Tuesday, March 17, 2020

No, the White House didn’t ‘dissolve’ its pandemic response office. I was there.



President Trump gets his share of criticism — some warranted, much not. But recently the president’s critics have chosen curious ground to question his response to the coronavirus outbreak since it began spreading from Wuhan, China, in December.



It has been alleged by multiple officials of the Obama administration, including in The Post, that the president and his then-national security adviser, John Bolton, “dissolved the office” at the White House in charge of pandemic preparedness. Because I led the very directorate assigned that mission, the counterproliferation and biodefense office, for a year and then handed it off to another official who still holds the post, I know the charge is specious.

Now, I’m not naive. This is Washington. It’s an election year. Officials out of power want back into power after November. But the middle of a worldwide health emergency is not the time to be making tendentious accusations.

When I joined the National Security Council staff in 2018, I inherited a strong and skilled staff in the counterproliferation and biodefense directorate. This team of national experts together drafted the National Biodefense Strategy of 2018 and an accompanying national security presidential memorandum to implement it; an executive order to modernize influenza vaccines; and coordinated the United States’ response to the Ebola epidemic in Congo, which was ultimately defeated in 2020.

It is true that the Trump administration has seen fit to shrink the NSC staff. But the bloat that occurred under the previous administration clearly needed a correction. Defense Secretary Robert Gatescongressional oversight committees and members of the Obama administration itself all agreed the NSC was too large and too operationally focused (a departure from its traditional role coordinating executive branch activity). As The Post reported in 2015, from the Clinton administration to the Obama administration’s second term, the NSC’s staff “had quadrupled in size, to nearly 400 people.” That is why Trump began streamlining the NSC staff in 2017.

One such move at the NSC was to create the counterproliferation and biodefense directorate, which was the result of consolidating three directorates into one, given the obvious overlap between arms control and nonproliferation, weapons of mass destruction terrorism, and global health and biodefense. It is this reorganization that critics have misconstrued or intentionally misrepresented. If anything, the combined directorate was stronger because related expertise could be commingled.

The reduction of force in the NSC has continued since I departed the White House. But it has left the biodefense staff unaffected — perhaps a recognition of the importance of that mission to the president, who, after all, in 2018 issued a presidential memorandum to finally create real accountability in the federal government’s expansive biodefense system.

The NSC is really the only place in government where there is a staff that ensures the commander in chief gets all the options he needs to make a decision, and then makes sure that decision is actually implemented. I worry that further reductions at the NSC could impair its capabilities, but the current staffing level is fully up to the job.

You might ask: Why does all this matter? Won’t it just be a historical footnote?

It matters because when people play politics in the middle of a crisis, we are all less safe.

We are less safe because public servants are distracted when they are dragged into politics.

We’re less safe because the American people have been recklessly scared into doubting the competence of their government to help keep them safe, secure and healthy.

And we’re less safe because when we’re focused on political gamesmanship, we’re not paying enough attention to the real issues. For example, we should be united behind ensuring that, in a future congressional appropriations package, U.S. companies are encouraged to return to our shores from China the production of everything from medical face masks and personal protective equipment to vitamin C and penicillin.

And we should be united in demanding to know why the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was aware of the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan early in December, maybe even November, and didn’t tell the rest of the world, when stopping the deadly spread might have been possible.

Just as the United States has fought against fake information aimed at our elections, we should fight back against CCP propagandists. They are not only campaigning against the use of the term “Wuhan virus” (a more geographically accurate description than “Spanish flu” ever was about the 1918 pandemic) but now also promoting the false claim that covid-19 was created by the U.S. Army. Public health officials have pinpointed a wild-animal market in Wuhan as the outbreak’s origin.

There are real threats emanating from this pandemic. We need to focus on getting our response right and save the finger-pointing for what comes after. This is the United States — we will get through this. And for the love of God, wash your hands.


Tim Morrison is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and former senior director for counterproliferation and biodefense on the National Security Council.

Interview With Coronavirus: ‘I’m Very Proud Of My Chinese Heritage’



In recent weeks, fear of the coronavirus has spread as rapidly as the disease. Confusion and speculation have also festered. Where did the virus originate? How dangerous is it, really? Are we responding appropriately to the virus, or are we giving in to hysteria?

Some people think we should trust doctors, scientists, and health officials to answer these questions. Others think the truth can be found from talking heads on cable news.

I decided to cut out the middle men and go directly to the source. I reached out to the coronavirus, who is currently living in an undisclosed location on the East Coast and everywhere else on the planet. He immediately agreed to an interview if we could agree upon an appropriate location.

