Category: Government

Derek Chauvin conviction makes us less safe in the long run?

by philg

As predicted in How’s the Derek Chauvin trial going?, the jury agreed with the government and the rest of Derek Chauvin’s life will be at taxpayer expense, as planned, but in a prison rather than a squad car or at a desk.

Short-term positive: we don’t all have to pay higher insurance premiums to cover $billions in losses from mostly peaceful protests that would have followed an acquittal ($1-2 billion in damage from last summer’s, according to Wikipedia).

I wonder if the long-term consequences of conviction will be negative for Americans who interact with the police. Once this one bad apple is locked away, nobody will be motivated to consider whether police should be unionized and therefore effectively immune from the consequences of any misconduct short of appearing to kill someone in custody on a video recording.

In the comments to the first Chauvin-related post, I cited an NPR story: “After police officers gained access to collective bargaining rights, there was a substantial increase in the killings of civilians — overwhelmingly, nonwhite civilians.”

Having more non-white police officers won’t help, based on the George Floyd killing, since two of the four officers involved were non-white. My comment regarding those other officers:

[what Chauvin was doing] was plainly something that other police officers in Minneapolis though was okay because three of them were there on the scene and didn’t try to stop Chauvin. Now, however, his brother/sister/binary-resister officers are coming out to say that what Chauvin did was way off the reservation (and we don’t need Elizabeth Warren to tell us how bad that is).

If they can paint Chauvin as a single bad apple then they can keep the system in place indefinitely ($300,000+/year total compensation, practical immunity from almost any wrongdoing via unionization, etc.). They can say “We convicted Chauvin so now #ProblemSolved and #MissionAccomplished.”

Senorpablo’s response:

the fact that ALL FOUR of these guys didn’t have the sense to not kill a guy in broad daylight only emphasizes the level of systemic corruption in law enforcement. Not one of these guys had the sense and stones to prevent Chauvin from killing another man and also ruining his own life? I expect the same authority and power complex that police display towards the public probably exist in their own hierarchy. Police are put on the hero pedestal–we must give them tremendous latitude and we can’t possibly fire them because what they do is so dangerous(it isn’t at all). It’s a great marketing job done by the unions or whomever. It seems like the majority of police training focus on their safety and well being, at the expense of those who they are paid to serve. It’s a completely voluntary job so this seems backwards to me.

If 1-4 guys are convicted and imprisoned, it isn’t “systemic corruption” as Senorpablo put it, but 1-4 guys who are outliers.

The research psychologists say that what we consider to be fundamental personality characteristics are actually artifacts of the environment we’re in. People behave consistently because we tend to see people in the same environment over and over. If the psychologists are right, Chauvin’s behavior was strongly influenced by the environment he was in (unionized police officer in which it is almost impossible to be fired).

Since Elizabeth Warren was mentioned above, I can’t resist pointing out that she seems to be here in Jupiter, Florida with us:

Related:

  • Shooting of Justine Damond (George Floyd‘s life turned out to be worth more than Justine Damond’s, though Justine Damond had no criminal background (Floyd had been convicted of eight crimes); the city paid out $20 million to Damond’s family and $27 million to George Floyd’s. Imagine if these payments, instead of coming from taxpayers, were funded by reduced raises to the police!)
Full post, including comments

Mars “helicopter” can make Robinson owners feel good?

by philg

The Ingenuity “helicopter” (would most folks call it a “drone”?) has done some hover work on Mars.

Cost? $80 million to buy and $5 million/year to operate (Wikipedia).

The goal is to fly up to 16′ vertically and 160′ laterally.

I’m wondering if Robinson R44 owners worldwide are rejoicing. This government project makes a $400,000 Raven I purchase, adjusted for distance traveled and heights achieved, seem quite reasonable, even if you’re paying hangar rent to Bill Gates’s Signature (the climate change expert is also the world’s biggest seller of Jet A fuel to Gulfstreams).

Also fun, below is a photo of the team. They appear to be young enough to have minimal personal risk from COVID-19, yet they’re afraid to sit together unmasked (i.e., less daring than customers of a sports bar in Florida or employees at a typical FBO). They’re watching TV while sitting in front of a “Dare Mighty Things” sign.

