Work starts in Montana on Keystone XL pipeline

BY MATTHEW BROWN THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Posted April 6, 2020 

TC Energy said Monday that it’s started construction on the long-stalled Keystone XL pipeline across the U.S.-Canada border despite calls from Indigenous leaders and environmentalists to delay the US $8-billion project amid the coronavirus pandemic.

A spokesperson for TC Energy said work began over the weekend at the border crossing in northern Montana, a remote area with sprawling cattle ranches and wheat fields. About 100 workers are involved initially, but that number is expected to swell into the thousands in coming months as work proceeds, according to the company.

The 1,930-kilometre pipeline was proposed in 2008 and would carry up to 830,000 barrels of crude daily for transfer to refineries and export terminals on the Gulf of Mexico.

It’s been tied up for years in legal battles and several court challenges are still pending, including one that’s due before a judge next week.

TC Energy’s surprise announcement last week that it intended to start construction came after the provincial government in Alberta invested $1.1 billion to jump start work. Montana’s Department of Environmental Quality on Friday issued the final state permits the company needed, agency spokeswoman Rebecca Harbage said.

Leaders of Indigenous groups in the U.S. and some residents of rural communities along the pipeline route worry that workers could spread the coronavirus. As many as 11 construction camps, some housing up to 1,000 people, were initially planned for the project, although TC Energy says those are under review because of the virus.

READ MORE: U.S. border construction projects like Keystone XL spur rural coronavirus fears

TC Energy says it plans to check everyone entering work sites for fever and ensure workers practice social distancing.

Opponents in January had asked for any work to be blocked while legal challenges are pending. They said clearing and tree felling along the route would destroy bird and wildlife habitat. Indigenous groups along the pipeline route have said the pipeline could break and spill oil into waterways like the Missouri River.

For most people, the coronavirus causes mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough, that clear up in two to three weeks. For some, especially older adults and people with existing health problems, it can cause more severe illness, including pneumonia and death.

A hearing on the request to block work is scheduled for April 16 before U.S. District Judge Brian Morris in Great Falls.

Keystone XL was rejected twice under former U.S. President Barack Obama because of concerns it would make climate change worse. President Donald Trump revived the project and later pushed through approval after Morris issued an order to block construction in 2018.

Morris in December denied an initial request to block construction because TC Energy said at the time no work was immediately planned.

Stephan Volker, an attorney for the environmental groups asking Morris to again intervene, said the company’s decision to “jump the gun” before next week’s hearing was an insult to the judge.

“We are confident the court will not be bullied, and will overturn President Trump’s second approval, just as he overturned President Trump’s first approval, as unlawful,” Volker said.

© 2020 The Associated Press

READ MORE: TC Energy enlists Alberta to help finish US$8 billion Keystone XL project

 Some recent videos about the Keystone XL pipeline.

Kenney announces partnership with TC Energy for Keystone XL pipeline
Kenney announces $1.5B investment in Keystone XL pipelin
Keystone XL pipeline moves forward with Alberta gov’t investment
‘We believe the timing is good’: Kenney cites current crisis for reasons to invest in Keystone pipeline now
TC Energy says Keystone XL pipeline will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions as opposed to other transportation

Political scientist Duane Bratt discusses Alberta’s purchase of part of Keystone XL

Duane Bratt discusses the COVID-19 pandemic and the Keystone XL pipeline

ndustry reacts to Alberta’s investment in Keystone XL pipeline project

Alberta buys stake in Keystone XL pipeline expansion

Over 120 emergency room doctors send urgent letter to Alberta’s health minister

Last month, (HEALTH MINISTER) Shandro announced the province was ripping up its master agreement with Alberta doctors, and bringing in new rules.


BY SILVANA BENOLICH GLOBAL NEWS March 2, 2020


Alberta doctors are urging the province to reconsider proposed changes to healthcare, set to take effect April 1. As Silvana Benolich reports, over 120 emergency room physicians in Calgary have written the provincial health minister saying the new rules will negatively impact Albertans.

More than a hundred emergency room doctors have penned a letter to Alberta Health Minister Tyler Shandro, urging the province to press pause and reconsider proposed changes to healthcare.

Over the weekend, more than 120 E.R. physicians in the Calgary region alone signed the letter.

“I think it’s unprecedented to have this many doctors come together so quickly to speak with a unified voice about a single issue,” pediatric emergency room physician Dr. Edward Les said on Sunday.

Les, one of the doctors who helped draft the letter to the health minister, said Alberta physicians are deeply worried the proposed changes will have significant negative short and long-term effects on patients.

Last month, Shandro announced the province was ripping up its master agreement with Alberta doctors, and bringing in new rules.

Starting April 1, physician compensation will remain at its current level of $5.4 billion a year. But the changes are expected to prevent $2 billion in added costs tied to physician services over this current fiscal year and the three after that.

There won’t be any changes to the current rates doctors charge for individual procedures and benefits such as parental leave will remain in place.

The key change, which has also been the focus of a fiery dispute between doctors and the government, will be to a billing designation known as “complex modifiers.”

Under Alberta’s current fee-for-service model, doctors can bill $41 as a base fee for each patient visit no matter how short or how long.

A decade ago, the Alberta government added in an extra fee — called a complex modifier — to recognize that some patients have multiple or complex issues and doctors should be compensated for overly long visits.

If a visit went more than 15 minutes, doctors were able to extend it 10 minutes and bill the province a complex modifier fee of $18, for a total of $59.

As of April 1, the fee will be halved from $18 to $9, for a new total fee of $50. Then on April 1, 2021, the $18 complex modifier will return. But physicians won’t be allowed to bill for it until the 25-minute mark.

Alberta’s family doctor of the year says physicians feeling demoralized Alberta’s family doctor of the year says physicians feeling demoralized

The doctors letter states that patients with complex medical issues will suffer the most, if those new rules are brought in.

“What that will mean is their care will be fragmented,” Les said. “What that will mean is more of those patients will turn up in E.R. departments where they’re likely to be seen by physicians who do not know them, and where their care will delivered in a much more expensive fashion.”

“This is not the time to make health care worse for Albertans.”

The health minister was not available for an interview, but his office issued a statement on Saturday saying the province shares physician’s goals to improve care for Albertans, while ensuring the health system is sustainable.
“Despite repeated efforts, the [Alberta Medical Association] failed to put forward alternatives that would hold the line on physician compensation,” ministry spokesperson Tara Jago said in the written statement.

Les said the suggestion that high wages for Alberta doctors are to blame is frustrating.

“This is not about doctors pay. This is not about gobbledygook terms like ‘complex modifiers,'” Les stated.

“We too are invested in making a healthcare system that’s more streamlined and efficient,” Les added. “We too understand that cuts and changes must be made.”

“They must be, in a way that involves input from front-line practitioners, from family doctors, from pediatricians, from E.R. doctors — from everyone in the medical care system. They cannot be made unilaterally.

A petition to get the province back to the table, which was started Saturday night, garnered over 1,500 signatures in under 12 hours.

