I’ve noticed the following conflict of interest reporting puzzle, working on “COVID-19 Library. Filling the Gaps“. Almost all the “people of Science” rallying around never proven efficient harsh measures empowering the governmental bureaus and, at the same time getting funds from the budget under the auspice of the same bureaus, surprisingly never declared their conflict of interest. They are interested in more and more funds from the budget, so they are pushing more powerful, ‘bigger’ and ‘bolder’ unlimited Government and not feeling any problems in this regard.
So it isn’t surprising they are ready to be aggressively partisan (say, anti-Trump in the USA sharing preferences of Washington bureaucrats – see FDC voting history). Worse, the “cancel culture” and the war on “whiteness” looks like destroyed the residuals of moral self-restrictions, so the authors proving the loss of social-economic status (SES) harming health and life expectancy badly could publicly denouncing Trumps’ statement ‘We cannot let the cure be worse than the Problem itself to claim that the crisis is good for health and even to reference on their own book proving the opposite (see for details Who Teaches the Fact-Checkers or Why Trump Must Be Wrong? https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3771015).
The Omnipotent Government push for government-run Health care making the Doctor to greater extent bureaucrats, not accountable to the patient and to the society noble expert. Mandatory vaccination spoils pharmaceutical firms incentives as to invest in the desirable political decision-making turned to be more profitable than in R&D, to say nothing on information for consumers about vaccines for really informed consent). Mandatory healthcare causes dangerous temptation for physicians and a really big threat for patients. Informational Asymmetry Problem became more and more grave and troublesome for the patients. While under free society and democratic rule information asymmetry problem is mitigated more or less successfully by a number of reliable, tested solutions, under totalitarian rule, doctor-patient asymmetry not counted as a problem at all, at the best (see for details “Institutional Aspects of the Power Abuse Problem in Healthcare Under Totalitarian Rule: Case of Nazi Germany” https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3724313).
Here is our mini-library (collection of references), filling some gaps in the current discussion of the COVID-19 crisis.
“Intellectually, the greatest benefit I derived from the experience [of working in the office of President Ronald Reagan] was to be able to observe at close range how political decisions are made at the highest level. … I thought that high politics resulted from a careful, inductive process by virtue of which all the information available to the government is conveyed upwards and there subjected to judicious analysis, with all the pros and cons weighed until a decision is reached…. Reality turned out to be quite different.”
Richard Pipes, Ronald Reagan’s adviser
“Vixi: Memoirs of a Non-Belonger”. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003, p. 208
Presented material contains numerous references on articles, papers, data, and books relevant to the current discussions around COVID-19 medical and political responses on the pandemics. The principal purposes of this collection of references are:
To fill (at least, partly) huge gaps in current discussions on COVID-19, often based on never proven assumptions, like the feasibility of stopping a respiratory infection by means of lockdowns.
To present and highlight some crucially important factors that had been discussed in the scientific literature for decades, but totally ignored by most governments in their decision making – for example, the very strong dependence of healthcare progress on economic progress, and the very strong dependence on both economics and healthcare on safeguarding personal rights and property.
We find astonishingly strong leaning of politicians and public healthcare officials to never-tested responses, potentially more dangerous than the disease itself. In our opinion, the special interests of decision-making groups may provide a partial explanation of this phenomenon.
We will greatly appreciate our readers’ criticism.
As every crisis, current COVID19 pandemic causes economic setback, fuels demand of special interests and emboldens bureaucrats’ claim for more and more discretionary power. But the same crisis brings not only heavy losses for all the countries, but opportunity to succeed also. The opportunity to succeed will not need heavy governmental spending but it will require termination of various practices harming both business climate and public morale. Deep deregulation and respect of freedom of contract, termination of violation of freedom of private choice under pretext of ‘fighting discrimination’ will benefit the courageous society and will pave the way for lasting prosperity.
The following moves and measures are recommended:
Repeal of modern ant-trust legislation and disbandment of ‘Anti-monopoly’ authorities;
Nature, environment protection will be vested to private interests, based on privatization and due delimitation of the property rights (including forests, lakes etc.), responsibility for negative externalities established in the court disputes; respective governmental bodies disbandment;
‘Anti-discrimination’ through ‘positive’ discrimination legislation repeal and abandonment the respective policies, liberalization of real estate and Labor markets
Limiting the scope of [welfare state] activities and responsibilities of the Government, respective Balancing of the budget under moderate tax burden.
Abandonment so called ‘stimulus’ Governmental policies.
General repeal of business regulations through Idaho pattern – based solution (for Israel – Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation (1994) Amendments – new Edition of the Basic Law).
All above mentioned measures would lay solid foundation for healthy, sustainable economic growth in Long ran and will attract direct investments in the country in short and medium ran period, exploiting opportunities lost by the rest of developed nations and the opportunities unleashed because of weakening PRC competition for the investments caused basically by worsening of guaranties for private property in the communist China and, currently, – by the panic, caused by COVID19.
The paper, presenting the proposals and providing some materials to support it one could find at SSRN site.
