Category: reason

Volokh Conspiracy Canceling All In-Person Events, Moving Online for Duration of Coronavirus Epidemic

We plan to take advantage of our nearly 18 years’ experience with distance learning to make this as seamless a transition as possible for you, our valued clients.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2vLZHmA
via IFTTT

Volokh Conspiracy Canceling All In-Person Events, Moving Online for Duration of Coronavirus Epidemic

We plan to take advantage of our nearly 18 years’ experience with distance learning to make this as seamless a transition as possible for you, our valued clients.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2vLZHmA
via IFTTT

Biden Likens Owning an AR-15 to Falsely Shouting Fire in a Crowded Theater

Former Vice President Joe Biden, the leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, today got into a heated argument with a Detroit autoworker who challenged his support for a new federal “assault weapon” ban. Even leaving aside Biden’s reference to an “AR-14” when he meant “AR-15,” the conversation revealed both the illogic of his proposal and the suspicions it understandably arouses among many gun owners.

Cellphone video of the encounter shows a bearded man in a hard hat accusing Biden of “actively trying to end our Second Amendment right and take away our guns.” Biden denied the charge. “You’re full of shit,” he said. “I support the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment, just like now, if you yelled fire, that’s not free speech…I have a shotgun. I have a 12-gauge, a 20-gauge. My sons hunt….I’m not taking your gun away at all.”

It is true that Biden’s proposal—like the 1994 federal “assault weapon” ban, which expired in 2004—does not include confiscation of guns Americans already own. Instead he would give owners of the targeted firearms a choice: They could sell their guns to the federal government, or they could register them under the National Firearms Act (NFA), following the same procedure, including a background check and a $200 tax, that applies to machine guns. Unlike former presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke, Biden is not threatening to “take your AR-15.”

But state requirements for registration of “assault weapons” have been honored mostly in the breach, and Biden’s plan is likely to be even less successful now that talk of confiscation is in the air. When the government does not know who owns the guns it decides to ban, it can neither force people to register them nor seize them. It is perfectly rational for gun owners to worry that the first step will eventually lead to the second.

During the exchange in Detroit, Biden himself muddied the legal impact of his proposal. “Are you able to own a machine gun?” he asked. “No, machine guns are illegal,” the autoworker replied. “That’s right,” Biden confirmed. “How are AR-15s legal?”

It’s not actually true that “machine guns are illegal.” While new production for civilian use has been banned since 1986, machine guns owned before then can be legally possessed and transferred as long as the NFA’s requirements are followed. On one hand, Biden wants to treat “assault weapons” the same way machine guns are treated, which he says shows he does not favor confiscation. On the other hand, he erroneously says no civilian is legally “able to own a machine gun,” which contradicts his first point.

Biden argues that machine guns “are rarely used in crimes” because of the restrictions imposed by the NFA. But even without those restrictions, “assault weapons” also are used in a very small share of gun homicides. In 2018, according to the FBI’s numbers, rifles in general—only a subset of which would qualify as “assault weapons”—accounted for 4 percent of guns used in firearm homicides where the type of weapon was specified. Handguns, by contrast, accounted for 93 percent of the weapons used in those cases. A tally by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.), who sponsored the original “assault weapon” ban and has introduced a new, stricter version that is probably similar to what Biden favors, suggests that the firearms she considers intolerable were used in something like 0.5 percent of gun homicides from 2004 through 2011.

The argumentative autoworker raised that point with Biden, noting that handguns are much more commonly used in homicides than the firearms he wants to ban. “Why are you advocating for [a ban on] assault rifles?” he wondered. Biden did not answer.

There is a good reason for that. Biden has conceded that the 1994 “assault weapon” ban had no impact on the lethality of legal firearms, which remained “just as deadly.” He says he would fix that problem, but it is hard to see how, since “assault weapons” are an arbitrarily defined category of firearms distinguished by military-style features that make little or no difference in the hands of a murderer. No amount of tinkering with the list of forbidden characteristics can ban guns that are effective in mass shootings without also banning guns that are commonly used for self-defense and other legal purposes, which would clearly violate the Second Amendment.

