Although there is something to be said for consistency. For instance, I see someone blogging (!):
Milestones
I talk a lot about inflation.But today was the first time in my life I actually used a dollar bill as toilet paper.
And then 12 years ago, he wrote:
Hyperinflation tipping point
Following up yesterday’s post on inflation-defense investments, Paul Hsieh and Amit Ghate cite John Mauldin’s weekly newsletter, which notes that the hyperinflation “tipping point” generally occurs when governments have to borrow 40% of what they are spending, which, coincidentally, is exactly where Barack Obama and his printmeister Ben Bernanke have the United States at the moment:
“There have been 28 episodes of hyperinflation of national economies in the 20th century, with 20 occurring after 1980. Peter Bernholz (Professor Emeritus of Economics in the Center for Economics and Business (WWZ) at the University of Basel, Switzerland) has spent his career examining the intertwined worlds of politics and economics with special attention given to money. In his most recent book, Monetary Regimes and Inflation: History, Economic and Political Relationships, Bernholz analyzes the 12 largest episodes of hyperinflations – all of which were caused by financing huge public budget deficits through money creation. His conclusion: the tipping point for hyperinflation occurs when the government’s deficit exceed 40% of its expenditures.
“According to the current Office of Management and Budget (OMB) projections, US federal expenditures are projected to be $3.653 trillion in FY 2009 and $3.766 trillion in FY 2010, with unified deficits of $1.580 trillion and $1.502 trillion, respectively. These projections imply that the US will run deficits equal to 43.3% and 39.9% of expenditures in 2009 and 2010, respectively. To put it simply, roughly 40% of what our government is spending has to be borrowed.
But hey, what’s the worst that could happen? Recent hyperinflations have only brought about little things like civil war and genocide. A small price to pay to give Wall Street, the autoworkers, and Realtors another well-deserved bailout!
Here is a depiction of the evolution of the CPI (normalized to a value of 1 in October 2009, when he wrote this last missive). I also show the purchasing power of a consumer dollar (as published by BLS), normalized to a value of 1 in that same month.
Figure 1: CPI-all urban normalized to value of 1 in October 2009 (black, left log base e scale), and Purchasing Power of a Consumer Dollar, normalized to value of 1 in October 2009 (teal, right scale). Red dashed line at October 2009. Source: BLS via FRED, author’s calculations.
Hopefully, this graph is helpful. However, since Mr. Varones once asked of me (in a separate context):
Y U no look at right-to-work effect on other variables like employment growth or cost of living?
I note in another post other price indicators, including non-governmental (for the conspiracy-minded) indicate similar trends.
Interestingly, what Mr. Varones did earlier this month amounted throwing away 80 cents of the dollar bill he would’ve spent in October 2009. Well, it’s free country.
(Also, not sure Mr. Varones’s comment from 7 years ago has aged well.)
There’s not just an absence of evidence confirming climate models. We now have years of evidence that the predictions of Global Warmists were wrong: the hockey stick, the ice-free arctic, snowfall a thing of the past in England…
Obama’s printmeister Ben Bernanke?? And this?
‘what’s the worst that could happen? Recent hyperinflations have only brought about little things like civil war and genocide. A small price to pay to give Wall Street, the autoworkers, and Realtors another well-deserved bailout!’
Oh gee – this sounds like it was co-written by Princeton Steve and JohnH with a favorable review by Victor Davis Hanson. Why worry about hyperinflation when we have such hyperbole!
‘Here is a depiction of the evolution of the CPI (normalized to a value of 1 in October 2009, when he wrote this last missive).’
Interesting – we initially had deflation, which of course JohnH might have praised back then as it did take us back to 19th century monetary policy but then inflation resumed. I do not remember liberal economics freaking out but yea Mr. Varones had a major freak out. Now you did not call him Dr. Varones so I’m assuming he is not a Ph.D. in economics.
He does seem to be a right wing nut job however. Sort of over the top ala Victor Davis Hanson!
Oh golly gee – Varones has joined Glenn Beck in pushing gold as investment!
http://www.wcvarones.com/2020/07/more-academic-malpractice-against-gold.html
Where do you find these nut jobs?!
pgl: He was a regular commenter on Econbrowser until May 2014.
Similar to your many years ago relationship with Peter Navarro, I would “keep that on the low down” if I was you.
Moses Herzog: No embarrassment for me – the fact that the likes of Bruce Hall, DickF, CoRev, have commented just means that lots of stupid and/or crazy people have plenty of time on their hands.
Careful there, I feel like you may have swiped at my left ear there (joke). But seriously, I’m old enough to remember (and had enough free time) when Jospeh Granville made appearances on Rukeyser. I think Rukeyser had very low respect for Granville, yet Granville was still on WSW pretty regular. I think Rukeyser was clever enough to know some of what he did fell under “entertainment”, and knew Granville had a circus freak show aspect to him that some viewers enjoyed (and some even believed in). Let’s be honest, these types do entertain us in some fashion and to a degree, although I find they get my anger up more than anything (I despised Granville).
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/business/joseph-e-granville-stock-market-predictor-dies-at-90.html
https://youtu.be/LlgeIGTMjNg?t=91
You should watch the YT video just for fun, but you can skip posting this if it makes life easier. I made it so the link goes straight to the Granville part. I still get wistful for Rukeyser because it was one of the few shows my Dad and I both agreed was a great show. My favorite show on TV was Letterman and my Dad detested him. List is endless.
Varones reminds me of Patrick R. Sullivan who often made all sorts of nonsensical comments at Thoma’s old place only to start a blog that no one paid any attention to.
Still obsessing about inflation (yawn.) And before that, the Fed’s stance on interest rates (yawn.)
Wake me up when when there’s a hot debate on how to get labor’s share of productivity gains up and how to keep the gains through the next Fed-induced recession.
Let the banksters be the ones to obsess about the real value of their assets and liabilities. Or maybe a lot of economists want to get lucrative gigs consulting to the banksters, who most assuredly have a stable full of good economists
That is pretty funny from someone who has argued repeatedly that inflation is the root of all evil. Of course obsessing over the absurd is your forte!
BTW since you insist the late 19th century was such a grand time for workers – might you share your impressive empirical evidence on the share of income accruing to wages back in the day?
Like I said, pgl doesn’t get nuance…or the point that I was making that low inflation or deflation is not something to obsess about.
