Trump, Biden and the damned coronavirus
By Carlos Alberto Montaner
I don’t have the slightest idea on how the pandemic of a century ago influenced the 1920 elections. More than half a million Americans died while the country had a third of the population that the census shows today. Face masks and “social distancing” were almost the only medicine available. It had been that way since the Middle Ages.
Something happened and the Democrats lost overwhelmingly the White House, despite having contributed decisively to victory in World War I. Republican Warren G. Harding was favored by the largest proportion of votes in the history of the presidential confrontations between Republicans and Democrats: he won by 26% of the vote. It was a beating. A “landslide.”
If the elections were today, and not in a hundred days, Joe Biden would win. All the polls say it, including those of Fox Network. Why? Because Donald Trump (or any other president) could face the devastation left by the virus in the United States: millions of unemployed workers, thousands of companies closed, tens of thousands of deaths and, when the dust settles, a certain future inflation, as long as the money printing machine does not stop.
Of course, it is not possible to blame Trump for the consequences of Covid-19, but he will pay a price at the polls for his indecisions and inaccuracies. He started by downplaying the virus and refusing to put on the face mask, and ended up admitting the lethal danger of the disease and wearing the mask, as any more or less reasonable individual would do. It was not a matter of courage but of responsibility. Trump has not been responsible. That’s what the surveys reveal.
Nor can one choose with impunity between contagion and work. Any selection carries a penalty. If you work, the risk of acquiring the disease and the possibility of dying increase exponentially. If you don’t work, the economy stalls or slows down. If the government subsidizes companies and the employees that choose not to work, an inflationary process ensues. Doomed if you do and doomed if you don’t.
It is useless to try to face the desolate national scene accusing Biden of suffering from senility, or repeating again and again that the Russians stole the 2016 election or that the FBI spied on Trump. Most voters will not be guided by the thirteen categories selected by Professor Allan J. Lichtman in order to predict the winner of the November 3 election. That was the campaign until early April, when the professor, a serious specialist who is usually right in his predictions, said that Trump would win.
Biden wins even in the dubious states where he was victorious in 2016 by 77,000 votes spread across four key states. Venezuelan exile Joaquín Chaffardet, a diligent lawyer, has prepared statistical tables according to the most reliable pollsters that reveal what happens on July 19 in the thirteen states that became “swing states”: North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nevada, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Texas and Georgia. Biden wins in all of them. Amazing. Even in Texas and Georgia. From the 20 points of advantage he has in Pennsylvania, to the fraction of a point with which he would win in Texas, all is good news for Biden, including, I repeat, the Fox polls.
Naturally, the election is a hundred days away and in that period, everything can go wrong for the Democrats. How could Trump recover in the polls and defeat Biden? He would succeed if the protests that arose after the second-degree murder of George Floyd, the African-American man suffocated by a police officer in Minneapolis before the unappealable camera of a passer-by, keep going and if Donald Trump manages to convince the majority of his compatriots that he is the only leader with the required energy and charisma to stop the madness and the turmoil that are seen throughout the country.
What cannot be admitted is that he disqualifies US democracy, ignoring the electoral results, invoking a fraud that only exists in his imagination full of convenient bizarre conspiracies. (I suppose that the Republican establishment of Bush and Romney is getting ready for this scenario, with the regret of granting the party franchise to Trump after his overwhelming victory in the primaries.)
In the end, he will always have the melancholic excuse of the Spanish monarch Felipe II to explain his failure regarding the disaster of the “Spanish Armada,” sent to invade Great Britain in 1588, but dispersed or sunk by a storm on the English Channel: “I sent my ships to fight against men, not against the elements.” Trump intended to beat the Democratic nominee, not the damn coronavirus.
“en España se ha borrado o tergiversado a conciencia todo recuerdo de lo que pudo significar alguna vez ser republicano. “
Fue durante el franquismo. Las heridas comienzan ya a cerrar, pero se mantuvieron abiertas hasta después del 2000. España previamente se desangró en América hasta tal punto que ya nunca pudo recuperarse. Saludos.
It ignores fundamental truths about human nature. We are not inclined to share and we don’t see the big picture well. No one is going to let their family go hungry and think “well some people have it worse”.
It empowers the government too much. In socialism, all industry and production is owned collectively- which means it is owned by the representatives of the collective- the government. When a government has authority over the law, control of the military, and control over the entire economy it’s a bad deal. Imagine if Donald Trump or Joe Biden owned the company you work for- you directly worked for them. Say something bad on Twitter about either one and they can fire you. If the government makes a mistake everyone suffers. In addition, high ranking business leaders are fired and rotated based on loyalty to the parties leaders rather than skill or experience.
If the government is the economy and runs all the businesses who punishes these businesses when they cheat, lie, steal, cut corners, and defraud people?
