The Coronavirus Shutdown: Consequence, Schmonsequences

Unintended consequences. When it comes to legislation, that phrase gets tossed around entirely too frequently as a mea culpa for bad ideas, badly implemented. But the truth is that in most cases, these aren't unintended consequences. Thee are the expected consequences. At best, they are undesired consequences, but that's hardly the same thing.

The interconnectedness of everything is a relatively foreign concept to most politicians, who focus on one layer thinking, the idea that if it makes a good soundbite, it's a good idea. An example would be "if we give money to everyone, they will spend it and stimulate the economy." A deeper analysis would ask where the money is coming from, how that might affect the value of the currency, how a devaluation of the currency might affect the dollar's strength as a world currency, whether that money will actually get spent in a way that stimulates the economy, and on it goes. Of course, you can't say all that in a two-second sound bite, and if you're trying to buy votes, no one cares about anything except when is the money going to appear in their account.

But, OK, that's all business as usual in the world of politics.

But in the era of the coronavirus, this one layer thinking has had significantly more dire consequences. The one-layer thinking goes: We'll tell everyone to stay home, shut down business, and we will flatten the infection curve. This, of course, ignores just a few elephants in the room, including: Do we really have any reliable evidence the pandemic is going to be that bad; Will flattening the curve do any long-term good or just extend the problem;  What happens to the economy if we shut down the business; What happens to the supply chains if we shut down business; If we tell everyone to stay home, how will that affect mental health; If we tell everyone to stay home, how will that affect people who otherwise be getting preventative care?

And that's just for starters. The contagion spreads out from there. We are now experiencing increases in unemployment at rates now seen since the Great Depression, and it may be years before a lot of those people find stable employment again. Businesses are closing permanently. 

Of course, this is all a bit myopic, focused on the US. Globally, things look a lot more dire. As noted today by CNN, the UN's World Food Program estimates that by the end of this year "an additional 130 million people [people worldwide will be forced] to the brink of starvation," the result of a dire collision of both demand and supply-side crises. Demand and logistic issues resulting from the unavailability of transportation are forcing the prices of basic staples up dramatically while economies--particularly of fragile third world-countries--collapse. 

Now, I'm not sure how much faith I put in that 130 million number. The UN is known to, uh, fudge their numbers to make a point. But let's say that number is 10x too large. You're still talking about 13 MILLION people forced to the brink of starvation because of ...what...a hunch? 

This is the kind of worldwise contagion that you need to keep in mind our politicians argue that shutting down the economy was justified, even if the statistics increasingly don't justify that action. The shutdown has been justified by asserting that if we hadn't shut down the economy, we would have blood on our hands. The situation in Sweden suggests otherwise. But what is more certain is that by shutting down the economy, we have assured that those who made that decision will have the blood of some fraction of 130 million who ultimately die of starvation on their hands. 

The virtue-signaling class loves to plaster their cars with the bumper sticker that reads "Think globally, act locally." It's clear the reality is, in fact, more depressing: "Don't think, act stupidly."