Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
April 19, 2020

The MoA Week In Review - Open Thread 2020-31

Last week's posts at Moon of Alabama:

Other issues:

On two Coronavirus pieces on other websites:

The piece debunks itself when it quotes a Swedish epidemiologist who says:

“The truth is that we have a policy similar to that of other countries,” says Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s state epidemiologist, “Like everyone, we are trying to slow down the rate of infection … The differences derive from a different tradition and from a different culture that prevail in Sweden. We prefer voluntary measures, and there is a high level of trust here between the population and the authorities, so we are able to avoid coercive restrictions”

Sweden can do without orders of social distancing because its people will socially distance voluntarily when asked. That works because "there is a high level of trust here between the population and the authorities". That does not hold for the community of Somali people and other immigrants in Sweden more of whom are dying than in any other group.

Now project such a voluntary attempt onto the U.S. public where there is little, if any, trust between the population and the authorities. It simply would not work and one would soon have a runaway epidemic with all its bad consequences. Whitney's conclusion that we should all do like Sweden is thus not justified.


The piece was posted on April 17. One of the 'experts' it quotes is Dr. John Oxford, "an English virologist and Professor at Queen Mary, University of London." Here is the quote as posted on Off-Guardian:

Personally, I view this Covid outbreak as akin to a bad winter influenza epidemic. In this case we have had 8000 deaths this last year in the ‘at risk’ groups viz over 65% people with heart disease etc. I do not feel this current Covid will exceed this number. We are suffering from a media epidemic!

– “A VIEW FROM THE HVIVO / OPEN ORPHAN #ORPH LABORATORY”, blog post on Novus Communications website, March 31st 2020

Two remarks:

a. On April 17, when Off-Guardian posted the piece, the United Kingdom already had 14.607 deaths from Covid-19. Those were 6.600 more than the total number Dr. John Oxford predicted. If the real numbers, which are still increasing, are already 80+% higher than the expert's guestimate should one really use that expert to claim that the 'coronavirus panic' is unjustified?

b. Dr. Oxford made his claim in a "blog post on Novus Communications website". Novus Comes is a public relations agency which provides "financial social media & digital communications for small caps". The company is paid by its clients to talk up certain sectors of the stock market. Should one really use paid PR posts on a PR company's website to judge if some 'panic' about an epidemic is justified?

As for the other 'experts' Off-Guardian quoted. Yes, there ar some doctors who do have a different opinion than most of their colleagues. But that does not make them right.


An astroturfing campaign was launched in the U.S. to end the lockdowns. It is paid for by rightwing big money:

Somebody did some extremely basic WHOIS searching and found that the person who set up all the "reopen $STATENAME" protest web sites is in fact one guy in Jacksonville. -> reddit thread


[Thread] 1/ Much talk this morning about numerous Facebook groups cropping up with "insert state name" + "against excessive quarantine". Some are suggesting that there is mass astroturfing campaign occurring to pressure state governors to reopen after Donald Trump's tirade

Covid-19 is a really, really nasty disease:


We need to learn from this:

Use as open thread ...

Posted by b on April 19, 2020 at 14:26 UTC | Permalink

« previous page

@ 497 russ quote "Today we see the vastly more profound phenomenon of almost all self-alleged "anti-authoritarians" running home to police state mama." interesting binary you have going there... do you do this will all of life too?? you're either in box 1 or box 2.... ever think that life doesn't fit so neatly into this type of binary thinking?? i guess it is all black and white and there is no grey anymore, lol... don't mind me.. but this is like a cheap straw man and you are good at knocking your own straw men down...

Posted by: james | Apr 21 2020 16:43 utc | 501

If this link works-it is to the New Left Review- check out this article by Mike Davis:

Posted by: bevin | Apr 21 2020 17:22 utc | 502

Pretty revealing to see bemildred spin the LA county study as something other than good news. Yet another study that showed the mortality rate was about the same as the flu- and blows away the entire lie that is the Covid narrative. Do these people have some psychological need or disposition towards disaster? Saw this misanthropic behavior non-stop during too many other non-crises to list here.

Gives a little insight into those who feed off this fear porn which shuts off their abilities to think logically.

News flash- humans are infected with viruses.

Posted by: Allen | Apr 21 2020 17:57 utc | 503

@Disabuseer #489
Your point is worth looking at but isn't very strong because the behavior I documented was across an entire state. Every single district that didn't have 4 or more assemblyman candidates running, the winning assemblyman polled more than either presidential candidate - sometimes more than both combined.

Also note that Sanders outvoted Clinton in those 2 example districts even as Clinton won California - so it cannot be said that there was no "competition" in those districts at the presidential level.

This is 100% diametrically opposite to what the article you linked to asserts: that there is no way a state level candidate should be outpolling a presidential one.

As for the code - this seems very straightforward. If the code is real, then why isn't the Federal Election Commission involved? Or the state one?

I note that the code in question wasn't published, so impossible to know what exactly was done (or allegedly done). Was there even a link to the report?

Posted by: c1ue | Apr 21 2020 18:02 utc | 504

@Ray Bergmann #494
If nCOV was really around in June - why wasn't there a spike in mortality in September? And widespread infections and deaths from September onward?
Alleging presence of nCOV much earlier than accepted timelines - you have to explain why it didn't spread and start killing people earlier than it actually did.

Posted by: c1ue | Apr 21 2020 18:04 utc | 505

@Russ #490
Your argument is very weak.
The proponents of lockdowns will say that the lockdown worked - which is why the hospitals aren't overwhelmed.
This is impossible to prove or disprove.

Posted by: c1ue | Apr 21 2020 18:05 utc | 506

@fairleft #453
The LA study cannot be relied on for anything because the population tested was not random.
The study was taken on people who drove to a testing center - self-volunteered - to be tested. Furthermore the study was announced, so people knew what they were going to and why (i.e. not for active nCOV, only for people who may already have overcome nCOV infection)
study details
Given this setup, it is impossible for this study to determine if the population is skewed high because everyone coming had experienced a severe flu-like incident - meaning a lot of high-risk subjects.
It is like testing an emergency room waiting area for sick people.

Posted by: c1ue | Apr 21 2020 18:13 utc | 507

@Bemildred #520
Regarding Bhadrakumar: His article talks about a research effort by Chinese scientists - it would be a lot more credible and useful if the strains identified by said scientists were reconciled with Nextstrain data.

Nextstrain is showing 6 major varieties of nCOV in Wuhan, 1 each in Sweden, Nepal and Japan and 3 in the US. It also shows a clear lineage from a (non-Wuhan) Chinese bat: Nextstrain coronavirus family view

Looking at the next level down: there are 10 major varieties listed nCOV specific Nextstrain view

Note the sizes of the circles are #s of samples uploaded, not # of infections. A large circle of one color simply means a lot of samples of the same sub-strain.

Quite frankly - the rhetoric on all sides is such that anything new being published now is more than likely skewed toward national agendas rather than science.

Posted by: c1ue | Apr 21 2020 18:28 utc | 508


This is what I've been waiting for.
An interview, in English by Swedish Professor Johan Giesecke.
Please take the time to read & listen:
***Sweden Vs COVID-19: Why "Herd Immunity" Matters & Why Lockdown Doesn't Really Work***
"That was one of the more extraordinary interviews we have done here at UnHerd.