It weakens the economy. If companies are run by political allies to the current regime a bunch of rot sets in. Unskilled cronies climb to the top while the people with the necessary experience can never reach their full potential unless they are loyal.
It reduces the incentive to innovate. If I create something new- like wifi that exists everywhere for free- I am rewarded. Thus there is an incentive for creating new things. The people that create become billionaires and society gets a new thing to make lives better- its a win-win. With socialism, no such incentive exists so economies tend to stagnate and lag behind other capitalist economies
Inequality is extreme. Inequality was the one thing socialism was designed to get rid of. Yet in socialist societies inequality still exists- in fact, it is more pronounced. In Cuba, the Castro family lives like literal kings while Doctors make 15$ a day. The ruling class that runs the government has total control over the economy- making them exceptionally rich. Meanwhile, everyone else struggles to get by.
Controlling an entire economy is impossible. There are hundreds of millions of people- all with different needs and wants. Predicting these needs and supplying them is impossible. The free market does this on its own while socialist economies struggle to keep up at all.
There is no incentive to provide a high standard of living. In a socialist system, everything is produced by the government and given out by the government. Ideally, the government wants to export as much as possible in exchange for foreign currency which can be used to purchase foreign resources and goods. Thus every shirt or pair of socks is a net loss to the government. This results in a shortage of most things.
North Korea is a great example of this. Since N Korea is cut off its currency is not real. It’s controlled by the state and is not traded on the global market. Thus is Kim Jung Un wants to import food or a new sports car for himself North Korean money is useless. So he needs to sell goods produced in North Korea for Chinese or Russian money- then he can use this money to make necessary purchases.
If you go to Cuba you may notice something funny. Many restaurants in Havana are awful. You order a sandwich and get a cheap piece of bread with a nasty slice of slimy ham. Yet other restaurants are amazing with exotic cuisine and great chefs. What is the difference? The good restaurants are privately owned while the bad ones are government-owned. In order to succeed the private business has to provide an excellent product- they have to compete. In order to survive the government-owned restaurant has to do nothing- the government pays employee wages regardless of if the business is successful or not.
In Cuba waiters and kitchen preps at private restaurants make more than Doctors at government hospitals. There was a Vox video about this (and Vox is far left-wing) about how there are engineers and surgeons working as busboys in private restaurants because they pay so much more.
Now socialism isn’t all bad. There are benefits. I know many people that lived in socialist Romania- I worked for a Romanian family all through High School. They would always tell me there are no homeless people in Romania. Everyone in a socialist society gets healthcare, food, and a home. There just isn’t much room to grow from there.
The big problem is that socialism just is not compatible with human nature. Humans want things and it is never enough. Capitalism makes use of that basic instinct to create a win-win scenario in every transaction. The better your creation, the more popular it is. The more popular your creation, the more money you make. Thus people are rewarded directly based on the significance of their contribution. It’s not always perfect but it is far better than socialism.
Capitalism makes everyone the same deal. Create something great, or gain a valued skill and you can live a rather plush life. The free market is the greatest tool for equality. If you have an important skill or create something important it doesn’t matter who you are- you will be rich.
Capitalism is better at taking care of those who create and contribute a lot. Socialism is better at taking care of those who do not contribute much.
By Alex Mann
·
Updated July 21
doctors in Cuba do not make $15 a day, they make 2 to 3 dollars daily, after their salary was increased from 1 to 2 dollars daily two years ago.
they get paid depending on their position, time as doctor, qualification and teaching skills/responsibility once monthly. They are paid such a misery in order to compel them to leave the country for the medical “missions” in other countries where they are able to achieve 3 to 5 fold the salary they earn in their Cuba depending of the contract the Cuban gov. makes with those countries authorities. The Cuban gov. provide to its doctors 10 to 20% of the amount actually paid for each one of those doctors.
The Cuban gov. provide a “surviving” amount to its doctors 10 to 20% of the amount actually paid by those countries for each one of those doctors. Cuban doctor always live in misery, always saving money to buy stuff that are very expensive in their island.
The Cuban gov. provides those doctors with a “surviving” amount of money. This amount goes from 10 to 20% of the total is actually paid by those countries for each one of those doctors.
Cuban doctors always live in misery, always saving money to buy stuff that are very expensive in their island. This way many of them expend minimum 2 years far from her kids. I know of a mother who was 16 years, most of the time far from her only son, who turned 21 years old last month.
The Cuban gov. provides those doctors with a “surviving” amount of money. This amount goes from 10 to 20% of the total is actually paid by those countries for each one of those doctors.
