The president botched an excellent opportunity during a press conference on the corona virus status when NBC correspondent Peter Alexander asked, "What would you say to the American people who are scared?"
But instead of reassuring the public during the nationally televised session that there is no need to panic, but there is a need to work together toward dealing with the crisis, the president resorted to a personal attack:
"I would say you're a terrible reporter," the president said. And went downhill from there.
It was a fair and legitimate question, since many people are frightened because of the mounting infections and deaths. Clearly, however, the president has taken a personal dislike to this particular reporter, and took this opportunity to attack the journalist rather than answer the question. Perhaps because he does not have an answer, which in itself speaks volumes about his own abilities and knowledge.
Friday, March 20, 2020
Wednesday, March 18, 2020
Election Delay?
Now that the president has called a national emergency because of the corona virus, and states have delayed primary elections for the same reason, is it likely that the president will also call off the national election scheduled for November?
And if he does, will he refuse to leave office when his term expires in January, on the premise that elections were not held as the Constitution specifies?
In turn, does this mean he has suspended the Constitution?
We live in interesting times.
And if he does, will he refuse to leave office when his term expires in January, on the premise that elections were not held as the Constitution specifies?
In turn, does this mean he has suspended the Constitution?
We live in interesting times.
Monday, March 16, 2020
Crash
The president acknowledged today that the American economy "may be heading for a recession."
This after the leading Wall Street index, the Dow Jones Industrial Average, dropped by nearly 3,000 points today, its largest point drop ever and the greatest daily percentage drop (12.93 percent) since October 1987, the start of the Great Recession.
The evidence of a coming recession is clear, and the strongest indicator is what economists know as an "inverted yield curve," where long-term bond interest rates are lower then short-term rates. This happens when investors pull their money out of stocks and buy long-term bonds instead because it's safer.
This indicator has predicted every recession for the past 85 years. The problem in the past, however, has been timing. There was no sure way of knowing the time lapse between a yield curve inversion and the start of an economic downturn. Now, however, it's clear that a recession is on the way, and part of the blame goes to the corona virus stalling so much activity in America and around the world.
Even so, at his news conference today, the president gave himself a score of 10 out of 10 for his handling of the crisis brought on by the virus outbreak, which he said could well last through the summer.
Economic cycles are like ocean tides -- they come and go. But unlike tides, economic cycles cannot be accurately predicted. There is on concept, however, which historically has a good record of anticipating a downturn, and that is the inverted yield curve.
It's an arcane concept to many, but is basic in Economics 101. While it may be a useful concept for policy makers to have in mind when advising government leaders, the variable time lapse can limit its usefulness.
Now, however, its usefulness is clear. The American economy is on the verge of a downturn. Another strong signal is that the Federal Reserve Board, after an emergency Sunday meeting, cut its major interest rate to near zero -- its way of encouraging businesses to borrow for regular operations and for expansion.
But will it be enough? Already, airlines, resorts, cruise lines and other major industries serving the tourist industry are hurting as entire nations go on lockdown because of corona virus fears. Cities and states throughout America have closed schools and businesses, and now the federal government has stepped in to ban gatherings of more than ten people.
How long will these measure be in force? Hard to predict, but even the president, with health experts at his side, said it may well last until July or August.
All things considered, however, it may well be that America is sliding toward its worst economic crisis since the 1930s.
And here's a curiosity for history buffs to consider: Every major downturn since then has happened when a Republican occupied the Oval Office.
This after the leading Wall Street index, the Dow Jones Industrial Average, dropped by nearly 3,000 points today, its largest point drop ever and the greatest daily percentage drop (12.93 percent) since October 1987, the start of the Great Recession.
The evidence of a coming recession is clear, and the strongest indicator is what economists know as an "inverted yield curve," where long-term bond interest rates are lower then short-term rates. This happens when investors pull their money out of stocks and buy long-term bonds instead because it's safer.
