Man's Plan vs God's Plan. The Plan for Kingdom of Heaven on Earth calls for Regime Change.

Wednesday, April 29, 2020. Prayers for the downfall of Evil Empire Code-named Babylon Wednesday, April 29, 2020. Prayers for the downfall of Evil Empire code-named Babylon. REVELATION. Chapter 18. On Wednesday, April 29, 2020, I offer my prayers for the downfall of Evil Empire code-named ‘Babylon’. Historically, life on planet Earth is impacted by collision events as celestial objects can unleash vast amounts of destructive power within a short duration of time. The LORD God Creator is aware of the man’s evil actions and they will never go unnoticed. Rudra Narasimham Rebbapragada Special Frontier Force-Establishment No. 22-Vikas Regiment This Day in My Life – July 26 – My CIA Connection. In Man’s Plan, I exist as a mere Pawn used in the War on Communism, Legacy of Cold War Era Geopolitics. What is God’s Plan? Mile-wide asteroid to zip past Earth on Wednesday Mile-wide asteroid to zip past Earth on Wednesday, April 29, 2020. Brian Lada, AccuWeather• April 28, 2020 A giant asteroid from the depths of our solar system will fly by Earth at midweek. This is the largest space rock to zoom past the planet since the start of the year. Estimated to be a little over a mile wide, asteroid (52768) 1998 OR2 will make its closest approach to Earth on Wednesday, April 29; this is the closest it has come to the planet in over 100 years. There is no chance that it will collide with the planet on Wednesday as it will safely glide by at a distance of around 4 million miles. To put this into perspective, this is about 16 times farther away than the moon is from the Earth. Space rocks fly past the planet on a daily basis but according to Earthsky, this one in particular is the largest to zip by the Earth so far in 2020. This animation was created using a series of delay-Doppler images taken on April 18, 2020. (Arecibo Observatory / NASA / NSF) Wednesday, April 29, 2020. Prayers for the downfall of Evil Empire code-named Babylon. REVELATION, Chapter 18. Although it poses no threat to hitting the Earth this time by, asteroid (52768) 1998 OR2 has been classified as a “Potentially Hazardous Asteroid.” “Potentially Hazardous Asteroids (PHAs) are currently defined based on parameters that measure the asteroid’s potential to make threatening close approaches to the Earth,” NASA said. By definition, any asteroid that is larger than 500 feet across and is projected to come within 4.6 million miles of Earth is called a PHA. At over 5,000 feet wide, 1998 OR2 would cause some serious damage if it were on a crash course with the planet. On June 30, 1908, an asteroid estimated to be around 262 feet across exploded over an uninhabited area of Siberia while entering the Earth’s atmosphere. The explosion had a force equivalent to that of the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption, flattening 500,000 acres of forest. This is known as the Tunguska event. However, it pales in comparison to the asteroid that is believed to have caused the dinosaurs to go extinct, which is estimated to have been around 6 miles across. Wednesday, April 29, 2020. Prayers for the downfall of evil empire code-named Babylon. REVELATION, Chapter 18. English: Asteroid 1998 OR2 as imaged by the Arecibo Radar on 18 April 2020. Some observers have noted that the asteroid appears to be wearing a face mask of its own in images. (Arecibo Observatory / NASA / NSF) At 4 million miles away, the one-mile-wide rock may seem like it is too far away to see, but observers with a decent telescope may be able to spot it from their backyards, as long as Mother Nature cooperates. Onlookers will need a telescope with a primary mirror of at least 6 or 8 inches that is pointed to the southern sky near the constellation Hydra, EarthSky said. At first, it may just look like another star, but over time, it will slowly drift in a different way than the stars around it. After Wednesday, asteroid (52768) 1998 OR2 will not swipe past the Earth again until May 18, 2031. Similar to this week, this next flyby will post no risk of collision as it will be more than 45 times farther away than the moon, according to NASA. Wednesday, April 29, 2020. Prayers for the downfall of Evil Empire code-named Babylon. REVELATION, Chapter 18.

EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW. THE BATTLE AGAINST THE CORONAVIRUS DISEASE

NATURAL LAW vs MAN-MADE LAW. THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 Natural Law vs Man-Made Law. The Economic Fallout of the COVID-19. Natural Law vs Man-made Law: The United States is governed by its supreme law called the Constitution of the United States of America which is founded on the principles of Natural Law. December 19, 1998. President Clinton was impeached for the wrong reasons. His presidency can be described as ‘The Clinton Curse’. In 1996, the US President Bill Clinton signed into Law the Welfare Reform Act popularly known as PRWORA. This man-made law divides the US workforce into two categories. 1. The native workers, and 2. the alien workers. The alien workers may use a Personal Identification Number (PIN) or Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) to pay all taxes just like the native workers. However, they are not entitled to receive any of the public fund benefits. According to the IRS, in 2015, 4.35 million people paid over 13.7 billion in net taxes using an ITIN. ITIN holders are not eligible for all of the tax benefits and public benefits that U.S. citizens and other taxpayers can receive. Natural Law vs Man-Made Law. The Economic Fallout of the COVID-19. We cannot speak about the impact of COVID-19 in the US using universal terms. The impact is modified by man-made law. This unjust and unfair treatment of alien workers is a sinful action. The US may spend $2 trillion and more to blunt the attack by COVID-19. Because of the unfairness driving the country’s response, the nation may fail to reap the blessings of the LORD God Creator who made the man in His own image. “We are far more connected with one another than we previously thought—not just because our jobs are connected with one another, not just because the value chains are spread throughout our countries, but because our lives are built in connection with one another. COVID-19 is dangerous because it exploits how close we have all become.“ COVID-19 is dangerous because it does not recognize the Man-Made Law. I demand Equal Justice Under Law. Rudra Narasimham Rebbapragada Special Frontier Force-Establishment No. 22-Vikas Regiment Natural Law vs Man-Made Law. The Economic Fallout of the COVID-19. COVID-19’S HISTORIC ECONOMIC IMPACT, IN THE U.S. AND ABROAD As the epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak shifts from Italy to the U.S., SAIS Europe’s Filippo Taddei discusses the economic fallout Americans should brace for ByHub staff report / Published 2 days ago More than 2.1 million people around the world have become infected with COVID-19, and more than 140,000 people have died from the disease. The United States, now approaching 650,000 infections, is the new epicenter of the outbreak. But as U.S. officials rush to contain the spread of disease, the federal government is also grappling with the dramatic—and unprecedented—toll the epidemic has had on the economy. In four weeks, 22 million Americans have filed for unemployment benefits. Technical glitches have prevented millions of Americans from receiving their stimulus checks from the U.S. Department of the Treasury. And the Small Business Administration, which supports U.S. entrepreneurs with loans and funding, has run out of money for its Paycheck Protection Program. In fact, there is no country in the world that can be held up as a model for both its economic and public health response to the coronavirus pandemic. For insights on how U.S. and European governments—and particularly Italy, the previous epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak—have worked to contain the economic fallout from the global health crisis, the Hub turned to Filippo Taddei, a Johns Hopkins associate professor of international economics and a faculty member at SAIS Europe. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity. Over the past several weeks we’ve seen central banks around the world, particularly the European Central Bank and the Federal Reserve, move with extraordinary speed to shore up financial markets, but these efforts have not calmed volatility. Is there anything else for central bankers to do, or is this an economic crisis that can only be solved through public health measures? It is true that the size of the intervention is impressive. The size of the Federal Reserve’s intervention still remains higher than the ECB, and its promptness to act in the market has been much greater compared to the ECB. Perhaps this is not surprising since the ECB is a combination of the different central banks from EU member countries. The real difference between the Federal Reserve and the ECB is how timely they have been in their responses. The U.S. started very strongly with a “preemptive strike”-style intervention, announcing a rate cut outside of the usual standard monthly meeting. Conversely, the president of the ECB held the usual press conference following the monthly meeting of the bank board, but her language wasn’t clear on how much the ECB would act in order to combat the global shock from the pandemic. For central bankers, words often matter more than the actual money, so the wording of statements is crucial, especially at times like these. If we look at the uncertain start by the ECB and quick action by the Federal Reserve, in both cases the real difference is not about the money that central banks can put down, but rather how credible they can be to serve as an anchor against uncertainty. This is a concern for everyone right now—we have a great degree of uncertainty in how long this pandemic will last, and that’s fundamental, unfortunately. What we don’t want is to add an