The world after the pandemic

[Heartofice]

I’ve been having conversations with clients recently about their plans for future events and they are all rushing to try and work out the best way to go fully digital. Right now a lot of the solutions are not fantastic, but I do know that big providers like WebX, Microsoft etc are all racing into over drive to get ahead of the game on it

[Erik of Hazelfield]

One thing I discussed with my friends is the sudden availability of money. Like, we've been told for decades that there's not enough funds to save the climate, or the rainforests, or eradicate poverty or (in the case of the US specifically) have a free public healthcare system. But now it is suddenly somehow possible to shut down half the world for a price tag that runs into the trillions. Was that money available all along? What nice things couldn't we have done with it?

 

[Jo498]

There was plenty of money for bailouts 12 years ago. That very little happened afterwards to change the structures that made the financial crisis possible (not even speaking about punishing profiteers and other culprits) makes me fairly pessimistic about any positive changes in the wake of the current crisis and its aftermath.

[Heartofice]

37 minutes ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

One thing I discussed with my friends is the sudden availability of money. Like, we've been told for decades that there's not enough funds to save the climate, or the rainforests, or eradicate poverty or (in the case of the US specifically) have a free public healthcare system. But now it is suddenly somehow possible to shut down half the world for a price tag that runs into the trillions. Was that money available all along? What nice things couldn't we have done with it?

 

This is money that is in a lot of cases heavily borrowed and will need to be paid back in some form.

Not sure how you ‘eradicate poverty’.

[Rippounet]

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

This is money that is in a lot of cases heavily borrowed and will need to be paid back in some form.

Nope. It is created, not borrowed. The borrowing  (the creation of debt) has no deep raison d'être. It is in fact the very weakness of the entire system, revealed in such times of peril: it's all fictional you see. Money, value, power. It's just a lie we believe in. Until we don't.

[Altherion]

26 minutes ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

One thing I discussed with my friends is the sudden availability of money. Like, we've been told for decades that there's not enough funds to save the climate, or the rainforests, or eradicate poverty or (in the case of the US specifically) have a free public healthcare system. But now it is suddenly somehow possible to shut down half the world for a price tag that runs into the trillions. Was that money available all along? What nice things couldn't we have done with it?

That's a really interesting question. In theory, this money is not actually there: we're borrowing it and tacking the balance onto the already rather large national debt because otherwise there would be massive social unrest (or perhaps even outright collapse). But this doesn't answer the question because it appears that the financial world has reacted extremely positively to this borrowing spree: not only did the markets stabilize, but the interest rate on this debt has remained extremely low.

This does not mean that we can eradicate poverty; the current spending spree is barely putting a dent in it for four months. However, it does mean that the US government could, in principle, spend a few trillion dollars on one-time projects such as making our energy system carbon neutral or something of the sort. Of course, good luck getting it to spend like this when there is no plausible social unrest or collapse to act as a stick.

[Rippounet]

13 hours ago, Altherion said:

I don't think the late 19th to early 20th century nationalism is going to be all that useful (or even realistic), but tighter control of borders and more local production (of at least critical goods, but possibly more than that) would almost certainly have helped here.

What kind of ideology would this be? An old one or a new one?

13 hours ago, Altherion said:

I'm not seeing it. There are only a few bits of actionable information: the virus is new, it can spread between human beings via droplets, the fatality rate is of order 1% (due to either pneumonia or a cytokine storm or both) and its basic reproductive rate is substantially greater than 1.

Many studies and tests originally come from China. For instance (and to my own surprise I must say), Didier Raoult only started using (hydroxy)chloroquine on Covid-19 patients because China had tried it first. Several other leads (take chlolesterol for instance) are also explored thanks to studies coming from China.

As for the WHO, it did make some mistakes, but was also paying attention to the situation, transmitting information early on, and declared a global health emergency on Jan 30:
https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/08-04-2020-who-timeline---covid-19

I think the reason you"re "not seeing it" is because it's difficult to imagine a world in which information would not be shared. And yet, that would likely be the result of a "world of nation-states," since nation-states, almost by definition, compete with one other.

13 hours ago, Altherion said:

Here's a very different example: the cruise industry.

It's kind of hilarious that their evasion of American tax law and worker regulations has finally come to bite these companies (good luck asking Panama, Bermuda or Liberia for a multi-billion dollar bailout). Again, this industry is inherently crowded, totally non-essential and the ships distress whales and other marine life. There's a good chance that when it comes back, it will be in a significantly reduced form.

I share your schadenfreude on this one.

