Sunday, September 20, 2020

You Don't Have To Be Intelligent To Wear A Mask

It’s Election2020 season, in fact it is coming down to the last couple of laps of the races. There are plenty of issues and crises but mostly there is little of significance that is presented, discussed or apparently that matters in American elections that is of consequence. Yes, yet again our politicians and political parties are engaged in the “contest of ideologies”; not ‘ideas’ but their partisan political perspectives. Yes, these ideologies are types of ideas but not of substance; rather they are mostly hypothetical wish-lists for how they want things to be, even though the concepts bear little relationship to reality or even rationality. To add to the disappointments, we have the usual election fare of fear, anger, distortion and lies being offered buffet-style. All the usual divisive behaviors are ramped up to detriment of the nation’s interests and benefit. Even something as highly critical to the nation’s and public’s interest as the COVID-19 crisis, is being played out under partisan political party campaign strategies and themes.

The observation offered above regarding our politics and political environment is to point out that our society is highly dependent upon an “informed” public; and to be ‘informed’ there needs to be a number of conditions meet within our society. A significant condition is that information must be given to the public about what is happening that affects them, that they need to know in order to make appropriate decisions, that the information can be trusted, and that our government isn’t hiding, editing or misinforming the public for reasons that are not in the public’s interests. This last condition: the government providing the public with the necessary and proper information about situations that the public has a “need” to know and a “right” to know.

Take an important public policy issue as simple and normally as apolitical as one would have thought, and the 2020 Election has transformed it into a choice between our political parties. That public policy is: Wearing A Mask. Fundamentally this is a public health issue and not a political one. However, because of a personality and cognitive deficit situation, wearing or not wearing a mask has been elevated to a political litmus test. Normally this would just be another in a long line of inane positions that corrodes and corrupts our government, political system and society which is the typical and very essence of our political parties’ rigid adherence to their self-delusional ideologies. The Corona virus unfortunately is indifferent to ideologies, it does not differentiate between political parties and the consequences of the virus’ reach beyond the scope that misguided politicians are generally able to use to harm the nation and public. So, the Wearing A Mask issue warrants extricating it from the failure of our government, our politicians, our healthcare entities, and our news media. What is needed is for the Wear A Mask issue to be handled competently. Thus those normal entities seem to have demonstrated their competency in such a matter. Now, given that all of entities have failed to put the issue into a context that would ‘inform’ the public there is a need to proceed differently. This is necessary despite the politicians’ using masks as some issue having to do with some nebulous distractions completely unconnected with the public’s welfare and their duty to serve the nation’s interests.

Our government agencies have failed to set policies which are or would be effective due to the interference of political appointees and their self-interests. Additionally, while being world-class experts in the medical and healthcare arenas, our agency professionals lack the skills and abilities to manage their political ‘superiors’ effectively and thus unfortunately fail to fulfil their own responsibilities. This upward-facing management skill is not something that the vast majority of individuals possess, or are adept at, so this causal factor should not be viewed as a professional abnormality.

As to the news media, their contribution to this civic negligence that the wearing a mask issue has become is an example of their ‘state of the art’ journalist profession. The news media is highly engaged in reporting on the dynamics surrounding the issue and in providing the ‘balanced’ views of politicians and government officials on what the public policy is or isn’t or why it varies depending on to whomever you are talking. The news does interview healthcare experts with the standard questions about whether wearing a mask would be the right policy and receive the almost unanimous consensus that wearing a mask if one of the most useful things that the public should do. But the news media doesn’t seem equipped or able to ask substantive and informative questions of the politicians, the healthcare professionals, or even of the public about wearing a mask.

Consider just the following questions, and consider if you have ever heard a politician, a healthcare professional, or a news journalist deal with them.

1.       What legal authority does a Federal, State or Local elected official have regarding public healthcare policies?

2.       What cases taken to the Supreme Court have demonstrated their authority and jurisdiction?

3.       Is there any established precedent for which governmental entity has authoritative precedence over another?  E.g., does Federal override State which overrides Local; or some other jurisdictional layering?

4.       When the Federal, State or Local government changes some public policy, regulation or requirement as the COVID-19 epidemic plays out across the nation, what was the forecasted cases or other measurement of the virus expected to be before the change and what is projected because of the change? What data / change in outcomes will constitute a success of the policy or a failure to achieve the expected results?