NDP calls for Alberta Health minister to resign after contacting doctor on personal phone

NOT THE FIRST TIME HE HAS DONE THIS

BY ADAM MACVICAR GLOBAL NEWS
April 5, 2020

There are calls for Alberta Health Minister Tyler Shandro to resign

 after he contacted a doctor on his personal phone and visited another doctor’s home.

Adam MacVicar reports.

Alberta’s Opposition NDP is calling for the province’s Health Minister Tyler Shandro to step down after allegations he abused the power of his office and contacted a doctor on his personal phone after hours.

The allegations stem from a February funding announcement in Red Deer, where Shandro briefly met and spoke with local family physician Dr. John Julyan-Gudgeon.

Julyan-Gudgeon said he was trying to speak with Shandro about his concerns with changes to the provincial health-care system, but was unable to have the conversation due to security.

According to Julyan-Gudgeon, it was later the following night that he received a call from Shandro on his personal cell phone.

“It was fairly surprising, this occurrence,” Julyan-Gudgeon said in a phone interview with Global News on Saturday. “I immediately recognized his voice and nonetheless, since I was a bit taken aback, my first instinct was to ask who it was and he identified himself as the health minister.”
Julyan-Gudgeon said he and Shandro spoke collaboratively and constructively about cuts to health care and expenditures before Shandro gave him contact information in case he had any concerns in the future.

According to Julyan-Gudgeon, Shandro told him he got his private contact information through Alberta Health Services.

“This was at my home, this was on my personal cell number,” Julyan-Gudgeon said. “I felt that the real message that was being relayed to me is that I could be gotten ahold of, I could be found.”

Julyan-Gudgeon has submitted a complaint to Alberta’s Privacy Commissioner regarding the call.

However, Julyan-Gudgeon said he would withdraw that complaint if he could speak with Shandro and if the ministry worked to rebuild the relationship between the government and doctors in the province.

“What we have then is what would possibly look like a slow progression of a set of behaviours that doesn’t seem to respect barriers, so in that light I felt that I now had to come forward,” he said.

Alberta Health Ministry press secretary Steve Buick said in a statement to Global News: “Dr. John Julyan-Gudgeon attempted to speak to the minister at an event. The minister unfortunately couldn’t speak at that time, but still wished to follow up by phone. The minister asked officials for Dr. Julyan-Gudgeon’s contact information so he could follow up.”

“He later called Dr. Julyan-Gudgeon, and they had a very civil conversation. During that call, at no point did Dr. Julyan-Gudgeon indicate that he in any way objected to being contacted,” the statement continued.

“In fact, they exchanged text messages several times after that phone call about various policy suggestions. Since then, Dr. Julyan-Gudgeon has continued to try to contact the minister in various ways but his tone became harassing and the minister was advised to stop communicating with him.”

The latest developments come on the heels of accusations that Shandro and his wife went to a doctor’s personal home and angrily confronted them over a meme that was being shared online.

Dr. Mukarram Zaidi, the family physician in Calgary that was confronted by Shandro, confirmed the exchange to Global News.

Zaidi said he and Shandro have been acquaintances for many years and agreed to take down the post.

Shandro has since apologized and stated he was defending his wife from unsolicited attacks online.

But Alberta’s Opposition health critic David Shepard argued that Shandro should step down from his position due to his behaviour.

“He clearly does not have the temperament, or the judgment, or even the slightest understanding of the integrity and the responsibility that is expected of a minister of the Crown,” Shepard said on Friday.

“It’s utterly unacceptable behavior, and it’s clear that the minister needs to step down or Premier Kenney needs to remove him from that post.”

Mount Royal University political scientist Duane Bratt agreed that Shandro should step down, despite the minister’s intentions behind the call.

“It’s not the nature of the conversation, it’s hunting down private information and I think that’s where the problem lies,” Bratt said.

“I would hope that he would be having some conversations with Shandro talking about this sort of behavior but I don’t think Kenney is going to ask for his resignation because it would acknowledge that he’s made a mistake.”

Julyan-Gudgeon wouldn’t comment on whether he thinks Shandro should step down from his post, instead saying he wants the best option for the preservation of Alberta’s health-care system.

“His behavior towards me is not as important to me as my patients are,” he said.

© 2020 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

Alberta health minister ‘needs to step down’ after angrily confronting doctor over Facebook meme: analyst
BY HEIDE PEARSON GLOBAL NEWS
Posted March 27, 2020

Alberta Health Minister Tyler Shandro is coming under fire after

 confronting a Calgary doctor over a social media post. Adam Toy reports.

Political scientist Duane Bratt says Alberta’s health minister needs to resign from his position, or be removed from caucus, after it came to light he and his wife went to a doctor’s personal home and angrily confronted them over a meme.

Alberta doctors getting ready for court fight against new pay, benefits deal

A closer look at changes Alberta is making to doctor rules, fees

Dr. Mukarram Zaidi, a family physician in Calgary, said he was at home with his family on Saturday evening and his children were playing in the yard. He said one of them came in and said someone was outside wanting to talk to him.

When Zaidi went out, he found Health Minister Tyler Shandro and his wife standing on the sidewalk. His children and wife stayed inside.

“He was angry, crying, high with emotion and effects,” Zaidi said Friday.

Zaidi said the confrontation came after he shared a meme on Facebook showing Shandro sitting at a desk with a thought bubble over his head that reads: “So every Albertan that I can kick off health care is another client we can sign up for Vital Partners! We’re going to be RICH!” The meme also included an emoji of a surprised face.

READ MORE: Over 120 emergency room doctors send urgent letter to Alberta’s health minister

Vital Partners is the supplementary health-benefits company of which Shandro’s wife is part owner. Despite that being OKed by the ethics commissioner when Shandro became minister, some Albertans still view it as a conflict of interest.

“His wife was with him and he says that he can’t deal with this. ‘We are getting death threats, we have to move now, we have children, we can’t live where we are,'” Zaidi said.

“And this is happening at my neighbourhood, at 7 p.m., everybody’s around.TWEET THIS

“And I’m like, OK how do we dissolve it in a civil fashion. And he says, ‘Take the post down.'”

Zaidi said he agreed to take the meme down and went back inside, thinking that considering the emotional state the Shandros were in, they wouldn’t be able to have a rational discussion.

Zaidi said he and Shandro have been acquaintances for many years, having previously served together in a constituency office. He said he believes Shandro was taken over by his emotions when he lashed out.

‘First and foremost a husband’

In an emailed statement on Friday afternoon, Shandro said, “yes, I am a minister of the Government of Alberta – but I am first and foremost a father and husband.”

“Last week my wife was subjected to an online campaign of defamation, which led to her facing harassment and threats at her place of work,” Shandro wrote, adding that at one point his wife believed someone would come to her workplace, threatening her and her staff’s safety.

“Of course the attacks on someone I love and the mother of my children upset me deeply. As any husband would do, I responded passionately to defend my wife,” he wrote.

