Donald Trump may choose to see the coronavirus scare as a “hoax” perpetrated by his political opponents, but the rest of us are unlikely to derive much comfort from such egocentricity and self-delusion.

It can come as no surprise that New Zealand, like so many other countries, has succumbed to the coronavirus. It was always a forlorn hope that we could avoid the virus making an appearance in our midst; the challenge now is to avoid the fate of other countries, like France and Italy – countries with fully developed public health systems, but nevertheless struggling to contain what has rapidly become in their cases a very serious epidemic. Italy has been compelled to close the whole country down, virtually, so that nothing moves.

It remains the case that we must maintain the highest possible degree of border security (exploiting our natural advantage of having no land boundaries) and, in the case of those who have been shown to be already infected, that we track down those with whom they have been in contact, and that we insure that they self-isolate or otherwise remain in quarantine. We should also recognise that our health professionals – nurses, doctors, other hospital staff – will come under great pressure and will need as much support as possible.

So far, there is no need to panic. The measures taken so far by our government have been effective in limiting the outbreak to a small number of individuals. We are nowhere near epidemic conditions, and the emphasis remains on precautionary measures – the maintenance of basic hygiene practices, the avoidance of crowds, a recognition of those, like the elderly and unwell, who are especially likely to become ill, and to suffer the most severe consequences if they do.

Beyond that, it makes sense to stay at home as much as possible – apart, perhaps, from visits to the supermarket to build up store cupboards, though, let us be clear, the kind of panic stockpiling of tissues and sanitisers and so on that we have seen in some instances is not justified. We are fortunate in New Zealand to have domestic sources of supply, with well-established supply lines, for most of our basic necessities.

Of rather greater significance is the economic damage that we are likely to suffer in both the global and domestic economies. The fall in stock markets worldwide is an indication of the impact there will be on asset values and on our savings – and we must expect further damage to our trade and business generally.

It is at this point that government must step up to the plate. There will be no shortage of conservative voices, proclaiming that this is a time for retrenchment and belt-tightening – but that is exactly the wrong advice.

Our government, and governments around the world, now have both an opportunity and a responsibility to use their powers to make good the loss of spending power in our economy, and to lift the level of business activity as a consequence.

Although the scope for the usual stimulatory measure – cutting interest rates – is limited, the government have the possibility of borrowing further at virtually no cost, and can pump more money into the economy by using “quantitative easing”, a technique that was widely used to help out the banks following the Global Financial Crisis. The current developing crisis is no less threatening – and possibly more so – than the GFC.

A willingness to use these powers would allow the government to compensate those businesses, particularly in areas like tourism and forestry, which have been and will be hard hit by the interruptions to international trade and travel, and – further – would allow some compensation and support for those whose jobs are at risk or already suspended. Lifting the level of benefits and the minimum wage, so that the less well-off can keep house and home together, and provide a more buoyant market for small businesses would also be very helpful, not only to those directly affected, but to the economy as a whole.

Now is the time to cast political and economic dogma aside, and to do what works in the interests of all of us. We can survive the crisis largely unscathed if we all pull together.

Bryan Gould
16 March 2020

The last Saturday of February, the 29th, was of course an extra day, but that was no good reason for wasting half of it – yet, sadly, that is how it turned out.

The day started off badly with the arrival of a letter from a major, internationally owned, service provider whose customer we had been for several years. The letter was unsigned and began by asserting, quite incorrectly, that “we have contacted you several times about your unpaid account of $308,74” – this was, in fact, the first communication we had received from them on the subject.

The letter then proceeded to threaten that, if the $308.74 was not paid immediately, we would be faced with legal action and we would, at the least, be referred to a debt collection agency which would add to our costs and jeopardise our chances of getting credit in the future.

I was so concerned that I immediately phoned the number provided for what was laughingly described as their customer service department. I then entered a nightmarish – not to say Kafkaesque – world of recorded voices, constant requests that I should choose to press one or another number, none of which seemed to be relevant to my inquiry, long minutes of recorded music while I waited to speak to someone – anyone – and then barely comprehensible conversations with people who had no knowledge of what my inquiry was about and in any case lacked any competence to deal with it.

I should make it clear that my gripe is not with those I spoke to, who were on the whole courteous and helpful.

My inquiry was simple enough. I wanted to know what the $308.74 represented and how it had been incurred – we had in fact terminated our contract with the provider some months earlier. It took several hours of increasing frustration on my part before we reached an agreement that they would e-mail me with details of how the supposed debt of $308.74 had arisen.

When the e-mail duly arrived, however, it did no more than state that the $308.74 was owing. To cut this long story short, I was then able to check my bank account and to show that I had paid, at the time of closing the account with the provider in November, a sum of over $300 which had then been outstanding.

My attempt to communicate this information by e-mail to the “customer service department” was met with the response that I had e-mailed a “no-reply” address. In the e-mail, I had mentioned my legal qualifications, said that if the matter was not resolved satisfactorily “forthwith”, I would “pursue my own remedies” for what seemed to be attempted extortion and harassment, and recommended that they show the correspondence “to their superiors”.

