W. Niederhut

Unreal. These varying "public health" standards would be laughable if the virus weren't so deadly. Friends of the Alcalde of Manaus? Grocery workers in Texas still don't qualify? It reminds me of the grocery worker here in Colorado who got the vaccine the same day I did this month, on March 5th -- her first day of eligibility. I was truly surprised to learn that she had to wait so long to get vaccinated.

No doubt, our M$M will keep the American public fully informed about the status of these suppressed and missing JFKA records. Because, as CIA contractor Jeff Bezos says, "Democracy Dies in Darkness." 🤥

My question. Have Rush Limbaugh, Rupert Murdoch, and Donald Trump created a monster? We seem to be witnessing an epidemic of right wing domestic terrorism in the U.S. today. Some of these guys were even talking recently about blowing up our Reichstag.

Kirk, The graph was published in this February 2, 2021 NYT op-ed by David Leonhardt. The data came from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Opinion | Why Are Republican Presidents So Bad for the Economy? - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Keynes was an intellectual prodigy. My favorite John Maynard Keynes quote...

In the recent Netflix documentary about the Rolling Stones' Latin American tour, Keith Richards talked at length about writing Honky Tonk Woman with Mick when they were both on vacation at a rural hacienda in Brazil back in the 60s. Hard to believe that Keith would have invented that detailed anecdote.

In retrospect, JFK may have "accidentally" hit upon a near optimal top income tax rate of 70% (as an economic stimulus.) Milton Friedman's "supply side" theory later posited that additional tax cuts for wealthy "investors" would further increase investment and GDP growth. But the ensuing "Reaganomic" tax cuts did not result in sustained increases in U.S. GDP-- perhaps because of globalization and increased investment in low cost overseas labor markets. In fact, U.S. GDP growth actually increased in the 1990s after Bill Clinton and the Democrats increased the top rates in 1993, then slowed after Bush and Cheney cut the top tax rates in 2001 and 2003. Trump's huge December 2017 tax cuts for corporations had no discernible effect on U.S. GDP growth, even before the 2020 COVID pandemic struck home. If you look at the quarterly GDP numbers, there was never a "Trump bump" for the U.S. economy-- but there was an increase in stock prices after the Trump tax cuts, partly because of corporate stock buybacks.

Marlon Brandon sang, "Luck, Be a Lady" in his stellar performance as Sky Masterson in the film version of Guys and Dolls. Brando was no Sinatra, as a singer, but he was terrific in that movie.

Addendum: If you study the above GDP graph, the last time that cutting the top income tax rate resulted in a significant increase in U.S. GDP growth was when JFK cut the top rate from 90% to 70% in the 1960s.

Question. How did Artichoke Joe's Casino get away with gambling on the premises over the years? Meanwhile, this is a very loose association, Cliff, but I've gotta crow about recently watching Sinatra sing, "The Lady Is A Tramp," to Rita Hayworth in the 1957 movie, Pal Joey, set in San Francisco. Cool film, which also featured Hayworth and Kim Novak singing (dubbed) renditions of the jazz standards, Bewitched, and My Funny Valentine. They don't make 'em like they used to...

Obviously, there are multiple, complex determinants of U.S. GDP growth but, ceteris paribus, history has not been kind to GOP "supply side" tax cut ideology.

Haven't seen the wild horses in the San Luis Valley, Ron. But, with apologies to Cliff for posting an old, saccharine pop radio hit, here's a true story. One of the greatest rock concerts I have ever attended, bar none, was Michael Martin Murphey and his Texas cowboy band at a small club in Denver called Ebbet's Field in about (?) '75. The show stopper was Geronimo's Cadillac, but they also performed Wildfire, with pianist Dave Hoffner, which had not yet become a radio hit--ruined by overplaying. Murphey and his cowboy band could really put on a show in those days. They had the crowd on their feet.

