Some of my tweets in times of Covid-19

On the response to COVID-19: 2 tweets Jul 27, 2020

Sweden kept all schools until 9thgrade open. 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.

Conclusion: Keep schools open, keep older teachers at home and have grandparents refrain from hugging their grandchildren. Disseminating data on COVID-19 without discriminating by age, is in essence misinformation.

https://twitter.com/PerKurowski/status/1287748336913719296?s=20

The economy:

Covid-19, which mostly causes some older to die a little earlier, thereby in a very cruel way alleviating some serious social security deficits, does not really hurt so much the economy It is the responses to this pandemic that does produce the highest costs, which will be shouldered the most by the youngest, for the longest.

My tweets on debt-to-equity conversions in times of a pandemic

“I’m old, must sell my business”

Those who because of their age do not want to go back to run their business, instead of selling it at depressed prices, could do better finding a capable younger person to run it, and with whom to split any future profits.

Banks, when Covid-19 hit us.

With the intention of making bank systems safer, the regulators based their risk weighted bank capital requirements on perceived expected credit risks, the risks which bankers should clear for; and not on the risk of misperceived credit risk, like 2008’s AAA rated or unexpected events, like a pandemic. Therefore, banks now stand there with their pants down... meaning no capital... at the worse time to raise capital.

A Covid-19 breather: 

Postponing all capital and interest payment on residential mortgages coming due next 12 months to the end of current mortgages, and allowing banks to hold that refinanced portion against zero capital… would help the economy and stop some bank balance sheet bleeding.

A bad time to increase bank capital requirements

The credit distorting bank capital requirements against residential mortgages should increase to the same level as against loans to SMEs, and entrepreneurs… but in the midst of the coronavirus crisis… for the time being, the latter could be lowered to the level of residential mortgages.

Creative destruction?

Coronavirus / Covid-19 times is not the best time to engage in creative destruction since too little construction can result in a closed down economy. As I see it, both debtors and creditors would benefit immensely from keeping hungry bankruptcy lawyers at distance.

When is there an overreaction?

In Italy, as of August 17, deaths from coronavirus COVID19 are only 0.25% for those under 40 years of age.

Yes, the older need to take care, but it is those under 40 years who will for the longest bear the brunt of the economic costs of overreacting.

Winston Churchill

Reading of UK’s plan of building up herd immunity against Covid-19, I felt Winston Churchill would have agreed with such stiff upper lip policy: “I’ve nothing to offer but fever, coughing, chills and shortness of breath"

Social Media
SARS 2003, Facebook 2004, Twitter 2006, WhatsApp 2009, Coronavirus 2020 
Does this help us to understand the different intensity of how the world has reacted?
Information / attention overload, must have some dangerous unexpected consequences too.

Entrusting

Paraphrasing Georges Clemenceau’s “War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men”
A pandemic is too serious a matter to entrust to scientists/epidemiologists

Why are citizens not more enlisted in the fight?

If given timely and easily accessible data on new cases/ hospitalizations/ deaths/ other serious consequences; discriminated by age/ gender/ race/ occupation/ location/ other significant factors, so that they can take their own informed decisions, the citizens are the most effective pandemic combatants in the world.

Global comparisons

Data reported continuously on CNN indicates that, considering total population, USA suffers 6.3 times more Coronavirus cases than the rest of the world; and 5.7 times more deaths.

Are the numbers used really comparable? Is it science or is it politics?

Underlying conditions:

The most dangerous underlying condition of Covid-19, is that it broke out in the midst of a raging Polarization Pandemic, in which way too many polarization profiteers have a vested interest in blocking the development of a harmony vaccine.

A pandemic earthquake?
The Great Barrington Declaration and WHO’s acceptance of that lockdowns, places them sort of more on the side of Trump than Biden. Could that shake rattle and roll up the debate so close to elections?

History repeats itself.

With the intention of making bank systems safer, the regulators based their risk weighted bank capital requirements on perceived expected credit risks, the risks which bankers should clear for; and not on the risk of misperceived credit risk, or unexpected events, like coronavirus.

