variety of reasons .
It gives alarming food for thought as to the wisdom of deliberately putting most of the world ’ s people–and with it the world economy–into Gulag-style lockdown on the argument that it is necessary to contain deaths and prevent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we take a closer look at the definitions used in various countries for “ death related to COVID-19 ” we get a far different picture of what is claimed to be the deadliest plague to threaten mankind since the 1918 “ Spanish ” Flu .
Right now the USA is said to be the nation with the largest number of COVID-19 deaths , as of this writing , with media reporting some 68,000 deaths .
Here is where it gets very dodgy .
The US Government agency responsible for making the cause of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) , is making huge changes in how they count so-called novel coronavirus deaths .
As of May 5 , the National Center for Health Statistics ( NCHS ) of the CDC in Atlanta , the central agency recording causes of death nationwide , reported 39,910 COVID-19 deaths .
A footnote defines this as “ Deaths with confirmed or presumed COVID-19 ” .
How a doctor makes the “ presumed ” judgment leaves huge latitude to the hospital and health professionals .
Although the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ false results , CDC states that even where no tests have been made a doctor can “ presume ” COVID-19 .
Useful to note for perspective is the number of USA deaths recorded from all causes during the same period of February 1 through May 2 , that was 751,953 !
Now it gets even more murky .
The CDC posted this notice : “ As of April 14 , 2020 , CDC case counts and death counts will include both confirmed and probable cases and deaths.
” From that time the number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exploded in an alarming manner – or so it would appear .
On that day , April 14 , New York City ’ s coronavirus death toll was revised with 3,700 fatalities added , with the provision that the count now included “ people who had never tested positive for the virus but were presumed to have it.
” The CDC now defines “ confirmed ” as “ confirmatory laboratory evidence for COVID-19 , ” which as we noted elsewhere included tests of dubious precision .
Then they define “ probable ” as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for COVID-19.
” Just a guess of the doctor in charge .
Now leaving aside the major discrepancy between the CDC headline COVID-19 deaths as of May 5 of 68,279 and their detailed total of 39,910 deaths for the same period , we find another problem .
Hospitals and doctors are being told to list COVID-19 as cause of death even if , say , a patient age 83 with pre-existing diabetes or cardiac issues or pneumonia dies with or without COVID-19 tests .
The CDC advises , “ In cases where a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made but is “ suspected ” or “ likely ” ( e.g .
the circumstances are compelling with a reasonable degree of certainty ) it is acceptable to report COVID-19 on a death certificate as ‘ probable ’ or ‘ presumed.
’ ” This opens the door ridiculously wide for abuse of coronavirus death numbers in the United States .
A provision in the March 2020 Coronavirus Aid , Relief , and Economic Security Act , known as the CARES Act , gives a major incentive for hospitals in the US , most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to deem newly-admitted patients as “ presumed COVID-19.
” By this simple method the hospital then qualifies for a substantially larger payment from the government Medicare insurance , the national insurance for those over 65 .
The word “ presumed ” is not scientific , not at all precise but very tempting for hospitals concerned about their income in this crisis .
Dr Summer McGhee , Dean of the School of Health Sciences at the University of New Haven , notes that , “ The CARES Act authorized a temporary 20 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patients… ” He added that , as a result , “ hospitals that get a lot of COVID-19 patients also get extra money from the government.
” Then , according to a Minnesota medical doctor , Scott Jensen , also a State Senator , if that COVID-19 designated patient is put on a ventilator , even if only presumed to have COVID-19 , the hospital can get reimbursed three times the sum from the Medicare .
“ Right now , Medicare is determining that if you have a COVID-19 admission to the hospital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator you get $ 39,000 , three times as much.
” Little wonder that state governors , such as Massachusetts ’ Governor Charlie Baker , suddenly began back-dating causes of death ( totals back to March 30 , significantly inflating COVID death numbers , or that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo began demanding 30,000 ventilators and emergency equipment around the same early April time , equipment that was not needed .
In short , the COVID-19 death statistics in the USA are highly dubious for a variety of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the huge financial incentives to hospital administrators who had been told to cancel all other operations to make extra room for a “ predicted ” flood of coronavirus illnesses .
That “ rising ” death toll said to be “ COVID-19-or presumed to be-COVID-19 ” brings on the decisions to lock down the economy and in effect create an economic pandemic of unparalleled dimensions .
The lack of uniformly agreed tests and the inaccuracies of many tests used , as well as the extremely doubtful criteria for declaring a cause of death as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is well past time to re-examine the unprecedented lockdown measures , social distancing , masking , possible mandatory vaccines of unproven effect , all of which are producing personal , social and economic devastation .
Addendum : Where the erroneous COVID numbers come from : The CDC ’ s National Vital Statistics System Provisional death counts deliver our most comprehensive picture of lives lost to COVID-19 .
These estimates are based on death certificates , which are the most reliable source of data and contain information not available anywhere else , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and place of death .
The National Center for Health Statistics ( NCHS ) uses incoming data from death certificates to produce provisional COVID-19 death counts .
These include deaths occurring within the 50 states and the District of Columbia .
COVID-19 deaths are identified using a new ICD–10 code .
When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death – or when it is listed as a — the death is coded as U07.1 .
This can include cases with or without laboratory confirmation .
Why these numbers are different Provisional death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sources , such as media reports or numbers from county health departments .
Our counts often track 1–2 weeks behind other data for a number of reasons : Death certificates take time to be completed .
There are many steps involved in completing and submitting a death certificate .
Waiting for test results can create additional delays .
States report at different rates .
Currently , 63 % of all U.S. deaths are reported within 10 days of the date of death , but there is significant variation among jurisdictions .
It takes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While 80 % of deaths are electronically processed and coded by NCHS within minutes , most deaths from COVID-19 must be coded manually , which takes an average of 7 days .
Other reporting systems use different definitions or methods for counting deaths .
Things to know about the data Provisional counts are not final and are subject to change .
Counts from previous weeks are continually revised as additional records are received and processed .
Provisional data are not yet complete .
Counts will not include all deaths that occurred during a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent periods .
However , we can estimate how complete our numbers are by looking at the average number of deaths reported in previous years .
Death counts should not be compared across jurisdictions .
Some jurisdictions report deaths on a daily basis , while others report deaths weekly or monthly .
In addition , vital record reporting may also be affected or delayed by COVID-19 related response activities .
The Best of Gary G. Kohls , MD