Piketty’s assertion that inflation is a twentieth century phenomenon obviates it as a sine non qua for economic growth. Also, if we’re actually talking about labor for a change, then, yes, the last third of the nineteenth century was no worker’s paradise despite tremendous economic growth and no inflation. But then again, the last forty years have been no worker’s paradise either, despite substantial economic growth accompanied by inflation in being in a range that most group-thinking economists would grant their Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval..
My point being, a lot of stuff was going on that was a heck of a lot more important than inflation, though many economists do seem to love to obsess about it.
“Piketty’s assertion that inflation is a twentieth century phenomenon”.
If you are trying to tell us that Piketty said low inflation promotes income equality then you are lying. Maybe he made an observation about price levels in the 19th century but you are serially misrepresenting what he wrote. But hey – lying is your forte.
“My point being, a lot of stuff was going on that was a heck of a lot more important than inflation, though many economists do seem to love to obsess about it.”
We asked you to name the economists who obsess over inflation. You failed to do so. So at this point it it time to call you out as the pointless little liar you are and have always been.
“Wake me up when when there’s a hot debate on how to get labor’s share of productivity gains up and how to keep the gains through the next Fed-induced recession.”
Easy – run monetary policy in precisely the opposite of the serial nonsense from JohnH. Keep the economy hot even if inflation drifts a wee bit above 3%. A strong economy is good for the labor share but it drives people like you bananas.
When the easy money party ends, as it must eventually, then real median household incomes drop significantly for an extended period. It happened after the 1960s boom. And it happened after the 1990s boom. Basically the Fed pulls the rug out from under labor. Corporate profits recover quickly as does the stock market, but wages languish. The 2010s were a good example. The markets recovered within about four years, but real household incomes took about eight
And from what I see, too many economists don’t really care that labor is unduly burdened when the Fed stops the easy money party.
As usual – your “economics” is utter rubbish. You cite one decade when inflation was high and real median income did not soar and you think you have a new Nobel Prize winning thesis. Well genius – consider what happened in the 1980’s when tight brought inflation. According to your thesis, St. Reagan’s economics gave us income equality. Of course only a true idiot would claim that.
The problem here is that the FED followed your advice – deciding to lower the price level. Like we have all said – your gold bug agenda is the real problem. But you blame others for your stupidity? OK!
That’s really unsanitary.
An inflation -related story that is actually worth talking about, but strangely missing from the coverage:
“ After the longest period in history without an increase, the federal minimum wage today is worth 21% less than 12 years ago—and 34% less than in 1968.”
https://www.epi.org/blog/the-minimum-wage-has-lost-21-of-its-value-since-congress-last-raised-the-wage/
Before pgl does his ritual, knee-jerk blaming of Republicans, we should recall that Obama had a filibuster-proof majority that could have indexed the minimum wage to inflation as my state does…or he could have made it part of a reconciliation package.
“ After the longest period in history without an increase, the federal minimum wage today is worth 21% less than 12 years ago—and 34% less than in 1968.”
Missing from what coverage? I have noted this many times on the blogs. Many others have too. Oh wait – we were not appearing on Faux News where the real coverage of economic issues has to be done according to you. Could you stop making such stupid statements? Damn!
” I have noted this many times on the blogs.” Right! And what is the readership? And how many people pay attention to some unknown, unidentified faux progressive growth liberal, who typically has nothing to contribute, only insults and snarks.
I bet that that the number of pieces obsessing about inflation outnumber articles about workers’ loss of purchasing power by several orders of magnitude. Why do so many economists spend so much time obsessing about Wall Street concerns (inflation) is beyond me. In such circumstances, I can only suspect some unidentified self interest lurking, hidden in the background.
Apart from the Economic Policy Institute, how many blogs and news articles headline the loss in minimum wage workers’ purchasing power? Well, at least Krugman finally deigned to talk about raising the minimum wage last year after many years of silence at his bully pulpit at the NY Times.
And what is the readership?
There he goes again. OK – my fault that I am not on Fox and Friends every morning. You should be as they love babbling fools!
Actually I’m surprise that pgl isn’t a regular on Fox. With his constant middle school trash talk, misrepresentation of others, and faux progressivism, he’d be a perfect fit.
Or better yet, the Trump channel, where no whopper is too big to be featured on the news.
But how would I know. I never watch Fox, except for some sports.
“JohnH
July 29, 2021 at 12:21 pm
Actually I’m surprise that pgl isn’t a regular on Fox. With his constant middle school trash talk, misrepresentation of others, and faux progressivism, he’d be a perfect fit.”
This is the kind of babyish fluff one would expect from Kevin McCarthy. As Liz Cheney would day: “pretty childish”.
I do not misrepresent what you say. I call you out as a liar that you are which is not misrepresentation.
But you often misrepresent what people like Paul Krugman have said or not said. Grow up little troll.
The last time we had hyper-inflation was 1980 when it peaked at 13.5% CPI annual. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=gJ4#0
Deficit spending that year, $73.8 billion, was 12.5% of total federal spending at $591 billion.
Four decades later, deficit spending in 2020 at $3.1 trillion was 47% of federal spending at $6.6 trillion.
Annual CPI inflation was 1.2% in 2020.
OTOH, the unemployment rate in 2020 was 8.1%, more than double the rate in 2019. Mr. Varones obviously could not care less about the unemployed, but fortunately the Fed does.
Regarding disrespectful attitudes toward dollar bills, I had an experience with this some years ago on the Union Terrace at UW in Madison, where Menzie lurks.
So I was sitting at a table with some friends, drinking beer and looking at Lake Mendota, and along comes this guy who starts giving us this speech about spirituality and materialism and this and that. Somehow he was directing it at me more than the others. Anyway, at a certain point he asked me to give him a dollar bill so he could show exactly what it was worth. I did so, vaguely curious. He then took out a lighter and set it aflame, then stood there grinning while holding it up in front of himself until the flame got near his hand and then threw the remnant on the ground.
Glad he did not ask for a higher denomination, although I doubt I would have given him one if he had asked.
This actually does sound like something you’d do. Don’t fall for the “give me your CC#” thing, ok??
Moses,
I knew this amusing story would bring forth some snarky remark from you. But, hey, at least you did not accuse me of violating academic ethics or something like that, :-).
I saw some creep doing this with $100 bills to impress the girls. Of course none of the ladies decided to go out with this loser.
“There’s not just an absence of evidence confirming climate models. We now have years of evidence that the predictions of Global Warmists were wrong: the hockey stick, the ice-free arctic, snowfall a thing of the past in England…”
UAH temp anomaly is just where it was seven years ago.