Now, to allow nations fend off coronavirus with the least societal costs, governments impose on society restrictions derived from perceived risks, risks citizens should be able to clear on their own, and not from risks of misperceived COVID19 risk, or unexpected unknown facts.

On Trust

In “socialist” Sweden, when battling coronavirus, authorities seem to trust more their citizens than in America, the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

In April 2016 Swedish authorities issued my mother a driver license that would have expired when she was almost 103 years of age. Asking about the wisdom of such thing, I was told that in Sweden the Swedes were supposed to know when they were fit to drive or not.

That applies to coronavirus behavior too

Conflict of interest 

The 70 years or older, in terms of health, are more a Covid-19 vulnerable group. Since therefore we might unwittingly suggest actions way too costly for those more vulnerable to its socio-economic consequences, perhaps though we should much take care of ourselves we should totally abstain from recommending Covid-19 responses.

Quarantine for those under 40 years of age?

If the percentage of those under 40 years of age that die of all causes, is higher than the percentage rate of that same age group that die from coronavirus/COVID19, how can it make any sense to subject them to a quarantine and its economic consequences?

Don't mortgage our youngers' future

If total deaths from COVID19 to total population is 0.2%, in US that would be 700.000 deaths. 

If of those deaths the younger than 50 years are 5%, that would represent 35.000 deaths of younger Americans 

Take care of the older, but do not mortgage the future of the young

In Washington Post.

Roughly 90% of all coronavirus deaths will occur in those 60 years of age and older. Equally roughly 90% of the virus’s social and economic consequences will be paid by those younger than 60. It’s an intergenerational conflict of monstrous proportions.

Relevant Universe Bias:

For now, I have four grandchildren, all whom I love dearly.
But, if I had 100 grandchildren, if knowing that safeguarding 2 of them from the worst Covid-19 consequences could bleak the future of the other 98, would I feel the same about what we should do?

God make us daring!

And for God’s sake, if there are any moment banks should try to do ‘God’s work’, meaning taking the risks the society needs to move forward, it is now.

The risk weighted bank capital requirements based on expected credit risks, are insane!

The robots will be further empowered:

And coronavirus will most probably increase the robotization speed of our economies, so now there is more need than ever of decent and worthy unemployments, something which must include the launching of an unconditional Universal Basic Income.

SCHOOLS - Sweden

Here are current data of Covid-19 deaths in Sweden that explains the wisdom of keeping schools up to 9th grade open.

Higher education:

And our higher education systems must adapt to harsher times, perhaps by making it much more a joint venture between students and professors.

Nobel prizes in virtual online teaching:

At this moment, much more important than a Nobel Prize in Economics, is are Nobel Prizes for the Best Virtual Online Teacher/Professor in the World, in the categories of children under 10, high schools, universities, and of course business schools

What if a coronavirus II / Covid-19 II?

The capacity to borrow at a reasonable interest rate (or the seigniorage when printing money) is a very valuable strategic sovereign asset, and it should not be squandered away.

Banks, the morning after Covid-19

We need to get rid of the perceived expected credit risk weighted bank capital requirements and impose a leverage ratio of 8%-15%; and sack all dangerous equity minimizing leverage maximizing creative engineers and put our banks back into the hands of savvy loan officers. 

Do all dead from Covid-19 represent the same problem?

When responding to Covid-19 should all those residents and staffers of nursing homes and other long-term care facilities who in US represent about 40% of all Covid-19 deaths, in Sweden closer to 50%, be bundled up with all other? I don’t think so.

PS. This is a post that will be in continued revision

PS. May 16, 2020 I turned 70 and posted this

PS. December 2020: The adequate response to a Covid-190 when hopes for vaccines were two or three years away must clearly differ a lot from the one when it looks like vaccines are only two or three months away. The opportunity cost of not taken precautions has now dramatically increased.

PS. January 2021:Once the most endangered had been vaccinated, would it be so wrong to have an official market, e.g. in the US, where e.g. 30 million vaccines are sold at, e.g. US$ 2.000? That would help pay for 1.200 million vaccines, at least.

PS. February 2021: How many of our elder would still be alive if only expert epidemiologists had said that the elderly care and the senior retirements homes, needed to have independent air conditioning, heating, ventilation units, or have counted with first class air filtering systems?

