Mises Wire |
- Experts Said Ending Lockdowns Would Be Worse for the Economy than the Lockdowns Themselves. They Were Wrong.
- Young Americans Resist Biden’s Covid Vaccination Campaign
- Our Two Options: A Marketplace or a Centrally Planned Economy
| Posted: 02 Jul 2021 11:00 AM PDT Here's something we often heard in 2020 from experts who wanted long and draconian covid lockdowns: "Yes, these say-at-home orders are causing economic turmoil, but if you don't lock everyone down now—and keep them locked down for a long time—your economy will be even worse off!" The reasoning was that without lockdowns, the covid-19 virus would spread out of control and that as a result, so many people would die—or become so ill—that virtually everyone would become too afraid or too sick to leave his home. We were told widespread economic collapse would then ensue. As it turns out, there is no indication whatsoever that states with longer periods of lockdown and forced social distancing fared better economically than states that abandoned covid restrictions much earlier. Rather, many states that ended lockdowns early—or didn't have them at all—now show less unemployment and more economic growth than states that imposed lockdowns and social distancing rules much longer. The complete lack of any correlation between economic success and covid lockdowns illustrates yet again that the confident predictions of the experts—who insisted that states without long lockdowns would endure bloodbaths and economic destruction—were very wrong. Lock Down or Else!By late April 2020, many Americans were pressuring their governors and other elected officials to end the stay-at-home orders. Yet, advocates for long and enduring lockdowns—after an initial period of claiming, "Two weeks to slow the spread"—insisted that lockdowns should be left in place indefinitely. In early April, for example, Anthony Fauci proclaimed that lockdowns had to remain in place until no new cases appeared. Similarly, former presidential advisor and physician Ezekiel Emmanuel flatly stated that there is "no choice" but to stay locked down for eighteen months or more. Yet as governors and antilockdown activists continued to press for a "reopening," the word "premature" became a go-to term for activists seeking longer lockdowns. We must avoid a "premature reopening," we were told, or else the economic pain of not having a lockdown would be far worse than the pain of lockdowns. In the Harvard Business Review on April 1, 2020, for example, the author concluded:
That is, even talking about ending lockdowns was a terrible idea to these people. In Salon on May 5, the author Amanda Marcotte writes:
Marcotte goes on to explain that without lockdowns, death and disease will be so rampant that no stores will have any customers (or workers), so businesses will fail at devastating rates:
What Happened in the States That Opened "Prematurely"?Did these predictions come true? If the advocates of extending lockdowns were right, we should expect to see far worse economies in states like Florida, Utah, Georgia, and South Dakota. Indeed, when Georgia was the first state to announce an end to its stay-at-home order, the Atlantic proclaimed the move to be an "experiment in human sacrifice." Surely, such widespread death devastated the local economy, just as the experts predicted. At the same time, those states that kept lockdowns and forced social distancing measures in place much longer must have more vibrant economies today. This, of course, never happened. Indeed, throughout 2020, and into early 2021 (the most recent data) GDP (gross domestic product) growth is better in Georgia and Florida than in New York and California, and about the same as in Massachusetts. GDP growth in Utah—where lockdowns were sparse and weak—is better than in every other state. South Dakota, which never imposed a stay-at-home order at all, shows more economic growth than California and nearly as much as New York.  Indeed, if we look at states across the board, we find no correlation at all between the length of lockdown and economic growth. Moreover, keep in mind that both California and New York are among the states receiving the most covid bailout and relief money per capita. If anything, their GDP numbers should be among the best after receiving such hefty amounts of wealth, transferred from other states. And yet these states aren't even doing as well as Georgia, the supposed land of "human sacrifice." With employment numbers (as of May 2021), we find a similar story. The states with the worst unemployment numbers are Hawaii, New Mexico, California, and New York. Once again, these are some of the states with the most strict covid regulations and lockdowns.  Meanwhile, Utah and South Dakota are among the states with the lowest unemployment rates. Georgia's unemployment rate of 4.1 percent was barely more than half of California's rate of 7.9 percent. Florida's unemployment rate for the same period was 4.9 percent. So why were the experts so very wrong? For one, the data continues to suggest that lockdowns don't make much of a difference in the total number of people who die from covid (per million). [Read More: "They Said Things Would Be Much Worse in States without Lockdowns. They Were Wrong." By Ryan McMaken] Although the experts predicted health outcomes would be far better in New York than in Florida, Georgia, Texas, and a dozen other states with weak or nonexistent covid restrictions, things didn't turn out that way. So, not only do many states with harsher lockdowns have far worse covid death totals, but they also have worse economies. It's just the latest illustration of the fact that the lockdown advocates were just making things up and were willing to say anything that pushed their vision for a centrally planned and centrally controlled society in the name of "science."  This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
| Young Americans Resist Biden’s Covid Vaccination Campaign Posted: 02 Jul 2021 09:00 AM PDT President Joe Biden has failed his vaccination goal. According to the White House, it is unlikely that at least 70 percent of Americans will receive a first dose of the coronavirus vaccine by July 4. Despite this, officials say that Americans will still be protected enough to celebrate Independence Day with family and friends. You heard that right. No ludicrous lockdowns or threat of lockdowns loom in the horizon. This should once and for all confirm that the pandemic never warranted any of the draconian responses that ruined 2020 for most of us. Even media outlets that have long played down lockdown skepticism such as Axios are pointing out that the latest White House message is "vastly different" than this time last year, "when public health officials and some governors were limiting large gatherings and pleading with the public to only host small, outdoor events for the holiday." So, what happened? People Aren't Falling in LineIn January 2021, a survey found that there were three groups that were less likely to take the coronavirus vaccine: black people, women, and conservatives. In spite of the difficulties the Biden administration would eventually face, the White House boosted its vaccination goal to 1.5 million Americans per day, stating that it expected to see at least 70 percent of the entire population fully vaccinated by Independence Day. Biden's pleas fell on deaf ears as many states vaccinated below 60 percent of their population. Healthcare workers, members of the military, and even nursing home staff are refusing the shot. And across the country, employees are suing employers over vaccine requirements. It is clear people aren't exactly going along with whatever Dr. Anthony Fauci says. It is this reality that seems to have changed the White House's tone. Thanks to states like Florida, which have completely blown the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's covid narrative on social distancing and masks, and are now fighting vaccine passports, federal officials appear to understand that they can no longer intimidate and threaten their way to universal compliance. During Tuesday's press conference discussing the Biden administration's expectations, Jeffrey Zients, the head of the White House covid response team, said that young Americans are fed up. They no longer believe the hype.