Biden wants us to believe that owning an AR-15 is constitutionally analogous to “falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic,” which is “not free speech.” But he cannot explain why. The Supreme Court has said the Second Amendment guarantees the right to own firearms “in common use” for “lawful purposes,” a standard that so-called assault weapons easily satisfy, since they are among the most popular rifles sold in the United States.

Today Biden repeatedly asked his interlocutor whether anyone really needs a magazine that holds “100 rounds,” which is doubling misleading. First, the issue of ammunition capacity is distinct from the definition of “assault weapon,” since a gun could fall outside Feinstein’s criteria and still accept a 100-round magazine. Second, Biden’s proposal to ban “high-capacity magazines,” assuming it is similar to Feinstein’s, draws the line at 10 rounds, not 100. That rule would ban magazines commonly used for self-defense.

To show that he supports the Second Amendment, Biden noted that he owns shotguns and that “my sons hunt,” which is not exactly reassuring for anyone who values the right to armed self-defense. Biden also has said that if you must keep a firearm for home defense, a shotgun is the way to go—questionable advice that has been rejected by the millions of Americans who own handguns for that purpose, a choice the Supreme Court has recognized as constitutionally protected. Feinstein seems to share Biden’s affection for shotguns, hundreds of which are included in her bill’s gratuitous list of specifically exempted firearms.

Since even shotguns are more commonly used in homicides than “assault weapons” are, the constitutional or public safety distinction that Biden and Feinstein have in mind is rather mysterious. If Biden wants gun owners to believe him when he says he respects the Second Amendment, he will have to do a better job of explaining which rights he thinks it protects and why.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/38BRuyt
via IFTTT

Biden Likens Owning an AR-15 to Falsely Shouting Fire in a Crowded Theater

Former Vice President Joe Biden, the leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, today got into a heated argument with a Detroit autoworker who challenged his support for a new federal “assault weapon” ban. Even leaving aside Biden’s reference to an “AR-14” when he meant “AR-15,” the conversation revealed both the illogic of his proposal and the suspicions it understandably arouses among many gun owners.

Cellphone video of the encounter shows a bearded man in a hard hat accusing Biden of “actively trying to end our Second Amendment right and take away our guns.” Biden denied the charge. “You’re full of shit,” he said. “I support the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment, just like now, if you yelled fire, that’s not free speech…I have a shotgun. I have a 12-gauge, a 20-gauge. My sons hunt….I’m not taking your gun away at all.”

It is true that Biden’s proposal—like the 1994 federal “assault weapon” ban, which expired in 2004—does not include confiscation of guns Americans already own. Instead he would give owners of the targeted firearms a choice: They could sell their guns to the federal government, or they could register them under the National Firearms Act (NFA), following the same procedure, including a background check and a $200 tax, that applies to machine guns. Unlike former presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke, Biden is not threatening to “take your AR-15.”

But state requirements for registration of “assault weapons” have been honored mostly in the breach, and Biden’s plan is likely to be even less successful now that talk of confiscation is in the air. When the government does not know who owns the guns it decides to ban, it can neither force people to register them nor seize them. It is perfectly rational for gun owners to worry that the first step will eventually lead to the second.

During the exchange in Detroit, Biden himself muddied the legal impact of his proposal. “Are you able to own a machine gun?” he asked. “No, machine guns are illegal,” the autoworker replied. “That’s right,” Biden confirmed. “How are AR-15s legal?”

It’s not actually true that “machine guns are illegal.” While new production for civilian use has been banned since 1986, machine guns owned before then can be legally possessed and transferred as long as the NFA’s requirements are followed. On one hand, Biden wants to treat “assault weapons” the same way machine guns are treated, which he says shows he does not favor confiscation. On the other hand, he erroneously says no civilian is legally “able to own a machine gun,” which contradicts his first point.

Biden argues that machine guns “are rarely used in crimes” because of the restrictions imposed by the NFA. But even without those restrictions, “assault weapons” also are used in a very small share of gun homicides. In 2018, according to the FBI’s numbers, rifles in general—only a subset of which would qualify as “assault weapons”—accounted for 4 percent of guns used in firearm homicides where the type of weapon was specified. Handguns, by contrast, accounted for 93 percent of the weapons used in those cases. A tally by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.), who sponsored the original “assault weapon” ban and has introduced a new, stricter version that is probably similar to what Biden favors, suggests that the firearms she considers intolerable were used in something like 0.5 percent of gun homicides from 2004 through 2011.