additional layer of uncertainty about policy. The additional uncertainty is whether our institutions, like the ECB and other central banks, are willing to support the financial sector to make sure that credit keeps on flowing to the real economy, no matter what. This is not as obvious as it might sound: banks hold a large amount of government debt in their balance sheet and, whenever government bonds come under pressure, the increase in their yields threatens the stability of the banking system. When the ECB president asserted that the central bank’s job is not to ensure that Euro Area countries’ debt trades at low rates, she said something true but self-defeating. During such an unprecedented situation, the last thing a central banker should suggest is that an essential part of private banks’ assets could suffer, hindering their ability to operate and extend credit. Facing an unconventional shock, poor messaging and language is a huge drawback—the central banks need to be clearer so that their language matches the extraordinary moment that we’re facing. The current economic crisis calls to mind the Great Recession of 2008 in terms of widespread damage, and some draw comparisons to the Great Depression of the 1930s. Do you feel these are accurate comparisons? Are there other precedents for what we’re experiencing, or is it a singular “black swan” event? I don’t think these are the right comparisons because both crises—the Great Recession and the Great Depression—were essentially demand shocks. What you do with a demand shock is standard macroeconomic policy, and even allowing certain mistakes, we saw in the response to the Great Recession how fiscal and monetary policies worked to alleviate a demand shock. This is something else. This is supply shock. Here, everything was functioning as normal, but as COVID-19 intensified, bringing thousands and then tens of thousands into the health system, we have decided to shut down the economy. This was because governments discouraged and then prohibited people going to work. If you think about it, supply is the measure of what we collectively produce, but the virus caused a sudden contraction of the labor supply. This has then caused a loss of confidence that resulted in a demand shock, too, but it’s a spillover, an indirect effect due to a fundamental contraction in our ability to produce goods and services. When you face a supply shock, policies like those used during the Great Recession work, but only in containing the secondary shock to people’s confidence, the demand shock. It’s important to respond on the fiscal and monetary fronts. What’s really key is that we don’t add additional shocks on top of the initial crisis that is having such a severe effect on our ability to work and produce. If you want to compare the current crisis to something that happened in the past, a better comparison is the oil shock and energy crisis during the 1970s and early 1980s. The sharp increase in the price of oil made the production and transportation of goods a lot more expensive, hindering productive capacity as is going on right now. In the United States, relief efforts were initially stymied by a lack of consensus on how to allocate resources between working people and industry. How have EU countries navigated this tension, and are there lessons for U.S. lawmakers on crafting an effective stimulus response? When you compare the policy situations in the EU and U.S., keep in mind that the EU is much more gradual in its adjustment. The U.S. is a country of choice and action, where things that seem unmovable before a crisis are suddenly thrown into flux—like the agreement on a $2 trillion stimulus bill. The EU is much more gradual in its approach. While the economic shock is common to all nations, it is not undertaken uniformly. So, what we’ve seen in Europe is an increasingly stricter response on the health front and an increasingly stronger economic support across the continent, but always undertaken in a gradual fashion. Europe, and Italy in particular, can serve as a point of observation: if you are too gradual in your response, you run the risk of COVID’s course being worse than it might have otherwise have been. Really, Italy’s response made sense in the face of an unknown scenario, but perhaps we could have learned a little bit better from the events and responses in Asia. The clear message from our experience is that you need to intervene as swiftly and uniformly as possible. In light of the experience worldwide, one major concern for the U.S. is that different states are acting in different ways in trying to contain the virus. What are the primary risks for Italy, other EU countries, and the U.S. as the economic crisis precipitated by COVID-19 continues? Global productive capacity has shrunk severely and abruptly as a consequence of lockdown and some needed equipment, like ventilators, is in short supply. In normal times, the economy would quickly adjust by reallocating its workforce through new investments. This is simply impossible when people can’t effectively work due to the outbreak. As overall production of goods and services is reduced, government action ensuring capacity to contain the epidemic as quickly as possible is justified if we want to bring people back to work. This type of policy action makes sense, and the crucial matter is to identify what is the most effective level of authority needed to aggressively address the outbreak. In any case, whether in the U.S. or in Europe, trying to convert production into what is immediately needed to end the outbreak is appropriate. Italy has been encouraging this industrial conversion extensively as well, and so have other countries in Europe. There are different cases of companies that have started producing respirators, masks and protective garments, and other helpful medical supplies. If we want to think of the long-term consequence of the COVID crisis, we should focus on public debt. The Great Recession left us with a legacy in the U.S. and EU of greatly expanded government debt. We think of the Great Recession as a temporary shock that we recovered from but now, as we look at the current crisis, we will be increasing government debt greatly compared to GDP. This is a legacy that will remain for a long time and will pose very pressing policy questions. As we think about the future of advanced economies, in the U.S. and Europe, we have to ask ourselves how we will be dealing with a level of government debt that will exceed, as a share of GDP, the amount we had at the end of WWII. Our management of this new massive debt through the policy response in the aftermath of the crisis will shape our society determining the economic balance between generations, the actual opportunities for future generations, and the technological disruption and transformation that was already in place before this outbreak. COVID-19 has had an unprecedented impact on labor, with the U.S. Treasury Secretary estimating that unemployment could reach 20% in the U.S. What are the long-term impacts, both in Europe and in the United States, of such severe unemployment? We have to be careful not to pay too much attention to the unemployment rate alone as the crisis is also generating substantial underemployment: a large share of the workforce is not able to work as much as they could or wish. In Italy, to give you a sense of the labor situation, only somewhere between 40-50% of the labor force is able to work as efficiently as before. That means that between 50-60% of our workers are either working remotely or not working at all. It’s an unprecedented change in peace time, affecting everyone, not just the Italian economy. There’s a large body of literature on the long-term consequences of unemployment, even when due to a short-term shock. When people lose their jobs, the long-lasting effects are not just on their income. Unemployment has a negative effect on workers’ skills and education, even on their health—people who are unemployed become sicker. Your human capital, the skills of your country’s workforce, decay over time because of the loss of jobs. To mitigate this, the Italian government is doing all it can to keep people as attached to their jobs as possible by preventing companies from enacting layoffs. In order to achieve this objective, short time compensation schemes—usually available only for large industrial firms—have been expanded to almost every sector and firm size. Through these schemes, the government pays reduced salaries, which allows employers to keep their employees without going bankrupt. In the U.S. these schemes exist in more than 20 states but the country is less equipped in this dimension. U.S. workers experience a quicker turnover: they are laid off more often but then re-hired more quickly compared to the EU. The current scenario is different, though, from the usual business cycle because the current shock could discontinue many of these businesses altogether. What governments need to do at the moment is try to prevent the destruction of capital and desertification of existing businesses. Preventing employers from laying off people is likely to be in their and the economy’s best interest, even if they work very little, since this can help to better protect essential human capital. At the moment, the size of resources behind the relief package put in place by the U.S. government has surpassed the combined set of responses taken across Europe. In the United States, public health officials have looked to Italy to anticipate future scenarios. Do you think this is an apt comparison? What lessons can leaders in the United States and other nations learn from the strategies taken by the Italian government? Yes, it is a possibility, but there are a couple of lessons that Italy’s experience can provide in order to prevent or mitigate the outbreak we experienced. The first is relatively easy: you have to test widely without limiting your attention only to the people showing symptoms. When you test people, keep them separated applying as much social distancing as possible. The U.S., where health care triage is much quicker, plays at an advantage here. These protocols might be more effective right now in containing the spread of the virus. A concern that we have seen in Europe is that if you don’t implement a response nationwide, containing the virus will be much harder. The response might not need to be exactly the same everywhere in the country, but you must require coordination and quick scalability. The U.S. must avoid the same mistake we had in Italy and the rest of Europe: if you don’t provide a coordinated response to containment, including possible restrictions to the movement and actions of people, the outbreak will only get worse. Make no mistake: this is costly economically, because production contracts sharply across the board, but if you can contain the outbreak in a shorter period of time, you will most likely end up congesting hospital capacity, increase the death toll and, eventually, extend the length of the economic shock. We are far more connected with one another than we previously thought—not just because our jobs are connected with one another, not just because the value chains are spread throughout our countries, but because our lives are built in connection with one another. COVID-19 is dangerous because it exploits how close we have all become. Natural Law vs Man-Made Law. The Economic Fallout of the COVID-19.

The Biblical Perspective on the Coronavirus Disease

In Indian Tradition, we examine actions and behavior entirely on individualistic terms. The individual is held accountable for his own sinful or evil actions. I am examining the problem from the Biblical perspective. The Old Testament Book of Deuteronomy describes the duties and the responsibilities of national entities. It describes the LORD's Commandments to a national entity called Israel. For acts of obedience, the nation gets blessed and becomes prosperous. For acts of disobedience, the nation gets cursed and suffers. It gives several examples of the kinds of pain and misery that people may experience as consequences of a variety of curses that God promised. In my analysis, the Coronavirus Disease is an example of the curse that God promised for acts of disobedience. While I am always concerned about China's evil action in Tibet, I am now concerned about America's own actions that constitute disobedience of God's Commandments. Israel was given duties and responsibilities in the conduct of their national affairs. Those rules are applicable to all nations. These are not rules about religious worship. These are the rules about the administrative principles and values that must guide the governance of the nation. Most importantly, the LORD demanded the observance of the SABBATH tradition. It applies to all people including aliens and slaves who could be residing in the country. Apart from men, it applies even to farm animals, the trees, the plants, the fruit bearing trees that man may cultivate. The US is failing as a consequence of the disobedience of the LAW that God has instituted in very clear terms. Rudra Narasimham Rebbapragada Ann Arbor, MI 48104-4162 USA SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE-ESTABLISHMENT NO. 22-VIKAS REGIMENT THE ECONOMIC FALLOUT OF THE CLINTON CURSE. THE UNITED STATES NEEDS THE BLESSINGS OF THE LORD GOD CREATOR The economic fallout of ‘The Clinton Curse’. The United States needs the Blessings of the LORD God Creator. I reviewed the opinions of nine global thinkers on the issue of the economic fallout of the Coronavirus pandemic. None of the nine global thinkers mentioned about the need for the Blessings of the LORD God Creator. In my analysis, no man, and no nation can ever hope to be self-reliant. Both the individual entity, and the national entity will only exist if and only if if the existence is granted by the LORD God Creator’s Mercy, Grace, and Compassion. Rudra Narasimham Rebbapragada Special Frontier Force-Establishment No. 22-Vikas Regiment The economic fallout of ‘The Clinton Curse’. The United States needs the Blessings of the LORD God Creator. How the Economy Will Look After the Coronavirus Pandemic THE CLINTON CURSE. THE RETURN OF ORIGINAL SIN. THE UNITED STATES IS CURSED TO RUN ITS GOVERNMENT WITH BORROWINGS FROM FOREIGN NATIONS. The pandemic will change the economic and financial order forever. We asked nine leading global thinkers for their predictions. BY JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ, ROBERT J. SHILLER, GITA GOPINATH, CARMEN M. REINHART, ADAM POSEN, ESWAR PRASAD, ADAM TOOZE, LAURA D’ANDREA TYSON, KISHORE MAHBUBANI APRIL 15, 2020, 5:10 PM BRIAN STAUFFER ILLUSTRATION FOR FOREIGN POLICY. The Clinton Curse. The United States needs the Blessings of the LORD God Creator. After many weeks of lockdowns, tragic loss of life, and the shuttering of much of the global economy, radical uncertainty is still the best way to describe this historical moment. Will businesses reopen and jobs come back? Will we travel again? Will the flood of money from central banks and governments be enough to prevent a deep and lasting recession, or worse? This much is certain: The pandemic will lead to permanent shifts in political and economic power in ways that will become apparent only later. To help us make sense of the ground shifting beneath our feet, Foreign Policy asked nine leading thinkers, including two Nobel-Prize-winning economists, to weigh in with their predictions for the economic and financial order after the pandemic. We Need a Better Balance Between Globalization and Self-Reliance by Joseph E. Stiglitz Economists used to scoff at calls for countries to pursue food or energy security policies. In a globalized world where borders don’t matter, they argued, we could always turn to other countries if something happened in our own. Now, borders suddenly do matter, as countries hold on tightly to face masks and medical equipment, and struggle to source supplies. The coronavirus crisis has been a powerful reminder that the basic political and economic unit is still the nation-state. The coronavirus crisis has been a powerful reminder that the basic political and economic unit is still the nation-state. To build our seemingly efficient supply chains, we searched the world over for the lowest-cost producer of every link in the chain. But we were short-sighted, constructing a system that is plainly not resilient, insufficiently diversified, and vulnerable to interruptions. Just-in-time production and distribution, with low or no inventories, may be capable