Government responses to COVID, whatever that means, has caused a significant decrease in income for the most vulnerable. No real solution has been provided to this self-inflicted wound other than concentrating more power in the hands of international, unelected bureaucracies. Meanwhile, more people die of poverty, hunger and as victims of crime without incapable governments addressing any of these situations.
It is common to read that, except for the impact of the two world wars and the Great Depression, Covid-19 has caused an unprecedented recession in the last century and a half. Different from war and manufactured depressions, however, COVID is not responsible for the current accelerating global downturn reflected on the most vulnerable countries.
What is not so frequent is that voices are heard denouncing that the current crisis, created by governments themselves, harms the most vulnerable populations in developing countries to a greater extent. And yet it is disheartening to see that, for the first time in decades, extreme poverty will increase by 100 million people, according to World Bank estimates.
In addition, there has been a fall in per capita income in more than 90% of developing countries. Half of these economies will reverse the gains of the past five years or more and a quarter will lose all the progress made since 2010. In other words, in one year of lockdowns, which directly affect labor, commerce and development, governments have destroyed the progress made in over a decade worldwide.
No matter how often mainstream media tell you that COVID is causing a decrease in remittances received by the poorest families. It is not true. In reality, governments have done that.
Inequality has also increased, and governments are also to be blamed for that. Compared to the 10% of rich households that are infected, more than half of poor households do so and the probability of their inhabitants dying -not from COVID- is four times higher.
Why is this happening? Because governments around the world determined that the lives of billions of people were not essential. Their jobs were not essential, their sources of income were not essential. Their health was not essential. Their small businesses, which drive real economic growth, were not essential.
While small businesses closed and towns and cities crumbled to the ground, bureaucrats continued to receive their paycheck every month.
The outlook in terms of growth is gloomy due to the cuts in investment due to the deterioration in the expectations of economic indicators and in the best case scenario, governments resorted to the only thing they know how to do: create more debt.
Future growth will also suffer from the impact of government measures on human capital, jeopardizing advances in education and health. While teacher unions continue to receive government subsidies and teachers remain at home getting paid and not working, school-age kids continue to fall behind.
Learning has been interrupted with the closure of schools, which has particularly affected the population that does not have the means to continue distance learning.
The fall in family income will force the interruption of the instruction of many children and young people. In particular, it will be girls who are forced to leave the classroom the most.
At the same time, the destructive measures adopted by governments has decreased the amount of money available to cover medical and health emergencies among the poorest, who already faced serious financial constraints to cover their medical care.
It is also estimated that the number of people affected by chronic hunger has increased by 130 million due to lose of jobs, reduction in income and inflation.
Ignoring this unfortunate scenario is not fair, but it is not interesting to do so. Government measures will not be reversed until society as a whole becomes completely dependent on government handouts.
The response to COVID is extremely uneven: in advanced economies, stimulus packages -originated in unplayable debt- represent between 15% and 20% of GDP, in emerging economies they only account for around 6% of GDP and in the poorest countries they do not even reach 2%.
Failure to meet the pressing needs of the most disadvantaged in time requires greater outlays to deal with tragedies that could have been avoided if each government applied reasonable measures to their own realities as supposed to adopting draconian lockdown, closure of businesses and banning so-called non-essential activities.
Right now, globalist organizations like the IMF stresses that what happens from now on will depend on the result of experimental vaccinations and the delivery of more power to entities like it. They call that international cooperation, but in reality is the nationalization of global power grab schemes.
Worldwide access to diagnostic tests, treatments and vaccines against COVID must be ensured, they say, as they continue. to move the goal post to vaccine passports, to cite an example. The end to COVID nonsense is not near. They want international organizations to dictate every step of the way, now more than ever, without the participation of the population.
Emphasis is always given on saying that it is imperative to provide low-income countries, which were already over-indebted before COVID, a result of IMF policies. Their so-called liquidity programs are actually acquisition programs where countries must pawn everything and follow every globalist guideline to have access to credit lines that will ensure perpetual poverty.
The World Bank and the IMF, in collaboration with the G20, have agreed on an initiative to temporarily suspend debt service payments from these countries. 5 billion dollars have thus been diverted to the fight against the pandemic and its economic consequences. However, this is not done according to the needs of each nation, but in a manner dictated from the top down at this International banks.
In short, the so-called pandemic brought upon everyone is used to force so-called ‘international cooperation’, which is nothing less that corporate consolidation of nation-states.
This alternative is not viable, neither from an ethical point of view nor from an eminently practical perspective. The world will only be a safe place when all its inhabitants are protected, not further indebted and under the control of banking corporations who mandate poverty from boardrooms in Brussels of New York.