The Ping-Pong Ball Explosion King of Inflation

 Everyone is talking about Inflation. Well, more likely complaining, cursing, and concerned about its impact on them. There are exceptions of course; some gain from the inflationary pain and punishment that is being inflicted upon the rest of us. What is interesting about this Inflationary event is a perspective from which to objectively view it. The ‘objective’ aspect is a significant challenge in itself because it is hard to not take something personally and emotionally when it hurts you, your family, and others that you have some compassion for even if only a bit. For some that ‘objectivity’ can be easier to achieve if they are use to or trained to view things through a STEM-oriented lens. It is in that STEM spirit view that one can look at our inflation situation to consider what the a “cause and effect” relationships are. Remember, form a STEM-perspective Inflation doesn’t just pop-up out of nowhere like some medieval theory of the spontaneous generation of life from non-living substances. Inflation has its own origin seeds which only require the proper soil in which to sprout.

Fortunately, Economic Theory(ies) provides a STEM-based framework which seeks to explain financial phenomena on the basis of scientific laws, rules, and principles. Unfortunately, if our understanding of Economics on a scientific basis had progressed as far of most of our other scientific areas we would all be better protected from the realities of economics imposing their ‘effects’ upon us due to the ‘causes’ which we ignored, generated, or failed to prepare/account for. On the up-side, the current Inflationary epoch will provide a wealth (pun intended) of data for students of economics to study and research for years to come; and we will learn some valuable lessons and just as assuredly fail or refuse to learn others.

Sometime in your early education I would hope you saw or even performed one of the familiar “chain-reaction” experiments, like falling dominoes or ping-pong balls on mousetraps. Taking the ping-pong balls experiment as a conceptual idea, let’s ask a couple of questions. If you recall, the Ping-Pong ball experiment demonstrates a cascading effect where one ping-pong ball provides a triggering event that causes another ping-pong ball sitting on an active mousetrap to be ejected into the air. Now there are two ping-pong balls bouncing among other ping-pong balls resting on their own mousetraps. These two balls fall upon two more ping-pong balls that are then released. This process repeats and the number of balls bouncing around grows exponentially.

Question  1:  A popular economic theme today is the Supply-Chain for goods and services. Would the current Supply-Chain conditions represent a Ping-Pong ball situation?

Question  2:  How would you characterize the roll that Demand plays, if at all, in the Ping-Pong scenario?

Question  3:  Since Profits are not a causal part of the Supply and Demand economic principle but rather are derived from the interplay between these two factors, is there a role that Profits play in the Ping-Pong explosion?

Question  4:  Consumers are a key factor in our US Economy. We are no longer the Government-Industrial Complex but have transformed into chasing the Influencers / Kardashians / “Keeping Up with the Jones” spending creatures that need everything today. Does our economic “Herd Behavior” have a role in the Ping-Pong experiment?

Question  5:  While there was a lot of excitement about wages rising in the early post-pandemic recovery period, the inflation which has since not only rendered some, maybe all, of those increased salaries moot; and the inflation has punished the majority of people by reducing their pre-COVID purchasing power. Are wages Ping-Pong balls?

If you are having trouble answering these questions in the Ping-Pong balls context, remember it is a “cause and effect” that we are asking about, so you just need make the connection as applicable or not.

Answer to Question 1: Supply-Chain isn’t a Ping-Pong ball. It is many, many Ping-Pong balls. These are all those inert balls resting upon the mouse-traps looking very stable. It is that apparent stability which deceives us. As long as no other Ping-Pong balls falls onto this field then that stability continues. But whether a Ping-Pong ball falls on them is not a choice so much as a consequences of events happening in the world. COVID unfortunately was not a Ping-Pong ball, it was a gross of Ping-Pong balls falling at erratic and unpredictable times. The Supply-Chain is a series of “causal” events that play their role in inflation.

Answer to Question 2: Demand is easy. It is not a Ping-Pong ball. I know this is a surprise because it just seem obvious that Demand would be a Ping-Pong ball. But Demand is the sensitivity of the trigger on the mouse-traps. It does play an important role in the Ping-Pong balls erupting. The sensitivity responds to how Demand changes. An increased Demand increases the sensitivity of the traps reacting to some Ping-Pong ball falling upon them thus triggering the chain-reaction of inflation.

Answer to Question 3: Profits are often discussed during inflationary periods, but usually in terms of the pressure that inflation places upon a business’ ability to make a profit. However there can be other facets of how inflation impacts Profits. In terms of the Ping-Pong balls, profits can also represent the tension on the spring of the mouse-trap. With inflation the springs of different businesses can tighten and increase the energy imparted to its ball should the trap be triggered. Even outside of inflationary periods these springs can tighten from competition and other factors. When something occurs (a Ping-Pong ball is dropped into the mix) these springs can be naturally and highly primed to trigger. One ball become two, which become four, which become …; well, you’ve seen the experiment.