Initially, he suggested getting coffee in Terminal B at LaGuardia Airport. I asked if we could chat someplace cleaner and less depressing, so we met inside a medical waste dumpster at Hackensack University Hospital. What follows is our conversation.

FIENE: I’m not sure what to call you. COVID-19 seems a little formal, but some people have said it’s racist to label you the Wuhan virus. Does that name bother you?

VIRUS: Not at all, I’m very proud of my Chinese heritage. But I’m also really into the whole international thing these days. So if you want to call me the Wuhan virus, cool. But I have lots of other nicknames now too—the Persian Pestilence, Mussolini’s Revenge. People in New Jersey have started calling me “the Jabroni’s Roni.” Those are all good.

FIENE: One of the things that’s caused some confusion is people comparing you to the seasonal flu. Some folks point out that you are perhaps ten times as lethal as the flu, while others have noted that far more people have died of the flu this year. How do you make sense of that?

VIRUS: It’s like when Aerosmith had Guns N’ Roses on their bill back in ’88. The sell-out, hacky headliner may have sold more tickets because they’d been around longer, but the opening act rocked way harder and got way bigger once they came into contact with people.

The flu is lame. He’s old news. Stick me in a room filled with 30,000 sweaty people all sharing Miller Lite and Marlboro Reds and I’ll slay way more than he can.

FIENE: Where would you find a room filled with 30,000 sweaty people all sharing beer and cigarettes?

VIRUS: I don’t know. A Guns N’ Roses concert, I guess.

FIENE: Many people, like Ann Coulter, have suggested that fears of contracting you are overblown because you’re only a serious threat to the elderly? Is that a fair point?

VIRUS: That’s a very fair point if you are fine with old people dying. Which I am.

FIENE: Sticking with the conspiracy theory questions for a moment, Jerry Falwell Jr has suggested that people are making you a bigger deal than you are in order to defeat President Trump. Any truth to that?

VIRUS: In a technical sense, no. In a “please believe that so I can kill you after you fail to take reasonable precautions in order to show loyalty to the president” sense, yes, it’s completely true. Please believe it. Hand washing is for socialists.

FIENE: So the media’s not using you to defeat Donald Trump?

VIRUS: Well, as all the people I’ve killed can tell you, the media aren’t manufacturing a crisis. But yeah, many of them are framing the crisis in a certain way to make the president look bad. I mean, good grief, did you see Paul Krugman celebrating the Down Jones dropping below 25,000 a few weeks ago? I haven’t seen anyone rejoicing over a collapse like that since Socrates’s enemies watched the hemlock kick in.

FIENE: In his address to the nation last Wednesday night, President Trump urged us not to politicize you. But the next day, he and Joe Biden were attacking each other over the crisis. What do you think? As you’re becoming a bigger problem, should people put aside partisan squabbling?

VIRUS: No, people should definitely fight over me.

FIENE: In what way?

VIRUS: Preferably hand-to-hand combat. With spitting.

FIENE: According to doctors, you don’t cause diarrhea or similar problems. Do you have an obligation to tell people they should stop buying a nine-month supply of toilet paper?

VIRUS: I’m actually in contract negotiations for an endorsement deal with Charmin right now, so my lawyer has advised me not to answer that question.

FIENE: You managed to get the NBA, NHL, MLB, and NCAA to suspended athletic activities. Why?

VIRUS: Some people may be surprised to learn this, but I’m a trans exclusionary radical feminist, and I was getting fed up with biological men preventing women from being able to succeed in their athletic competitions. And I just sort of figured you can’t have men in women’s sports if you don’t have sports.

FIENE: With no sports to watch, how would you suggest people pass the time while they’re quarantined at home?

VIRUS: Spend quality time with your children. Read classic works of literature. Make sure to lick your neighbors’ mailboxes.

FIENE: Some people have suggested that you are God’s way of punishing mankind for certain sins. Is that true?

VIRUS: Whenever disaster threatens civilization, you humans have this weird habit of concluding that God is punishing other people for their sins. Amazingly, he’s never punishing you for yours.

Look, here’s what you guys need to understand. You’re all sinners. You’ve all fallen short of the glory of God. And whenever some kind of pandemic sweeps through the world, you should each see this as a reminder that we live in a world of sin and corruption, that you are a part of that sin and corruption, and that you need the forgiveness of Jesus that was poured out for the world on the cross.

It’s like what Christ said in Luke 13: “those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” In other words, if I’m floating around outside your door, don’t go to God whining about the sins of your neighbor. Go to God asking Him to take away your sins.