We Have Biden to Thank for Our FreedomOn Tuesday, Zients made yet another revealing comment. Instead of carrying on with the customary fear campaign, he hinted at how thankful all Americans should be for being allowed to celebrate the Fourth of July. After all, if it weren't for the benevolence of those calling the shots in DC, he stated, we wouldn't be "entering a summer of joy."
Apparently unbeknownst to Zients and the entire US covid response team, it wasn't a virus that stripped our freedoms, but the overreaching hands of power-hungry politicians who were incapable of reading basic data. Unfortunately, Americans' reluctance to openly resist the lockdowns did a great deal to help the federal and state governments in their tyrannical efforts. Perhaps, the fact the vaccination campaign isn't as successful as Biden's team wished is a sign that next time Americans won't be so easily pushed around.  This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
| Our Two Options: A Marketplace or a Centrally Planned Economy Posted: 02 Jul 2021 08:30 AM PDT In the past few weeks, I have been discussing a number of points in Human Action, and today I propose to concentrate on a fundamental insight that is a main theme of the book. There are, Mises says, only two ways to organize production in a complex modern economy that produces a great many goods and services. One is by centralized decision-making and the other is through the free market. A closer look, though, shows that only one of these alternatives is genuine. In a complex economy, producers' goods can usually be used to make a number of different consumers' goods. If so, the question arises: How can choices to use producers' goods be made in a way that best satisfies the wishes of consumers? Mises's fundamental insight is that centralized decision-making cannot answer this question. Only an economic system with monetary calculation can do so, and monetary calculation can only take place in a free market. Without a market, socialist planners could only guess at the best way to make production decisions. Monetary calculation cannot be bypassed; there is no measure of value without money. If this is true, it is evident that central planning must be erased from our set of options. It would, Mises says, collapse into chaos. Only the free market is left. It might be objected that even though our options are limited in this way, that is not much of a limit. Few people today favor a completely centralized economy. But does this not leave open various mixes of a centrally directed and a market economy? Mises denies this. There is, he says, no third system intermediate between central planning and the market. So long as most prices are market prices, the economy still counts as a market economy, even if it is hampered by government regulations. It turns out, though, that this limits our options in a drastic way, in a fashion that is not immediately apparent. Many people criticize the free market for what they regard as its undue emphasis on making money. Even if Mises is correct that the free market will lead to prosperity, aren't there nonmonetary values that must be considered as well? There are indeed nonmonetary values, but the critics who point this out ignore Mises's key insight. In order to avoid chaos, a complex modern economy must use monetary calculation. And in order to use monetary calculation, entrepreneurs must be guided by the endeavor to make a profit. The efficacy of monetary calculation to answer the question of the best use of producers' goods depends on entrepreneurs' being able to shift resources to businesses that earn profits and away from businesses that make losses. If entrepreneurs are not guided by efforts to maximize profits, they are just guessing at what should be produced and are in no better position than central planners. As Mises puts it,
It does not follow from this that there is no place for charity in a free market economy. Entrepreneurs are perfectly at liberty to donate their personal income to the poor, if they so decide; and, though one may question whether this will be the course of action in fact best able in the long run to alleviate the condition of the poor, doing this does not impede market calculation. The key issue, once more, is that, in their production decisions, entrepreneurs must aim to maximize their profit. In this connection, a significant modern movement, "effective altruism," accepts the logic of Mises's argument, though it is doubtful that most members of this group got their point from him. According to the effective altruists, many people should try to make as much money as they can, and then use their income to benefit the poor. Will MacAskill, a leading effective altruist, says,
As so often happens, Mises anticipated a line of thought that others arrived at decades afterward.  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Mises Wire. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
No comments:
Post a Comment