It has long been known that benign coronavirus species cause 15% of common colds. This reality was recently mentioned by an internationally-famous virologist from Germany, in an interview where he also admitted that laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 is next to impossible given the high incidence of both false-positive COVID PCR swab tests and false positive COVID serum antibody tests. Apparently, neither test seems to be able to distinguish between the benign coronavirus that causes common colds and the more serious coronavirus that causes COVID-19!!
Dr Fauci’s ignorance of (or his failure to reveal) that fact justified his oft-repeated assertion as he did his media rounds and White House press conferences prior to the economic shut-down:
“I think we should be overly aggressive (even if we) get criticized for overreacting. I think Americans should be prepared … to hunker down.”
Anthony Fauci, as everybody should know, is the long-time director of the CDC’s NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. He is, significantly, also a holder of many HIV vaccine patents and the holder of the patent for the Sanofi-Pasteur Corporation’s Dengue virus vaccine that recently killed 600 Philippine children.)
Another expert, Dr Christian Drosten, pictured above, is the Director of Berlin University’s Institute of Virology. He is known at “Germany’s real face of the coronavirus crisis”. Curing the Incurable: ... Best Price: $12.95 Buy New $44.02 (as of 03:06 UTC - Details)
The quotes came during an interview that Drosten made last month, in which he revealed that the benign coronavirus that causes the common cold cannot be differentiated by the COVID test kits, over 200 of which are currently in development by profiteering medical device companies!!
The interview can be read here.
“Some virologists now assume that there are people who have become immune to COVID-19 unnoticed because they have had a relatively harmless corona cold in the past.”
“It is quite the case that we expect that there may be an unnoticed background immunity – due to cold coronaviruses, because they are related to the SARS CoV-2 virus in a certain way.”
“15 percent of common colds are caused by well-known coronaviruses. These are so similar to the current (COVID-19) virus that they can even cause false positive antibody tests.”
“It could be that certain people who had a cold virus a year or two ago are protected in an unprecedented way.”
COVID-19’s Phony Death Numbers
Covid-19’s Phony Death Numbersare the justification for unprecedented lockdown measures, euthanasia of the elderly, social distancing, detrimental masking, possible mandatory vaccines of dubious effect, all of which are causing the destruction of life and livelihood. But, why do this? And whose interests are being served? Antiviral Strategies a... Vasquez, Alex Best Price: $24.05 Buy New $23.75 (as of 11:07 UTC - Details)
By F. William Engdahl – Global Research, May 12, 2020
www.globalresearch.ca/coronavirus-death-numbers/5712605
Theme: Intelligence, Media Disinformation, Science and Medicine
Not only are the coronavirus models being used by the World Health Organization (WHO) and most national health agencies based on highly dubious methodologies, and not only are the tests being used of wildly different quality-only indirectly confirming evidence of a possible COVID-19 infection-but now the actual designations of deaths related to COVID-19 are being revealed to be equally problematic for a variety of reasons. It gives alarming food for thought as to the wisdom of deliberately putting most of the world’s people–and with it the world economy–into Gulag-style lockdown on the argument that it is necessary to contain deaths and prevent overloading of hospital emergency services.
When we take a closer look at the definitions used in various countries for “death related to COVID-19” we get a far different picture of what is claimed to be the deadliest plague to threaten mankind since the 1918 “Spanish” Flu.
The USA and CDC Definitions
Right now the USA is said to be the nation with the largest number of COVID-19 deaths, as of this writing, with media reporting some 68,000 deaths. Here is where it gets very dodgy.
The Miraculous Results... Bowles, Jeff T Best Price: $4.25 Buy New $6.99 (as of 01:50 UTC - Details) The US Government agency responsible for making the cause of death tally for the country, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), is making huge changes in how they count so-called novel coronavirus deaths.
As of May 5, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) of the CDC in Atlanta, the central agency recording causes of death nationwide, reported 39,910 COVID-19 deaths. A footnote defines this as “Deaths with confirmed or presumed COVID-19”.
How a doctor makes the “presumed” judgment leaves huge latitude to the hospital and health professionals. Although the coronavirus tests are known to be subject to false results, CDC states that even where no tests have been made a doctor can “presume” COVID-19. Useful to note for perspective is the number of USA deaths recorded from all causes during the same period of February 1 through May 2, that was 751,953!
Now it gets even more murky. The CDC posted this notice: “As of April 14, 2020, CDC case counts and death counts will include both confirmed and probable cases and deaths.” From that time the number of so-called COVID-19 deaths in USA has exploded in an alarming manner – or so it would appear. On that day, April 14, New York City’s coronavirus death toll was revised with 3,700 fatalities added, with the provision that the count now included “people who had never tested positive for the virus but were presumed to have it.”
The CDC now defines “confirmed” as “confirmatory laboratory evidence for COVID-19,” which as we noted elsewhere included tests of dubious precision. Then they define “probable” as “with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19.” Just a guess of the doctor in charge.
Now leaving aside the major discrepancy between the CDC headline COVID-19 deaths as of May 5 of 68,279 and their detailed total of 39,910 deaths for the same period, we find another problem. Hospitals and doctors are being told to list COVID-19 as cause of death even if, say, a patient age 83 with pre-existing diabetes or cardiac issues or pneumonia dies with or without COVID-19 tests.
The CDC advises, “In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID cannot be made but is “suspected” or “likely” (e.g. the circumstances are compelling with a reasonable degree of certainty) it is acceptable to report COVID-19 on a death certificate as ‘probable’ or ‘presumed.’” Solgar Vitamin D3 (Cho... Buy New $15.00 ($0.12 / Count) (as of 11:23 UTC - Details)
This opens the door ridiculously wide for abuse of coronavirus death numbers in the United States.
A Big Money Incentive
A provision in the March 2020 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, known as the CARES Act, gives a major incentive for hospitals in the US, most all of them private, for-profit businesses, to deem newly-admitted patients as “presumed COVID-19.” By this simple method the hospital then qualifies for a substantially larger payment from the government Medicare insurance, the national insurance for those over 65. The word “presumed” is not scientific, not at all precise but very tempting for hospitals concerned about their income in this crisis.
Dr Summer McGhee, Dean of the School of Health Sciences at the University of New Haven, notes that,
“The CARES Act authorized a temporary 20 percent increase in reimbursements from Medicare for COVID-19 patients…” He added that, as a result, “hospitals that get a lot of COVID-19 patients also get extra money from the government.”
Then, according to a Minnesota medical doctor, Scott Jensen, also a State Senator, if that COVID-19 designated patient is put on a ventilator, even if only presumed to have COVID-19, the hospital can get reimbursed three times the sum from the Medicare.
Dr Jensen told a national TV interviewer,
“Right now, Medicare is determining that if you have a COVID-19 admission to the hospital you get $13,000. If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator you get $39,000, three times as much.”
Natren Healthy Trinity... Buy New $141.56 ($1.57 / Count) (as of 03:43 UTC - Details) Little wonder that state governors, such as Massachusetts’ Governor Charlie Baker, suddenly began back-dating causes of death (totals back to March 30, significantly inflating COVID death numbers, or that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo began demanding 30,000 ventilators and emergency equipment around the same early April time, equipment that was not needed.
In short, the COVID-19 death statistics in the USA are highly dubious for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the huge financial incentives to hospital administrators who had been told to cancel all other operations to make extra room for a “predicted” flood of coronavirus illnesses. That “rising” death toll said to be “COVID-19-or presumed to be-COVID-19” brings on the decisions to lock down the economy and in effect create an economic pandemic of unparalleled dimensions.
The lack of uniformly agreed tests and the inaccuracies of many tests used, as well as the extremely doubtful criteria for declaring a cause of death as being “from” COVID-19 suggests that it is well past time to re-examine the unprecedented lockdown measures, social distancing, masking, possible mandatory vaccines of unproven effect, all of which are producing personal, social and economic devastation.
Addendum: Where the erroneous COVID numbers come from: The CDC’s National Vital Statistics System
Understanding the Numbers: Provisional Death Counts and COVID-19
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm
Provisional death counts deliver our most comprehensive picture of lives lost to COVID-19. These estimates are based on death certificates, which are the most reliable source of data and contain information not available anywhere else, including comorbid conditions, race and ethnicity, and place of death.
How it works
The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) uses incoming data from death certificates to produce provisional COVID-19 death counts. These include deaths occurring within the 50 states and the District of Columbia. COVID-19 deaths are identified using a new ICD–10 code.
UVILIZER Flip | Foldab... Buy New $29.95 (as of 02:45 UTC - Details) When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death – or when it is listed as a “probable” or “presumed” cause — the death is coded as U07.1. This can include cases with or without laboratory confirmation.
Why these numbers are different
Provisional death counts may not match counts from other sources, such as media reports or numbers from county health departments. Our counts often track 1–2 weeks behind other data for a number of reasons: Death certificates take time to be completed. There are many steps involved in completing and submitting a death certificate. Waiting for test results can create additional delays. States report at different rates.
Currently, 63% of all U.S. deaths are reported within 10 days of the date of death, but there is significant variation among jurisdictions. It takes extra time to code COVID-19 deaths. While 80% of deaths are electronically processed and coded by NCHS within minutes, most deaths from COVID-19 must be coded manually, which takes an average of 7 days. Other reporting systems use different definitions or methods for counting deaths.
Things to know about the data
Provisional counts are not final and are subject to change. Counts from previous weeks are continually revised as additional records are received and processed. Provisional data are not yet complete. Counts will not include all deaths that occurred during a given time period, especially for more recent periods. However, we can estimate how complete our numbers are by looking at the average number of deaths reported in previous years.
Death counts should not be compared across jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions report deaths on a daily basis, while others report deaths weekly or monthly. In addition, vital record reporting may also be affected or delayed by COVID-19 related response activities.
The Best of Gary G. Kohls, MD


lewrockwell--2020-05-15--It’s the Public Health, Stupid!

It’s the Public Health, Stupid!

Lately , my progressive acquaintances and the mainstream media seem unable to complete a thought without mentioning the importance of “ public health.
” These days , if Governor Ralph Northam of Virginia decides to take away people ’ s guns , he ’ s only doing so to improve the public health .
If he then wishes to extend abortion rights to women who decide to kill their infants , that is obviously a “ women ’ s health issue.
” Of course , exercising this supposed right means something catastrophic for the baby , whose health , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Public health also has a way of coming back as a major media concern whenever it becomes politically useful to the Democratic Party .
Thus , in their eyes , as soon as the coronavirus provided an occasion for Democratic governors to increase their control , it went from being an excuse for Trump to vent his xenophobia on passengers flying to and from China , to a life-or-death matter .
In fact , they argue that protecting our health against this virus may require shattering the American economy with a prolonged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that event takes place—and a doddering Democrat can be elected to replace Trump—we can deal with the economic ruin by reopening what is left of American commerce .
In my neighborhood I notice those who once pooh-poohed COVID-19 as a hyped-up Republican talking point are now running around under the sun with grotesque masks on their faces—some with only small eye slits available for squinting in suspicion at neighbors .
These are worn as a new form of virtue-signaling on our mostly empty streets .
The about-face of the left on the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reminds me of those French Communists in World War II , who went from cooperation with Nazi Germany to championing the French Resistance on the day that Hitler invaded the Soviet Union .
Sometimes political circumstances require instant change .
Admittedly , governments over the years have addressed real public health issues for our collective and individual benefit .
These would include , among many other reforms , the improvement of sanitation since the 19th century , making available information about vaccinations and disease risks , and informing people of the perils of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent times , weed ) , and establishing quarantines when necessary .
But now public health crises are cynically used to promote political ends and to wreak social havoc .
The Best of Paul Gottfried