PS. February 2021: I’m all for obtaining Covid-19 herd immunity, but the terminology makes me somewhat uneasy. It makes me think on whether with the alternative of strict lockdowns, some are looking to impose on humanity, on our Western civilization, some herd docility.

PS. March 2021: The battle of our times: Herd Immunity vs. Herd Docility

PS. April 2021: A return to a pre-pandemic world would have little to do with Covid-19/vaccines; much more to do with the responses to it: e.g., clearing all debt-overhangs, changes in work-methods, and many forms of herd-docility profiteering… therefore such a return, in my time, is a mirage.

PS. April 2021: When is a pandemic no longer a pandemic?

PS. November 2021: Should we vaccinated not be very thankful for that a group of without preconditions citizens, are willing (heroes) to keep on being unvaccinated (the placebo), and thereby serve the scientist as a control group for Covid vaccines, for the benefit of future generations?

PS. November 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?

My tweets on what the coronavirus should inspire in the USA

Coronavirus inspires:

Immediate elimination of all US health sector discrimination in price, access or quality, between insured and uninsured

As is all get the short end of the stick of non-transparent deals between insurance companies and health sectors

https://teawithft.blogspot.com/2009/06/but-there-is-minimum-minimorum-reform.html

The elimination of risk weighted bank capital requirements that so dangerously distort allocation of credit in favor of sovereign and “the safer”, thereby disfavoring “the risky”, the always so much needed, and so much credit needing, SMEs / entrepreneurs

http://subprimeregulations.blogspot.com/2019/07/risk-weights-are-to-access-to-credit.html

It marks a beautiful opportunity to introduce an unconditional universal basic income UBI, a citizens’ dividend, that could be funded with high carbon taxes and a tax on the advertising revenues derived from exploiting the citizens’ personal data.

http://myubi.blogspot.com/2017/01/my-universal-basic-income.html

Redistributing wealth is not as straightforward as redistribution profiteers want us to think.

I posted a thread with 8 tweets 

Louis XII could be the filthy rich who gave up main-street purchase power to commission Leonardo da Vinci to paint Salvator Mundi. 500 years later another filthy rich freezes $450 million of his own purchase capacity, hanging that painting on a wall. Bad or great? 

Why are just the "filthy rich", like Louis XII and the buyer of Leonardo da Vinci’s Salvator Mundi cursed? Why not Leonardo da Vinci, or the current vendor of Salvator Mundi? Could they‘ve not just as well used money they got from filthy rich for something “more worthwhile”?

Does it all boil down to that Louis XII should not have commissioned Leonardo da Vinci’s Salvator Mundi and instead have bought food for the poor? I guess that would then depend on what the food suppliers did with that money, grow more food or drink more gin. Life isn’t easy

We can just pray that something of that main-street-purchasing-power comes into the hands of the few risk-taking entrepreneurs who, with luck, help catapult our world forward. Sadly, with risk weighted capital requirements for banks, regulators have made that less possible.

Yes, life isn’t easy. So let us all beware of all those redistribution profiteers out to make money or gain political power and who tell us “Let us just redistribute the wealth of the filthy rich, and you will all live in Nirvana. Venezuela, Nirvana? My …!!!

If Louis XX commissioned Leonardo da Vinci to paint Salvator Mundi, would it not make a beautiful novel to trace how that money flowed, perhaps to a Bill Gates, generating wealth so that someone could freeze $450 million on a wall, and keep the human development ball rolling? 

 

These ramblings about how the “filthy rich” convert their main-street-purchasing-power into assets and services, some that would never have existed without them started when seeing a totally useless shield in the Louvre in Paris.

Just in case, this is not a point blank defense of the “filthy rich”. It refers strictly to how their purchase power morphs into assets and services. Many “filthy rich” do become so in unjust and corrupt ways, quite often highly detrimental to development.

PS. A tweet: "A tax on wealth? Ok! But please, what assets should the wealthy sell to whom, in order to raise the money to pay it? And what would the buyers otherwise have done with the money they also must raise? And so on, and on, in the circle of the economy’s life."