READ MORE: Alberta doctors highest paid in Canada, costing province $3.4B: report

Shandro said that when he saw a long-time political acquaintance of his was participating in the attacks against his wife, he felt the need to speak to him and “implore him to cease propagating this false information.”

He also said he personally responded to emails from people criticizing his wife because they disagree with his actions as minister of health.

“I fully expected to face attacks when I signed up to run for office – but my wife did not. That is true of any elected official’s family,” Shandro said.

“I fully recognize the enormity of what our province and country is going through right now, and regret that this episode has become a distraction. For that, I am sincerely sorry.”
‘Profound lapse in judgement’

The “shocking” details of the confrontation prompted Opposition Leader Rachel Notley to call for the immediate replacement of Shandro on Friday.

“This is a profound lapse in judgement,” Notley said in a statement.

“This alone raises the question of whether he is suited to provide leadership for Albertans at this historic time. That is not how a minister of the Crown serves the public. That is not how leaders act.”

Notley went on to say that in the midst of the COVID-19 public health crisis, when Albertans are fearful, anxious and many are suddenly facing unemployment, Shandro’s focus shouldn’t have been “going to the home of private citizens at night and publicly threatening them.”

“We are in the middle of a pandemic. People’s lives are at risk,” Notley said.

“Albertans deserve a minister who is laser-focused on keeping them healthy and safe and frontline health care providers deserve a minister who is laser-focused on giving them all the resources they need to keep Albertans healthy and safe.”

READ MORE: Alberta closes some non-essential business, prevents evictions as 542 COVID-19 cases confirmed

Bratt said he was “stunned” by what happened, adding that Shandro’s behaviour, in his opinion, is a fireable offence.

“There’s often confrontations that the politicians may have with angry constituents in public… or even constituents going to politicians’ homes. This was the opposite,” Bratt said.

“This was the minister of health and his wife going to someone’s home, asking for his kids to go inside because they were going to yell at him, and berating him in public in front of his family over a Facebook post.”

Bratt said the fact that it was the minister of health confronting a doctor is also an abuse of power.

“You cannot have ministers of the Crown going over and intimidating citizens,” he said.

“And that’s what this was. What makes it worse is, it was a doctor, this was the minister of health — there was a power differential there. It’s just tough to imagine how he cannot resign for this.”

Speaking to the media as part of the daily government update on the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Premier Jason Kenney said he doesn’t accept calls for Shandro’s resignation.

“I think any Albertan would understand that a husband or wife will get passionate when their spouse is being attacked, and even threatened, and certainly defamed,” Kenney said.

“When Minister Shandro saw that his wife was being defamed by a neighbour who had been an acquaintance of his for many years, he went down to chat with the neighbour to ask that the post be deleted and it was deleted.”

Kenney responds to allegations against Health Minister Tyler Shandro 

READ MORE: Alberta doctors say budget figure a deep salary cut when fee changes kick in

Kenney said Shandro issuing a statement on the matter was the “end of the matter,” adding that he’s told Shandro to stay away from social media and focus on his job.

Zaidi said he and his family haven’t heard from the Shandros again, but said he forgives both of them for their actions.

“We have never faced a pandemic,” Zaidi said.

“He must be in a lot more stress that anybody else being the minister. I know him for a few years, so I think he… his emotions and his anger and his concern for his family took the best of him and he acted out of character.”

He said he never wanted to have the matter dealt with in the public sphere, but rather to handle it privately. However, he said CBC News, which originally broke the story, got a news tip somehow and contacted him for a interview.

TRIFECTA
Capitalism’s Triple Crisis
Mar 30, 2020 MARIANA MAZZUCATO

After the 2008 financial crisis, we learned the hard way what happens when governments flood the economy with unconditional liquidity, rather than laying the foundation for a sustainable and inclusive recovery. Now that an even more severe crisis is underway, we must not repeat the same mistake.

LONDON – Capitalism is facing at least three major crises. A pandemic-induced health crisis has rapidly ignited an economic crisis with yet unknown consequences for financial stability, and all of this is playing out against the backdrop of a climate crisis that cannot be addressed by “business as usual.” Until just two months ago, the news media were full of frightening images of overwhelmed firefighters, not overwhelmed health-care providers.7

\
This triple crisis has revealed several problems with how we do capitalism, all of which must be solved at the same time that we address the immediate health emergency. Otherwise, we will simply be solving problems in one place while creating new ones elsewhere. That is what happened with the 2008 financial crisis. Policymakers flooded the world with liquidity without directing it toward good investment opportunities. As a result, the money ended up back in a financial sector that was (and remains) unfit for purpose.1

The COVID-19 crisis is exposing still more flaws in our economic structures, not least the increasing precarity of work, owing to the rise of the gig economy and a decades-long deterioration of workers’ bargaining power. Telecommuting simply is not an option for most workers, and although governments are extending some assistance to workers with regular contracts, the self-employed may find themselves left high and dry.

Worse, governments are now extending loans to businesses at a time when private debt is already historically high. In the United States, total household debt just before the current crisis was $14.15 trillion, which is $1.5 trillion higher than it was in 2008 (in nominal terms). And lest we forget, it was high private debt that caused the global financial crisis.1

Unfortunately, over the past decade, many countries have pursued austerity, as if public debt were the problem. The result has been to erode the very public-sector institutions that we need to overcome crises like the coronavirus pandemic. Since 2015, the United Kingdom has cut public-health budgets by £1 billion ($1.2 billion), increasing the burden on doctors in training (many of whom have left the National Health Service altogether), and reducing the long-term investments needed to ensure that patients are treated in safe, up-to-date, fully staffed facilities. And in the US – which has never had a properly funded public-health system – the Trump administration has been persistently trying to cut funding and capacity for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, among other critical institutions.

On top of these self-inflicted wounds, an overly “financialized” business sector has been siphoning value out of the economy by rewarding shareholders through stock-buyback schemes, rather than shoring up long-run growth by investing in research and development, wages, and worker training. As a result, households have been depleted of financial cushions, making it harder to afford basic goods like housing and education.


The bad news is that the COVID-19 crisis is exacerbating all these problems. The good news is that we can use the current state of emergency to start building a more inclusive and sustainable economy. The point is not to delay or block government support, but to structure it properly. We must avoid the mistakes of the post-2008 era, when bailouts allowed corporations to reap even higher profits once the crisis was over, but failed to lay the foundation for a robust and inclusive recovery.

This time, rescue measures absolutely must come with conditions attached. Now that the state is back to playing a leading role, it must be cast as the hero rather than as a naive patsy. That means delivering immediate solutions, but designing them in such a way as to serve the public interest over the long term.

For example, conditionalities can be put in place for government support to businesses. Firms receiving bailouts should be asked to retain workers, and ensure that once the crisis is over they will invest in worker training and improved working conditions. Better still, as in Denmark, government should be supporting businesses to continue paying wages even when workers are not working – simultaneously helping households to retain their incomes, preventing the virus from spreading, and making it easier for businesses to resume production once the crisis is over.