The e-mail, whether received or not, seems to have been read. I was then telephoned with an assurance that the outstanding amount had ben “waived” and that our account had been closed. So ended a morning of unalloyed frustration, wasted nervous energy and emotional exhaustion. I had not only wasted a whole morning but had also suffered a most unpleasant experience.

My reason for reporting this unhappy episode is that, as my wife and I reflected, we are both of advanced years, and ill-equipped to deal with such unfamiliar issues. As it happens, my legal background and occasional experience of dealing with stroppy people meant that I was able to withstand the attempt to bully us into paying a large sum that we did not owe.

Other elderly people my not have had my defences available. And, as the management of their affairs – and particularly financial affairs – becomes increasingly something done online, they are unlikely to have the technical skills needed to do so. And that is to say nothing of the scammers whose efforts to con people out of their savings have recently been highlighted.

There is, as far as I know, no ombudsman or industry watchdog available to consumers when they run into the kind of issue that faced us. Service providers, particularly when they are large International companies, may calculate that such tactics will pay off in the end. I urge customers, particularly elderly ones, to stand up for themselves.

Bryan Gould
8 February 2020

When Republican senators put their own interests and those of their party ahead of those of the country and voted to acquit Donald Trump on his impeachment charges, they convinced the President that he was bullet-proof and could not be touched.

Newly emboldened by his acquittal, Trump has now proceeded to defy one of the basic rules of a constitutional democracy and of a free country. That basic rule is a principle established centuries ago by English patriots who defied the claim that kings had a divine right to rule – and were supported by one of the greatest of English judges, Chief Justice Coke, who proclaimed that no man, “be he ever so mighty”, is above the law.

Trump, however, post-impeachment; has not bothered wth nice questions as to whether he is above or subject to the law. He says instead “I am the law” – and he has proceeded to act on that claim by interfering in court cases involving his associates so as to acquit them and pardon them for wrongdoing.

His Republican supporters seem unconcerned at a claim that in most countries would be recognised for what it is – the foundation stone of an embryonic dictatorship. Trump’s claim to be able to make the law, without reference to the legislature or the judiciary, is a first (and major) step towards the exercise of unbridled power – and he has backed that up with a range of further claims and actions that have no place in a proper democracy.

In case his claim to “be the law” is challenged and rebutted, he has systematically stacked the judiciary (including the Supreme Court) with his own nominees. And he has pursued a number of other steps that are reminiscent of Hitler’s Germany.

He has used as a political weapon a series of mass rallies at which he rouses his audience to chant slogans aimed at his opponents, and takes the opportunity to attack those who are “different” in colour, ethnicity, origin and political opinion.

He has pursued a long campaign of denigrating and badmouthing the media , and their role as a bastion of democracy, encouraging his followers to think that they are being lied to, and that only he can be relied upon to “tell it like it is” – all this, presumably, in an attempt to escape and circumvent the scrutiny of a free press.

He continues to remove from office those public servants who fail to deliver the kind of unquestioning support he demands from them. His aim seems to be a body of public servants whose loyalty is to him personally rather than to the country as a whole or to the constitution.

He has made no secret of his wish to establish a dynasty – following in the footsteps no doubt of the Kim dynasty in North Korea which he seems greatly to admire – and it would come as no surprise if he were to attempt, if elected for a second term, to change the rules in due course that would limit his ability to seek a third term.

It might seem fanciful to detect an emerging dictatorship in the world’s greatest democracy, but we should recall that there was a similar reaction to the emergence of Hitler in 1930s Germany – and we should not forget that Hitler came to power by virtue of an election victory.

It is hard to believe that the great American public could be so ignorant, unconcerned and lacking in self-respect as to allow the same thing to happen in their own country. But the “unthinkable” only happens if we don’t think about it.

The price of freedom is “eternal vigilance”. Dictatorships do not always come about by virtue of a coup or force of arms. They can emerge much more easily as a result of a series of small steps, small erosions of the safeguards that define our freedom and democracy, and that are not seen for what they are until it is too late.

All that is now missing in the US is that the forces of law and order are also bent to the President’s will. What odds against the establishment of a Trumpian secret police force?

Bryan Gould

1. March 2020

I was struck the other day by a news report about the floods and storms in the UK. Some of those whose homes had been flooded were interviewed; they complained bitterly that the government had done nothing to prevent the disaster or to help them in its aftermath.

What struck me about the report was the immediate assumption on the part of ordinary citizens that they were entitled to expect “the government” to “do something” about the effects of natural disasters and to complain if remedial action was not forthcoming.

We live in an era when, because of climate change, natural disasters are likely to come thick and fast. There will be some instances, such as the Australian bushfires, when governments are justifiably put in the dock because of their failure to foresee that their policies are likely to increase the chances of damage to people, animals and property.