There is also the ‘opportunity’ aspect of profits during inflation. When other’s are raising their prices, this can encourage others to do likewise. The longer it has been since opportunities to increase prices has been, the easier it is to go with the flow and do the same. And of course, if you are on the right side of the Demand effect, you may be able to make significant profits if there isn’t any real competition or your competitors see the profit opportunity just like you.

Answer to Question 4: Consumers as noted are a key element in our economy and in Economics as a whole. Consumers are the Demand. As noted in the answer to Question 2, the Consumers determine if the triggers of the stable mouse-traps are tripped because the Demand is higher than the Supply, thus increasing the probability that a chain-reaction will commence.

Answer to Question 5: Wages are the consequence of Ping-Pong ball being triggered by some event in the process. It could be Supply, Demand, Opportunity, Inflation (yes, inflation can cause inflation), or Competition. When wages rise (one trap triggers) a ball is tossed out and may cause others to trigger or it may not. Whether increased wages result in the propagation of a chain-reaction will depend upon a variety of variables. Given sufficient conditions, wage increases can be the product of inflation, the result of inflation, or both, or neither.

It should be clear that that the causes of Inflation are many and varied. These causes aren’t one thing or the other; nor are they ‘all or none’. Something that may not be inflationary in one situation can be the direct immediate cause of an inflationary period in another situation. To properly understand, and thus to effective react to it, the entire context and ‘conditions on the ground’ must be accurate understood. When Inflation is driven by one or two conditions, understanding the situation can be easy. However, if Inflation is resulting from a plethora of factors or from interactions among a number of them then seeing the room full of Ping-Pong balls exploding into a cascading mass of balls flying in all directions is going to be difficult to easily comprehend; particularly in identifying what actions one can take to reduce the triggering of more and more traps.
Fortunately or not, at some point the process will find a new stable arrangement. The question is how painful or catastrophic that process will be to get through. There is no question of whether it will end, just what the new economic state will be that you arrive in.

Mask-Free At Last, But At What Cost?

 

As the Omicron variant wanes in the US and the COVID pandemic has begun to transmute into an endemic condition in the US, the public will once again confront informed information and distorted misinformation. The public will hear widely incongruous messaging from politicians, political parties, news media and non-news media entities, and from public and community organizations about what the ‘right’ policies now are, or need to be, for every aspect of American life. COVID tested America, and COVID changed America; or more accurately America’s society demonstrated its strengths, weaknesses, and vulnerabilities in confronting an issue that literally impacted every member of the nation.

Masks were one of the earliest COVID phenomena. Masks were an early public policy response to dealing with a new pathogen that presented an ominous potential not just to individuals but to the entire nation. Early on, the public saw how rapidly and extensively something as unanticipated and unknown could disrupt the ‘normal’ day to day life of the nation. COVID also brought fear to the nation; and with that fear came many other malignant responses within American society. It’s not unusual for people to react in a wide range of ways when facing a crisis, nor is it unusual for some to seize the fear as an opportunity to seek personal advantage at the expense of a public cost. There are the hucksters and con-artists that will attempt to promote and sell various products and services that will ‘save’ you from the crises, some of these will come cloaked in the guises of professionals.

To protect the public from being preyed upon, societies and governments will (or should) establish institutions charged with the responsible for setting policies and processes promoting the best practices and policies for the public/nation and to prevent the abuses by purveyors of predatory products and services. Of course, establishing institutions to protect and serve the interests of the nation and public is fraught with challenges. COVID has demonstrated an ample number of examples related to such challenges.

To protect the public’s health our institutions must be reasonably trusted by the public. They must be able to conduct their work and carry out their responsibilities without bureaucratic or political obstructions and interference acting to prevent them from being successful. We have seen such interference during the COVID pandemic, and we continue to see it. The institutional failures have raised concerns about how adequate our healthcare entities are prepared for responding to the nation’s healthcare needs. But the political side of COVID has demonstrated the bigger threats and risks. Politicians and political parties have shown how their ideological, partisan, and self-serving interests can make a national crisis and make the crisis itself worse and simultaneously add additional problems and burdens upon the nation and the public. Does anyone think that the nation did not suffer more during COVID’s rampaging waves because of the politicizing efforts of our politicians? Each side contends that the nation was harmed by the actions, policies, and processes taken by the other side. But surely much of that harm and damage was a result of their own actions, policies and processes which collectively made things far worse than they needed to be.

In easing or removing the mask mandates, to what degree will this decision produce outcomes that are popular with some or most but remain a point of concern or contention with others? The decision(s) does not come free of consequences. Just as the imposition of the mask mandates had positive and negative consequences, the removal or reduction in the mandates will have consequences. Everyone can be tired of and frustrated with COVID, but the public’s emotional state and wishful thinking has the normal laws of physics impact that they always do. None.