Speaking of daring, here’s a front door sign from a coffee shop in Jupiter, Florida this morning:

Full post, including comments

Vaccine misallocations only increase Americans’ faith in bigger government?

by philg

Compared to a purely private system, in which vaccine vendors merely shipped product to customers who’d ordered it, you might think that one advantage of top-down centrally managed vaccine allocation would be that vaccines would be rushed to the states that are suffering the worst plague at any given moment. “CDC director says Michigan can’t vaccinate its way out of COVID-19 surge” (ABC):

The answer to Michigan’s COVID-19 surge is “to close things down,” according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, not an increase in vaccine supply that the state’s governor and other public health experts have called for.

Michigan’s Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer declared her state a “COVID hotspot” as cases continue to rise and has asked the federal government to increase vaccines in response.

“I believe government’s role is, when we can’t take action to protect ourselves, the government must step in,” Whitmer said on Monday. “That’s where we were a year ago. That’s where we were four months ago. We’re in a different moment. Every one of us has the ability and knowledge to do what it takes.”

“If we try to vaccinate our way out of what is happening is Michigan, we will be disappointed it took so long for the vaccine to work,” said Walensky. “We know that if vaccines go in arms today, we will not see an effect of those vaccines, depending on the vaccine for somewhere between two to six weeks.”

(The comment shows that #Science is completely different in the UK and the US. In the UK, the two-dose vaccines work well enough after one shot that the second can be delayed (in order to maximize the number of people who get the first dose). In the U.S, a shot that is considered effective in the U.K. is considered useless until 6 weeks later (two weeks after the second shot.)

Meanwhile, the New York Times says that Michigan is unable to use the vaccine that it has been sent: “Ms. Whitmer has pleaded with the White House to send extra doses, even as her state has used just 78 percent of those delivered so far.” Maybe this is an example of “The war is not meant to be won. It is meant to be continuous.” (Screenplay for an adaptation of Orwell’s 1984). The federal government would rather see a governor closing schools, businesses, etc. than actually stop the virus. If not, though, refusing to send extra vaccine to an extra-plagued state seems to contradict common sense. Why not send vaccines and, if necessary, personnel qualified to deliver them, to the areas of the U.S. that are suffering from the highest case/death rate? Then wait two weeks (UK #Science) or six weeks (US #Science) for the plague to recede.

How about when there is no crisis? Can we still generate a mismatch between supply and demand? “Want a COVID shot now? You may have to leave the Bay Area” (Mercury News):

Anxious for a COVID shot? The state will open appointments up to everyone in another week, but you may not even have to wait that long — if you’re willing to drive a few extra miles to get the jab.

A handful of vaccination sites, faced with a surplus of shots, have opened their doors wide to all adults, regardless of age, employment status, medical history or where they live. All California adults 16 and older will be eligible starting April 15, but until then, demand for vaccinations and rules for who can get one vary widely from county to county and even clinic to clinic. That means finding an appointment has turned into something of an Easter egg hunt for determined Bay Area vaccine seekers, many of whom are too desperate to wait another week or worry shots will become even harder to come by once everyone in the state is eligible. Plus, the state has confirmed it expects its supply of vaccines to drop in the coming weeks, likely slowing first-dose appointments and adding to the anxiety.

UC Davis Medical Center this week began offering vaccines to all California residents 16 and older after as many as 1,500 appointments were going unused each day.

“We decided it was better to fill those appointments with people eager to be vaccinated, rather than leave slots unfilled as we waited for the calendar to turn to April 15,” spokeswoman Tricia Tomiyoshi wrote in an emailed statement. “Every vaccination is a step closer to ending this pandemic.”

It turns out that California state government, one of the most lavishly funded enterprises in human history, is no better at allocating scarce items than was the Soviet government. Thus, we have the scenes that Americans used to deride the Soviets for, e.g., people lining up once they hear that something is available, one traveling to obtain a scarce item for which a surplus exists somewhere else.

See also this Washington Post article on how vaccine doses are piling up in federal government warehouses (like at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark) because states, e.g., plague-ridden Michigan, aren’t ordering them (due to an inability to organize and use the vaccine doses that they already have). North Carolina didn’t order their vaccine doses because it was spring break and a worldwide emergency severe enough to shut down education, social life, work, gym, suspend the Constitution (e.g., First Amendment right to assemble), etc. wasn’t enough of an emergency to force a change of plans.

