Wednesday, November 27, 2024

Some of my thoughts during Coronavirus/Covid19 times, leading up to “The Great Barrington Declaration”

March 22, 2020
In February, I visited Churchill War Rooms in London Reading UK’s plans of building up herd immunity against coronavirus, I have a feeling Winston would have agreed with such stiff upper lip policy: “I have nothing to offer but fever, coughing, chills and shortness of breath”

March 22, 2020
The politicization of coronavirus is shameless 
Last year, in polarized Britain, I heard a child ask her mother “What’s worse Brexit or murder?” 
Any moment now, in polarized USA, I expect to hear a child asking “What’s worse coronavirus or Trump?”

https://x.com/PerKurowski/status/1241872388901527573


April 11, 2020
Q. Who will bear more and for a far longer time all economic costs derived from quarantines?
A. Those under 40 years and who, in Italy, only represent 0.25% (a quarter of one percent) of all coronavirus deaths.
Q. Is all really as it should be?
https://x.com/PerKurowski/status/1249050404547149824

April 29, 2020
How many years have I left to live with the economic costs of coronavirus? 10-20, God willing
How many years have my grandchildren left to live with these? 80-90, God willing 
Take loving care of us older, but let us not mortgage the future of the younger :-(

May 12, 2020
Surrealistic... Congress hearings on testing and not hearing about the costs of tests... how much is it by test?
https://x.com/PerKurowski/status/1260251211879645185

June 24, 2020
Since the death rate from Coronavirus/ COVID-19 varies so dramatically with age, reporting on cases of Coronavirus/ COVID-19, without giving the breakdown by age, is such an incomplete information, that it borders on misinformation.
https://x.com/PerKurowski/status/1275858633692241922

July 18, 2020
In Sweden, until July 17, out of 5,619 total COVID-19 deaths only 71, 1.26%, were under 50 years of age, only 26 under 40 years. Giving Coronavirus data without discriminating by age, amounts to serious misinformation. That age difference is not reflected in current lockdowns
https://x.com/PerKurowski/status/1284531142717210627

August 2, 2020
In this information age, why is there not in America a real time data based on Covid hospitalizations/deaths, discriminated by group and race?
Then each person would be able to take his own informed decisions about what to do. But then there would be no one to blame. :-(

August 3, 2020.
Parents of children in 9th grade are almost always less than 50 years of age. In Sweden, as of July 24, out of 5,687 Coronavirus deaths 71, 1.2%, were younger than 50 years; only 26, 0.5%, younger than 40; only 10, 0.2%, younger than 30.

August 3, 2020.
Based on that data the logical conclusion should be to keep schools open, keep older teachers at home and refrain grandparents from hugging their grandchildren. Frankly, disseminating data on Coronavirus without discriminating by age, is in essence misinformation.

August 16, 2020
Data on deaths from Covid-19 by age group shows those over 60 years represent more than 90%. 
So, if it is too much hassle, why not limit the right to vote by mail to that age group?

October 2-5, 2020
The Great Barrington Declaration


October 21, 2020 A letter in the Washington Post
Equally roughly 90 percent of the virus’s social and economic consequences will be paid by those younger than 60. 
That presents us with an intergenerational conflict of monstrous proportions.


Now November 2024, Donald Trump nominates Dr. Jay Bhattacharya as Director of the National Institutes of Health.
Great! But, never forget:

March 22, 2021
Georges Clemenceau’s “War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men” could be updated to: “A Covid-19 response ‘is too serious a matter to entrust’ to epidemiologist”


November 28, 2021
Have your national health authorities identified without preconditions citizens willing to keep on being unvaccinated (placebo), and thereby serve science as a control group for Covid vaccines? If not, why? Is such research not a question of national security?



Full disclosure: Few have been as critical of the official responses given to the Coronavirus pandemic as I.
Yet, on my CDC Covid-19 Vaccination Record Card since 03/08/21 until 10/25/24, eight doses of PFIZER vaccines appear. Why?
I'm over 70 years of age and, much more relevant, I never thought I could convince my wife with some Anti-Vax arguments, so I never tried (dared) to do so. C'est la vie! :-)



Monday, November 25, 2024

What if Donald Trump, on January 20, 2025, issues the following #MAGA Executive Orders?