FIENE: Wow, as a pastor, I have to say, that’s a very theologically accurate take.

VIRUS: Well, you are writing this fake conversation.

FIENE: Good point. Last question. Considering that many people have died of you, do you think it’s inappropriate for people to make light of the coronavirus?

VIRUS: I get it. I’m scary. There’s no vaccine to inoculate you against me as of now. I can infect nursing homes faster than the term “cisgender” infected academia. I’m shutting down your kids’ schools. I’m in danger of destroying your economy. I’m taking the lives of your loved ones, so I understand why some people think it’s inappropriate to joke about me.

But it’s important to remember why people make jokes in troubling times. Humor is often the only weapon that the powerless have against the things that threaten them. As the old saying goes, we laugh so we don’t cry.

So go right ahead. Mock me. Joke about me because, next to prayer, making fun of frightening things that feel out of your control is just about the best coping mechanism you guys have. And I greatly respect you guys for using it.

FIENE: Really?

VIRUS: I mean, not enough to not kill you, but sure.

Hans Fiene is a Lutheran pastor in Illinois and the creator of Lutheran Satire, a series of comical videos intended to teach the Lutheran faith. Follow him on Twitter, @HansFiene.

Many common household cleaning products can kill the coronavirus if you use them properly



The coronavirus causing COVID-19 is a nasty bug, but like other members of the coronavirus family, it’s no match for good disinfecting products, health experts say.

“There are many bad things about the coronavirus, but there is one good thing: It is not very hardy,” said Dr. John Swartzberg, an expert on infectious diseases and a professor emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health. “It is easily destroyed by most disinfectants.”

Experts at Consumer Reports, the Centers for Disease Control and Preventionand other organizations have weighed in with advice on the products that can help protect us — and our homes — against the coronavirus.

“Regular cleaning with normal cleaning supplies does a great job of removing all kinds of germs, not just coronavirus, from surfaces,” said Catherine Roberts, associate health editor at Consumer Reports. “Focus on high-touch areas — that’s faucet handles, doorknobs, stair rails and countertops — the things that you have your hands on all the time.”

Best practice is to disinfect these surfaces several times a day. Roberts suggests making a checklist of all the places you want to clean, so you don’t forget any of them. But commercial disinfecting products contain “pretty serious chemicals,” she warned. “They're actually EPA registered pesticides, so as much as you can, try to use them when kids are not around because they can trigger asthma.”

The demand for disinfecting wipes may be outstripping supply right now, but there are many other products you can use. In fact, you may already have some of them at home.

The Environmental Protection Agency has a list of those that meet its criteria for use against the novel coronavirus. The CDC website also has recommendations for households with suspected or confirmed coronavirus cases.

Here’s what you need to know about what will and won’t work against the coronavirus — according to experts.


Soap and water

It’s not fancy, but soap and water work. The soap removes the viral particles that have attached themselves to surfaces — whether it’s your hands, face or countertops — and suspends them in the water, so they can be washed away.

Richard Sachleben, an organic chemist and a member of the American Chemical Society, said most of the cleaning products we call soap are actually detergents that not only remove the germs from surfaces, but also kill them.

“The virus has an outside coating, and the stuff inside — DNA or RNA — is what actually causes the disease. It's kind of like the casing on a bomb or torpedo,” Sachleben explained. “For a virus, that coating is a protein, and the soap or detergent break up that coating, so the virus spills its guts and falls apart.”


Bleach solution

“Bleach is very effective at killing the coronavirus, as well as virtually every other germ on the face of the planet,” said Dr. Paul Pottinger, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Washington Medical Center. “The problem is, it’s stinky, it’s hard to use and it can damage what you’re trying to clean.”

To protect your skin, you should wear gloves when using bleach — and don’t mix the bleach with anything but water. Here’s the CDC formula for making a diluted bleach solution: Use 5 tablespoons (1/3 cup) of bleach in one gallon of water or 4 teaspoons of bleach in one quart of water.

Keep in mind that bleach is a harsh cleaner. So if you go this route, do a little test before you clean an entire surface with your homemade bleach solution. Be careful not to let it splash onto anything else. Bleach can also damage some paint, and over time, it can corrode metal. So be cautious if you use it, Sachleben told NBC News BETTER.


Hydrogen peroxide

Hydrogen peroxide is not as strong as bleach, so it’s less likely to cause damage, but it can discolor some fabrics, Sachleben said. Don’t dilute it, use it straight. Hydrogen peroxide decomposes into water and oxygen.