Moreover, bailouts should be designed to steer larger companies to reward value creation instead of value extraction, preventing share buybacks and encouraging investment in sustainable growth and a reduced carbon footprint. Having declared last year that it will embrace a stakeholder value model, this is the Business Roundtable’s chance to back its words with action. If corporate America is still dragging its feet now, we should call its bluff.

When it comes to households, governments should look beyond loans to the possibility of debt relief, especially given current high levels of private debt. At a minimum, creditor payments should be frozen until the immediate economic crisis is resolved, and direct cash injections used for those households that are in direst need.

And the US should offer government guarantees to pay 80-100% of distressed companies’ wage bills, as the UK and many European Union and Asian countries have done.

It is also time to rethink public-private partnerships. Too often, these arrangements are less symbiotic than parasitic. The effort to develop a COVID-19 vaccine could become yet another one-way relationship in which corporations reap massive profits by selling back to the public a product that was born of taxpayer-funded research. Indeed, despite US taxpayers’ significant public investment in vaccine development, the US Secretary of Health and Human Services, Alex Azar, recently conceded that newly developed COVID-19 treatments or vaccines might not be affordable to all Americans.1

We desperately need entrepreneurial states that will invest more in innovation – from artificial intelligence to public health to renewables. But as this crisis reminds us, we also need states that know how to negotiate, so that the benefits of public investment return to the public.

A killer virus has exposed major weaknesses within Western capitalist economies. Now that governments are on a war footing, we have an opportunity to fix the system. If we don’t, we will stand no chance against the third major crisis – an increasingly uninhabitable planet – and all the smaller crises that will come with it in the years and decades ahead.

MARIANA MAZZUCATO
Writing for PS since 2015
Mariana Mazzucato is Professor of Economics of Innovation and Public Value and Director of the UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose (IIPP). She is the author of The Value of Everything: Making and Taking in the Global Economy, which was shortlisted for the Financial Times-McKinsey Business Book of the Year Award.

BOLD POLICIES NEEDED TO COUNTER THE CORONAVIRUS RECESSION

Insight

Christian Odendahl , John Springford

10 March 2020

Download PDF

The COVID-19 crisis is serious, and will have severe economic consequences. But if matched by aggressive action from fiscal and monetary authorities, the economic fallout is manageable. 

The 2008 financial crisis was a global economic catastrophe. Millions of people lost their jobs, their homes, their savings or their businesses as banks collapsed and credit dried up. It sparked the euro crisis, from which countries slowly recovered, with many experiencing a lost decade. Some fear that the outbreak of COVID-19, which is very likely to become a global pandemic, will be just as bad. But while the economic disruption caused by the epidemic looks likely to be sizeable, the long-term effects on the economy will be far less severe than the financial crisis, as long as governments act quickly to contain the economic fallout.

Financial crises are, in essence, collapses in trust in the financial system. Creditors fear that they are exposed to losses and seek safer assets, which in turn leads to shortages of liquidity. Riskier businesses have difficulty borrowing, rendering some insolvent. Tighter financial conditions also lead households and firms to cut spending. Thus the 2008 financial crisis became an economic one: demand collapsed and international trade fell 15 per cent from the peak to the trough as the collapse in credit rippled through the global economy. Governments and central banks intervened, but failed to support private sector spending sufficiently, whether through stimulus or a rapid restructuring of the banking system.

The #coronavirus epidemic is serious. Economically, the fallout can be effectively contained. But only if policy-makers in Europe provide aggressive stimulus.

Tweet this

The economics of the coronavirus epidemic is different, but some of the fallout will follow a similar pattern. Fears of contagion and government action to contain the spread of the disease have led to a global supply shock, especially in manufacturing. Factories and offices are closing or reducing operations in order to protect workers. As the infected isolate themselves – and others reduce social contact – they will spend less on flights, in bars and restaurants, and on other social activities. And businesses are facing liquidity problems, with production slowing as workers stay at home, and revenues starting to fall. If the issue of liquidity is not addressed, firms might have to lay off workers or close altogether. This is a major reason why stock markets have been in free fall globally, and government bonds have jumped in value as investors flee to safety.

However, there is a big difference between the uncertainty we faced in the ‘Great Recession’ and the euro crisis, and the situation now. The scale and the severity of the financial crisis was difficult to predict in advance, or while it was unfolding. The coronavirus epidemic is more predictable to epidemiologists, and therefore governments. The virus spreads at a constant rate with new infections doubling every three to four days. That rate can be lowered if containment is effective. Harvard epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch estimates that between 20-60 per cent of the world’s population will get the illness, while the World Health Organisation thinks that, of those who are infected, over 96 per cent will recover (at least in countries with advanced healthcare systems).

This means that the pandemic will spread rapidly, peaking in Europe in May or June, after which the rate of infection will drop and the economy will start to recover. Governments’ attempts to slow the spread of the virus are needed to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed. But epidemiologists say the infection cannot be stopped altogether. The virus may then become endemic in the population, meaning that there will be seasonal waves of infection, like flu – but these will be far less economically destructive than the initial outbreak. All this suggests that the economic consequences, while severe in the short term, need not be as costly as the financial crisis, so long as governments enact early and aggressive economic policies to support the liquidity of firms, to offset lost wages for workers, and to stimulate the economy more broadly to aid a quick recovery after the epidemic has run its course.

The biggest threat to the economy is viable businesses becoming illiquid and going bust. Temporary disruptions can have permanent effects: a wave of bankruptcies would leave permanent scars on the economy if firms that would have been successful go under, leaving workers unemployed and helpful knowledge redundant, at least for a period.

Confronting this risk will require an alliance of bank regulators, public investment banks, central banks and finance ministers. Bank regulators should encourage banks to be lenient on firms in severely affected sectors of the economy, such as tourism, by rolling over existing loans. But banks will not be able to alleviate businesses’ liquidity problems on their own. Extending loans means that banks are taking on risk. Public investment banks should also provide subsidised credit to the more affected parts of the economy. This is usually done indirectly via private banks, which take on part of the risk of that loan, and who perform diligence on the company’s accounts. That process limits the risk to the public bank’s balance sheet. And as a result, firms that were already on the cusp of bankruptcy, such as the British airline FlyBe, would be unlikely to get publicly subsidised liquidity support.

The European Central Bank (ECB) should add a broad-based credit stimulus to the economy: even well-targeted measures via private banks and public investment banks may not satisfy all of the demand for emergency credit. The best way to do this would be via targeted long-term refinancing operations (TLTROs). Simply put, TLTROs are used to provide cheaper ECB funding to banks the more they expand lending to businesses. The ECB should start a ‘Corona-TLTRO’: very cheap short-term liquidity at negative interest rates, which would encourage banks to extend further credit.

Both firms and workers need help to manage the #Covid19 crisis. Banks, public investment banks, the ECB and finance ministries need to work together to provide a comprehensive package.