Lately, my progressive acquaintances and the mainstream media seem unable to complete a thought without mentioning the importance of “public health.” These days, if Governor Ralph Northam of Virginia decides to take away people’s guns, he’s only doing so to improve the public health. If he then wishes to extend abortion rights to women who decide to kill their infants, that is obviously a “women’s health issue.” Of course, exercising this supposed right means something catastrophic for the baby, whose health, not to mention life, is adversely terminated.
Public health also has a way of coming back as a major media concern whenever it becomes politically useful to the Democratic Party. Thus, in their eyes, as soon as the coronavirus provided an occasion for Democratic governors to increase their control, it went from being an excuse for Trump to vent his xenophobia on passengers flying to and from China, to a life-or-death matter. Plagues and the Parado... Bollyky, Thomas J. Best Price: $27.03 Buy New $16.66 (as of 11:34 UTC - Details)
In fact, they argue that protecting our health against this virus may require shattering the American economy with a prolonged lockdown until Election Day. Presumably once that event takes place—and a doddering Democrat can be elected to replace Trump—we can deal with the economic ruin by reopening what is left of American commerce.
Pandemics: A Brief His... Press, University Buy New $12.49 (as of 03:05 UTC - Details) In my neighborhood I notice those who once pooh-poohed COVID-19 as a hyped-up Republican talking point are now running around under the sun with grotesque masks on their faces—some with only small eye slits available for squinting in suspicion at neighbors. These are worn as a new form of virtue-signaling on our mostly empty streets. The about-face of the left on the virus and the use of personal protective equipment reminds me of those French Communists in World War II, who went from cooperation with Nazi Germany to championing the French Resistance on the day that Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. Sometimes political circumstances require instant change.
Admittedly, governments over the years have addressed real public health issues for our collective and individual benefit. These would include, among many other reforms, the improvement of sanitation since the 19th century, making available information about vaccinations and disease risks, and informing people of the perils of smoking (tobacco but not, in recent times, weed), and establishing quarantines when necessary. But now public health crises are cynically used to promote political ends and to wreak social havoc.
Read the Whole Article
The Best of Paul Gottfried


lewrockwell--2020-05-15--Does the US Plan To Blow Up the World?

Does the US Plan To Blow Up the World?

Despite being the global epicentre of COVID-19 cases and deaths , the world ’ s leading nuclear power accounted for roughly half of total global spending on nuclear arms , a shock report from a major Swiss nonprofit coalition found .
Nuclear armed states spent a record $ 73bn on nuclear weapons amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic , a report from the Geneva-based International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons ( ICAN ) revealed .
The report , entitled Enough Is Enough : 2019 Global Nuclear Weapons Spending , found an increase of nuclear weapons spending in 2019 , up $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which assessed the world ’ s leading nuclear powers – The United States , United Kingdom , France , China , Russia , Pakistan , India , Israel and North Korea – revealed that top nuclear powers spent $ 138,699 on over 13,000 nuclear weapons every minute of 2019 .
But the United Kingdom was the third highest spender at $ 8.9bn after the US and China at $ 35bn and $ 10.4bn , respectively , according to the report .
Nuclear arms were banned by the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UN will enforce after all participating 50 nations ratify or accede the document , effectively criminalising such expenditures under international law .
But the figures only included direct spending on nuclear warheads and delivery systems costs for operation and deployment , with real numbers skyrocketing after factoring in costs due to environmental damage and victim compensation , with ICAN calling on governments to remain transparent in disclosing expenses , the statement read .
A new report has found nuclear-armed states spent a record $ 73 billion on nuclear weapons in 2019 , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The United States , the center of the global coronavirus pandemic , accounted for nearly half of that spending .
Alicia Sanders-Zakre , author of the report , said : “ The figures do not include the massive humanitarian costs and the environmental toll from a legacy of nuclear testing and production .
Even in the unlikely chance these weapons are never used , governments are paying massive sums to poison their environments and put their people at grave risk.
” The news comes as British MPs slammed the Ministry of Defence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on upgrading the country ’ s nuclear Trident programme , which is currently six years behind schedule .
Costs were estimated at £2.5bn for the three upgrade programmes , which have spiked an additional £1.35bn , according to reports .

Despite being the global epicentre of COVID-19 cases and deaths, the world’s leading nuclear power accounted for roughly half of total global spending on nuclear arms, a shock report from a major Swiss nonprofit coalition found.
Nuclear armed states spent a record $73bn on nuclear weapons amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, a report from the Geneva-based International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) revealed.
The report, entitled Enough Is Enough: 2019 Global Nuclear Weapons Spending, found an increase of nuclear weapons spending in 2019, up $7.1bn from 2018.
The findings, which assessed the world’s leading nuclear powers – The United States, United Kingdom, France, China, Russia, Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea – revealed that top nuclear powers spent $138,699 on over 13,000 nuclear weapons every minute of 2019.
$73 billion. That’s how much the nine nuclear-armed states spent on nuclear weapons in 2019. We have just released new research breaking down how much each country spent → https://t.co/wJfdM62eCd Here is what you need to know ↓ #thread pic.twitter.com/3HaiMCueyP — ICAN (@nuclearban) May 13, 2020
The Oligarchs: Wealth ... Hoffman, David E. Best Price: $5.51 Buy New $16.20 (as of 11:35 UTC - Details) But the United Kingdom was the third highest spender at $8.9bn after the US and China at $35bn and $10.4bn, respectively, according to the report.
“It is absurd to be spending $138,700 every single minute on weapons that cause catastrophic human harm rather than spending it to protect the health of their citizens. They are abdicating their duty to protect their people,” ICAN executive director, Beatrice Fihn, said in a statement.
Nuclear arms were banned by the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which the UN will enforce after all participating 50 nations ratify or accede the document, effectively criminalising such expenditures under international law.
When Germany removes US nuclear weapons from its soil, Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands will feel great pressure to follow suit. Belgium came close to expelling US nuclear weapons from its territory earlier this year, when a parliamentary motion was narrowly defeated. — Tim Wright (@TimMilesWright) May 11, 2020
But the figures only included direct spending on nuclear warheads and delivery systems costs for operation and deployment, with real numbers skyrocketing after factoring in costs due to environmental damage and victim compensation, with ICAN calling on governments to remain transparent in disclosing expenses, the statement read.
INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN TO ABOLISH NUCLEAR WEAPONS (ICAN)
A new report has found nuclear-armed states spent a record $73 billion on nuclear weapons in 2019, a $14 billion increase from 2018 expenditures. The United States, the center of the global coronavirus pandemic, accounted for nearly half of that spending.
The Dead Hand: The Unt... David E. Hoffman Best Price: $4.74 Buy New $35.00 (as of 11:35 UTC - Details) Alicia Sanders-Zakre, author of the report, said: “The figures do not include the massive humanitarian costs and the environmental toll from a legacy of nuclear testing and production. Even in the unlikely chance these weapons are never used, governments are paying massive sums to poison their environments and put their people at grave risk.”
The news comes as British MPs slammed the Ministry of Defence for wasting £1.3bn ($1.6bn) on upgrading the country’s nuclear Trident programme, which is currently six years behind schedule. Costs were estimated at £2.5bn for the three upgrade programmes, which have spiked an additional £1.35bn, according to reports.
Reprinted from Sputnik News.