And let’s add the coral at the Great Barrier Reef — at record highs.
https://www.oom2.com/t76322-record-coral-at-great-barrier-reef-shames-alarmists-and-media
You have gone basically insane.
Steven, they won’t answer the claims or questions re: success rate of climate model predictions, because it is too embarrassing to try.
CoRev: To prove you wrong, I’ll have something on this in a week. By the way, I did see soybean prices finally rise – post Trump. Winning!
Ah, you noticed soybeans prices. After months of banter you finally admitted the veracity of my 1st claim weather is one of the most important pricing factors and a farmer’s major concerns.
For the fools like PGL who have yet to understand the fundamentals of supply pricing of Ag products, I would like to point out weathers effect on this years coffee crop and ensuing prices.One year pricing is: https://www.macrotrends.net/2535/coffee-prices-historical-chart-data
For soybeans we have: “Soybeans: The (Absence of a) Weather Risk Premium in New-Crop Futures Prices” https://agfax.com/2021/06/28/soybeans-the-absence-of-a-weather-risk-premium-in-new-crop-futures-prices/
CoRev: I never asserted weather didn’t matter. Please locate and report the URL for the statement where I asserted that. What I did state is that (1) futures contract prices are a relatively unbiased predictor of soybean prices, (2) and that Chinese retaliation against the US could influence soybean prices.
On the other hand, weather is not the sole soybean price determinant of the surge, as pretty much all journalistic account note. Surging Chinese demand always shows up, and appropriately so. I find it telling you omit that.
By the way, regarding your risk premium paper, you do understand the hypothesized disappearance of a weather risk premium means ceteris paribus futures are an even better predictor of future soybean spot prices? The way you have (triumphantly) noted the article suggests you have no clue.
“After months of banter you finally admitted the veracity of my 1st claim weather is one of the most important pricing factors and a farmer’s major concerns.”
No one has ever said weather does not matter. But in your little model it seems ONLY weather matters.
If weather were the reason why soybean prices have been rising of late – then it would be the case that world production of soybeans had fallen. Funny thing, however, old CoRev. I checked various reporting agencies including our USDA on what they are saying about world production and it seems it has risen quite a bit over the last two years.
Look weather matters but so does demand. And we usually think about an increase in the market price and quantity as an outward shift of the demand curve and not some weather induced inward shift of the supply curve.
Of course I am talking about basic economics so I have no clue what you are basing your babble on. But I do appreciate the reporting of coffee prices as I start each morning making a pot of coffee. Maybe you could use your incredible ag expertise to mansplain to use why coffee prices have risen to $2 a pound.
Menzie, “To prove you wrong, I’ll have something on this in a week.” another click bait climate article?
CoRev: No. I will use this as an opportunity to build to my list of cases for my econometrics and public policy courses of how not to try to analyze data. Your numerous posts on futures prices and soybeans have been a godsend for my econometrics course. If they let me teach forecasting, I will acknowledge your help in this regard.
Actually, there is a chance that they will let me teach an undergrad course in public policy. That will mean you and Steven Kopits will have proven an invaluable resource.
Thanks again!
Steven,
Yes, looks like forecasts about the Great Barrier Reef have not held, but there is still ongoing damage through increased bleaching on lots of other coral reefs, which remain in danger from global warming.
A 2015 article in Science notes the general effect, but also notes that there is a wide distribution of outcomes. So that the Great Barrier Reef may be doing OK does not mean there is no problem.
Barkley, clueless again! “Yes, looks like forecasts about the Great Barrier Reef have not held,…” Since the Great Barrier Reef was the source of the claim, was disputed almost immediately and the disputing Prof had to be fired mainly for his disputation, this SLIGHT forecast failure has no effect on remaining coral reefs. I’m sure you have a reference for your claim.
When I think of your cluelessness, am reminded of your claim that ENSO is trendless. Another citeless claim.
CoRev,
Sorry, looks like you are clueless. For all the publicity it gets the Great Barrier Reef was not the “source of the claim.” Lots of coral reefs are being damaged by global warming and this has been reported widely all over the place for a long time. There is also a long list of academic articles on this.
Not a single one of those says that global warming is not hurting coral reefs at all. However, quite a few make the point I did that while on average global warming is tending to damage coral reefs, there is a very wide distribution of responses, with some not damaged. So, fine, looks like Great Barrier Reef is one of those in that minority.
As I noted there are quite a few serious articles that make the point I just did, but the precise citation for the article I mentioned is Mark D. Spalding, Barbara E. Brown, “Warm-water coral reefs and climate change,” Science, 13 Nov 2015, vol. 350, issue 6262, pp. 769-771.
In case you did not know, cluelesse CoRev, this is one of the two most prestigious scientific journals in the world, but this article is supported by others in other substantial journals, with no articles in any serious journal disagreeing.
BTW, too bad you never could get it straight with us just how many awards and which ones you got for your “service” with the Apollo program, but, hey, it is not surprising that somebody as clueless as you never could figure it out or keep your stories here straight.
And let’s add fires.
Year to date, number of fires is just above ten year average; acres burned is well below ten year average.
https://www.nifc.gov/fire-information/nfn
Steven Kopits: Do you ever look at data time series before pontificating? I do. https://econbrowser.com/archives/2021/07/wildfires-in-2021-dont-be-lulled-into-complacency-by-ytd-figures
That would’ve been helpful before you estimated max 200-400 dead in Puerto Rico post Hurricane Maria.
“Do you ever look at data time series before pontificating?”
As the chief economist for Fox and Friends, doing so might get him fired.
I did not pontificate, Menzie. I stated a fact, at least as recorded by the NIFC. I have made no forecast or statement about the balance of the year, nor do I have an opinion about it. I was surprised, though, given the coverage in the media, that acres burned to date are actually below average.
Steven Kopits: If you were merely expressing a statement of fact in your comment:
the word “just” would be unnecessary.
“Just” or “nearly” would ordinarily mean “less than 5%”. The number today is up by 8.6%. I misread that denominator as 36,000, and it’s properly around 34,000. Given the relatively large year to year variance, I should have used “somewhat” or the equivalent.
Acres burned are 10.1% below average ytd, and that could qualify as ‘well below’, but maybe ‘somewhat’ or an unqualified ‘below’ would have been a better qualifier in this case as well.
@”Princeton”Kopits
Hey, you’re a consultant, why quibble over details?? Think of denominators in ratios as mostly suggestions, nothing is set in stone. Kind of like death counts of brown people done by New Jersey amateurs. If people are dying from fires, just toss them a roll of Bounty paper towels. Problem solved.