Professor Johan Giesecke, one of the world’s most senior epidemiologists, advisor to the Swedish Government (he hired Anders Tegnell who is currently directing Swedish strategy), the first Chief Scientist of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, and an advisor to the director general of the WHO, lays out with typically Swedish bluntness why he thinks:

- UK policy on lockdown and other European countries are not evidence-based
- The correct policy is to protect the old and the frail only
- This will eventually lead to herd immunity as a “by-product”
- The initial UK response, before the “180 degree U-turn”, was better
- The Imperial College paper was “not very good” and he has never seen an unpublished paper have so much policy impact
- The paper was very much too pessimistic
- Any such models are a dubious basis for public policy anyway
- The flattening of the curve is due to the most vulnerable dying first as much as the lockdown
- The results will eventually be similar for all countries
Covid-19 is a “mild disease” and similar to the flu, and it was the novelty of the disease that scared people.
- The actual fatality rate of Covid-19 is the region of 0.1%
- At least 50% of the population of both the UK and Sweden will be shown to have already had the disease when mass antibody testing becomes available.

UnHerd host Freddy Sayers speaks with Professor Johan Giesecke in what they describe as one of the most extraordinary interviews they have done... Watch:"

Here's the link to the 35 minute video, in English:


Posted by: Veritas X- | Apr 21 2020 19:50 utc | 509

@Veritas X #531
The Swedish professor is not credible.
If nCOV mortality was truly only 0.1% - then New York State is 99.85% infected with nCOV as of today.
By the end of April, it will be 120% - i.e. impossible.

Posted by: c1ue | Apr 21 2020 20:39 utc | 510

Posted by: c1ue | Apr 21 2020 18:28 utc | 530

Agreed. As I told BM in 519, I'm not believing much of anything at the moment, just taking notes on who is saying what. The Politics. Sometimes ambiguity is the best thing to believe in. I appreciate your efforts to keep track of the data, it looks pretty messy, but I get the impression progress is being made.

Posted by: Bemildred | Apr 21 2020 21:14 utc | 511

MGH in Boston did a sampling of people in the street of a town having a high rate of COvid cases. Over 30% had antibodies. All were healthy although some reported mild cold symptoms over the last month.

Another study showed over 1/3 of homeless people in shelters were infected.

My guess is most of people in states having the higher number of cases will have immunity, especially those not subject to lockdown

Posted by: Pft | Apr 21 2020 21:47 utc | 512

@pppp #522
There is very low credibility in the idea that most people have already gotten nCOV.
Among other things, there's lockdowns in most countries.
Another factor: the mortality rates are dramatically different even within the same country.
Using New York mortality rates, the nCOV infection level in even the worst hit countries doesn't exceed 4% - with regions like Lombardy potentially having 10%.
Herd immunity requires at least 80% of a population to be immune.
It is extremely, extremely unlikely any nation has 80% nCOV infection rates, much less 80% nCOV immunity.

Posted by: c1ue | Apr 21 2020 22:18 utc | 513

c1ue 530

I read the Chinese research. Results are close to Cambridge research results in that original human strain has not been found. Human strains diverged from a single strain. Whoever has that original strain will be patient one - the point at which it jumped from animal or lab to humans.

The next strain layout that include SARS-1 is good. All of SARS-1's family can be seen. A huge amount of research gone into finding where SARS-1 come from and it shows in the graph. Now SARS-2 pops up virtually out of nowhere but with the added abilities of MERS and very infectious. No animal host found.
If no research had gone into corona virus strains in China, then lack of known relatives in the family tree would be normal, but under the circumstances it is very odd.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Apr 21 2020 22:18 utc | 514

c1ue @ 535
I am not saying most people already have gotten nCOV. I am saying in certain countries the percentage is high enough to affect (just affect, not stop) virus spread. The 30% quoted by Pft above would be enough to bend the curve a bit. I am saying also that most people eventually will get infected. This depends on which country we are talking about.
Lockdowns will slow the infection rate but will not stop it. These lockdowns are not tight enough.
Mortality has little to do with asymptomatic cases, except perceived mortality is higher than actual mortality because of undetected cases.
Once again, I hear from different sources that:
1. Random, otherwise healthy people test positively for nCOV. Percentage of these people might be higher than we currently dare to imagine.
2. I have been told that healthcare staff choose not to test themselves for nCOV because finding a positive case would lead to shutdown of the whole hospital, which is a very bad option, so as long as there is no symptoms they move on. That means a virus strain that causes little symptoms will spread unnoticed and unaffected.
The term "security circus" comes to mind.

Posted by: pppp | Apr 21 2020 23:41 utc | 515

I had always hoped that when it come to the crunch with this US anti China shit we would pull out.
With Trump's corunavirus decouple it looks as though we are crossing the rubicon and will faithfully go down with the US.


An Australian frigate has joined three U.S. warships in the South China Sea near an area where a Chinese vessel is suspected to be exploring for oil, near waters also claimed by Vietnam and Malaysia, officials said on Wednesday.

Prior to WWII, Australia relied on the mighty British navy who ruled the seas and the 'impregnable' fortress of Singapore for protection.
two cruisers sent to show british might when the Japanese landed on Malaya peninsular where promptly sunk and the forytress of Singapore was surrendered without a fight from them.

Now we are deliberately picking a fight with the US against China and also Russia which the US will surely lose.
It's gonna be poor fella us soon. Will be a lot of cranky people to the north of us when the yanks are booted out.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Apr 22 2020 5:42 utc | 516
just sayin'

Posted by: Mina | Apr 22 2020 9:34 utc | 517

re: c1ue | Apr 21 2020 20:39 utc @ 532

I've been of the opinion that you know somethings about...let's call it...microbiology and lab analysis of sicknesses.
I'm...quite disappointed in your 'blanco negative', to be honest.

I just got done listening to the following and will now listen a 2nd time:
*The Richie Allen Show - Tuesday April 21st 2020* -
"Richie is joined by Dr. Sherri Tenpenny MD and Dr. Judy Mikovits PhD.
In this extraordinary show, Dr. Tenpenny and Dr. Mikovits challenge the official narrative around coronavirus, and ask some very serious questions about the legitimacy of the advice Dr. Anthony Fauci has given US President Donald Trump. They discuss the testing, the lockdown measures, the World Health organisation and its funding, The Bill And Melinda Gates Foundation and the agenda to introduce global vaccine mandating. For more on Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, go to and for Dr. Judy Mikovits, visit "

Please do me the favor and listen.
And, contemplate.
Regards X- in Sweden
it's a beautiful Spring-Day here in Sweden, and, I'm working in my garden...getting lots of fresh air, sun, vitamin-d...
cheerio :))

Posted by: Veritas X- | Apr 22 2020 9:51 utc | 518

Confirming Ioannidis on Santa Clara...

Posted by: Mina | Apr 22 2020 10:56 utc | 520

As for the other 'experts' Off-Guardian quoted. Yes, there ar some doctors who do have a different opinion than most of their colleagues. But that does not make them right.

I will not go into long debates, but just wonder - why? Mean, why 'that does not make them right'? Simply because [at this moment] there are fewer of them than those who consider the virus "super-dangerous"? I doubt that this can be considered an argument, allowing to assert that 'that does not make them right'.

Maybe I’ll be mistaken in making similar analogies, but I just want to remind that the “majority“ of Western “experts”, as well as the media, claim that the incident in the Syrian Douma in April 2018 was a chemical attack, although it has long been clear and now proved that the incident was a staged fiction, a spectacle. We can also say that, in this case, “some experts do have a different opinion than most of their colleagues”. But does the greater number of “experts” and the media stubbornly insisting on the use of chemical weapons in the Douma make their statements credible/true? No.

I don’t even want to remind the well-known scandalous story about WHO, and its frauds regarding the “pandemic” of bird/swine flu.
You know, how could one not take that information seriously? After all, the WHO itself voiced it! Serious, respected people. But then some handful of people "dared" not to believe and doubt. And then prove that WHO was cheating on everyone. I don't want to hint at anything, but I think such excesses should be taken into account before judging who is right and who is wrong.

