LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

Will it ever be possible to determine the overall cost of COVID-19?

Two Harvard University economists, David Cutler and former U.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, suggested the overall price tag for their country could reach an eye-popping $16 trillion (USD).  In their joint Oct. 12, 2020 piece for the Journal of the American Medical Association, they noted these costs would "far exceed those associated with conventional recessions and the Iraq War, and are similar to those associated with global climate change."

How did Cutler and Summers arrive at this figure?  They included the Congressional Budget Office's $7.6 trillion projection in lost output for the next ten years, and combined it with economic calculations for "death and reduced quality of life."  While the two authors acknowledged "putting a value on a given human life is impossible," they wrote that "economists have developed the technique of valuing 'statistical lives'; that is, measuring how much it is worth to people to reduce their risk of mortality or morbidity."

If we accept these findings for the U.S. economy, then the cost of COVID-19 on an international scale could theoretically reach into the quadrillions or quintillions.

Maybe our childhood dreams of using Monopoly money as a legal currency will finally come to fruition.  Either that, or we had better maintain vivid imaginations when it comes to the actual value of the Canadian dollar and other international currencies.

In all seriousness, putting a final price tag on COVID-19 seems like an impossible task.

Some components will be readily accessible.  This includes aspects of government spending, emergency relief measures, housing prices, travel and tourism, individual savings, and personal and corporate loss.  Other intangibles will be almost impossible to calculate.  This will include estimated productivity, loss of unrealized capital and profit, reduced sales due to limitations with in-person shopping, and business opportunities that weren't realized and/or never materialized.

There's also the high personal cost for our health, safety and well-being.  As mentioned above, these factors can be theoretically determined in dollars and cents by valuing statistical lives.  But let's be frank: no price tag could ever properly account for the vast amount of illnesses, hospitalizations and deaths we've witnessed during this global pandemic.

The numbers, both real and assumed, are staggering and incomprehensible.  Governments will try to recoup some money by implementing different economic strategies: higher income taxes for individuals and corporations, wealth tax, subtle adjustments to carbon pricing and excise taxes, issuing new government bonds and savings accounts, and so forth.  There will also be a strong push for all of us to spend more money on houses, cars, gifts, existing and start-up businesses, vacations, and domestic goods and services to get the economy chugging along at a much faster pace.

Don't be surprised if a portion of this gargantuan financial burden gets pushed into a deep, dark and imaginary corner at an exceedingly low interest rate for an extended period of time, either.  It may be the only feasible way to get the debt monster under control.  Time will tell.

For now, COVID-19 spending continues to skyrocket.  It's also led to some unusual scenes and images that few could have ever foreseen.

Here's an example.

The U.S. Senate recently passed President Joe Biden's massive $1.9 trillion (USD) coronavirus relief fund along party lines (50-49).  Many Americans will receive a direct payment of $1,400.  There will also be unemployment benefits of $300/week, a child tax credit, $45 billion in rental, utility and mortgage assistance and $14 billion for COVID-19 vaccine distribution, among other things.

Our neighbours to the south, as you may recall, also passed former President Donald Trump's $2.2 trillion stimulus package to deal with the initial effects of COVID-19 last March.

This means the last two presidential administrations have approved over $4 trillion in taxpayer funds to help individuals and businesses survive during these difficult times.  That's a pretty sobering thought.

Yet, there are several photos of Democratic Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer celebrating the passage of this relief fund with his fists in the air.  Excuse me?  Spending an enormous amount of taxpayer money, and dividing the Congress and country, are reasons to be euphoric?  I'm afraid not.

House Representative Sean Patrick Maloney, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, also piped in to say, "we should shout it from the rooftops that we are passing historic legislation that will reboot the economy and end the pandemic."  Oh, really?  Not only will most of this money be added to the ballooning debt, the economic fortunes of Americans won't be improved with a single $1,400 cheque.  Maybe the sewers, rather than the rooftops, is where all this shouting should take place.

Maybe it's best that we never know what COVID-19 will ultimately cost.  There are only so many zeroes that our hearts, heads and blood pressures can take.

Photo Credit: CGTN

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


There were two particular stories out of Alberta yesterday that spoke of the state of the province's political culture one was that premier Jason Kenney's grassroots are getting restive, and the constituency association presidents are unhappy and starting to think about calling a leadership review on the man who engineered the founding of their party; the other was the absolute abuse of authority as five different police officers in Lethbridge were found to have illegally accessed records pertaining to the local MLA, Shannon Phillips, who was the NDP environment minister during the Notley government.  Both are reflections of Alberta's odd status as a one-party state, and how it has warped the province's sense of political reality.

The story of Kenney's leadership woes should not be a surprise.  Upon the creation of the current United Conservative Party, Kenney was looking toward restoring the "rightful" government in the province, appropriately with "conservative" in the title, and all would go back to normal once that happened.  After over forty years as a one-party state, the somewhat accidental rise of the provincial NDP as a new government threw many Albertans for a loop, and created a sense that all was not right with the world.  The price of oil had already crashed, and the people were angry.  When then-premier Jim Prentice made the trenchant observation that Albertans could not continue to demand the best public services in the country while simultaneously enjoying the lowest tax rate in the country, as oil revenues could no longer support it, they got so angry that in order to punish Prentice, they elected Rachel Notley's NDP, and immediately were overcome with buyer's remorse.  What was Alberta if not a conservative province?

Notley did not run an ideological government, and hers has been the most centrist NDP government in recent memory, given the political realities she was dealt.  She fought for new oil and gas projects and pipelines, while also doing the serious work of trying to diversify the economy, as well as to green it.  Nevertheless, she was blamed for the low price of oil (never mind that the shale revolution in the U.S. and OPEC increasing production to cause a global supply glut that drove prices down especially after the Iran nuclear deal allowed their own production to enter the market), and once Justin Trudeau was made prime minister federally, that blame got shared around between them.

But up until Prentice's loss, the leadership of the one-party state was already a precarious monster.  After Ralph Klein's departure, no leader could manage more than a single election before being chased out, and the Progressive Conservative party, bloated and corrupt, had become this amorphous monster that kept trying to re-shape itself to fit each successive leader, so that it no longer had any ideological mooring other than power, and a lot of wealthy donors kept it in power.  In a sense, Kenney's creation of the UCP from the ashes of the PC party was merely one more iteration of this amorphous mass reshaping itself to the current leader one that was sharper ideologically, but this was also part of a broader collapse in Alberta's politics, where the centrist parties crumbled to rally behind Notley, and leaving a more sharply divided political choice for voters.

This particular development also can't be seen without also noting that Alberta's politics have long been importers of American norms, from the talk radio culture, to the kinds of rhetoric that panders to prejudices and insidiously allows them to turn into divisions.  More than that, it was also an early adopter of the notion that any government that is not a conservative one must therefore be illegitimate amplified by the norms of a one-party state that had not changed governments in 44 years.  Notley's victory was derided as an accident (which, in a way, it kind of was), and conservative voices in the province which Kenney started to amplify once he made his departure from federal politics to "save" Alberta insisted that there could be no legitimacy to a government that was not conservative.

Which is where the Phillips story comes into play. The fact that five separate police officers were actively involved in monitoring her cannot be simply a case of "bad apples," or solely a reflection of the unaccountable nature of policing culture that allows such actions to be taken with impunity, because we don't get stories like this in other jurisdictions.  These agents of the state acted in a way that suggests that the notion that the government that Phillips was a member of was illegitimate and that she should be treated with suspicion as a result (especially because she was a woman and the environment minister in a province reliant on its oil and gas sector), which is appalling in what is supposed to be a liberal democracy.  44 years as a one-party state eroded the norms of how one was supposed to operate with a transition of power, and when all anyone could think of was trying to return to a "proper" state of a conservative government, it very much appears that a belief in ends justifying the means played itself out.

Where the province goes from here is something that it needs to figure out for itself, but its current trajectory is unsustainable.  Trying to return to an amorphous one-party state won't bring a return to the province's glory years, awash in oil money those days are gone and unlikely to come back.  Simply cycling through leaders won't make the province's problems go away, and the party will remain unable to go through any kind of proper renewal process that the province's changing circumstances demand.  For the health of its democracy, it needs to be reminded that changes of government every so often is a good thing, that there are norms around it to be respected, and that non-conservative governments are not illegitimate by their very nature, and this comes with the territory in being a democracy.  It needs to stop being a one-party state and be a functional democracy, for its own sake, and for the rest of the country's sake as well.

Photo Credit: CBC News

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.