One might think that the above would shake Americans’ determination to expand the size and role of the government, but instead the opposite seems to be occurring. It is a mystery to me!

(On the other hand, we could also argue that the toilet paper, paper towel, and hand sanitizer shortages of spring 2020 show that the market economy can’t cope either. The big stores weren’t willing to raise prices such that the market cleared in an Econ 101 fashion. To sell Charmin at 2-3X the regular price would have tarnished their reputation via an accusation of price gouging and profiteering. On the other hand, paper towels and toilet paper were never truly unavailable here in the Boston area. We had to buy brands we weren’t familiar with and in small quantities, e.g., at CVS and the local small grocery store, because the big box stores were sold out at their regular prices.)

Related:

  • American central planners tackle vaccine scarcity (December 31, 2020): I wonder if something more like a market economy could have done this better. The bureaucrats can send free vaccine doses to hospitals, medical and dental offices, and nursing homes. Whatever is left over goes to whatever clinic or facility bids the highest. The bidding process is necessary to ensure that clinics that have the most streamlined and efficient procedures are the ones who will get the vaccine and also to ensure that clinics won’t let doses get spoiled or expire. … At least to judge by my Facebook feed, there are a lot of suburban white and Asian Americans who feel that the cost of lockdown is negligible. They’re happy to work from home (4,000 to 6,000 square feet), order deliveries, refrain from socializing in person. These folks don’t need a vaccine because if the government recommends that they stay home for the next 5 years they will cheerfully comply. But, on the other hand, there is no central database of the Happily Shutdown. Thus, the market would be the best way to keep these folks from clogging up the vaccine line. They know that they’ll be home for another year or two, so why should they pay $500 for a shot? They’ll wait for the price to come down to $100.
  • “Nearly 40% of Marines decline COVID-19 vaccine, prompting some Democrats to urge Biden to set mandate for military” (USA Today)
Full post, including comments

Would limiting charitable deductions raise more than a wealth tax?

by philg

“President Biden not ruling out wealth tax and believes rich aren’t paying enough, White House says” (USA Todaym March 15):

Warren, who campaigned for president on a platform including a wealth tax, introduced an “ultra-millionaire tax” in her legislation. The tax would impose a 2% annual tax on the net worth of households and trusts between $50 million and $1 billion and another 1% surtax on any wealth above $1 billion.

In contrast to income taxes, which are applied to a person’s individual earnings or an entity’s profits, a wealth tax charges an amount from the value of given assets. Progressive economists have long argued for a wealth tax as a means of combating wealth inequality and other ills.

We already have a few wealth taxes, though. One is property tax, which is almost impossible to get out of. The second is capital gains tax, which actually functions as a wealth tax because it isn’t indexed to inflation. Any time someone sells a long-held asset, some of the original value will be taxed away due to the fact that even an asset whose value falls will usually appreciate in nominal terms. The third is estate (inheritance) tax. The super rich generally escape both capital gains and estate taxes by putting money into their pet foundations. Most of Bill Gates’s personal profits from Microsoft will never be taxed, for example, because he puts appreciated Microsoft stock into the Gates Foundation and from there the money can go straight to Africa without the U.S. Treasury getting a rake.

What if Warren Buffett and Bill Gates could still carry out their charitable goals, but had to sell appreciated assets and pay capital gains tax before donating the resulting cash? In California, for example, at least one third of the money would end up in the hands of state and federal government (the other two-thirds can then be sent to Africa!).

Readers: What do you think would raise more money for the U.S. government (now $2 trillion (about 10% of GDP) larger than before and therefore occupying as large a role in our economy as the most lavishly funded European governments (but without providing the free education, free health care, and other good stuff that the European governments provide)), Warren’s wealth tax or eliminating the ability of billionaires to stuff what would have been taxable $billions into foundations?

Once implemented, would President Harris keep the wealth tax at 2-3%? From The Last Castle:

In 1909, President Taft suggested a tax on income. In July 1909, the Sixteenth Amendment passed but four years elapsed before Wyoming became the thirty-sixth state to ratify it. On February 3, 1913, it became law. Its first full year in effect was 1914, the same year of George [Vanderbilt]’s unexpected death.

