Mediaboss Marketing

A new report that has grabbed headlines on Fox News and other Murdoch-owned news outlets claims that regulations aimed at curtailing spread of the coronavirus through mandatory masking, lockdowns, and school closures in 2020 only reduced deaths from SARS-CoV-2 infections by 0.2 percent. The 62-page study, much-hailed by leading Republican politicians, has grabbed mainstream media headlines, as well. But closer scrutiny reveals that it is an example of motivated reasoning, indulging in scientific cherry-picking to prove a preferred thesis about public health.

Described as a Johns Hopkins study, the report was in reality published online by the Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise at Johns Hopkins University, an academic enterprise tightly linked to the libertarian Cato Institute think tank. The institute is separate from the famed medical institution and school of public health affiliated with the university. It is co-directed by one of the authors of the new report, economist Steve Hanke, who also directs the Troubled Currencies Project at the Cato Institute.

The other two authors of the report are Scandinavian economists Jonas Herby and Lars Jonung. Herby advises the Center for Political Studies, in Copenhagen, a self-described independent, liberal, free-market think tank in Denmark that strongly opposes coronavirus lockdown policies across the Nordic region and is generally anti-regulation. He is also tied to the American Institute for Economic Research, where he has written in favor of the Swedish governments very loose pandemic policies in 2020 that resulted, by the end of the summer of that year, in death rates more than five times higher than in neighboring Denmark, over 9 times greater than in Finland, and more than 11 times worse than the toll in Norway. Herby wrote that Swedens huge mortality was due to a mild flu season in the country in 2019, which left too many dry tinder vulnerable people, particularly the elderly, who burned up with coronavirus infections.

A new report that has grabbed headlines on Fox News and other Murdoch-owned news outlets claims that regulations aimed at curtailing spread of the coronavirus through mandatory masking, lockdowns, and school closures in 2020 only reduced deaths from SARS-CoV-2 infections by 0.2 percent. The 62-page study, much-hailed by leading Republican politicians, has grabbed mainstream media headlines, as well. But closer scrutiny reveals that it is an example of motivated reasoning, indulging in scientific cherry-picking to prove a preferred thesis about public health.

Described as a Johns Hopkins study, the report was in reality published online by the Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise at Johns Hopkins University, an academic enterprise tightly linked to the libertarian Cato Institute think tank. The institute is separate from the famed medical institution and school of public health affiliated with the university. It is co-directed by one of the authors of the new report, economist Steve Hanke, who also directs the Troubled Currencies Project at the Cato Institute.

The other two authors of the report are Scandinavian economists Jonas Herby and Lars Jonung. Herby advises the Center for Political Studies, in Copenhagen, a self-described independent, liberal, free-market think tank in Denmark that strongly opposes coronavirus lockdown policies across the Nordic region and is generally anti-regulation. He is also tied to the American Institute for Economic Research, where he has written in favor of the Swedish governments very loose pandemic policies in 2020 that resulted, by the end of the summer of that year, in death rates more than five times higher than in neighboring Denmark, over 9 times greater than in Finland, and more than 11 times worse than the toll in Norway. Herby wrote that Swedens huge mortality was due to a mild flu season in the country in 2019, which left too many dry tinder vulnerable people, particularly the elderly, who burned up with coronavirus infections.

Lars Jonung is retired from the Lund University Department of Economics in Sweden, where he for decades favored conservative financial policies. Since the pandemic emerged, Jonung has argued that the Swedish constitution renders such actions as mask mandates and business closures illegal.

Now the trio of economists claims, in a meta-analysis of allegedly thousands of coronavirus studies, to show that none of the nonpharmaceutical measures taken by governmentslike mask wearing, social distancing, bar closures, virtual school, and stay-at-home ordershave had any clear benefit in reducing the burden of death in the pandemic. Their lengthy literature review has not been peer-reviewed or submitted for review to a major journal.

The effect of border closures, school closures and limiting gatherings on COVID-19 mortality yields precision-weighted estimates of -0.1 percent, -4.4 percent, and 1.6 percent, respectively, they wrote. They added that lockdowns, compared to no lockdowns, also do not reduce COVID-19 mortality.

