Category: Uncategorized

Benny gets bitch-slapped

It’s no secret to the readers here that Ben Shapiro has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to economics. That’s why it’s amusing to see Spencer Morrison kicking him around so easily. The Littlest Chickenhawk knows he’s not in my league, which is why he ran away from debates with me twice, but he clearly didn’t realize the full extent of his ignorance or he would have kept his mouth shut rather than getting steamrolled on the issue of trade and tariffs.

Morrison addresses Shapiro’s inept response to him in a second article that really needs to be read in its entirety to appreciate its contemptuous nature:

Shapiro begins with two rather embarrassing mistakes. First, he misstates the name of this publication. Second, he commits a call to authority fallacy—precisely the error I accused him of last week. Shapiro writes:

The reality is that my arguments on free trade have been supported by every major free market economist in history . . .

This is a tautology: of course most “free market” (read: Austrian School) economists support free trade—just as most American School economists support tariffs, or most labor economists support unions. Does the fact that most Marxist economists support socialism prove that socialism works? No. This is sophistry.

Shapiro is also a hypocrite: did he not make his name by ignoring the so-called “97 percent of climate scientists” who believe climate change is anthropogenic, or the (I imagine) 100 percent of gender studies professors who think biological sex and gender identity are different? Why is Shapiro so willing to ignore “experts” on climate change or feminism, yet treat them like (false) gods when it comes to economics? Shapiro would be wise to remain ever-skeptical, and heed the aphorism: Take not the merchant at his word, but trust only by the skin of his fruit.

Finally, Shapiro says the articles I cited “do not mention tariffs,” and they are therefore irrelevant. This is like saying a paper on Elizabethan England, that never mentions Shakespeare, is irrelevant to studying Shakespeare—really? This is the difference between scholarship and parroting: my sources lend support to a novel conclusion, while Shapiro clearly googled “path-dependency” and cited the first book he could find—a case study of Microsoft.

While the book does discuss path-dependency, it does so explicitly within the context of a single industry, and makes no claim that the findings should be applied between industries. There is a big difference between supporting Microsoft relative to Apple or Google, and supporting America’s entire IT industry relative to foreign competitors. These are different debates, and the nuance is clearly lost on Shapiro….

Shapiro acknowledges that not all industries are of equal value when it comes to economic growth; economic growth depends upon technological development; growth is non-linear in that certain individuals (or industries) generate most of it.

Wait a minute! Shapiro just said that we “cannot tell which sectors will be the most profitable.” Which Ben do we believe? This is a perfect example of domain-specific knowledge in action. When Ben Shapiro has his “businessman” thinking-cap on, he acknowledges that you can tell which industries are most likely to generate economic growth—he even gives us an example. Yet when he has his “economist” thinking-cap on, he denies this categorically. This is what happens when you parrot sources without evaluating them for yourself.

Now that last sentence looks a little familiar, does it not? Perhaps it is merely a coincidence, two parallel observations. Or perhaps not….

Anyhow, it’s obvious that Benny was too busy playing the violin and copying Human Events for his weekly WND column to ever play computer games, or he would understand the basic concept of path dependency that every turn-based Civ or RTS player has had to master. The little guy somehow managed to graduate cum laude from Harvard Law School without ever reaching the level of knowledge possessed by the average computer gamer.

Shut up, Creepy Joe

At least when Donald Trump talked about grabbing women, they were actually adult women:

Former Vice President Joe Biden said he would “beat the hell out of” President Donald Trump if they were in high school over his crude comments about women.

“When a guy who ended up becoming our national leader said, ‘I can grab a woman anywhere and she likes it’ and then said, ‘I made a mistake,’” Biden said Tuesday of Trump, according to video of the remarks posted on Facebook by the University of Miami College Democrats.

“They asked me would I like to debate this gentleman, and I said no. I said, ‘If we were in high school, I’d take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him,’” said Biden, getting laughter and applause from the crowd at the University of Miami.

And Trump didn’t do it on camera either. But Creepy Uncle Joe doesn’t just grab women. He totally creeps on them, especially if they’re little girls.

I hope Joe Biden is the Democratic nominee. We already saw how effectively the God-Emperor used the rhetorical term “Crooked Hillary”. Imagine how much mileage he’d get out of “Creepy Joe”.