Later that year, the government levied a 1 percent tax on net personal income in excess of $3,000 annually, and a 6 percent surtax on income that exceeded $500,000.

Note that the $500,000 threshold is equivalent to roughly $13 million in today’s mini-dollars. I.e., if the rates had stayed where they were when proposed, anyone earning under $13 million/year today would pay at most 1 percent income tax and those earning less than $80,000/year would pay nothing.

A fishing boat in Dar es Salaam (2008) that could use some paint, but I’m not sure that the Gates Foundation has delivered…

Related:

  • “MacKenzie Scott Announces $4.2 Billion More in Charitable Giving” (New York Times): “In her short career as one of the world’s leading philanthropists, MacKenzie Scott has made a mark through the enormous scale of her giving and also through its speed, donating nearly $6 billion of her fortune this year alone.” (Also a good example of how much more lucrative it is to have sex with the boss than to continue working as an admin assistant.) Washington State has no income tax, but this would have yielded 23.8 percent (20 percent capital gains; 3.8 percent Obamacare tax) = $1.428 billion for the federal government.
  • “Biden has promised not to raise taxes on people earning less than $400,000. Here’s what he might push for instead” (CNBC): She clarified on Wednesday that the $400,000 threshold applies to families, not individuals. Consequently, individuals who make $200,000 could be affected if they are married to someone who earns that same amount, for example.
Full post, including comments

Passover 2021: Would Pharaoh have allowed Israelites to travel with a vaccine passport?

by philg

Happy Passover, starting tonight, for readers who are practicing Jewcraft. We celebrate G*d facilitating our travel from Egypt to Israel, which Pharaoh had purportedly obstructed. “Once We Were Slaves, Now We Are Free” is the conventional sentiment to express.

I wonder if Passover 2021 should be modified. Jews in most parts of the world are not, in fact, free to travel. Borders are closed (except to the undocumented coming to the U.S.; read what Obama’s Border Patrol chief has to say) or obstructed via administrative requirements. In many parts of the world, people (including Jews) are not free to leave their apartments, work at their trade, teach children, gather with friends, etc. If they can do any of these things at the moment, that’s by permission of the local rulers and the freedoms can be revoked at any time. (66 governor’s orders so far here in Maskachusetts; see Freedom to travel, Maskachusetts $500/day edition)

For American Jews, “Once We Were Slaves, Now We Are Free” should be replaced during this year’s Seder with “Once We Were Slaves, Now We Are as Free as Our Governor Wants Us To Be”? Jews in Ireland could say “Once We Were Slaves, Now We Are Free to Wait Another Few Months Before Going More Than 5 km From the House” (pubs are still closed too!) Those Jews in the Czech Republic who survived the animosity of some of their neighbors and the Germans can say “Once We Were Slaves, Now We Are Free to Watch TV at Home” (Euronews: “the government is set to limit the free movement of people by not allowing them to travel to other counties”)?

(Note that historical “slavery” in Ancient Egypt may simply have been the requirement to pay 20 percent of one’s income in tax. See Passover thoughts on slavery in Egypt and Passover Tax Day thoughts. So it might be more accurate to say “Once we paid 20 percent tax. Now we pay 90 percent and vote for Elizabeth Warren who promises to raise that to 98 percent.” Note also that the “Egyptians” who purportedly enslaved (or taxed) the Israelites have been mostly replaced by Arabs via conquest and immigration; the “Egyptians” of the Torah survive as today’s Coptics. Note further that the dramatic events of Exodus cannot be confirmed by scholars reading the excellent records that Ancient Egyptians kept. When a Swiss friend asked what she should bring to the (potentially legal depending on how you read the 66 Maskachusetts Governor’s executive orders) Seder we are hosting, I replied “Häagen-Dazs because the academics tell us that the Jews were never in Egypt so we should eat the Bronx-based ice cream that was never in Denmark“.)

Cairo, 1992:

Also, what would be the Facebook fact check if someone in a locked down country were to post “Let My People Go”? How about this: “Science proves that travel restrictions are an effective means of fighting Covid.”

Original post:

When Israel was in Egypt’s land
Let my people go
Oppress’d so hard they could not stand
Let my people go

Refrain:
Go down, Moses
Way down in Egypt’s land
Tell old Pharaoh
Let my people go

Facebook Fact Karens:

Dr. Fauci and the CDC recommend that Americans avoid Passover gatherings and travel.