They reached this conclusion by culling though Google Scholar anda coronavirus economic research website affiliated with the University of Cambridge for papers about the spring 2020 lockdowns in Europe and North America. They said they found 18,590 relevant papers. The first 13 pages of their study explains how and why they decided that only 34 of those 18,590 papers merited inclusion in their analysis. They tossed out studies that fail to provide what they deem as high quality and long-term evidence of association between specific anti-COVID nonpharmaceutical policies and deaths. Though few public health interventions can typically be credited with averting specific deaths, that is what they are demanding.

By this measure, studies that show, for example, that measles vaccination in Africa decreased child death rates during famines would be tossed out for lack of a clear cause-and-effect relationship between the vaccine and a subsequent comparative resilience of a child against starvation. In the case of COVID, the authors reject studies that point to declines in deaths due directly to diabetes or suicide, though it is clear that lowering the pandemic burden on urgent care facilities allows health care providers time and resources to address other medical issues.

Most of the selected 34 papers were written by economists, rather than public health experts, and only 22 of them have been peer-reviewed. After all of this cherry-picking, the trio further discounts contrary findings by declaring that the methodology of some of these 34 papers are of low quality, according to their vague standards, or cannot be reconciled with higher forms of analysis. This conveniently leaves only a handful of solid papers from which they draw the conclusion favored by right-wing and libertarian politicians: Public health restrictions to curb the spread of the coronavirus are a sham.

There are many reasons, both methodological and analytical, why the new report is wrong, which have been noted elsewhere. But the most obvious evidence that lockdownshowever authoritarian or heinous they may bestop the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and prevent associated mortality is China. Though the pandemic started in Wuhan in late 2019 and the coronavirus spread widely across the nation of 1.4 billion people, the zero COVID policy pushed by President Xi Jinping, which entails the worlds most aggressive lockdowns whenever and wherever a handful of cases are found, leaves it with one of the lowest death rates on earth.

The United States, by contrast, imposed among the longest periods of school closures of any country in part to make up for its failure to stringently enforce other public health interventions. The difference in results is stark. The United States has suffered around 2,690 deaths per million people. The rate in China has been around 3 deaths per million. (Among OECD nations, the United States has the highest death rate, by far.)

Chinas policies have, of course, been brutal, shutting entire cities of 14 million or more people off from the rest of the nation when fewer than a dozen suspected cases have been identified, and placing hundreds of thousands of households under quarantines so strict that families faced starvation as they were prohibited from shopping.

But less despotic lockdowns surely help explain why New Zealand has had only 11 deaths per million people, South Korea at 132, and Japan at 150. (The authors also dont acknowledge that strict border closures imposed by countries like New Zealand, Australia, and China may have played a role in limiting the spread of the coronavirus.) By excluding all Asian nations from their analysis, the trio ends up comparing measures in the dismally-mortality-stricken United States and the similarly hard-hit European Union, which has 2,150 deaths per million.

In the United States, multiple studies show markedly higher mortality rates in counties that voted Republican in the 2020 presidential election, where regulatory actions to address the pandemic are less likely to be in place, compared to counties that voted Democrat. Similarly, getting vaccinated, wearing masks, and taking the debunked ivermectin treatment for COVID all follow partisan lines in the United States.

A new study published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and California health authorities found that people in that state who wore any type of masks when among others in indoor settings reduced their odds of infection by 56 percent. If they wore N95 or K95 masks their risk dropped by a whopping 83 percent. Imposing mask-wearing guidelines in this pandemic appears to spare millions of infections and related deaths.

The appalling pseudo-science produced by Herby, Jonung and Hanke can be easily dismissed by public health advocates and scientists. But that will not be the end of it. The enemies of public health measures in the West are already using the study to fuel their ire. From Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson to Alex Jones and Senator Rand Paul the message is loud and clear: All community precautions aimed at stemming the spread of SARS-CoV-2 are violations of our libertiesand do not work to boot.