There must be some sort of lingering cognitive dissonance for people who are still flaunting Trump/Pence signs, now that Trump tried to have Mike Pence lynched on January 6th. I noticed that Pence only garnered 1% of the CPAC straw poll vote for the 2024 GOP Presidential nomination. Trump fans seem to have a highly developed tolerance for reductios ad absurdum -- like wanting Trump to get credit for the COVID vaccines that they refuse to get. 🤥

Kirk, Trump increased inflation-adjusted defense spending, slightly, in order to "rebuild our country's depleted military." 🤪 US election 2020: Has Trump kept his promises on the military? - BBC News

Speaking of Wild Horses, here's my nominee for the greatest song ever about wild horses, from U2's Brian Eno-produced, Achtung, Baby album. (With honorable mentions to the Byrds' Chestnut Mare and Terry Reid's Without Expression. BTW, Jimmy Page and John Bonham wanted Terry Reid to be the singer for their new band Led Zeppelin in '68. I think it was Reid who referred them to Robert Plant.)

Yes, Greg. JFK got it about right with his 70% top rate, which endured for roughly 20 years. But here is another macro-economic graph that is relevant to the history of U.S. Presidents and tax rates-- U.S. military spending by year. Notice the disconnect between tax rates and massive increases in military spending by the U.S. champions of Trickle Down economics-- Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Dick Cheney. (Military spending also surged after JFK's assassination.) Our current massive national debt is largely a result of; 1) "trickle down" tax cuts in 2001, 2003, and 2017, and 2) massive military spending in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Joseph Stiglitz and other progressive economists are talking about the possible end of "Trickle Down" economics in the Biden era. We witnessed major "supply side" tax cuts in the Reagan years, then a slight increase in the top income tax rates at the beginning of Clinton's administration, (1993) followed by the Bush-Cheney tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, and Trump's cuts in December of 2017. Interestingly, the most robust U.S. GDP growth of the past 30 years happened after Clinton and the Democrats increased the top tax rate in the 90s (by a 51-50 Senate vote, with Vice President Al Gore breaking the tie.) Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives launched the era of substantial graduated income tax rates in the early 20th century. Harding and Coolidge reduced them significantly in the 1920s, and FDR brought them back during the Great Depression -- increasing the top rate above 90% at the height of WWII. Top rates remained at 90% during the Eisenhower years, until JFK reduced them quite substantially to 70%. There they remained until Reagan's "Trickle Down" revolution, plunging down to Roaring '20s levels (below 30%) by 1988. The French economist Thomas Piketty has documented quite convincingly that the marginal increase in U.S. GDP since 1980 has gone almost entirely to the wealthiest 1%. And wealth inequality in the U.S. is at 1929 levels. The correlation between U.S. GDP growth and income tax rates has been low, and my own belief is that tax cuts for the rich have not necessarily stimulated growth or employment in the U.S. For one thing, "supply side" investors can simply invest overseas in cheaper labor markets. For another, the tax cuts may even create a drag on economic growth by sequestering wealth in a smaller percentage of the population, reducing broad-based consumer demand. Is there an optimal income tax rate for stimulating economic growth? And what is it?

This one wasn't the worst I've seen. I survived the Blizzard of '78 in Providence, Rhode Island when I was in college. I joined a group of guys from my dorm who decided to shovel snow at a local hospital, and we ended up on the television news. The main thing I remember about that Blizzard of '78 were the long rows of abandoned cars and trucks on I-95 in Providence. It was eerie-- like a scene out of the Twilight Zone.

This Denver blizzard is kicking my a-- today. I shoveled 8 inches of very heavy, wet snow this morning at 7:00 AM, then went back out at 11:00 AM and shoveled another 8 inches in 20+ mph winds. The snow has been falling so fast that the sidewalks are covered with 1-2 inches before I can even hike back up to the house. Trying to rest up before going back out there this afternoon. I think I'm getting old, because I don't usually feel this beat shoveling snow. On the positive side-- no power outages yet in our neighborhood.

