Notice: Undefined index: hide_archive_titles in /home/chesterf/public_html/wp-content/themes/modern-business/includes/theme-functions.php on line 233

Author: Arthur Chesterfield-Evans

19/12/2020

The Evolution of Lying Proceeds Apace: New Daily 19/12/20.

When Trump was elected people asked me what he would be like. I said something like, ‘in any situation think what a dodgy real estate agent would do in that situation and you have my best prediction’.

Trump’s idea of truth was that it what is in your interest and what you can convince someone to believe. If you look at the real estate model of truth this is a ‘goer’. You convince someone that a property is worth a certain amount, even if its not. It the person believes you and pays the price, that becomes the value. and what you said becomes the truth.

Sadly, the paradigm does not work at all with science, and not even reliably in politics. But it takes some time for this to become evident, so the disinformation strategy still mostly works.

Morrrison invites journalists to a ‘briefing’ before he releases news. So if the coverage of the last issue was not to the government’s liking- no invitation this time. Journalists are in the unenviable position of getting a story and having to cover it s a certain way, or being scooped- the only one on the block without the story, bleating later. The technique is now called ‘media management’.

Here is Dennis Atkins with more on how it is done.

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/politics/australian-politics/2020/12/19/scott-morrison-political-liars/

13/12/2020

Energy Storage is a large problem- the German Experience 13/12/20

Energy storage is a worse problem in Germany because they have longer cold periods with less sun than Australia. It seems that pumped hydro storage is our best option, but this article is correct that it requires a lot of energy alternatives for when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.

Demand management is also important, which means shifting things like off peak hot water to when the sun shines, but also paying people to switch off. If there is only a peak demand for a few hours a year, it is cheaper to pay people to turn off than to have a power source that is only used a few hours a year.

But articles about the problems in the German grid have been around for a long time and lessons need to be learned.

Those of us who want to move to renewable energy need to be aware of the problems and to address them, or we just look like naive ideologues.

The German experience – running everything on renewable energy

13/12/2020

Cooperation on COVID Vaccines? 13/12/20

We hear a lot about 3 COVID vaccines; the Pfizer one being rolled out in the UK last week and in the US from tomorrow, the Oxford Astra-Zeneca one that is imminent, cheaper and has less problems with refrigeration, and the Moderna one, which is US based and does not yet seem to have a launch date.

There are two other vaccines in the news, the Russian Sputnik V one being rolled out there and in Eastern Europe, and the Chinese Sinopharm one that is going into Indonesia, India and elsewhere. But it seems that no one is considering bringing these two into the Western world. We might ask, ‘Why not?’

Is it racist? Do we think their scientists are no good and would fake the results? Are we simply in the thrall of Western pharmaceutical companies with captive regulators? Perish the thought, would their vaccines be cheaper? China has 1.3 billion people to protect and have goes to a lot of trouble to do so. They had scientists working with the US until the fuss started. They had a head start in the vaccine race. If the vaccine did not work they would have wasted a lot of time and effort vaccinating their own country and would suffer a huge loss of face. It seems unlikely that their vaccine does not work. So again, why no evaluation here? If Australia asked the Chinese to give us the data on their vaccine to evaluate it for licence here, it would be a nice peace gesture in the needless spat that was created when Morrison accused the Chinese of hiding the origins of the COVID epidemic.

It seems that some scientists in Britain and Russia have suggested cooperation between the Oxford and the Russian Sputnik V vaccine. This story is from RT- Russia Today. Will this actually happen?

www.rt.com/russia/509340-astrazeneca-sputnikv-vaccine-collaboration/

11/12/2020

COVID19 Vaccine Roll Out 11/12/20

People are asking me if they should get vaccinated. It shows how trust in our institutions has been eroded. A few years ago no one would have questioned it.

The side effects are far less than the death rates from COVID, particularly in older age groups or those with other health conditions. COVID also seems to have a considerable amount of long-term after-effects in a significant percentage of people; note the difference between the infection rate and the recovered rate in the statistics. (Of course some may have just been lost to follow-up).