In addition, I am always jarred when someone write "so many died of coronavirus." Like here - "the United Kingdom already had 14.607 deaths from Covid-19". Sorry, where is the scientifically proven justification that it was the virus (but not other disease(s) that people had) that killed all these people? I saw a number of interesting materials where German scientists discussed the situation with the virus in Germany. The words of one of them were very revealing when the scientist told the following incident. A man died of a heart attack. After the autopsy, it turned out that the person had a coronavirus. German statistics automatically records this deceased as... "dead from a coronavirus," although, I repeat, a person died as a result of a heart attack. Another person died, for example, from a brain hemorrhage. The situation is similar - after an autopsy, they found a coronavirus and records it in the statistics of those who died from the virus, although it has nothing to do with human death. The above are not 'unique' cases at all.

The statistics are now too raw and dubious to trust it unconditionally. Those 14.607 who died allegedly from a COVID-19 in the UK... how many of them died for completely different reasons, but were attributed to the "victims of the virus"? I'm afraid we won’t know. The same in other countries.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to claim that COVID-19 is complete nonsense. But I think that people should be more attentive and accurate with conclusions, and not in a hurry to ascribe thousands of dead to the virus. The comments made by doctors and governments that the deceased had a number of long-standing pathologies/chronic diseases are far from accidental.

In all that is happening, there is still some element of "hypertrophy", if I can call it this way. In my opinion, only the blind man may not notice or deny this. Coronavirus is essentially not something new and unique. People constantly and for a long time live "next door" to the coronavirus. Only the current form of the virus is new.

I mean, every day, thousands, tens of thousands of people die from a variety of diseases - oncology, ulcers, heart attacks, etc. Millions of people die as a result of a variety of incidents - shootings, robberies, car accidents, people drown in the sea and ocean, domestic violence and much more.

For instance, imagine that from day to day, around the clock on TV we would be told how many people died of a heart attack. Today is ... (number), tomorrow is more - ... (number). We would be told that "the doctors are not able to help people". We would be told that old and young, even children, die from heart failure. Special sites would be created with diagrams and graphs that track the dynamics of heart attack deaths in real time. 90% of media and news articles would be about heart attacks.

In fact, all of this - the aforementioned about a heart attack (and about many other ailments) - exists and happens every day, but all this simply remains in the shadows, all this happens "unnoticed" for us.

In all these COVID-19 statistics there are a lot of blank spots, inaccuracies, errors and other shortcomings. I think it is too early to consider the proposed data as absolutely reliable. When the current chaos passes, all information will be double-checked and analyzed, I think we can see a slightly different picture. Btw, it is possible that over time, we will learn many 'surprises' about the COVID-19, including its origin. The meaning and significance of what is happening now in the world will also be appreciated and understood only after years. Interesters and their goals will be disclosed.
However, these are just my assumptions.

P.S. Russian scientist Vitaly Zverev, supervisor of research at the Scientific Research Institute of Vaccines and Serums named after I.I. Mechnikov, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, virologist - about the coronavirus:

What infections that came to us in the human population, we completely eliminated? Smallpox only. We live with the flu, and no one cries. Every year around 300-400 thousand people die from flu. Millions are ill. Despite the fact that we have a vaccine, there are antimicrobial drugs. Here [- in case of COVID-19 -] we have nothing. Therefore, there is no need for panic, you need to calm down. You need to understand that this virus is not so serious. It’s not some smallpox, it’s no plague of the 20th century. This is a common respiratory infection that causes acute respiratory infections, which unfortunately have such complications.

Posted by: alaff | Apr 22 2020 11:22 utc | 521

22 January, the French vessel Charles de Gaulle left Toulon to join some US troops involved in the so-called war on terror
11 March, it docks in Brest to allow the sailors to vote (while some schools are already closed, ppl have been asked to vote for the local elections all over France)
A month later, it has 1000 sailors (out of 1900) tested positive, no dead.1 person in intensive care.
Some sailors said there were alreadt ppl sick on board BEFORE they docked in Brest but this was later denied by the military.

Pretty close to the Roosevelt.

Posted by: Mina | Apr 22 2020 12:12 utc | 522

So CDC pushes the timeline back:

Coronavirus timeline reset: CDC confirms weeks-earlier California deaths

Trump instructs the Navy to shoot down Iranian boats if they harass them:

Trump instructs US Navy to shoot down and destroy all Iranian gunboats if they 'harass our ships at sea'

Posted by: Bemildred | Apr 22 2020 12:32 utc | 523

More Corona News that seems "of interest":

Anoxia as an early warning:

The Infection That’s Silently Killing Coronavirus Patients

Disinfecting, testing:

Stability of SARS-COV-2 in different environmental conditions

Everything we know about coronavirus immunity and antibodies — and plenty we still don’t

The Chron on early CV19 in California, mentions Ms Cody who got the ball rolling early here:

First known U.S. coronavirus death occurred on Feb. 6 in Santa Clara County

Vaccine trials in China (XINHUA):

China Focus: China approves three COVID-19 vaccines for clinical trials

Posted by: Bemildred | Apr 22 2020 12:53 utc | 524

The EU parliament in Strasbourg announces it is going to give 500 meals per day to the poor (from the youth and the monoparental families).
They are so shy that it is not on their website, just on the lives of the various media.
Really? the monthly allowance of 500 euros is not enough to buy food the prices of which have seen an increase of 9% this last month, after the governement managed to give an advantage on supermarkets over smaller shops? How come in their perfect world?

Posted by: Mina | Apr 22 2020 13:03 utc | 525

Peter AU1 | Apr 22 2020 5:42 utc | 524 defense of Singapore

No doubt you realize that as a consequence of the Automedon affair, the Japanese knew that Singapore would not be reinforced and would necessarily be left undefended, but many do not know this.

(like pearl harbor, Automedon has a strange smell...)


Perhaps Pepe's been cast into the pit of heretics, but has his thesis been refuted, his damning questions cogently answered?

see> "What Did U.S. Intel Really Know About the ‘Chinese’ Virus?"

Israeli disclosure supports what’s nothing less than extraordinary: U.S. intel already knew about Sars-Cov-2 roughly one month before the first confirmed cases detected by doctors in a Wuhan hospital. Talk about divine intervention.

That could only have happened if U.S. intel knew, for sure, about a previous chain of events that would necessarily lead to the “mysterious outbreak” in Wuhan. And not only that: they knew exactly where to look. Not in Inner Mongolia, not in Beijing, not in Guangdong province.

It’s never enough to repeat the question in full: how could U.S. intel have known about a contagion one month before Chinese doctors detected an unknown virus?

Mike “We Lie, We Cheat, We Steal” Pompeo may have given away the game when he said, on the record, that Covid-19 was a “live exercise”. Adding to the ABC News and Israeli reports, the only possible, logical conclusion is that the Pentagon – and the CIA – knew ahead of time a pandemic would be inevitable.

That’s the smokin’ gun. And now the full weight of the United States government is covering all bases by proactively, and retroactively, blaming Ch..."

Posted by: Walter | Apr 22 2020 13:44 utc | 526

>"Richie is joined by Dr. Sherri Tenpenny MD and Dr. Judy Mikovits PhD.

Mikovits again. [really big eye roll] She has been very controversial for years since she "discovered" that myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) was caused by XMRV - a mouse retrovirus. This caused quite a stir in the research "community" and the NIH finally spent real money on ME research in order to disprove the theory. Please understand that attempting to disprove a theory is absolutely the proper thing to do, according to the scientific method, which requires theories to be beat on from all directions.

It turned out that XMRV was laboratory contamination (sound familiar?) and not present in patient's blood. These things happen. But as soon as XMRV was announced, there was an expensive unverified blood test that found almost all patients had XMRV. Another case of total fraud. Much relieved, NIH put the ME research program back in the deep freeze where it remains to this day.