lewrockwell--2020-05-15--Unintended Consequences of Monetary Inflation

“ In short , the Fed is committed to rescue businesses from the greatest economic catastrophe since the great depression and probably even greater than that , to fund the US Government ’ s rocketing budget deficits , fund the maintenance of domestic consumption directly or indirectly through the US Treasury , while pumping up financial markets to achieve these objectives and preserve the illusion of national wealth .
“ Clearly , we stand on the threshold of an unprecedented monetary expansion.
” President Reagan memorably said that the nine words you don ’ t want to hear are “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m here to help.
” Governments in all the major jurisdictions are now making good on that unwanted promise and are taking responsibility for everything from our shoulders .
Those receiving subsidies and loan guarantees are no doubt grateful , though they probably see it as the government ’ s duty and their right .
But someone has to pay for it .
In the past , by the redistribution of wealth through taxes it meant that the haves were taxed to give financial support to the have-nots , at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through monetary debasement nearly everyone benefits from monetary redistribution .
This is not a costless exercise .
Governments are no longer robbing Peter to pay Paul , they are robbing Peter to pay Peter as well .
You would think this is widely understood , but the Peters are so distracted by the apparent benefits they might or might not get that they don ’ t see the cost .
They fail to appreciate that printing money is not just the marginal source of finance for excess government spending , but it has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a total absence in the established media of any commentary on the consequences of monetary inflation , and in a cry for more we even have financial experts warning us of a deflationary collapse and the need for the Fed to introduce negative interest rates to stave off deflation .
Yes , there are deflationary forces , because banks wish to reduce their loan exposure at a time of increasing risk .
But we can be sure central banks and their political masters will do everything they can to counter the trend of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There can only be one outcome : the debasement and eventual destruction of fiat currencies .
It was the nineteenth century French economist , Frederic Bastiat , who pointed out there were unseen consequences from violating property .
He took the biblical approach of a parable , famous as the broken window fallacy .
It is not what is seen , but what is unseen .
He told of a boy breaking a window , its destruction giving business to the glazier which he would not otherwise have had .
That is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that otherwise would have occurred if the cost of the broken window had not been incurred .
We see the helicoptered money , the furlough support , and the businesses helped not to go bust .
But we do not see the cost .
We don ’ t see how the resources taken up might otherwise be constructively deployed .
We are told that the government is paying for it all , but taxes are not being raised .
Was Reagan ’ s aphorism wrong after all ?
If so , the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of help is to be welcomed .
He comes bearing gifts .
And without an increase in taxes what is not to like ?
Bastiat gave us the answer .
Unfortunately , the unseen consequences of apparently costless inflationary financing are myriad , as we will painfully discover .
Over a century before Bastiat , an Irish banker in France , Richard Cantillon , observed that new money drove up prices as it was spent .
He had experienced John Law ’ s Mississippi bubble , which was fueled by printed money and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cantillon had observed the effect .
It made well-connected speculators their fortunes , whose profligate spending drove up prices for everyone else .
The effect at that time was that in real terms insiders became rich and the poor got poorer .
To this day the process by which this happens is known as the Cantillon effect .
Now that it is official policy , the lesson for today is that a rapid increase in monetary inflation will , as the effects trickle through the economy , further impoverish the poor .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their essentials and reducing the purchasing power of their salaries , if they are lucky enough to still be employed .
But as Cantillon pointed out in his Essai , reflecting the increased quantity of circulating money prices rise unevenly .
Never has it been truer than today , when we face the combination of an unprecedented slump in economic activity combined with a sharp escalation in monetary inflation : the rich whose stocks are rising can buy their expensive toys at knockdown prices , while the poor , increasing numbers of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make ends meet with rising prices for life ’ s essentials .
It gets worse .
Just as in Cantillon ’ s day , modern monetary policy is aimed at maintaining and increasing financial asset values .
John Law ’ s puffery attempted to inflate the combination of his Banque Royale and his Mississippi ventures .
Today it is all government bond markets , corporate debt , and stocks and shares .
The intention is to maintain and further a wealth effect to replace the true wealth that has been lost , originally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consumer successfully .
All we have now is John Law-style puffery .
The enrichment of the few at the expense of the many is a finite process .
The outcome will inevitably be the same : Law ’ s scheme began to run into headwinds in December 1719 , and by the following September his unbacked currency had failed .
It was dead , worthless , an ex-currency .
The empirical evidence is clear .
Central banks emulating Law ’ s scheme today will destroy their currencies and everything that floats on their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The rapidity of the collapse of the Mississippi scheme strongly suggests that once control over bond prices is lost the contemporary financial and monetary collapse will be similarly swift .
For this reason , understanding the consequences of monetary inflation spiralling out of control has never been more important .
We should know what they are from a study of sound economic theory and empirical evidence .
The poor will starve and many of those who became rich through financial asset inflation will eventually join them .
For the latter class , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a failing dollar-based inflation scheme to save what they can from the financial wreckage .
There is an aspect of the destruction brought about by monetary policy , which is almost never considered by policy makers , and that is how it distorts the allocation of capital and leads to its misallocation .
In free markets , capital is scarce and must be used to greatest effect if the consumer is to be properly served and the entrepreneur is to maximise his profits .
Capital comes in several forms and encompasses every aspect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ machinery , labour , semi-manufactured goods and commodities to be processed , and money .
An establishment , such as a factory or offices , and the availability of labour are relatively fixed in their capacity .
Depending on their deployment and capacity they produce a limited amount of goods .
It is just the one form of capital , that is money and credit , which central banks and the banking system now provide , and which in its unbacked form is infinitely flexible .
Consequently , attempts to stimulate production by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the other forms of capital .
Monetary policy has been increasingly used to manipulate capital allocation since the early days of the great depression in the 1930s .
The effect has varied but it has generally come up against the constraints of the other forms of capital .
Where there is excess labour , it takes time to retrain it with the specialist skills required , a process hampered by trade unions ostensibly protecting their members , but in reality , resisting reallocation of labour resources .
Government control over planning and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brake on change , meant that changes and additions to the use of establishments lengthen the time before entrepreneurial investment was rewarded with profits .
Government intervention has also discouraged the withdrawal of monetary capital from unprofitable deployment , or malinvestments , lengthening recessions needlessly .
When the advanced nations had strong industrial cores , the periodic expansions of credit and their subsequent sudden contractions led to observable booms and busts in the classical sense , since production of labour-intensive consumer goods dominated production overall .
There were then two further developments .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bretton Woods agreement in 1971 , which led to a substantial rise in prices for commodities .
According to the broad-based UN index of commodities rose from 33 to 157 during the decade , a rise of 376 % .
[ i ] This input category of production capital compared unfavourably with US consumer price increases over the decade of 112 % , the mismatch between these and other categories of capital allocation making economic calculation a fruitless exercise .
The second development was the liberation of financial controls in the mid-eighties , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of America ’ s Glass Steagall Act of 1933 , allowing commercial banks to fully embrace and exploit investment banking activities .
The banking cartel increasingly directed its ability to create credit towards purely financial activities mainly for their own books , thereby financing financial speculation , while de-emphasising bank credit expansion for production purposes for all but the larger corporations .
Partly in response , the nineties saw businesses move production to low-cost centres in South-East Asia where all forms of production capital , with the exception of monetary capital , were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then commenced a quarter-century of expansion of international trade replacing much of the domestic production of goods in the US , the UK , and Europe .
It was these events that denuded America of its manufacturing , not unfair competition as President Trump has alleged and Germany ’ s retention of manufactures proves .
But the effect has been to radically alter how we should interpret the effects of monetary expansion on the US economy and others , compared with Hayekian triangles and the like .
Business cycle research had assumed a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making monetary capital available to entrepreneurs .
Changes in the propensity to save sent contrary signals to businesses about the propensity to consume , which caused them to alter their production plans .
Based on the ratio between consumer spending and savings , this analytic model has been corrupted by the state and its licensed banks by replacing savers with former savers now no longer saving , and even borrowing to consume .
Today , the inflationary origins of investment funds for business development are hidden through financial intermediation by venture capital funds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mandatory , pension funds continue to invest savings , but their beneficiaries have abandoned voluntary saving and run up debts , so even pension funds are not entirely free of monetary inflation .
Insurance funds alone appear to be comprised of genuine savings within an inflationary system .
Other than pension funds and insurance companies , Keynes ’ s wish for the euthanasia of the saver has been achieved .
He went on to suggest there would be a time “ when we might aim in practice… at an increase in the volume @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scarce , so that the functionless investor will no longer receive a bonus… ” [ ii ] Now that everywhere bank deposits pay no interest , his wish has been granted , but Keynes did not foresee the unintended consequences of his inflationist policies which are now being visited upon us .
Among other errors , he failed to adequately account for the limitation of non-monetary forms of capital , which leads to bottlenecks and rising prices as monetary expansion proceeds .
The unintended consequences of neo-Keynesian policy failures are shortly to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the formation and deployment of monetary capital in the free market system based on the division of labour have been completely destroyed and replaced by inflation .
So , where do you take us from here , Mr Powell , Mr Bailey , Ms Lagarde , Mr Kuroda ?
We can now say that America , the nation responsible for the world ’ s reserve currency , has encouraged policies which have turned its economy from being a producer of goods with supporting services as the source of its citizens ’ wealth into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The virtues of saving and thrift have been replaced by profligate spending funded by debt .
Unprofitable businesses are being supported until the hoped-for return of easier times , which are now gone .
Cash and bank deposits ( checking accounts and savings deposits ) are created almost entirely by inflation , and currently total $ 15.2 trillion in the US , while total commercial bank capital is a little under $ 2 trillion .
This tells us crudely that $ 13 trillion sitting in customer accounts can be attributed to bank credit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are financial corporations and foreign entities , and not consumers maintaining cash and savings balances .
On the other side of bank balance sheets is consumer debt , mostly off-balance sheet , but ultimately funded on-balance sheet .
Excluding mortgages , the total comprised of credit cards , autos and student debt was $ 3.86 trillion in mid-2019 , amounting to an average debt of $ 27,571 per household , confirming the extent to which consumer debt has replaced savings .
[ iii ] At $ 20.5 trillion , bank balance sheets are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cash and bank deposits , giving them a leverage of over ten times their equity .
Bankers will be very nervous of the current economic situation , aware that loan and other losses of only ten per cent wipes out their capital .
Meanwhile , their corporate customers are either shut down , which means most of their expenses continue while they have no income , or they are suffering payment disruptions in their supply chains .
In short , bank loan books are staring at disaster .
Effectively , the whole banking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the Fed is extolling them to join with it in rescuing the economy by expanding their balance sheets even more .
The sums involved in supply chains are considerably larger than the US ’ s GDP .
Onshore , it is a substantial part of the nation ’ s gross output , which captures supply chain payments at roughly $ 38 trillion .
Overseas , there is a further mammoth figure feeding into the dollar supply chain , taking the total for America to perhaps $ 50 trillion .
The Fed is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the domestic element mainly through the commercial banking system .
And it is indirectly funding government attempts to support consumers who are in the hole for that $ 27,571 on average per household .
In short , the Fed is committed to rescue all business from the greatest economic collapse since the great depression , and probably greater than that , to fund the US Government ’ s rocketing budget deficits , fund the maintenance of domestic consumption directly or indirectly through the US Treasury , while pumping financial markets to achieve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national wealth .
Clearly , we stand on the threshold of an unprecedented monetary expansion .
Part of it will be , John Law style , to ensure inflated prices for US Treasuries are maintained .
At current interest rates debt servicing was already costing the US Government 40 % of what was expected to be this year ’ s government deficit .
That bill will now rise beyond control even without bond yields rising .
Assistance is also being provided to the corporate debt market .
Blackrock has been deputed to channel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ETFs specialising in this market .
So not only is the Fed underwriting the rapidly expanding US Treasury market , but it is underwriting commercial dollar debt as well .
In late-1929 , a rally in the stock market was prolonged by a similar stimulus , with banks committed to buying stocks and the Fed injecting $ 100m liquidity into markets by buying government securities .
Interest rates were cut .
And when these attempts at maintaining asset prices failed , the Dow declined , losing 89 % of its value from September @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rescue economies and financial markets by monetary expansion are common to all major central banks , with the possible exception of the ECB , which faces the unexpected obstacle of a challenge by the German Constitutional Court claiming primacy in these matters .
There is therefore an added risk that the global inflation scheme will unravel in Europe , which if it does will rapidly lead to funding and banking crises for the spendthrift member states .
Doubtless , any financial contagion will require yet more money-printing by the other major central banks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their domains .
So far , few commentators have grasped the implications of what amounts to the total nationalisation of the American economy by monetary means .
They have only witnessed the start of it , with the Fed ’ s balance sheet reflecting the earliest stages of the new inflation which has seen its balance sheet increase by 61 % so far this year .
Not only will the Fed battle to fund everything , but it will also have to compensate for contracting bank credit , which we know stands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fed must be assuming the banks will cooperate and pass on the required liquidity to save the economy .
Besides the monetary and operational hurdles such a policy faces , it can not expect the banks will want responsibility for the management of businesses that without this funding would not exist .
The Fed , or some other government agency has to then decide one of three broad options : further support , withdrawing support , or taking responsibility for business activities .
This last option involves full nationalisation .
We must not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outcome that can work .
The nationalisation of failing banks and their eventual privatisation is not a good precedent for wider nationalisation , because a bank does not require the entrepreneurial flair to estimate future consumer demand and to undertake the economic calculations to provide for it .
The state taking over business activities fails for this reason , demonstrated by the collapse of totalitarian states such as the USSR and the China of Mao Zedong .
That leaves a stark choice between indefinite monetary support or pulling the rug from under failing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guessing that pulling rugs will be strongly resisted .
Therefore , government support for failing businesses is set to continue indefinitely .
At some stage , the dawning realisation that central banks and their governments are steering into this economic cul-de-sac will undermine government bond yields , despite attempts by central banks to stop it , even if the deteriorating outlook for fiat currencies ’ purchasing power does not destroy government finances first .
Earlier in the descent into the socialisation of money , nations had opportunities to change course .
Unfortunately , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guts to divine and implement a return to free markets and sound money .
Those opportunities no longer exist and there can be only one outcome : the total destruction of fiat currencies accompanied by all the hardships that go with it .
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author ( s ) and do not reflect those of Goldmoney , unless expressly stated .
The Best of Alasdair Macleod