It would be more helpful and effective to provide the public with a better understanding of the what the implications of the changes in policies are expected to produce by way of outcomes. Political leaders would thus demonstrate to their respective constituencies what they understood about their decisions, what they expected to result from those decisions and policies, and what they should be held accountable for. Take the simple questions of how their policy decision will translate into COVID results. Will more or fewer people become infected? Will more or fewer people require medical intervention or hospitalization? Will more or fewer people die? After all, we have heard repeatedly for over two years that our elected leaders are basing their policies “on the science”. These claims are made even when the decisions made by some politicians are completely in opposition to that of other politicians. This of course cannot be true. Both cannot be right. Even the majority of Americans can probably be expected to agree with the simple logic, the basic math, and the principle of “cause and effect” that require at least one of them has to be wrong.

So, in eliminating or reducing mask requirements what consequences are we all accepting from our politicians? Consider that masks requirements were imposed to accomplish two basic objectives:

1. Providing individual protection to an individual from transmissions from other individuals. For those who wore masks, the probability of being infected was reduced. This leads to a ‘fewer’ set of outcomes. Fewer infected, fewer requiring medical intervention, fewer hospitalized, and fewer deaths. We can presume that these are better outcomes compared to their alternatives.
2. Producing group protection from individuals who are infected and capable of transmitting the virus to others. Just as a mask reduces an individual’s consequences from infection, masks worn by someone infected reduces the probability of transmission to others. Fewer transmissions mean fewer negative consequences. We can presume that this also produces better outcomes compared to the alternatives.
3. Both situations: individuals wearing masks for protecting themselves and individuals wearing masks to protect others creates a more effective environment than each one alone. You get more than just adding the two individual benefits together.

Some very basic application of STEM-reasoning should obvious even to the less capable politicians who base their decisions upon “the science”. When mask mandates are eliminated / reduced there will be additional COVID transmissions. Everything that follows from those transmissions will thus be or should be expected. This is not to say that the public policies on mask requirements should not be changed. It just means that those making the decisions know that they are accepting those outcomes. Well, they should ‘know’ but they are politicians, so their understanding is not required by any law of physics. The public should also understand what the changes mean, and the public should hold the politicians accountable.

This is true for policies on mask requirements. It is true for vaccination requirements and policies. It is true for school policies, for businesses, for healthcare, for the economy, and for politics.

Now the decisions on any given issue, policy or societal area will not be isolated from the impacts that the decisions in one area have on other areas. Mask requirements effects all the other issues. This in fact has been clearly demonstrated throughout the pandemic and is as true now as it was from the beginning. All the political, partisan, and emotional division over mask-wearing was connected to all the other issues. There was/is the ‘personal rights’ versus ‘social responsibility’ dimension to masks. There was/is the impact to businesses, healthcare, and education also involving masking. There was the partisan politicization of masking that was perhaps the most idiotic of all. Removing mask requirements will have ‘Cause and Effect’ impacts just as imposing them has had.

While the mask issue has been divisive, the vaccination issue has perhaps far greater and more important consequences to the nation. Just as politicians should understand how their policies on masks affect their constituents, they should understand and be held to account for their policies on vaccinations. This is particularly true as the nation moves to an ‘endemic’ COVID period. In our attempts to return to ‘normal’ there will be implications from all the policies and decisions that are made.

How many politicians have understood that in moving toward a more ‘normal’ social environment the differences within the population will have predictable differences in the outcomes? This doesn’t mean that those different outcomes are not acceptable just that those making the decisions should understand them in making the decisions and those who will be affected by them ought to be made aware of the implications that could impact them directly or indirectly.

Just because the COVID pandemic is shifting to an endemic phenomena does not mean there are no consequences from decisions anymore. Mask restrictions are being lifted. Politicians are very eager to ‘return’ the nation, their states, their towns, and their communities to ‘normal’. Nothing wrong with that. A post-COVID ‘normal’ has to occur at some point whether it is done overtly or is just the product of the laws of physics, biology, and mathematics. As politicians reduce mask requirements there will be some change in infections/transmissions. It cannot be otherwise. So logically there will be more hospitalizations and there will be more deaths. It cannot be otherwise. We, via the politicians, are making a choice that some will suffer, and some will die because it is in the best interests of the public to achieve the new post-COVID ‘normal’. One could say that we will have achieved the endemic COVID stage of ‘herd immunity’. Only as many as we can tolerate becoming ill and as many as we can tolerate dying will be the accepted new normal. Absent a successful effort to eliminate the COVID virus from the world, it cannot be otherwise.

The politicians hopefully understand this. The public is much less likely to comprehend this new reality. This can be seen in the contradiction between what politicians promote and what the consequences will be. One partisan political group has taken the position that various COVID policies should be mandated and the other has taken the position that individuals should make their own personal choice about any policy. This divide has occurred over masks, vaccines, school policies, and policies for public and private businesses, and many other dimensions of our society. As a consequence of the decisions to remove the various policies and restrictions there will be different outcomes. For example, communities with high vaccination rates will experience lower health impacts and deaths while those with lower vaccination rates will experience more. Thus politicians who promoted or required the policies that were more effective will lose fewer constituents while politicians who advocated personal choice or even resisted successful policies will suffer higher loses among their constituents. Now, if these loses were randomly distributed among the population there would be no direct consequence to the politicians or their own interests. Except, the loses are not randomly distributed across the population. The constituents who follow and support a politician’s policies are self-selecting, self-organizing, and self-concentrating. The loses are thus self-selecting, self-organizing, and self-concentrating.