Children seem to have few symptoms, but if they are not infected and grow older without immunity, it would be ironic if they are then badly affected later. Mumps is like that- relatively trivial in youth, but can cause pancreatitis, encephalitis and sterility later. Years ago in the pre-vaccination days, if a child had chicken pox or measles, the mothers would all bring their children to be deliberately infected at a ‘Pox Party’, though these are now discouraged. This sort of immunity may well be spreading and giving herd immunity in countries that have COVID now endemic, but it would be unwise to do it here as it would spread it to more vulnerable demographics.

Chicken pox can cause herpes zoster (shingles) in older folk, which is very painful, and now has a vaccine (Zostavax) that is very expensive but free after age 70.

This article is about the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine, which is not the Pfizer one that is currently being rolled out in the UK. It seems that the Oxford one is the first to publish the results of a Phase 3 trial, and though a lot of people have been vaccinated, not many people have been infected, which means that the numbers on which the conclusions are drawn are still not large. There is an embedded link in the article that gives a good summary of the trial procedures. It seems that the Oxford vaccine will have the advantages that it is easier to store, and transport and is cheaper. Presumably as this article is now published, its roll out is imminent also.

From an Australian perspective, there is now a huge rollout of the Pfizer vaccine in the UK, so we will know exactly how well it works by the time it gets here.

It is sad that the Qld Uni vaccine has been abandoned as it gives a false positive for the HIV/Aids Antibody test. Presumably it would have worked, and perhaps an alternative HIV/Aids test might have distinguished the two apart.

https://theconversation.com/the-oxford-astrazeneca-vaccine-is-the-first-to-publish-peer-reviewed-efficacy-results-heres-what-they-tell-us-and-what-they-dont-151755?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20December%2011%202020%20-%201808017569&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20December%2011%202020%20-%201808017569+CID_01f3cb2f6f072670ce3f7d184deeafcf&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=The%20OxfordAstraZeneca%20vaccine%20is%20the%20first%20to%20publish%20peer-reviewed%20efficacy%20results%20Heres%20what%20they%20tell%20us%20%20and%20what%20they%20dont

11/12/2020

US Health System and COVID-19 11/12/20

Here is an article about the US Health system and its response to COVID. Basically it seems that the US government is subsidising COVID treatments so that they are more lucrative than treatment of other diseases, so the private operators are filling their hospitals with COVID patients whether they need to be admitted or not, and non-COVID patients are excluded.

The other thing that is interesting is that there has been a huge growth in administrators since the 1970s. It has to be understood why private health systems are so inefficient. They have to keep individual insurance databases to keep track of premiums and churn as people change funds. When someone is treated they have to account for every band aid, visit, procedure or investigation, bill the patient and pay the practitioner. They have to market their product, compete for staff, and then figure out ways to avoid paying if possible.

Universal systems have everyone eligible, so do not need to worry about who is getting treated. No need to market the system, maintain many different churning databases, compete for doctors, keep accounts for every details of every treatment and bill and pay for them individually.

In terms of better health care there is no problem of adapting to whatever disease needs the most attention as the staff are motivated to do the most effective treatments, and there is no distortion of priorities to maximise profits.

The US health system is the least effective in the developed world in terms of delivering health care. but it is the most effective at its primary object- turning sickness into money.

No one has looked too closely at why the Australian system has been able to respond. Basically our public health system is State-based hospitals, which are still largely public and have doctors who could be re-directed to testing and vaccination. They can also change to do COVID if needed, and treat disease on their merit.

The private hospitals did very well out of the government subsidies here because they were emptied ready for a COVID influx that never came and they just pocketed the cash without much publicity for this from either themselves or the Government.

Australia has continued on its previous course, which is to starve Medicare and help the private system move towards a US system by stealth, and the COVID pandemic has so far not brought this to light. What is left of the public system has done well, helped by the fact that we are an island nation, so had some warning and could act to quarantine ourselves. The government was happy to take advice from the medical professionals because it had made such a mess of not taking advice from the firefighting professionals. But Medicare is still being quietly destroyed and we are moving to a US system of private medicine.