Related:

Full post, including comments

How did the coronanxious come into power?

by philg

Still celebrating the start of Year 2 of “14 Days to Flatten the Curve”…

I closed out Commercial flights during Coronapanic: a mostly mask-free experience with

I wouldn’t recommended the experience for those who are anxious about COVID-19. While you’re constantly being reminded about how hazardous COVID-19 is, there isn’t enough room in the airport to be truly distant from those who are potentially infected. People sit glumly with their masks on, waiting to see how the Russian roulette game that they’ve chosen to play will turn out. Unless you believe in the effectiveness of crude non-N95 masks, it’s the same risk level as being in a crowded Miami club, but a lot less fun.

One of the great things about Internet, which even Facebook hasn’t managed to destroy, is that reader comments can be much more interesting than the original post. From RS:

Can we just say that about all other aspects of life? I would love if people who are anxious about COVID-19 would just stay home so the rest of us can get back to normal life. It feels like they’re holding society hostage so they can have the illusion of protecting themselves without having to do the one thing that actually protects them (staying home).

With a handful of exceptions (Florida, South Dakota, Sweden, Russia), it seems as though the coronanxious are in charge and able to force those who don’t mind coexistence with this virus and its myriad variants (the “covidiots”) into various forms of shutdown, mask theater, etc. The coronanxious have pretty much sat at home for a year anyway. It wouldn’t have cost them anything or increased their personal risk if they’d let the non-anxious carry on with their lives, education, and careers.

So that raises the question… why is it obvious that the coronanxious would prevail in setting government policy? (i.e., could we have predicted Mass Karenhood?) Is it because leaders tend to be old and therefore personally vulnerable? Is it because the restrictions imposed don’t hurt the elite and the elite are indifferent to the suffering imposed on the non-elite? (public school shutdowns aren’t a problem when your children and/or grandchildren are in private school…)

From the CDC, March 14, California and Florida, at opposite ends of the shutdown spectrum:

Note that more than 20 percent of Florida’s residents are over 65 (and therefore potentially vulnerable to COVID) while just 14 percent of Californians are over 65. So the COVID death rate among the elderly in Florida is almost surely much lower than in masked-and-shut California.

An objective measure of panic from one of America’s principal vendors of panic, the New York Times (March 18, 2021):

First of all, it is unclear whether the 1-5% hospitalized answer is actually “correct” if you consider “with Covid” to mean “could produce a positive PCR test”. With the CDC estimating that more than half of Americans have been infected with coronavirus, is it conceivable that COVID-19 means a 5 percent risk of hospitalization? We should have seen 2.5 percent of the folks we know carted off to the hospital (with a median personal network size of 472, the typical person should know 12 people who’ve been hospitalized with COVID). Leaving that aside. Casual inspection of this chart shows that 88 percent of Democrats overestimate the risk of hospitalization from COVID-19 while 70 percent of Republicans do. The journalists at the New York Times nonetheless report that “Republicans tend to underestimate Covid risks”. Based on the chart, it would be more accurate to say “Four percent of Republicans tend to underestimate Covid risks.”

Full post, including comments

Year 2 AC: Public versus private sector jobs

by philg

I’ve been referring to everything that happened prior to March 2020 as “BC” (Before Corona, not to be confused with “BCE” for years prior to Jesus’s birth). We’re just beginning Year 2 “AC”, therefore. Public sector workers have been mostly relaxing at home for a year, still drawing full paychecks, e.g., Boston Public School teachers. Should one of these folks fall ill due to COVID-19 or any other cause, he/she/ze/they will be paid via disability insurance.

What’s it like in the private sector? A housecleaner I know had to continue working, accepting whatever risk of COVID-19 was entailed, if she wanted to be paid. She’s around 60 years old and therefore has more age-related COIVD-19 risk than the average public sector worker (many of whom are eligible to retire at 50 or younger). She recently suffered a fall on a narrow staircase in a Beacon Hill home (these structures are fully compliant with all building and safety codes… of the early 1800s; see “For $20.5 million, Beacon Hill town house next to John Kerry” for an example) and broke both radius bones in her forearms. She’s unable to work, of course, and won’t be receiving payments from a disability policy. She’s expected to recover and has a lot of support from family (Brazilian immigrants), but the story made me reflect on the precariousness of a lot of folks’ existence.

