Wednesday, August 5, 2020
'Would Be Comical, If It Didn't Involve Real Lives': Unhinged Trump Interview Spotlights Deadly Failure of His Covid-19 Response
"If you wrote this as grotesque farce" for a movie script, wrote actor and progressive activist John Cusack, "no one would believe it."
by
Jake Johnson, staff writer
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/08/04/would-be-comical-if-it-didnt-involve-real-lives-unhinged-trump-interview-spotlights
In an interview with Jonathan Swan of Axios that aired late Monday, President Donald Trump sputtered, declared "You can't do that," and continued trying to downplay the massive and rising coronavirus death toll when confronted with the fact the U.S. has a higher mortality rate by percentage of population than major countries like South Korea and Germany.
"Instead, it's crushing," Hannon added. "It's crushing to watch the president sift through printed out graphs that somehow spin the U.S. response he has presided over as anything other than a national humiliation."While many observers ridiculed Trump's unhinged performance and likened the Axios interview to an episode of the HBO comedy show "Veep," Slate's Elliot Hannon wrote Tuesday morning that the president's back-and-forth with Swan "would be comical, if it didn't involve real lives."
After Swan noted that U.S. coronavirus deaths are on the rise, Trump brandished several colorful print-out charts purporting to show that the U.S. death rate as a percentage of cases is lower than that of other nations.
"You're doing deaths as a proportion of cases," Swan said after examining the charts. "I'm talking about death as a proportion of population."
"You can't, you can't do that," Trump responded. "You have to go by, you have to go by where, look... You have to go by the cases."
Swan insisted that it's "surely a relevant statistic say if the U.S. has X population and X percentage of death of that population vs. South Korea."
"Look at South Korea, for example," Swan said as Trump continued to protest. "Fifty one million population, 300 deaths."
In response, Trump suggested that South Korea may be distorting its coronavirus statistics and falsely claimed that the U.S. only has more Covid-19 cases because it tests more than other countries.
Watch:
The clip of the exchange, which was filmed on July 28, quickly went viral on social media, with critics voicing alarm and disgust at Trump's ignorance and politically motivated efforts to downplay the severity of a pandemic that has killed more than 155,000 people in the U.S.
"If you wrote this as grotesque farce" for a movie script, wrote actor and progressive activist John Cusack, "no one would believe it."
Rob Flaherty, digital director for Joe Biden's presidential campaign, tweeted that "you really gotta step back realize that as one thousand Americans die per day, the White House is printing out kindergarten charts for the president to prove that things are actually great."
Watch the full interview:
The Science Is Clear: Our 'Masks for All' Plan Will Save Lives
The coronavirus pandemic is raging out of control under Trump's leadership, but there are common sense solutions we must urgently implement.
by
Bernie Sanders
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/08/04/science-clear-our-masks-all-plan-will-save-lives
It is an absolute tragedy, and embarrassing, that the United States is practically the only major country where the COVID-19 pandemic is worsening by the day. Coronavirus has killed 150,000 Americans. States like California, Texas and Florida are registering their highest daily death tolls ever. The economic horrors of this pandemic are also escalating, as our gross domestic product plunges by an annual rate of nearly 33% and $600 weekly unemployment benefits expired for 30 million workers.
If we are to have any hope of turning this economy around, opening schools safely, and preventing countless more deaths, we must first get this virus under control. That is why, in late July, with 14 other senators and dozens of United States representatives, I introduced common-sense, practical and inexpensive legislation to protect Americans during the coronavirus pandemic: Masks for All.
The science is clear: Wearing a mask not only saves lives, but the widespread use of masks will get Americans back to work sooner and reunite families who have stayed apart.This legislation will substantially increase the production of high-quality masks in this country and distribute three reusable masks to every single person at no cost—including the many who have never owned a mask. It will also end our dependency on China and other countries for this life-saving product now and in the future.
The experts agree
This is not a political or a partisan issue. In fact, in a recent Senate health committee hearing, I asked Trump administration experts whether they agreed with my Masks for All proposal. Dr. Anthony Fauci replied, “There’s no doubt that wearing masks protects you and gets you to be protected. So it’s people protecting each other,” he said. “Anything that furthers the use of masks, whether it is giving out free masks or any other mechanism, I am thoroughly in favor of."
Dr. Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has agreed. “If we could get everybody to wear a mask right now, I really do think over the next four, six to eight weeks we could bring this epidemic under control," he said in an interview with the Journal of the American Medical Association.
It's time we finally listen to our public health experts. Doctors Fauci and Redfield understand that evidence is mounting from around the world that wearing masks curbs the spread of COVID-19 and saves lives. South Korea, one of the more successful countries to date, began procuring masks as early as February and provided them affordably to its people. Taiwan, the Czech Republic, Germany, Vietnam and dozens of other countries have shown us that COVID-19 spread can be contained with widespread mask wearing.