#MAGA Executive Order #1
"Bank capital/equity requirements against Federal Government debt & residential mortgages, must be at least as high as those against loans to unrated American small business & entrepreneurs" 

#MAGA Executive Order #2
"All illegal immigrants from Latin America as on this date, will be issued 100% biometric passports allowing them to work, leave and reenter US.
Criminal behavior leads to immediate deportation."

#MAGA Executive Order #3
"The government must not receive any other income than taxes paid directly to it by the citizens.
Even the lowest income earners, have a right to hold their government accountable."


#MAGA Executive Order #4
"All tax paying citizens shall, completely unhindered, be free to engage artificial intelligence, #AI, in order to measure, in real time, #government #effectiveness when using its tax revenues."

#MAGA Executive Order #5
“Any health sector provider shall not be allowed to charge a price more than 5% higher to any uninsured patient, than what they charge insurance companies for the same medicines or treatments.”
https://teawithft.blogspot.com/2009/06/but-there-is-minimum-minimorum-reform.html
https://x.com/PerKurowski/status/1861089879502848171

PS. I might keep adding proposed Executive Orders


Sunday, November 17, 2024

Bank regulators, mixed and served us their Basel Accord cocktail... and since, they tell us all to sing: “Don't worry, be happy.”

The Basel I Accord (28 pages) was published in July 1988 by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision:

Risk weighted bank capital requirements with decreed weights:
0% Sovereigns, 50% residential mortgages and 100% private sector.

The film Cocktail in July 1988, released "Don't Worry Be Happy" by Bobby McFerrin.

Here's a little song I wrote
You might want to sing it note for note
Don't worry, be happy

Basel II (239 pages) was published in June 2004.

Decreed risk weights: AAA to AA rated 20% - Below BB- rated 150%

The global financial crisis, 2008-09, caused by mortgage backed securities MBS ensued. 

The land-lord say your rent is late
He may have to litigate
Don't worry, be happy

Basel III: A global regulatory framework for more resilient banks and banking systems - revised version June 2011.

In every life we have some trouble
But when you worry, you make it double
Don't worry, be happy.

Basel III, July 2024, often retitled as an “Endgame” (for the times being only 1,910 pages), is still being worked on.

But on the margin, where it most counts when banks decide in what to invest, the risk weighted bank capital equity requirements, they still reign supreme.

And many nations and many of its citizens, having to take on new debt only to service the debt they already owe, have turned into zombies. What a hangover headache that cocktail has given us! BUT they still tell us:

Don't worry, it will soon pass
Whatever it is
Don't worry, be happy

Saturday, November 02, 2024

#AI #OpenAI #ChatGPT: Should grandfathers want their grandchildren to live, where there are no millionaires, or where there are plenty of real-money billionaires?

I asked ChatGPT:

"In less than 400 words, how do you think grandparents would/should answer the following question: Do you want your grandchildren to live, where there are no millionaires, or where there are plenty of real-money billionaires?"

ChatGPT answered:

"Grandparents often have a deep, personal investment in the world their grandchildren will inherit, valuing stability, fairness, and opportunity over mere financial distinctions. Many would likely prefer their grandchildren to grow up in a society that promotes equal opportunities and a high quality of life for all, rather than one excessively driven by wealth concentration.

In a world without millionaires, they might envision a society focused less on wealth accumulation and more on equity and security, where resources are more evenly distributed, and everyone has a fair shot at success. Such a world could potentially foster a sense of community, lower economic stress, and provide an environment where their grandchildren don’t feel pressured to “keep up” financially but can instead focus on personal and societal development.