This means that some politicians are helping to cull their supports from the ‘herd’ at greater rates than that of those voters who do not support them. This is why the politicians ought to understand the consequences of their decisions, not for the benefit of their constituencies but for the benefit of their own self-interest. Likewise, there is the self-interest of the public to understand the decisions of the politicians because it is equally possible that a politician could accept the changes in public policies because of the consequences which advantage them and disadvantage their opponents. If one politician can harm their own interests by being uncomprehending of the consequences of a decision, then another politician can benefit from the exact same decision because their self-interests are served by those exact same consequences. Even the public receives this same duality of benefit versus cost. The public after all is not homogenous. There is a segment(s) of the public (population) who gain at the cost of the other segment(s). On a political dimension, doesn’t one party gain if the other party loses? On an economic dimension haven’t we seen shifts in the power that employers versus employees have because of COVID, and won’t this be part of the new ‘normal’? In the jobs environment don’t some professions and careers gain while others lose. This is just as true for businesses, some gain because of consequences that will come from the policy decisions that are being made and some will not.

We may all be frustrated with the COVID restrictions and be eager to return to a ‘normal’ life; it is very human and expectable. However, don’t fool yourself; there will be consequences to how we go about ‘returning to normal’. With every decision, on every aspect of our society, there will be impacts and interactions on what the outcomes are. When juggling more and more decisions, it doesn’t take to many missteps to cause the total process to fall into chaos.

I recall the sage advice handed down from antiquity: “Be careful what you wish for.”

An Inflation Enigma: Herding Cats, Dogs & Jackasses

 

If you haven’t seen or heard the idea of “herding cats” you’ve missed an amusing notion about futility. So, I hope you can appreciate the incomprehensible complexity of trying to manage a herd/group composed of cats, dogs, and jackasses. Unfortunately, that is what our national leaders are expected to be able to do while simultaneously being members of that selfsame herd. Now imagine having to move this immiscible population and not being one of the cats or dogs but being one of the jackasses.

 As difficult as this fanciful task would be, it would also be simplicity itself compared to managing the problem of inflation in the US. Just as the above imaginary herd is composed of different groups whose members would not all get along well with members of the other groups; the US’s population is both more varied and more immiscible. Normally we extol the diversity and differences of the American population as a source of strength, vitality, and incongruently unity. Just consider our national motto: “E pluribus unum”; that is “out of many, one.” Of course, we struggle with rising to that credo across many facets of our society. Facets that often display deep and problematic fissures threatening to disrupt, divide, and destroy the social fabric of the nation.

Inflation is an economic force which operates through and because of human actions. Of course, that does not mean that most of the actions or the humans acting have any appreciation of or understand of how what they are doing is altering the course of inflation. That’s part of the magic of economics, it operates through the ‘invisible hand’ that Adam Smith explained about the market. While Adam Smith saw inflation as something beneficial to society, he may have underappreciated some aspects of how the processes of inflation play out through people’s lives. Nevertheless, the connection between how people act and how inflation progresses is inseparable.

Since inflation can be harmful to a society’s economic wellbeing, nations’ leaders endeavor to keep it under control. Leaders can try to control inflation via many methods. Most of which do not work especially well nor result in less harm to an economy, and some methods will make things worse. The US has established the Federal Reserve (aka, the Fed) to expressly act to manage and hopefully avoid inflation levels which create risks to the stability of the US’s economy. The primary tool available to the Fed is to raise or lower the discount rate that banks are charged to borrow money form the Fed. This rate flows through the financial systems and raise or lower the costs for anyone to borrow money. If inflation is increasing and is determined to be producing problems for the economy, then the Fed will raise their rate. If the economy is at risk of stalling or contracting, then the Fed and lower the rate and encourage spending. The Fed’s goal is to keep the economy in a ‘sweet’ spot that keeps the economy on track.

The Fed’s ability to control inflation is premised upon the principle that when they raise or lower interest rates that the financial system will respond in predictable, and thus manageable ways. This has proven to be generally true for recent decades because the financial system and its processes do respond to those changes. Therefore we should expect the Fed’s reaction to the current US inflationary surge will be effective in driving it back down. Except, that expectation comes with some caveats and requirements, and is based upon some assumptions that need to be applicable.

The efficacy of the Fed’s decisions to raise interest rates going forward until the increasing inflation rates are driven down will work, eventually. That is one of the caveats. Raising interests rates doesn’t immediately stop inflation. Even if the Fed raised rates very high or very rapidly, there is no requirement that inflation stops at the moment, in a day or two, a week or two, a month or two, or well in any definite time interval. To make this more problematic, raising interest rates can produce other impacts upon the economy that can be disruptive to the US’s and the world’s economy in other ways, and can do more harm to the US and its citizens than the inflation would do. This unpredictability and capability to have both positive or negative impacts is another caveat.