I can't recall if Mikovits was part of the test fraud or not. She was certainly in the middle of the shit storm and came out rather smelly and with destroyed career. Most of what she says is muddled speculation and needs to be viewed with a heavy dose of skepticism.

Posted by: Trailer Trash | Apr 22 2020 15:04 utc | 527

@Posted by: Mina | Apr 22 2020 10:56 utc | 528

@Posted by: Bemildred | Apr 22 2020 12:32 utc | 531

I would not trust either the gaslighting CNN or revised CDC CA covid deaths timelines

They both neglect to note the Jan 29 2020 US special chartered 747 evacuation of 195 US persons from Wuhan to March Air Reserve Base in S. CA (and from there, who knows where they, or their caretakers went?).

And regarding that "Confirming Ioannidis on Santa Clara..." ie the Stanford (Ioannidis, Bogan, Bhattacharya et al)/ Santa Clara Co. Ab seropositivity preprint (not passed peer review yet) study , the thrust of which is to support the notion that the actual penetration of [silent/asymptomatic] covid infections within the US population is much higher (ie higher level of total infections) than previous data relying on rtPCR (ncov RNA) testing and symptomatic patient counts indicated. Thus this Stanford study could be used to support the position that "herd immunity" is closer to happening than previous data indicate.

But Stanford study is being shot down on a whole bunch of grounds; methodological, statistical, conflict of interest (Bogan) etc.

Chris Martenson: (starts ~minute 8:30)

MedCram Doc: (starts at minute 5:00)

Posted by: gm | Apr 22 2020 15:36 utc | 528

Today's Lenin's 150 birthday:

Lenin Was ‘a Genius Who Changed the Course of World History’, Veteran Russian Journo Says

Lenin: el dirigente, la realidad, el pueblo

At Granma, the whole home page is dedicated to Lenin and the Soviet influence on Cuba. I recommend reading it if you know Spanish.

Posted by: vk | Apr 22 2020 15:38 utc | 529

@alaff #529
There is abundant evidence the nCOV/COVID-19 is killing a lot of people, including overall mortality numbers in New York, Lombardy and the UK.
The UK, for example, is seeing weekly mortality numbers at a level unseen since 2002.
New York's overall state mortality for nCOV is already 50% above normal monthly all causes mortality - and this has happened in basically 3 weeks.
The New York nCOV mortality per 10M population, as of this latest reported data, is 10,374 (vs. 6,500 average monthly mortality).
Lombardy nCOV mortality per 10M is at 12,479 - New York is likely to pass Lombardy (which is still increasing) in 2 weeks or less.

Posted by: c1ue | Apr 22 2020 16:36 utc | 530

Here's a BCG vaccination map for the world.
This map is interactive, you can click on different countries to see what their policies are/were.
Net net - it is not particularly convincing that BCG vaccination is why nCOV is not so bad in many areas but bad in Europe and the US.
In particular: France, Italy and other European countries had BCG vaccination up until 10-15 years ago - meaning many of the 65+ people in those countries were BCG vaccinated.

Posted by: c1ue | Apr 22 2020 16:41 utc | 531

Singapore goes from first to worst in nCOV handling

Probably a preview of what's to come: recurrences after lockdowns end; increasing spread among poor people as they're more exposed, etc.

Posted by: c1ue | Apr 22 2020 17:27 utc | 532

Saw somewhere that we now have somebody claiming a degree in econ/finance.

my response: Economics is today *practically* nothing but a long list of attempted excuses for the diabolically stupid and self-harming idea to use division of labor as an excuse to overpay the 1% at the expense of the 99% underpaid. University economics departments are in the business of exhausting ingenuity to invent said attempted excuses for legal thefts, all of which are bogus, subrational, demonstrably unable to withstand scrutiny. Justice is a virtue essential to human survival and happiness. Justice in wealthgetting means spreading world wealth as evenly as world work is spread. World work is spread at a ratio of no greater than 2 to 1. On a sane planet, no fortune would be allowed to exceed the ratio of 2 to 1 - and on Earth this would mean you would be living on a planet where everyone prospered and lived in peace with plenty. Extremes of wealth is bad for 100% of humans. Fairpay justice is the non-negotiable price of human survival. Fairpay justice is Golden-age good for 100% of humans.

Has our "economist" ever had an original thought in his life?

Well I have. Here is an offer for all to read snips from my chapter 8 of an unpublished work written in past decades where I give quotes and then provide analysis in hopes to give humanity the economic clarity that will set us free once and for all from the tyranny the PHD economists have bestowed with their no-think:

• The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it all back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits. Sir Josiah Stamp. President, Bank of England, 1920s.

Banks are allowed to lend 10 or 20 times the amount of money they actually have as real, over-the-counter deposits. The government can do this safely because the money is backed by the credit of the nation. But this credit is the property of the people, and therefore neither banks nor governments should profit from it. If money seems mysterious, it is because money is a deliberate mystification. It is intended to seem impossible to understand by those who profit from it. Economics is loaded with nonsense with the intent of confusing the honest person, and driving him to leave economics to the professionals, the great thieves. The success of the bankers is the success of priests, who make mysteries and appoint themselves masters of it, and gull the people into supporting them without limit. Unjust overwealth is the great con, which engulfs the con-artists in the universal destruction.

Why do people not take in the truth when it is told to them by people they can trust are in the know, like the president of the Bank of England? Because the truth is incredible. Because the wolf in sheep's clothing looks like a sheep. Because bankers seem so respectable. Because bankers have so much money and the people believe money is always good. Because the truthtellers are so few, they are outside society, they are nonherd. Because anyone of social status has an investment in the error or lie or untruth. Because the person who digs out the truth has no social status. Because a person of social status telling the truth does not compute. Because people's idea of a thief does not include anyone in expensive clothes. Because people's idea of a thief is the idea of an unsuccessful thief, a poor person.

The biggest lie in sheep's clothing is the one that formed the basis of the science of economics in the 18th century, and is still going strong. The lie or error that the merchant's self-interest is beneficial to all. That the merchant's pursuit of profit makes him provide goods and services to people, and thus his self-interest serves the community. It is true that the merchant is forced to provide goods, so that he can have transactions out of which he can take unjust profits. But by definition, the goods and services are worth less than the price, else there are no unjust profits. If the merchant takes only his product costs and the cost of his personal sacrifice, there are no unjust profits. There is fair exchange no robbery. The merchant gives A, his time and products, and gets B, and B is larger. The argument is that because the merchant gives A, he gives to the community. But the net gift to the community is A minus B. The net gift is negative, he takes more than he gives, unless he is honest and he takes only enough to pay for his sacrifice of time and to pay his bills, and he returns any surplus to the overcharged customers and underpaid workers. The net gift from the people to the rich is positive. Despite the great simplicity of this error, it has been joyously bruited in economics for at least five centuries. Economics so far has mostly been the propaganda ministry for overwealth. The greater giving by the customer is hard for all to see, even when it is pointed out.

In a nonprofit organisation without volunteers, everyone gets fairpay, so what are profits? Clearly they cannot be fairpay. It is the easiest thing in the world to charge $11 for $10 worth of goods and service. It is the same as begging $1 for nothing, but it seems better, because the customer leaves with $10 worth of something he wants.

The point is seen in the story of a prisoner of war making a small fortune in cigarettes by trading in Red Cross items. Who can tell how many cigarettes a can of sardines is worth?

The point is seen in the stories of people trading up from a $2 coin to a house in 50 trades. The legal theft that is hard to see in one trade is clearly seen after 50 trades. And yet most people hearing of this story will go, Whoopee, I can do that. Wars are caused by buying a can of spaghetti. By the tiny imp in every transaction, who grows to the monster of global violence, like a dripping tap rotting the house in time.