Tweet this

Finance ministers should also provide liquidity support through fiscal policy. Firms have to pay wages, even if they have been forced to reduce production for want of labour or supplies. Governments should consider short-work schemes (known as ‘Kurzarbeit’ in Germany, where it has been in place since 1910). Companies can apply for grants if they have to reduce the working week for their staff. Such schemes should be made available for self-employed workers on the same terms. The German government has just announced a simplified and more generous short-work scheme as a result of the COVID-19 related disruptions.

To contain the pandemic, more governments may have to temporarily close educational institutions, such as schools and childcare facilities, as Spain has done in Madrid and hard-hit areas. This threatens parents’ finances if they have to take unpaid leave from work. Nordic countries have pioneered a scheme whereby the government replaces the wages of parents who take time off to care for their children, mostly for the first year after birth. Similar parental pay schemes would help parents – sadly, often mothers – who lose income because they have had to care for children. That the German government failed to include such a policy in its programme announced on International Women’s Day is not without irony.

Further fiscal support can be provided by deferring the collection of VAT and payroll taxes from businesses for three months. Italy has already deferred the payment of payroll taxes. The benefit of that policy is that it provides liquidity very broadly, but it is not without risks: firms on the cusp of bankruptcy will also benefit, leaving the state holding the bag. But many governments in Europe pay negative interest rates on short-term borrowing. So finance ministries would make a profit from accepting delayed tax payments. The net effect to the government balance sheet – a slight loss because of bankruptcies – may well be worth the additional liquidity support in the longer-term. The European Commission should allow member-states to break the eurozone’s fiscal rules this year for COVID-19 related measures.

Once this year’s epidemic is over, there will be some catch-up growth as businesses restock inventories, and consumers make up for forgone spending. This is different from the aftermath of the financial crisis, when debts proved to be unsustainable and had to be worked down, leading to a prolonged period of lower consumption than would otherwise have been the case. But there will be a difference between the shape of the post-epidemic recovery in manufacturing, which will probably experience a sharp rebound, and the services sector, which may struggle for a longer period of time. If consumers planned to buy a new pair of spectacles, but could not buy them when supply was disrupted, they are likely to do so once the epidemic is over. Consumers will not, however, make up for the meals out that they would have eaten while they were isolating themselves. Football matches will be played in empty stadiums and concert tours will skip cities or will be cancelled altogether. ‘Social consumption’ – like meals out, concerts or travel – will be hit hardest, with depressed demand possibly continuing into the summer and autumn as people fear infection even after the epidemic has run its course.

Manufacturing may see a V-shaped recovery from the #coronavirus recession, but services will be a lot harder hit. Pre-announcing temporary VAT cuts when the epidemic is over should help boost confidence now.

Tweet this

Manufacturers may be able to cope with mere liquidity support, as discussed above, because they can reasonably hope for a rapid recovery. But fiscal support will be needed to speed the recovery in services after the worst of the epidemic is over. Governments do not want to encourage people to travel and go to restaurants and other big gatherings, and they should not seek to stimulate social consumption now. But governments could announce that, after the epidemic has officially ended, there will be a six to nine month VAT cut for services sectors that have been hardest hit. That would also encourage banks to extend credit to these businesses, knowing that they will have higher revenues once the epidemic ends.

Stimulus policies should ideally be co-ordinated across Europe, the US and Asia, to signal to firms and markets that the world is determined to minimise the fallout of the epidemic. Some commentators have suggested that fiscal stimulus is pointless, because tax cuts or credit easing will not feed into higher expenditure if people are isolating themselves at home. But not all people will be completely isolated at home for long periods of time – only those who have the virus and who have serious underlying health conditions will have to be isolated for more than two weeks. Online shopping, major purchases like cars, or booking travel for later in the year will be less affected. And administering a fiscal stimulus takes time, and will come online after the peak is reached in most European countries, but, if it is announced immediately, it will improve the economic outlook for businesses and consumers, and ease the panic on financial markets.

Even before COVID-19 reached Europe, its economy was struggling. Now that the outbreak has become an epidemic, a recession in the first half of 2020 is all but certain. This makes early and aggressive action to stimulate the economy – and to manage expectations about future stimulus – imperative. Since the virus is so contagious, the rate of infection is likely to peak within three to four months, before falling back, which means that governments have more certainty than usual about the future path of an economy. If they fail to act, they risk a wave of bankruptcies and rising unemployment. They must be bold.

Christian Odendahl is chief economist and John Springford is deputy director of the Centre for European Reform.

Acting Navy secretary: 'I stand by every word I said' after leak of carrier speech

A transcript, as well as the audio of Thomas Modly's remarks to the crew of the USS Theodore Roosevelt, were leaked Monday.


Acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly. | Mark Wilson/Getty Images

By CONNOR O’BRIEN and LARA SELIGMAN
04/06/2020 POLITICO

Acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly said on Monday he stands by "every word" he said to the crew of the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, after leaked audio revealed a profanity-laced speech in which he called the decision of the ship's former commanding officer to write a letter asking for help "naive" and "stupid."

"The spoken words were from the heart, and meant for them. I stand by every word I said, even, regrettably any profanity that may have been used for emphasis," Modly said in a statement to POLITICO. "Anyone who has served on a Navy ship would understand. I ask, but don’t expect, that people read them in their entirety."

In the speech to the crew over the ship's public address system, Modly criticized Capt. Brett Crozier for broadly emailing a letter last week requesting assistance for the ship's personnel as more crew members tested positive for the coronavirus. The letter was later published by Crozier's hometown newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle.

The ship, which had been on deployment, is in Guam, where leaders are systematically removing personnel from the carrier and putting them in quarantine. More than 150 sailors have tested positive for Covid-19.

A transcript, as well as the audio of Modly's remarks to the crew, were leaked to several media outlets Monday. Modly did not share his remarks with the White House or Defense Secretary Mark Esper's office ahead of time, a defense official told POLITICO.

In the speech, the acting Navy secretary said Crozier was "too naive, or too stupid, to be the commanding officer of a ship like this" if he thought the contents of his letter wouldn't become public.

"The alternative is that he did it on purpose," Modly said, according to the recording. "And that's a serious violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which you are all familiar with."

Modly called Crozier's letter a "betrayal." He accused the captain of considering the media — which he claimed is trying to embarrass the service — as part of his chain of command.

"There is no, no situation where you go to the media, because the media has an agenda. And the agenda that they have depends on which part of the political aisle they sit," Modly said. "And I'm sorry that's the way the country is now, but that's the truth. And so they use it to divide us. They use it to embarrass the Navy."

"I understand you love the guy," Modly later told sailors of Crozier. "It's good that you love him. But you're not required to love him."

The defense official said Modly did not mean to insult Crozier's intelligence, noting that he is "a bright, bright officer." The acting secretary came to the conclusion that Crozier "wasn't thinking straight" and "made an emotional decision" in order to help his crew, the official said.

Several Democratic lawmakers have since called for Modly to be fired or resign.

Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.), a retired Navy officer who represents the Norfolk area, called for Esper to oust Modly over his remarks to sailors aboard the Roosevelt.