Menzie, what a weak argument, “the word “just” would be unnecessary.” Even after this comment: ” particularly in the new climate normal I believe we are in.” from here: https://econbrowser.com/archives/2021/07/wildfires-in-2021-dont-be-lulled-into-complacency-by-ytd-figures, you have self-elevated to be a CLIMATE EXPERT, new climate normal I believe???
And how about hurricanes? That’s well in normal ranges, too.
http://climatlas.com/tropical/
Steven,
The matter of hurricanes and global warming is complicated. In terms of numbers there are conflicting effects, something not recognized by most observers. So hotter water in Atlantic tends to increase the number, but higher air temperature is also associated with more sand blowing off of Africa into the Atlantic, which tends to slow the formation of tropical storms. So far these effects seem to be about balancing out.
OTOH, the hotter ocean and Gulf of Mexico water means that hurricanes that do happen are more likely to be severe, with this not being offset by more sand off Africa. And indeed it looks like we have been having more Category 5 ones in the past two decades, the most severe category. From the 1920s to 2000 there was never more than three per decade. Then there were 8 in the aughts and 6 in the teens. That rather sticks out, especially how damaging those are.
Atlantic hurricanes are a major hazard to life and property, and a topic of intense scientific interest. Historical changes in observing practices limit the utility of century-scale records of Atlantic major hurricane frequency. To evaluate past changes in frequency, we have here developed a homogenization method for Atlantic hurricane and major hurricane frequency over 1851–2019. We find that recorded century-scale increases in Atlantic hurricane and major hurricane frequency, and associated decrease in USA hurricanes strike fraction, are consistent with changes in observing practices and not likely a true climate trend. After homogenization, increases in basin-wide hurricane and major hurricane activity since the 1970s are not part of a century-scale increase, but a recovery from a deep minimum in the 1960s–1980s. We suggest internal (e.g., Atlantic multidecadal) climate variability and aerosol-induced mid-to-late-20th century major hurricane frequency reductions have probably masked century-scale greenhouse-gas warming contributions to North Atlantic major hurricane frequency.
Just published.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24268-5
Steven,
Two points.
One is that (see Conclusions) the paper recognizes that globally since 1979 there has been an increase in Category 3-5 hurricanes, even if they do not see it that much in the Atlantic basin. Again, a reason why one might not see it so much in the Atlantic basin is the effect I mentioned that they did not that warming increases sand coming off Africa, which slows tropical storm formation.
The other point is that I pointe out the data for Category 5 storms, by far the most damaging. I was aware that therer was not a noticeable increase for what this paper looks at, the Category 3-5 range. But there has been a clear and sharp increase in the most severe storms recently, the Category 5, since 2000. My numbers are for the Atlantic basin storms, which I should have noted earlier, not globally. Do not know what they are, but bet they are also up, although the 3-5 numbers are up since 1979 anyway.
According to NOAA’s Hurricane Research Division. the 2010s had the second lowest number of US landfall hurricanes since 1850. Only the decade of the 1970s was lower. During the 2010-2019 period, the US experienced 1 Cat 5 landfall and two Cat 4 landfall hurricanes. Neither statistic is remotely out of the ordinary.
The 2020s have gotten off to a hot start with six named hurricanes last year.
http://www.prienga.com/blog/2021/7/29/us-landfall-hurricanes
https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/All_U.S._Hurricanes.html
Not sure exactly why landfall hurricane counts are really important. In addition, its not the number of hurricanes, its the amount of energy accumulated in the hurricanes which is the kind of measure your interested in.
But the 20 teens had the second highest number of Category 5 hurricanes of any decade ever recorded, with the decade before it the only one with more, with both of these decades way ahead of any previous ones..
Looks like you do not want to engage with the facts I have presented to you. Yeah, a lot of people going on about global warming have inaccurately made statements about the number of hurricanes and global warming, starting unfortunately with Al Gore. But the relation with the most severe hurricanes that really cause lots of damage looks to be there pretty strongly.
I think you need to face up to that hard fact and stop obfuscating things with these sideshows.
Oh, it is true we have not yet had a Category 5 this decade, but it has just gotten going hurricane-wise, and even you notice that there seem to be a lot of them happening, if not yet a Category 5 one.
Tornadoes are normal.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/203682/number-of-tornadoes-in-the-us-since-1995/
ltr has new competition. OK Stevie – you are still the dumbest troll ever!
On a slightly more macroeconomic note, has there ever been a decline in home values absent a rise in interest rates?
Are you kidding me? Interest rates in 2007 were not double digit. But there are much lower today than then. Of course our troll who flunked freshman finance has no effing clue why this matters.
JohnH: “We should recall that Obama had a filibuster-proof majority that could have indexed the minimum wage to inflation as my state does…or he could have made it part of a reconciliation package.”
We should also recall that the Senate parliamentarian ruled that the minimum wage couldn’t be included in a reconciliation bill.
As to the “filibuster-proof majority”, that lasted a total of four months in 2009. First, Al Franken was prevented from being seated by Republican recount lawsuits all the way from November 2008 through July 2009. Then Ted Kennedy became ill and died, and was not replaced with a temporary seat until the end of September 2009. And then Kennedy’s replacement election went to a Republican who was seated at the beginning of February 2010. So the Democrats held 60 seats only for the months of October 2009 through January 2010.
But that’s not all. Those 60 “Democrats” included Joe Lieberman who was not a Democrat at all but an Independent who campaigned all through the previous year for John McCain and Sarah Palin. Lieberman is also the one who single-handedly vetoed the public option from Obamacare as the 60th vote. So it’s rather misleading to say that Democrats ever held a “filibuster-proof majority” unless you count the non-Democrat who campaigned for the Republican McCain.
Obama did try to push through the Minimum Wage Fairness Act in 2013 but failed to get a single Republican to sign on.
Do you really expect JohnH to get basic politics? Does he know anything about economics? Of course not. Now maybe we can expect him one day to tie his own shoes.
If Democrats had seriously wanted to index the minimum wage to inflation in 2009, they certainly could have found a way, given their overwhelming majorities.
But like the union card check bill that Pelosi wouldn’t bring to a vote in 2009 (it passed the House in the 111th Congress), the minimum wage got buried (no need to inconvenience all those big donors, was there? And who did workers have to vote for besides Democrats? Right!!!)
The difference between Biden in 2021 and Obama in 2009 is that Biden has little room for maneuver but seems to have the right agenda. Obama had lots of wiggle room but never seemed to be able to understand what needed to be done other than placate plutocrats.