The government saves money on Medicare doing this, even though the system is much less efficient and much less equitable. But the key reason is not the savings on Medicare, it is the money to the Party coffers from the Private Health Industry (PHI), which is now much stronger with the changes John Howard did to the Aged Care system in 1997, which made it effectively a for-profit system, and the NDIS also a for-profit system, subsidised by the taxpayer through the Medicare levee, which was ironically not being used for health. (The discussion of the Aged Care system was in one of my posts last week).

The key thing to understand in the destruction of Medicare is that the rebate to doctors which was set at 85% of the AMA fee, so as to replace private medicine, has risen at half the inflation rate for 35 years and is now 46% of the AMA rate. Doctors are paid half what they were, so specialists mostly will not use it, and GPs who still bulk bill just do shorter visits.

Here is the article on the US response to COVID. Their prevention is also hopeless, as with such a poor welfare system the people cannot afford to stop work, and the story that it was a hoax was also promoted by President Trump. The obsession with ‘individual rights’ sits uneasily with the idea of staying home for the common good, and makes disinformation campaigns easier. People wanted to believe it was a hoax, because they could not afford to stop work anyway.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/55999.htm

05/12/2020

Global Dimming- another climate problem 5/12/20

Global dimming is the reduction in the amount of sun energy hitting the surface of the Earth. Research shows that the amount of sun energy reaching the surface of the earth has fallen 9% in Antarctica, 10% in the USA, 16% in the UK, 22% in Israel and 30% in Russia since the 1950s. Water evaporates correspondingly more slowly. The results are from long term studies and data, and two relatively rapid studies, the change in temperature differences during the day when planes were all grounded in the USA after 9/11 in 2001 and a study comparing sun energy received in the north and south of the Maldives.

It seem that the particles in the air allow smaller water particles to be suspended on them as clouds, and these reflect more heat and light back out into space, hence shielding the earth. This affects evaporation of ocean water and may have caused the droughts and famines in North Africa.

There has been a real effort to lessen air pollution particularly in Europe which may have helped African monsoonal rainfall, but if the dimming lessens and more sunlight comes into the atmosphere, it will mean that the greenhouse effect will worsen.

Revised calculations show that global warming may be 10 degrees Celsius in a century, because the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and the release of oceanic methane, which is 14x worse than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas will make the global warming phenomenon irreversible.

The answer is that we have to stop burning fossil fuels. We need electric cars, renewable energy, and to replace planes with trains as much as possible. It a shame we have a Liberal Government!

This 49 minute video is from the BBC Horizon program.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=57D2ii5HKxA&list=PLe6EP38qqR0af4fPQGy1LzbR6-8gY8KgA&index=11&fbclid=IwAR2eKLs9Jx2jgksiFy4rkgTaS1jRG2ZgU3Pvs7cGB5Ot9CdyDGLmqtvkyVc&t=0s

22/11/2020

Media Diversity Inquiry 22/11/20

The inquiry into media diversity is now a reality, and submissions close quite soon- 11 December.

Please make a submission, even if it only short- we need to show that a lot of people care about this issue.

It seems to me that the funding model s broken. Years ago, the wealthy Fairfax family got all the ad revenue and were relatively happy to let the journalists write what they liked. When the ad revenue started to fall, the stories were more to please the advertisers so that they would use this paper. Of course stories that were against their interest simply did not happen, so self-censorship got worse. As the paper got thinner, there was simply not enough space for many stories, which worsened the situation.

Finally a senior financial journalist told me that rather then headline writers putting headlines on his finished stories, he was being told the (catchy) headline and asked to write the story to under it. There was naturally some pressure to make sure that the story was at least consistent with the arbitrarily chosen (click inviting) headline.

The rise of social media has of course siphoned off a huge percentage of the ad revenue, and stories can be posted and accessed free, so those funding journalists have a problem.

Democratic ideas and the social media have made many people think that an ignorant opinion has the same value as an informed one. The algorithms that are to keep us watching give us the friends who think like we do, so as we think we see the world, we actually see our own sub-cultural bubble.

Since the funding mechanism is broken, this must be admitted and a new model found. Putting money into existing structures that work, like the ABC and SBS is obviously a good start, but not popular with the commercial media, who see them merely as subsidised competitors.