Alcohol

Rubbing alcohol products that are at least 70 percent alcohol will kill the coronavirus with less potential for damage than bleach. When using rubbing alcohol, don’t dilute it. Consumer Reports says rubbing alcohol is safe for all surfaces, but can discolor some plastics.


Don’t count on distilled white vinegar or vodka

Many people clean with vinegar. It’s cheap and natural. Cleaning recommendations are easy to find online, but Consumer Reports cautions: “There is no evidence that they are effective against coronavirus.”

Despite what you may have seen on social media, vodka is not effective at sanitizing, nor are any other types of distilled spirits.

“Please, do not use vodka to clean your surfaces,” Roberts said. “The concentration of alcohol in vodka is not high enough to kill viruses.”

Tito’s Handmade Vodka tweeted a warning that its vodka is only 40 percent alcohol, and therefore, “does not meet the current recommendation of the CDC” that hand sanitizer needs to contain at least 60 percent alcohol.

Proper technique: A quick swipe isn’t good enough

“To decontaminate a surface, you can’t just swipe it, you’ve got to scrub it, really scrub it until the entire surface is wet, and then let it dry on its own,” Pottinger said. “The elbow grease and force that you put into the cleaning process can really pay dividends. You've got to physically wipe away the grime. The antiseptic agent is the additional measure of security that any virus left behind will be killed.”

It’s critically important to use enough of the disinfectant and give it time to work. Here’s how Clorox says to disinfect hard, nonporous surfaces with its wipes: “Use enough wipes for treated surface to remain visibly wet for 4 minutes. Let surface dry.”

Beware of hucksters selling bogus products

There is no treatment or cure for COVID-19, but that hasn’t stopped people from trying to sell them.

Last week, the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission sent warning letters to seven companies for selling “fraudulent” COVID-19 products. The companies were told their products are “unapproved drugs that pose significant risks to patient health and violate federal law.”

One of those warning letters was sent to “The Jim Bakker Show.” In mid-February, the disgraced televangelist promoted a potential cure called “Silver Solution” that contained colloidal silver. The FDA had previously warned that colloidal silver “is not safe or effective for treating any disease or condition.”


Should you consider making your own hand sanitizer?

It’s easy to go online and find advice about how to make your own hand sanitizer. So, is this a good idea? Opinions vary. Consumer Reports advises against it.

“Most of the experts that we've talked to have said this is not the best idea,” Roberts said. “You may not get the concentrations right. And if your solution doesn't have a high enough concentration of alcohol, it won't be doing you any good.”

Sachleben also has concerns about DIY hand sanitizer recipes. He’s a chemist and even he said he doesn’t mix his own disinfectant products at home. “You’ll never know what you’re doing is as good as what you can buy at the store,” he said. “If you buy it, you know it'll work.”

Swartzberg believes that doing something is ultimately better than doing nothing, but he worries that DIY hand sanitizers might give people a false sense of security. “I’m concerned people will not prepare it with the correct percentage of alcohol,” he said. “People may be fooling themselves into thinking that they’re using something that will help, when it won’t.”

Remember: Alcohol-based hand sanitizers are not as effective when our hands are visibly dirty or greasy. That's why it's important to wash with soap and water.


Moisturize your hands

With increased handwashing and sanitizing, your hands may get dry and start to crack. Those cracks give germs a place to hide. It’s important to use a good moisturizer to prevent that from happening.

Consumer Reports recommends products that contain ceramides (oils), dimethicone (a type of silicone) and shea butter, which help provide a good seal on the skin. “The thicker the better,” they say. Greasy ointments, such as petroleum jelly, form a stronger barrier than creams and lotions.


MORE CLEANING TIPS


Coronavirus ‘Stimulus’ An Unpaid Boondoggle That...


Coronavirus ‘Stimulus’ 
An Unpaid Boondoggle That Already Needs Fixing

The leaders of both parties made getting Congress out of town a bigger priority than giving lawmakers the time to do their due diligence.

As Yogi Berra’s infamous saying goes, it’s déjà vu all over again—and not in a good way.

I refer not just to the rapid economic slowdown, panicky markets, and multiple Federal Reserve bailouts related to the coronavirus epidemic, all of which echo the financial crisis of 2008. I speak also of Nancy Pelosi’s infamous comments a decade ago this month about Obamacare:

The House of Representatives—both Democrats and most (all but 40) Republicans—went along with legislation that not only wasn’t paid for, and didn’t contain any long-term reforms to programs desperately in need of them. They passed a bill whose cost still remains unknown (the Congressional Budget Office has yet to issue a cost estimate), which none of them had time to read—and might not even accomplish its supposed objectives.