5.       Why haven’t government healthcare or other entities proposed policies to businesses, private and public entities for dealing with Wear-A-Mask policies? What examples are there of governmental options suggested?

6.       In declaring that “essential workers” cannot sue an employer for COVID-19 health consequences are there any Constitutional rights being violated? After all, the government telling citizens that they cannot do something isn’t the same as them not having the right to do so.

While all this illustrates why America’s public policies around COVID-19 including the Mask-Wearing policy(ies) are confusing, inconsistent and problematic; it doesn’t explain the reasoning goes into should it be a public policy or just a recommendation/guidance from officials. If COVID is a threat to the US, and both parties actually agree that it is; then there ought to be a policy that addresses it. If the nation needs to have the virus controlled and eliminated, then there should be a policy for doing so.

Leadership on guiding the nation through this crisis is a type of intelligence test. Passing the test would have some pretty simple conditions. What you do either reduces new infections (passes) or it does not (fails). Changes in policies or transitions from one phase to another produce the forecasted changes (passes) or the situation related to the change gets worse beyond what was forecast (fail). If the policy change is based upon a “we hope” decision, it’s still a failure if it doesn’t deliver what you “hoped” was going to happen.

What this comes down to is that for our political and healthcare leaders, you pass the intelligence test if you can validate your reasoning and decisions from a forecast presented before the fact and the data from the facts that actually happened.

For individuals or businesses or companies the intelligence test comes with X dimensions. First, if you violate the ‘public policy’ then you are to be held accountable. If the policy is to “Wear A Mask” then you are to be receive the appropriate penalties. If you believe your right(s) are being violated then you can sue but until a judgement is made by a court with applicable jurisdiction you are not exempt from the policy. You fail the test.

Second, exercising your choice to be ‘civilly disobedient’ and not wearing a mask doesn’t exempt your from being counter-sued for any number of possible legal violations. For example, there is no personal right to ‘not wear a mask’ and thereby create a risk to the rights of other individuals in violation of an standing public policy, nor do you have a right that overrides a business’s own policy or a private or public entity which chooses to require one. You do have the right to not engage with anyone or a business but that does means you do not engage with them. Trying to apply your ‘right’ above that of others is to fail the test.

Third, having opinions about whether the COVID-19 virus is a risk to you or not doesn’t have any weight in whether you are still required to adhere to public policy. Even if you were an expert in virology, the medical degree does not override official public policy. The requirement that a court decision to vacate/void the policy is still required. Not wearing a mask because you don’t think you are at risk is failing the test.

Fourth, where someone is permitted to not wear a mask in accordance with the established public policy or a business’ policy (which doesn’t violate governmental policy) does not confer upon an individual the right to now wear a mask unless they also meet the conditions under which the established policy defines the allowance. You can remove a mask to eat your meal at your table in a restaurant for example. This does not allow you to not wear a mask when entering or leaving. Because someone physically-distanced from others is speaking at an event doesn’t mean that anyone else in attendance is free to not wear a mask if the applicable public policy(ies) do not allow. Doing otherwise fails the test.

Fifth, it doesn’t matter what your rationale is for not wearing a mask, there is no getting around a public policy where requires it and that has not been declared illegal and upheld by the courts. Not wearing a mask fails the test.

Lastly, nothing about abiding by the established public policy regarding wearing a mask in required conditions requires any notable level of intelligence. The policy can be followed by those that may not be fully capable of understanding why it is required from a medical perspective, for a healthcare perspective or from a social perspective. It is why even very young children can be taught to wear them. Similarly, there is an expectation that our elected officials, our healthcare professionals, and our governmental agencies will create public policies that are appropriate and necessary to safeguard the public when threatened by risks like the Corona virus. The presumption is that as a collective group they are applying the best knowledge, evidence, expertise, and judgement that is available to them. In other words, they are doing what would constitute the intelligent thing to do. To do contrary would logically be unintelligent, and yes you would fail the test.

The above reasoning would seem to adequately explain why the US has not performed well with regard to its reactions and efforts around the Corona virus. It would seem that as a nation, in aggregate we may well be failing the intelligence test.