For months, Republican leaders have attacked all forms of public health mandates across the United States, both nonpharmaceutical and vaccine-based. Republican governors led the charge against Biden administration efforts to impose vaccine mandates on large employers, an effort overturned by the Supreme Court in a partisan vote. In December, one faction of the Republican Party threatened to shut down the federal government to block mandates. They were eventually overruled by Senator Mitch McConnell and other Republican leaders.

Rand Paul, whose father, Ron, led the Libertarian Party and named his son after libertarian icon Ayn Rand, has for two years led Republican opposition to wearing masks, outdoor dining orders, and social distancing measures, and insists that millions of Americans are, like himself, naturally immune after having COVID. He also supported the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocates allowing SARS-CoV-2 to spread freely and spawn herd immunity that would allegedly lead to disappearance of the coronavirus. As with this new report, the herd immunity claims drew accolades from right-wing media, and led President Donald Trump to bring advocate Scott Atlas into his White House pandemic response team.

With more than 900,000 coronavirus deaths in the United States, the most in any nation, and the pandemic nearing its third year, Americans are understandably fed up and vulnerable to messages that direct their rage while providing justification for abandoning disease control measures. This Johns Hopkins report is easily cast aside as bogus science, but it will nevertheless live on, exacerbating partisan divides and casting doubt on the Biden administrations COVID response. It should not. It is mere disinformation.

Link:
Economists Are Fueling the War Against Public Health - Foreign Policy

Im not a sports fanIm bored by games in general, including that wordy color-blindness test or whatever it is that everyone online seems to be playing latelybut Im already rooting for the defeat of the newly rechristened Washington Commanders. The name is a clumsy reminder that Washington, DC issues orders and the rest of us are expected to obey. Its as obnoxious in its way as the propagandistic, authoritarian tone of the Olympics opening ceremony.

But sports isnt the real enemy here. For all the brutality, primitivism, sadism, tribalism, and zero-sum win/lose thinking of sportsmade worse by nationalism in the case of the pompous Olympicspolitics is worse. Politics is also involuntary, so long as governments (or other, more anarchic threats of violence) exist. Involuntary, by definition, isnt fun.

Thats why so many political figures devote their time to the pretense of being just like you, as if theres no need to fear their preferences would ever diverge from yours. No divergence, no need to wonder where theyre taking you or what they plan to do to you when you get there. Theyre all competing to see who can get you to a centrally planned economy fastest.

Take the Ohio U.S. Senate candidate J.D. Vance, with his oscillations between sounding like the populist whos coming to save you from the depredations of capitalism and sounding like the party stalwart wholl save Republicans from further embarrassment by Trump. Its a safe bet that as the primary approaches in May, Carpet-Bagger Vance will sound like he has whatever principles are polling well, likely determined by that months stock market fluctuations but explained via homespun tales about his working-class upbringing.

One of the most positive spins on Vances oscillations was a Simon van Zuylen-Wood piece arguing that Vance is taking care not to let his anti-woke thinking devolve into classical liberalism and is striving to combine Trumpism with the milder reformicon (ostensibly-reformist conservative) tendencies of Ross Douthat circa 2010.

In short, if you squint, you can see Vance working to avoid libertarianism (that is, 19-century-style, small-government, classical liberalism) while also grinding a cultural axe, bashing global trade, and praising the most expensive parts of the welfare statesuch as Social Security and Medicare, the debt-swelling, huge-ticket items that purported reformers such as Douthat are keen to leave intact, since a citizen is afraid to discuss tampering with them.

Whatever that makes the Vance agenda, its not really capitalism. Far from being a fresh set of ideas, its basically a watered-down version of the anti-economic, pro-big-government thinking celebrated in those Chinese ceremonies I mentioned earlier. If conservatives are just milder commies now, dont expect me to get worked up making distinctions between the two philosophies or voting for either.