Again, the point is seen in the Woolworth story. If you can sell $10 million worth of 5c and 10c items, that cost 4.5c and 9c for you to buy, transport, display, advertise, sell, manage, etc, you legally steal $1 million.

The magician of trade makes these huge piles of money appear, and everyone is happy, although the magician hands this money out only to 1%. And no one makes the connection between the appearance of these huge piles of money and the severe depletion of our own pockets, and the battles in the streets.

A very popular modern error or lie is the one that the social pool of wealth is infinite, so that there is no injustice in taking unlimited money out of the social pool. This is taught in economics classes. People easily believe what they want to believe. It is easily exploded. How many things are infinite? The number of workers is finite, the hours of work are finite, the pool of work products is finite. The great power of the computer revolution to steal money legally has led to the euphoric feeling that the social pool is infinite, that knowledge is being turned into money, that knowledge is infinite, and that the money doesn't come out of the social pool of work. Knowledge is infinite, but knowledge that we know is finite. And the right to be paid for knowledge is limited to the amount of work we put into having it. And the un-self-earned profits are used to buy products from the social pool of wealth made by work.

This great power to steal legally is due instead to the new-technology factor, scarcity, huge demand and low supply, and the fact that competition has not yet geared up to reduce the scarcity prices. As competition gears up and prices fall towards costs, the fabulous returns dry up, and the bubble bursts. New technology can argue that the development costs explain the price. But there would be no unjust fabulous profits, no billionaires, if the development costs were absorbing the cash from the prices. The very euphoria tells you that the profits are not being earned. Self-earned, just profits or fairpay do not induce euphoria.

The euphoric talk of the knowledge revolution. As if the plough and fire-making were not knowledge.

Another untruth widely propagated. Trickledown theory. A trickle?! If you let the big boys get a gusher, you'll get a trickle. Isn't that nice? Just shower me with money and some will be sure to splash on you. Let me empty your wallet and I may drop a coin you can pick up. The trickledown theory is taught in all seriousness in economics.

Another very common fallacy, I call the ' the top of the pyramid is the pyramid' fallacy. People say: Bill Gates gave us the computer, wonderful, wonderful guy, give him 50 billion. Easy to explode: simply imagine Bill Gates without anyone else.

We think: The businessman employs people, we should be grateful, we are dependent on him. But a business runs because of demand, which is the property of the customers. No demand, no customers, no business. It is hard, and boring, to imagine the reality, that ultimately the whole of society is responsible for computers, and employment. It is much more fun to fix all the gratitude on symbolic figures at the top of the pyramid. It is for no other reason that Sheiks and Sultans are rich on national oil, and are thus empowered to rob and oppress 'their' nations, and thus to put themselves in danger. It is the power of the image, of the more easily imagined. The president rules the nation. The general wins, or loses, the war. I am a success because I went to the Oprah show. We have a golden calf, so we are rich, though we give up our gold and jewelry, and imperil our very lives, to make the idol.

This section illustrates the biggest piece of nonsense in economics:

• There can be no trade unprofitable to the public, for if any prove so, men leave it off, and whenever the traders thrive, the public, of which they are a part, thrives also. Dudley North.

• The fable of the bees, or, Private vices, public benefits. Bernard Mandeville.

• The public becomes powerful in proportion to the opulence and extensive commerce of private men. David Hume.

• Commerce is no longer exploitation. It is human service, and no business concern can hope to prosper which does not meet a human need and add to human happiness. Elbert Hubbard.

• What is the benefit done by a good King Alfred, or by a Howard, or Pestalozzi, or Elizabeth Fry, or Florence Nightingale, or any lover, less or larger, compared with the involuntary blessing wrought on nations by the selfish capitalist, who built the Illinois, Michigan and the network of the Mississippi valley roads, which have evoked not only the wealth of the soil, but the energy of millions of people? Ralph Emerson.

The selfish capitalist built the railroads. Rolled up his sleeves, did he? Didn't hire any workers, did it all himself. Peak-pyramid fallacy again.

• No man ever manages a legitimate business in this life without doing indirectly far more for other people than he is trying to do for himself. Henry Beecher.

• Inventions and mechanical arts are not working half so much for the rich, the strong and the wise, as they are for the poor, the weak and the ignorant. Henry Beecher.

• Priests pray for blessings, merchants pour them down. Edward Young.

• We advocate nothing but what is agreeable to the highest behests of Christianity, to buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest. Richard Cobden.

• Commerce is virtually a mode of cheapening production, and in all such cases the consumer is the person ultimately benefited. J.S. Mill.

These quotes range over 500 years. I suppose the explosion of trade, transport, weaponry, conquest, plunder, piracy and enslavement from 1500 went to people's heads, and they got quite emotional and swept away from sense by the explosion of wealth they saw around them. America was built on cotton, and cotton was built on slaves. Gold flooded into Europe from South America. The financial supremacy of the first world was donated involuntarily by the third world. With their technological, weaponry advantage, the first world simply robbed the third world. And then patronised it with the names, third world, and developing countries.

Mandeville, a Dutchman, was being lighthearted and satirical, half tongue-in-cheek, but his words were read seriously and literally, by the English, as being cynical and wrong, or as being cynical and true. The truth in what he was saying, or mis-saying, was that self-interest is not necessarily bad, proper self-interest is regarded as a vice and is in reality part of virtue. Proper self-interest is indeed the root of virtue, but at the time people were convinced that virtue required complete lack of self-interest, which is absurd. Love others as [much as] you love yourself. Because what you do to others is done to you. Because there is an equal and opposite reaction to what you do. The love you get is equal to the love you give. The hurt you get is equal to the hurt you give. Self-interest as a vice, as a misery-maker, forgets this first law of ethics. Self-interest as a virtue, as a happiness-maker, remembers this first law of ethics.

Obviously in an exchange, the work-input values of the two things have to be x and x+y. So that one person goes from x to x+y and the other goes from x+y to x. So that one gains y and the other loses y. One slips towards wealth and power, the other slips towards poverty and slavery. Necessarily. Unavoidably. The idea that transaction can produce gain on both sides is absurd, ought to be patently so. And yet even Emerson and J.S. Mill, great friends of humanity and freedom fell for it.

Why are all these authors energetically arguing for the selfish capitalist? Obviously because it requires effort to try to justify.

If inventions and mechanical arts were working half as much for the rich as for the poor, the poor would of course be twice as rich as the rich.

Commerce is no longer exploitation? So commerce was exploitation. What happened to change commerce from exploitation? Commerce didn't change.

J.S. Mill is right in that the customer is benefited by the cheapening caused by competition. But he confuses together relative benefit and absolute benefit. The customer benefits relatively to higher prices, but not absolutely. The customer still comes out worse off, having most of the time given more than he got.

To add a comic touch to the tragedy of self-deception and self-destruction, the heirs of the oldfashioned, outright conquest and plunder, sword-slaughter and peasant-slavery, looked down their noses at the slightly subtler conquest and plunder by trade.

O humanity! For how long will you be your own dupe, your own crucifier, your own murderer? Injury ricochets as untiringly as atoms.

People got high on the upside of trade, lost their sense, and only slowly noticed the slaves, the third world. And now they kid themselves that there are no slaves, or only 200 million slaves, when 90% of people are paid 10th to 1000th of world-average pay, when 0.25% legally own 50% of the world, and when the economically very thin third world is still being squeezed of US$200 billion every year.

And the first world is quite unaware that 500 years of plunder is about to turn into 500 years of being plundered. Or rather, less than 500 years, because by 2100, the first world will be only 2% of human population. The third world has been getting hard, and the first world has been getting soft. Third-world Sicily has already conquered America. The first world is riddled with the criminal products of poverty. Poverty is a luxury we cannot afford. Deny blood to any part of the body, and the whole body is flooded with gangrene. To be conscious of part of the picture is to be unconscious.