There is also the assumption that the Fed’s interest rate methods that apply to the Supply and Demand model are consistent with the conditions on the ground. There is little about the current inflationary causes that are producing the inflationary effects. If your model doesn’t reflect the variables that are at play, then the model is fundamentally flawed and highly likely to fail to produce the results that the model expects. This is the problem that the Fed has with their efforts to control Inflation. It is also directly related to the problem that the Administration has in controlling inflation. They lack not just the controls that can enable them to manage inflation, but their skills and understanding of what their best strategies should be are not in their toolkit.

The US’s inflation is being caused by many factors, most of which the government can’t do much to change under current conditions. A major reason that the government lack such controls is that they are looking at a direct and even predictable product of economic theory that doesn’t fit within their established controls, procedures, and processes. Everything that they thought they needed to be able to manage did not include institutional mechanisms for the factors and variables that they now need to use and to depend upon. A key dimension to this economic conundrum is the extreme dominance of the US being a Consumer Economy on both the products and services front.

The problem with the Consumer Economy is the ‘consumer'. The consumer is not one variable but a multifaceted composite of things. Consumers are not homogeneous. They vary along income levels, wealth levels, and financial conditions. The environments that they live in differ from state to state, region to region, rural/suburban/urban communities, political affiliation & composition, business & employment types, and costs that arise from where they live; and of course, there are numerous other factors that are affected by inflation and conversely affects inflation. This complexity of the ‘consumer’ is one reason why the normal institutional-based tools don’t directly factor in these attributes.

That doesn’t mean that the ‘consumer’ can’t be an effective tool in managing and directing inflation, just that it requires more sophisticated strategies and policies. Given inflation has a component of consumer “fear” which can feed upon itself, one aspect of managing inflation requires addressing the “fear”. This can only be accomplished by engaging with the public beyond just what the current inflation data is, or explaining what other variables are contributing to inflation are and why. It requires that the consumer can be shown that there are actions and decisions that they can take to help themselves and the country in reigning in inflation. If the public is passive or feels helpless toward inflation then they are more likely to fall prey to acting in ways that increase inflation.

Since Demand (by consumer) promotes inflation when Supply does not match it, the economic equation tells us what can produce a difference. For some items which are in demand, consumers have the option to choose a substitute, to defer a purchase, to forego the purchase entirely. If an item is increasing in cost, then if you don’t buy it there will be an economic response. If someone else buys it, then they are spending more of their money for less value, and this increase the funds that you have for a later time (low cost) or a different choice (better value). Depending upon the nature of the Supply-side problem that made the item scarce, the reduced demand eventually brings the price down because of other economic principles.

Not all Demand items can be avoided, at least not easily. If you need fuel for heating, cooking, transportation, production, or other essential purpose then you can’t just choose to not buy fuel. But does that preclude any other options? Are any of the following options available to some consumers?

• ·   Reduce heating level even one degree creates a cost reduction.
• ·   Shorter showers reduce costs.
• ·   Large washing and/or dryer loads (frequency) will reduce costs.
• ·    Activities that use fuel and which can be reduced or whose efficiencies can be improved reduce costs and lowers demand which reduces price.
• ·    Fuel for transportation can be reduced by some consumers through options like car-pooling or more organized outings that combine two or more trips into one trip that uses less fuel.

Similarly, increasing food costs do not submit easily to a decision to not buy food. However, food is a very nebulous area of supply. We don’t all eat the same foods any more than are the foods that we do choose to eat the only choices available to us. Consumers who see the costs of their food items rising can be competing with each other and contributing to some part of the cost increase. Now, those costs can be rising from other factors as well; but does that mean that there are no other food items which would be as nutritional and less costly? Once, again each purchase decision is trading a quantity of your money for a value of the goods you purchase. If you pay a lower cost for another item then you gain additional funds for your other demands. It is the very ‘invisible hand’ of economics.

It is along these and other lines of action that consumers can engage and act toward inflation and help themselves. As much of a problem as inflation is, it can be transformed from a ‘fear’ into an advantage or even an opportunity. Remember, your economic situation is relative to that of the other consumers in the population. If inflation in a Consumer Economy is dependent on the consumer then the consumer is not powerless unless they choose to be, don’t understand the connection, or are afraid.

The enigma regarding our COVID Inflation is that it is mostly a willful unknown. The complexity of the puzzle might succumb to something as simple as choosing not to be afraid; and our shortcut out is to choose to see the answer in our choices.

A Supremely Questionable Supreme Court Ruling

 On Jan. 13, 2022, the Supreme Court issued its ruling on the COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate case. This ruling is historic and may turn out to be fatal error on the part of the Court in the future and as viewed and assessed by history. As a ruling it was quite bifurcated. The ruling recognized the federal government’s right to establishing a vaccine mandate and simultaneously the federal government’s over-reach on establishing a vaccine mandate.