Only when the virus is contained can the economy be revived. One estimate suggested that widespread use of masks could be worth up to $1 trillion to our economy by preventing shutdowns and getting people back to work earlier. And in terms of public health, the act of mask wearing, as simple as it is, is a matter of life and death. One projection predicts that universal use of masks could save more than 30,000 American lives by Nov. 1, as compared to our current trajectory.
Distributing masks nationwide
Unfortunately, with the Trump administration incapable of acting in a competent and scientific manner, Congress—in a bipartisan way—must take the lead. Our Masks for All legislation will instruct the Trump administration to utilize the Defense Production Act to produce and deliver three high-quality, reusable masks to every person in the country via the U.S. postal system. The masks would also be made available free at testing sites, post offices and pharmacies, as well as homeless shelters, jails, detention centers and other congregate-care settings.
The first priority would, of course, be front-line health care workers. It is beyond comprehension that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, doctors and nurses continue to lack enough high quality personal protective equipment they need to protect their lives and their patients. This legislation directs the government to produce and provide the needed surgical masks and N-95 respirators to all health workers in the country. It will also prioritize the needs of other essential workers.
This legislation will not only increase the availability of masks, but also the quality. With large-scale production and strong research and development, within months, we will be able to produce and distribute masks that are high quality, comfortable, easy to fit, and washable for continued use. These high-quality masks will protect both the wearer as well as the people they come into contact with.
The American people are with us. One recent poll found that 3 in 4 Americans—including 58% of Republicans—support requiring mask wearing outside the home. The majority of U.S. states, D.C., and Puerto Rico have passed mask mandates. It is only fair that the federal government now steps in to make these requirements as easy, effective and costless as possible for the American people.
Given the urgency of the moment this bill should be passed as quickly as possible by being incorporated into major coronavirus legislation currently being negotiated. Providing high quality masks for all is an effective disease prevention tool that must be immediately implemented. Every day we delay, lives are needlessly lost.
In this unprecedented moment in American history we need to come together—government and private sector, manufacturers and workers, scientists and ordinary citizens—to combat this horrific pandemic. Making sure that every American has a high-quality mask, and wears it, is an important step forward in achieving that goal.
Why Bitcoin is the not socialists’ ally – Yanis Varoufakis
Reply to Ben Arc
by Yanis Varoufakis
On 15th July, Ben Arc published in Bitcoin Magazine an open letter addressed to me in a bid to convince me that I should re-assess my rejection of Bitcoin as a force for good; as a bulwark for democratising capitalism and paving the ground for socialism. Here is my reply:
Dear Ben Arc,
by Yanis Varoufakis
On 15th July, Ben Arc published in Bitcoin Magazine an open letter addressed to me in a bid to convince me that I should re-assess my rejection of Bitcoin as a force for good; as a bulwark for democratising capitalism and paving the ground for socialism. Here is my reply:
Dear Ben Arc,
Thank you for your open letter and your efforts to bring a socialist perspective to bear upon my assessment of Bitcoin.
In my reply below, I shall address you as a fellow socialist, rather than put together a reply meant to address all sorts of different perspectives (e.g. Keynesian, Hayekian, neoclassical)
In my reply below, I shall address you as a fellow socialist, rather than put together a reply meant to address all sorts of different perspectives (e.g. Keynesian, Hayekian, neoclassical)
As you know, I am one of those who, back in 2011, were genuinely intrigued, fascinated even, by the remarkable blockchain algorithm. The prospect of a decentralised ledger controlled by its community of users was mesmerising.
As you also know, I was unimpressed by Bitcoin as an alternative to fiat money that is either likely, or indeed desirable, under our current capitalist predicament.
As you also know, I was unimpressed by Bitcoin as an alternative to fiat money that is either likely, or indeed desirable, under our current capitalist predicament.
Having read your open letter, I remain as enthusiastic on blockchain’s capacities and as unimpressed by Bitcoin’s ability to help us either civilise or (as any socialist dreams of) transcend capitalism.
Two propositions support this view. In the hypothetical case where Bitcoin were, under presently-existing capitalism, to replace fiat money: (1) It would lack the mechanism necessary to stop capitalist crises from yielding depressions that benefit only the ultra-right; and, (2) Its community-based, democratic protocols would do little to democratise economic life.
I shall explain my two propositions briefly below. But, before you despair (at my continued negative take on Bitcoin), let me foreshadow the concluding sentence in the Epilogue below: Once (and, of course, if) socialism dawns, money will have to be founded on a distributed-ledger, monetary commons enabling tehnology.
In other words, I shall argue that Bitcoin is not fit for purpose under capitalism, or as a vehicle toward transcending capitalism, but something like Bitcoin will characterise monetary systems in a future world free of private banks and share markets.