Word emerged over the weekend that flaws in the bill require at least one, and possibly more than one, correction. The Wall Street Journal reported the House will attempt to pass “a technical fix on Monday.” But even as Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who negotiated the package with Pelosi despite being “relatively green” on such matters, tried to minimize the objections, others weighed in more strongly.

The Capitol Hill publication Roll Call said the bill may need a “do-over” regarding its paid family leave provisions. The National Federation of Independent Business weighed in with objections after the bill’s passage in the House, saying that small firms wouldn’t receive the tax credits quickly enough, and could face cash-flow problems as a result.

A congressional source confirmed to me that concerns about the family leave provisions could prompt a rewrite that’s more than technical in nature. These developments should surprise no one acquainted with prior slapdash attempts to legislate on the fly, but they should force Congress to slow down such a ridiculous process.

TARP and Obamacare

This past weekend, House leaders released the final version of their “stimulus” legislation at 11:45 p.m. Friday night. The House’s vote on the bill ended at 12:51 a.m. Saturday—just more than an hour later. Members of Congress had a whopping 66 minutes to review the 110-page bill before voting on it. Even the Republican Study Committee, a conservative caucus in the House, barely had time to issue a 10-page summary of the bill before the vote gaveled to a close.

That the legislation needs a technical fix (and possibly more than one) merely continues Congress’ practice of passing complicated legislation members do not understand. For instance, in March 2009 Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) had to accept responsibility for inserting a provision into the “stimulus” at the behest of Obama administration officials that allowed AIG officials to collect more than $1 billion in bonuses, despite the firm requiring a massive bailout from the federal government via the Troubled Assets Relief Program. The entire controversy demonstrated that no one, not even the lawmakers who drafted the “stimulus” and TARP bills, fully understood the bills or their effects.

Consider too this description of the infamous Obamacare bill:
The Affordable Care Act contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting. (To cite just one, the Act creates three separate Section 1563s.) Several features of the Act’s passage contributed to that unfortunate reality. Congress wrote key parts of the Act behind closed doors, rather than through ‘the traditional legislative process.’…. As a result, the Act does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation.
That description comes from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’s 2015 ruling in King v. Burwell, a case about whether individuals purchasing coverage from the federal exchange qualified for subsidies. Roberts’s ruling called the language a drafting error, and permitted individuals in all states to receive the subsidies. But if an innocent drafting error, the mistake had potentially far-reaching implications, which few if any members of Congress realized when they voted for the bill—without reading it, of course.

Rushing for the Exits

To call the nascent controversy surrounding the “stimulus” legislation a fiasco would put it mildly. Worse yet, much of the controversy seems unnecessary and entirely self-inflicted.

Congress had absolutely no reason to pass the bill just before 1 a.m. on Saturday. Financial markets had closed for the weekend, and the Senate had adjourned until Monday afternoon. Voting early Saturday morning, as opposed to later in the day on Saturday, or even on Sunday, didn’t accelerate passage of the bill one bit. However, it did allow members of Congress to leave Washington more quickly.

In other words, the leaders of both parties—who agreed to the rushed process leading up to the vote—made getting members out of town a bigger priority than giving members the time to do their due diligence as lawmakers. It’s an understandable instinct, given the serious consequences of the coronavirus on all Americans, particularly the older profile of many legislators. But it’s also an abdication of Pelosi’s own claim last week that “we’re the captains of this ship.”


Chris Jacobs is founder and CEO of Juniper Research Group, and author of the book, "The Case Against Single Payer." He is on Twitter: @chrisjacobsHC.

Kudlow Explains $800 Billion in Options for Direct Financial Infusion to Middle Class


National Economic Council (NEC) Director Larry Kudlow held an impromptu press conference to describe what sectors of the U.S. economy may need direct financial assistance to bridge revenue gaps from mandated government policy. The stock market is not the U.S. economy.

Calling this type of financial assistance a “bailout” is not a fair term considering the financial impact was created by government instruction.  Government orders to shut down restaurants creates a financial loss for restaurants who also have bills and payroll obligations to meet.  These types of affected businesses will need immediate assistance.

Airlines, hotels, resorts, private parks, gyms, restaurants and various entertainment companies/industries may also need a direct infusion of cash or deferred tax payment to compensate for financial losses.  Again, these businesses have been impacted by government ordering their closure. Depending on the size of the business, the need for gap funds may be urgent.




WH Trade Advisor Peter Navarro Discusses Coronavirus Mitigation on Multiple Fronts



White House trade advisor Peter Navarro appears on CNBC to discuss the White House’s response to the coronavirus outbreak, and the administration’s plan to help stimulate the economy.