A cursory reading of the introductory paragraph should certainly cause you to think, either the person writing this is an idiot or the Justices on the Supreme Court are. As the potential recipient of the ‘idiot’ judgement, I want to point out that there is no requirement that either of those attributions is required to be true, nor is it necessary that the idiot condition might not be true for both parties. Given the uncertainty of whom the appellation may apply to, it is appropriate to consider if what we have here is a “Who’s the Idiot” equivalent of the Schrodinger’s Cat concept. Just as determining whether the cat is alive or dead requires that one look, determining who’s an idiot may also require that we look. So, let’s open the box on SCOTUS’ vaccine mandate decision, decisions, or quagmire of reasoning.

The reasoning on the healthcare workers mandate grants that the federal government has the authority to impose a mandate based on the federal government providing Medicare and Medicaid funding to healthcare entities. Federal funding in concert with other rationales for protecting the public’s interest in the necessary functioning of the nation’s healthcare system and personnel seems odd contortion of criteria. I suppose that the Justices may have recognized that just citing the authority based upon the use of federal funding alone would be fraught with unintended consequences. However, while I may think it is possible the Justices considered the funding basis alone to be too risky for them; I do not actually think it is likely that they have foreseen nor thought about the implications which come from it. Time will tell is any smart lawyer or advocacy group can see the potential here.

Now onto the other side of Supreme Court’s decision coin, the Vaccine Mandate for large businesses. SCOTUS reasoned that the federal government through OSHA did not have the authority to establish a vaccine mandate for large businesses’ employees. The reasoning here was different. Here the federal government was ‘over-reaching’ based upon some of the Justices’ interpretations of how they viewed what was important, or true, or applicable. This is probably true in general and I suspect applied in the healthcare workers case as well, but that isn’t something the Court wants you think about how they reach their judgements. The Court seeks to have their ruling ‘based’ upon the Constitution, legal precedents, and the intentions of what legislators had in mind when they passed legislation. In other words, on many things that are not firm and immutable concepts like those of the Laws of Physics or other scientific knowledge.

The majority decided that OSHA’s establishing legislation did not include (or more accurately intend) for that federal agency to have. Of course, this is opinion and interpretation; because there is no way to ‘know’ what the intentions of the politicians who created and authorized OSHA intended. It is not explicitly written into the legislation because such enumeration of ‘authority’ is not just impractical and impossible, it is definitely beyond the abilities of politicians, their staffs and advisors. There is no way to define the scope of authority for conditions which may arise in the future that are not contemplated or even comprehended by those creating the text of legislation.

Another argument used in the majority opinion was that the authority for such mandates ought to reside with the states and local authorities. This is a good example of how the Justices’ can use a sound principle, even precedents from some prior decisions, to attain a decision which is legally defensible but not logically sound and which could be easily overturned based upon other legally defensible and authoritatively established precedents. This may be an instance of a jurisprudence equivalent to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, where Justices cannot know what is Constitutional and what is intended by the law simultaneously (though in the legal context there is no requirement that Justices be able to know either one). Consider that the federal government provides funding directly and indirectly to many of the businesses which are protesting the mandate. Is the ‘funding’ condition not applicable to some degree here? Does the federal government ‘fund’ the military? So, how doesn’t that criteria apply to the military question of a mandate?

The Court also argued that if the legislature wanted OSHA to have this authority, then they would have explicitly given it to them, either in the original establishment of the authority (this is the interpretation issue) or the legislature would ‘act’ to establish that authority when needed. The naivety of these perspective is quite damning for the Justices, particularly those in the majority. Having to await upon elected officials to ‘act’ promptly, correctly, and in the nation’s interests is an unreasonable and unrealistic expectation for this branch of our government. It may be a utopian vision of what Congress ought to do, but it is not a valid basis upon which to risk the public’s health nor the national interests.

The authority of the states to establish mandates related to COVID seems to be well supported by SCOTUS’s logic and there were cases that the Court upheld would thus support that governmental authority exists. However, the Court ignored the reality of the question and the situation where there is a conflict over authority and which authority and who prevails in given situations. The majority also seems to base their decision upon an ‘either-or’ criteria that there can only be one authorized authority. The classic state versus federal line. But there is no definitive requirement that a government authority must exist only in one or the other. Both have the power to tax. Both have the power to establish laws related to the same legal issue, right or situations on many fronts. Usually the federal laws cannot be countered by a state law, but we are all aware of various federal laws that states have and continue to find ways of adapting via state laws without overtly claiming to ‘overturn’ or ignore the federal laws.

What the recent COVID Mandate rulings demonstrate is that there are many paths that the Supreme Court can take in reaching its decision. Whether the decision is sound, well-reasoned, and consistent with the Constitution, established law, precedents, legislative intent, and national interests and America values is not a given. The Justices are just as likely to apply personal perspectives and even political ideological principles as those on either side of an issue.