“Ben Zipperer joined the Economic Policy Institute in 2016. His areas of expertise include the minimum wage, inequality, and low-wage labor markets. He has published research in The Quarterly Journal of Economics and the Industrial and Labor Relations Review and has been quoted in outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, Bloomberg, and the BBC.”
Impressive creds and a very nice discussion. Of course if our clueless troll named JohnH had bothered to read the posts and comments here, he would have noticed a lot of these points have been extensively covered here. Oh wait – Econbrowser does not make the front page of the NYTimes so it does not matter.
Hey, hey. No need to get mad at Kopits. He’s just asking questions!
Just like the Chinese vaccine doubters. Some folks fail to see the irony.
Now you are just lying. To suggest questions about the efficacy of the Chinese vaccine is on the same order as the Trumpian vaccine deniers is incredibly dishonest. And you know it but you still write this intellectual garbage? Sorry dude – you have joined the long list of the trolls we call the Usual Suspects (or was that the Usual Idiots).
Not like the Kopit climate deniers and Trumpists? Here’s a sampling of the level of discourse on this site:
“Too bad Chinese vaccines are so much less effective than vaccines developed elsewhere.”
“We are saying take effective vaccines. Or would you prefer people in China drink bleach?”
“1.4 billion people poorly immunized is [not]a trivial risk factor”
Then we have Tucker Carlson. “If vaccinated people are getting sick, do these vaccines even work?” Hey, he’s just asking questions. Does it sound all that different?
The only one to provide any actual evidence for their claims says (and they shall remain anonymous to prevent embarrassment) “I do believe that you do need to address the evidence that Sinovac (inactivated) vaccine seems to be somewhat lower in efficacy against symptomatic infections, per WHO.
And if you go to the very page cited as evidence, there is this quote from WHO: “We cannot compare the vaccines head-to-head due to the different approaches taken in designing the respective studies, but overall, all of the vaccines that have achieved WHO Emergency Use Listing are highly effective in preventing severe disease and hospitalization due to COVID-19.
So the claim is that Sinovac is lower efficacy and the evidence cited to support that claim specifically says you can’t compare efficacies. This is Kopits’ level of carelessness. Lesson: always check the references.
joseph,
I think everybody here has said that if somebody has no other options they should take a Chinese vaccine. It is better than nothing, whatever the level of effectiveness. They are clearly well above zero. And, unfortunately, not enough other vaccines are around in many places to provide an alternative.
So, the jury is out ultimately on these comparisons, for reasons you have stated. But there are strong reasons to believe the Chinese ones are probably less effective, starting with the fairly large number of studies putting them around 50%, although there are others showing them much better. But a harder bottom line is that the overwhelming majority of highly vaccinated nations with major outbreaks now got there with Chinese vaccines, again: Seychelles, UAE, Mongolia, Chile, Uruguay, with only UK being one that used others, mostly the non-mRNA Astraxeneca.
I have in the past few days seen claims the Israeli study showing Pfizer effectiveness at only 39% to “have been debunked,” although I have not seen details on that claim. But it is all by itself with such a low rate, with the vast majority of studies showing the MRNA ones over 89%. But it may well be that people will need a booster for those, and probably the others as well.
joseph, i will give you credit for having me reconsider the chinese vaccines. looking at the latest data, it appears they are working at an acceptable level. but you need to acknowledge, when data first began to appear for the chinese vaccines, it was not really promising. because of those initial reports, they have remained suspect. first impressions i guess. there still needs to be some clarity provided regarding some of the areas that were vaccinated and yet still suffered outbreaks, such as the seychelles. you have some validity in the point that comparing head to head may be misleading, since south africa and brazil variants were different than what the usa measured. that said, the same argument can be made about the efficacy based on studies in china itself, where lockdowns and social distancing have had an outsized (and beneficial) impact on the spread within china itself.
as i have said before, my goal is selfish. i want the world to have as strong as a vaccine as possible, to stomp out the virus before a more deadly variant emerges. no matter where the vaccine comes from. weak vaccines have the potential to permit a more dangerous, vaccine resistant variant to emerge. that puts everybody back to square one, something i want to avoid.
joseph,
Today’s WaPo has a large article on Israel planning to give people over 60 a third booster shot for all vaccines. This article gave as the lowest estimate of effectiveness of Pfizer is 81%. Looks like indeed that story about 39% was indeed bs now debunked.
If weather were the reason why soybean prices have been rising of late – then it would be the case that world production of soybeans had fallen. Funny thing, however, old CoRev. I checked various reporting agencies including our USDA on what they are saying about world production and it seems it has risen quite a bit over the last two years.
Look weather matters but so does demand. And we usually think about an increase in the market price and quantity as an outward shift of the demand curve and not some weather induced inward shift of the supply curve.
Of course I am talking about basic economics so I have no clue what you are basing your babble on. But I do appreciate the reporting of coffee prices as I start each morning making a pot of coffee. Maybe you could use your incredible ag expertise to mansplain to use why coffee prices have risen to $2 a pound.
PGL, the worst analyst I have ever seen, asks “Maybe you could use your incredible ag expertise to mansplain to use why coffee prices have risen to $2 a pound.” My answer: WEATHER.
As for earlier Soybean price increases, to explain in BASIC Economic terms, demand continued to rise while supply was constrained. Constrained NOT BY farm production but by shipping availability. Your ignorance does astound!
CoRev: Please, please, please explain what happened weather-wise in mid-2018 that drove soybean (and not other ag prices) down so precipitously. Was it Typhoon Trump?
corev is playing checkers while menzie is playing chess. do not commingle to many issues at once, it may blow up corev’s mind.
Menzie asks, I hope tongue in cheek, “CoRev: Please, please, please explain what happened weather-wise in mid-2018 that drove soybean (and not other ag prices) down so precipitously. ” I made no such claim! Nor did I claim that Trump’s actions did NOT effect prices.
However, assuming you are serious, 2018 was a significant year for China’s pigs and AFS: “The country has suffered huge economic losses as a result of the virus — China’s pig population of more than 440 million has been reduced by 40% since the virus first appeared in the northeastern city of Shenyang in August 2018 — although the outbreak seems to be under control now,…” https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00742-w/
I dunno, is there a difference of when a problematic disease is OFFICIALLY recognized and announced? Do we have any recent history?
You never insisted that it was weather, weather, weather? Either you just lied there or there is some other fool out there using your name.
“2018 was a significant year for China’s pigs and AFS”
Something beyond weather? Well yea – but note this is inward shift of the demand curve. Weather lowers prices when it leads to an outward shift of the supply curve.
