An Inconvenient Political-Economic Truth

Politico-Europe had a piece last week that talked about Germany’s putative responsibility to help the southern European EU nations during the current Wuhan Virus situation.  Buried in the piece was this bit of eurozone political-economic history:

The euro was sold to Southern Europe, which had been less successful than the north for decades, as a path to lasting prosperity. By eliminating exchange rate risk and lowering interest rates, Southern Europe would become more competitive.
But after the initial economic boost that followed the euro’s introduction, the picture for the region darkened. Though countries that had historically high inflation benefited from lower interest rates, the cheaper financing had the unintended consequence of removing the pressure on governments to enact economic reforms.

The bottom line, though, the inconvenient bottom line is that the politicians manning those governments chose not to enact the needed economic reforms. The reduced pressure to do so is not relevant to the simple fact that the reforms were and are needed, and those politicians, of their own volition, chose otherwise.

Yet this is, somehow, Germany’s fault.

Do Germany—and France, and the other wealthier nations of the EU—have any obligation toward these profligates? From a humanitarian perspective, of course, can any aid be delivered directly to the people and their businesses, bypassing their governments entirely.  But even here, with strings attached: it is these same people, after all, who keep electing those fiscally irresponsible politicians.

From a political perspective, no, the wealthier nations have no responsibility.

Rates

The Wall Street Journal had a piece Sunday that talked about the plans of nations around Earth are forming “to reopen parts of daily life.” I’m more interested in the…slant…made plain in the WSJ‘s subheadline:

Nearly 54,000 people have died from Covid-19 in the US, as calls for more federal aid to states continue to grow

The focus is made even more obvious in the body of the article; these are a couple of examples:

Nearly 2,000 people died from Covid-19 in the US on Saturday, bringing the death toll to almost 54,000….

And

In Israel, where nearly 200 people have died from Covid-19, many stores and beauty salons were authorized to reopen….

How many people have recovered from the Wuhan Virus in the US? How many people have recovered from the Wuhan Virus in Israel? Such clarifying data are carefully omitted. Maybe that’s because those data might contradict the narrative.

Even the graphic near the end of the article focuses on deaths while carefully ignoring the recovereds.

Nor is there mention of the quite low mortality rates and how those rates are declining further as more is learned about components of the numerators of those rates, components like the numbers who were infected but asymptomatic or who were infected but sufficiently mildly so that they didn’t see a doctor or saw one, but were sent home with only mild, ordinary treatments.