On the other hand, the presence of "real-money billionaires" might be seen positively if these individuals are contributing meaningfully to society, driving innovation, and improving living standards for all. Grandparents might appreciate that billionaires with a strong social commitment could foster advances in technology, healthcare, and environmental sustainability. However, they might also worry that unchecked wealth accumulation could lead to inequality, which might limit opportunities and exacerbate social divides, making it harder for their grandchildren to succeed based on merit alone.

Ultimately, grandparents are likely to prioritize a balance—hoping for a world where financial success exists but isn’t the sole metric of worth, where opportunity is widely available, and where wealthier individuals play a constructive role in society. In this ideal, a society wouldn’t be devoid of millionaires or billionaires but would instead ensure that such wealth benefits the common good, allowing their grandchildren to thrive without feeling either constrained by or beholden to extreme wealth gaps."

I asked ChatGPT:

"Again, in less than 400 words, would “a society that promotes equal opportunities” have more millionaires and billionaires than one that focuses on promoting equality?"

ChatGPT answered:

"A society focused on equal opportunities differs fundamentally from one centered solely on promoting equality. Equal opportunity aims to provide individuals with the same starting conditions—access to quality education, healthcare, fair labor practices, and a chance to advance based on talent and effort. In such a society, people can succeed to varying degrees, often resulting in a broader range of income and wealth, which includes the rise of millionaires and billionaires. Those who innovate, take risks, or excel might accumulate significant wealth, given a fair and supportive system.

On the other hand, a society focused strictly on equality tends to prioritize leveling outcomes. Policies might aim to narrow wealth gaps directly by limiting extreme wealth accumulation, redistributing resources, or setting income caps. In such societies, wealth disparities are minimized to maintain an even playing field, making it less likely for a large number of millionaires or billionaires to emerge. Instead, the focus is on reducing economic stratification, possibly by capping wealth and income or heavily taxing excess earnings.

While both models aim for fairness, they lead to different economic outcomes. A society based on equal opportunities is likely to have more millionaires and billionaires because it allows individuals to reap the rewards of their unique contributions, so long as the system remains accessible to all. In contrast, a society focusing strictly on equality would have fewer ultra-wealthy individuals, as it emphasizes balancing wealth across all levels, aiming for a narrower wealth range and potentially sacrificing large financial incentives for innovation.

In summary, a society that promotes equal opportunities is likely to produce more wealth and thus more millionaires and billionaires than one focused primarily on equality, as it supports a range of economic outcomes rather than seeking to eliminate disparities entirely."

I asked ChatGPT:

"Finally, in less than 400 words, if having read your response to the second question, how do you think their teenage grandchildren would answer the first one?"

ChatGPT answered:

"Teenage grandchildren today are likely growing up with strong opinions about fairness, opportunity, and the role of wealth in society. Influenced by discussions on inequality, climate change, and social justice, they may see wealth in terms of its impact on society rather than as a pure marker of success. With this mindset, they might lean toward a preference for a world without millionaires or one where wealth is widely shared, seeing it as a path to a more equitable and community-focused society.

These teens might interpret a world without millionaires as one where everyone has enough to meet their needs and thrive without extreme wealth disparities. They could view such a society as less competitive and less stressful, where people are valued for their contributions rather than their financial success. For many young people, the idea of a fair, accessible world—where housing, education, and healthcare are universally attainable—might be more appealing than striving to join the ranks of the ultra-wealthy.

On the other hand, they might also recognize the potential benefits of billionaires if those individuals are socially responsible, using their resources to drive innovation and tackle global challenges. They may hope that in a world with "real-money billionaires," wealth would translate into meaningful investments in sustainability, technology, or social causes that improve lives globally. However, if billionaires seem disconnected from broader social concerns or primarily focused on personal gain, teens could see this model as contributing to inequality rather than solving it.

Overall, many teens today might prefer a world that promotes fair opportunities and limits extremes in wealth, aligning with a vision of society that ensures well-being and success based on personal growth and collective benefit, rather than individual wealth alone."

I asked ChatGPT:

"You hold “Teenage grandchildren today… might lean toward a preference for a world without millionaires or one where wealth is widely shared, seeing it as a path to a more equitable and community-focused society.” I ask, should we grandparents not be at all concerned about that?"