Of course none of this will sink into your brain as your head has banned any economic reasoning.
Demand matters. Shipping costs matter (like tariffs matter for similar reasons). So you have now abandoned your ONLY weather matters model. Good to know!
Rosser: “But a harder bottom line is that the overwhelming majority of highly vaccinated nations with major outbreaks now got there with Chinese vaccines, again: Seychelles, UAE, Mongolia, Chile, Uruguay,”
You have bad information — yet again.
Daily case rates in the last two months:
Seychelles down 77%
UAE down 60%
Mongolia down 48%
Chile down 83%
Uruguay down 95%
And all of them have daily deaths in the single digits. All are doing better than the U.S and UK.
When are you going to stop embarrassing yourself with bad motivated reasoning?
joseph, chile had a pretty big outbreak after they deployed a large number of vaccines. you are correct about today. but what about may and june? chile had nearly 60% of the population vaccinated with at least one dose when it hit a record number of infections per day, in early june. it appears that its latest surge is over now, but simply occurred earlier than in the usa.
the lesson we are learning, around the globe, is that the variants seem to spread even with vaccination. this means vaccination itself is not enough, today. we still need to social distance and mask up. otherwise the virus will continue to circulate and infect, even with vaccination within the population.
Jeebus! Do you ever stop being Trump stupid?
On June 1 Chile had 55% vaccinated with a single dose of a two dose vaccine. It takes two weeks to begin partial protection after that first dose, a month to the second dose and then another two weeks to full protection. Chile did not reach 60% fully vaccinated until two weeks ago.
The infection rate in Chile peaked on June 7 and then rapidly declined by 83% — which is exactly as you would expect from a damn good vaccine as the second dose is rolled out. We’ve seen the same in every country, Chinese vaccine or non-Chinese vaccine.
Seriously, this is exactly like CoRev. First you present one false claim which is debunked. So then you furiously find another false claim which is debunked. And then another and then another, exactly like CoRev.
why act like a crotchety old man, joseph?
“On June 1 Chile had 55% vaccinated with a single dose of a two dose vaccine. ”
i clearly pointed out the statistic was for a single dose. intentionally. but the vaccine begins to provide protection within the two weeks. and on june 1, over 8 million people were fully vaccinated, nearly 43% of the population. so out of that 55%, only 12% were partially vaccinated. not as dire as you are implying. there was a lag between when the vaccine rolled out and when the infections declined. pretty long lag.
maybe it is instructive to see the usa statistics. the usa peaked mid january 2021. and fell dramatically. the usa did not reach 43% fully vaccinated until june as well, when it also had 52% fully vaccinated. the impact of the vaccine on the spread was much more dramatic in the case of the usa. you saw the impact immediately, but mid february. we did not see that with chile. in chile we saw the virus continue to propagate at a high rate for quite some time after the vaccine rolled out.
maybe there are conditions on the ground to better explain the differences. but when you compare the response between the two countries, there is a distinct difference. you seem to want to ignore this difference, does in fact, exist. one country rolled out a vaccine and immediately saw a decrease in the spread. another country rolled out a vaccine and had a definite time lag before the virus began to decline. why? please answer this for me joseph.
You are still on this?
Trump won the election.Sorry, you mean Chinese vaccines are ineffective? You would give Sammy a run for fruitless persistence.baffling: “the usa peaked mid january 2021. and fell dramatically.”
The US peaked on January 11 and fell sharply when only 2% had been vaccinated with a single dose? That’s some miracle vaccine! Do you really think that 2% having a single dose was responsible for the decline or perhaps other complicating factors? Perhaps non-pharmaceutical interventions? Then in March as more vaccinations rolled out there was another wave of infections peaking on April 16. And then as more vaccinations rolled out there was yet another wave starting in the middle of June which still has not resolved. I’m starting to lose confidence here.
Meanwhile infections in Chile had similar peaks in April and June but unlike the US, since June in Chile it has been a steady decline and is still declining today while rising in the U.S. An 83% reduction in infections. As of today, Chile has one-fifth the daily infection rate of the U.S.
I don’t know what you make out of all that but it certainly doesn’t suggest that Chinese vaccines in Chile are less effective.
you really want to call april a peak? that is a stretch. seems like the analysis one would get from corev.
but let me get this straight. as the usa rolls out a vaccine, the infections begin to drop. no credit to the vaccine. but as chile rolls out a vaccine, cases continue to climb and climb. a few months later, when three quarters of the population is either vaccinated or infected, it begins to drop. so now we credit the vaccine. lets disregard that chile was in full lockdown at the time. this is what you are saying joseph. the usa response was magic-wow.
probably a better description is those vaccines in the usa were more effective at controlling the spread compared to those that were in chile. and now we have a new variant, delta, which may make that point moot. it appears it spreads even with a vaccine, no matter where it is sourced. do you think this breakout variant is the result of vaccines made in the usa, or elsewhere, joseph?
joseph,
I am not going to go dig up what it was now, but I saw a source that said what I said. Maybe their rates are down now after having gone up (and maybe (and maybe Chile did not quite meet the cutoff, whoop-de-doo). Good.
As it is you very pompously told us about this report out of Israel that said Pfizer was only 39% effective, bragging how that was the most recent number. It now appears that number was a pile of crap. According to WaPo 81% is the lowest effective rate for Pfizer out of there as of the latest.
However, I am not gong to indulge in accusing you of “embarrassing yourself with bad motivated reasoning.” And there has been nothing wrong withy my “reasoning,” simply newer data appearing that makes something one or the other of us said look out of date or just plain wrong, just as you are on that apparently inaccurate report on Pfizer’s effectiveness out of Israel.
Get off your fake high horse and stop acting like a jerk.
Israel Ministry of Health says 39%
New York Times says 39%
Bloomberg says 39%
Times of Israel says 39%
CNBC says 39%
Fortune says 39%
Wall Street Journal says 39%
Reuters says 39%
Jerusalum Posts says 39%
Of course, they are all quoting the Israel Health Minister.
I’m gonna go with the words spoken out of the mouth of Israel Health Minister Nitzan Horowitz about Israel vaccinations until he says otherwise. I’m guessing that he knows more about Israel’s vaccinations than you.
But you see, that’s not even the point. I wasn’t casting shade on the Pfizer vaccine. It’s a great vaccine. I was just using it as an example showing that efficacy numbers vary over time and over different populations and different virus variants.
