The virus and capitalism

The US is in the midst of a full-blown public health crisis made worse by systemic political dysfunction. The benchmark Imperial College study suggesting that up to two million people in the US could die from the coronavirus epidemic assumes that the US has an adequate healthcare system -- that no one dies from not getting treatment. It doesn’t. Without one, expected deaths are much higher. Should the US experience be similar to Italy or Wuhan to date, add another eleven million dead to the worst case scenario.

The point here isn’t to create fear or panic, but to illustrate the difference in outcomes that a robust government response can make. In trying to corner the market for virus test kits, Donald Trump assured that few, if any, would be available. In like fashion, House Democrats passed a paid-time-off bill so fraudulent that even Pravda-on-the-Hudson, the New York Times, called them on it. The official plan to date is financial, to bail out Wall Street and the airlines, a payroll tax cut and token checks to the masses, and hope that it all works out.

In lieu of providing an adequate level of healthcare to address the pandemic, which even hardened DC hacks know can’t be conjured out of thin air in a timely enough fashion, what is left is ‘social distancing.’ This is polite speak for quarantines variably undertaken. China was able to reduce the mortality rate after Wuhan by 4/5ths through a combination of draconian quarantines and a rapid buildout of healthcare provision. However, the infection rate reportedly began rising as soon as the quarantine measures were relaxed.

The strategy of ‘flattening the curve,’ of slowing the spread of the virus so that the healthcare system isn’t overwhelmed at any one time, could bring the mortality rate in the US down by matching healthcare need to capacity. But implied in the structure of the economic stimulus is a couple of weeks at home watching Netflix and then it’s back to the races. This is a low probability outcome. Eighteen months, the anticipated duration of the pandemic if effective action to mitigate it is taken, means that a radically changed world will emerge from the other side.

The idea being floated by Wall Street that pandemics are ‘black swans,’ unanticipated and unanticipatable events that legitimate extraordinary responses like government bailouts of private enterprises, suggests that history be made a required subject in business schools. Here is a partial list of epidemics and pandemics. They are so common that a functioning society would have thousands of permanent staff that do nothing but plan for them. And they are one of several thousand reasons why a functioning society would have a functioning healthcare system.

To understand why Wall Street should be left to rot this go around, look back to January 1980, when the current bull market can be estimated to have begun. The S&P 500 has to fall by another 2/3rds, from 2,400 to 910, to get to the normal valuation level (CAPE P/E = 8.5) at which this epoch of finance capitalism began. Understand, the S&P 500 at 910 wouldn’t represent a crisis, just a more reasonable valuation level. The financial crisis, to the extent there is one, is due to systemic leverage, the same problem that Wall Street faced in 2008.

The pandemic is but the catalyst for current financial troubles, not the cause. As was warned in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, etc., the Obama Administration’s bailouts were to make rich people rich again, not to ‘save the economy.’ So, here we are ten years later and the previously bailed out are once again telling us that the Federal government has to bail out corporations and the rich to ‘save the economy.’ ‘The economy’ is indeed in trouble, but it is in trouble because of the fragility created to benefit corporations and the rich, not because stock prices have fallen.

If ever there was a time for bold government action, this is it. The problem is that four decades of neoliberalism have instantiated the ethos that the role of government is to make rich people richer. Naomi Klein calls this ‘disaster capitalism.’ I defer to Marx and Lenin. The idea that bailouts for corporations benefit workers begs the question: if the goal is to help workers, why not give the money to workers?

Excerpted from: 'The Virus and Capitalism'. Courtesy: Counterpunch.org