• If we had to point to one single notion which is calculated to damage our industrial performance, to prevent us from competing effectively in the world and ultimately to undermine the basis of a free and diverse society, it is the idea that profit is somehow wrong. Margaret Thatcher.

A brilliant piece of demagoguery. All those people out there raising doubts about the benefits of making a profit, including Dante, Jerome and Montaigne, are against freedom, diversity, industry and economic power in the world. We people in here are standing up for freedom, diversity and national strength. Thatcher does not think to herself: There are people saying that profits are wrong, or that profits can in some cases be wrong. As a person interested in happiness, as a person in some degree responsible for the happiness of all the people in this nation, and also for the happiness of people outside this nation whom this nation affects, and knowing that happiness is totally dependent on the truth, I will investigate, examine and objectively judge the arguments against profit, in order that I may be equipped with the best knowledge and insight in my responsibilities. I will gather, examine and digest the rational arguments against profit, and extract all the good and truth they may have in them.

She is conscious of voices raised against profit, that is why she addresses the matter. But she comfortably, arrogantly assumes that all the people arguing against profit are lesser beings, incapable of rational thought, who can be dismissed without argument. Whatever they say, it has to be nonsense. There is no possibility that the intelligence of those who are for profit is less than complete. Those utter rogues who are against profit! They are trying to restrict freedom, they are against diversity, they are trying to destroy the nation's health and strength, whereas we are trying to save the nation from these enemies, these destroyers, by pulling in big heaps of lovely money for ourselves. We made heaps of money, we can't be wrong. She is consolidating her position by pandering to the unthoughtful, unobjective prejudices and egotism of her audience.

Wealth breeds insolence, arrogance, complacency that they are right. Without any basis in reason, she connects the profittakers to freedom, diversity and national strength, and throws mud at those who are against profit. Anyone who says anything against profit will feel a little more afraid, a little more marginalised, a little more of a traitor.

She is supported by everyone thinking that profits are what employs people. It stands to reason, doesn't it. No profits, means no people setting up companies, means no jobs for employees. The employers are doing all this for the nation. It is harder for people to see that it is demand for goods that employs people, it is everyone having fairpay that maximises the spending and therefore employment, like Henry Ford giving high wages so the workers could afford the cars. It is the bear's desire for a fish that gives the bear the employment as a fisher. It is something like the magician's misdirection. People, even employees, see the employer, not the employees. People's desire for parent-figures is grafted on to the employers. People's meekness says: What, us? It is us who are creating employment? Obviously employment would disappear if demand disappeared. It takes no effort to have needs and desires, so people attribute employment to the employer, who is making an effort in setting up and running the companies. People also forget that the employer is being overpaid for his effort. Being overpaid out of the people's efforts. Most or all of the capital the employer uses belongs to the people, has been legally and unjustly extracted by the transaction imp.

She is supported by everyone thinking that you have to have overpaid and underpaid in order to have capital, whereas capital formation is highest in egalitarian countries like Norway, where everyone gets a fairshare, everyone is and feels safe and secure, where internal defense costs and taxes are lowest, where most have money to save, and therefore everyone puts away spare money for a rainy day. Whereas super-overpaid and super-underpaid countries like Middle Eastern countries have near zero capital formation. See the writings of 'the Dean of economists', John Galbraith.

She is supported by everyone thinking that more money is always better, and that therefore people with more money are always better.

Thatcher's remarks are irresponsible, unaware, and designed to flatter and solidify the ignorance of her party, and to slander and marginalise the voices of reason. She is a bully, and the voice of bullies. Without courage to leave prejudice, and to venture on the seas of thought towards truth and happiness. She is using the force of slander, not the sanity of selflove and otherlove. All the miseries of humanity, all the failures and disorders of human government, do not move her to doubt, to test, to examine, to search, to think. Arrogance is ignorance of our ignorance. There is nothing more certain than the limitation of our intelligence, so we ought at least to ridicule the absolutely confident. Children should at least be taught to recognise the wellknown false arguments.

Posted by: Phryne's frock | Apr 22 2020 17:44 utc | 533

Re: Gestapo fighters killed by COVID:

"Two more veteran deaths at Soldiers’ Home in Holyoke, 62 in total"

Posted by: gm | Apr 22 2020 17:46 utc | 534

• The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principles but that of gain. Thomas Jefferson.

• The poor man pays for all. Ambrose Bierce.

• Those who have never seen the inhabitants of a 19th century London slum can have no idea of the state to which dirt, drink and economics can reduce human beings. Leonard Woolf.

What percentage of humans live in slums today? 40%? 50%? Of course the dirt is caused by the economics. The drink is caused by the despair and pain caused by the economics. And the rich drink too.

• I am a bad Englishmen, because I think the advantages of commerce are dearly bought for the lives of many more. Horace Walpole.

But wait. Both participants in a trade go off happy, so they must both profit, mustn't they? One goes off with x+y, the other goes off with something more useful to him than what he had. That is the purpose of trade, to part with something of value but no use to me. But I would be happier to trade and also not to lose work-input value in the trade. We can't avoid gain and loss in each transaction individually, because we cannot know the exact work-input value of anything, but we can counter the stormy social ocean made from these trillions of drops of injustice and theft. With justly-limited-fortune systems, we can have trade and also greatly reduce the vast dangers, to both overpaid and underpaid, of ever-increasing injustice. Prevent the engine of society overheating, burning everyone, and revving itself to pieces.

Job specialisation, division of labour, had advantages, but it required trade. Trade had the vicious side-effect of legal theft, the ceaseless automatic drift of wealth, products of work, from earners to non-earners, which has escalated for 1000s of years without us being able to analyse it correctly and see it, and so defuse it. To see it is to defuse it, and to undo 1000s of years of escalation of injustice, war and weaponry. Life is a race between catastrophe and education. Education in this key point now needs to play catch-up very quickly.

The disadvantages of division of labour, aside from the great prime one of near-extinction, are worth considering. Whereas, before division of labour, everyone was doing the same set of jobs, and therefore had much in common, now everyone does very different jobs from one another. This is an enormous loss of unity and fellowship in society. We now can't share talk about what we do most of the day. At parties, people try to get a conversation going by saying: What do you do? and after the answer, there is generally nothing more to say. Before, everyone was a farmer and a jack-of-all-trades. Now only housewives are jack-of-all-trades and can share worktalk and thus find fellowship. Social cohesion is proportional to the amount we have in common.

Adding this point to the fact that division of labour and trade, with legal theft, have made about 95% of humans financially poorer, 90% of humans 10 times poorer than they would be in simple nature, robbed 100% of humans of 99%, soon 100%, of happiness, multiplied nature's horrors and sufferings by 1000, we might well conclude that division of labour is not worth the advantages. Which explains communes.

But we can have the enormous advantages of division of labour, as well as survival and happiness, if we remove legal theft.

But do all the toys, that division of labour has added, add any happiness? Especially considering that so many of these toys are people-killing machines. Can we say that cultures without these toys are less happy than cultures with these toys, all other things being equal? That is, do the toys themselves make any happiness? Or is all the added happiness just the unreal happiness of pride in having them when others don't? Do we think that the Romans, without so many of these toys, were significantly less happy? To produce these toys, we work far longer, and spend far less time with our children, than the bushmen do, who have a 12-hour workweek even in the harsh conditions of the Kalahari. Culture is after all ultimately how much time we spend with our children, how much time we spend passing ourselves on to the next generation.

Will division of labour, with trade, and without legal theft and galloping injustice, cruelty, violence and extinction, add to or subtract from happiness?

