Why does the United States prefer to coexist with the virus rather than with China?

Spread the love

Author: brother Mao, this article is reproduced under the authorization of official account brother Mao’s vision (id:maogeshijue).


Interest game of epidemic prevention policy

First, let’s talk about the interest game of different epidemic prevention policies.

Since last year, the voice of coexisting with the virus or lying flat has become higher and higher. Then, does the coexistence faction know that choosing the coexistence and lying flat route will kill many people?

Of course they know!

Without the calculation model of who, the data of millions of deaths in the United States due to the epidemic are there.

Then why are the voices of the coexistence faction getting higher and higher?

This is the position of class determination.

The social stratum of all countries in the world is roughly a tripartite structure.


Pyramid structure of social stratum

There are some differences in the model structure of different types of countries. Developed countries are roughly spindle shaped, that is, the middle is large and the two ends are small, while developing countries are roughly pyramid shaped, that is, the bottom is large and the top is small – Take China as an example, high income

There are tens of millions of people, 400million middle-income people and 900million low-income people.

Now let’s combine this model to see the results of different epidemic prevention strategies.

First, the Chinese model

: choose the dynamic reset strategy and strictly prevent epidemic.

This mode usually makes no difference, but once there is a large-scale epidemic, the whole city will be static, all service establishments will be closed, and factories will be shut down.

In this case, the economic cost is great, but the cost paid by different classes is different.

According to the absolute value of everyone’s economy, the high-income group pays the most, followed by the middle-income group, and the low-income group has the lowest economic cost.

If we divide it by age, it is basically the working age group (people with jobs and investments) who mainly bear the economic cost, but the retired elderly basically do not have to bear it.

Second, foreign coexistence mode.

Under this mode, many people will die in the whole society. For example, in India, according to WHO estimates, millions of people will die from the COVID-19.

But who died?

Or combine the above hierarchical model.

According to historical experience, the death of COVID-19 is mainly the elderly over 65 years old, so which class do these elderly belong to?

First of all, the high-income elderly will not die because they have rich medical resources; Secondly, because the middle-income elderly live in cities, they also have considerable medical resources security, so even if there are deaths, the number is relatively small; The real large-scale death of the elderly over 65 years old must occur in low-income groups – rural areas, small towns, and urban fringe groups.


Comparing the corresponding social stratum model analysis, we will find that the above two strategies correspond to two completely different results:

If you choose the zeroing strategy, everyone will not die, but all working age people will pay the economic cost. The higher the level, the greater the cost. Because the elderly over 65 are in retirement, the economic cost is basically negligible;

Choosing the coexistence strategy, the low-income elderly will die in a large area, but the working age labor force (with jobs) and the high-income people will not pay the economic cost (such as the cost of closing the city) at least in the short term.

Therefore, choosing the zeroing strategy belongs to a special transfer payment mode in a sense – exchanging the economic cost of working age people for the lives of low-income elderly people.

According to: the above belongs to the simplest model analysis, and its premise is to adopt the mode of city closure under the condition of strict epidemic prevention.

In fact, the real situation is that choosing the clearing mode is more beneficial to the economy in the long run,

But people are short-sighted. As long as the closure of the city makes people pay a huge economic cost in the short term (of course, the cash flow of many enterprises can only support a short time, which is also the main reason why small and medium-sized enterprises are more likely to be short-sighted), so many people are annoyed with the zeroing strategy and are very dissatisfied with the zeroing strategy.

Now we will not discuss the long-term impact of the zeroing mode on the economy, but only assume the interest game of different classes under the condition of strict epidemic prevention (such as the closure of the city).

In the past, I often met someone at the dinner table who asked: all countries in the world choose to coexist with the virus, why only China adheres to the clearing strategy?

The subtext of this question is a bit like China’s independence and “going against the global trend”.

In fact, China’s epidemic prevention strategy is also well understood. We still analyze it according to the above social stratum model.

In western countries, for the ruling class, social wealth is mainly created by working age labor, while the contribution of low-income people over 65 to wealth creation is basically 0.

The discourse power of public opinion is also a monopoly of the age-appropriate labor force, and the low-income people, especially the low-income elderly, have almost no voice channels.