The final argument of m-r Amidror is: “The end result, if you look at the bottom line, is that the IDF does not dare cross the border into Gaza”. Pretty strange and disappointing is his deliberate ignoring a little bit changed (extremely complicated) procedures of decision making on crossing in and invasion. I can’t explain why Amidror keeps silence about ‘Military attorney general corps’ fighting tirelessly to protect Hamas from IDF… One really brave Russian (Ukranian) general and dissident Petro Grigorenko once told something about civic courage which is much superior to military courage.
Conflict of interest of welfare dependent voter creates wrong incentives. These incentives inherent to universal suffrage, yield consequences, as predicted by John Adams back in the 18-th century. Historically the rise of the modern welfare state might be traced to the emergence of mainstream left parties, which promoted government care “from the cradle to the grave”. This paper will address the damages to Democracy caused by conflict of interest, which led to irresponsible leadership and permanent peacetime budget deficit. Historical examples from the 1990s show possible escapes from the trap of universal suffrage.
A panoply of anti-terrorism strategies were utilized in Israel throughout its history, beginning with Palestine under the British Mandate and continuing after the creation of the State of Israel to the present day. This history similar to international experience overall, and provides no basis to link terrorism with poverty or despair.
Nor does history suggest any reasonable expectation that terrorists will be appeased by concessions of any kind, whether transfer of funds or relinquishing territory to terrorist control. Neither statistical analysis nor the study of particular incidents support such a hypothesis.
The immediate and most obvious criterion of success for parties in mutual conflict is the control of new territory and its population, which allows terrorists freedom of movement and opportunities to try new terrorist technologies and take the initiative in dynamic situations. Loss of land and population, humiliating defeat, or ostentatious display of triumph by the enemy, in contrast, discourage both terrorist leaders and perpetrators, who would lose the posthumous reward typically promised them in the guise of prestige and income for their families.
Factual instances and statistical data provide evidence to support the hypothesis that terrorism is best put down by force. When opting for such a strategy, it is of critical importance that military personnel be provided with appropriate legal protection.
Feeling of “political safety”, the rule which is secured reliably causes internal fighting for power and resources inside democrats there. Some of fights within Democratic Party deliver valuable information about liberals’ vision of the future. The future of Big Government, the future of Great Redistribution requires the vision of the ways how to distribute. The Distribution under real socialism never been equal (it is not the case of Biblical “manna-from-the-heaven” when food was provided over the heads of the Moses, Aaron, over the heads of princes of the tribes, directly from the Lord to every family, every “household” in equal portions).
The distribution of the power and resources can’t be equal in the eyes of modern socialist, including left liberals in the USA too. 2008 primaries proved, the half-black man with some Islamic background dominates the white woman. The white woman could win only the white Jew (see 2016 Democratic primaries experience).
This case provide more evidences for our previous research and proves, the best solution for every Group would be to stop Jihad against private discrimination, to stop governmental protection for “Historically excluded Groups”, to let all the people stand up and live the American way of life, being independent and industrious.
Here is the updated version of the report, presenting current state of our studies in political economy of the Family institution crisis. The family was targeted (actually, picked for destruction) by totalitarian intellectuals since Plato. Acute need to destroy it was declared in the Communist manifesto 1848 (as the Family and the Private Property institutions are strengthening each other). Modern politicians standing with Big Government and civilian bureaucrats are permanently in search of new opportunities to extend the budgets and discretionary powers. So our principal hypothesis looks quite reasonable, almost “natural”.
Government interventions into the traditional functioning of the family became an important factor in the recent family crisis in developed countries (fewer marriages, more divorces, and lower birth rate). This hypothesis has been tested statistically for the period from 1800 to 2010 with data from 17 established democracies.
We show that mandatory pension insurance might contribute to the reduction in fertility, with a lag of 40 years. Legislation encouraging a high level of female employment and mandating no-fault divorce rules is tested as an additional factor contributing to the divorce rate hike and birth rate fall. In addition, the concept of “the best interests of the child” encourages children to challenge parents’ authority; the latter reduces “demand” for children (and birthrate) even further.
The reason behind this effect is the rise of the welfare state, crowding out male and parental responsibilities.
The paper was originally presented at the Public Choice annual conference (New Orleans, 2012 “The gender role of the government: some explanations of family crisis”).
We tried to explain surges and cuts in governmental spending of Democratic countries by some of the political factors affecting governments’ abilities to balance the budget broadly discussed in the literature. We focus on territorial separatism, minority government, grand coalition, single party government, and the ruling party’s ideology. Special attention is paid to the phenomenon of universal suffrage, which has caused the rise to power of modern left-wing parties and strong special interest groups within the bureaucracy.
Most political factors turn out to be time- and case-sensitive except for universal suffrage. A severe crisis can open the window of opportunity to cut public expenditure, while favorable economic conditions stimulate claims for redistribution and spikes in government spending. The most effective way to curb the instability of public finance is to strengthen pro-reformist political coalitions, claiming defense of national identity and moral values, that encourage austerity and are market-friendly.
The paper has been published by Problems of economic Transition, (Tailor and Francis) vol. 59, no. 4, 2017, pp. 294-320 2017, doi: 10.1080/10611991.2017.1321418