But ignorant people like you picked out one number about the Chinese vaccines and fixed it in your pea brain even though the WHO specifically stated in their EUA that you can’t compare vaccine efficacies because they are all tested under different circumstances. And then you used that one number to disparage Chinese vaccines. Why you are so fixed on that is a mystery.
But you stubbornly keep digging with your stupid arguments, just like the Pillow Guy. You cited five countries supposed to prove Chinese vaccines are ineffective and they are all doing as well or better than the United States. It’s like Trump’s 40 election lawsuits. Just give it up.
reuters reports 64% efficacy against infection and symptomatic disease in israel in early july.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-sees-drop-pfizer-vaccine-protection-against-infections-still-strong-2021-07-05/
Fine, joseph the jerk, the 39% number came from the Israel Health Minister, and WaPo messed up not quoting it as well. I am not checking all those sources, but I shall take it that you are not lying about them.
But you are full of it claiming I have “picked on one number” about the Chinese vaccines. Which number was that? There have been a lot of studies claiming their effectiveness is in the 50% range, not just one, although as I have fully agreed there are others that show them being much more effective. I have also repeatedly said that if one has no alternatives one should take a Chinese vaccine. I have never said they were totally ineffective as you have jerkishly accused many here of claiming. I would note that it looks like the Chinese themselves recognize the likely superiority of the mRNA vaccines over theirs (despite the figure out of Israel) as they are reportedly working hard at developing ones of that type themselves, but have failed to do so this far. Again, as I have before, I applaud their having produced lots of the vaccines they do have and have made them much more available to many in the world than have any other nation. So, Just what is your gripe here, jerk?
As for me making “stupid arguments,” this has been a matter about ongoing and developing news and data sources, which keep turning each other over and many of which are not entirely reliable. We are dealing with a very noisy environment. You got in a total outrage because apparently instead of there having been recently (until they all turned around and started having declining cases, including UK) six nations with over 60% vaxxed status with rapidly rising infection rates, five of them with Chinese vaccines, there were only five such, with Chile missing the cutoff by only having 55% vaccinated rather than 60%. Wow, way off. Is my reporting that, which turned out to be slightly off a sign of “stupid arguments” or some sort of malevolent behavior? I don’t think so. It is still the case that four out of five in that status had what I reported, Chinese vaccines that did not stop a big rate of infection increase.
So, joseph the jerk, get it together. Arguments about which data are accurate are one thing, but those have nothing to do with either intelligence or malevolence. I want to know what the facts are, but they keep changing fast, and clearly many reports are coming out that are not fully reliable. Maybe you have some magic ability to know immediately which ones are correct and which ones are not, but I make no such claim and never have. As near as I can tell there remains more we do not know about all this, especially regarding the delta variant, than we know.
As it is, if you cannot tell the difference between a logical argument and a difference over which data source is accurate or not, you are the one that is both stupid and acting with “bad motivation.” What has got you doing that? Are you really actually a jerk? I would prefer to think not, but that is what it looks like right now. Or maybe you are just stupid and badly motivated instead.
And has been pointed out before above if you had been paying attention, your citation is from July 5 and more than two weeks out of date.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/23/delta-variant-pfizer-covid-vaccine-39percent-effective-in-israel-prevents-severe-illness.html
“Pfizer and BioNTech’s Covid-19 vaccine is just 39% effective in Israel where the delta variant is the dominant strain, but still provides strong protection against severe illness and hospitalization, according to a new report from the country’s Health Ministry.
“The efficacy figure, which is based on an unspecified number of people between June 20 and July 17, is down from an earlier estimate of 64% two weeks ago“
The latest data is from a report by Israel Health Minister Nitzan Horowitz. Previously they reported 64% on July 5. The latest data says 39% on July 23. I don’t know how accurate it is but is the official number put out by the Israel Health Minister as of this date.
Why do you keep doing this to yourself? You just look foolish.
I’ll repeat. I don’t think the specific efficacy number for infections is all that important because is varies with population, time and variants. What it does mean is that seizing on any one number, as you and others did for the Chinese vaccines, and trying to compare it to others is a fools game.
I noticed you did not address why the usa had a decrease in cases while rolling out the vaccine, and chile had an increase in cases while rolling out the vaccine.
“ I don’t know how accurate it is but is the official number put out by the Israel Health Minister as of this date.”
If you are not sure of the accuracy, then you should not use it in your argument.
On june 22 there were 89 new cases in israel. Now the case number rose through july, but i am betting that efficacy rate is based on a rather small sample size. That is why it was prefaced with an “unknown number” of cases. Although that does not seem to bother you.
At any rate, as i said before the delta variant is a problem. Usa vaccines were not showing breakthrough infections until it came along. That statement cannot be made for some of the other vaccines around the world.
Yet more CovRev stupidity. Has he hijacked your account?
It’s a fools game to try to time each peak and trough to the rollout of vaccinations. We aren’t even sure what level of vaccinations is required to reduce the spread given varying amounts of natural immunity from previous infections. We aren’t sure about the changes in amount of non-pharmaceutical interventions — lockdowns, social distancing, masking. The introduction of new variants. You want to tease out all of these individual factors?
How do you explain that fact that the peak in the U.S. started its sharp decline of infections starting January 9 when only 2% had been vaccinated with a single dose. Surely you don’t believe that can be attributed to vaccination? And then in mid-April, at the peak of daily vaccinations in the U.S., infections suddenly went up by 31%. Does that mean the vaccines were failing? How do you explain a sudden increase in infections? Or was it new variants? Or was it a change in NPI policies?
And then there is the latest peak in the U.S. Cases are rising and still rising. Florida is now having the highest daily rate of infection since the being of the pandemic 18 months ago. Does that mean the vaccine is failing?
You say that its because of the delta variant. Very likely. But the delta variant has been around since December. It took off in India in March. It has been traveling around the world to different countries since. You say the delta has just recently arrived in the U.S. But do you know when delta and other variants arrived in Chile? Do you know the timing of NPI policy changes in Chile? If you can’t explain these factors, then your attempted phrenology of all the little peaks and dips are meaningless.
But what you can do is look at the “harder bottom line” as Rosser put it. How are these countries doing right now, after many months of vaccinations? Chile is doing better than the U.S. It has a lower daily infection rate and lower daily death rate than the U.S. It’s infection rate is declining while the U.S is reaching new highs.
That doesn’t mean the Chinese vaccines are better, given all the other complicating factors I mentioned, but it would be CoRev levels of stupid to claim Chile having a lower infection rate proves Chinese vaccines are worse.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.28.21259673v1.full
Apparently a recent study-not yet peer reviewed- shows concerns that the chinese vaccine in chile has lost effectiveness with the latest variant.