The idea that google and Facebook should subsidise the commercial media is also a convenient one for Murdoch. It is a massive government interference in the market. Presumably if the ABC is not involved in this subsidy scheme the algorithms would favour free information sources, which would in itself not be a bad thing, though it may also favour blogs of indifferent quality.

It would seem that if Google and Facebook had to pay a ‘turnover tax’ based on their revenue from Australian consumers we could have a sensible debate about how the money should be allocated to inform the population. As well as the ABC and SBS, entities like the Australian Bureau of Statistics might be worth considering, so that they can generate information and then distribute it to inform debate. The idea of evidence-driven policy is not dead, merely very ill.

If the government believes in competition as it professes to do, it must make rules that level the playing field. Chapter One of the economics books tell of open markets, which are modelled on some sort of medieval village where many farmers come to the square on market day, and the consumers have to spend all their money wisely and choose how much of each product they will buy. This is a very limited model and the rest of the textbooks tell about the development of monopolies, oligopolies, collusion, barriers to entry and other distortions to this simplistic market model. It seems that the politicians never get past chapter one. They need to this time. If you want a competitive market there need to be regulations that just stop big fish eating little fish.

It is important that a lot of submissions are received, and it would be good if they had a range of suggestions. Please put one in.

www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Mediadiversity

15/11/2020

Aged care: What is the prognosis? 15/11/20

I attended a DRS (Doctors Reform Society) zoom webinar on the future of health care with Professor Stephen Duckett and aged care with Professor Joseph Ibrahim of Monash Uni, a geriatrician whose experience is in evidence-based aged care.

It was not encouraging.

Preamble:

My own experience of nursing homes was initially as an after-hours doctor when I used to judge nursing homes by what I turned the Urine Smell Index; the worst ones smelled of urine when you opened the door at night. As a GP years ago I found it increasingly difficult to find someone trained to talk to about the patients’ treatments.

In New South Wales Parliament as an MP I was asked to pass legislation that lessened the number of trained nurses required on staff. ‘Flexibility’ was the key and many homes and facilities ‘had people who were not really sick’ we were told. I was not convinced but the legislation went through anyway.

When my widowed mother was no longer able to cope at home and the family went looking for supported accommodation it soon became clear that the driving force in Aged Care is real estate profits. The family home is sold and the object is to get the family to buy an overpriced retirement Villa with varying levels of support in the villa and then hopefully automatic entry into an attached nursing home, usually with quite a poor urine smell index. When the old person dies the villa profit largely reverts to the corporation.

A dear old widower professor who lived up the road needed support in his 90s. The home support contract offered needed at least 4 hours per week at $65 per hour. The person delivering the care was paid $20 an hour. I am unsure how District Nurses are allocated.

In 2000 Prime Minister Rudd asked for ideas for his ‘2020 Vision’. I wrote and suggested that he register the skills and training of Home Care workers so that they could be hired and evaluated like Uber of any other online service and the ‘quality control and insurance’ would not be why the contracting agency became so ‘vital and expensive’ (that it would end up costing more than the person who actually did the work). I never even had an acknowledgement of my suggestion.

Prof Duckett was of the opinion that things had got a lot worse since the 1997 Aged Care Act, John Howard’s work, which created ‘a business opportunity’ Prior to this there was a system called CAMSAM which was two modules; Care Aggregated Module and Standard Aggregated Module. These were funded separately. If they did not spend their Care money it was forfeited, so they could only profit on Services.

After 1997 there was no distinction so profits could be made from either component, so the quality of care declined, usually with lower staffing levels.

Some private-for-profit nursing homes have good care, but this is not common. Some not-for-profits also had very poor care, but the general rule is that the standard of care relates to the number and training of staff. The low wages (approximately equals $20 per hour) mean that the staff need to work multiple jobs in multiple locations which is what spread the COVID epidemic in Melbourne. Government run homes tended to have better staffing ratios, so were better able to act against the infection.

Professor Joseph Ibrahim commented that the terms of reference of the current Royal Commission on Aged Care were very narrow, only covering 5 years, and could not lead to prosecution. He felt that this was deliberate. The issues of overprescribing and assault have come up often.