Sunday, March 22, 2020

The Coronal Economy - Diseased Capitalism


To American Citizens,

The US and the world are experiencing economic turmoil in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. There are other factors that have been promoting volatility, but the corona virus has, is and will continue to exert its outsized dominance on the global economies. In demonstrating its influence, it is creating conditions that ripple across the global economy and within national economies. Each ripple reveals connections that were not necessarily properly or fully understood, or even known to have existed. Understanding all these ripples is critical because we either react or don’t to them; and if we have a skewed understanding of why and how things are connected what we choose to do or not may have consequences that we/you will regret later.

While the health implications of COVID-19 range from transient discomfort to tragic outcomes, the societal consequences can be much greater. As already demonstrated in the US and other nations, COVID-19 has disrupted supply-chains, transportation, travel, education, businesses, commerce, services, and virtually every aspect of life, even politics. This broad and multi-faceted influencing character of COVID-19 enables the crisis to inform everyone from individual citizens to national leaders in every area: government, business, religious entities, healthcare, technology, and quite importantly financial & economics; about their inter-relationships and often over-looked interdependencies. Using the pandemic situation to become better informed about our society/societies is particularly important because in response to the pandemic we are making decisions on what to do not just about containing the virus and bringing it to heel; but what is going to be done about all those consequences that those rippling effects are having.

One particularly salient dimension that has different conceptual understandings is the economy is at risk of a virus induced recession, a Corona-Recession (C-Recession). At issue here is that it seems the recession concern is viewed as a recession caused by an economic slow-down that is equivalent or similar to any other recession. It’s very true that the economy is slowing down because of the virus, but not because there is some required linkage between a virus and a nation’s financial system or structure. This is not to say that there aren’t any economic impacts from a virus but that what levers you pull or not may depend on how you understand how basic principles of the economy have been effected by our own responses to the virus.

The current economic levers being pulled are attempting to deliver their results/benefits via a “stimulus” package approach.  In a ‘normal’ recession this is one of the well-established tools. Stimulus packages are expected to provide a boost to help kick-start some of the economic activities that have either been impacted or were primary causal factors of the recession. To be effective the requirement is that the ‘stimulus’ will change at least some of the financial problems that lead to the recession. Does the C-Recession fulfill the requirement(s) that a ‘stimulus’ solution would help resolve?

The initial domino that started the C-Recession wasn’t a fundamental financial factor, it wasn’t part of a Wealth of Nations capitalistic economic process (yet). It wasn’t capital, resources, labor or trade; it was biological, a virus. Global economies were already in various economic states, many dealing with low growth and thus vulnerable to anything that could push them past a manageable point of stability. The US’s economy was perceived to be generally in a good condition and even considered strong by some. And then COVID-19 virus infected a human host and fairly rapidly began its normal biological spread. As a virus, it didn’t change the state of financial systems or process. Nothing about capital was altered by the virus. Resources didn’t become more or less scarce from a physical world perspective. Labor initially was still able to produce the goods and services that underpinned commerce/trade.

Then the virus reached a level of infected hosts in a region of China that ‘tipped’ the vulnerable economy of China. The spread of infections began to strain their healthcare system and then was recognized as a threat to their production capacity because the requisite labor was now at risk to a health impairment. The COVID-19 spread triggered a quarantining of cities/regions in China which further impaired access to labor. Thus, as a second or third order effect, labor became perhaps the first financial/economic domino to fall. With that domino, combined with the global transmission of COVID-19, the same chain of dominos began to replicate across the globe. Even before it hit the US, there were concerns and ramifications to the US economy. Once COVID-19 appeared in the US, the dominos just kept expanding. And for the US, some of those consequences exerted pressures in some areas to greater degrees than in other economies.

The ‘strong’ US economy was fundamentally founded upon the ‘consumer’ and ‘services’. So if you pull a lever that depresses consumer behavior and/or reduces services used then you are playing with a non-linear lever. And that’s exactly what the US has had to do. To contain the contagion most states are engaging in efforts to promote or require public isolation and social-distancing. And of course, that reduces consumer consumption and less demand for services. By removing the consumer from the “Consumer Economy” the results should be very self-evident. Because employing these methods to contain and hopefully eliminate the spread of COVID-19 is a priority to limit the impact on the economy, there is an immediate cost to the economy. It is a double-edged weapon; and as with all such weapons one must be careful in choosing how one uses it.  This means you must understand how the tool works from bottom to top.