(The teachers aren’t “relaxing at home,” you say, because they have to be present on Zoom for some hours each week? While down in Florida in January, I met a Massachusetts public school system employee nearing full retirement (early 60s). She didn’t enjoy being on Zoom so she began to use the months of sick leave she’d accumulated over the years. “It will run out by next fall,” she explained, “but the union says that I’ll be able to use days from the sick bank until I’m eligible for maximum retirement benefits in November.” In other words, she will have been paid in full for 1.5 years without having to get closer to the Massachusetts school than Florida and without having to appear on Zoom.)

Now that economic opportunities exist only when governors give permission, is it more important than ever to prepare young people for careers as government workers?

Loosely related, from February 19, 2021 in Waltham, Massachusetts:

We still have plenty of opioids for anyone who is depressed about losing a private sector job!

Full post, including comments

A 7-year-old contemplates the government’s $1.9 trillion gift to the American People

by philg

A bedtime scene:

  • 7-year-old: Joe Biden is going to send us money.
  • Mom: No. Joe Biden is going to take money from us and send it to other people. Our income is too high to qualify for the money that Joe Biden is sending out.
  • 7-year-old: You and Dad should stop working then, so that you can get the money instead of paying the money.

Which reminds me… what is actually in this bill? It is supposedly about $1,400 checks for most Americans (do children, retirees, and those already on welfare get checks?)? But if we divide $1.9 trillion by 308 million (Census-estimated population of 330 million minus the 22 million undocumented who presumably won’t qualify for a federal program organized by Social Security number), we get $6,169 per documented American. Plainly, the majority of this $1.9 trillion is going somewhere other than into average Americans’ pockets.

(Does it make sense to pay the same amount to a government worker who has been paid in full to stay home and work a few hours per day as it does to a self-employed Uber driver whose income has been reduced and whose job requires leaving the house and being exposed to COVID-19?)

From the New York Times:

It would inject vast amounts of federal resources into the economy, including one-time direct payments of up to $1,400 for hundreds of millions of Americans, jobless aid of $300 a week to last through the summer, money for distributing coronavirus vaccines and relief for states, cities, schools and small businesses struggling during the pandemic.

Beyond the immediate aid, the bill, titled the American Rescue Plan, is estimated to cut poverty by a third this year and would plant the seeds for what Democrats hope will become an income guarantee for children. It would potentially cut child poverty in half, through a generous expansion of tax credits for Americans with children — which Democrats hope to make permanent — increases in subsidies for child care, a broadening of eligibility under the Affordable Care Act, and an expansion of food stamps and rental assistance.

The last part sounds like a continuation of the trend discussed in When and why did it become necessary to pay Americans to have children? (2015). Going forward, the childless will be mined out even more thoroughly and made to work even longer hours to take over what would have been the costs of rearing children. I also wonder if this will make being a family court entrepreneur more lucrative relative to working. State child support formulae won’t change. Having sex with a dentist, for example, should still yield $1-2 million in Massachusetts. But the plaintiff who collects child support and works a few hours per week will now also be entitled to additional tax credits and taxpayer-funded child care. Instead of building the spending power of a dentist by having sex with three dentists, it might be possible to obtain the spending power of a dentist by having sex with two dentists (especially if income tax rates also go up; remember that child support is not taxable). Going to dental school may not look so smart anymore.

How does this spending compare to the Collapse of 2008?

Its eye-popping cost is just shy of the $2.2 trillion stimulus measure that became law last March … Even with changes, the bill remained more than than double the size of the roughly $800 billion stimulus package that Congress approved in 2009, when Mr. Biden was vice president, to counter the toll of the Great Recession.

So Americans are spending more than 4X at the federal level on coronapanic compared to what we spent cleaning up after our unwise enthusiasm for subprime mortgages.

What about the only enterprise in the U.S. that couldn’t figure out how to reopen?

$130 billion to primary and secondary schools

Rewarding public schools’ lack of effort with $130 billion will certainly not encourage them to repeat their performance during the next wave of coronavariants! (Alternatively, why not give the $130 billion to the schools that actually reopened no later than, say, September 1, 2020?)