He felt that this meant that it’s conclusions might be weaker and then not implemented, with a tendency to kick difficult problems down the road.

The commissioners themselves were of interest:

Richard Tracey had died before the enquiry started

Another, a Western Australian prosecutor had opted out (an unusual action as being on a Royal Commission is normally a good career move).

The two final commissioners are:

Tony Pagoni, Chairman- a retired judge who had had a specialisation in tax law and
Lynette Briggs- a career health bureaucrat

Commissioner, Briggs has put out a report asking that aged care be returned to the control of the health department. Prof Ibrahim comments that is very unusual for one Commissioner to make a public statement before the final report and this indicates that the commissioners are not in agreement.

Currently there are about 250,000 care workers and about 200,000 Professionals. The care workers need six weeks training at a TAFE level to get a ‘Certificate 3’ About 1/3 are new migrants. They are paid about $20 per hour and casualised to decrease staff costs. The unions are worried that the new RECP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) trade treaty actually allows trade in people and that more visas for cheap labour in these areas will not help residents or local jobs.

The $20 billion dollar industry is founded approximately $14.5 billion from government, $4 billion from RADS and $2-4 billion for additional services.

There are not-for-profits, but the large for-profit providers have increased since the 1977 act and are largely highly profitable big corporations, some multinational like BUPA.

Professor Ibrahim is concerned that there is a lack of supervision.

There are no forensic accountants looking at what it costs to run an aged care facility and this has allowed supernormal profits by big players. Money has been spent poorly or ‘hived off’. Obviously if the government runs some homes themselves there will be public service experience.

Prof Ibrahim believes that the future directions of aged care will be set by the multinational for-profit providers because these are the people who have direct access to the government. There is no significant advocacy for aged care residents. He contrasts this with breast cancer advocates who pressed for less radical operations, and for Gay men who pressed for more enlightened AIDS/HIV policies.

There have been discussions of ‘quality-of-life’ that have tended to be spoken of as needing less healthcare, but quality of life cannot be good without good health care.

The aged care industry likes home care as it lessens their costs and also pushes the liability back onto GPs. A sense of proportion is necessary:

There are 2.5 million well older people and 200,000 in aged care.

More radical treatments are now done in older age groups such as dialysis or cardiac surgery in the over 90s, very is some debate over this period some would say that it is a just to deny routine treatments but there is some distortion of priorities by having these lucrative procedures as fee-for-service, and there is also some inequity.

Since the development of antibiotics, medicines are seen as curative, but in fact they should be seen as being in three classes:

1. Curative

2. Palliative

3. Preventative

There is quite a lot of cost-ineffective medication use, such as for osteoporosis.

Solutions. (These are not just from the presenters)

A national registration system for all levels of care workers period this should include people who do home help with shopping cleaning and gardening as well as Medical & personal care workers.
Existing TAFE courses should be recognised but more courses will be needed.
There needs to be a feedback database for complaints/praises and ratings as there is for AirBNB, restaurants etc. The feedback database needs to be actively monitored by the regulator to follow up complaints or untoward events.
There needs to be a regulation system with accreditation and regular random inspections of facilities and surveys of residence.
Academic researchers such as AIHW (Aust. Institute of Health and Welfare) should be at arm’s length and should have long-term commissions to do longitudinal studies of aged welfare and satisfaction so that individuals cannot be targeted if they state that they are not happy with the care in their institutions.
This should be combined with health research.
There should be formal structured feedback systems with residents’ groups having paid advocacy groups and formal places and rights on regulatory bodies.
There must be minimum wages and conditions for all workers and minimum staffing standards.
The Regulatory body must have a policing function, supervising staffing and wage levels and food and care standards

Final Comment

Note there are a large number of public submissions on the Royal Commission website, many of which make discouraging reading. The privatisation seems to have led to profit-seeking rather than an improvement in care, and the political forces seem likely to continue this.

http://agedcare.royalcommission.gov.au

11/11/2020

Medicine, Reality and the US vote 11/11/20

Doctors tend to assume that everyone knows certain things, particularly because everyone they meet usually does. They also tend to think that everyone knows the order of importance of what they know.