The argumentative autoworker raised that point with Biden, noting that handguns are much more commonly used in homicides than the firearms he wants to ban. “Why are you advocating for [a ban on] assault rifles?” he wondered. Biden did not answer.

There is a good reason for that. Biden has conceded that the 1994 “assault weapon” ban had no impact on the lethality of legal firearms, which remained “just as deadly.” He says he would fix that problem, but it is hard to see how, since “assault weapons” are an arbitrarily defined category of firearms distinguished by military-style features that make little or no difference in the hands of a murderer. No amount of tinkering with the list of forbidden characteristics can ban guns that are effective in mass shootings without also banning guns that are commonly used for self-defense and other legal purposes, which would clearly violate the Second Amendment.

Biden wants us to believe that owning an AR-15 is constitutionally analogous to “falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic,” which is “not free speech.” But he cannot explain why. The Supreme Court has said the Second Amendment guarantees the right to own firearms “in common use” for “lawful purposes,” a standard that so-called assault weapons easily satisfy, since they are among the most popular rifles sold in the United States.

Today Biden repeatedly asked his interlocutor whether anyone really needs a magazine that holds “100 rounds,” which is doubling misleading. First, the issue of ammunition capacity is distinct from the definition of “assault weapon,” since a gun could fall outside Feinstein’s criteria and still accept a 100-round magazine. Second, Biden’s proposal to ban “high-capacity magazines,” assuming it is similar to Feinstein’s, draws the line at 10 rounds, not 100. That rule would ban magazines commonly used for self-defense.

To show that he supports the Second Amendment, Biden noted that he owns shotguns and that “my sons hunt,” which is not exactly reassuring for anyone who values the right to armed self-defense. Biden also has said that if you must keep a firearm for home defense, a shotgun is the way to go—questionable advice that has been rejected by the millions of Americans who own handguns for that purpose, a choice the Supreme Court has recognized as constitutionally protected. Feinstein seems to share Biden’s affection for shotguns, hundreds of which are included in her bill’s gratuitous list of specifically exempted firearms.

Since even shotguns are more commonly used in homicides than “assault weapons” are, the constitutional or public safety distinction that Biden and Feinstein have in mind is rather mysterious. If Biden wants gun owners to believe him when he says he respects the Second Amendment, he will have to do a better job of explaining which rights he thinks it protects and why.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/38BRuyt
via IFTTT

Yes, There Are Libertarians in Pandemics

It’s almost never a good idea to use a public health crisis to score points against your political opponents—and if you’re going to do it, you really ought to try to describe the situation accurately.

Actually, that second part applies even when there’s no public health crisis.

It has, however, become fashionable for certain elements of the Very Online Left to use the ongoing coronavirus outbreak as evidence that libertarians either don’t actually exist or that we quickly abandon our principles in the face of a pandemic. This recent outbreak of libertarian bashing—which makes only slightly more sense than the claims made by some on the right that libertarians are secretly running everything in Washington, D.C. and plotting to get your kids addicted to porn—seems to have started with a pithy tweet from Atlantic writer Derek Thompson on March 3. But it’s become a ubiquitous online “take” since Sunday afternoon, when Bloomberg opinion writer Noah Smith logged on.

The take may have achieved its final form—at least let’s hope so—with The Atlantic‘s publication on Tuesday of an 800-word piece from staff writer Peter Nicholas carrying the headline (sigh) “There Are No Libertarians in a Pandemic.”

Lazy? Yes. Inaccurate? Yes.

Nicholas’ article opens with a scene from CPAC—that’s the Conservative Political Action Conference, by the way—and proceeds to detail all the ways in which the Trump administration has botched the federal response to the new coronavirus, called COVID-19. You know, the same Trump administration that is just full to the brim with libertarians. The same administration that is raising barriers to free trade, making it more difficult for people to move to America, giving bail-outs to politically favored industries, considering more bailouts to more politically favored industries, trying to regulate free speech online, suing newspapers in an attempt to curb the First Amendment, and launching missiles into foreign countries without congressional authorization. That administration? That’s the libertarian one?