This indicator has predicted every recession for the past 85 years. The problem in the past, however, has been timing. There was no sure way of knowing the time lapse between a yield curve inversion and the start of an economic downturn. Now, however, it's clear that a recession is on the way, and part of the blame goes to the corona virus stalling so much activity in America and around the world.
Even so, at his news conference today, the president gave himself a score of 10 out of 10 for his handling of the crisis brought on by the virus outbreak, which he said could well last through the summer.
Economic cycles are like ocean tides -- they come and go. But unlike tides, economic cycles cannot be accurately predicted. There is on concept, however, which historically has a good record of anticipating a downturn, and that is the inverted yield curve.
It's an arcane concept to many, but is basic in Economics 101. While it may be a useful concept for policy makers to have in mind when advising government leaders, the variable time lapse can limit its usefulness.
Now, however, its usefulness is clear. The American economy is on the verge of a downturn. Another strong signal is that the Federal Reserve Board, after an emergency Sunday meeting, cut its major interest rate to near zero -- its way of encouraging businesses to borrow for regular operations and for expansion.
But will it be enough? Already, airlines, resorts, cruise lines and other major industries serving the tourist industry are hurting as entire nations go on lockdown because of corona virus fears. Cities and states throughout America have closed schools and businesses, and now the federal government has stepped in to ban gatherings of more than ten people.
How long will these measure be in force? Hard to predict, but even the president, with health experts at his side, said it may well last until July or August.
All things considered, however, it may well be that America is sliding toward its worst economic crisis since the 1930s.
And here's a curiosity for history buffs to consider: Every major downturn since then has happened when a Republican occupied the Oval Office.
Saturday, March 14, 2020
Passing the Buck
"I don't take responsibility for that at all ." -- Donald Trump
"The buck stops here." -- Harry Truman
The president was asked at a news conference about the delay in preparing for the corona virus invasion and his breakup more than a year ago of the pandemic response team at the National Institutes of Health.
His response, heard by millions during a nationally televised Q&A session: "I don't take responsibility for that at all."
This may be the last straw for American voters.
"The buck stops here." -- Harry Truman
The president was asked at a news conference about the delay in preparing for the corona virus invasion and his breakup more than a year ago of the pandemic response team at the National Institutes of Health.
His response, heard by millions during a nationally televised Q&A session: "I don't take responsibility for that at all."
This may be the last straw for American voters.
Wednesday, March 11, 2020
Going Viral
It's now official. Corona virus infections have reached the level of a pandemic, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), despite efforts by some government officials to talk down the intensity or the importance of the health dangers. The upper respiratory infection caused by the virus has now reached every continent (except Antarctica) and continues to grow.
But what is a pandemic, anyway, and how does it differ from an epidemic? Mostly in area and the number of victims. Severity plays a part, but many victims suffer no more than if they had a severe cold or a form of influenza. In fact, more people die of the flu than currently are victimized by the corona virus.
That may change, of course, since so little is known about this particular viral strain. And that, moreover, is a major part of the problem, which is rising to near panic levels in many parts of the world. Some governors in America have declared a state of emergency in their jurisdictions, airlines and resorts are suffering revenue declines as tourists and vacationers cancel plans because of virus fears, the National Guard has been called out to minimize activity in a suburb of New York City, and Italy has sharply limited travel in the entire nation.
But at its root, a pandemic is called that simply because of its name: Pan- means all, or everywhere, and -dem refers to people. The prefix epi- implies a surge, as in the top of something. So while an epidemic is similar to the top of a curve, a pandemic implies that the problem will reach a high and stay there.
The current problem, however, is how to establish the top of the surge and how long infections will remain at a high.
Meanwhile, efforts to find a vaccine have ramped up. A bit late, considering that experts warned of the potential dangers some months ago. Their warnings, however, were dismissed by some government leaders as unimportant, that the infection is no worse than the common cold.
Then people started dying.
