Jump to content

Covid talk


Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Obinna said:

What do you think?

I have a couple thoughts:

Firstly, I think your assumption that these two issues (covid shutdowns and money supply inflation other than to pay for the covid shutdowns) are not inextricably linked.  They are of course linked in general terms as all general government policies are.  When there is a shock to health policy, this will of course affect monetary policy, just like it will affect fiscal policy, defence policy, infrastructure policy etc.  However I believe that linking these two very specific things to each other is faulty.  The main reason I believe this is because, in my experience, the things that are so detrimental to the economy are mostly coming down from the province.  I don't see High Chancellor Ford jeopardizing his political career to help Trudeau and the central banks accomplish something.  Politicians are the easiest people to understand because they will, more often than not, do what is in their best interest.  Usually this comes in the form of enacting policies that will get them re-elected.  This covid stuff is (or will be) the death-knell for a lot of politicians so they must be daily weighing the cost with the benefits of shutdowns and I have a really hard time believing that the benefit of national monetary policy is factoring in at all here.

Now these two things could very well be happening at the same time and if that's the case then for sure you have a beef with the Liberal government's handling of money.  But I really don't believe that shutdowns etc. are being extended in order to accomplish this goal, an idea which you have dances around above.  The amount of coordination needed to do something like that would be immense.

This is all looking at it from my personal perspective and doesn't take into account wider factors.  Earlier you touched on the idea that this was an international phenomenon and it would have to be because Canada isn't the only one that has gone through this.  The coordination at this level would be next to impossible.  I'm lucky enough to interact with people from the US, UK, India, Spain, Japan and Germany on a regular basis with my job.  The main topic of conversation has been obvious for the last 13 months.  We are not alone in what is happening.  So to believe that this is a coordinated global effort is a bridge too far.

None of this discounts the points your bring up about the economy.  It is fucked.  Are shady practices being enacted?  Most likely.  Are they using Covid as a smokescreen?  Again, probably.  People like money and will use any excuse to get more.  But in my mind, that does not degrade the seriousness of the health concern for many people (not everyone, but many).

Finally, on a personal note, I'm disappointed that you never picked a lane.  Its all well and good to be "open to all possibilities" but when looking at them all you must believe that one is more likely to be true than the others.  That is what I am interested in.  Instead it was a discussion about numerous macroeconomic theories, the likes of which I haven't had since I got my B.A. (and vowed never to engage in again :)), so it was interesting.  However, you were pretty critical of a lot of people around here just over a week ago so I may have been expecting my fear-based "narrative to be challenged" (as you put it) by something a little more concrete than it was.  I had no intention of changing your mind as that is a near-impossible task with anyone on the internet but I respect your opinion and hoped that there would be a more direct link between the two topics (the taking of covid seriously and money supply).  Personally I don't see it at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://insight.jci.org/articles/view/146316

  • "The main finding in this study is that at a population level, the vast majority of adults show antibody reactivity against SARS-CoV-2 antigens.";
  • "We determine that more than 90% of uninfected adults showed antibody reactivity";
  • "This raises an important question: what is the antigenic source of this antibody reactivity? Competition experiments and correlatives analyses indicate that it may in part be attributable to cross-reactivity against circulating coronaviruses. Most humans become infected with circulating coronaviruses by their second year of age";
  • "Data indicate that a past circulating coronavirus infection may decrease the severity of a subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection"; 
  • "In conclusion, this study reveals common pre-existing, broadly reactive SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in uninfected adults. These findings warrant larger studies to understand how these antibodies affect the severity of COVID-19, but also the quality and longevity of responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/6/2021 at 12:33 AM, kacbru said:

This is all really interesting. 

How do you account for places that went into an extreme lockdown for a relatively short period, but still took an expansionary monetary policy to support it (I. E. print money), yet eliminated covid so consumer spending wasn't really impacted over the longer term? I am thinking of NZ (sure, tiny economy), but to a lesser extent Australia (which approaches the size of Canada). And I guess until recently, S. Korea and Japan. 

Were they just going along with the global financial system, and lucked out that it had health benefits or that they simply placed a far greater priority on health? 

We don't know yet what the impacts are on consumer spending over the long term. 