enough of absorbing small problems, but we have now seen the system crushed by an unexpected disturbance. We should have learned the lesson of resilience from the 2008 financial crisis. We had created an interconnected financial system that seemed efficient and was perhaps good at absorbing small shocks, but it was systemically fragile. If not for massive government bailouts, the system would have collapsed as the real estate bubble popped. Evidently, that lesson went right over our heads. The economic system we construct after this pandemic will have to be less shortsighted, more resilient, and more sensitive to the fact that economic globalization has far outpaced political globalization. So long as this is the case, countries will have to strive for a better balance between taking advantage of globalization and a necessary degree of self-reliance. This Wartime Atmosphere Has Opened a Window for Change by Robert J. Shiller There are fundamental changes that happen from time to time—often during times of war. Though the enemy is now a virus and not a foreign power, the COVID-19 pandemic has created a wartime atmosphere in which such changes suddenly seem possible.Though the enemy is a virus and not a foreign power, the pandemic has created a wartime atmosphere in which fundamental changes suddenly seem possible. This atmosphere, with narratives of both suffering and heroism, is spreading with the disease. Wartime brings people together not only within a country, but also between countries, as they share a common enemy like the virus. Those who live in advanced countries can feel more sympathy with those suffering in poor countries because they are sharing a similar experience. The epidemic is also bringing us together in countless Zoom get-togethers. Suddenly the world seems smaller and more intimate. There is also reason to hope that the pandemic has opened a window to creating new ways and institutions to deal with the suffering, including more effective measures to stop the trend toward greater inequality. Perhaps the emergency payments to individuals that many governments have made are a path to a universal basic income. In the United States, better and more universal health insurance might just have been given new impetus. Since we are all on the same side in this war, we may now find the motivation to build new international institutions allowing better risk-sharing among countries. The wartime atmosphere will fade again, but these new institutions would persist. The Real Risk Is Politicians Exploiting Our Fears by Gita Gopinath Over only a few weeks, a dramatic chain of events—tragic loss of life, paralyzed global supply chains, interrupted shipments of medical supplies between allies, and the deepest global economic contraction since the 1930s—has laid bare the vulnerabilities of open borders.People may self-assess their individual risks and decide to curtail travel indefinitely, reversing 50 years of rising international mobility. If support for an integrated global economy was already declining before COVID-19 struck, the pandemic will likely hasten the reassessment of globalization’s costs and benefits. Firms that are part of global supply chains have witnessed firsthand the risks inherent in their interdependencies and the large losses caused by disruption. In future, these firms are likely to take greater account of tail risks, resulting in supply chains that are more local and robust—but less global. In emerging markets, whose embrace of globalization included a steady opening to capital flows, we risk seeing capital controls being reimposed as these countries scramble to shield themselves from the destabilizing forces of the sudden economic stop. And even as containment measures gradually come off worldwide, people may self-assess their individual risks and decide to curtail travel indefinitely, reversing half a century of rising international mobility. The real risk, however, is that this organic and self-interested shift away from globalization by people and firms will be compounded by some policymakers who exploit fears over open borders. They could impose protectionist restrictions on trade under the guise of self-sufficiency and restrict the movement of people under the pretext of public health. It is now in the hands of global leaders to avert this outcome and to retain the spirit of international unity that has collectively sustained us for more than 50 years. Another Nail in the Coffin of Globalization by Carmen M. Reinhart World War I and the global economic depression in the early 1930s ushered in the demise of a previous era of globalization. Apart from a resurgence of trade barriers and capital controls, an important explanation for this demise is the fact that more than 40 percent of all countries at the time entered default, cutting many of them off from the global capital markets until the 1950s or much later. By the time World War II ended, the new Bretton Woods system combined domestic financial repression with extensive controls of capital flows, with little resemblance to the preceding era of global trade and finance.Pandemic-induced recessions may be deep and long—and as in the 1930s, sovereign defaults will likely spike. The modern globalization cycle has faced a series of blows since the financial crisis of 2008-2009: a European debt crisis, Brexit, and the U.S.