But what is a pandemic, anyway, and how does it differ from an epidemic? Mostly in area and the number of victims. Severity plays a part, but many victims suffer no more than if they had a severe cold or a form of influenza. In fact, more people die of the flu than currently are victimized by the corona virus.
That may change, of course, since so little is known about this particular viral strain. And that, moreover, is a major part of the problem, which is rising to near panic levels in many parts of the world. Some governors in America have declared a state of emergency in their jurisdictions, airlines and resorts are suffering revenue declines as tourists and vacationers cancel plans because of virus fears, the National Guard has been called out to minimize activity in a suburb of New York City, and Italy has sharply limited travel in the entire nation.
But at its root, a pandemic is called that simply because of its name: Pan- means all, or everywhere, and -dem refers to people. The prefix epi- implies a surge, as in the top of something. So while an epidemic is similar to the top of a curve, a pandemic implies that the problem will reach a high and stay there.
The current problem, however, is how to establish the top of the surge and how long infections will remain at a high.
Meanwhile, efforts to find a vaccine have ramped up. A bit late, considering that experts warned of the potential dangers some months ago. Their warnings, however, were dismissed by some government leaders as unimportant, that the infection is no worse than the common cold.
Then people started dying.
Tuesday, March 10, 2020
Secure Society
Politics and economics are often a poor mix. Some say we should not try to mix the two at all. But in the real world they interact every day.
Historically, the academic study of what people do with what's available was known as political economics when considering a large community -- city, state, or nation, based on the Greek term polis, (many), and on a family level it was called home economics.
Those of a certain age may remember that girls in secondary school studied home economics (cooking, sewing, etc.), while boys took shop classes (carpentry, auto repair, machine shop). Also, at that time, only girls were allowed to learn how to use a typewriter, on the assumption that they would become secretaries to the boys who would be company executives.
Those days are long gone. The advent of computers meant knowing how to use a keyboard was essential, so boys learned that. It would still be many years, however, before women attained equal status as computer programmers.
Are we there yet?
Women have made great strides in business, economics and politics, even as many claim that, too, is a poor mix. Realists, however, insist they can and do mix, and any problems that arise are because of a clash of ideas and principles.
At one time -- the 19th Century -- before the study of economics became a widespread academic discipline, business leaders maintained that just as women had no role in company management, government likewise had no role in managing a national or even a regional economy, and government should stay out and things would find their own way to prosperity.
Some still hold to that guideline. Or, to use the French phrase popular at the time, it was laissez faire economics (let it work alone).
That changed, however, when it because obvious that government was a major component in any nation's activity, and to ignore it was silly. Moreover, when the private sector hit a snag, government could step in to help.
To them, government spending -- even when it outpaced tax revenue -- was an essential tool for economic recovery. Later, when the private sector was doing well again, government should step back and get out of the way -- to stop competing for access to resources.
Even in good times, then, realist economists measure government spending as part of GDP (Gross Domestic Product), the total value of all goods and services produced in a nation.
To insist, as some still do, that government has no role in helping to guide an economy through difficult times, is not only unrealistic, it is blind to reality. Government does indeed have a role in an economy, so the issue is really this: How much of a role is appropriate?
Complete absence, as in laissez faire (leave it alone) economics, is disastrous, as has been shown numerous times in American history. Complete government control, the other extreme, also doesn't work and too often leads to a dictatorship. This extreme has also been documented several times in world history.
Somewhere in the middle, then, would be the safest and most practical place to be -- somewhere between pure capitalism and pure socialism, neither of which succeed in the real world.
The current American election season presents voters with a choice of approaches to an appropriate role of government in the national economy.
Much as conservatives might deny it, moreover, the role of government in promoting social welfare has been expanding steadily since the Great Depression of the 1930s. At that time, there was no such thing as government assistance for those out of work, who lost their source of income through no fault of their own.