OK, let me now support my two propositions:
Proposition 1: Bitcoin lacks the shock absorbers necessary to prevent capitalist crises from doing untold damage to the working class
Consider the Crash of 2008 or the more recent 2020 Covid-19-induced crisis. Suppose that Central Banks did not have the capacity instantly to create trillions of dollars, euros, pounds and yen – and instead had to rely on a spontaneous majority of Bitcoin’s users to agree to a massive increase in the supply of money. The result would be a 1929-like collapse of banks and corporations.
While socialists would shed no tears for the tragedy of the oligarchy, socialists should beware that a 1929-like systemic collapse is bound to strengthen the forces of the ultra-right – not of the socialist left (that has been, since at least 1991, languishing in the doldrums of political paralysis).
Technically, there is of course nothing that would prevent the Bitcoin community from agreeing instantly to even a doubling of the money base. However, the Tragedy of the Commons guarantees that Bitcoin owners will be subject to the usual prisoner’s dilemma dynamic that prevents the boost in the money supply necessary to avert the liquidation of potentially viable businesses and jobs. Moreover, this free-rider problem is made far, far worse by the fact that Bitcoin ownership is very unequally distributed, thus giving the Bitcoin-rich powerful incentives to restrain the growth of the money supply (since such restrictions would boost their private rents at the expense of the public interest).
In short, the free-rider problem that guarantees the maximal reinforcement of any capitalist crisis (in any economy relying on Bitcoin as its main currency) will be turbocharged by the unequal ownership of Bitcoin – which is unavoidable in any monetary system overlaid upon contemporary capitalism.
Proposition 2: Under capitalism, Bitcoin’s dominance will not democratise economic life – or give socialism a chance
Suppose, again, that some magic wand is waved and Bitcoin replaces fiat money under contemporary capitalist conditions. In other words, as Bitcoin replaced dollars, pounds, euros and yen, property rights over land, resources and machines remain as they are while private equity firms and pension funds continue to own the bulk of shares trading in Wall Street, the City etc. All that will have changed is that Central Banks will vanish and the community of Bitcoin users will determine the global money supply (subject to the free-rider problems mentioned above).
Suppose, again, that some magic wand is waved and Bitcoin replaces fiat money under contemporary capitalist conditions. In other words, as Bitcoin replaced dollars, pounds, euros and yen, property rights over land, resources and machines remain as they are while private equity firms and pension funds continue to own the bulk of shares trading in Wall Street, the City etc. All that will have changed is that Central Banks will vanish and the community of Bitcoin users will determine the global money supply (subject to the free-rider problems mentioned above).
At the firm level, nothing will have changed. Jeff Bezos will still control a massive monopsony-cum-monopoly, Facebook will still own the whole marketplace within its platform, Exxon-Mobil will continue to lean on weaker developing country governments to drill for oil and gas that should be left in the Earth’s guts etc.
And what of private banks? They would, make no mistake here, find ways of creating complex derivatives based on Bitcoin – derivatives that will soon (just like Lehman Brothers’ CDOs prior to 2008) function as stores of value and means of exchange; i.e. as private money. Massive bubbles denominated in Bitcoin will build up and they will burst just as they did in the 19th century under the Gold Standard. And then?
In the absence of Central Banks and with the Bitcoin community in the clasps of the aforementioned free-rider problem, depression will follow – as it did before the Fed was instituted in the US. Thus, the tragedy mentioned in Proposition 1 above kicks in.
In short, not only will the democratisation of money via Bitcoin fail to democratise capitalism but it will also give an almighty boost to the forces of regression.
Epilogue
Bitcoin’s great appeal is that it breaks the cronyist chain linking central banks and private bankers. However, it does not undermine the cronyism of the network of bosses, politicians and private bankers.
Lest we forget, 19th Century bimetallic America also lacked a central bank. Under the gold and silver standards, the public money supply was fixed – and could not be easily manipulated by the state (either the government or the, then non-existent, Fed). But that did not stop private bankers from leveraging public money out of thin air to create huge quantities of private money with which to fund the Robber Barons, i.e. the Jeff Bezoses, of the era.
In this sense, replacing fiat money with Bitcoin would take us back to a postmodern version of 19th Century America - not exactly a prospect socialists should go to the barricades for.
In summary, the monetary system is like the dog’s tail. It cannot wag the capitalist dog, in the sense that democratising money by means of a monetary commons will not democratise economic life but, rather, make capitalism uglier, nastier and more dangerous for humanity.
In summary, the monetary system is like the dog’s tail. It cannot wag the capitalist dog, in the sense that democratising money by means of a monetary commons will not democratise economic life but, rather, make capitalism uglier, nastier and more dangerous for humanity.
Having said all this, a monetary commons (that may very well rely on something like the blockchain underpinning Bitcoin) will, I have no doubt, be an essential aspect of a democratised economy; of socialism.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)