PS. A tweet: "A conundrum. How to structure a tax on wealth without reducing the wealth that is taxed?"

PS. This of course does not mean that I am not in favor of reducing inequality. For that I strongly believe in the need for an unconditional universal basic income, a Societal Dividend

PS. When it comes to wealth, yachts are often depicted… but rarely do we see any interest in what those yacht-builders did with the money they received.

PS. Let’s hope taxpayers will not be surprised finding out they now have to pick up huge bills for maintaining some Russian oligarchs confiscated super yachts.

PS. Legend holds that when 1974’s Carnation Revolution’s, chief strategist Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho told Sweden’s Olof Palme in Lisbon: “In Portugal we want to get rid of the rich”, Palme replied, “how curious, in Sweden we only aspire to get rid of the poor”

Deciphering my tweet

My tweet: "A much worse debt crisis awaits us, perhaps the sooner the better, caused by having kicked the 2008 crisis can down the road, while keeping serious miss-regulation of banks. When it hits, an Unconditional Universal Basic Income, however small, might be society’s only survival tool." 

Just looking at the huge debts of all sectors, in all nations; sovereigns, corporations, house financing, student debt, credit card debt and unfunded social liabilities; that which among other converted homes into also being dangerous investment assets; and pushed the consumer and government demand that should be there to prop up the future economy to prop up the current, there's no doubt that “A much worse debt crisis awaits us.”

Since it was our generation that trusted populist besserwisser technocrats to know what they were doing, for instance when they told us “We will make your bank systems safer with our risk weighted capital requirements because we know what the risks are”, this is really our generation’s made crisis. In this respect, because we should not leave that crisis to our grandchildren to take care of, and also because we do not want that debt to grow even more, that’s why the “perhaps the sooner the better”. 

QEs or asset purchase program, ultralow interest rates and many continues fiscal deficits clearly explains the “caused by having kicked the 2008 crisis can down the road” (forward and upwards).

The risk weighted capital requirements for banks in Basel II assigned a 0% risk weight to sovereigns, a 100% risk weights to the citizens who make the sovereign strong; and allowed banks to leverage a mindboggling 62.5 times their capital with private sector assets rated AAA by human fallible credit rating agencies. That caused the crisis. As much of those distortions are still well and alive, that  should more than suffice to explain the “while keeping serious miss-regulation of banks”.

“When it hits”, that’s when all polarization and redistribution profiteers of the world, like Venezuela’s Chavez and Maduro, will be out in masses on the street trying to capitalize on the mayhem, in order to increase the value of their franchises.

And that’s precisely when and why “an Unconditional Universal Basic Income, however small, might be our society’s only survival tool.”

If only we had all understood and accepted  the benefits of a hard landing.

Since you don’t eat gold-bars, just redistributing of wealth solves very little, or even nothing.

The Guardian writes: “An alarming projection produced by the House of Commons library suggests that if trends seen since the 2008 financial crash were to continue, then the top 1% will hold 64% of the world’s wealth by 2030… equating to $305tn” “Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030”, April 7, 2018.

How awfully unjust… but… how do you productively convert that wealth into the products or assets that could be useful for the 99%, without unexpected consequences or without most wealth just going to a 1%, or less, of some new filthy-rich wealthy?

How much value of that $305tn of wealth would just evaporate by the redistribution? And what would that do to the value of the then projected $152 wealth in the hands of 99%?

For instance what would happen to the price of a Leonardo da Vinci’s “Salvator Mundi”, in which, someone very wealthy, agreed to freeze $450 million of his main-street purchase capacity? How do you turn that wealth into something the poorer of the 99% need?

Where would the stock market value head?

Where would the interest rate, for instance on public debt go?

Where would the prices of houses head?

And if wealth gets too much distributed, who is going to demand that which only the really wealthy 1% can afford to demand, and which creates a lot of jobs that would otherwise not exist?

It is amazing how much discussions there are about the need to redistribute wealth without any consideration to what that redistribution would entail. Could that be because that is not in the interest of any redistribution or polarization profiteers?

As I see it there is much more to be gained by capturing more income before it has been converted into wealth assets. Just redistributing existing wealth is a one-shot unsustainable top-down approach.