Many years ago as I started to campaign against tobacco, Henry Mayer, the first Professor of Political Economy in Sydney, who had a regular column in the SMH told me that the health people were invisible in the media on the tobacco issue. I said that this was ridiculous, it was the most studied subject in the history of medicine, with over 60,000 papers and growing daily. He pointed to a person called Tollison, who wrote in the non-medical media that was read by the business sector. There were no medical responses there. The mainstream also media had relatively little on tobacco, as tobacco advertising was one of the major sources of revenue.

So the harm of tobacco was known, but ignored, like the fact that you are going to die one day.

It came home to me, when I amputated the leg of a smoker for vascular disease. He had bad lungs and a bad heart. I said, ‘Look mate, if you keep smoking, you will lose the other leg.’

To my amazement he replied, ‘Look, all you doctors go on about smoking, but if it was as bad as you say it is, the government would do something about it’.

He had internalised the government’s non-action as being mute testimony to it not being a problem. Doctors are, after all a subculture that claims to have expertise in a certain area, as do engineers, educators, weather forecasters and many other groups. In tobacco, the Tobacco Industry, the Australian Hotels Association, Clubs and Pubs and the advertisers and sponsorship recipients fought like tigers to stop reasonable public health policy. They are probably still retarding it- there has not been a Quit campaign in Australia for over a decade.

Trump’s denial of the significance of COVID19 must have struck a chord with those who knew that in the absence of decent welfare system a lockdown would send them broke. They needed to believe that they could carry on, and he and his denial were their salvation. A lot of business interests supported them- they would go broke too.

So it was interesting that the health facts became politicised, and wearing a mask was as much a political statement as a medical one. Politics was not, and will not be in future a good basis for personal preventive heath decisions. So controlling the COVID epidemic in the US will be harder than here, where mainly apathy and complacency are in the way.

The figures that only 4% of people in the US changed their view on the dangers of COVID goes some way to explaining why Biden did not have a landslide. For many people, COVID was not an issue, Trump’s rhetoric was plausible if you did not fact-check, and the economy had been going OK prior to the epidemic.

SMH today:

Virus neglect didn’t infect Trump vote

Shaun Ratcliff

Since the first person was diagnosed with COVID-19 in the US, more than 10 million cases have been confirmed and nearly a quarter of a million people with the virus have died.

Watching from afar, in a country where the coronavirus has been significantly less lethal, it is surprising the incumbent president did as well as he did.

While the pandemic probably did cost him votes, surveys we have run over the course of the year showed there are strong partisan effects on attitudes towards COVID-19, with supporters of Donald Trump mostly unconcerned about the risks from the virus, and getting less worried as the year went on.

These surveys were run in May and September. Both surveys consisted of responses from more than 1000 Americans.

In May, approximately 40 per cent of all Americans were very or extremely worried about the possibility they or a family member might catch the virus. Almost the exact same number were only a little or not at all worried. According to our data, this level of concern actually declined slightly between May and September.

This was largely a partisan affair. Respondents who said they were going to vote for Joe Biden retained a similar level of concern during this period, with 48 per cent very or extremely worried in May, and 50 per cent in September.

However, respondents who said they would vote for Trump were not very concerned about COVID-19 in May – about 19 per cent reported they were worried about it in the first survey and just 11 per cent of Trump voters reported this level of concern in the second survey.

The partisan differences, and the declining trend in Republican concern about COVID-19, are largely the product of the extremely polarised media and political environment in the US.

Trump voters are less trusting of information on COVID-19 from medical experts than Biden supporters, and between May and September a quarter of Republican voters became less likely to trust information from these experts.

This difference may, in part, stem from the media through which they obtain information. Those with the lowest levels of trust tended to rely upon more conservative cable and online news like Breitbart and Fox News, for instance, which have played down the risk posed by the pandemic.

Republicans who rely more on these conservative media outlets were more likely to have lower levels of trust in medical experts, even after controlling for demographic differences between Democrats and Republicans. They were also as likely to trust Donald Trump as medical experts for information on the coronavirus.