Infogalactic update

We made some major changes to the Infogalactic structure yesterday. While most of the work is interior stuff that will not be readily apparent to the user, we have significantly expanded our storage and processing capabilities while reducing our monthly burn rate by about one-third. This means that we are running about twice as fast and about 2.7 times more efficiently than before, while giving us considerably more control over our backend.

What this means, as you will see, is that our search time has been cut in half again. Just copy and paste :i vox day into the search bar of Brave and you will see what I mean.

Thanks very much to the Burn Unit, who continue to keep Infogalactic moving forward. And you should not fail to note that the Planetary Knowledge Core is actively updating itself, as even recent events such as March Madness 2018 are already documented online.

Mailvox: Stupid cons and Smoot-Hawley

Sean asks about an old conservative trade chestnut:

The Conservatives on talk radio keep screaming about Smoot-Hawley. Those tarriffs if I remember right, the prevailing wisdom made the depression worse. What is the counter argument to that and how does it apply to what is going on now? Just curious. I have a hard time grasping arguments, and I know Vox is right but I would just like to better understand why the Levin’s are wrong.

I really do not understand why conservatives insist on continuing to pay attention to ignorant and deceitful posers like (((Ben Shapiro))) and (((Mark Levin))). These guys simply do not know what they are talking about and it is absolutely and eminently clear to everyone who does that they neither know the basic facts involved nor understand the core conceptual issues that make those facts important.

Every single talking head who makes any reference whatsoever to Smoot-Hawley is a poser and a fraud who knows nothing about economics or economic history. This is basically a variant of the “Um, Ricardo?” pseudo-rebuttal to an argument for tariffs or other forms of protectionism. It is proof that the speaker has heard about the subject, but doesn’t actually know the subject at all.

The point is so trivial that I dealt with it in a single paragraph in The Return of the Great Depression ten years ago and haven’t seen the need to mention it again since.

For many years, it was supposed that the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 played a major role in the economic contraction of the Great Depression. As more economists are gradually coming to realize, this was unlikely to have been the case for several reasons. First, the 15.5 percent annual decline in exports from 1929 to 1933 was less precipitous than the pre-tariff 18.3 percent decline from 1920 to 1922. Second, because the amount of imports also fell, the net effect of the $328 million reduction in the balance of trade on the economy amounted to only 0.3 percent of 1929 GDP. Third, the balance of trade turned negative and by 1940 had increased to nearly ten times the size of the 1929 positive balance while the economy was growing.

Unless Levin is concocting some new and highly improbable mathematical scenario based on chaos theory and the Smoot-Hawley butterfly, he’s flat-out wrong. To put it in more simple terms, there was nowhere nearly enough international trade taking place at the time to cause or account for the Great Depression. Whoever originally came up with that idea didn’t know what they were talking about and didn’t understand economics. And neither does anyone who still takes the ridiculous idea seriously.

The reason the Great Depression happened was the same reason that the financial crisis of 2008 happened. Everyone was overleveraged and the total amount of money being borrowed collapsed. That is why an average of 1,287 banks failed every year from 1930 to 1933. The historical credit collapse had vastly more impact on the economy than a smaller annual decline in exports than had been experienced seven years before as a result of the Fordney–McCumber tariff act.

That suspicious impartiality

It’s rather remarkable that the journalists attempting to attack the credibility of Russia Today don’t realize what they are implicitly admitting about the BBC, Sky TV, CNN, and other Western media organizations:

Staffed in London mainly by Western journalists, a cursory viewing of RT might suggest a respectable international broadcaster in the mould of the BBC, Sky and CNN. It broadcasts daily, a mix of news bulletins, talk shows — on which many peers and MPs, including Mr Corbyn, have appeared — and documentaries.

Its viewing figures in the UK are minuscule (560,000 people tune into RT at some time during the week, compared with 6.1 million for Sky and 10.4 million for BBC News), but its output is amplified by YouTube channels and social media feeds which cater for an audience of ‘metrosexuals and bums’, according to one rival Russian channel.

And while it is true that many stories are delivered impartially, this selective impartiality appears to be a strategic ploy. According to Ben Nimmo of the Atlantic Council, an American international affairs think-tank: ‘[RT’s] job in quiet times is to build up an audience, so it can propagandise to them in crises. You must not confuse RT with bona fide journalism: not all its output is propaganda, but its purpose is.’