Nicholas tries to get away with this nonsense by setting up a false dichotomy. Trump is campaigning against socialism, you see, and libertarians also dislike socialism—so therefore the Trump administration must be libertarian. Right? Therefore, when Trump starts talking like a socialist himself—by promising coronavirus bailouts and the repurposing of disaster recovery funds to cover people who come down with COVID-19—it is proof positive that the libertarian world has abandoned its commitment to smaller government. Voila!

Perhaps The Atlantic‘s editorial staff has self-quarantined from its duties—how else to explain how an otherwise thoughtful publication could allow a headline that confuses libertarianism with anything that the Trump administration is doing? For that matter, maybe Smith and Thompson believe that an army of strawmen are an effective defense against COVID-19. I hope it works out for them.

As a libertarian in a pandemic, let me first assure you that we do in fact still exist.

And, in fact, it is the free market—and, to a lesser extent, its defenders—who will help you survive the new coronavirus. All those groceries you’re stocking up on in advance of the expected collapse of civilization? They didn’t end up on grocery store shelves because government officials ordered it to happen or because someone was feeling particularly generous today. That gallon jug of hand sanitizer delivered to your front door less than 48 hours after you ordered it online? It didn’t show up because Trump tweeted it into existence or because the surgeon general is driving a delivery truck around the country.

Bottled water? Face masks? They’re available because someone is turning a profit by making and selling them. The first latex gloves were invented in the 1880s but the disposable variety that are so useful right now have “only been available since 1964, as innovated by the private company Ansell, founded by Eric Ansell in Melbourne, Australia. Thank you international trade,” notes Jeffrey Tucker, editorial director of the American Institute for Economic Research.

Sure, one consequence of the success of private enterprise in reshaping the world is an interconnected planet that allows for something like COVID-19 to spread more rapidly than would have been possible in the past. But modern technology has also allowed doctors, private enterprises, and (yes) governments to respond more quickly than ever before.

It also means that you’ll have access to nearly every piece of film, television, and music ever recorded by human beings if you have to self-quarantine for a week or two. It means that humans have the ability to live far healthier lives than they did in 1918, when a global flu pandemic killed 50 million people. The people who live through the current coronavirus outbreak because of stronger immune systems made possible by steady diets won’t show up on any list of statistics after the coronavirus has passed, but capitalism is at least partially to thank for their survival.

In short, if you had to pick any time in human history to live through a global pandemic, you’d be incredibly foolish not to pick the current time. And the reason you’d pick this moment in history probably has less to do with who is running the White House, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the World Health Organization, and more to do with the technological and medical advances made possible by free enterprise.

“What is the mighty contribution of government these days?” asks Tucker. “To order quarantines but not to tell you whether you can step outside, how you will get groceries, how long it will last, who you can invite in, and when it will all end. Don’t try to call the authorities. They have better and bigger things to worry about than your sorry plight that is causing you sleepless nights and endless worry. Thank goodness for digital technology that allows you to communicate with friends and family.”

Yeah, there are libertarians in a pandemic. We’re the ones willing to acknowledge how much more all of this would suck if the market didn’t exist.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2TEgzo5
via IFTTT

Yes, There Are Libertarians in Pandemics

It’s almost never a good idea to use a public health crisis to score points against your political opponents—and if you’re going to do it, you really ought to try to describe the situation accurately.

Actually, that second part applies even when there’s no public health crisis.

It has, however, become fashionable for certain elements of the Very Online Left to use the ongoing coronavirus outbreak as evidence that libertarians either don’t actually exist or that we quickly abandon our principles in the face of a pandemic. This recent outbreak of libertarian bashing—which makes only slightly more sense than the claims made by some on the right that libertarians are secretly running everything in Washington, D.C. and plotting to get your kids addicted to porn—seems to have started with a pithy tweet from Atlantic writer Derek Thompson on March 3. But it’s become a ubiquitous online “take” since Sunday afternoon, when Bloomberg opinion writer Noah Smith logged on.

The take may have achieved its final form—at least let’s hope so—with The Atlantic‘s publication on Tuesday of an 800-word piece from staff writer Peter Nicholas carrying the headline (sigh) “There Are No Libertarians in a Pandemic.”

Lazy? Yes. Inaccurate? Yes.