Much better is a very modest starting Universal Basic Income where you little by little begin to build up a societal dividend that will keep the redistribution and polarization profiteers at bay. And that is of course why the latter hate UBI… as it eats into the value of their franchise.

And of course, in order to fund that UBI you must find sustainable sources of income…like on the advertising revenues of Facebook and alike… like a special tax on revenues generated under the protection of an intellectual property right… like a special tax on revenues generated by those benefiting from close to monopoly high market shares… like a tax on whatever causes pollution and otherwise threatens our pied-a-terre… and so on

Here I will keep my up-today main comments on Universal Basic Income (UBI)

Years ago I wrote: “We need decent and worthy unemployments”. With ever growing structural unemployment threatening, I am sure that a Universal Basic Income is a fundamental tool for achieving that. 

Here follows my current thinking on UBI:

Universal Basic Income eats directly into the redistribution profiteers’ franchise value, and so they will be its strongest opponents. Their opposition can take many forms, like that of enthusiastically supporting UBI, but cleverly backstabbing it at any possible opportunity. We must always be alert!

There are some fundamental mistakes that could kill UBI, even after its inception, and so therefore we must see to that the enemy does not exploit any of its possible Achilles’s heels.

1. UBI is strictly for the population of working age. Children and elderly have their very specific needs that should be satisfied with different tools.

2. UBI shall strictly be related to working conditions, like 70% of the lowest fulltime salary; and NOT to any poverty related threshold.

3. UBI needs to be 100% funded with real and clearly identifiable sources of income, and not with any debts. One possibility is to apply to robots and similar automations those payroll taxes and similar that applies to humans. As am added benefit that would also allow for a more efficient allocation of labor/capital resources.

4. The more UBI is funded by sources linked to other socially relevant matters, like from carbon taxes to help stop pollution, the better.

5. UBI must always be kept as a citizen to citizens affair and so, ideally, it should be enshrined in some type of constitutional protection, so that populists trying to serve their own ambitions do not capture it.

http://myubi.blogspot.com

Here some disorderly loose cannon questions about life in the just around the corner Robot/Automation La-La-Land

The more varied and crazy questions we pose, the better chance we have to prepare ourselves... and so, in no special order, here we go with some tweet-sized ones!!!

When Mexicans, Chinese and American compete for the jobs the robots are taking, is that not just a Lilliput/Blefuscu war?

If you built that Mexico wall who would benefit the most, the U.S. low-skill workers, or the robots?

Why is how to handle jobs being productively taken over by robots/automation, not sufficiently high on our agendas?

Who will be able to separate delivery robots with good intentions from those with bad ones?

How will net salaries not paid to robots be used: Lower prices, higher salaries, bonuses or dividends?

And when robots substitute for humans, what are the consequences for a nations tax base?

Should we tax robots low enough for these to do all possible jobs for us humans, or high enough for us humans to remain competitive for the jobs? (I guess that if in Sweden they could respond with a not so helpful “Tax them lagom”)

Should we allow 3rd class robots, only because of unfair competition, like no payroll taxes, to replace humans?

Since it is hard to define the work of robots, in order for humans to to compete with these for jobs on a level playing field, and for production to be structured in the most economical way, it would seem that current payroll taxes need to be eliminated... or;

Since payroll taxes help finance programs such as Medicare, should we not impose payroll taxes on robots?

Is not falling working-age population numbers quite irrelevant with so many robots volunteering to work? 

When 2nd class robots don’t cut it, how to we assure ourselves we get the 1st class ones?

The higher the minimum wage for humans, the more jobs for robots. Are those predicating higher minimum salaries just lobbyists contracted by robot manufacturers?

No minimum wages for humans. Those are just subsidies to robots. Robots must compete, so that we get the best robots.

Having your nation being “Second” is livable, but is having your robots not being “First” that?

The better the robots, the more we lose human jobs, the more the need of a Universal Basic Income (UBI). Are we prepared?

Universal Basic Income threatens the redistribution profiteers so they will try to stop it. How can we stop them?