I share her frustration. It's an issue that Dr. Fauci was getting at in his recent public statements about the way that opposition to rational public health interventions got "politicized" in 2020, in a manner that contributed directly to our high COVID mortality rates in the U.S. The same "libertarian" ideology has played a major role in our high gun-related homicide rates in the U.S.

The philosophical issue is evident, though, if we think about the problem in terms of an individual's right to refuse medical treatment-- e.g., vaccination. I suspect that most of us in the U.S. would disagree with forcing "competent" adults to get a vaccine against their will. It's the age old conflict between libertarianism and utilitarianism-- individual rights vs. optimizing the public good. The same philosophical issue is at the heart of our gun control controversy. Personally, I believe that our libertarian gun laws in the U.S. are insane, from a "public health" standpoint, but we live in a culture, and a legal system, that prizes individual, libertarian rights.

Bob, This is a looming crisis in the U.S. Apparently, about 45% of Republican males in the U.S. do not intend to get a COVID vaccine this year-- the same guys who don't believe in wearing masks. That's a very large sub-population of potentially asymptomatic, virus-shedding carriers-- and also a breeding ground for more deadly COVID mutations. The issue has a philosophical dimension-- libertarianism vs. utilitarianism-- similar to the issue of gun control. What happens in a free society when individual liberty (rights) directly endangers the public welfare?

There are a number of problems with this Vanden Bossche thesis. For example, he argues that the COVID vaccines will create a large herd of asymptomatic carriers who will continue to shed the virus. But the latest data indicates that the Pfizer vaccine prevents asymptomatic COVID infections and, hence, transmission. Some rapidly mutating viruses (e.g., influenza) are difficulty to immunize against, but our species has a history of driving other viruses (smallpox, polio) to near extinction through mass vaccination programs. IMO, there is an irrational, anti-scientific aspect to the current Anti-Vaxxer subculture, similar to what we see in the right wing Never Masker subculture-- as if we can't mitigate natural disasters! Not that science has all of the answers, but it, surely, has some answers.