Were they just going along with the global financial system and simply lucked out by eliminating covid 19? No, I don't see it that way:

  • Unlike Canada, I am more inclined to believe that eliminating covid 19 is a realistic goal for New Zealand, as it's an isolated island nation. It's therefore easier for me to consider their narrative around lockdowns as more genuine than ours.
  • I also believe expansionary monetary policy would have been necessary in NZ regardless of whether they locked down or not, because the economy was standing at the edge of the cliff (same story everywhere).
  • Thirdly, I believe that locking down pushed the economy over the edge and the expansionary monetary policy is what's currently keeping the country on life support, while they re-inflating assets in the meantime (same story everywhere).
  • Unlike Canada, NZ is highly dependent on international tourism, which went from 20% of exports in 2019 to basically zero in 2020. Therefore, NZ has a fairly big hole soaking up some of that stimulus, which Canada doesn't.
    • If Canada opened domestically like New Zealand, I imagine consumer inflation would run a little hotter, since our hole is much smaller. So that may be a factor in delaying our opening relative to theirs.

The powers that be may be a little more hesitant to open up like New Zealand, not only because of inflationary concerns, but also because we haven't eliminated the virus like New Zealand. Would they open the economy in Canada tomorrow if the virus disappeared? I honestly don't know, but I bet it would depend on what the finance people want to do, at least in part. They must have a seat at the table. What about the pharmaceutical industry? They obviously bring an agenda to the table too. What about political factors for lockdowns? What about those agendas?

The lockdowns are clearly multifaceted, with some differences depending on country, but to me it is logical that many agendas are at play. That's true about most things in life. I know some will read "agenda" and suggest I am implying this whole thing is nefarious, but that's not necessarily the case. It may be, or it may quite simply be different stakeholders working together while looking out for their own interests. Nothing more or less.

Very few things in life are as simple as the narrative you are being sold though, that I am certain.

Hell, look at John Herdman and his work with the Canadian program? Do you really think he's isn't also building his network so he can slang a few used cars down the road? First he sells you on Canada Soccer, but that's just getting his foot in the door! 😁

In all seriousness though, hopefully I addressed your question well. I also hope I communicated my stance for @El Hombre at the same time. To me it seems the lockdowns are about more than eliminating the virus. In terms of probabilities that just seems more likely than not. Do I know that for sure? No. Do I know all the linkages between the various agendas and the innerworkings of what's going on? No, but simply questioning the narrative is an easy position to take. It's fun to think about and speculate, at least for me. For others it's easier to put your faith in the narrative you are being sold, and not everyone cares to approach this with a dose of skepticism. Fair enough!

Edited by Obinna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/6/2021 at 6:25 AM, El Hombre said:

I had no intention of changing your mind as that is a near-impossible task with anyone on the internet but I respect your opinion and hoped that there would be a more direct link between the two topics (the taking of covid seriously and money supply).  Personally I don't see it at this point.

I don't know if I can make the case any better than I already have, unfortunately. Some other posters seem to be able to see how monetary policy and lockdowns could be linked. Not sure what is throwing you off, and I am not even sure what you mean by "taking it seriously", but I will draw your attention to this:

On 4/6/2021 at 6:25 AM, El Hombre said:

Are they using Covid as a smokescreen?  Again, probably. 

If they are using Covid as a smokescreen in any way, which you acknowledge as probable, it would mean they are not being completely transparent. That's as close to not "taking it seriously" as we can get, I think. 

On 4/6/2021 at 6:25 AM, El Hombre said:

Now these two things could very well be happening at the same time and if that's the case then for sure you have a beef with the Liberal government's handling of money.  But I really don't believe that shutdowns etc. are being extended in order to accomplish this goal, an idea which you have dances around above.  The amount of coordination needed to do something like that would be immense.

We coordinate massive endeavors as humans all the time. That it would be immense, or that it would seem a bridge to far in your estimation, is not a very compelling. I know your just sharing your opinion and not trying to compel me, but just saying...

Edited by Obinna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Below is an interesting article on "Global Financing to End the Pandemic", which for me really highlights the confluence of financial and pharmaceutical interests with respect to lockdowns.