Navarro gives examples of the public-private partnership working together with logistics of getting critical supplies distributed; also Navarro discusses the importance of timely and targeted stimulus measures.   Additionally, Navarro outlines the construct of a likely executive order to shift medical supply manufacturing back to the U.S.


How Roman Central Planners Destroyed Their Economy


How Roman Central Planners 
Destroyed Their Economy

Spending, inflation, and economic controls destroy wealth and create conflict.


In 449 B.C., the Roman government passed the Law of the Twelve Tables, regulating much of commercial, social, and family life. Some of these laws were reasonable and consistent with an economy of contract and commerce; others prescribed gruesome punishments and assigned cruel powers and privileges given to some. Other regulations fixed a maximum rate of interest on loans of approximately 8 percent. The Roman government also had the habit of periodically forgiving all interest owed in the society; that is, it legally freed private debtors from having to pay back interest due to private creditors. 

In 45 B.C., Julius Caesar discovered that almost one-third of the Roman citizenry was receiving their grain supply for free from the State. 
The Roman government also set price controls on wheat. In the fourth century, B.C., the Roman government would buy grain during periods of shortages and sell it at a price fixed far below the market price. In 58 B.C., this was improved upon; the government gave grain away to the citizens of Rome at a zero price, that is, for free. 

The result was inevitable: farmers left the land and flocked to Rome; this, of course, only made the problem worse, since with fewer farmers on the land in the territories surrounding Rome, less grain than before was being grown and brought to the market. Also, masters were freeing their slaves and placing the financial burden for feeding them on the Roman government at that zero price. 

In 45 B.C., Julius Caesar discovered that almost one-third of the Roman citizenry was receiving their grain supply for free from the State. 

To deal with the financial cost of these supplies of wheat, the Roman government resorted to debasement of the currency, that is, inflation. Pricing-fixing of grain, shortages of supply, rising budgetary problems for the Roman government, monetary debasement and resulting worsening price inflation were a continual occurrence through long periods of Roman history.

Spending, Inflation and Economic Controls Under Diocletian
The most famous episode of price controls in Roman history was during the reign of Emperor Diocletian (A.D. 244-312). He assumed the throne in Rome in A.D. 284. Almost immediately, Diocletian began to undertake huge and financially expensive government spending projects. 

There was a massive increase in the armed forces and military spending; a huge building project was started in the form of a planned new capital for the Roman Empire in Asia Minor (present-day Turkey) at the city of Nicomedia; he greatly expanded the Roman bureaucracy; and he instituted forced labor for completion of his public works projects.

The Roman government stopped accepting its own debased money as payment for taxes owed and required taxes to be paid in kind.
To finance all of these government activities, Diocletian dramatically raised taxes on all segments of the Roman population. These resulted in the expected disincentives against work, production, savings, and investment that have long been seen as the consequences of high levels and rates of taxation. It resulted in a decline in commerce and trade, as well. 

When taxation no longer generated enough revenue to finance all of these activities, Emperor Diocletian resorted to debasement of the currency. Gold and silver coinage would have their metal content reduced and reissued by the government with the claim that their metallic value was the same as before. The government passed legal tender laws requiring Roman citizens and subjects throughout the Empire to accept these debased coins at the higher value stamped on each of the coin’s faces.

The result of this was inevitable, too. Since in terms of the actual gold and silver contained in them, these legal tender coins had a lower value, traders would only accept them at a discount. That is, they were soon devalued in the market place. People began to hoard all the gold and silver coins that still contained the higher gold and silver content and using the debased coins in market trading. 

This, of course, meant that each of the debased coins would only buy a smaller quantity of goods on the market than before; or expressed the other way around, more of these debased coins now had to be given in exchange for the same amount of commodities as before. The price inflation became worse and worse as the Emperor issued more and more of these increasingly worthless forms of money.

The penalty imposed for violation of these price and wage controls was death.

Diocletian also instituted a tax-in-kind; that is, the Roman government would not accept its own worthless, debased money as payment for taxes owed. Since the Roman taxpayers had to meet their tax bills in actual goods, this immobilized the entire population. Many were now bound to the land or a given occupation, so as to assure that they had produced the products that the government demanded as due it at tax collection time.  An increasingly rigid economic structure, therefore, was imposed on the whole Roman economy.

Diocletian’s Edict Made Everything Worse
But the worst was still to come.  In A.D. 301, the famous Edict of Diocletian was passed. The Emperor fixed the prices of grain, beef, eggs, clothing, and other articles sold on the market. He also fixed the wages of those employed in the production of these goods. The penalty imposed for violation of these price and wage controls, that is, for any one caught selling any of these goods at higher than prescribed prices and wages, was death.