The Court also ignored the most salient aspect of this case, which authority is using the most appropriate and relevant knowledge, expertise, and judgement on what is in the nation’s best or essential interests. The Court can say that that is not factor that they can consider, but that is a judgement that they are making and perhaps not founded in or upon the law

Is It Right or Wrong? Societal Choices: #1 Vaccines

 

We all live in some societal construct that we influence and that influences us. In many cases people don’t think about how the rules and norms of their social environment(s) are accepted as ‘just the way things are’ rather than question if the rules or the norms are sufficiently beneficial to their society’s interests. More often than not, our individual behaviors and choices do not have significant, or notable, impacts upon the society. Generally, what clothing styles, fashions, or brands that people choose are of little societal concern or import, except perhaps in terms of their unnoticed implications like economic factors (capitalism, consumerism, profits, …). But “more often than not” is a conditional that has an implicit “sometimes it is” counterpart. Does your personal choice about what sports team you support really matter all that much, compared to your personal choice about what, if any, political party/ideology you align with or what religious belief-system you follow?

I am not implying there are no consequences to who you choose as your favorite sports team, but the effect on your society overall is not likely to have a substantive relevance. Conversely, the political entity or religious group that you choose to identify with, follow, or promote is fundamentally part of the societal context that affects many aspects of how that society operates both in terms of beneficial and malfunctioning ways. America is just as much a product of the societal views that permeate our population as other nations’ societal factors and choices influence theirs. This leads to a ‘frame of reference’ problem in determining what is good or bad, right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable, and prudent or unwise; if we look at the choice from a different perspective.

America’s dilemma, dichotomy, and differences of opinions regarding COVID vaccines is an example of where a society’s members’ choices have consequences far beyond the individual. The choices of individuals have implications to the health of their own families, not just from transmission but in other areas that effect their lives. On the public-health front, an infected individual can spread COVID to their neighbors, communities, co-workers, fellow commuters, other customers of businesses they visit, and healthcare workers with whom they interact. Transmissions in these areas can lead to illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths beyond the individual or their family. But the ripples in a society don’t stop there. There are economic ripples. We have all seen the disruptions to businesses and public entities which resulted from the COVID pandemic. To curtail infections businesses were forced to alter their operations or even close. Employees lost incomes and in some cases jobs. Hospitals were forced to focus on COVID patients to an extent that prevented patients with other illnesses to postpone their treatments, some at a risk to their lives.

In another area, the individuals’ choice regarding vaccination has a political dimension to it. There is a clear and definitive difference between an individual’s choice to vaccinate or not according to their political alignment. For Republicans, approximately 60% are vaccinated, while for Democrats 86% are vaccinated. This notable difference has predictable consequences to each of these self-selected demographic groups. Those consequences play out as each COVID variant’s infection wave washes across the nation. The unvaccinated showing up as the majority of the infected who are hospitalized, and as the dominant portion of patients dying from COVID and has been reported on regularly. This is where the unasked question(s) become relevant. Is it wrong to look at COVID in contexts which set aside the traditional medical perspective expected in America? Note: I am less sure how prevalent this view is elsewhere in the world.

If you are unsure or unclear about what the traditional medical perspective is, I must admit that I also struggle to define it even as I suggest that most Americans share a generally common sense of it. This leads to the following fleeting attempt to define this medical perspective view. So, here is my rather futile and limited definition of America’s traditional medical perspective.

In the US, we believe, we expect that we are entitled to the ‘best’ medical care available. Well, within your affordability class. The general principle is that the healthcare system provides good, competent, and appropriate care to the public. This principle is of course constrained by many factors, not the least of which is affordability and availability. Under this perspective, the goal is to keep you alive, to enable you to return to work or your home, and to keep you healthy enough to be less of a burden on society. This perspective operates within a healthcare industry that is a complex and amorphous conglomerate formed from public, private, and other social entity-types. Our healthcare view is that the healthcare industry and the nation (that includes the public) will work diligently to protect the individuals in need of healthcare and the nation from the ravages of threats to our individual and collective health.

Given that healthcare perspective, we expect the nation to work to protect everyone’s health. It is that perspective and that goal which I am suggesting that we set aside and not apply to what is or isn’t the right, proper, or appropriate way in which the nation should respond to the COVID pandemic issues. This will be a hard perspective to set aside because some will see it as a violation of their professional code/ethics (like healthcare workers). Some will see this as a violation of their religious beliefs. Others may consider it a violation of their oath of office to serve the nation’s interests (I will note here that I don’t have much faith or confidence in politicians actually caring about what the ethical or moral principles are that they apply to their actions or decisions). But despite the difficulties that some may face, we can at least try to examine questions and options that are not considered because the traditional medical perspective preemptively dismisses the questions from even being conceived of, let alone considered as better policies and strategies than the ones that are naively seen as adhering to the mythical belief that America’s aspirational healthcare perspective would advocate.