"TR Sailors are on the frontlines of this pandemic and of our nation’s defense in the Pacific," Luria said in a statement. "Acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas Modly’s remarks to the crew show that he is in no way fit to lead our Navy through this trying time. Esper should immediately fire him."

PETER NAVARRO IS NOT A DOCTOR

‘Doctors disagree all the time’: Navarro drags Fauci feud into the open

The clash between the administration officials focused on the efficacy of a controversial potential treatment for the coronavirus.
By QUINT FORGEY

04/06/2020

White House trade adviser Peter Navarro on Monday questioned the experience and medical judgment of Dr. Anthony Fauci — dragging his reported dispute with the nation’s top infectious diseases expert out of the White House Situation Room and onto cable news.

In a fiery interview on CNN’s “New Day,” Navarro appeared to confirm media accounts of his altercation with Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, during a meeting of the White House coronavirus task force Saturday. The clash focused on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine, a controversial potential treatment for the coronavirus that President Donald Trump has promoted despite limited clinical evidence.

“There was that discussion on Saturday, and if we didn’t have disagreement and debate in the Trump administration, this administration would not be as strong as it is,” Navarro said of the incident, which reportedly saw him spar with Fauci, who has voiced caution about hydroxychloroquine’s ability to combat the coronavirus.


The president and his allies, however, have continued to champion the decades-old malaria drug as a possible medical remedy for Covid-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, while senior health officials have warned repeatedly that the medicine requires further trials.

“The data are really just, at best, suggestive,” Fauci told CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday. “There have been cases that show there may be an effect, and there are others to show there’s no effect. So I think, in terms of science, I don’t think we could definitively say it works.”

Responding to that assessment Monday, Navarro said he would let Fauci “speak for himself,” but added, “I would have two words for you: second opinion.”

Although Navarro has no medical experience, he went on to assert that “doctors disagree about things all the time,” and forcefully defended his credentials as sufficient for him to weigh in on the scientific deliberation over the drug.

“My qualifications, in terms of looking at the science, is that I’m a social scientist. I have a Ph.D.,” he said. “And I understand how to read statistical studies, whether it’s in medicine, the law, economics or whatever.”

DR. NAVARRO IS NOT A REAL DOCTOR AND HE IS A FRINGE BOURGEOIS POLITICAL ECONOMIST

Atkinson: Trump fired me because I handled whistleblower complaint properly

“As an Inspector General, I was legally obligated to ensure that whistleblowers had an effective and authorized means to disclose urgent matter.”


Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community inspector general.

 | J. Scott Applewhite, File/AP Photo

By KYLE CHENEY 04/05/2020

The intelligence community watchdog removed abruptly late Friday by President Donald Trump says he believes Trump ousted him because of his evenhanded handling of a whistleblower complaint that ultimately led to the president's impeachment.

"It is hard not to think that the President’s loss of confidence in me derives from my having faithfully discharged my legal obligations as an independent and impartial Inspector General," Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community inspector general said in a statement Sunday, "and from my commitment to continue to do so."

Atkinson was the federal official who revealed to Congress in September the existence of a whistleblower complaint against Trump, which indicated that the president improperly pressured Ukraine to investigate his political rivals. When Atkinson sought to share that complaint with Congress under a federal whistleblower law, the White House and Justice Department intervened and blocked the transmission of the complaint for days.

Ultimately, amid withering pressure, Trump provided the whistleblower complaint to Congress, as well as a transcript of a July 2019 call with Ukraine's president, two pieces of evidence that became crucial factors in the House's decision to impeach Trump for abuse of power. The Senate later acquitted him on a nearly party-line vote.

"As an Inspector General, I was legally obligated to ensure that whistleblowers had an effective and authorized means to disclose urgent matters involving classified information to the congressional intelligence committees, and that when they did blow the whistle in an authorized manner, their identities would be protected as a guard against reprisals," Atkinson said in his statement. "Inspectors General are able to fulfill their critical watchdog functions because, by law, they are supposed to be independent of both the Executive agencies they oversee and of Congress."

Trump informed the House and Senate Intelligence Committees late Friday that he would be removing Atkinson after a required 30-day wait. But Atkinson was immediately placed on administrative leave, according to congressional sources, effectively circumventing the one-month delay. The move has prompted some Senate Republicans to demand more details about Atkinson's removal.

Trump indicated in his letters that he had lost confidence in Atkinson but didn't explain why. When asked about the matter at a Saturday press conference, though, Trump cited Atkinson's handling of the whistleblower complaint. Though Trump has repeatedly assailed the complaint as false, many of the underlying details were corroborated by a string of State Department and White Hopuse witnesses during impeachment hearings.

“I thought he did a terrible job. Absolutely terrible,” Trump said of Atkinson on Saturday at a press conference, adding, “He took this terrible, inaccurate whistleblower report and he brought it to Congress."

Atkinson's ouster occurred as Trump moved to remake the ranks of inspectors general, naming a handful to vacant posts late Friday. He also nominated a White House attorney, Brian Miller, to the newly created post of special inspector general for pandemic recovery. The position, created as part of the $2 trillion coronavirus relief law signed late last month, is meant to oversee a $500 billion fund in the Treasury Department meant to stabilize the economy. Though Miller, a former federal inspector general, won plaudits from some transparency advocates, the pick drew quick criticism from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who questioned whether a White House attorney could demonstrate independence from the president.

Trump's removal of Atkinson also drew a quick brushback from the Justice Department's current inspector general, Michael Horowitz, who heads a council of fellow IGs. Horowitz emphasized that Atkinson was widely respected in the IG community and was seen as having handled the Ukraine whistleblower complaint "by the book."

Atkinson, who remained silent through the impeachment process despite attacks from Trump allies in Congress, defended his handling of the whistleblower complaint.

"Those of us who vowed to protect a whistleblower’s right to safely be heard must, to the end, do what we promised to do, no matter how difficult and no matter the personal consequences," he wrote. "I will be forever grateful to the many public officials and others who fight tirelessly and consistently, in words and deeds, in ordinary and extraordinary matters, to protect the rights of all whistleblowers and, in turn, the best interests of the United States."

---30---

Congress flummoxed by firing of top intel watchdog

One senator called Trump's decision to fire Michael Atkinson “terrible on a lot of levels," while another didn't appear bothered by it.

GUESS WHICH ONE WAS THE REPUBLICAN
Sen. Angus King. | Carolyn Kaster/AP Photo


By ANDREW DESIDERIO and BURGESS EVERETT
04/06/2020 POLITICO

Senators are responding to President Donald Trump’s firing of the intelligence community’s top watchdog with a muddled message, with some calling for hearings and others saying lawmakers have far more important issues to tackle.

The scattershot response suggests Congress is unlikely to urgently address Trump’s decision to sack Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community’s inspector general — and it underscores how difficult it will be for the Senate and House to conduct oversight of the surprising firing, especially in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic.

But the matter is an urgent priority to some, including Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), who said the Senate should hold a hearing.