Fair to say that this $1.9 trillion spending package will address every bumper sticker on the back of this car? (from January 2020)

Full post, including comments

The emergency continues on two fronts: insurrection and coronaplague

by philg

The 2,200 members of the Capitol Police and 3,800 officers of the D.C. Police and the FBI and the Secret Service are not sufficient to protect our nation from an ongoing insurrectionmergency. “Capitol Police Call For Extension Of National Guard Help” (NPR):

U.S. Capitol Police requested a 60-day extension for a portion of the National Guard troops currently in Washington, D.C., Thursday as the threat of a possible attack from militia groups looms over the city.

How are we doing in Year 2 of “14 Days to Flatten the Curve”? “It’s Too Soon to Lift COVID Restrictions: Fauci” (U.S. News):

Coronavirus restrictions should not be lifted until the daily toll of new U.S. cases falls below 10,000, “and maybe even considerably less than that,” Dr. Anthony Fauci said Thursday.

The last time the United States saw that low a number was almost a year ago. The daily case count hasn’t fallen below 50,000 since mid-October, and the seven-day average on Wednesday was more than 64,000, CNN reported.

Who wants to make a prediction as to when positive PCR tests (“cases”) will fall below 10,000 per day? (let’s say that it needs to be a 7-day moving average of 10,000/day so that we exclude reporting glitches)

Given that Americans love to run PCR tests, even on those who have zero symptoms, my guess is “never”. Example: friends in NYC are trying to sort out a cancer question regarding the mom. A coronaplague test was required before she could get a follow-up cancer test. She tested positive and therefore her cancer appointments were canceled. One of her two children tested positive. (The husband is vaccinated so he refused to participate in the festival of testing.) She never had any Covid-19 symptoms, but the family remembered that both kids had slight sore throats a week or two before the test. As long as we have a lot of checkpoints at state borders (the Maskachusetts travel order, for example), national borders, schools (can’t return without a Covid test), hospitals (can’t get treatment without a Covid test), etc., if we’re still running PCR at the same number of cycles we should still have at least 10,000 positives per day forever.

(Separately, consider this NYC family. They’ve endured a year of lockdown in an apartment. Their kids haven’t seen the inside of a school since March 2020. They’ve avoided gatherings with friends and family. Now the mom and the kids have exactly the same medical status that they would have had if there had never been any kind of shutdown or masquerade. Aside from wars, in all of U.S. history, has there ever been a sacrifice more meaningless and useless?)

From December, approaching the Hudson River Corridor from Teterboro (a VFR interlude in an instrument practice flight in a Cirrus):

Related:

Full post, including comments

Windfall Profits Tax on Bitcoin?

by philg

Whenever other people are smarter and more successful than I am, I like to propose a massive tax applicable only to them. Since I neglected to buy Bitcoin…. it is time for a Jimmy Carter style Windfall Profits Tax on cryptoprofiteers! (spoiler: the Tax Foundation says that this is a bad idea)

One challenge with this is that it might be hard to hunt down folks who have a seed phrase and a passphrase written down on a Post-It note. Some Bitcoin success stories invested in ETFs and public equities that are somehow tied to Bitcoin and they’ll be easy to hit with Philip’s 95 percent windfall profits tax. But the richest/biggest fish may get away (renounce U.S. citizenship, pay the exit tax, move to a tax-free country, and then start cashing in the Bitcoin).

Is Bitcoin a bubble? Physicist and general smart guy Brian Keating points out that the “bubble” has lasted for ten years, much longer than tulip mania (six months) and other historical bubbles. Peter Schiff, smart enough to move to Puerto Rico in 2015 and skip on Federal taxes, points out that the Feds began inflating the stock market and housing market in the mid-1990s and the collapse didn’t come until 2008. Schiff: “If people are dumb enough to pay $50,000 for Bitcoin, maybe they’ll be dumb enough to pay $100,000.” Isn’t it a good hedge against governments printing money and inflation? “Maybe Bitcoin is a hedge against stupidity because if people are still stupid they will still buy it. If you’re worried about the dollar going down, don’t hedge it with something riskier than the dollar. Buy Swiss francs.” (watch Keating and Schiff talk)

A bad guy lair (for a Bitcoin early adopter?) under construction in Sarasota:

Related:

Full post, including comments