Let’s try the COVID vaccine issue. If we ignored the ‘goal’ of preventing people from dying unnecessarily from a COVID infection, or even from being hospitalized unnecessarily, would it be right or wrong to make decisions and policies about COVID infections or about being vaccinated versus unvaccinated? Other ways to ask this question are:

A.      Do I have a right to be protected from you?

B.      Can a business treat vaccinated individuals differently than unvaccinated?

C.      Are public policies (even mandates) appropriate for reasons besides people dying or requiring hospitalization? [Remember, we don’t care if you die or not.]

D.      What factors might be ok to use in deciding if a given state or community can be treated differently than others because of the consequences obtained?

These are just a few of the ways that one could look at the issue of being vaccinated or being unvaccinated.

The first two questions actually have been addressed before but are still fought over and of course have their own degrees of complexity. You do have a right to be protected from me and vice versa. Not even the most conservative Supreme Court Justice would argue that an individual (or individuals) who have a highly contagious disease with a high mortality rate warrants a society or ‘the government’ from imposing restricts, requirements, and mandates. With COVID the issue is thus what is a ‘mortality’ rate which is unacceptable? Remember, it’s not a question of the healthcare goal we aspire to. We have set that aside. There is a point where your or my risk threat if infected is unacceptable to others, and it’s their right to not die that is relevant. Your or my death is not relevant, since we have the disease, and it is too late to act to prevent our being infected.

Can businesses treat their vaccinated customers or workers or unvaccinated customer or workers differently? Yes, they can. Can the government impose requirements on public entities? Yes, it can. Like question A, the rationale and criteria for both would be seen differently depending upon the severity of the risks and the consequences. For example, differential treatments must directly relate to the biology of the disease not to an unrelated factor which could be used to some nefarious intent. This of course makes it not just possible but likely that there will be different sides taken on any given policy or requirement. Of course, if the mortality rate of the disease was anywhere over 33%, such opposition would quickly die out.

Regarding Question C, the answer here ought to be rather obvious but let’s suppose there are some who do not see it. The risk to the nation’s economy and thus to all aspects of society would not just warrant governmental actions including vaccine mandates but would be required under the Constitution. An existential threat to the public and thus the nation would fall within the responsibilities of all governmental entities. Even the Supreme Court, assuming any are still alive under such conditions, would be hard pressed to find any precedent which contravened such actions by our elected executives. This principle has even been demonstrated under the COVID pandemic by both Republican and Democratic Presidents, governors, mayors, and federal and state agencies. And these actions were for a disease which has only killed less than 1 million Americans. Now, remember we are putting aside any consideration of wanting to protect people’s lives as it colors our decisions. The problem here is that the deaths and illnesses are the threats to the proper functioning of the society, economy and nation.

Question D is a very different question. It opens the door to a much broader range of factors and considerations that could be made. Is it acceptable to establish or allow policies which advantage one group over another or even at the expense of another? Is it right or proper to designate some workers as essential and not provide any proactive considerations for protecting their health? Can we require someone to work and not require those whom they work with to be vaccinated? This situation can devolve into some very convoluted considerations. If someone decides not to be vaccinated and they are an ‘essential’ worker would that not imply it is ok to expose them to others whether those others are vaccinated or not. How about the governors of individual states that set public policies which prohibit restrictions on unvaccinated individuals in areas like schools, public events, even businesses? If those policies resulted in more hospitalizations and deaths in some communities than others, or in one politically aligned segment of the population than another would that be acceptable? What if the group of individuals who are negatively affected by those policies are members of the governor’s own political party? Yes, the governor would have to be pretty stupid in this latter case; but then we are talking about politicians. How do we properly consider whether the equivalent results benefit or disadvantage such groups depending upon a factor like whether the governor’s politics / party aligns with the affected group(s) or not? This same issue can be turned around by asking: Is it acceptable for a President allow a governor’s policies to stand if the consequences are less detrimental to his supporters than to those of the other party? Consider, if the other party is losing voters at 10, 15, or 20 times the rate that your party is then there is a predictable benefit in letting the policies remain unchanged or unchallenged.

The disputes and contention over vaccination policies and mandates and even that of masks can appear to be quite different questions if you look at the questions through different lens. The assessment of the impact on what is or is not a good public policy may depend upon how competently the issue is examined. It’s easy to take a political stance, or some ideological perspective; but the more appropriate way to assess policies and requirements may be to recognize that the most visible dimension of the issue isn’t the most important. Keeping people alive, healthy, and safe from a disease may be obvious as a desired goal; but perhaps understanding the consequences beyond the obvious are even more substantive and important than the attention-getting gesture used to distract your attention.

Vaccinations are important because they create different outcomes. How you use that information and what strategies you select to take advantage of that knowledge to achieve can be the most important aspect of what you do. To make the right selection thus implicitly involves asking whether the policy that the aspirational goal produces the best outcomes given the reality of the problem that is actually operating on the ground the battle is being fought upon. If you can set policies which serve both the aspirational goal and simultaneously achieve what is better for the nation overall, it may be the case that you have to find the solution paths that thread both needles.