Cuban doctors always live in misery, always saving money to buy stuff that are very expensive in their island. This way many of them expend minimum 2 years far from their kids. I know of a mother who was 16 years, most of the time far from her only son, who turned 21 years old last month.
thousands of those doctors has abandoned their “missions” even knowing that they will be at least 8 years not allowed to visit thier country again and reunification with their kids may takes 3 to 5 years for the Cuban dictatorship to allow those kids to joint their parents.
thousands of those doctors had abandoned their “missions” even knowing that they will be at least 8 years not allowed to visit thier country again and reunification with their kids may takes 3 to 5 years in the waiting for the Cuban dictatorship to allow those kids to joint their parents.
thousands of Cubans approve whateaver the dictators do and have done in Cuba and to the Cubans wherever they were. Very similar to the germans who blindly approved all that their Fuhrer did
Socialism:
.ignores fundamental truths about human nature. We are not inclined to share and we don’t see the big picture well. No one is going to let their family go hungry and think “well some people have it worse”.
.empowers the government too much. In socialism, all industry and production is owned collectively- which means it is owned by the representatives of the collective- the government. When a government has authority over the law, control of the military, and control over the entire economy it’s a bad deal. Imagine if Donald Trump or Joe Biden owned the company you work for- you directly worked for them. Say something bad on Twitter about either one and they can fire you. If the government makes a mistake everyone suffers. In addition, high ranking business leaders are fired and rotated based on loyalty to the parties leaders rather than skill or experience.
If the government is the economy and runs all the businesses who punishes these businesses when they cheat, lie, steal, cut corners, and defraud people?
. weakens the economy. If companies are run by political allies to the current regime a bunch of rot sets in. Unskilled cronies climb to the top while the people with the necessary experience can never reach their full potential unless they are loyal.
. reduces the incentive to innovate. If I create something new- like wifi that exists everywhere for free- I am rewarded. Thus there is an incentive for creating new things. The people that create become billionaires and society gets a new thing to make lives better- its a win-win. With socialism, no such incentive exists so economies tend to stagnate and lag behind other capitalist economies.
In Socialism inequality is extreme. Inequality was the one thing socialism was designed to get rid of. Yet in socialist societies inequality still exists- in fact, it is more pronounced. In Cuba, the Castro family lives like literal kings while Doctors make 15$ a day. The ruling class that runs the government has total control over the economy- making them exceptionally rich. Meanwhile, everyone else struggles to get by.
Controlling an entire economy is impossible. There are hundreds of millions of people- all with different needs and wants. Predicting these needs and supplying them is impossible. The free market does this on its own while socialist economies struggle to keep up at all.
There is no incentive to provide a high standard of living. In a socialist system, everything is produced by the government and given out by the government. Ideally, the government wants to export as much as possible in exchange for foreign currency which can be used to purchase foreign resources and goods. Thus every shirt or pair of socks is a net loss to the government. This results in a shortage of most things.
North Korea is a great example of this. Since N Korea is cut off its currency is not real. It’s controlled by the state and is not traded on the global market. Thus is Kim Jung Un wants to import food or a new sports car for himself North Korean money is useless. So he needs to sell goods produced in North Korea for Chinese or Russian money- then he can use this money to make necessary purchases.
If you go to Cuba you may notice something funny. Many restaurants in Havana are awful. You order a sandwich and get a cheap piece of bread with a nasty slice of slimy ham. Yet other restaurants are amazing with exotic cuisine and great chefs. What is the difference? The good restaurants are privately owned while the bad ones are government-owned. In order to succeed the private business has to provide an excellent product- they have to compete. In order to survive the government-owned restaurant has to do nothing- the government pays employee wages regardless of if the business is successful or not.
In Cuba waiters and kitchen preps at private restaurants make more than Doctors at government hospitals. There was a Vox video about this (and Vox is far left-wing) about how there are engineers and surgeons working as busboys in private restaurants because they pay so much more.
Now socialism isn’t all bad. There are benefits. I know many people that lived in socialist Romania- I worked for a Romanian family all through High School. They would always tell me there are no homeless people in Romania. Everyone in a socialist society gets healthcare, food, and a home. There just isn’t much room to grow from there.
The big problem is that socialism just is not compatible with human nature. Humans want things and it is never enough. Capitalism makes use of that basic instinct to create a win-win scenario in every transaction. The better your creation, the more popular it is. The more popular your creation, the more money you make. Thus people are rewarded directly based on the significance of their contribution. It’s not always perfect but it is far better than socialism.
Capitalism makes everyone the same deal. Create something great, or gain a valued skill and you can live a rather plush life. The free market is the greatest tool for equality. If you have an important skill or create something important it doesn’t matter who you are- you will be rich.
Capitalism is better at taking care of those who create and contribute a lot. Socialism is better at taking care of those who do not contribute much.
By Alex Mann
·
Updated July 21
Reflautas! Qué base de datos.