“In short, the Fed is committed to rescue businesses from the greatest economic catastrophe since the great depression and probably even greater than that, to fund the US Government’s rocketing budget deficits, fund the maintenance of domestic consumption directly or indirectly through the US Treasury, while pumping up financial markets to achieve these objectives and preserve the illusion of national wealth.
“Clearly, we stand on the threshold of an unprecedented monetary expansion.”
Introduction
President Reagan memorably said that the nine words you don’t want to hear are “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” Governments in all the major jurisdictions are now making good on that unwanted promise and are taking responsibility for everything from our shoulders.
Those receiving subsidies and loan guarantees are no doubt grateful, though they probably see it as the government’s duty and their right. But someone has to pay for it. In the past, by the redistribution of wealth through taxes it meant that the haves were taxed to give financial support to the have-nots, at least that was the story. Today, through monetary debasement nearly everyone benefits from monetary redistribution. The Law Frederic Bastiat Best Price: $2.98 Buy New $4.00 (as of 10:45 UTC - Details)
This is not a costless exercise. Governments are no longer robbing Peter to pay Paul, they are robbing Peter to pay Peter as well. You would think this is widely understood, but the Peters are so distracted by the apparent benefits they might or might not get that they don’t see the cost. They fail to appreciate that printing money is not just the marginal source of finance for excess government spending, but it has now become mainstream.
There is almost a total absence in the established media of any commentary on the consequences of monetary inflation, and in a cry for more we even have financial experts warning us of a deflationary collapse and the need for the Fed to introduce negative interest rates to stave off deflation. Yes, there are deflationary forces, because banks wish to reduce their loan exposure at a time of increasing risk. But we can be sure central banks and their political masters will do everything they can to counter the trend of contracting bank credit by increasing base money. There can only be one outcome: the debasement and eventual destruction of fiat currencies.
It was the nineteenth century French economist, Frederic Bastiat, who pointed out there were unseen consequences from violating property. He took the biblical approach of a parable, famous as the broken window fallacy. It is not what is seen, but what is unseen. He told of a boy breaking a window, its destruction giving business to the glazier which he would not otherwise have had. That is seen; unseen is the constructive spending that otherwise would have occurred if the cost of the broken window had not been incurred.
We see the helicoptered money, the furlough support, and the businesses helped not to go bust. But we do not see the cost. We don’t see how the resources taken up might otherwise be constructively deployed. We are told that the government is paying for it all, but taxes are not being raised.
Was Reagan’s aphorism wrong after all? If so, the government employee on our doorstep with his offer of help is to be welcomed. He comes bearing gifts. And without an increase in taxes what is not to like?
Bastiat gave us the answer. Unfortunately, the unseen consequences of apparently costless inflationary financing are myriad, as we will painfully discover.
The Cantillon effect
Millionaire : The Phil... Gleeson, Janet Best Price: $1.79 Buy New $12.24 (as of 11:37 UTC - Details) Over a century before Bastiat, an Irish banker in France, Richard Cantillon, observed that new money drove up prices as it was spent. He had experienced John Law’s Mississippi bubble, which was fueled by printed money and the issuance of bank credit, so Cantillon had observed the effect. It made well-connected speculators their fortunes, whose profligate spending drove up prices for everyone else. The effect at that time was that in real terms insiders became rich and the poor got poorer. To this day the process by which this happens is known as the Cantillon effect.
Now that it is official policy, the lesson for today is that a rapid increase in monetary inflation will, as the effects trickle through the economy, further impoverish the poor. It will do this by driving up prices of their essentials and reducing the purchasing power of their salaries, if they are lucky enough to still be employed. But as Cantillon pointed out in his Essai, reflecting the increased quantity of circulating money prices rise unevenly. Never has it been truer than today, when we face the combination of an unprecedented slump in economic activity combined with a sharp escalation in monetary inflation: the rich whose stocks are rising can buy their expensive toys at knockdown prices, while the poor, increasing numbers of which are newly unemployed, struggle to make ends meet with rising prices for life’s essentials.
It gets worse. Just as in Cantillon’s day, modern monetary policy is aimed at maintaining and increasing financial asset values. John Law’s puffery attempted to inflate the combination of his Banque Royale and his Mississippi ventures. Today it is all government bond markets, corporate debt, and stocks and shares. The intention is to maintain and further a wealth effect to replace the true wealth that has been lost, originally accumulated by entrepreneurs and businessman serving the consumer successfully. All we have now is John Law-style puffery.
The enrichment of the few at the expense of the many is a finite process. The outcome will inevitably be the same: Law’s scheme began to run into headwinds in December 1719, and by the following September his unbacked currency had failed. It was dead, worthless, an ex-currency. The empirical evidence is clear. Central banks emulating Law’s scheme today will destroy their currencies and everything that floats on their seas of paper credit and debt. The rapidity of the collapse of the Mississippi scheme strongly suggests that once control over bond prices is lost the contemporary financial and monetary collapse will be similarly swift.
For this reason, understanding the consequences of monetary inflation spiralling out of control has never been more important. We should know what they are from a study of sound economic theory and empirical evidence. The poor will starve and many of those who became rich through financial asset inflation will eventually join them. For the latter class, there will come a point where they abandon a failing dollar-based inflation scheme to save what they can from the financial wreckage.
Distortions and misallocations of capital
Anatomy of the State Murray Rothbard Best Price: $5.00 Buy New $5.82 (as of 05:45 UTC - Details) There is an aspect of the destruction brought about by monetary policy, which is almost never considered by policy makers, and that is how it distorts the allocation of capital and leads to its misallocation. In free markets, capital is scarce and must be used to greatest effect if the consumer is to be properly served and the entrepreneur is to maximise his profits.
Capital comes in several forms and encompasses every aspect of production; principally an establishment, machinery, labour, semi-manufactured goods and commodities to be processed, and money. An establishment, such as a factory or offices, and the availability of labour are relatively fixed in their capacity. Depending on their deployment and capacity they produce a limited amount of goods. It is just the one form of capital, that is money and credit, which central banks and the banking system now provide, and which in its unbacked form is infinitely flexible. Consequently, attempts to stimulate production by monetary means run into the capacity constraints of the other forms of capital.
Monetary policy has been increasingly used to manipulate capital allocation since the early days of the great depression in the 1930s. The effect has varied but it has generally come up against the constraints of the other forms of capital. Where there is excess labour, it takes time to retrain it with the specialist skills required, a process hampered by trade unions ostensibly protecting their members, but in reality, resisting reallocation of labour resources. Government control over planning and increasingly stifling regulations, again putting a brake on change, meant that changes and additions to the use of establishments lengthen the time before entrepreneurial investment was rewarded with profits. Government intervention has also discouraged the withdrawal of monetary capital from unprofitable deployment, or malinvestments, lengthening recessions needlessly.
When the advanced nations had strong industrial cores, the periodic expansions of credit and their subsequent sudden contractions led to observable booms and busts in the classical sense, since production of labour-intensive consumer goods dominated production overall.
There were then two further developments. The first was the abandonment of the Bretton Woods agreement in 1971, which led to a substantial rise in prices for commodities. According to the broad-based UN index of commodities rose from 33 to 157 during the decade, a rise of 376%.[i] This input category of production capital compared unfavourably with US consumer price increases over the decade of 112%, the mismatch between these and other categories of capital allocation making economic calculation a fruitless exercise. The second development was the liberation of financial controls in the mid-eighties, London’s big-bang and the repeal of America’s Glass Steagall Act of 1933, allowing commercial banks to fully embrace and exploit investment banking activities.
The banking cartel increasingly directed its ability to create credit towards purely financial activities mainly for their own books, thereby financing financial speculation, while de-emphasising bank credit expansion for production purposes for all but the larger corporations. Partly in response, the nineties saw businesses move production to low-cost centres in South-East Asia where all forms of production capital, with the exception of monetary capital, were significantly cheaper and more flexible. A History of Money and... Murray N. Rothbard Best Price: $11.00 Buy New $17.00 (as of 10:56 UTC - Details)