This is basically the sales pitch from the G20 and IMF for creating an extra layer of fiat currency (SDRs) that will "start the path of investment-lead recovery", which of course is code for "re-inflate the flawed debt-based financial system that our lockdowns pushed over the edge". Instead of letting the system naturally crash in a deflationary implosion, the pandemic provides them with the perfect cover to re-inflate once more.

It is a massive global undertaking to combat against a pandemic that will "continue to disrupt global production, trade and travel", except wasn't it the government response from G20 nations (lockdowns) that disrupted those things, not the pandemic itself? And wouldn't you know...the same countries that caused those disruptions are now here to save the day with their $650 billion solution! That's rich.

Definitely not a conflict of interests, right?

Anyways, if you're interested, read on. He talks about how "mass immunization is key" to prevent the virus from becoming endemic (spoiler alert, it's too late), and also how $50 billion of these freshly minted SDRs need to go to support "universal vaccine coverage" (nice win for pharma). I also liked how the opening paragraph says how these SDRs will go to "ensure governments in low-income and middle-income countries (pawns) have a means to combat the covid 19 virus", yet later in the article you discover that is to the tune of $20 billion, while "$100 billion or more" will be recycled to the IMF (real benefactor) to be used for long-term, low-interest loans (which support re-inflation).

I mean, how self-serving is that? Talk about a con job. Giving the low-income countries the crumbs while taking the lion's share for yourselves, under the guise of doing it for "the sake of humanity".

The devil is in the details... 

(Edit: Am I being too cynical here? If so, can someone point out a flaw in my perspective? The fact they'll give themselves 5x (or more) for low-interest loans than they'll give low-income governments to fight the pandemic is pretty damning, isn't it? Doesn't that clearly show their intention and priority is to re-inflate? The saying "Watch what a man does, not what a man says, comes to mind". Anyhow, I welcome fresh perspectives on this article from others, thanks.)  

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/global-pandemic-financing-imf-sdr-allocation-by-jeffrey-d-sachs-2021-04

Global Financing to End the Pandemic

Apr 6, 2021JEFFREY D. SACHS

A new allocation of up to $650 billion worth of the IMF’s reserve asset, special drawing rights, would ensure that governments have the means to combat the coronavirus pandemic and start on the path of investment-led recovery. We must seize this critical opportunity to cooperate effectively for the sake of humanity.

NEW YORK – This week’s spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank offer a historic chance for financial cooperation. The major economies, including the United States, the European Union, China, and other G20 countries, have already signaled their support for a new allocation of $650 billion worth of the IMF’s reserve asset, special drawing rights (SDRs), to ensure that governments in low-income and middle-income countries have the means to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and start on the path of investment-led recovery. With leadership, boldness, and creativity, this global financial cooperation can help to end the pandemic.

Mass immunization is key. Less than a year after SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was first identified and sequenced, financial backing by governments – including the US, United Kingdom, Germany, Russia, China, and India – enabled several companies to roll out safe and effective vaccines. Rich countries that quickly negotiated favorable deals with vaccine makers have received most of the doses so far. But ending the pandemic requires that all countries achieve comprehensive vaccine coverage as soon as possible. In practical terms, the target should be no later than the end of 2022.

Such an unprecedented global undertaking requires strong cooperation, including financial support. Yet the urgency should be clear to all. As long as COVID-19 persists at high rates of transmission anywhere in the world, the pandemic will continue to disrupt global production, trade, and travel, and will also give rise to viral mutations that threaten to undermine previously acquired immunity from past infections and vaccinations. Still worse, on the current trajectory, COVID-19 could well become endemic in many regions of the world, imposing high health and economic costs for years to come. As US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen emphasized this week, all countries, therefore, share a strong interest in ending the pandemic everywhere. 

The world’s governments established the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT-A), which includes the COVID-19 Vaccine Global Access (COVAX) facility, the vaccine pillar of ACT-A, to ensure universal control of SARS-CoV-2. But while ACT-A and COVAX have established global plans for vaccines, tests, and treatments, the plans need urgently to be strengthened for two closely related reasons.

First, the operational target currently used by COVAX – a minimum of 27% of all eligible countries’ population immunized by the end of this year – must be raised to vaccination of all adults by the end of 2022. This is necessary to end the pandemic and to reduce the chances of new mutations.