Whenever Russia interests are at stake — as in Ukraine, Crimea and Syria — it pumps out programmes, videos and tweets that almost invariably toe the Moscow line.

How terrible of them to reliably be impartial on most issues, only to stick to a narrative on matters important to Russia. This is very different from the BBC, Sky TV, and CNN, where “bona fide journalism” means all propaganda all the time.

The purpose of all media is propaganda. It is all rhetoric. It is intended to persuade, not to simply inform. The big difference is that Russia Today doesn’t feel any need to constantly uphold the neoliberal world order’s narrative all the time.

Voxiversity 003

The third Voxiversity video is now live! This is another short video, and one that conclusively disproves the oft-heard assertion that trade wars are always bad for the economy.

Episode Three: Trade War: What is it good for?

We will be following this up shortly with a bonus fourth episode thanks to CGTN graciously granting permission for me to upload an edited version of the appearance on Dialogue that is referenced here. If you are interested in supporting us making more of these videos, consider becoming a Voxiversity backer. Some initial comments:

  • Vox Day hits it out of the park again.
  • Awesome Video – they just keep getting better!! I will be sharing this with everyone. 
  • These just keep getting better, especially in terms of production quality. Happy to be a monthly Voxiversity support. Keep em coming!
  • The learning curve here is working far, far beyond any reasonable expectations. I know you are uncomfortable in front of the camera, but this video is absolutely fantastic. Your collaborator has figured out how to work around whatever deficiencies you may feel you have and is making your point for you marvelously. 
  • I am impressed how much these improved since the first one, primarily on the audio side. Good stuff.
You should find that a link to this will serve as an effective rebuttal to anyone who is running around shrieking about Smoot-Hawley, David Ricardo, and how Trump’s tariffs are inevitably going to lead to a trade war that will lead to a second Great Depression.

I think this is my favorite comment so far: I almost feel sorry for the free traders…

New designs from Crypto.Fashion

Crypto.Fashion and Dark Lord Designs have FOUR new t-shirt designs for you. This one is my favorite of the four: AMERICANS Are Dreamers Too. So white and triggering!

Here are the others:

Also, thanks to everyone who signed up to check out Idka today. I’ll see you there! If you haven’t been approved yet, don’t worry, I’ll hit one more round before turning in.

Forget Facebook

It’s all Idka now. As the Brainstormers know, we’ve been trying out a new Swedish Facebook alternative called Idka. It has a lot of advantages over Facebook, particularly because they don’t use your data, sell your data, or invade your privacy. Better yet, they let you control your groups and organizations very strictly. It’s got chat too.

We’ve already got an Arkhaven organization there which we’re using in a quasi-Dropbox capacity and I’ve set up an ELOE group there as well, so if you’re not interested in having Mark Zuckerberg sell the pictures of your cousin’s children to sketchy companies in Turkey and Indonesia, I would strongly suggest getting off Facebook and giving Idka a whirl. You can find me there as well, and if you would like an invite to the ELOE group, let me know on Idka.

Just to be clear, I have no interest in Idka nor do I have anything to do with it, it’s just a new tech company with a better (if occasionally esoteric) interface and a lack of interest in exploiting user data like a Muslim rape gang exploiting a drug-addicted 14-year-old British girl without a father in Rotherham.

In the long run, Facebook wants to make its product even more immersive and personal than it is now. It wants people to buy video chatting and personal assistant devices for their homes, and plans to announce those products this spring, say people familiar with the matter. It wants users to dive into Facebook-developed virtual worlds. It wants them to use Facebook Messenger to communicate with businesses, and to store their credit-card data on the app so they can use it to make payments to friends.

Employees have begun to worry that the company won’t be able to achieve its biggest goals if users decide that Facebook isn’t trustworthy enough to hold their data. At the meeting on Tuesday, the mood was especially grim. One employee told a Bloomberg Businessweek reporter that the only time he’d felt as uncomfortable at work, or as responsible for the world’s problems, was the day Donald Trump won the presidency.

It looks like Mark Zuckerberg is about to learn the difference between influence and power.

Lawmakers are demanding to hear directly from Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg on the growing controversy over the misuse of its data by Trump-linked Cambridge Analytica, as the social network confronts its most serious political crisis ever in Washington.