Taking Chinese data as a reference, the current number of Internet users is roughly 1billion, and 400million people are not online – these 400million people are the lowest income elderly group in addition to minors. If we choose to lie flat and die millions of people, the probability of these millions of people will be concentrated in this crowd.

Therefore, it is a very cost-effective thing for western countries to choose to lie flat and coexist with the virus – politically and economically, they please the high-income people, and the middle-class people will not have objections in public opinion. Financially, because a lot of low-income elderly people die, it reduces the burden of welfare and elderly care.

The only flaw is that it is immoral to choose to lie flat.

Now I can answer why all countries in the world choose to coexist with the virus, but only China adheres to the clearing strategy?


Because only the Chinese government can adhere to doing things that are ethical and conscientious, just as only the Chinese government can adhere to the transfer payment model and adhere to the large-scale poverty alleviation project.

What did you say?

Although thousands of people, I’m going!


Class decides position

Now let’s discuss the second question——

The United States is a country with its own characteristics. It is ostensibly advertised as a beacon of mankind and a symbol of freedom. In fact, the United States is willing to choose to coexist with all evil things in human society – in addition to coexisting with viruses, it is also willing to coexist with guns and drugs.


In fact, the core logic is consistent.

We still compare it with the social stratum model, taking guns as an example.

The proliferation of guns in the United States has caused great harm to the society, but the cost of these harm is borne by low-income people. For example, the school shootings in the United States have occurred in the most hip pulling public schools, and the students killed by the shooting are the children of low-income people.


The children of wealthy families are enrolled in private schools with perfect security. These schools have never had vicious shooting cases, and high-income and middle-class people don’t have to worry about their children suffering from vicious shooting incidents at all.

However, if guns are banned, it will greatly damage the interests of the military industrial group. The American military industrial group is a very powerful interest group, and the top ten political families in the United States have shares in the military industrial group.

Therefore, the children of low-income people die from guns, while banning guns will harm the interests of high-income people.

Drugs are the same logic.

Then why is the United States unwilling to coexist with China?

Because the rise of China will have a great impact on the global hegemony of the United States – we advocate a community of shared future for mankind, while the United States maintains unilateral hegemony.

The global hegemony of the United States has brought rich benefits to the high-income people in the United States, but this benefit is not enjoyed by the middle and lower class people in the United States – after the end of the cold war, the U.S. GDP increased by 3.5 times, and the wealth of the richest people in the United States increased by 4 times +, but the proportion of the middle class in the United States has sharply decreased from 80% during the cold war to 49% now.

The cost of containing and suppressing China is borne by low-income Americans. Taking the trade war as an example, the trump administration imposed a 25% tariff on Chinese products, which increased the annual expenditure of American households by $1750.

On the contrary, the United States launched a technological war against China and completely blocked Huawei, resulting in Huawei’s high-income mobile phones almost completely out of the market. This alone increased Apple’s market value by $300billion.

The cost is shared by ordinary American families, but the dividend is exclusive to high-tech companies. This is the logic that the trade war and the scientific and technological war launched by trump against China won almost full support from the elite in the United States.

Then, will the United States break out military conflict with China?


Because if it is a conventional war, the United States will lose miserably; If it is a nuclear war, it is the end of the same fate. Both of these two outcomes will greatly harm the interests of high-income people in the United States.

Today’s article is to give you an idea to analyze the logic of national decision-making according to this social stratum model – who benefits, who pays, simple and direct at a glance. If it rises to the height of philosophy, it is roughly like this sentence——

Material determines consciousness, and class determines position.

Similarly, you can also use this model to compare and analyze China’s macro policies, so that you can gradually understand the painstaking efforts and sincerity of the rulers, and you will gradually not be angry and complain about a few gray phenomena in society.

National macro policies include, but are not limited to, South-to-North Water Diversion, West to east gas transmission, transfer payments, poverty eradication; Including house de financialization, education de capitalization, medical treatment de marketization; Including fiscal expansion expenditure and moderately advanced infrastructure in the period of great downward pressure on the economy

Who benefits from the above and who pays?

Then you will understand the source of those complaints and objections, and why some people are keen on immigration in some periods… This article is reproduced under the authorization of official account cat brother’s vision (id:maogeshijue).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *