The rest of the world watched as the United States dramatically reopened “the economy” last month. Now, it seems we’ve changed our minds about that.
The White House has repeatedly said that it will be up to individual states to form their own pandemic response plans moving forward. But letting local governments devise their own solutions has produced large gaps in their preparedness, as well as profound confusion around the best practices for balancing the country’s public and economic health.
California, which represents the largest economy in the US and the fifth largest in the world, was one of the first states to put serious quarantine restrictions in place. The decision to relax those orders only came after anti-lockdown protestors demanded that Governor Gavin Newsom reopen the state’s beaches, businesses and churches. Newsom may now regret this capitulation as California just called for a second round of statewide lockdowns.
Other state legislators are slowly following their lead, as the threat is becoming very dire in some places. Florida, for instance, is now a global hotspot for COVID-19 and Miami is being called “the new Wuhan”. The state is also currently struggling against another wave of unemployment, partly because their economy is heavily dependent on summer tourism (which has persisted despite the spike in cases, but not nearly at pre-pandemic levels).
Florida, California and Texas are altogether responsible for 20 percent of all new COVID-19 cases globally.
Every state is fighting two battles here. Coronavirus relief efforts in the US are still seriously underfunded, and most health organizations here lack the resources to effectively test and treat their communities. But the problems that have emerged for workers and small business owners, like evictions and layoffs, have also been devastating in their own right.
In essence, the United States reopened in an effort to curb the nation’s financial freefall and ballooning unemployment. Economists predicted at the beginning of July that reopening would allow the US to avoid a recession, and all would go smoothly. These projections likely did not account for a spike in cases that would halt this economic rebound.
That’s not to say the circumstances here haven’t improved at all over the past months; currently there is no acute shortage of ventilators, and doctors have had some time to refine their strategies for treating the virus. Overall, the national unemployment rate is slightly declining, while working from home is going so well for companies like Twitter and Facebook that they will be permanently switching much of their staff to remote work.
By comparison, though, New Zealand took the pandemic much more seriously than the US did, and they are objectively in a better position now in all respects. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern cracked down hard and early, closing the country’s borders completely, and instituting rent freezes nationwide. As a result they have virtually eradicated COVID-19 within their borders. A report from S&P Global also expects New Zealand’s economy to recover quickly compared to the rest of the world.
While this tradeoff seems like a zero sum game – as if we have to pick either our health, or our wealth – it is not. In fact, we could very well end up with neither if our lawmakers don’t proceed with caution.
Joe Loomer
October 25, 2009 at 9:13 am
ROFLMAO – read the speech bubble on your book cover – “covers trucks, delays, and massive, tangled up tubes.” That pretty much covers it all when talking about the Government!
This is more a free speech issue than partisan – you’re spot-on, Jim.
Navy Chief, Navy Pride
Benn Rosales
October 25, 2009 at 11:49 am
Get involved and Save the Internet or what you pay to utilize the internet will change dramatically in the hands of big business and taxed at the hands of big government through gigantic loopholes.
Jim, thanks for writing about this issue, this is a fight we may lose if peeps don’t get that it absolutely impacts them.
MIssy Caulk
October 25, 2009 at 7:53 pm
When I saw all the companies that were supporting Net Neutrality that was enough for me.
It is one door we do NOT want to open up for the Government. What’s next?
Ruthmarie Hicks
October 25, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Net neutrality is what we have NOW! I’ve been watching this for some time. Under Bush “free market forces” would have eventually prevailed to change the level playing field we now enjoy. The government prevents the large telecom companies from controlling the speed at which individual traffic moves through its “pipes.” If they were allowed to control the speed of web traffic – for a price of course – can you imagine what it would do to real estate? The big -box brokerages with deep pockets or slick discounters with tons of VC would swat most of us like flies!
Regulation is not a dirty word folks! Regulated capitalism has a future. The free-for-all we’ve got now will end in an American Bolshevik revolution if it is allowed to continue without any checks and balances.