Vance is far from alone on the right in his bland attack on the market and private property. Floridas Gov. Ron DeSantis, inordinately beloved by some pseudo-libertarians whose anti-regulatory thinking goes little farther than their dislike of anti-Covid rules, crowed on Twitter last Thursday about urging his state legislature to throw another $100 million of taxpayers money at fighting cancer. So much for the heirs to Trumps populist mantle looking to dispel the illusion that government is generous and lifesaving. Unless they explicitly argue for the non-violation of property rights and the drastic and immediate shrinking of government, populist politicians will obviously deliver politics as usual with a few novel freebies tossed in.

I hope paleolibertarian-ish ex-punk Sam Goldman is right to argue the fumbling of the Republicans populist team post-Trump might yet yield a return of the delayed libertarian moment in American politics. If there are any signs of hope in that regard, though, I dont think they take the form of any politicians but rather private-sector phenomena like that shining Castello Cube made of $11.7 million worth of gold that appeared in Central Park last week (likely inspired by the 1990s sci-fi novel Cryptonomicon) heralding the launch of yet another cryptocurrency.

Im not saying this is the coin that will end humanitys reliance on governments arbitrarily-inflated fiat currencies, but governments tyrannical hold over humanity is more likely to be ended by some exogenous phenomenon like that than by any internal reforms government itself endorses or generates. Lately, all the worlds political teamsleftists, liberals, conservatives, moderates, most anarchists, even some libertariansbadmouth or at least rhetorically shy away from unregulated, laissez-faire markets.

In the 20th century, they might all at least have agreed that the USSR was terrible and promised not to replicate its errors. With European Communism gone and Chinese Communism seemingly a taboo topic among obedient Westerners, our political players are free lazily to forget what a society without market mechanisms looks like. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is free to denounce capitalism as irredeemable, as the economically ineducable and inflammatory New York politician said a few days ago on a trip to Austin, TXthe sort of liberal town where she probably hears as many youthful cheers for her extremism as she does back home in New York City, though both places owe their freedom and prosperity to markets.

But its not just quirky post-libertarian right-wingers and left-wing backbenchers who are out to destroy capitalism. Boring old President Biden and his ostensibly centrist pals can do that just fine all by themselves. Among other things, Biden plans to triple the amount of protected (that is, government-controlled and largely unused) land in the U.S. and wants half again as much federal spending as when he took office, though his agenda is notoriously sputtering. And the White House still finds time to tell Spotify it needs to go farther in silencing easygoing non-partisan conversationalist Joe Rogan (Jon Stewart, by contrast, urges people to let Rogan speak).

Make enough mediocre leaps forward like Bidens and it wont much matter if you keep claiming not to be a full-blown socialist. America will be socialist nonetheless. It wont matter one bit that libertarians and conservatives used to complain more explicitly about that threat back in the 1980s, when their principles were clearer and more consistent, back when they didnt always shift around in an embarrassed fashion looking for something else to talk about, like pot, immigration, or sex. Now, every political team of any appreciable size is either silent on econ or battling for the collectivist gold.

Todd Seavey is the author of Libertarianism for Beginners and is on Twitter at @ToddSeavey

Originally posted here:
The World Is Always Playing Commie Olympics - Splice Today

Editor:

Its tempting to think of the people of the Bible as idiots; after all, they didnt have modern conveniences like cars, smartphones or deed-restricted housing.

But what they did have was an acute understanding of how to maintain peace in small communities, as that was their core lived experience. Respect must be paid to concepts like Jubilee, because those concepts (such as not coveting your neighbors donkey) helped maintain social order in small communities for centuries. To apply modern labels like libertarian to those concepts is ignorant.

Ive proposed a secular Jubilee, to be implemented by releasing the deed restrictions on housing units owned by private citizens. This would give economic freedom to locals who have served our community for decades (make no mistake: this is payment for services rendered, not some random windfall, and has been earned many times over). And releasing the deed restrictions would immediately bring housing to market, whereas deed-restricted units rarely trade.

But Jubilee is not just about freeing the real estate market. Releasing the deed restrictions would create a new political environment and would free our towns political process from being dominated by the housing issue.

