Up next we have the Washington Post, which sent Fauci's underlings a request for comment on the Great Barrington Declaration.
The message didn't make it to Fauci in time for the story though, which ran on the 16th. By the time his chief of staff got it on the 18th it was already out.
Keep in mind that Fauci was away for an unspecified reason on 10/16 that was redacted from the emails.
Fauci reemerges on the 18th though to request intel on the task force meeting he missed from Collins.
Collins replies that the GBD did not come up, and Atlas was away too. This prompts Fauci to relay Birx's disdain for Atlas.
Collins chimes in again on 10/20, not so much on the GBD itself but to relay gossip about Sunetra Gupta's ex-husband.
There's another gap in the email chain after 10/20, but in the meantime Fauci appears to have tasked his chief of staff Greg Folkers with assembling a list of talking points against the Great Barrington Declaration.
Folkers replies on 11/2/20 with the list for the task "as discussed."
But it is not a list of scientific papers to counter the GBD group's arguments. Instead, it is a list of even more political op-eds attacking the GBD.
Which op-eds did Fauci use to make his case? I have the answer and will reveal in the coming days.
But most are not even from credentialed scientists, and the few that are come from ideological lockdowners who all happened to agree w Fauci before the GBD.
Stay tuned for more!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵Steve Miran is a pending nominee to the Federal Reserve Board. In addition to his fringe views on dollar devaluation, he has a long history of making basic errors about economics.
The first example comes from a bizarre speech he gave after Liberation Day back in April.
Miran declared - without any evidence - that the entire economics profession is "wrong" to oppose tariffs.
Miran then proceeded to mischaracterize "trade models" by falsely claiming that they do not account for trade deficits, or assume they will self-correct.
In reality, economists since Adam Smith in 1776 have been pointing out the fallacy of Miran's thinking:
So.,,Who wants to break it to Michael Brendan Dougherty that this misquotation of Disraeli is from a speech he gave in support of the protectionist Corn Laws, which in turn were a contributing cause of the Irish famine? 🧵
The actual quote was not from 1843, but rather a speech by Disraeli in 1845 where he attacked Richard Cobden and the free traders over their push to repeal the Corn Laws.
It also referred to *protection* as the "expedient," not "free trade."
Disraeli would maintain his protectionist stance even as the Irish famine worsened.
In a later speech, he (in)famously denounced PM Robert Peel as a "political pedlar" who sold out his party to free trade by repealing the Corn Laws as a famine relief measure with Whig votes.
There's an extremely stupid talking point going around the MAGA/Tarrif-Bot world that claims Trump's tariffs are justified under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.
First, let's start with the USCIT case that struck down Trump's tariffs.
This case was NOT about Section 232 tariffs under the 1962 Act. It was about the "Liberation Day" tariffs, which Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (aka IEEPA).
Trump's IEEPA tariffs differ from Section 232 tariffs because the former were imposed by unilateral executive order.
That's a problem though, because IEEPA doesn't actually authorize the president to impose tariffs by executive order. Hence the court's decision.
I genuinely believe that Bessent is one of the leveler heads in a White House that's stocked full of protectionist crackpots. That said, he still grossly misunderstands tariffs, as per his piece in today's WSJ.🧵
Case in point here. He starts by arguing that tariffs are a negotiating tool to "reduce trade barriers in other countries."
Yet how is the Trump admin's track record going? Quite simply, the negotiations have failed on every count. We now have retaliatory trade wars all over the globe. Trump expended his negotiating capital in Feb/Mar with on-again, off-again tariffs to the point nobody trusts him.
Marxists: You can't use GDP to show prosperity because it's just a construct of the neoclassical paradigm to reinforce capitalist power disparities.
Also Marxists: Rising inequality proves that capitalism is failing, as per Piketty's stats...which use GDP as their denominator.
Marxists: Capitalism is responsible for climate change, colonialism, slavery, the bubonic plague, and every other disaster and death in human history.
Also Marxists: You can't fault Marxism for the atrocities of explicitly-Marxist states. Those weren't real Marxism.
Marxists: Economists are afraid of Marx and therefore refuse to read him.
Also Marxists: Every economist who reads Marx and methodically rebuts Marx's economic theories is really just part of a neoclassical conspiracy to uphold their own power relationships and capitalism.