10 hours ago, Altherion said:

That's a really interesting question. In theory, this money is not actually there: we're borrowing it and tacking the balance onto the already rather large national debt because otherwise there would be massive social unrest (or perhaps even outright collapse). But this doesn't answer the question because it appears that the financial world has reacted extremely positively to this borrowing spree: not only did the markets stabilize, but the interest rate on this debt has remained extremely low.

This does not mean that we can eradicate poverty; the current spending spree is barely putting a dent in it for four months. However, it does mean that the US government could, in principle, spend a few trillion dollars on one-time projects such as making our energy system carbon neutral or something of the sort. Of course, good luck getting it to spend like this when there is no plausible social unrest or collapse to act as a stick.

It's simple: the financial world reacts positively to monetary creation when its purpose is to help or save it, and negatively when its purpose is anything else.
This is why we've been spending insane amounts of money to bail out banks and corporations but aren't doing anything significant against climate change - or against poverty.

Here's just a random link from Google as food for thought (I found it 30 seconds ago, I'm not sure I agree with it, but it's an example of the way we can start discussing this issue):
https://www.finance-watch.org/money-supply-a-public-service-in-private-hands/

Mind you, fighting poverty is not just throwing money at people. Poverty could only be eradicated by addressing its roots, that is by developing the famed "equality of opportunity" through free education and healthcare (among other things).
But free education and healthcare are anathema to the financial world since it means taking entire sectors of the economy away from the capitalists and speculators...
And... that's how finance became the enemy of civilization. I'm overly simplifying it, of course, but the gist of it is that any political program aimed at fighting climate change or reducing inequalities will get "punished" by the "markets," which is why few countries even try these days.

As radical as it may sound, at this point in time it should be clear that we need to regulate the shit out of the finance and banking sectors.
And by "regulate the shit" I really mean "eliminate entire aspects of them." It's no exaggeration to say that millions of lives are at stake.

[LongRider]

On 4/6/2020 at 4:41 PM, maarsen said:

"it was the best of time, it was the wurst of times."

"It was the best of puns, it was the worst of rhymes."

[maarsen]

2 hours ago, LongRider said:

"It was the best of puns, it was the worst of rhymes."

The wurst has yet to come.

[Larry of the Lawn]

6 minutes ago, maarsen said:

The wurst has yet to come.

Quoth the butcher, sweeping the floor.

[Altherion]

12 hours ago, Rippounet said:

What kind of ideology would this be? An old one or a new one?

It's very hard to find something truly old or truly new in politics. It would be a new spin on something old.

12 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Many studies and tests originally come from China. For instance (and to my own surprise I must say), Didier Raoult only started using (hydroxy)chloroquine on Covid-19 patients because China had tried it first. Several other leads (take chlolesterol for instance) are also explored thanks to studies coming from China.

But this is exactly what I mean: despite enthusiasm for it in certain high placed quarters, the hydroxychloroquine does not appear to be a cure. Likewise, if you look at the posts by an actual doctor in the other thread, cholesterol is not likely to be useful except maybe in people with kidney problems (which was apparently already known). As I said, there is no cure and no vaccine and there won't be for another year or more so I'm not seeing the value in this cooperation.

12 hours ago, Rippounet said:

As for the WHO, it did make some mistakes, but was also paying attention to the situation, transmitting information early on, and declared a global health emergency on Jan 30:

They declared a global health emergency, but they did not make the recommendations that might have helped limit it:

Quote

On 30 January 2020, the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the outbreak of COVID-19 to be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern and issued a set of Temporary Recommendations. WHO did not recommend any travel or trade restriction based on the current information available. WHO is working closely with global experts, governments and partners to rapidly expand scientific knowledge on this new virus, to track the spread and virulence of the virus, and to provide advice to countries and the global community on measures to protect health and prevent the spread of this outbreak.

The emphasis is mine. Also, note that the statement I linked above is from February 27th. At that point, the WHO might have still made some difference by shouting from the rooftops that all tourists should return home (and be quarantined for two weeks), that all unnecessary international travel be suspended and so on. Instead, we get:

Quote

Tourism’s response needs to be measured and consistent, proportionate to the public health threat and based on local risk assessment, involving every part of the tourism value chain – public bodies, private companies and tourists, in line with WHO’s overall guidance and recommendations.

There's no way to sugarcoat this: the WHO failed. It failed utterly and completely and it takes some imagination to even come up with a scenario in which its failure is worse. Note that this does not excuse the various national and regional authorities who also screwed up, but the WHO was worse than useless here and needs to be seriously rethought.

14 hours ago, Rippounet said:

As radical as it may sound, at this point in time it should be clear that we need to regulate the shit out of the finance and banking sectors.
And by "regulate the shit" I really mean "eliminate entire aspects of them." It's no exaggeration to say that millions of lives are at stake.