There also was no government-run pension system for retired workers whose employers did not offer pensions. Coincidentally, one of the reasons to encourage retirement at age 65 was to make jobs available for young workers. Moreover, the average life span of many American workers was only about 70, which helped to minimize government responsibility. In addition, there was no government-run program to help the sick whose employers did not provide health insurance and did not pay enough for workers to buy their own.
All these were the start of government activity to help provide security to every member of society. That's why it's called Social Security.
So if the private sector cannot or will not cooperate to help build a healthy, secure society, it falls to the people themselves, through their elected government, to do so.
In America recently, all three segments of society, have been cooperating to secure the health and well being of all. And unless a demagogue succeeds in radicalizing the economy and the government in either direction, society will be secure.
Historically, the academic study of what people do with what's available was known as political economics when considering a large community -- city, state, or nation, based on the Greek term polis, (many), and on a family level it was called home economics.
Those of a certain age may remember that girls in secondary school studied home economics (cooking, sewing, etc.), while boys took shop classes (carpentry, auto repair, machine shop). Also, at that time, only girls were allowed to learn how to use a typewriter, on the assumption that they would become secretaries to the boys who would be company executives.
Those days are long gone. The advent of computers meant knowing how to use a keyboard was essential, so boys learned that. It would still be many years, however, before women attained equal status as computer programmers.
Are we there yet?
Women have made great strides in business, economics and politics, even as many claim that, too, is a poor mix. Realists, however, insist they can and do mix, and any problems that arise are because of a clash of ideas and principles.
At one time -- the 19th Century -- before the study of economics became a widespread academic discipline, business leaders maintained that just as women had no role in company management, government likewise had no role in managing a national or even a regional economy, and government should stay out and things would find their own way to prosperity.
Some still hold to that guideline. Or, to use the French phrase popular at the time, it was laissez faire economics (let it work alone).
That changed, however, when it because obvious that government was a major component in any nation's activity, and to ignore it was silly. Moreover, when the private sector hit a snag, government could step in to help.
To them, government spending -- even when it outpaced tax revenue -- was an essential tool for economic recovery. Later, when the private sector was doing well again, government should step back and get out of the way -- to stop competing for access to resources.
Even in good times, then, realist economists measure government spending as part of GDP (Gross Domestic Product), the total value of all goods and services produced in a nation.
To insist, as some still do, that government has no role in helping to guide an economy through difficult times, is not only unrealistic, it is blind to reality. Government does indeed have a role in an economy, so the issue is really this: How much of a role is appropriate?
Complete absence, as in laissez faire (leave it alone) economics, is disastrous, as has been shown numerous times in American history. Complete government control, the other extreme, also doesn't work and too often leads to a dictatorship. This extreme has also been documented several times in world history.
Somewhere in the middle, then, would be the safest and most practical place to be -- somewhere between pure capitalism and pure socialism, neither of which succeed in the real world.
The current American election season presents voters with a choice of approaches to an appropriate role of government in the national economy.
Much as conservatives might deny it, moreover, the role of government in promoting social welfare has been expanding steadily since the Great Depression of the 1930s. At that time, there was no such thing as government assistance for those out of work, who lost their source of income through no fault of their own.
There also was no government-run pension system for retired workers whose employers did not offer pensions. Coincidentally, one of the reasons to encourage retirement at age 65 was to make jobs available for young workers. Moreover, the average life span of many American workers was only about 70, which helped to minimize government responsibility. In addition, there was no government-run program to help the sick whose employers did not provide health insurance and did not pay enough for workers to buy their own.
All these were the start of government activity to help provide security to every member of society. That's why it's called Social Security.
So if the private sector cannot or will not cooperate to help build a healthy, secure society, it falls to the people themselves, through their elected government, to do so.
In America recently, all three segments of society, have been cooperating to secure the health and well being of all. And unless a demagogue succeeds in radicalizing the economy and the government in either direction, society will be secure.