They are all worried about new variants. Israel is already administering a third shot booster for Pfizer. The UK is preparing to do third shot boosters starting next month.
It’s a big concern everywhere at a time when we already don’t have enough vaccines for billions around the world. Too bad some misinformed people are trying to cast shade on the largest vaccine producer in the world.
Delta was confirmed in chile around june 24, after cases began to drop from the latest peak. So chile spent several months with high vaccination rates and high numbers of cases, without the delta variant. What it indicates is that the unvaccinated cases, which were the majority of new cases, were appearing in chile in similar numbers both before vaccines as well as after a large number of people were vaccinated. This indicates, while the vaccines protects against death, it seems to offer much less protection against spread to the unvaccinated. This has serious implications on how and when to cut back on masking and social distancing. If a community with the sinovac vaccine does not do these things, the virus will still propagate exponentially through the population. And while the vaccinated do not get severely sick, they harbour the virus and become a large pool for a potential variant that is vaccine resistant. This is a serious problem. And one culprit is promoting the idea that these vaccines are just as effective as the mrna vaccines that were produced. In the usa, this breakthrough behavior was only seen after the variants emerged. This breakthrough behavior was seen much earlier in the chinese vaccines, raising concerns in places like the seychelles and indonesia, where spread seemed to be high even within populations with higher vaccination rates.
When I criticize the chinese vaccines, it is not necessarily that they cannot prevent deaths. But it indicates that if we want to use them as the worldwide solution to stop the virus, one needs to acknowledge they have a weakness. If that weakness is not addressed, they very well could lead to all vaccines becoming ineffective and we are back to square one. Joseph, you seem not too concerned about this very distinct possibility.
In case you have not noticed, even with the millions (billions?) of doses administered in china, they are still locking down international travel and enforcing social distancing and masking rules. If the vaccines were as effective as you argue, that would not be necessary. But that message does not appear to being sent to those nations using the vaccine overseas.
Joseph, do you think the recent variants came from unvaccinated cases or breakthrough vaccinated cases?
Rosser: “As for me making “stupid arguments”
As for stupid arguments, how about this one: ““But a harder bottom line is that the overwhelming majority of highly vaccinated nations with major outbreaks now got there with Chinese vaccines, again: Seychelles, UAE, Mongolia, Chile, Uruguay,”
Okay, so I went to check your harder bottom line and what do I find?
Seychelles down 77%
UAE down 60%
Mongolia down 48%
Chile down 83%
Uruguay down 95%
And all of them have daily deaths in the single digits. All are doing better than the U.S and UK for daily infections. There’s your bottom line.
And this is your “proof” that Chinese vaccines are ineffective? Yeah, I would call that pretty stupid.
OK,, joseph the jerk, this is misleading bs. Those declines happened after the incteases, which happened. This is just stupid jerk behavior on your part repeating this. We already know it, and it does not undo that those nations had large increases earlier with all of them relying on Chinese vaccines, although Chile only had a 55% vaccination rate rather then one over 60%.
BTW, why did you leave off UK? It also had sharp increases but has been having declines more recently? Looks about the same as those, although it is the one that did not rely on a Chinese vaccine.
You are just reconfirming that you are a jerk here with this sort of stuff, joseph.
I didn’t pick Chile as the poster child for Chinese vaccines. You did.
And it turns out that Chile has a lower infection rate and lower death rate than the U.S. And the infection rate in Chile continues to decline while the U.S. is surging to new highs.
Only a loon could conclude that this proves Chinese vaccines are inferior.
joseph even more the jerk,
Funny you have been all worked up about people accusing you of lying, and here you go outright lying. I did not pick out Chile “as the poster child for Chinese vaccines.” I noted it as one of six nations that supposedly had over 60% vaccination rates that had rapid increases in infections, with five of those (not UK) having mostly used Chinese vaccines. You then claimed that Chile had only 55% vaccinated, and then you and baffling got into a long argument over Chile in particular. I never picked it out particularly. You are lying, although possibly you are just stupid and somehow did not realize I did not pick out Chile as some poster boy.
I accept that apparently these six nations have all since seen declines in their new cases, but again, this is after them all having rapid increases.
On another matter, you listed all those sources that quoted the Israeli health minister on that 39% number. But all those stories were around July 23 or 24 when he made his statement. The half page article I saw in WaPo on this was a week later, on July 30. You have been the one going on and on about how we need to keep up to date on the latest sources.
So, joseph the lying jerk, do you have an explanation why a leading newspaper covering this story in detail a week after the Israeli health minister reports a number does not repeat his number but instead reports a whole bunch of other numbers, all of which are over 90% with one at 81% and none lower? Is this because these WaPo reporters are incompetent (article had two authors)? Or maybe it was found out in the week after he made the statement that it was not a reliable number? I don’t know, but on thinking about it more carefully, and taking seriously your good advice to worry about timing of reports, it looks highly likely that in fact that 39% number is no longer valid.
And I’ll note that you and others have accused me of lying and providing false data, even literally using the favorite Trump catch phrase Fake News! While everything I have said is sourced from the science data.
Do you wonder why I say this place sounds just like Tucker Carlson and QAnon and Fox News?
I don’t know for sure what is going on but the best I can tell is people got really angry about ltr’s posts about China and then went crazy trying to throw dirt on Chinese vaccines in retaliation. They simply couldn’t swallow the fact that despite all the other questionable activities of the Chinese government, they are doing a really good thing with their vaccines. So they make stuff up. They scour the depths of the internet to find any hint to support their motivated reasoning, just like the QAnon kooks.
@ Menzie and @ joseph
I think the two of you take this issue to heart, so I thought you guys would take the most interest in this. Joseph, for the record, I don’t think you are a liar, and I don’t recall you ever telling a lie (certainly not intentionally) on this blog in all the months (years??) I’ve seen you comment here.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/coronavirus-sequences-deleted-china-nih
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/science/coronavirus-sequences-lab-leak.html
I think it’s important to remember that not all Americans are playing “Gotcha!!!!” with how Beijing is sometimes mishandling the Covid-19, or maybe putting priority on a “CYA” game in keeping their bureaucratic jobs over Chinese citizens’ lives and health. Though many Americans may be playing the game “we are better than them” to deceive themselves into having a false sense of superiority, some Americans are actually concerned and care about how Beijing makes policy decisions because they care about mainland Chinese as human beings.