In this polarised environment, very few voters abandoned Trump between May and September (only about 4 per cent in our data), and hardly any shifted to support Biden.

Trump supporters tended to align their position on the coronavirus with their political allegiance. Relying more on media that downplayed the significance of the coronavirus, and taking cues from Republican leaders, they decided the pandemic was not a significant threat.

Our data indicates Biden was able to win over a small number of voters who supported neither candidate at the start of the year. It was enough to win in the end, but not enough to deliver the predicted landslide.

Shaun Ratcliff is a lecturer in political science at the United States Study Centre, University of Sydney.

09/11/2020

Biden Wins, but is America Trumped? 9/11/20

Biden won the US election, but everyone was surprised how close it was and how well Trump did.

It might be said that had there not be the COVID19 virus and Trumps handling it very badly, he probably would have won. Many have been wringing their hands for years, but whatever lies he tells, however much fact-checking was done, Trump seemed Teflon-coated. The standards have changed. Did we really think politicians had to tell the truth in the past and have them resign if they were caught out? The reality show host told people that economy was doing well, the stock market was up and the COVID would disappear and if he wasn’t consistent with yesterday, that is for fact-check researchers. He is still the same friendly face and reassuring voice for many.

But at a more fundamental level, the middle class in the US have been having a bad time for a long time. Neo-liberal economics favours world trade, China does it cheaper and jobs are offshored. The importers can pay Chinese prices for goods, and charge US prices, so their margins have gone up. In 2008 Obama’s slogan was that ‘Change is Possible’ but he failed to capitalise on Democrat control of the Senate and when the Global Financial Crisis came, he bailed out the banks, not the little people who still lost their homes. In 2016 Bernie Sanders recognised the problem, but the Democrat Establishment were scared of him, suppressed the vote in the Primaries and put in Hilary Clinton. Hilary Clinton, as ex-First Lady and Secretary of State was seen as part of the Establishment, and hence part of the problem.

Trump played this, as well as the voting system that favoured small states with Republican governments who wrote the electoral laws with varying degrees of voter suppression. Trump remained Anti-Establishment man, a populist, who would say anything to be popular. This time again, Sanders spoke of the need for change and used the word ‘Socialist’, a brave thing to do in America. The Democrat Establishment was again scared, and again used some voter suppression and getting the other less successful moderate candidates to withdraw to allow Biden’s late run for the Democrat nomination. So the people who wanted change were dudded again. The Democrats had an Establishment candidate, and the Republicans ran a candidate who pretended to be for the battlers.

The current situation is portrayed as just Trump’s ego stopping Biden getting on with the job, but that does not explain why 70 million people still voted for Trump and are very angry. Poorer Americans have a lot to be upset about. Biden was considered ‘past it’ by both the common people and the Democrat Establishment until the younger candidates were failing against Sanders. Biden was suddenly wheeled in to both save the poor people and get the big end of town’s money.

The Democrats scraped in this time. But this does not make Biden a good candidate. It is by no means certain that Biden has any idea how to fix the problem, or if he would be allowed to fix it if he did. Conservative Democrats put him there, and he is likely to have a Republican majority in the Senate, which neither wants progressive change, nor wants to help Biden at all. So enjoy the fine rhetoric while you can.

Even in defeat Trump will have enough power within the Republican party to destroy the pre-selection chances of any Republican who upsets him, so he may continue strutting around making up realities, with an overall effect like a bull in a china shop. But Trump in a strange sort of way was a beacon of hope, who recognised the discontent and tapped it. Though he did little to improve the situation, he gave hope that the Establishment could be defied and this role may continue.

The crunch time will come soon, when the disillusioned voters realise the situation. Will there be a systematic response, marches or vandalism? Time will tell.

It is accepted that the US voting system is so rigged that there is little chance for any candidate not backed by huge amount of money, and the system is hugely rigged in favour of the small states which favours the Republicans. The question is whether the voting system can be fixed for next time- it is hard to see how. It is stuck in the Constitution. The welfare system, the health system, the education system, the wages system and the competitiveness of American industry all seem very complex, with their solutions in different sectors of the economy. Biden is better than Trump, but that was a very low bar.