Second, planning until the end of 2022 is urgently needed, given the lead times for scaling up the production and supply chains of vaccines and other crucial commodities. Yet ACT-A and COVAX remain underfunded even for 2021: the $11 billion governments have allocated to date leaves a financing gap of $22 billion for this year – a shortfall that has so far delayed necessary planning through the end of 2022. In the meantime, the current vaccine shortfall is leading countries to scramble to jump the queue, including by paying premium prices. This underscores the urgent need to ensure that all countries, including the poorest, can achieve comprehensive vaccine coverage in a fair and timely manner. 

The additional sums needed to ensure universal vaccine coverage by the end of 2022, and other COVID-19 supplies, are modest – perhaps $50 billion for ACT-A. That is a negligible amount relative to the enormous global benefits of ending the pandemic and the massive pandemic-related spending by governments of high-income countries around the world. The US government alone has spent roughly $5 trillion in emergency outlays between March 2020 and March 2021.

To do its job, ACT-A (including COVAX) needs front-loaded funding to cover vaccine needs through 2022. Given that scaling up the production of vaccines (and some other commodities) requires a lead time of 6-12 months, the $50 billion should be guaranteed within the coming weeks, so that ACT-A and COVAX can work with manufacturers to ensure the necessary supplies. The IMF’s allocation of new SDRs offers a unique – and perhaps the only – opportunity to get this funding in hand.

When the new SDRs are issued, around $20 billion of new reserves will go directly to the poorest countries. In addition, around $100 billion or more that is allocated to rich countries will be recycled to the IMF to be used for long-term, low-interest loans. IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva has been working closely and creatively with G20 governments to design this novel, promising approach. One excellent idea is to use the SDRs to bolster the IMF’s Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust (PRGT), the Fund’s financing window for poor countries.

 

There is an important precedent here. In 2015, the IMF created a Catastrophe and Containment Relief Fund to help provide emergency Ebola-control financing to Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. This time, the PRGT financing could be made conditional on its use for ACT-A and COVAX-related procurements and for other COVID-19 control measures that the borrowing government documents to the IMF (such as reimbursements for COVID-19 vaccines that have been contracted by the member state outside COVAX).

ACT-A is now preparing estimates of the financing that the world’s 92 low- and middle-income countries eligible for COVAX support will need for vaccines, testing, therapeutics, and other supplies until the end of 2022. Based on the estimated financing needs, an ACT-A financial plan can be established for each country, to be supported by the SDRs and the expanded PRGT funds.

In the next few weeks, a rational plan to finance all countries’ COVID-19 balance-of-payments needs until the end of 2022 should emerge. The IMF was created to handle such a balance-of-payments emergency. Access to IMF financing will protect the well-being and macroeconomic stability of individual countries and the world as a whole. We must seize this critical opportunity for the United Nations, the IMF, and key governments – including the US, China, Russia, the EU, Japan, the UK, and others – to cooperate effectively for the sake of humanity.

Edited by Obinna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Obinna said:

Below is an interesting article on "Global Financing to End the Pandemic", which for me really highlights the confluence of financial and pharmaceutical interests with respect to lockdowns.

This is basically the sales pitch from the G20 and IMF for creating an extra layer of fiat currency (SDRs) that will "start the path of investment-lead recovery", which of course is code for "re-inflate the flawed debt-based financial system that our lockdowns pushed over the edge". Instead of letting the system naturally crash in a deflationary implosion, the pandemic provides them with the perfect cover to re-inflate once more.

It is a massive global undertaking to combat against a pandemic that will "continue to disrupt global production, trade and travel", except wasn't it the government response from G20 nations (lockdowns) that disrupted those things, not the pandemic itself? And wouldn't you know...the same countries that caused those disruptions are now here to save the day with their $650 billion solution! That's rich.

Definitely not a conflict of interests, right?

Anyways, if you're interested, read on. He talks about how "mass immunization is key" to prevent the virus from becoming endemic (spoiler alert, it's too late), and also how $50 billion of these freshly minted SDRs need to go to support "universal vaccine coverage" (nice win for pharma). I also liked how the opening paragraph says how these SDRs will go to "ensure governments in low-income and middle-income countries (pawns) have a means to combat the covid 19 virus", yet later in the article you discover that is to the tune of $20 billion, while "$100 billion or more" will be recycled to the IMF (real benefactor) to be used for long-term, low-interest loans (which support re-inflation).