-China trade war. The rise of populism in many countries further tilts the balance toward home bias. The coronavirus pandemic is the first crisis since the 1930s to engulf both advanced and developing economies. Their recessions may be deep and long. As in the 1930s, sovereign defaults will likely spike. Calls to restrict trade and capital flows find fertile soil in bad times. Doubts about pre-coronavirus global supply chains, the safety of international travel, and, at the national level, concerns about self-sufficiency in necessities and resilience are all likely to persist—even after the pandemic is brought under control (which may itself prove a lengthy process). The post-coronavirus financial architecture may not take us all the way back to the pre globalization era of Bretton Woods, but the damage to international trade and finance is likely to be extensive and lasting. The Economy’s Preexisting Conditions Are Made Worse by the Pandemic by Adam Posen The pandemic will worsen four preexisting conditions of the world economy. They will remain reversible through major surgery but turn chronic and damaging absent such interventions. The first of these conditions is secular stagnation—the combination of low productivity growth, a lack of private investment returns, and near-deflation. This will deepen as people stay risk-averse and save more following the pandemic, which will persistently weaken demand and innovation. Second, the gap between rich countries (along with a few emerging markets) and the rest of the world in their resilience to crises will widen further.Economic nationalism will increasingly lead governments to shut off their own economies from the rest of the world. Third, partly as a result of flight to safety and the apparent riskiness of developing economies, the world will continue to be over-reliant on the U.S. dollar for financing and trade. Even while the United States becomes less attractive for investment, its attraction will increase relative to most other parts of the world. This will lead to ongoing dissatisfaction. Finally, economic nationalism will increasingly lead governments to shut off their own economies from the rest of the world. This will never produce complete autarky, or anything close to it, but it will reinforce the first two trends and increase resentment of the third. More Than Ever, the World Looks to Central Bankers for Deliverance by Eswar Prasad The economic and financial carnage wrought by the pandemic could leave deep scars on the world economy. Central banks have stepped up to the challenge by tearing up their own rulebooks. The U.S. Federal Reserve has bolstered financial markets with asset purchases and provided dollar liquidity to other central banks. The European Central Bank has declared “no limits” to its support of the euro and announced massive purchases of government and corporate bonds, and other assets. The Bank of England is financing government spending directly. Even some emerging-market central banks, such as the Reserve Bank of India, are considering extraordinary measures—all risks be damned.Central bankers, once considered cautious and conservative, have shown they can act with agility, boldness, and creativity. Fiscal stimulus by governments, on the other hand, has proved to be politically complicated, cumbersome to implement, and often difficult to target where the need is greatest. Central bankers, once considered cautious and conservative, have shown they can act with agility, boldness, and creativity in desperate times. Even when political leaders are unwilling to coordinate policies across borders, central bankers can act in concert. Now and for a long time to come, central banks have become entrenched as the first and main line of defense against economic and financial crises. They may come to rue this immense new role and the unrealistic burdens and expectations it will impose on them. The Normal Economy Is Never Coming Back by Adam Tooze As the lockdowns began, the first impulse was to search for historical analogies—1914, 1929, 1941? Since then, what has come ever more to the fore is the historical novelty of the shock we are living through. There is something new under the sun. And it is horrifying. The economic fallout defies calculation. Many countries face a far deeper and more savage economic shock than they have ever previously experienced. In sectors like retail, already under fierce pressure from online competition, the temporary lockdown may prove to be terminal. Many stores will not reopen, their jobs permanently lost. Millions of workers, small-business owners, and their families are facing catastrophe. The longer we sustain the lockdown, the deeper the economic scars, and the slower the recovery. The longer we sustain the lockdown, the deeper the economic scars, and the slower the recovery. What we thought we knew about the economy and finance has been