There then commenced a quarter-century of expansion of international trade replacing much of the domestic production of goods in the US, the UK, and Europe. It was these events that denuded America of its manufacturing, not unfair competition as President Trump has alleged and Germany’s retention of manufactures proves. But the effect has been to radically alter how we should interpret the effects of monetary expansion on the US economy and others, compared with Hayekian triangles and the like.
Business cycle research had assumed a capitalistic structure of savers saving and thereby making monetary capital available to entrepreneurs. Changes in the propensity to save sent contrary signals to businesses about the propensity to consume, which caused them to alter their production plans. Based on the ratio between consumer spending and savings, this analytic model has been corrupted by the state and its licensed banks by replacing savers with former savers now no longer saving, and even borrowing to consume.
Today, the inflationary origins of investment funds for business development are hidden through financial intermediation by venture capital funds, quasi-government funds and others. Being mandatory, pension funds continue to invest savings, but their beneficiaries have abandoned voluntary saving and run up debts, so even pension funds are not entirely free of monetary inflation. Insurance funds alone appear to be comprised of genuine savings within an inflationary system.
Other than pension funds and insurance companies, Keynes’s wish for the euthanasia of the saver has been achieved. He went on to suggest there would be a time “when we might aim in practice… at an increase in the volume of capital until it ceases to be scarce, so that the functionless investor will no longer receive a bonus…”[ii]
Now that everywhere bank deposits pay no interest, his wish has been granted, but Keynes did not foresee the unintended consequences of his inflationist policies which are now being visited upon us. Among other errors, he failed to adequately account for the limitation of non-monetary forms of capital, which leads to bottlenecks and rising prices as monetary expansion proceeds.
The unintended consequences of neo-Keynesian policy failures are shortly to be exposed. The checks and balances on the formation and deployment of monetary capital in the free market system based on the division of labour have been completely destroyed and replaced by inflation. So, where do you take us from here, Mr Powell, Mr Bailey, Ms Lagarde, Mr Kuroda? America’s Great ... Rothbard, Murray N. Buy New $9.74 (as of 11:37 UTC - Details)
Taking stock
We can now say that America, the nation responsible for the world’s reserve currency, has encouraged policies which have turned its economy from being a producer of goods with supporting services as the source of its citizens’ wealth into little more than a financial casino. The virtues of saving and thrift have been replaced by profligate spending funded by debt. Unprofitable businesses are being supported until the hoped-for return of easier times, which are now gone.
Cash and bank deposits (checking accounts and savings deposits) are created almost entirely by inflation, and currently total $15.2 trillion in the US, while total commercial bank capital is a little under $2 trillion. This tells us crudely that $13 trillion sitting in customer accounts can be attributed to bank credit inflation. Increasing proportions of those customers are financial corporations and foreign entities, and not consumers maintaining cash and savings balances.
On the other side of bank balance sheets is consumer debt, mostly off-balance sheet, but ultimately funded on-balance sheet. Excluding mortgages, the total comprised of credit cards, autos and student debt was $3.86 trillion in mid-2019, amounting to an average debt of $27,571 per household, confirming the extent to which consumer debt has replaced savings.[iii]
At $20.5 trillion, bank balance sheets are far larger than just the sum of cash and bank deposits, giving them a leverage of over ten times their equity. Bankers will be very nervous of the current economic situation, aware that loan and other losses of only ten per cent wipes out their capital. Meanwhile, their corporate customers are either shut down, which means most of their expenses continue while they have no income, or they are suffering payment disruptions in their supply chains. In short, bank loan books are staring at disaster. Effectively, the whole banking system is underwater at the same time as the Fed is extolling them to join with it in rescuing the economy by expanding their balance sheets even more.
The sums involved in supply chains are considerably larger than the US’s GDP. Onshore, it is a substantial part of the nation’s gross output, which captures supply chain payments at roughly $38 trillion. Overseas, there is a further mammoth figure feeding into the dollar supply chain, taking the total for America to perhaps $50 trillion. The Fed is backstopping the foreign element through currency swaps and the domestic element mainly through the commercial banking system. And it is indirectly funding government attempts to support consumers who are in the hole for that $27,571 on average per household. What Has Government Do... Rothbard, Murray N. Best Price: $9.63 Buy New $7.86 (as of 12:10 UTC - Details)
In short, the Fed is committed to rescue all business from the greatest economic collapse since the great depression, and probably greater than that, to fund the US Government’s rocketing budget deficits, fund the maintenance of domestic consumption directly or indirectly through the US Treasury, while pumping financial markets to achieve these objectives and preserve the illusion of national wealth.
Clearly, we stand on the threshold of an unprecedented monetary expansion. Part of it will be, John Law style, to ensure inflated prices for US Treasuries are maintained. At current interest rates debt servicing was already costing the US Government 40% of what was expected to be this year’s government deficit. That bill will now rise beyond control even without bond yields rising. Assistance is also being provided to the corporate debt market. Blackrock has been deputed to channel the Fed’s money-printed investment through ETFs specialising in this market. So not only is the Fed underwriting the rapidly expanding US Treasury market, but it is underwriting commercial dollar debt as well.
In late-1929, a rally in the stock market was prolonged by a similar stimulus, with banks committed to buying stocks and the Fed injecting $100m liquidity into markets by buying government securities. Interest rates were cut. And when these attempts at maintaining asset prices failed, the Dow declined, losing 89% of its value from September 1929.
Today, similar attempts to rescue economies and financial markets by monetary expansion are common to all major central banks, with the possible exception of the ECB, which faces the unexpected obstacle of a challenge by the German Constitutional Court claiming primacy in these matters. There is therefore an added risk that the global inflation scheme will unravel in Europe, which if it does will rapidly lead to funding and banking crises for the spendthrift member states. Doubtless, any financial contagion will require yet more money-printing by the other major central banks to ensure there are no bank failures in their domains.
Whither the exit?
So far, few commentators have grasped the implications of what amounts to the total nationalisation of the American economy by monetary means. They have only witnessed the start of it, with the Fed’s balance sheet reflecting the earliest stages of the new inflation which has seen its balance sheet increase by 61% so far this year. Not only will the Fed battle to fund everything, but it will also have to compensate for contracting bank credit, which we know stands at about $18 trillion.
The Fed must be assuming the banks will cooperate and pass on the required liquidity to save the economy. Besides the monetary and operational hurdles such a policy faces, it cannot expect the banks will want responsibility for the management of businesses that without this funding would not exist. The Fed, or some other government agency has to then decide one of three broad options: further support, withdrawing support, or taking responsibility for business activities. This last option involves full nationalisation.
We must not be seduced into thinking this is an outcome that can work. The nationalisation of failing banks and their eventual privatisation is not a good precedent for wider nationalisation, because a bank does not require the entrepreneurial flair to estimate future consumer demand and to undertake the economic calculations to provide for it. The state taking over business activities fails for this reason, demonstrated by the collapse of totalitarian states such as the USSR and the China of Mao Zedong.
That leaves a stark choice between indefinite monetary support or pulling the rug from under failing businesses. There are no prizes for guessing that pulling rugs will be strongly resisted. Therefore, government support for failing businesses is set to continue indefinitely.
At some stage, the dawning realisation that central banks and their governments are steering into this economic cul-de-sac will undermine government bond yields, despite attempts by central banks to stop it, even if the deteriorating outlook for fiat currencies’ purchasing power does not destroy government finances first.
Earlier in the descent into the socialisation of money, nations had opportunities to change course. Unfortunately, they had neither the knowledge nor the guts to divine and implement a return to free markets and sound money. Those opportunities no longer exist and there can be only one outcome: the total destruction of fiat currencies accompanied by all the hardships that go with it.
—
[i] Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin March 1981
[ii] Concluding notes, General Theory. JM Keynes
[iii] See Debt.org
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not reflect those of Goldmoney, unless expressly stated.
Reprinted with permission from Goldmoney.
The Best of Alasdair Macleod