• Land. If the whole area of terra firma is owned by A, B or C, there will be no place for D, E, F and G to be born, or, born as trespassers, to exist. Ambrose Bierce.

• As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce. Adam Smith.

• No one supposes that the owner of urban land performs, as owner, any function. He has the right of private taxation, that is all. It is foolish to maintain property rights for which no service is performed, for payment without service is waste. R.H. Tawney.

And theft, and destruction.

• The laws of property have never been conformed to the principles on which the justification of private property rests. They have made property of things which never ought to be property, and absolute property where only a qualified property ought to exist. The institution of property, when limited to its essential elements, consists in the recognition, in each person, of a right to the exclusive disposal of what he or she has produced by their own exertions, or received either by gifts or fair agreement, without force or fraud, from those who produced it. J.S. Mill.

Gifts, also, are a license to take out without putting in, are a theft from those who put in. For survival and happiness, gifts will have to be limited to prevent estates moving to private heirs, to prevent huge fortunes and great individual power accumulating through gifting, as in the case of charity organisations and religions. Some will instantly react: Oh, don't let's take away gifts! They saw the upside, not the far greater downside. They shoot themselves in the foot and wonder who shot them. They probably look for someone to blame for their injury. Some minority, so that there is less seeming chance of a backlash. But the weakest can kill.

• Property: a patent entitling one person to dispose of another person's labour. Thomas Malthus.

• Poverty deepens as wealth increases, and wages are forced down while productive power grows, because land, which is the source of all wealth and the field of all labour, is monopolised. It is not necessary to confiscate land, only to confiscate rent [landrent]. Henry George.

Justly maximum fortunes with equal distribution of overfortunes automatically takes back landrent, all other legal thefts, and all illegal thefts, and conquest and plunder, devised by ingenuity, present and future. A just cap on personal fortunes beats all methods past, present, and future for preventing circumventure of justice.

• There is boundless theft in limited professions. William Shakespeare.

By limiting numbers of professionals, professions keep their price well above their costs and contribution by work. When America was flooded with highly trained and skilled European doctors during WW2, the number of doctors in America did not rise at all. See Naked empress, by Hans Ruesch. Chemists resist the sale of pharmaceuticals in supermarkets. Optometrists garner $100s, when many people can be fitted with $1 glasses.

• I'll give you my opinion of the human race in a nutshell. Their heart's in the right place, but their head is a thoroughly inefficient organ. Somerset Maugham.

• The wise person understands equity, the small person understands only profits. Confucius.

• To be able to really listen, one should abandon or put aside all prejudices. When you are in a receptive state of mind, things can be easily understood. But unfortunately most of us listen through a screen of resistance. We are screened with prejudices, whether religious or spiritual, psychological or scientific, or with daily worries, desires or fears. And with these fears for a screen, we listen. Therefore we listen really to our own noise, our own sound, not to what is being said. Jiddu Krishnamurti.

Suspension of premature disbelief is not credulity. Premature disbelief is not healthy skepticism, it is superstition, it is credulity. Even many scientists and doctors make the mistake of arguing that because something hasn't been proved to be true, it is false, which is a false argument. Superstition is the customary force of undisproven working hypotheses. And human ignorance of the great big world is so great that we all have many undisproven working hypotheses, both inside and outside our areas of expertise.

• People are never so likely to settle a question rightly as when they discuss it freely. Thomas Macaulay.

• It is only the truth that wounds. Saying.

• Bitter truth is sweet in the aftertaste. Shakespeare.

The popular name Mary means bitter. Truth is bitter to the pleasure principle, which is selfdestructive, sweet to the reality principle, which is selfconstructive.

• Control of the production of wealth is the control of human life itself. Hilaire Belloc.

• The organisation of American society is an interlocking system of semi-monopolies notoriously venal, an electorate notoriously unenlightened, misled by mass media notoriously phony. Paul Goodman.

• I wonder why an employee should have to be subservient to his employer, and should have to please and praise him. Joseph Ibn Pakuda. 1040AD.

• Today the large organisation is lord and master, and most of its employees have been desensitised much as were the medieval peasants who never knew they were serfs. Ralph Nader.

• In a society which prides itself on its democratic system of freedom for the individual and rejection of dictatorial rule, the workplace stands as an island of authoritarianism. Irving Bluestone.

The workplace, where we spend most of our time. The slavery is achieved by threat of unemployment, and the threat of getting worse pay elsewhere. So just, equal pay per unit of work everywhere, and removal of unemployment, will free employees. It is always true that all can be employed. Work can always be shared around. It ought to be. Work is an unalienable right, since all have it in a state of nature. Proportionate work for pay is also a duty. The purpose of government is justice, because no state can survive without justice, and because no one can be happy without it.

• During my tenure at Treasury I watched with incredulity as businessmen ran to the government in every crisis, whining for handouts or protection from the competition that has made this system so productive. And always, such gentlemen proclaimed their devotion to free enterprise and their opposition to the intervention into our economic life by the state. William Simon.

• I am constantly intrigued by the idea that men who receive a salary of $250,000 a year need some extra incentive to do their job well. Irving Bluestone.

• Merchants and manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages. They say nothing of the bad effects of high profits. Adam Smith.

If only Adam Smith, the father of economics, had gone more deeply into this concept of high profits, and determined the point at which high profits become injustice, theft, danger, violence, misery, anarchy, death!

• As we learn from our mistakes, our knowledge grows, even though we may never know, that is, know for certain. Since our knowledge can grow, there can be no reason for despair of reason. And since we can never know for certain, there can be no authority for any claim to authority, for conceit over our knowledge, or for smugness. Karl Popper.

Still less for beating up, torturing or killing people for disagreeing.

One meaning of god is existence, the world, life, everything, experience, reality, consciousness, creation and creativity, actual and potential. That is, the real. Another is, the knowledge, happiness, perfection and answers we don't have. That is, the ideal. In this sense, god exists by not existing. The less the answers exist, the more this ideal god exists. Some sages say that you can find heaven is at hand on earth if you stop crying for the moon. That you can find heavenly bliss in the process of growing and learning, with roots firmly in the ground. An idealist may be a dropout from realism. A realist may be a dropout from idealism.

Freedom from overwealth is the guarantee of all freedoms.

• The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from those who live by profit ought always to be listened to with great caution. It comes from an order of people whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have upon many occasions both deceived and oppressed the public. Adam Smith.

In other words, you can bet the rich thieve wherever they can. Which, because they make the laws and execute the laws, is very freely. They thieve legally because it is so much more lucrative and safe than illegal theft.

• Egalitarian sentiment often consists of people who were born smart but not rich urging governments to eliminate all the advantages of being born rich, while preserving all the advantages of being born smart. Michael Kingsley.

• Poverty programs put very little money into the hands of the poor because middleclass hands are so much more gifted at grasping money. They know better where it is, how to apply for it, how to divert it, how to concentrate it. Philip Slater.

Legal theft again.
Milton Friedman says that the middle class get 5/6th of government transfers. To say nothing of the far larger transfers to the rich in the forms of subsidies to businesses, etc. Milton Friedman says that the poor subsidise the rich in education, because the rich more often go to university, and they go to far more expensive universities. For instance, while most American universities have fewer than a million volumes in their libraries, Harvard has over 90 million. Another legal theft.

• The relative stability of profits after taxes is evidence that the corporation-profits tax is in effect almost entirely shifted. The government simply uses the corporation as a tax collector. Kenneth Boulding.

Another legal theft. The poor person pays for all. But justice is not just wresting the overpay from the overpaid. It is universally planting the lasting idea of the vital importance of justice for the happiness of all.