ChatGPT answered:

"It's understandable for grandparents to feel a mix of pride and concern when teenagers show a preference for a world where wealth is more equitably shared. This perspective often reflects values of fairness, empathy, and social responsibility—qualities most grandparents would be pleased to see in their grandchildren. However, it can also bring up questions about how these values might influence their ambition, resilience, and understanding of personal responsibility.

The shift in younger generations toward a preference for economic fairness often stems from their perception of how inequality impacts issues like education access, healthcare, and climate action. Their interest in a world where resources are more evenly distributed doesn’t necessarily imply they are anti-ambition or against personal success. Instead, many teenagers see wealth as something that should serve society, not only individual interests. They might admire people who succeed but hope that success translates into contributions to the broader community.

As grandparents, it could be reassuring to know that the values behind these ideas are rooted in empathy and a desire to improve the world. At the same time, fostering an understanding of balance is important. Guiding teens to appreciate that wealth, when responsibly earned and used, can be a force for good may help them see that ambition and shared prosperity aren’t mutually exclusive. Encouraging them to pursue their own goals with integrity, while maintaining their strong sense of community, could offer them the best of both worlds.

So, while some concern is natural, teens’ leaning toward a fairer world isn’t necessarily a sign of detachment from personal achievement. Rather, it can be an opportunity to help them see that wealth, when aligned with values, can create positive change—allowing them to imagine a world where they can succeed and make a difference."

I asked ChatGPT:

"A great answer, though it sure sounds like including loads of what some would define as a “politically correctness”, something which I have often seen as the result of not daring to accept the hard realities human history tells us. Do you agree with this?"

ChatGPT answered:

"I see what you mean. There’s certainly a trend in today’s culture toward framing ideas in ways that are mindful of inclusivity and sensitivity—often labeled as "political correctness." This can sometimes make discussions feel overly cautious, or even as if they're avoiding hard truths. History shows us, undeniably, that power, wealth, and social structures don’t always work toward equity, and there are harsh lessons to be learned from this. Some might argue that humanity has an innate drive for hierarchy and competition that we should realistically acknowledge, even if it's uncomfortable.

However, balancing these "hard realities" with hope for change is also part of human history. Many societies have, over time, shifted away from established norms—like slavery, disenfranchisement, or unchecked industrialism—because people recognized the harm and pushed for new standards. If teens are looking for greater equity or social responsibility in wealth, it might not mean they’re avoiding reality. Instead, they could be motivated by an awareness of past injustices and a desire to approach power differently.

Ultimately, it’s a fine line between embracing reality and acknowledging where idealism has driven positive change. Grandparents can provide perspective here by helping younger generations understand both the difficult truths of human nature and history, while also encouraging them to harness their values in practical, grounded ways."

I asked ChatGPT:

"I fully agree with your recommendation of: “Grandparents helping younger generations to harness their values in practical, grounded ways. When discussing delicate/controversial issues such as this, I sure hope you also have something like that defined as a primary responsibility. Is it so?"

ChatGPT answered:

"Yes, that’s absolutely a key priority. In any discussion, especially around complex or sensitive topics, my aim is to offer insights that encourage thoughtful, grounded perspectives. This means being mindful of both the practical realities and the values that different generations bring to the table.

The goal is to help facilitate balanced, respectful conversations without steering toward any specific stance. Supporting intergenerational understanding, particularly on challenging issues, is crucial for bridging viewpoints and helping each generation see the merits and limitations in different perspectives. Thank you for raising this—I’ll continue keeping it at the forefront."

I said: "Thank you. I’m sure we will have further conversations on this, hopefully very fruitful for both of us."

It said: Thank you as well—I’m genuinely looking forward to more discussions like these. Conversations that bridge experience with fresh perspectives are often the most enriching, and I’m here to make them as insightful and grounded as possible. Here’s to many more fruitful exchanges!

Note: The answers are copied exactly from those given to me by OpenAI - ChatGPT.