But, in most cases, natural disasters come out of the blue. In New Zealand, we have had our fair share of floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions, and we have, on the whole, recognised that, while governments certainly have a role in helping people to recover from the worst effects, they cannot be held responsible for their occurrence.

“Natural” disasters are, by definition, forces of nature, and governments are merely human agencies. They should certainly be expected to mitigate the consequences of natural disasters but they have no ability to wish them away.

We now know that the category of natural disasters is not limited to weather events. The advent of the coronavirus outbreak teaches us that the definition of natural disasters now includes the spread of dangerous viruses.

We can all sympathise with those caught up in the consequences of the outbreak. Those Kiwis who found themselves in Wuhan at the time of the outbreak, and those who were unlucky enough to find themselves on the cruise ship, the Diamond Princess, in Yokohama, quite naturally turned to their government to bail them out of their dangerous and difficult plight, and get them home to safety.

It has to be said that our government stepped up to the plate pretty effectively. They were able to organise a flight out of Wuhan back to New Zealand, and they had the generosity and foresight to find seats for Australians and Pacific Islanders as well.

That foresight paid off when it came to planning a rescue for those imprisoned on the Diamond Princess. The Kiwis anxious to escape their plight were able to cadge a lift on an Australian flight out of Japan when the Aussies decided to return the favour.

Those rescued will still have to endure a further period of quarantine, but that is clearly needed, and justified in the public interest, given the level of infection that had arisen on board the cruise ship. On the whole, the issue has so far been handled by the government with good sense and to good effect.

The economic effects of the crisis are less easily counteracted. Particular areas of economic activity, such as tertiary education, forestry and tourism, will clearly take a hit, but the government is already considering special measures to help them – and there is little to be done to withstand the overall impact on the economy of the blow delivered by the virus to international trade and movement.

We can, however, and sadly, still expect to hear voices raised to echo the complaints of the victims of the UK floods. The government, we will be told, “has not done enough” or has acted “too late”.

A mature democracy should have learned by now, though, that – in an era when natural disasters are likely to become the norm – governments do not have a magic wand. We should adjust our expectations accordingly. We can expect them to be efficient and sympathetic in mitigating the adverse consequences, we can hope that they will usher in improved policies designed to minimise the risks of further disasters, but we have to accept that, human as – like us – they are, their power to negate natural disasters when they happen is strictly limited.

Bryan Gould
18 February 2020

Over recent months, I have, for my sins, been thinking about, and trying to write, a book that is intended to answer the question of how we might arrive at a system of values that would guide us as to how we should treat each other.

My tentative conclusion so far is that, in conducting such an inquiry, and in the absence of any external authority telling us what to do, we should draw on our own reasoning ability, our own accumulated knowledge as to how our world works, and our own experience as to what is most likely to provide us, as individuals, with fulfilling lives, and to give us – as a society and as a species – the best chance of survival.

There are many sources of experience and inspiration that might help us in such a quest and that will allow us to identify those behaviours that we can approve and that will make us feel better. One such experience, and one that many of us will have shared, is the experience of having a pet.

My wife and I have long been dog-lovers. Our little West Highland White Terrier, Brodie, has now been with us for a year – and he has been a major influence on, and factor in, our lives over that period.

He was born on a farm, and into a family with small children. He was, accordingly, cosseted and fussed from the moment he was born, and grew up to expect that he would be well treated.

It is that early experience of being loved and cherished that explains, we think, his sweet temperament – and, in the whole of his life so far, he has continued to experience nothing but love and kindness.

As a result, he likes everybody, and expects that everybody will like him. He approaches everyone with a wagging tail, and everyone responds to him with pleasure and warmth. He has created a self-fulfilling virtuous circle for himself – because he has been kindly treated, and expects to be so, he responds to people with pleasure and affection, and when people recognise that this is what he expects in return, they respond accordingly.

My wife and I are the beneficiaries of this virtuous circle. We are rewarded with the constant pleasure and enjoyment of our little dog’s companionship, affection and eagerness to please. He has repaid us many times over for the care we lavish on him.

As I reflect on this interaction with our dear little friend and companion, I cannot help but wonder whether it could form a kind of blueprint for our relationships more generally. If we can establish such a mutually beneficial interaction with another sentient (though, in this case, non-human) being, why could those behaviours not be similarly rewarding when applied to inter-human contacts?

We all know and recognise the pleasure that acts of kindness can bring us – when we receive kindness, offer it ourselves to others and observe it in others. And it is not just as individuals that we derive these benefits; the society in which we live and of which we are a part is also healthier, and functions better and more harmoniously – and our chances of survival as a species are also enhanced, as are those of our planet.

It may be that I am, in setting up our little dog as an exemplar of good behaviour, asking Brodie to bear too heavy a burden. Perhaps it would be better to leave him in his own happy little world. But why should we humans be so arrogant as to assume that we can learn nothing from other species? And why should we be reluctant to conclude that love, affection and kindness, wherever they may be found, are the building blocks of a society that functions well and that allows us all to make the most of our lives?

Bryan Gould
11 February 2020

–