We now have politicians who rule because they control the employee-housing voting bloc, deed restrictions that run with the land forever, class war and government that is literally stuck in traffic because it is captive to the housing issue. Maybe we are the idiots.

Millard Zimet

Aspen

Continued here:
Are we the idiots? | Opinion | aspendailynews.com - Aspen Daily News

Jason Decker Runs for Cook County Commisioner District 5, Libertarian Party Sues Cook County Clerk to Get Candidates on the Ballot (Midlothian, IL) A complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division seeks to compel Cook County Clerk Karen Yarbrough to accept nomination papers from Libertarian candidates for the June 28, 2022 primary election as established party candidates under provisions found in Article 7 of the election code.

Section 7-2 of the election code confirms that a political party which receives more than5% of the vote in the last general election is declared to be an established party. TheLibertarian Party received more than 6% of the vote for Cook County States Attorney inthe election of 2020.

Libertarian Party of Illinois State Chair Steve Suess said, "I wish I could say I wassurprised. Libertarians, independents, and other parties not fitting within the boundariesof the political duopoly are continuously denied equal access to the ballot all around thecountry. Luckily, we have the law on our side this time."

Clerk Yarbrough maintains the candidates for county board do not qualify forestablished party status after redistricting. However, since all commissioner districts fallwithin the borders of Cook County, established party status should extend to allcandidates running for offices where those voting districts are entirely within countyboundaries.

Cook County Libertarian Party Chair Justin Tucker said, This is a true example ofrigging elections through the elimination of choice. Poll after poll shows voters wantmore choices at the polls on Election Day and Clerk Karen Yarbrough is denying votersmore cho. This is another sad instance of Chicago-style politics.

Cook County District 1 candidate James Humay said in a statement, It has been over adecade since the voters of District 1 have had more than one candidate on the ballot. Itappears that the County Clerk is only interested in maintaining and consolidating powerfor her party and political allies, rather than allowing for the free will of the district'sconstituency. I strongly urge Clerk Yarbrough to reconsider her decision and grantestablished party status to Libertarian candidates running for county board."District 5 candidate Jason Ross Decker announced "We must be granted the ballotaccess we deserve, to give the people of Cook County a choice other than the samegroup of people controlling the County's business and our lives for decades. To be denied would be disheartening and make voters lose even more faith in their CountyGovernment."

The complaint is being filed by the Libertarian Party of Illinois, state and local partyexecutive officers, party candidates for county board and concerned citizens. It assertsthat the Cook County Clerk and Board of Election Commissioners are willfully violatingthe First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the plaintiffs.

While Democrats in Washington D.C. argue for legislation to protect voting rights, inCook County, the Democratic machine has no interest in fair ballot access and isactively working to deny voters from having a choice of candidates. The LibertarianParty of Chicago and Cook County Libertarian Party believe all voices have the right tobe heard in the voting booth and that restrictive ballot access laws inhibit the democraticprocess.

Jason Decker Runs for Cook County Commisioner District 5, Libertarian Party Sues Cook County Clerk to Get Candidates on the Ballot

Read the original:
Jason Decker Runs for Cook County Commisioner District 5, Libertarian Party Sues Cook County Clerk to Get Candidates on the Ballot - The Southland...

Late last year, El Salvadors president Nayib Bukele announced plans to build Bitcoin City a tax-free territory in the countrys east.

The city will use the cryptocurrency and be powered by the nearby Conchuagua volcano. According to Bukele, there will be:

Residential areas, commercial areas, services, museums, entertainment, bars, restaurants, airport, port, rail [..] [but] no income tax, zero property tax, no contract tax, zero city tax and zero CO2 emissions.

Whether or not Bitcoin City eventuates, it joins a long and bizarre history of libertarian-inspired attempts to start independent cities and countries.

The generous financial incentives in Bitcoin City are aimed at encouraging foreign investment.

However, the plan has quickly been derided by finance commentators as something worthy of a Bond villain. There are doubts construction will ever begin.

As the Australian Financial Review observes, Bitcoin City is likely nothing more than a splashy distraction from Bukeles economic woes.