The lower trade tariffs and human salaries are, the more competition do robot manufacturers face. Is that good?

The higher the trade tariffs and human salaries are, the more will robot manufacturers profit. Is that good?

The better the robot, the more it can produce for us, but the more human jobs it can take from us. So what do we do?

In order to force our robots to become 1st class, do we not need to tax them, a lot? 

If land A has the better robots how can B compete: with tariffs or with lower dividends, salaries, bonuses and UBIs?

If my grandchildren’s future depends on the quality of their robots, is it really a sin to engage in some industrial espionage?

To who does robot productivity that supplants human productivity belong: to all, or to the 0.00000001 percenters?

How can I help my grandchildren to be needed as sane and happy humans, in tomorrows’ Robot/Automation-land?

With so much automation possibilities, how does one answer “Grandfather what to you think I should study?”

What are unions to do with a shrinking labor base? Will tomorrows CEO’s need a union? What if robots want to unionize?

With unions vigorously defending the employed, their clientele, don't the unemployed need to create their own unions? 

What’s better intelligent artificial intelligence or sort of dumb artificial intelligence we can still sort of better control?

In case Artificial Intelligence becomes too intelligent for our own good, should we put some dumbing brakes on it?

I can’t wait for artificial intelligence to take over from those dumb human bank regulators who believe that what’s perceived risky is more dangerous to our bank system than what is ex ante perceived as safe.

When supplanted by robots how can we avoid being thought of as an unneeded human surplus?

Will drones and robot soldiers send the drill sergeants home? 

If we humans are supplanted by robots, are we doomed to join Jethro Tull’s “Heavy Horses” in retirement? 

What if we had a thousand times more of more capable robots, would that not make it so much easier to stay home fighting coronavirus?

PS. 3D house printers also classify as robots

 

PS. We need decent and worthy unemployments

PS. Let robots make us an offer we can't refuse

PS. My Universal Basic Income 

Where are those Mexicans? (and the robot is laughing)

Canada: A Universal Basic Income, should never be more than a step-ladder to help reach up to the real economy.

Had Venezuela’s oil revenues over the last 15 years been distributed directly to the Venezuelans by means of a (in this case a variable) Universal Basic Income (UBI), instead of by redistribution profiteers, the poorest of my homeland would have received at least six times more of it, and the country would not be so close to being a totally failed state.

Be sure, the best way to increase the efficiency of our citizen-to-citizen solidarity, everywhere, is to avoid the redistribution profiteers’ tolls.

I am not a Canadian but I have two Canadian granddaughters, and so I have a vested interest in Canada’s future. I firmly believe that a UBI is a very important tool in order to meet many actual and future social and economic challenges.

But the number one objection to a UBI, and which your local redistribution profiteers will try to argue in order to keep their franchise, is that it could reduce the willingness for work.

In this respect, and referring to Andre Picard’s “Basic income is not just about work, it’s about health” Globe and Mail, November 8, I believe that the UBI to be tested, should not be set as is proposed as 75% of low income measure before tax (LIM-BT), $1,320, but as a percentage of the salary you could obtain working, for instance 60% at the minimum salary level. As I calculate it, that would yield $1,100.

For me the biggest benefit of UBI is as a step-ladder that facilitates reaching up to that gig-economy that seems to have arrived as a fixed feature. We do need worthy and decent unemployments.

UBI should never be seen as lifting anyone out of poverty but allowing millions to lift themselves out of poverty.

UBI has much less to do with human rights, "doing good", than with an intelligent society organizing itself for challenging times, "doing smart".

UBI should always be a beautiful citizens to citizens affair. At no moment should it be soiled by referring to it as a government handout. 

Of course UBI has to be funded with real money, no cheating paying it with inflation or public debt. Besides natural savings in the redistribution costs, one interesting alternative is the use of revenues from high carbon taxes. That would align the incentives between the fights for a better environment and against inequality.

PS. Joking but not really joking: Perhaps a payroll tax on robots and driverless cars could also be used as funding mechanism; that would also help us humans workers to be able to compete on a more level playing field.

http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-wealthy-and-poor-should-all-be.html

http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2016/10/how-to-start-discussions-and.html