I mean, how self-serving is that? Talk about a con job. Giving the low-income countries the crumbs while taking the lion's share for yourselves, under the guise of doing it for "the sake of humanity".

The devil is in the details... 

(Edit: Am I being too cynical here? If so, can someone point out a flaw in my perspective? The fact they'll give themselves 5x (or more) for low-interest loans than they'll give low-income governments to fight the pandemic is pretty damning, isn't it? Doesn't that clearly show their intention and priority is to re-inflate? The saying "Watch what a man does, not what a man says, comes to mind". Anyhow, I welcome fresh perspectives on this article from others, thanks.)  

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/global-pandemic-financing-imf-sdr-allocation-by-jeffrey-d-sachs-2021-04

Global Financing to End the Pandemic

Apr 6, 2021JEFFREY D. SACHS

A new allocation of up to $650 billion worth of the IMF’s reserve asset, special drawing rights, would ensure that governments have the means to combat the coronavirus pandemic and start on the path of investment-led recovery. We must seize this critical opportunity to cooperate effectively for the sake of humanity.

NEW YORK – This week’s spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank offer a historic chance for financial cooperation. The major economies, including the United States, the European Union, China, and other G20 countries, have already signaled their support for a new allocation of $650 billion worth of the IMF’s reserve asset, special drawing rights (SDRs), to ensure that governments in low-income and middle-income countries have the means to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and start on the path of investment-led recovery. With leadership, boldness, and creativity, this global financial cooperation can help to end the pandemic.

Mass immunization is key. Less than a year after SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was first identified and sequenced, financial backing by governments – including the US, United Kingdom, Germany, Russia, China, and India – enabled several companies to roll out safe and effective vaccines. Rich countries that quickly negotiated favorable deals with vaccine makers have received most of the doses so far. But ending the pandemic requires that all countries achieve comprehensive vaccine coverage as soon as possible. In practical terms, the target should be no later than the end of 2022.

Such an unprecedented global undertaking requires strong cooperation, including financial support. Yet the urgency should be clear to all. As long as COVID-19 persists at high rates of transmission anywhere in the world, the pandemic will continue to disrupt global production, trade, and travel, and will also give rise to viral mutations that threaten to undermine previously acquired immunity from past infections and vaccinations. Still worse, on the current trajectory, COVID-19 could well become endemic in many regions of the world, imposing high health and economic costs for years to come. As US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen emphasized this week, all countries, therefore, share a strong interest in ending the pandemic everywhere. 

The world’s governments established the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT-A), which includes the COVID-19 Vaccine Global Access (COVAX) facility, the vaccine pillar of ACT-A, to ensure universal control of SARS-CoV-2. But while ACT-A and COVAX have established global plans for vaccines, tests, and treatments, the plans need urgently to be strengthened for two closely related reasons.

First, the operational target currently used by COVAX – a minimum of 27% of all eligible countries’ population immunized by the end of this year – must be raised to vaccination of all adults by the end of 2022. This is necessary to end the pandemic and to reduce the chances of new mutations.

Second, planning until the end of 2022 is urgently needed, given the lead times for scaling up the production and supply chains of vaccines and other crucial commodities. Yet ACT-A and COVAX remain underfunded even for 2021: the $11 billion governments have allocated to date leaves a financing gap of $22 billion for this year – a shortfall that has so far delayed necessary planning through the end of 2022. In the meantime, the current vaccine shortfall is leading countries to scramble to jump the queue, including by paying premium prices. This underscores the urgent need to ensure that all countries, including the poorest, can achieve comprehensive vaccine coverage in a fair and timely manner. 

The additional sums needed to ensure universal vaccine coverage by the end of 2022, and other COVID-19 supplies, are modest – perhaps $50 billion for ACT-A. That is a negligible amount relative to the enormous global benefits of ending the pandemic and the massive pandemic-related spending by governments of high-income countries around the world. The US government alone has spent roughly $5 trillion in emergency outlays between March 2020 and March 2021.