Nicholas’ article opens with a scene from CPAC—that’s the Conservative Political Action Conference, by the way—and proceeds to detail all the ways in which the Trump administration has botched the federal response to the new coronavirus, called COVID-19. You know, the same Trump administration that is just full to the brim with libertarians. The same administration that is raising barriers to free trade, making it more difficult for people to move to America, giving bail-outs to politically favored industries, considering more bailouts to more politically favored industries, trying to regulate free speech online, suing newspapers in an attempt to curb the First Amendment, and launching missiles into foreign countries without congressional authorization. That administration? That’s the libertarian one?

Nicholas tries to get away with this nonsense by setting up a false dichotomy. Trump is campaigning against socialism, you see, and libertarians also dislike socialism—so therefore the Trump administration must be libertarian. Right? Therefore, when Trump starts talking like a socialist himself—by promising coronavirus bailouts and the repurposing of disaster recovery funds to cover people who come down with COVID-19—it is proof positive that the libertarian world has abandoned its commitment to smaller government. Voila!

Perhaps The Atlantic‘s editorial staff has self-quarantined from its duties—how else to explain how an otherwise thoughtful publication could allow a headline that confuses libertarianism with anything that the Trump administration is doing? For that matter, maybe Smith and Thompson believe that an army of strawmen are an effective defense against COVID-19. I hope it works out for them.

As a libertarian in a pandemic, let me first assure you that we do in fact still exist.

And, in fact, it is the free market—and, to a lesser extent, its defenders—who will help you survive the new coronavirus. All those groceries you’re stocking up on in advance of the expected collapse of civilization? They didn’t end up on grocery store shelves because government officials ordered it to happen or because someone was feeling particularly generous today. That gallon jug of hand sanitizer delivered to your front door less than 48 hours after you ordered it online? It didn’t show up because Trump tweeted it into existence or because the surgeon general is driving a delivery truck around the country.

Bottled water? Face masks? They’re available because someone is turning a profit by making and selling them. The first latex gloves were invented in the 1880s but the disposable variety that are so useful right now have “only been available since 1964, as innovated by the private company Ansell, founded by Eric Ansell in Melbourne, Australia. Thank you international trade,” notes Jeffrey Tucker, editorial director of the American Institute for Economic Research.

Sure, one consequence of the success of private enterprise in reshaping the world is an interconnected planet that allows for something like COVID-19 to spread more rapidly than would have been possible in the past. But modern technology has also allowed doctors, private enterprises, and (yes) governments to respond more quickly than ever before.

It also means that you’ll have access to nearly every piece of film, television, and music ever recorded by human beings if you have to self-quarantine for a week or two. It means that humans have the ability to live far healthier lives than they did in 1918, when a global flu pandemic killed 50 million people. The people who live through the current coronavirus outbreak because of stronger immune systems made possible by steady diets won’t show up on any list of statistics after the coronavirus has passed, but capitalism is at least partially to thank for their survival.

In short, if you had to pick any time in human history to live through a global pandemic, you’d be incredibly foolish not to pick the current time. And the reason you’d pick this moment in history probably has less to do with who is running the White House, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the World Health Organization, and more to do with the technological and medical advances made possible by free enterprise.

“What is the mighty contribution of government these days?” asks Tucker. “To order quarantines but not to tell you whether you can step outside, how you will get groceries, how long it will last, who you can invite in, and when it will all end. Don’t try to call the authorities. They have better and bigger things to worry about than your sorry plight that is causing you sleepless nights and endless worry. Thank goodness for digital technology that allows you to communicate with friends and family.”

Yeah, there are libertarians in a pandemic. We’re the ones willing to acknowledge how much more all of this would suck if the market didn’t exist.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2TEgzo5
via IFTTT

Trump’s Tariffs Are Hiking the Price of Your Favorite Whisky

A bottle of your favorite Scotch whisky might cost a bit more this year, thanks to new tariffs imposed by the Trump administration that target European imports like alcohol, cheese, and wool.

President Trump ordered those tariffs last year as punishment for what the United States sees as unfair subsidies provided by the European Union to Airbus, a major airplane manufacturer based in France. In practice, the tariffs mean that American consumers of whisky and wine, among other things, will be paying higher import taxes in order to punish European producers—even though those industries are not at fault for the corporate welfare provided by their governments. The whole situation highlights the folly of using tariffs at all.