I agree with much of what you say both here and in the rest of that post, but keep in mind that the finance and banking sectors are intrinsically linked to most Western governments. In fact, in many places, it's only a slight exaggeration to say that they own the government and practically everywhere they have a seat at the table (and perhaps even veto power) when regulations about them are discussed.

[Jo498]

Almost everybody seemed to be in favor of regulating the finance sector including eliminating entire aspects of it after 2008-10. But very little was in fact done about it. So while I expect that there will a few measures be taken in many countries health sectors, I don't really believe that the finance/banking etc. will be properly regulated. They weren't when they were directly responsible 12 years ago why should it take place now when they are not directly responsible?

[Luzifer's right hand]

56 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

Almost everybody seemed to be in favor of regulating the finance sector including eliminating entire aspects of it after 2008-10. But very little was in fact done about it. So while I expect that there will a few measures be taken in many countries health sectors, I don't really believe that the finance/banking etc. will be properly regulated. They weren't when they were directly responsible 12 years ago why should it take place now when they are not directly responsible?

Because it produces nothing but harm and adds no positive value to our civilization? 

[Rippounet]

10 hours ago, Altherion said:

But this is exactly what I mean: despite enthusiasm for it in certain high placed quarters, the hydroxychloroquine does not appear to be a cure. Likewise, if you look at the posts by an actual doctor in the other thread, cholesterol is not likely to be useful except maybe in people with kidney problems (which was apparently already known). As I said, there is no cure and no vaccine and there won't be for another year or more so I'm not seeing the value in this cooperation.

That a cooperation isn't fruitful doesn't mean it doesn't have value.

Besides it's a bit early to pass judgment on such international cooperation, which may yet produce a cure, or a vaccine.

10 hours ago, Altherion said:

There's no way to sugarcoat this: the WHO failed. It failed utterly and completely and it takes some imagination to even come up with a scenario in which its failure is worse. Note that this does not excuse the various national and regional authorities who also screwed up, but the WHO was worse than useless here and needs to be seriously rethought.

Yes, the WHO should have done better. But that's easy to see with the benefit of hindsight, now that we have a wealth of information (coming from international sources I must say).

I also agree that the WHO should be "rethought." But I'm not sure we're necessarily thinking along the same lines here.

From my point of view, the WHO most likely failed for the same reason many governments were slow to act: it did not want to harm the economy (and tourism especially), or be blamed for harming the economy. When push came to shove, the precautionary principle was applied to favor the economy over health.

However, while I would personally see the reverse as desirable, and would even go as far as to give the WHO teeth to fight pandemics (i.e. a measure of authority over global movement), I doubt most would agree with me (or only temporarily).

The issue here goes deeper. It has to do with how much authority and credibility an organization such as the WHO should have. I have no qualms about imagining a trans-national organization with wide powers to both supersede national governments and restrict individual liberty. But this is a far-left view that goes against not just neo-liberalism but liberalism itself, a form of utilitarianism that is at odds with the dominant thinking.
The reason why the WHO was never conceived as such is precisely because people value both the authority of their national governments (including in times of global crises) and their individual liberty (freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion... etc).

10 hours ago, Altherion said:

I agree with much of what you say both here and in the rest of that post, but keep in mind that the finance and banking sectors are intrinsically linked to most Western governments. In fact, in many places, it's only a slight exaggeration to say that they own the government and practically everywhere they have a seat at the table (and perhaps even veto power) when regulations about them are discussed.

Yes, of course. Macron is proof of that, obviously.

I have no simple solution here (obviouly). Either we completely rethink our institutions (and our decision-making process) or the finance and banking sectors understand that they had best give up some of their power before that happens.
In other words: if the elite get scared enough they might do something about the problem rather than having the people act.

2 hours ago, Jo498 said:

Almost everybody seemed to be in favor of regulating the finance sector including eliminating entire aspects of it after 2008-10. But very little was in fact done about it. So while I expect that there will a few measures be taken in many countries health sectors, I don't really believe that the finance/banking etc. will be properly regulated. They weren't when they were directly responsible 12 years ago why should it take place now when they are not directly responsible?

That's the 10 trillion $ question. How can anyone ensure that this time things actually change?

I certainly do not have the answer, but I think this is the question to be asked.

[Clueless Northman]

On 4/10/2020 at 2:08 AM, Altherion said:

I agree with much of what you say both here and in the rest of that post, but keep in mind that the finance and banking sectors are intrinsically linked to most Western governments. In fact, in many places, it's only a slight exaggeration to say that they own the government and practically everywhere they have a seat at the table (and perhaps even veto power) when regulations about them are discussed.