• The illusion that by some means of progressive taxation the burden can be shifted substantially onto the shoulders of the wealthy [overpaid] has been the chief reason that taxation has increased as fast as it has done, and the chief reason that, under the influence of this illusion, the masses have come to accept a much heavier load than they would have done otherwise. Friedrich Hayek.

Another legal theft. The people accepted the introduction of income tax around 1900 because the rich were getting taxed at a higher rate. But the overpay was still greater than the higher taxrate. And now the overpaid are taxed at a lower rate than the underpaid.

• Economists, who are supposed to be a contentious [disagreeing] bunch, have agreed that the community at large stands to gain in material standard of living from specialisation and exchange according to the various nations' comparative advantage. Paul Samuelson.

In simple language, that it is cheaper to make things in places where it is cheaper to make them. Only vested interests, that is, firms in places where it is dearer to make things, have ever said otherwise. Another legal theft. Frederic Bastiat has made this abundantly clear in the simplest, most revealing, most readable language. Which is probably why so many agree with him. But it is the vested interests who are the great majority of voices and thinkers and actors on such matters. The rest of us are actually producing goods and services. The people need a loyal people's advocate. And the vested interests are wrong about what they think is their own interest. Profit and loss is in no one's interest in the long run. Business people often do not even know what is in their financial interest. Putting quotas on Japanese cars cost America US$7 billion. Fewer cars, with same demand, means higher prices. A gift to the Japanese.

In America today, and perhaps in other places, perhaps less openly, companies are legally allowed to insert profits into tax-deductible salaries, that is, to add billions in non-salaries into statements of salaries for the purposes of tax-assessment. Why wouldn't they, when they are free to?

In short, there are, as well as the successful illegal thefts, and the conquests and plunders, many, many wideopen legal thefts in present society. And these are injuries, which ricochet everywhere, endlessly, or till justice, with as much energy as atoms. Both physically and psychologically. At all levels of human global society. Which you can see in the news, in all of past history, and in many stories of both overpaid and underpaid.

Humanity believes in theft. It doesn't yet know that it net hurts everyone enormously.

Justice is not a cost. It is a colossal reward.

I am guessing that even egalitarians will think my position extreme. Egalitarians are arguing only for a reduction of inequality. They are soft on injustice. They still think that injustice is not all bad.

Also, inequality cannot but grow. It is a monster that grows rapidly in feeding on itself. You can have only, either equality, or relentlessly ever-growing murderous inequality. I have done my best to locate justice. That is, the place where violence will be minimised, and where the growth of inequality can be prevented. And done my best to show that this is very simple good sense, well within the range of understanding of almost all people. If they do a few evening's unprejudging thinking.

People can decide how much they want to pal up with violence, insanity, corruption, unfreedom, oppression, inequality, strikes, unfraternity, torture, undemocracy, grief, massacre, untruth, crisis, anarchy, hatred, terror, fascism, depressions, bullets, mafiaism, starvation, stress, problems, communism, paranoia, genocide, worries, propaganda, lawlessness, sadism, confusion, riots, persecution, traitors, spying, waste, destruction, assassination, kidnapping, uncontrol, danger, unreality, bombs, fear, powerlessness, war, underpay, wageslavery, non-sense, revolutions, disinformation, abuse of human rights, environmental degradation, loss of hope, loss of faith in humanity, and progress towards extinction.

Limitation of overfortune to US$30 million would reduce the overfortunes of only 500th of 1%, and yet would have an immense effect on reducing violence and misery. Reducing overpay to US$3 million would still reduce the overfortunes of less than 10th of 1%, and yet would bring every family in the world up to millionaire status, and would even more greatly increase democracy, freedom, peace, wisdom, truth, knowledge, understanding, capitalism, goodness, pleasure, kindness, order, social quietness, technological and medical progress, happiness. We would experience how very nice human nature is, comparatively, when it is free from the ceaseless savage beating of injustice.

Posted by: Phryne's frock | Apr 22 2020 17:51 utc | 535

Posted by: Phryne's frock | Apr 22 2020 17:44 utc | 542
Posted by: Phryne's frock | Apr 22 2020 17:51 utc | 544

How did you manage to write such a long post in 7 minutes? You type real fast!

Posted by: hopehely | Apr 22 2020 18:07 utc | 536

So now Iran, like N. Korea, can hit anyplace on the planet:

Iran says it launched military satellite as Trump threatens ships

Posted by: Bemildred | Apr 22 2020 18:34 utc | 537

Bemildred @ 531 posted link to Trump instructs US Navy to shoot down and destroy all Iranian gunboats if they 'harass our ships at sea'

Most likely there will be no better timing to start Iran war than now. Iran's oil leverage is gone. All ME oil production can go poof and the world will barely notice.

Posted by: pppp | Apr 22 2020 18:34 utc | 538

vk 537 Lenin said "The success of a revolution depends on the extent to which women take part in it."

some men on this board post over and over go watch keiser go read pepe and his friend alexander dugin, who is a SNAKE, a far right radicalized traditionalist hooked up with the Beiners Heiddeggers Evolas Guenons Hyperboreans Atlantis mystic kook pure divine lunatics who proclaim earthly existence is corrupt and who with their at best simple minds want to throw the baby of the modern world out with the bathwater of the mess we have made of it with our epic failure to use justice as our guide. Bah. those men have nothing to teach me. it's the other way around. And then also a good rant by the man Richard Steven Hack found on linked in is seen as deserving to go viral. I ask the commenters here; Is my work less deserving? If I am right, will there still be no one saying they agree? Is this because it is a woman saying it, a woman providing the analysis that has been missing for eons?

You have a visionary thinker right here on this board, ladies and gentlemen. The posts above are but snips from 46 pages of quotes and analysis.

It's b's place and he can tell me to leave and I will. But to anyone who is giving themselves excuses to not read what I put on offer I tell you this: There is no soundbite for wisdom like I present above. And you will never get that kind of clarity about the biggest picture from the men regularly held up in this place as worthy to read and spread.

Posted by: Phryne's frock | Apr 22 2020 18:40 utc | 539

hopehely, it was plainly stated in the first post that I wrote all this in past decades. I have been that far ahead of the curve. your lack of reading comprehension is your problem, not mine. read with care or don't - care about your chance to have a future or don't - but what a silly attempt to attack me.

Posted by: Phryne's frock | Apr 22 2020 18:46 utc | 540

"Is this because it is a woman saying it, a woman providing the analysis that has been missing for eons?"

You're a woman? I didn't know as I cannot see your boobs from here.

That's too bad. I kinda like what you had to say about contemporary "Piled Higher and Deeper" economists, but I suppose I cannot read your posts anymore, being a misogynist and all of that.

Posted by: William Gruff | Apr 22 2020 19:14 utc | 541

Gruff 550 - I never called you a misogynist. all you have to say to what I wrote is give a strawman to attack? how lame - and you are rude. incapable to address my myriad rational arguments?

Posted by: Phryne's frock | Apr 22 2020 19:22 utc | 542

Posted by: pppp | Apr 22 2020 18:34 utc | 547

That may all be true, but they will still kick our ass, and it won't take long.

Posted by: Bemildred | Apr 22 2020 21:35 utc | 543

Bemildred @ 531

I saw trumps order as well. This is pedantic really, but it still cracks me up that he said to 'shoot down' all ships. Does he think they are flying in the air?

Posted by: pilpul artiste | Apr 23 2020 3:17 utc | 544

Sweden is no model for how to deal with this pandemic. A herd immunity policy in the absence of a vaccine or drugs is nothing but state-sponsored eugenics. A disproportionate number of Sweden's covid-19 deaths are among African and Middle Eastern immigrants. Makes one wonder the real reason why Sweden is pursuing herd immunity.

Posted by: Janet | Apr 25 2020 0:31 utc | 545

« previous page

The comments to this entry are closed.