Economists claimed Covid would spell "the end of the world economy as we know it."
Just-in time production processes were supposed to break down.
Americans bought toilet paper, filled their bathtubs with water, or stocked up on ammunition.
But the huge disruptions never came.
* Water and electricity never gave out because of the pandemic.
* Global production chains proved surprisingly resilient.
* Generous relief payments led to a *fall* in poverty.
* And scientists invented life-saving vaccines in record speed.
It's an astonishing achievement.
This is a huge triumph for welfare state capitalism.
Without a generous welfare state, this year would have caused untold hardship.
Without innovative companies, we wouldn't have had access to necessities, to entertainment, to human connection, or to a life-saving vaccine.
But while welfare state capitalism triumphed, governments proved shockingly inept in nearly all other respects.
That failure was especially stark in America. But it is now clear that it included most democracies - including supposedly efficient ones like France and Germany.
When the U.S. decided to lock down, the goal was to test people, trace their contacts, and isolate anyone who was exposed.
But we quickly gave up on a systematic response. Public health systems proved incapable of implementing the pandemic playbooks they updated year after year.
Part of the blame undoubtedly lies with Donald Trump.
But the problem goes much wider than him. European countries also failed to put test-and-trace into place. They too made erratic decisions about when to lock down. And they are now far behind in the race to vaccinate people.
The list of political failures is astonishing:
* The WHO downplayed the Covid's severity
* The CDC designed a faulty test
* Public health officials claimed masks didn't work
* The EU screwed up on ordering vaccines to save a few euros a shot
(I could go on. And on. And on.)
Our economic system proved remarkably resilient.
But most democratic governments fared far worse than most people could have imagined a year ago.
To confront the enormous challenges that will face us in the coming decades we have to get serious about understanding why.
[End.]
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If you read one thing about the terrible situation in Myanmar, make it this.
Also, let me take this opportunity to explain some of the stubborn factors that make it so hard to raise attention for important issues like this coup. persuasion.community/p/dont-ignore-…
1)
Readers are more interested in issue close to home or that they already have some familiarity with.
Thankfully, Persuasion is funded by subscribers with an ideological investment in these issues, so this doesn't matter much to us.
But even then there's other obstacles.
2)
Myanmar has long been cut off from the world, so editors don't know that much about it.
I have met activists and intellectuals from a large number of countries. I have a sense of who is credible and who isn't. I know who to go to.
It should also make us ask very hard questions about why it took a giant pandemic hitting the developed world for us to give a new technology that could potentially save humanity from one of its worst endemic diseases a try...
Also, there are obviously still a lot of obstacles here. I do not in any way mean to suggest that this vaccine is a done deal.
But, oh man, would it be wonderful news for humanity.
At the turn of the year, most commentators expected the current wave of the coronavirus to keep growing. Instead new cases have plummeted over the past six weeks.
Why? No one really knows.
A year into this, we remain strikingly bad at forecasting the trajectory of the pandemic.
There are lots of other puzzles around the world:
Why is India doing so much better than Europe or the United States?
Why are cases in Europe not falling nearly as quickly as in America?
Why did Manaus in Brazil do extremely well for a while and is now doing extremely badly?
After the fact, we can come up with all kinds of retrospective explanations for these events. I have potential explanations for all of them in my mind.
But the vexing fact remains that most did not think of those explanations beforehand. So we keep being incapable of prediction.
If you spend a lot of time among highly political people, it's tempting to think that, say, ~60% of the country is liberal or progressive, and ~40% moderate or conservative.
Now, there are some things small groups can push through even though much of the population opposes it.
But I think that a lot of people currently overestimate how much the very small group of true progressives can accomplish against the will of the majority over the long run.
And, no, moderates are not a cohesive political group that are united in their love of Joe Biden or Mitt Romney.
But, no, the vast majority of them aren't secret progressives who love AOC either.
If she happens to offend her peers, who are we to stop the university from expelling her, correct?
One more reason why we need a real *culture* of free speech—and why many cases should worry us even if they don't violate the First Amendment .
(Since this student goes to a state university, her case technically does fall under the First Amendment.
But if an influential private institution like Harvard University threw her out over these social media posts, I would find that similarly objectionable.)
Also, yet another reminder: Anyone who thinks that these irrational reprisals will always hit "the right people" is deeply naive.