Realizing that once these controls were announced, many farmers and manufacturers would lose all incentive to bring their commodities to market at prices set far below what the traders would consider fair market values, Diocletian also prescribed in the Edict that all those who were found to be “hoarding” goods off the market would be severely punished; their goods would be confiscated and they would be put to death.  

In the Greek parts of the Roman Empire, archeologists have found the price tables listing the government-mandated prices. They list over 1,000 individual prices and wages set by the law and what the permitted price and wage was to be for each of the commodities, goods, and labor services.

A Roman of this period named Lactanius wrote during this time that Diocletian “ . . . then set himself to regulate the prices of all vendible things. There was much blood shed upon very slight and trifling accounts; and the people brought no more provisions to market, since they could not get a reasonable price for them and this increased the dearth [the scarcity] so much, that at last after many had died by it, the law was set aside.”

The Consequences and Lessons from Roman Economic Policy
Roland Kent, an economic historian of this period, has summarized the consequences of Diocletian’s Edict in the following way: 
“ . . . The price limits set in the Edict were not observed by the traders, in spite of the death penalty provided in the statute for its violation; would-be purchasers finding that the prices were above the legal limit, formed mobs and wrecked the offending traders’ establishments, incidentally killing the traders, though the goods were after all of trifling value; traders hoarded their goods against the day when the restrictions should be removed, and the resulting scarcity of wares actually offered for sale caused an even greater increase in prices, so that what trading went on was at illegal prices, therefore, performed clandestinely.”
The economic effects were so disastrous to the Roman economy that four years after putting the Edict into law, Diocletian abdicated, claiming “poor health” – a euphemism throughout history reflecting that if the political leader does not step down from power, others will remove him, often through assassination.  And while the Edict was never formally repealed, it soon became a dead letter shortly after Diocletian left the throne.

Michael Ivanovich Rostovtzeff, a leading historian on the ancient Roman economy, offered this summary in his Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire (1926):
“The same expedient [a system of price and wage controls] have often been tried before him [Diocletian] and was often tried after him. As a temporary measure in a critical time, it might be of some use. As a general measure intended to last, it was certain to do great harm and to cause terrible bloodshed, without bringing any relief. Diocletian shared the pernicious belief of the ancient world in the omnipotence of the state, a belief which many modern theorists continue to share with him and with it.”

Finally, as, again, Ludwig von Mises concluded, the Roman Empire began to weaken and decay because it lacked the ideas and ideology that are necessary to build upon and safeguard a free and prosperous society: a philosophy of individual rights and free markets. As Mises ended his own reflections on the civilizations of the ancient world: 
“The marvelous civilization of antiquity perished because it did not adjust its moral code and its legal system to the requirements of the market economy. A social order is doomed if the actions which its normal functioning requires are rejected by the standards of morality, are declared illegal by the laws of the country, and are prosecuted as criminal by the courts and the police. The Roman Empire crumbled to dust because it lacked the spirit of [classical] liberalism and free enterprise. The policy of interventionism and its political corollary, the Fuhrer principle, decomposed the mighty empire as they will by necessity always disintegrate and destroy any social entity.” 

What Does A Pandemic Show Us?



A pandemic (from Greek πᾶν pan "all" and δῆμος demos "people") is a disease epidemic that has spread across a large region. 

So, obviously the Coronavirus is a Pandemic, and we are seeing that it has a dramatic effect on societies. But does a Pandemic show us that Liberal ideologies afford a greater effect of a Pandemic on societies than other ideologies? 

Let's see:

Liberals support: 

Urbanization: with large growth of cities where people live in High Rises versus Individual Homes.

Public Transportation: trains and buses loaded with lots of individuals of all class and economic status on life.

Open Borders: let anyone into your country regardless of their condition, economic status or educational level.

CDC recommends:

1. Self Observation: Be aware of the symptoms: Fever, Cough, Difficulty Breathing. if detected,self isolate, limit contact with others, take periodic temperaturesandseek advice via mobile medical facilities.
2. Avoiding close contacts: Maintain at least 6 feet (2 meters) from other people. Do not cluster in large groups or venues.
3. Circulate Fresh Air: Open your windows and allow fresh air into your domicile.
4. Disinfectate: Wash your hands for a minimum of 20 seconds often.

So...... Liberals want us in High Rises packed in like sheep, riding trains and busses like cattle cars and interacting with all types of people from countries where healthcare and hygiene is almost non-existant.