radically disturbed. Since the shock of the 2008 financial crisis, there has been a lot of talk about the need to reckon with radical uncertainty. We now know what truly radical uncertainty looks like. We are witnessing the largest combined fiscal effort since World War II, but it is already clear that the first round may not be enough. There are few illusions about the unprecedented acrobatics that central banks are performing. To deal with the accumulated liabilities, history suggests some radical alternatives, including a burst of inflation or an organized public default (which would not be as drastic as it sounds if it affects government debts held by central banks). If the response by businesses and households is risk-aversion and a flight to safety, it will compound the forces of stagnation. If the public response to the debts accumulated by the crisis is austerity, that will make matters worse. It makes sense to call instead for a more active, more visionary government to lead the way out of the crisis. But the question, of course, is what form that will take and which political forces will control it. Many Lost Jobs Will Never Return by Laura D’Andrea Tyson The pandemic and subsequent recovery will accelerate the ongoing digitalization and automation of work—trends that have eroded middle-skill jobs while increasing high-skill jobs during the last two decades and contributed to the stagnation of median wages and rising income inequality.Many low-wage, low-skill, in-person service jobs, especially those provided by small firms, will not return with the recovery. Changes in demand, many of them accelerated by the economic dislocation wrought by the pandemic, will change the future composition of GDP. The share of services in the economy will continue to rise. But the share of in-person services will decline in retail, hospitality, travel, education, health care, and government as digitalization drives changes in the way these services are organized and delivered. Many low-wage, low-skill, in-person service jobs, especially those provided by small firms, will not return with the eventual recovery. However, workers providing essential services such as policing, firefighting, health care, logistics, public transportation, and food will be in greater demand, creating new job opportunities and increasing the pressure to raise wages and improve benefits in these traditionally low-wage sectors. The downturn will accelerate the growth of nonstandard, precarious employment—part-time workers, gig workers, and workers with multiple employers—leading to new portable benefits systems that move with workers and broaden the definition of employer. New low-cost training programs, digitally delivered, will be required to provide the skills required in new jobs. The sudden dependence of so many on the ability to work remotely reminds us that a significant and inclusive expansion of Wi-Fi, broadband, and other infrastructure will be necessary to enable the accelerating digitalization of economic activity. A More China-Centric Globalization by Kishore Mahbubani The COVID-19 pandemic will accelerate a change that had already begun: a move away from U.S.-centric globalization to a more China-centric globalization. The COVID-19 pandemic will accelerate a change that had already begun: a move away from U.S.-centric globalization to a more China-centric globalization. Why will this trend continue? The American population has lost faith in globalization and international trade. Free trade agreements are toxic, with or without U.S. President Donald Trump. By contrast, China has not lost faith. Why not? There are deeper historical reasons. Chinese leaders now know well that China’s century of humiliation from 1842 to 1949 was a result of its own complacency and a futile effort by its leaders to cut it off from the world. By contrast, the past few decades of economic resurgence were a result of global engagement. The Chinese people have also experienced an explosion of cultural confidence. They believe they can compete anywhere. Consequently, as I document in my new book, Has China Won?, the United States has two choices. If its primary goal is to maintain global primacy, it will have to engage in a zero-sum geopolitical contest, politically and economically, with China. However, if the goal of the United States is to improve the well-being of the American people—whose social condition has deteriorated—it should cooperate with China. Wiser counsel would suggest that cooperation would be the better choice. However, given the toxic U.S. political environment toward China, wiser counsel may not prevail. The Economic Fallout of The Clinton Curse. The United States needs the Blessings of the LORD God Creator. THE CLINTON CURSE vs UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME Presidents' Day 2020. The Nation must wake up to the reality of the Clinton Curse. Presidents' Day 2020. The Nation must wake up to the reality of the Clinton Curse. In "American Gulag - Notice of Slavery Award" THE CLINTON CURSE - REPEAL THE WELFARE REFORM ACT TO REAP THE BLESSINGS OF GOD

My Doom Dooma, Assam Connection