“I want to know why this happened, and what’s the extent of the damage, and how they’re going to fix it moving forward,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) said Tuesday when asked about the briefings. Facebook executives, she added, “aren’t coming yet, but they better come.”

What Senator Klobuchar doesn’t understand is that Facebook’s business model, indeed, its entire existence, depends upon being able to violate her privacy concerns. And so much for trying to direct the selected outrage and Steve Bannon and the Trump campaign.

Facebook users are waking up to just how much private information they have handed over to third-party apps. Users are sharing their shock on Twitter at discovering that thousands of software plugins for Facebook have been gathering their data. Some of the better known apps that may be connected to your profile include those of popular sites like Amazon, Buzzfeed, Expedia, Etsy, Instagram, Spotify and Tinder.

Trump leaves May hanging out to dry

I’m getting a little tired of people who are dumb enough to keep lunging at the first word that comes out of Trump’s mouth when he is confronted by the media about some new development. OF COURSE HE DOESN’T TELL THEM THE TRUTH! If the God-Emperor was in the habit of practicing perfect honesty when speaking to a group of people who are out to destroy him, he wouldn’t have been nominated, let alone elected. FFS, he’s been President for over a year now, have you learned nothing about how the man operates?

Meanwhile, the British media is freaking out because despite whatever he is supposed to have told Theresa May, President Trump has made it eminently clear that he has no intention whatsoever of backing Britain in their idiotic neocon-inspired war on Russia:

Trump defies aides to congratulate Putin on election ‘victory’ in phone call and fails to challenge him over Salisbury nerve agent outrage. Donald Trump congratulated Vladimir Putin on reelection in telephone call. Overture will fuel fears that allies’ support for Britain is less than full-hearted.

Donald Trump has risked a split with Britain by congratulating Vladimir Putin on his re-election – and failing to mention the Salisbury nerve agent scandal. The US president seemingly defied the advice of aides to praise Mr Putin in a phone call despite UK fury at Russia’s involvement in the poisoning of a former spy. Mr Trump did not challenge his counterpart over the outrage on British soil, and said afterwards that they had a ‘very good call’.

The news will raise fresh concerns about the commitment of the UK’s allies to hold Russia to account over the use of military-grade Novichok poison against Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia.

Translation: the president knows perfectly well that Russia was not responsible and that it was a false flag. Now, here is a heuristic that I have found very useful in understanding the words and actions of Donald Trump. If he has said two contradictory things, and one of them is to his base and the other is to the media, the thing that will be false is what he is telling the media.  Because unlike Clinton and Obama, the media is not on his side. Unlike Bush and Bush, he knows that the media is not on his side.

Meanwhile, the God-Emperor would do well to fire those treacherous aides who are seeking to push war with Russia Russia Russia. It won’t surprise me if he does, or to learn that he used the episode to smoke out more Deep Staters in his employ.

Electing a new people

It’s called “immigration-based identity politics” and it’s merely a matter of scale:

Drop into a political gathering almost anywhere in America, and you can usually name the party just by looking: Democrats increasingly reflect the racially mixed demographics of the nation’s cities; Republicans remain overwhelmingly white, older and more rural.

That hasn’t always been true — a generation ago, the voters supporting the two parties were far more alike.

Now, a new, large-scale study has documented how much the mix of voters who support each of the two parties has changed. The conclusion: The two party coalitions are now more different than at any point in the past generation.

The Democrats have changed the most, as the mix of voters who support them has grown less white, less religious, more college-educated, younger and more liberal over the past decade, according to the study by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center.

Nothing has changed except a) the source nations, and b) the numbers. Previous generations of immigrants all voted Democrat too and continue to do so today. Irish, Italians, Jews, they all voted for more government handouts and in the interests of their own people at the expense of the native stock. Now the Chinese, Mexicans, Vietnamese, and Somalis are doing the same thing, it’s just that there are more of them, they look more obviously different, and their values and traditions are even more opposed to American values and traditions.

Meanwhile, except for the growing number of single white women who need government support because they can’t provide for themselves and their illegitimate children, white people are increasingly gravitating to a single party in order to defend what remains of their interests.

So, what Pew is observing is nothing less than the large-scale transformation of white people from ideology-based politics to identity-based politics in a single generation. As I predicted several years ago, the two major parties will be the White Party and the Not-White Party, regardless of what they are officially called in order to maintain the pretense of a single nation.