To do its job, ACT-A (including COVAX) needs front-loaded funding to cover vaccine needs through 2022. Given that scaling up the production of vaccines (and some other commodities) requires a lead time of 6-12 months, the $50 billion should be guaranteed within the coming weeks, so that ACT-A and COVAX can work with manufacturers to ensure the necessary supplies. The IMF’s allocation of new SDRs offers a unique – and perhaps the only – opportunity to get this funding in hand.

When the new SDRs are issued, around $20 billion of new reserves will go directly to the poorest countries. In addition, around $100 billion or more that is allocated to rich countries will be recycled to the IMF to be used for long-term, low-interest loans. IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva has been working closely and creatively with G20 governments to design this novel, promising approach. One excellent idea is to use the SDRs to bolster the IMF’s Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust (PRGT), the Fund’s financing window for poor countries.

 

There is an important precedent here. In 2015, the IMF created a Catastrophe and Containment Relief Fund to help provide emergency Ebola-control financing to Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. This time, the PRGT financing could be made conditional on its use for ACT-A and COVAX-related procurements and for other COVID-19 control measures that the borrowing government documents to the IMF (such as reimbursements for COVID-19 vaccines that have been contracted by the member state outside COVAX).

ACT-A is now preparing estimates of the financing that the world’s 92 low- and middle-income countries eligible for COVAX support will need for vaccines, testing, therapeutics, and other supplies until the end of 2022. Based on the estimated financing needs, an ACT-A financial plan can be established for each country, to be supported by the SDRs and the expanded PRGT funds.

In the next few weeks, a rational plan to finance all countries’ COVID-19 balance-of-payments needs until the end of 2022 should emerge. The IMF was created to handle such a balance-of-payments emergency. Access to IMF financing will protect the well-being and macroeconomic stability of individual countries and the world as a whole. We must seize this critical opportunity for the United Nations, the IMF, and key governments – including the US, China, Russia, the EU, Japan, the UK, and others – to cooperate effectively for the sake of humanity.

Anytime I see his name it brings me back to reading his book called "The End of Poverty" while in southern Africa and wondering if the guy had ever actually left the US (yes I know he's actually well travelled but his views come across a bit too from Ivory Tower sometimes in my opinion.)

He also makes me want to share this Ted talk every time:


Basically the IMF has too much patronizing water under the bridge I think for Sach's proposal to work. But i suppose any attempt to help the world understand no one is an island when it comes to virus' is a good thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Macksam said:

@Obinna

Hey bro. How does one invest in physical gold/silver. Can I buy it through my online discount brokerage offered by the bank (Big Five) I deal with? Can I put it into registered accounts? 

You can buy physical gold/silver through an online bullion dealer, or at any local retailer which you can visit in person (assuming you aren’t living in the province formally known as Ontario).

You can also get exposure to the sector through ETFs, or through individual mining stocks or royalty companies. You can purchase these in your TFSA or through a non-bank brokerage service. You can also buy gold certificates, which hold your gold in a vault for you, eliminating the inconvenience of storing the physical metal.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/12/2021 at 5:53 PM, saintjoes said:

Anytime I see his name it brings me back to reading his book called "The End of Poverty" while in southern Africa and wondering if the guy had ever actually left the US (yes I know he's actually well travelled but his views come across a bit too from Ivory Tower sometimes in my opinion.)

He also makes me want to share this Ted talk every time:


Basically the IMF has too much patronizing water under the bridge I think for Sach's proposal to work. But i suppose any attempt to help the world understand no one is an island when it comes to virus' is a good thing. 

I hadn’t seen that video before. Thanks for sharing. Speaks to what the IMF (and Sach) are missing by viewing the world in a developed/undeveloped dichotomy.

Critics of the IMF have described it as “predatory”, which isn’t a trait you want from a global organization striving to “rescue” us from covid. As if the wolf guarding the hen house is looking out for everyones best interests, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Qualify for my vaxport Tuesday, losers!  You know, just in time to watch Valour go on the road for 3 weeks ☹️

In the mean time oh look, a patio, sunshine, and it's 32 degrees out.   Don't mind if I do join "the herd" grazing on nachos....

And he lights the fuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...