Why do you think WHO was claiming that the spice must flow and trade and travel restrictions were bad? Just because they were paid by China? Nope, because banks and global finance wanted it that way, and Western governments were pressuring WHO just as much as China.

 

On 4/10/2020 at 2:08 AM, Altherion said:

There's no way to sugarcoat this: the WHO failed. It failed utterly and completely and it takes some imagination to even come up with a scenario in which its failure is worse. 

Actually, you don't need much imagination.

The WHO failed big time, indeed, but it's come around to claim it is a pandemic and many governments don't do enough. It's also slowly coming to its senses and calling for mass use of face masks. Now, if you want to see how you can fail worse than the WHO, just look at most Western governments, because the bulk of them failed even worse than WHO. They knew what was coming, they saw how China freaked out and what measures they took, but the bunch of treacherous murderous scumbags who lead us all didn't do anything. Only a few of them put travel bans. No one bothered to order facemasks, order test kits or even hand sanitizer. None actually had any solid strategy in place when the virus hit Italy openly, and they all made it as they went.

 

So, how do we improve from where we are? Heck, how do we hope to regulate finance more? For a starter, we put the WHO top brass and all the Western leadership on trial for manslaughter, if not downright for mass murder (in some countries, it would be quite accurate), we jail them for long years and we get fully rid of the current crop of useless corrupt politicians. Then, when those bought by the banks are out of the way, we go after them and regulate the shit out of them, with very strict rules about leverages, debt exposures and derivatives and similar shenanigans. And as far as I'm concerned, that would just be the beginning; but I don't expect people to agree.

[Jo498]

22 hours ago, Luzifer's right hand said:

Because it produces nothing but harm and adds no positive value to our civilization? 

If it had been up to me, many thousands of the people who were responsible for the last big financial crisis would be doing forced hard labor for the rest of their miserable lifes after all of their property had been seized etc. But that's obviously not the way we do this stuff. In Germany there were some financial laws/regulations literally written by  employees of the big financial/tax consultants/law firms that had been lent out to the government/administrations because of their superior competence in handling such stuff. It's been one of the most ridiculous cases of letting frogs taking care of the swamp (so it will never be drained) or employing the he-goat as head gardener (as we say in German "den Bock zum Gärtner machen").

[Rippounet]

My eurocommie facebook feed says the UK getting money directly from the Bank of England is a major shift.

From a reliable source: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/business/coronavirus-britain-austerity.html

The mainstream media isn't really focusing on this but it does seem to be huge.

Why did states stop creating money and start "borrowing" from private investors instead? Apart from the obvious fact that the private sector could make billions off taxpayers through this devious scheme (the "holdup of the century" for many of my leftist friends), this is supposed to prevent inflation by raising the level of trust in the entire system, because states "have to" remain responsible since they have to pay interests to other actors.
Harari (in one of his books) says that by increasing the level of indebtedness of our states we have actually increased our trust in the future.

But the current crisis is going to change that somewhat. All states will have to inject massive amounts of funds in the economy to keep it running (and, well, to keep people alive). Whether the money comes from the private or public sector shouldn't have much of an impact on the potential inflation.
Assuming there is even a risk of inflation in the first place: since the global economy ground to a halt for months I highly doubt that.

Anyway, if my understanding of these matters is correct (which isn't certain, but I do try to read as much as I can on this [I have started an Ann Pettifor book on this]), there is actually an opportunity for states to break the power of the private banking sector when it comes to monetary creation. In the eurozone, Germany and the Netherlands seem to be vetoing any major move for now, but if the UK of all countries has chosen this path then there is hope that, very slowly and progressively, nation-states retake control of monetary creation and thus become free of financing programs for the common good once more. If this can become a political issue, public opinion can finally turn the tide...

[Rippounet]

Apologies for the double-post.

From the UK politics thread:

11 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

Firstly it's not just the odd family holiday people will be missing out on. Under your plan pretty much everyone who works in anything related to tourism, aviation or anything reliant on international travel their jobs are gone. A lot of people in related industries will also be losing their job. Anything that relies on importing workers that's probably fucked too.

This seems awfully close to what is required to be serious about climate change.

What if instead of trying to save those jobs we... didn't? As long as people get paid there's no reason to panic about some industries dying, methinks.

[ljkeane]

2 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

This seems awfully close to what is required to be serious about climate change.

 

What if instead of trying to save those jobs we... didn't? As long as people get paid there's no reason to panic about some industries dying, methinks.

Because most people aren't actually serious about climate change.

[Heartofice]

10 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

What if instead of trying to save those jobs we... didn't? As long as people get paid there's no reason to panic about some industries dying, methinks.

Maybe I’m not understanding your point but how are these people getting paid long term if they don’t have jobs?