Apropos of the Paxton controversy in Texas... (I'm re-printing this for WaPo non-subscribers.) Abandoning masks now is a terrible idea. The 1918 pandemic shows whywww.washingtonpost.com/opinions/keep-your-mask-on-were-not-out-of-this-yet/2021/03/11/a4dae20e-827f-11eb-9ca6-54e187ee4939_story.htmlby John M. BarryJohn M. Barry is the author of “The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History” and distinguished scholar at the Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine.March 12, 2021Abandoning masks and social distancing now would be the worst possible move for Americans and their political leaders. The 1918 pandemic teaches us why.That pandemic came in waves that were much more distinct than what we have experienced. The first wave was extraordinarily mild. The French Army suffered 40,000 hospitalizations but only about 100 deaths. The British Grand Fleet had 10,313 sailors fall ill — but only four deaths. Troops called it “three-day fever.” It was equally mild among civilians and was not nearly as transmissible as influenza normally is.Like SARS-CoV-2, the 1918 influenza virus jumped species from an animal to humans. As it infected more humans, it mutated. It became much more transmissible, sweeping across continents and oceans and penetrating everywhere. And as it became more transmissible, it caused a much, much more lethal second wave. It became the worst version of itself.In that second wave, the 1918 virus had an overall case mortality in the West of 2.0 to 2.5 percent, but that average is meaningless because it primarily killed select age groups: children under 10 and adults 20 to 50. Metropolitan Life found that, of those aged 25 to 45, it killed 3.26 percent of all factory workers and 6.21 percent of all miners; and yet it barely touched the elderly.U.S. Army training camps routinely recorded case mortality over 10 percent; at Camp Sherman in Ohio, case mortality exceeded 21 percent. In 13 studies of hospitalized pregnant women, the death rate ranged from 23 to 71 percent. In a few isolated small settlements in Alaska and Africa, it killed everyone.Virologists expected SARS-CoV-2 to mutate more slowly than influenza, and between its emergence and November 2020, the virus did seem remarkably stable.That’s why last year, when I was repeatedly asked whether I worried that SARS-CoV-2 would, like the 1918 virus, become more lethal, I always replied that, even during 1918’s mild first wave, that virus had on rare, isolated occasions demonstrated its potential to kill in, according to an Army report, “from 24 to 48 hours.” Since the SARS CoV-2 virus had not shown any indication — none — of increased lethality, I was not concerned.But in the past several months, different variants have surfaced almost simultaneously in Britain, South Africa, Brazil, and now in California and New York. Each of these variants has independently developed similar and in some cases identical mutations and achieved greater transmissibility by binding more efficiently to human cells.A virus that binds more efficiently to cells it infects would, logic suggests, also be more likely to bind to a larger number of cells, which could, in turn, increase disease severity and lethality. On Wednesday, BMJ, formerly the British Medical Journal, reported that Britain’s so-called U.K. variant was 64 percent more lethal than the virus it replaced.There is not enough data to evaluate the variants first identified in South Africa and Brazil, but whether or not they are also more lethal, one thing is certain — more variants will arise. Mutations are random. Most either make the virus so defective it can’t function or have no impact at all. But this virus has already demonstrated that it can become more deadly and evade some immune protection, making vaccines less effective. If we allow the virus additional opportunities to mutate, it will have more opportunities to become the worst version of itself.There is no reason to expect that this virus will suddenly turn into 1918. There are limits as to how far it can mutate. But the more people who abandon masks and social distancing, the more infections can be expected — and the more variants will emerge.In gambling terms: If you roll the dice once, yes, there is only a 2.77 percent chance you will hit snake eyes. But if you roll the dice 100,000 times, it is virtually certain snake eyes will come up several thousand times.Right now, policymakers are making decisions that will limit — or expand — opportunities for the virus to spread and mutate. Most proposals will require weighing costs, benefits and risks, such as when and how much to reopen the economy or delaying second doses of vaccines.Wearing masks requires none of these calculations.We know masks decrease transmission. Lifting a masking order not only means more people will get sick and die. It also gives the virus more rolls of the dice. That is a fact. The variants we have seen so far do not worry me much. The variants we have not yet seen . . . yes, they worry me. To increase our risks is, simply, foolish.

Paul, I've been reading medical research papers fairly regularly for the past 40 years. In my opinion, the efficacy (and risks) of any medical treatment is not accurately established through public debate, per se, but through properly controlled clinical trials. Can we trust them? I have been a public critic of Big Pharma during my medical career, and I do believe that pharmaceutical companies sometimes fudge and/or suppress data to promote their products. Over the years, I have also observed the introduction of some FDA-approved drugs to the "market" which have later been taken off of the market because of previously unrecognized toxicity. Could that happen with the COVID vaccines? Possibly. In the case of the commercially approved COVID vaccines, the randomized, controlled sample sizes have been large enough to generate highly significant statistics on efficacy and toxicity, and more data is on the way. The efficacy of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines has been truly impressive in the trials, and we are now also seeing a dramatic decline in death rates in vaccinated populations-- e.g., nursing home residents. Toxicity, to date, has been rare, with the exception of the Astra Zeneca vaccine. Some people have been concerned about the novel approach of using mRNA derived from viral genome sequences in vaccines. My opinion is that the fear is overblown. What Pfizer and Moderna did was to reproduce the COVID genomic sequence for the COVID Spike protein. By injecting this mRNA fragment into our cells, our cells generate the Spike protein, triggering an immune response to the Spike protein. The difference with traditional vaccination technology is that Pfizer and Moderna aren't injecting attenuated components of the actual virus. Ultimately, it comes down to a risk/benefit analysis. Compare the known risks and benefits of treatment (vaccination) with no treatment. COVID causes a significant incidence of death and can also cause irreversible damage to lung, heart, kidney, and brain tissue.