lewrockwell--2020-05-15--The End of Free Speech? That’s the New Agenda

Since the Framing of the American Constitution there has been a debate over the nature and meaning of the First Amendment .
Generally , citizens have enjoyed the right to speak their minds ( or write ) what they believed , as long as those expressions did not violate defined community standards of decency or morality , urge active participation in the overthrow of the government , or defame publicly ( and falsely ) another citizen so as to damage or destroy his reputation or good character .
These precisions are far more detailed and complex in law and jurisprudence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ codified by 2oo years of practice and judicial polity has been something of a constitutional bedrock for Americans .
We know that if we publish an article or make a speech critiquing a certain viewpoint or criticizing the person who publicly espouses that viewpoint , that we may do so if we do so properly .
Thus , I may blast away at political candidate X who advocates universal healthcare for all , I may suggest that he is ignorant , a crazy socialist , a senile politician who should stay at home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the distant past he would have assaulted in one way or another young ladies…at least ask the question .
I may do all this , but I can not assert without any hint of proof that he is a rapist or abuser , which charges , not based on evidence , would damage or destroy his reputation .
Admittedly , such accusations and any resultant court proceedings tend to be difficult things ; slander and defamation of character are extremely hard to prove , and usually require proof that the person engaged in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do real harm and severe damage to his target .
That may be the reason such proceedings are rare , especially these days when it seems that the American nation is full of millions of Twitter users who take to the Internet to savage not just the ideas of opponents , but their character and reputations .
The standards of defamation or slander have , it seems , broadened in our day .
But , nevertheless , the essential right of citizens to express differing views on a wide variety of topics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until recently .
And that brings me to the growing current on college campuses and stated with increasing frequency in Mainstream Media : certain people because of who they are , because they are white or male or Southern or conservative , don ’ t enjoy or at least should not have the rights of free speech , that they should be banned from speaking on university campuses , forbidden from taking to Twitter or Facebook—because others , those “ woke ” social justice warriors find what they say or simply who they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this new template boldly asserts that speech which opposes the advances and propositions of progressivists is , ipso facto , racist , misogynistic , xenophobic , or homophobic , and thus by definition , must be proscribed and banned .
With growing respectability this narrative of curtailing views considered en dehors de tout debat—outside of all debate—has emerged with force in recent years .
But then , under this new template who then decides , who determines which views are now acceptable and which persons will have the right to express such views @ @ @ @ @ @ @ students on campus , themselves ?
In far too many cases , it has been the highly-organized social justice warriors on campus ( and their friends off campus ) who have taken matters into their own hands .
Opposition in any form to the progressivist agenda is shouted down , that is , when a cowardly administrator does not forbid it because of fear of a campus riot ( or that it might somehow infringe upon a minority “ safe space ” or cause mental “ hurt ” and “ pain ” to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the same campus as they and with differing views ! )
.
Our state governments , boards of trustees and governors for our colleges and universities , and most directly , college administrators are all guilty in abetting this—the rise of a kind of rigid and brutal totalitarianism , right in our midst , that in fact destroys the genuine educational experience and the essential liberty that must exist not only on university campuses , but in society at large , if this nation survive .
Already we have seen what failure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surely be fatal to the country .
On this topic I pass on a new article that I have had published at Chronicles magazine ( on the magazine ’ s Web site ) .
Please keep reading .

Since the Framing of the American Constitution there has been a debate over the nature and meaning of the First Amendment. Generally, citizens have enjoyed the right to speak their minds (or write) what they believed, as long as those expressions did not violate defined community standards of decency or morality, urge active participation in the overthrow of the government, or defame publicly (and falsely) another citizen so as to damage or destroy his reputation or good character.
These precisions are far more detailed and complex in law and jurisprudence, but this overall summary, as codified by 2oo years of practice and judicial polity has been something of a constitutional bedrock for Americans. We know that if we publish an article or make a speech critiquing a certain viewpoint or criticizing the person who publicly espouses that viewpoint, that we may do so if we do so properly.
Thus, I may blast away at political candidate X who advocates universal healthcare for all, I may suggest that he is ignorant, a crazy socialist, a senile politician who should stay at home. I may even question whether in the distant past he would have assaulted in one way or another young ladies…at least ask the question. I may do all this, but I cannot assert without any hint of proof that he is a rapist or abuser, which charges, not based on evidence, would damage or destroy his reputation. Beyond Woke Michael Rectenwald Buy New $19.99 (as of 11:37 UTC - Details)
Admittedly, such accusations and any resultant court proceedings tend to be difficult things; slander and defamation of character are extremely hard to prove, and usually require proof that the person engaged in defamation acted willfully, with the intent to do real harm and severe damage to his target.
That may be the reason such proceedings are rare, especially these days when it seems that the American nation is full of millions of Twitter users who take to the Internet to savage not just the ideas of opponents, but their character and reputations. The standards of defamation or slander have, it seems, broadened in our day.
But, nevertheless, the essential right of citizens to express differing views on a wide variety of topics has been considered sacrosanct, at least until recently.
And that brings me to the growing current on college campuses and stated with increasing frequency in Mainstream Media: certain people because of who they are, because they are white or male or Southern or conservative, don’t enjoy or at least should not have the rights of free speech, that they should be banned from speaking on university campuses, forbidden from taking to Twitter or Facebook—because others, those “woke” social justice warriors find what they say or simply who they are to be offensive. Indeed, this new template boldly asserts that speech which opposes the advances and propositions of progressivists is, ipso facto, racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, or homophobic, and thus by definition, must be proscribed and banned.
With growing respectability this narrative of curtailing views considered en dehors de tout debat—outside of all debate—has emerged with force in recent years.
Google Archipelago: Th... Michael Rectenwald Best Price: $4.99 Buy New $8.77 (as of 11:20 UTC - Details) But then, under this new template who then decides, who determines which views are now acceptable and which persons will have the right to express such views? College administrators? The supposedly aggrieved students on campus, themselves? In far too many cases, it has been the highly-organized social justice warriors on campus (and their friends off campus) who have taken matters into their own hands. Opposition in any form to the progressivist agenda is shouted down, that is, when a cowardly administrator does not forbid it because of fear of a campus riot (or that it might somehow infringe upon a minority “safe space” or cause mental “hurt” and “pain” to students who realize that someone might be on the same campus as they and with differing views!).
Our state governments, boards of trustees and governors for our colleges and universities, and most directly, college administrators are all guilty in abetting this—the rise of a kind of rigid and brutal totalitarianism, right in our midst, that in fact destroys the genuine educational experience and the essential liberty that must exist not only on university campuses, but in society at large, if this nation survive.
Already we have seen what failure has produced. More of this will surely be fatal to the country.
On this topic I pass on a new article that I have had published at Chronicles magazine (on the magazine’s Web site). Please keep reading.


lewrockwell--2020-05-15--$138 Million Government Contract Will Fund Production of 500 Million Pre-Filled COVID-19 Vaccine ‘In

$138 Million Government Contract Will Fund Production of 500 Million Pre-Filled COVID-19 Vaccine ‘Injection Devices.’