But Bukele is not the only one to be tempted to set up a new territory, with new (or no) rules.

In a 2009 TED Talk, American economist Paul Romer argued developing nations should partner with foreign countries or corporations to create autonomous model cities.

Under his plan, host states would lease large tracts of undeveloped land to developed states, who would administer the territory according to their own legal system. The citys residents would largely come from the developing state, but the administrators of the city would be appointed by (and accountable to) the developed state. Residents could vote with their feet by either migrating to or from the model city.

Read more: How El Salvador and Nigeria are taking different approaches to digital currencies plus, are we living in a simulation? The Conversation Weekly podcast transcript

Romer argues such cities would attract significant international investment because their legal architecture would insulate them from any political turmoil present in their host state. Notwithstanding the strong neo-colonial or neo-imperial overtones, several states have considered adopting Romers proposition.

In 2011, the Honduran Congress amended its constitution to facilitate the development of Romers idea. Cities built within special development regions would not be subject to Honduran law or taxation. Instead, they would be self-governing under a unique legal framework.

After legal disputes about whether this breached Honduran national sovereignty, the plan was revived in 2015. Under the new plan, an investor that builds infrastructure in a site designated as a zone for employment and economic development (ZEDE) will be granted quasi-sovereign authority. The investor will be permitted to impose and collect income and property taxes, and establish its own education, health, civil service, and social security systems.

Under the ZEDE law, the president appoints a committee to oversee all of the model cities as well as setting the baseline rules and standards investors must follow. Reflecting the ideological backing of the idea, the first committee, announced in 2014, was heavily comprised of libertarians and former advisers to United States President Ronald Reagan. In 2020, the first site was launched, but development does not appear to have commenced.

The Honduran plan involves a country leasing (temporarily or perhaps permanently) sovereign rights over its territory. Other projects have sought to build a new country on the sea.

Since 2008, attention has focused on the California-based Sea Steading Institute.

Founded by American libertarian Patri Friedman (grandson of Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman) and initially financed by billionaire Peter Thiel, the institute sought to build habitable structures on the high seas outside the jurisdiction (and taxation) of any state.

Read more: Why is Australia 'micronation central'? And do you still have to pay tax if you secede?

Although their website suggests sea steading could offer significant benefits to humanity globally, making money free of regulatory burden is the primary motivation. Backers are interested in sea steadings potential to peacefully test new ideas for governance so the most successful can then inspire change in governments around the world.

No city has yet been built. In 2017 negotiations with French Polynesia for the development of floating cities within their territorial waters stalled when community pressure forced the government to withdraw. Many wondered whether facilitating the tax evasion of the worlds greatest fortunes would actually be beneficial for the islands.

Other proposals have not bothered to ask anyone whether they can get started. In the 1960s, several American businessmen sought to establish independent states upon coral reefs off the coasts of California and Florida. Both fell apart under pressure from the US government.

In the early 1970s, US libertarian Michael Oliver tried to finance the construction of a new country - the Republic of Minerva - on a submerged atoll in the Pacific Ocean between Tonga and Fiji. There would be no tax and no social welfare in his laissez-faire paradise.

Over the second half of 1971, Olivers team ferried sand on barges from Fiji to raise the atoll above sea level and commenced basic construction. Oliver envisioned creating 2,500 acres of habitable land elevated around two and a half to three metres above high tide. Floating cities and an ocean resort would also be built.

Progress proved hard going. Only 15 acres of land had been reclaimed by the time Olivers funds were exhausted. Nearby countries were also watching with alarm. In June 1972, King Tupou IV declared Tongan sovereignty over the atoll and ejected Olivers team.

Oliver abandoned Minerva, but in 1982, another group of American libertarians attempted to reassert and restore the republic. After spending three weeks moored in the lagoon, they were expelled by the Tongan military. Today, Minerva has been more or less reclaimed by the sea.

Perhaps they should have invested in Bitcoin.

See the original post:
'Worthy of a Bond villain': the bizarre history of libertarian attempts to create independent cities - The Conversation AU