King, who sits on the powerful Senate Intelligence Committee, said officials such as Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell and Atkinson himself — whom Trump fired late Friday night — should be put under oath.

“It should be an open hearing to have members of the administration come forward and provide an explanation,” King, who caucuses with the Democrats, said in a phone interview, calling Trump’s decision to fire Atkinson “terrible on a lot of levels.”

Trump has defended the firing, telling reporters on Saturday during a White House coronavirus task force briefing that the longtime public official was a “total disgrace” for the way he handled a whistleblower complaint that led to the president’s impeachment.

But King cautioned that even a public hearing might not yield many answers because “this was a decision made principally by the president, probably without consulting much of anyone else.”

“We don’t need to know why he did it — he said it. The president yesterday said it!” King quipped.

A spokeswoman for Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the panel’s plans. The Senate is scheduled to return to regular session on April 20, but several senators have cast doubt on that timeline given the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has yet to comment on Atkinson’s removal.

Meanwhile, Atkinson released a lengthy statement Sunday night about his firing, asserting that Trump removed him simply for doing his job.

“It is hard not to think that the president’s loss of confidence in me derives from my having faithfully discharged my legal obligations as an independent and impartial Inspector General,” Atkinson wrote.

Democrats have condemned the firing as an abuse of power and a brazen act of politically motivated retribution by a president emboldened after the Senate acquitted him in his impeachment trial. Republicans have been tepid in their criticism of the action, but some, including Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, said the firing “demands an explanation,” while others largely deferred to the president’s unorthodox leadership style.

“Obviously those people serve at the pleasure of the president and as is usually the case, it’s not something that we have any control over,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), the GOP whip. “The president made it pretty clear why he did. But he has the prerogative. We don’t always have to agree with his actions. As we’ve learned in the past he’s going to do what he’s to do.”

Thune said it was too early to assess whether the firing was unwarranted: “I want to talk to the people who are close to it and get some context on it. I don’t understand it at this point. But that’s a question for another day when I can figure out what went into it.”

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), who presided over a pro forma session of the Senate on Monday morning, also said more information was needed.

“I think we should get more detail. I agree with that,” she said. “It’s such an odd time it’s hard to say how we’re going to get that info — I mean, you know what kind of priority that information is going to have — but I think that’ll all come out.”

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), a top Trump ally, said he was more consumed with reforming the foreign surveillance courts than Atkinson’s firing. But he also made clear it didn’t trouble him, either: “I don’t necessarily have any issues with it.”

“My view is that this is the president’s decision, it’s a decision that’s his to make. It doesn’t give me enormous heartburn,” Hawley said in an interview on Monday. “It’s not the main issue.”

---30---

Dimon sees 'bad recession' after 'bad planning' for pandemic

The JPMorgan Chase CEO took a veiled swipe at the Trump administration and other U.S. leaders for failing to prepare for the outbreak.


JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon | Alex Wroblewski/Getty Images


By ZACHARY WARMBRODT

04/06/2020

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon in his annual letter to shareholders Monday warned of a coming deep recession with financial shocks similar to the 2008 Wall Street meltdown, after poor planning by the U.S. before the Covid-19 pandemic.

In the letter, Dimon told shareholders that the nation's largest bank by assets was prepared to keep lending billions to clients through the downturn though it was taking steps, including stopping stock buybacks, to protect itself as much of the economy shuts down.

"Halting buybacks was simply a very prudent action — we don't know exactly what the future will hold — but at a minimum, we assume that it will include a bad recession combined with some kind of financial stress similar to the global financial crisis of 2008," he said. "Our bank cannot be immune to the effects of this kind of stress."

Dimon, who just returned to work after emergency heart surgery, took a veiled swipe at the Trump administration and other U.S. leaders for failing to prepare for the outbreak. He said the pandemic "is only one example of the bad planning and management that have hurt our country."

"Sometimes extraordinary events in history can cause a change in the body politic," he said. "As a nation, we were clearly not equipped for this global pandemic, and the consequences have been devastating. But it is forcing us to work together, and it is improving civility and reminding us that we all live on one planet. E Pluribus Unum."

As Washington looks at ways to ease banking rules to encourage further lending, Dimon said "we want our shareholders to know that we have not requested any regulatory relief for ourselves" — though he doesn't think it's a bad idea.

"Saying that we will not ask for regulatory relief does not mean the government shouldn't change some rules and regulations, however," he said. "For example, some rules can improperly prevent healthy, well-capitalized banks from lending freely in times of stress. This can hurt customers as the crisis deepens. Leaving high-quality, available liquidity undeployed in times of need is an opportunity forever lost."

ECONOMY PORTENTS OF THINGS TO COME
How ugly could it get? Trump faces echoes of 1929 in coronavirus crisis.

Forecasters see historic job losses and deep economic pain on the horizon — but with a sharp rebound, if Congress steps up.

Pedestrians walk by the New York Stock Exchange in New York City.

 | Spencer Platt/Getty Images


By BEN WHITE POLITICO 03/16/2020

The early signals from the coronavirus crisis point to a scale of damage unseen in the modern U.S. economy: the potential for millions of jobs lost in a single month, a historic and sudden plunge in economic activity across the nation and a pace of sharp market swings not seen since the Great Depression.

As the coronavirus outbreak ravages a paralyzed nation, Wall Street suffered another brutal bloodbath on Monday with the Dow Jones Industrial Average diving around 13 percent in its worst percentage loss since 1987’s “Black Monday” crash. A reading on business conditions in the New York area plunged a record 34.4 points to -21.5 in March, suggesting a recession is underway that could be sharp and deep as revenue quickly bleeds out of major industries from airlines to hotels, restaurants, bars and sports leagues.

The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index, the broadest gauge of U.S. companies, fell 12 percent. It has shed $6 trillion in value since peaking in February, slamming retirement accounts for millions of Americans in ways that could have psychological ripples for many months to come. The last time the S&P had three days of similar wild swings was 1929, on the eve of the Great Depression.

The S&P is now only around 300 points away from wiping out all its gains since Donald Trump won the White House in November 2016. President Trump himself, one of the grandest boasters of the strength and resilience of markets and the American economy, appeared to capitulate on Monday with a more somber tone reflecting the immense magnitude of the challenge facing the nation.

“We have an invisible enemy,” he said, acknowledging that the virus could push the U.S. into recession. “This is a bad one. This is a very bad one.” Trump urged Americans not to gather in groups over 10 and to avoid bars, restaurants, food courts and other public spaces.

The VIX, a gauge of fear and panic on Wall Street, hit 82.69 on Monday — bringing it to territory unseen since the worst of the financial crisis in 2008. Oil prices tanked 10 percent — after a severe plunge last week — as traders bet the virus will ignite a global recession that sharply reduces demand for fuel.

The massive sell-offs have led to suggestions by market professionals that regulators may have to take dramatic steps seen during the Great Depression and after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That could include shuttering Wall Street — perhaps for days — until more is known about the direction of the coronavirus spread in the United States and until Washington comes up with a massive, bipartisan policy response to shore up flagging industries and direct money straight into the pockets of American citizens losing work as they remain shuttered in their homes at the direction of the government officials.