Wednesday, March 4, 2020
Super Tuesday
Primary elections in 14 states -- including the territory of American Samoa -- a spreading corona virus, a stock market trying to recover from a near collapse, and the Federal Reserve Board slashing a key interest rate by half a point.
All combined to make for a super news day. Not that the news is super as in good, but super as in above normal. As if there ever is a "normal" news day, because if it's normal it isn't news.
The day began with an announcement by the Fed that it was cutting its target interest rate to a range of 1 to 1.5 percent. That statement came just as the Wall Street stock market was about to open. It was immediately followed by a tweet from the president that the rate cut was not enough, that it should be cut to zero or less.
Whether the fiercely independent Fed will listen to what the president says is another issue, of course, but the idea of paying people to borrow money seems highly unlikely. And that's what a negative interest rate is. Or, as Henny Youngman might say, "Take my money. Please."
The cause of the Fed's action was on the surface a reaction to the spreading corona virus, which is near pandemic level worldwide, and as tourist and trade relations retract because of fear of contracting the disease, business suffers and drags down the economy. But it can equally be said that the economy is ready for a correction anyway, and the virus is just the final straw that outweighs the growth potential.
Whatever the Fed's intention, the stock market did not pay too much attention. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell again, by 786 points.
While the U.S. economy has been doing well -- the growth rate of total output was 2.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2019, according to government statistics -- other national economies are not. Add to that a near collapse of travel and business contact because of virus fears, and there is the potential of a major problem. That's why the Fed stepped in.
The crowded field of Democrats hoping to become president winnowed in the past few days, with former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders leading the pack in primary elections.
But the day's voting saw Biden pull sharply ahead of the others, and Mike Bloomberg dropped out, endorsing Biden on the way.
The president, meanwhile, has been actively campaigning, even though his renomination is virtually assured. Popular opposition, however, is growing stronger, with posting on public web sites becoming increasingly virulent in their name-calling, stressing his lack of knowledge -- not to say ignorance -- of important current events. The latest example is his comment that the flu vaccine is helpful in combating the corona virus.
All combined to make for a super news day. Not that the news is super as in good, but super as in above normal. As if there ever is a "normal" news day, because if it's normal it isn't news.
The day began with an announcement by the Fed that it was cutting its target interest rate to a range of 1 to 1.5 percent. That statement came just as the Wall Street stock market was about to open. It was immediately followed by a tweet from the president that the rate cut was not enough, that it should be cut to zero or less.
Whether the fiercely independent Fed will listen to what the president says is another issue, of course, but the idea of paying people to borrow money seems highly unlikely. And that's what a negative interest rate is. Or, as Henny Youngman might say, "Take my money. Please."
The cause of the Fed's action was on the surface a reaction to the spreading corona virus, which is near pandemic level worldwide, and as tourist and trade relations retract because of fear of contracting the disease, business suffers and drags down the economy. But it can equally be said that the economy is ready for a correction anyway, and the virus is just the final straw that outweighs the growth potential.
Whatever the Fed's intention, the stock market did not pay too much attention. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell again, by 786 points.
While the U.S. economy has been doing well -- the growth rate of total output was 2.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2019, according to government statistics -- other national economies are not. Add to that a near collapse of travel and business contact because of virus fears, and there is the potential of a major problem. That's why the Fed stepped in.
The crowded field of Democrats hoping to become president winnowed in the past few days, with former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders leading the pack in primary elections.
But the day's voting saw Biden pull sharply ahead of the others, and Mike Bloomberg dropped out, endorsing Biden on the way.
The president, meanwhile, has been actively campaigning, even though his renomination is virtually assured. Popular opposition, however, is growing stronger, with posting on public web sites becoming increasingly virulent in their name-calling, stressing his lack of knowledge -- not to say ignorance -- of important current events. The latest example is his comment that the flu vaccine is helpful in combating the corona virus.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)