Cptkernow

Nothing in that article supports this claim:

Any evidence to support this claim.

Herd immunity strategy is a huge gamble, it can easily be rendered moot by genetic drift, which would not be some kind of outlier event because it happens on the regular with normal flu.

So its very possible that if we had no lockdown, we would be significantly worse than France, Spain.

You cant do a direct comparison between the UK and Sweden due its location, it will have had different vectors of infection, and possibly a different mutation,that is why you compare it with its neighbours, against whom it is a terrible example 300% more deaths than all of them combined.

The fairest comparison is between Sweden and the countries that border it. They are all doing much much much much much much better than Sweden. Finland DPM:37 (Deaths per million) Norway DPM:38 Denmark DPM:76 Sweden DPM:244 Also if you add the deaths of the countries above, Sweden is nearly 300% of the other countries combined. Sure there are countries doing worse, but that does not mean Sweden is some kind of poster boy of effective measures.

No, Sweden is doing terribly. The best way to look at results is by deaths per capita. If you look at the three countries that border Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark, they have less deaths per capita than Sweden combined. Its worth remembering that Sweden has a total population less than Los Angeles county. Its easier to parse how bad its doing for its region if you apply its per capita results to a larger population. If you apply Swedens DPM (Deaths per Million) to USA. I Included Norway for comparison. Figures from WorldoMetres.Sweden = 80,751 deaths + 21,134 deaths than USA has currently.Norway = 12,547 deaths - 46,891 deaths than USA has currently.

Completely false. Numerous real world tax funded organisations are run on a co-operative basis. The key differences, and what makes it a better model are more local control over the budget and more input and democratic participation from the clients served by the local branch of the organisation and those that work in the organisation (anyone can be served you have to sign up as a member, nominal by paying a nominal fee like 1£).

I understand that fully but it is utterly irrelevant to the point I was making.

I think you are expressing correctly, I just have no idea why, its completely irrelevant to the point I was making. I could have that money in my room if I choose hence the loan between bank A and person B can be money (in the mundane sense) in the room of person C.

Wat? You cant see the wood for the trees. If a bank extends a loan to you of 10K and then you spend 10K on my services, I have 10K of money in my account. I dont have a promise. You are completely ignoring the most important part of the process, e.g. that the credit arrangement between two parties turns into money in the hands of a third party.

There are supply and demand issues but this is all being excerbated by inflation, e.g. easy cheap money being used to bid up prices via speculative activity. In 2008 there was a big spike in the price of wheat, however it was a world record harvest that year, the reason the price went up was because GS took massive long positions in wheat futures. Anyone who does not think similar is happening now is in dream land.

Pony much to slow. He is talking about the 2008 food bubble. Wheat and several food based commodities are all bubbling at levels above the 2008 level as we speak. This has been a major factor in the riots in the ME.

FYP

Its this error in thinking that is the most depressing. Of course low interest rates and the consequent liquidity has an impact on world commodity prices. Give the financial system nearly free money and watch it gamble it on commodities FTW. At this stage in the game it is staggering that so many observers can not join the dots between low interest rates and asset bubbles.