This is where the C-Recession needs to be understood in a different context than most or other recessions. Let’s consider why. In any economy suffering a recession you target the financial factor(s) that have caused the downturn. In a Consumer dominated Economy the fundamental financial factor is by definition consumer spending. Public isolation & social-distancing brings that factor down with each individual who suspends the bulk of their ‘consumer’ spending; but it doesn’t stop there. These consumers don’t just stop spending in one specific area, they suspend spending in many areas. Those lost consumer activities reduce each and every consumer-oriented business or service; and the employees and owners are also going to reduce their own spending. This reduction in spending spreads more rapidly than the virus itself because it doesn’t require a successful transmission; secession of spending is automatic and guaranteed when the consumer just stops spending. So, the shock to the economy occurs more rapidly than with almost any other recession.

The next reaction from the C-Recession is that the consumers are also the production resources that create what is no longer being purchased and this can result in lost wages, lost jobs, and lost businesses. As these dominoes fall, they create their own sub-chains of dominoes falling. And this illustrates two dimensions of the C-Recession.

First, this recession is due to consumers-labors-owners cannot engage in the normal exchange of value, a fundamental principle of capitalism. It has nothing to do with not wanting to, needing to, or having everything that each party needs to engage in these activities. It’s that they are prohibited from doing so for societal reasons and needs. If the virus disappeared tomorrow, the economy could return to normal. [Note: The disruptions that have been induced during the crisis timeframe would have to be ‘flushed’ through the system, but the requirements for the good Economy we had are still fundamentally there.]

Second, since COVID-19 won’t magically disappear the problem to preventing or minimizing a C-Recession isn’t to ‘stimulate’ the economy. The economy wasn’t lacking capital, so providing capital doesn’t address a causal problem nor does it create demand that can’t be responded to since the consumers can’t engage in many of the activities they’ve been forced to suspend or the services that they cannot use. A better terminology would be to “bridge” or “protect” the economy from the disruption of the economy’s transaction process.

The economy isn’t there for the financial industry or government. The economy is there for the citizens of a nation or the world. It only exists because every individual is both a consumer and a laborer. The US economy is strong and large because it allows everyone to seek their interests, and to do this they engage in transactions with and for all comers. The economy is an aggregate of all these transactions; and because the US’s transactions are numerous and valued the economy is strong. We aren’t trying to ‘stimulate’ the economy, we are seeking to restore the transactions that have been stifled by the outbreak. To do this requires understanding what providing government funding means in this context.

Who is providing the capital, the funding, to build the ‘bridge’ for our economy? If you think it’s Congress, the Administration, States, or businesses you would be wrong. Congress is authorizing spending funds. The Administration would have to deliver on distribution that funding to whomever Congress allows the funds to be given to. States are effecting laws & regulations to support businesses and citizens to avoid the loss of jobs, and businesses (at least some) are working to sustain their workers because it’s in their own interests and the economy’s.

So, if it’s none of those entities who is providing the capital? It’s you, the citizens of the nation of each country. In the US, capital only exists because of citizens. It’s your labor, your consumption, you products, and your businesses. Remove the people and there is no capital, no value, no products, no services, and no economy. All the other entities and financial concepts are just various rearrangements of processes for structuring how the transactions are operationalized. Even those processes and structures are simply reconfigurations of laborers. Adam Smith termed this ‘specialization’ of labor.

Given it’s the US citizens who are providing US citizens with the capital/funds to bridge the C-Recession crisis, it’s not a risk that we are collectively taking; it’s what is in own self-interests. We are loaning ourselves the money, so we don’t lose our jobs, or our customers, or businesses, or investments. This is the mistake that our Congress is making. They think, they are providing the funds and some are worried that the government can’t afford it. It’s not the government that has to afford it, it’s the people and we are going to pay for it either by restoring our economy or we are going to pay for it by impairing or crippling that economy for years.

This is why the response to the C-Recession isn’t comparable to most or perhaps any other financial crisis that treating it like its just another financially induced crisis to our economy is not just the wrong concept, it will lead to and result in misinformed and bad decisions. Bad decisions which we all are use to from government.

The challenge here is to find ways to retain the labor and businesses that we had before the crisis, and to do so quickly. Whether our leaders are up to this task is not guaranteed, and if they play their typical political games we should be prepared for the usual ineptitude and to suffer the consequences.