One last thing Liberals want, BUREAUCRACY!!

We just saw 3 years of a coup attempt by a bureaucracy losing power, they dreamed up a fake dossier, fake Russian Collusion accusations and a 2 year investigation by their people.  All that failed. So they tried again with IMPEACHMENT! When that failed they cried coverup.

So folks, If the bureaucracy couldn't even enact a coup with their people, their evidence and their investigators, why think they could add thousands of useless quota picked individuals to handle the Pandemic?

They knew Impeachment would fail yet they moved ahead with articles which had no basius for fact let alone defense.

So.... we see that Liberals ideas are detrimental in the event of a Pandemic or other such catastrophe.


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/03/16/nolte-mass-transit-reusable-bags-and-other-leftist-ideas-coronavirus-reveals-as-deadly/

They agree with me!!!!


While We Are Fighting Wuhan Virus by Lockdown the Dutch Are Taking a Different Approach



Yesterday, President Trump encouraged the country to come to a screeching halt for a couple of weeks to combat the spread of Wuhan virus. I have a lot of doubts that this will work–our neighbors to the north are still accepting flights from China–or can work. 
(Update: Canada finally stopped accepting Chinese)

Wuhan virus is a part of our ecosystem. It, like influenza, will be something we just have to deal with until the end of time. The gamble is that this initial burst of the pandemic burns itself out, aided by increasing temperatures and humidity, before the economy craters. If we gamble wrong and Wuhan virus surges back after the informal lockdown periods cease, then all we’ve done in the long term is nothing. The flip side of the coin is that people who survive Wuhan…and here I’m talking about virtually everyone who gets it, are left with some degree of immunity but people who got through it by self-quarantine will be just as vulnerable 4 or 5 weeks or 4 or 5  months from now as they are today.

The other strategy available is to say f*** it, we can’t stamp this out, it’s going to be with us perpetually, lets let is run its course, try to isolate the highest risk citizens, and rely upon what is known as herd immunity for protection. Herd immunity is defined by the CDC as ““a situation in which a sufficient proportion of a population is immune to an infectious disease (through vaccination and/or prior illness) to make its spread from person to person unlikely.” That is what childhood vaccinations try to accomplish. If you can vaccinate 80% of the population, then the ability of a disease to spread approaches zero. That’s because most of the population can’t carry the disease and that protects the part of the population that cannot or will not vaccinate.

This latter strategy has been selected by the Netherlands.

In a rather historical speech, the first national address by a prime minister since the 1970s, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte addressed the country on live TV from The Hague.
The prime minister started his speech by giving his condolences to the families of the people who have died of Covid-19 and acknowledging the concerns of the Dutch people. “Tonight, my message is a difficult one. The coronavirus is here to stay. There is no quick escape out of this situation. A large part of the population will get infected by the virus.”
Three possible scenarios
In his speech, Rutte mentioned that there were three possible scenarios:
  1. Trying to get maximum control over the virus, a.k.a flattening the curve. This way, we will build herd immunity to protect the elderly and immunocompromised, and our health care system will not collapse.
  2. Let the virus spin out of control, something which we will have to avoid at all costs.
  3. A nationwide lockdown. This is an option many countries are choosing, but is not preferable according to the experts, as a lockdown would probably last for months if not a year.
The Dutch government has chosen to go with the first scenario, to limit the spread of the virus as much as possible. However, the prime minister also stated that there is always a possibility that extra measures will be taken if the experts deem it necessary.

Last week it seemed like the British government was also about to choose herd immunity but after a high profile article published to that imagined a death toll as high as 250,000, the government changed course.

No one knows how this will play out. Will the Dutch be considered prescient or buffoons? Will the aggregate death toll in the country go up? Or will deaths from Wuhan virus consist of elderly, sick, and immune compromised people who would have died of influenza or pneumonia or some other infection? What I do think we know is this. The self-quarantine/lockdown regime we’re trying is a very expensive band-aid. The disease is here to stay and the real challenge is not how we manage this outbreak but how we manage to live with it. With herd immunity, or with a widely available vaccine, it is manageable. What we don’t know, and won’t know for many months, is if a vaccine for Wuhan virus is even practicable. Will it be like measles or whooping cough? Or will it be moving target like influenza? Or will in be like AIDS and the common cold and be totally resistant to efforts to develop a vaccine? If it is the first situation, then we may have the luxury of snickering at the Dutch and their fatalism. If it is the latter scenario, we have spent months in panic and billions of dollars in lost productivity and next winter we’ll have to do what the Dutch did.