Written and narrated by Eric Boehm. Motion graphics by Lex Villena.
You can read the full article that this video is based on here. 

Photo credits: ID 129858134 © Anna Iagur | Dreamstime.com, ID 87423438 © Tonyv3112 | Dreamstime.com Joseph Sohm Visions of America/Newscom, Yuri Gripas – CNP / MEGA / Newscom, ID 151979585 © Chernetskaya | Dreamstime.com, ID 65980725 © Tracy Decourcy | Dreamstime.com, ID 14574626 © Milosz7 | Dreamstime.com, ID 21433281 © Empire331 | Dreamstime.com, 1956 Glenmore Distilleries Whiskies Advertisement Time April 2 1956 by SenseiAlan, ID 80552706 © Vadymvdrobot | Dreamstime.com, ID 80553749 © Vadymvdrobot | Dreamstime.com, Phil Hogan, Photo: Arno Mikkor (CC Attribution 2.0), ID 64330805 © Anton Starikov | Dreamstime.com, ID 79241886 © Modernnomads | Dreamstime.com, ID 6981716 © Pakhnyushchyy | Dreamstime.com, 787_First_Flight.jpg: Dave Size (CC Attribution 2.0), ID 108016981 © Rawpixelimages | Dreamstime.com, ID 41013802 © Rawpixelimages | Dreamstime.com, Photo 7377326 © Richard Nelson – Dreamstime.com, ID 154854267 © Chumphon Whangchom | Dreamstime.com, ID 19816153 © Scott Griessel | Dreamstime.com

Music: Opening Horizons by KieLoKaz (Standard License ID 361)

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3aJhfhJ
via IFTTT

Trump’s Tariffs Are Hiking the Price of Your Favorite Whisky

A bottle of your favorite Scotch whisky might cost a bit more this year, thanks to new tariffs imposed by the Trump administration that target European imports like alcohol, cheese, and wool.

President Trump ordered those tariffs last year as punishment for what the United States sees as unfair subsidies provided by the European Union to Airbus, a major airplane manufacturer based in France. In practice, the tariffs mean that American consumers of whisky and wine, among other things, will be paying higher import taxes in order to punish European producers—even though those industries are not at fault for the corporate welfare provided by their governments. The whole situation highlights the folly of using tariffs at all.

Written and narrated by Eric Boehm. Motion graphics by Lex Villena.
You can read the full article that this video is based on here. 

Photo credits: ID 129858134 © Anna Iagur | Dreamstime.com, ID 87423438 © Tonyv3112 | Dreamstime.com Joseph Sohm Visions of America/Newscom, Yuri Gripas – CNP / MEGA / Newscom, ID 151979585 © Chernetskaya | Dreamstime.com, ID 65980725 © Tracy Decourcy | Dreamstime.com, ID 14574626 © Milosz7 | Dreamstime.com, ID 21433281 © Empire331 | Dreamstime.com, 1956 Glenmore Distilleries Whiskies Advertisement Time April 2 1956 by SenseiAlan, ID 80552706 © Vadymvdrobot | Dreamstime.com, ID 80553749 © Vadymvdrobot | Dreamstime.com, Phil Hogan, Photo: Arno Mikkor (CC Attribution 2.0), ID 64330805 © Anton Starikov | Dreamstime.com, ID 79241886 © Modernnomads | Dreamstime.com, ID 6981716 © Pakhnyushchyy | Dreamstime.com, 787_First_Flight.jpg: Dave Size (CC Attribution 2.0), ID 108016981 © Rawpixelimages | Dreamstime.com, ID 41013802 © Rawpixelimages | Dreamstime.com, Photo 7377326 © Richard Nelson – Dreamstime.com, ID 154854267 © Chumphon Whangchom | Dreamstime.com, ID 19816153 © Scott Griessel | Dreamstime.com

Music: Opening Horizons by KieLoKaz (Standard License ID 361)

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3aJhfhJ
via IFTTT

Yes, There Are Private Donors—and Not Just Bill Gates—Helping Fund the Coronavirus Response

Nearly $1 out of every $10 being spent to fund the global response to the new coronavirus outbreak is coming from private donors, according to a new tracking system put together by the Kaiser Family Foundation. That adds up to more than $725 million coming from non-profits, businesses, and foundations.

The Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-profit global health policy think tank and information center, put together this database and released it today to serve as a resource to show where money is coming from and going to in the global effort to fight the spread of the new coronavirus, called COVID-19.

The total that has been spent so far is $8.3 billion, which means the vast majority of spending has come from government sources. The top spender is the World Bank, which has outspent everybody else to the tune of $6 billion and has prioritized that spending in the poorest countries with the highest risk.

The U.S. government has given $1.285 billion to other countries. An important caveat: This database does not show a government’s domestic spending to contain and fight COVID-19 within its own borders. This is all about the international effort.

Unsurprisingly, the largest private donor is Tencent, the massive Chinese tech company that pretty much operates the country’s entire internet social structure and is worth more than $500 billion (in U.S. dollars). Tencent has donated $214 million towards containment efforts in China. Alibaba, the massive Chinese e-commerce company, has donated $144 million.

Here in the United States, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is getting attention for its $100 million in total donations and its direct efforts to facilitate faster coronavirus testing and the development of potential treatments. It’s the largest U.S. private donor currently, but it’s not the only one. Google, Caterpillar, Mastercard, General Motors, and several corporations that run resorts and hotels (like MGM Resorts International) are contributing anywhere from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.

Most of the money right now is focused on assisting China, but it seems likely that as the coronavirus spreads we’ll see donations spread to other countries. The Kaiser Family Foundation also acknowledges that its figures are based on public reports of private donations. There may be other private donors that Kaiser has missed. The chart lists all of its sources.

Looking at the private donor list, it seems obvious why they’re donating to China. All of them have huge customer bases there, particularly the Las Vegas resort chains. They have a huge stake in making sure consumers of their goods and products don’t die off. That’s a great thing about capitalism—it creates incentives to assist in the fight against large scale crises.

Read the list here. It will be updated as the Kaiser Family Foundation hears of new donors, both government and private.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3cMxLzw
via IFTTT

Yes, There Are Private Donors—and Not Just Bill Gates—Helping Fund the Coronavirus Response

Nearly $1 out of every $10 being spent to fund the global response to the new coronavirus outbreak is coming from private donors, according to a new tracking system put together by the Kaiser Family Foundation. That adds up to more than $725 million coming from non-profits, businesses, and foundations.

The Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-profit global health policy think tank and information center, put together this database and released it today to serve as a resource to show where money is coming from and going to in the global effort to fight the spread of the new coronavirus, called COVID-19.

The total that has been spent so far is $8.3 billion, which means the vast majority of spending has come from government sources. The top spender is the World Bank, which has outspent everybody else to the tune of $6 billion and has prioritized that spending in the poorest countries with the highest risk.

The U.S. government has given $1.285 billion to other countries. An important caveat: This database does not show a government’s domestic spending to contain and fight COVID-19 within its own borders. This is all about the international effort.

Unsurprisingly, the largest private donor is Tencent, the massive Chinese tech company that pretty much operates the country’s entire internet social structure and is worth more than $500 billion (in U.S. dollars). Tencent has donated $214 million towards containment efforts in China. Alibaba, the massive Chinese e-commerce company, has donated $144 million.

Here in the United States, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is getting attention for its $100 million in total donations and its direct efforts to facilitate faster coronavirus testing and the development of potential treatments. It’s the largest U.S. private donor currently, but it’s not the only one. Google, Caterpillar, Mastercard, General Motors, and several corporations that run resorts and hotels (like MGM Resorts International) are contributing anywhere from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.

Most of the money right now is focused on assisting China, but it seems likely that as the coronavirus spreads we’ll see donations spread to other countries. The Kaiser Family Foundation also acknowledges that its figures are based on public reports of private donations. There may be other private donors that Kaiser has missed. The chart lists all of its sources.

Looking at the private donor list, it seems obvious why they’re donating to China. All of them have huge customer bases there, particularly the Las Vegas resort chains. They have a huge stake in making sure consumers of their goods and products don’t die off. That’s a great thing about capitalism—it creates incentives to assist in the fight against large scale crises.

Read the list here. It will be updated as the Kaiser Family Foundation hears of new donors, both government and private.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3cMxLzw
via IFTTT