Just when you thought that things couldn ’ t get any stranger , two U.S. government agencies have taken things to an entirely new level .
The U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have just put out a press release that is absolutely jaw dropping , but so far hardly anyone is talking about it .
According to the press release , a 138 million dollar contract has been awarded to ApiJect Systems America for two projects known as “ Project Jumpstart ” and “ RAPID USA ” .
Apparently the goal of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of “ injection devices ” ready to go once a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available .
The following comes directly from the official website of the Department of Defense… “ Today the Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services , announce a $ 138 million contract with ApiJect Systems America for “ Project Jumpstart ” and “ RAPID USA , ” which together will dramatically expand U.S. production capability for domestically manufactured , medical-grade injection devices starting by October 2020 .
Spearheaded by the DOD ’ s Joint Acquisition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coordination with the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response , the contract will support “ Jumpstart ” to create a U.S.-based , high-speed supply chain for prefilled syringes beginning later this year by using well-established Blow-Fill-Seal ( BFS ) aseptic plastics manufacturing technology , suitable for combatting COVID-19 when a safe and proven vaccine becomes available .
Today , there are about 328 million people living in the United States .
But the press release states that the plan is to produce “ over 500 million prefilled syringes ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ injection devices ” to vaccinate every man , woman and child in the entire country one and a half times .
Right now , researchers all over the globe are racing toward the development of a vaccine , but as I have discussed previously , that is not going to be an easy task .
And on Tuesday Dr. Anthony Fauci openly admitted to a U.S. Senate committee that there is no guarantee that a vaccine “ is actually going to be effective ” … In addition , because there are multiple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there , one vaccine may not be able to cover them all .
So this could create a need for “ multiple vaccines ” , and this is something that NIH Director Francis Collins has openly acknowledged… So when the time finally comes , there may be more than one vaccine that authorities are pushing everyone to take .
But for now , there is no vaccine , and some health officials are pushing for social distancing restrictions to remain in place for months to come .
For example , Fox News is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Los Angeles County is warning that the local “ stay-at-home order ” may have to be extended until August… And apparently L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti is on the same page .
In fact , he has once again stated that there will be no return to normal until a cure or a vaccine comes along… “ I think quite simply she ’ s saying we ’ re not going to fully reopen Los Angeles — or anywhere in America — without any protections or health orders in the next three months , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I think we know it ’ s going to be even longer than three months .
… We ’ re not moving past Covid-19 , we ’ re learning to live with it .
We ’ re not going to go back to pre-Covid life any time soon ” or move forward without a medicine or vaccine .
I feel so badly for those living in the Los Angeles area , because it certainly looks like the next three months are going to be really rough .
Of course there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ timelines .
Just check out what is being reported regarding the outlook for New York City… We are only in mid-May right now .
Could you imagine being forced to stay home for the next three months ?
Sadly , that is what millions of Americans will be facing .
And on Tuesday Dr. Fauci actually suggested that many schools will need to remain closed as the next school year begins… Our entire society is melting down because of this virus , and if we can ’ t handle this crisis , what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worse things start happening to us ?
Sometimes I wish that we could roll back the clock and go back to 2019 .
Life seemed so much simpler back then , and things are only going to get crazier in the weeks and months to come… Reprinted with permission from End of the American Dream .
The Best of Michael Snyder

Just when you thought that things couldn’t get any stranger, two U.S. government agencies have taken things to an entirely new level. The U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have just put out a press release that is absolutely jaw dropping, but so far hardly anyone is talking about it. According to the press release, a 138 million dollar contract has been awarded to ApiJect Systems America for two projects known as “Project Jumpstart” and “RAPID USA”. Apparently the goal of these projects is to have vast numbers of “injection devices” ready to go once a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available. The following comes directly from the official website of the Department of Defense…
“Today the Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, announce a $138 million contract with ApiJect Systems America for “Project Jumpstart” and “RAPID USA,” which together will dramatically expand U.S. production capability for domestically manufactured, medical-grade injection devices starting by October 2020. Spearheaded by the DOD’s Joint Acquisition Task Force (JATF), in coordination with the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, the contract will support “Jumpstart” to create a U.S.-based, high-speed supply chain for prefilled syringes beginning later this year by using well-established Blow-Fill-Seal (BFS) aseptic plastics manufacturing technology, suitable for combatting COVID-19 when a safe and proven vaccine becomes available.
Biowarfare and Terrorism Boyle, Francis Anthony Buy New $12.95 (as of 04:59 UTC - Details) Today, there are about 328 million people living in the United States. But the press release states that the plan is to produce “over 500 million prefilled syringes” in 2021…
The contract also enables ApiJect Systems America to accelerate the launch of RAPID USA manufactured in new and permanent U.S.-based BFS facilities with the ultimate production goal of over 500 million prefilled syringes (doses) in 2021. This effort will be executed initially in Connecticut, South Carolina and Illinois, with potential expansion to other U.S.-based locations. RAPID will provide increased lifesaving capability against future national health emergencies that require population-scale vaccine administration on an urgent basis.
So that would be enough “injection devices” to vaccinate every man, woman and child in the entire country one and a half times.
Wow.
Right now, researchers all over the globe are racing toward the development of a vaccine, but as I have discussed previously, that is not going to be an easy task.
And on Tuesday Dr. Anthony Fauci openly admitted to a U.S. Senate committee that there is no guarantee that a vaccine “is actually going to be effective”…
As drugmakers across the world race to develop a coronavirus vaccine, White House health advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci said, “There’s no guarantee that the vaccine is actually going to be effective.” Fauci delivered the somber warning Tuesday to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions during a hearing about the road to reopening businesses across the nation.
In addition, because there are multiple strains of COVID-19 already running around out there, one vaccine may not be able to cover them all. So this could create a need for “multiple vaccines”, and this is something that NIH Director Francis Collins has openly acknowledged…
Several vaccines will likely be needed to combat the coronavirus and immunize groups of people in America and abroad, U.S. National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins said in an interview.
Bitten: The Secret His... Newby, Kris Buy New $17.99 (as of 04:41 UTC - Details) So when the time finally comes, there may be more than one vaccine that authorities are pushing everyone to take.
But for now, there is no vaccine, and some health officials are pushing for social distancing restrictions to remain in place for months to come.
For example, Fox News is reporting that the top health official of Los Angeles County is warning that the local “stay-at-home order” may have to be extended until August…
Los Angeles County will likely continue its stay-at-home order through the summer, officials said Tuesday, as the coronavirus wreaks havoc on the economy and patience continues to wear thin for some calling for the state to reopen and for normal life to resume. County Public Health Director Barabara Ferrer said the order will be extended “with all certainty” at the Board of Supervisors meeting, possibly until July or August, the Los Angeles Times reported.
And apparently L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti is on the same page. In fact, he has once again stated that there will be no return to normal until a cure or a vaccine comes along…
“I think quite simply she’s saying we’re not going to fully reopen Los Angeles — or anywhere in America — without any protections or health orders in the next three months,” he told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “I think we know it’s going to be even longer than three months. … We’re not moving past Covid-19, we’re learning to live with it. We’re not going to go back to pre-Covid life any time soon” or move forward without a medicine or vaccine.
I feel so badly for those living in the Los Angeles area, because it certainly looks like the next three months are going to be really rough.
Of course there are other large cities that are facing similar timelines. Just check out what is being reported regarding the outlook for New York City… United States of Socia... D'Souza, Dinesh Buy New $25.93 (as of 11:38 UTC - Details)
New York City may not fully reopen until August after Gov. Cuomo advised that each phase of the four phase restart plan could take up to two weeks to implement. Parts of the state of New York will be ready to reopen on May 15, this Friday, after meeting Governor Cuomo’s strict set of seven requirements.
We are only in mid-May right now.
Could you imagine being forced to stay home for the next three months?
Sadly, that is what millions of Americans will be facing.
And on Tuesday Dr. Fauci actually suggested that many schools will need to remain closed as the next school year begins…
Anthony Fauci, MD, revealed Tuesday morning that a return to school in the fall “would be a bit of a bridge too far,” during a Senate Committee hearing. News of likely continued homeschooling for the next school year will probably be met with groans and frustration by harried parents struggling to balance working from home and also managing remote learning and having their children home 100 percent of the time.
Our entire society is melting down because of this virus, and if we can’t handle this crisis, what are we going to do when much worse things start happening to us?
Sometimes I wish that we could roll back the clock and go back to 2019.
Life seemed so much simpler back then, and things are only going to get crazier in the weeks and months to come…
Reprinted with permission from End of the American Dream.
The Best of Michael Snyder