For now, Securities and Exchange Commissioner Jay Clayton pledged to keep markets open, despite the waves of panicked selling. “Markets should continue to function through times like this,” he told CNBC. Still, many traders expect that if the market plunges several more thousand points, and trips more circuit breakers that temporarily halt trading, the administration could be forced to simply shut Wall Street down.

“With new measures being put in place by the hour, the federal government at some point will have to consider a modern version of the bank holiday imposed by the Roosevelt administration back in 1933,” RSM Chief Economist Joseph Brusuelas wrote in a client note. “That four-day holiday was put into place to restore confidence in the banking and financial system. Perhaps the governing authority should consider a 10-business day holiday until Congress can act.”

Wall Street analysts are already assessing the damage done to the economy thus far: stark and likely to get far worse, very quickly.

“Movie box-office revenues are down more than 60 percent in data through March 15 and more than 70 percent relative to the average of recent years,” JPMorgan analysts wrote in a research note. “Broadway box office revenues were already down about 20 percent relative to trend in data through March 8, and are presumably set to be down essentially 100 percent after theaters closed last Thursday, a result we also expect to see for professional and college sports revenues.”

Restaurant bookings were collapsing in many cities and may now plunge to zero. Streets are increasingly empty as citizens follow government warnings to slow the spread of the virus.

The hope on the part of White House officials is not to avoid a sharp economic slowdown — they all know it is coming — but that the short-term pain from extreme measures will lead to a flattening in the curve of the virus spread. Then economic activity can be made up when the crisis ebbs.

But that will require agreement on a massive package of aid for both individuals and corporations to stave off mass bankruptcies and waves of layoffs. The White House hopes for a V-shaped economic cycle this time: a recession in which growth plunges then sharply recovers as consumers emerge from their bunkers with jobs to go to and money to spend.

Kevin Hassett, the former White House Council of Economic Advisers chairman who remains in contact with Trump and the White House, said in an interview that jobs reports for March and April could show horrific numbers that will force massive congressional action if it has not already occurred by then.

He predicted losses of perhaps over 1 million jobs in coming reports and a spike in the jobless rate. “We really could see the worst jobs reports we’ve ever seen in our history.”

Hassett said he did calculations over the weekend with conservative economist Larry Lindsey showing that the economy could contract by 5 percent in the second quarter, though a swift containment of the virus could lead to a bounce-back in the third quarter. (Goldman Sachs economists also predicted a drop of around 5 percent in economic growth in the second quarter.)

And he noted that infighting between the House and Senate and uncertainty about the next stimulus package from the White House could make matters far worse. The White House is trying to settle on a package that would include a payroll tax suspension and emergency lending facilities, including from the Federal Reserve, and other measures for impacted businesses that would stop short of direct cash “bailouts,” a politically toxic word since the bank rescues of 2008 and 2009.

Thomas Modly’s Toxic Masculinity Looks Far More ‘Stupid’ Than Crozier

Thomas Modly, Acting Secretary of the Navy, recently blasted fired Navy captain on his own ship. His immature tirade has received little support. He's just the latest example of how we're not going to beat this virus with rage or arrogance.

Thomas B. Modly has not gained many fans in recent days. | Source: SAUL LOEB / AFP
Thomas B. Modly has not gained many fans in recent days. | Source: SAUL LOEB / AFP

Thomas Modly tried to disgrace fired Navy Captain Brett Crozier for being concerned about his crew.

Modly called him “stupid” and “naive.” Modly is clearly the stupid one if he thought anyone was going to take his side.

He’s just the latest of many immature men getting exposed by the coronavirus.

Acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly is under fire again. After firing Navy Captain Brett Crozier last week for asking the Navy to help him with the coronavirus outbreak on his ship, Modly called him “naive” and “stupid.”Thomas Modly has a tantrum. | Source: Twitter

But Crozier clearly did not ring the alarm soon enough. Yesterday, Crozier tested positive for COVID-19, and now Modly looks ignorant once again.
Thomas Modly Loses His S*!T

According to the New York Times, Modly seized the intercom mic of the U.S. Theodore Roosevelt and bashed its recently departed commander.

In response to Crozier’s leaked plea for help, Modly called him “too naïve or too stupid to be a commanding officer.” Adding, “the alternative is that he did this on purpose.”

Shockingly, the crew seemed to side with the guy who tried to save their lives.



One crew member described Modly’s tirade as “whiny, upset, irritated, condescending.” Virginia Senator Tim Kaine said Modly was “completely inappropriate.”

Kaine continues:

It’s deeply disappointing that he would deliver a speech onboard a U.S. aircraft carrier suggesting that Captain Crozier might be ‘stupid’ and bashing the media for trying to report the truth. These dedicated sailors deserve better from their leadership.

Kaine is right. Modly’s arrogant, aggressive takedown is typical of the toxic masculine energy that has not gelled with this virus.
‘We Expected Him To Be The Calming Force On A Turbulent Sea’

On a ship of nearly 5,000 people, 173 have already tested positive. Considering the tragedies that befell other large boats with a coronavirus outbreak, it makes sense that Crozier felt a sense of urgency.

It makes even more sense when you consider that he was coming down with symptoms himself before the press leaked his letter. According to the NYT, Modly wouldn’t even tour the ship when he visited.Unsurprisingly, people are not siding with Modly. | Source: Twitter

At different points in his unhinged speech, Thomas Modly criticized China and Joe Biden.

But perhaps the most ironic of all is when he said: “We expected him to be the calming force on a turbulent sea.” Way to model that behavior, Modly.


Toxic Masculinity Is Not Wearing This Pandemic Well

There’s a wave of guys who seem to think they can beat this virus by punching it, ignoring it, or pretending it’s not there.

No one displayed this behavior in a more hilarious way than NBA player Rudy Gobert. Gobert wanted to show everyone how tough he was by rubbing his hands all over microphones at a press conference last month.

A few days later, he tested positive for COVID-19. Not only that, but he likely infected his teammate Donovan Mitchell.

Thomas Modly’s antics are coming off as childish and disrespectful. He’s trying to play the enforcer, but people are seeing through him. And as they continue to side with Crozier, Modly gets more and more upset. He’s acting like a little boy who can’t get his way.

But of course, Modly and Crozier might not be in this mess if it weren’t for the Most Toxic of Them All. Donald Trump thought he could brush this virus off. He thought he was such a big, strong man that he could just speak it out of existence.


Well, Trump, what have you got to say now? Oh, that we’re heading for a “very, very painful two weeks”? Well, maybe if you hadn’t delayed action at seemingly every possible move, we wouldn’t be lapping the world with nearly 350,000 coronavirus cases.

The coronavirus is making people like Trump, Gobert, and Thomas Modly look like fools. Scared little boys will not lead us through this crisis. Please, fellas, take a knee and let the real men and women handle this.


Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of CCN.com.


This article was edited by Josiah Wilmoth.