Category: Uncategorized

Another case against free trade

Steve Keen, arguably the most important economist alive today, turns his formidable guns on David Ricardo, specialization, and free trade.

David Ricardo extended Smith’s vision of specialization within a given industry to specialization between industries and nations, and made the argument that two countries can benefit from free trade even if one country is absolutely less competitive in both industries than the other. In his hypothetical example, Portugal could produce both cloth and wine with less labor than England. If England specialized at the industry it was comparatively better at (cloth, obviously) and Portugal specialized in wine, then the total output of both industries would rise.

This concept of the advantages of specialization became the core insight of economics, and it continues to be ingrained in and promoted by economists today. Lionel Robbins’s proposition that “Economics is the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses”3 is the dominant definition of economics. It implicitly emphasizes the importance of specialization, so that those “scarce means which have alternative uses” can be efficiently allocated to achieve the maximum level of output.

This belief in the advantages of specialization lies behind the incredulity with which economists have reacted to the rise of populist politicians like Donald Trump in the United States, as well as the United Kingdom’s vote for Brexit. They have, at their most self-righteous, blamed the rise of anti-globalization sentiment on the public’s irrational failure to appreciate the net benefits of trade. Or, more commonly, they have conceded that perhaps the electorate has reacted negatively because the gains from trade have not been shared fairly.

There is, however, another explanation for why anti–free trade sentiment has risen: the gains from specialization at the national level were not there to share in the first place, for sound empirical reasons that were ignored in Ricardo’s example. That ignorance has been ingrained in economics since then, as Robbins’s definition—dominant and superficially persuasive, but fundamentally limited—gave economists a starting point from which they could not properly perceive either the advantages or the costs of globalization.

Deus Sine Machina

Robbins’s definition codifies arguably the most egregious oversight in economic theory. It omits a realistic treatment of resources that do not “have alternative uses,” by which the great wealth of modern society has been created: machines. Today, with 3-D printers, increasingly adaptable robotics, and the beginnings of AI, we can contemplate the eventual creation of a single machine that could be deployed across a range of industries. Yet for the foreseeable future, most machines are tailored for specific tasks in specific industries and are useless in any others, as was also the case in the distant past when the theory of comparative advantage was invented. Smith acknowledged the need for specialized machinery in pin production (and attributed the development of that specialized machinery to the division of labor itself, though it can just as easily be argued that the specialization of machinery is what gave rise to the specialization of labor):

A workman not educated to this business (which the division of labour has rendered a distinct trade), nor acquainted with the use of the machinery employed in it (to the invention of which the same division of labour has probably given occasion), could scarce, perhaps, with his utmost industry, make one pin in a day, and certainly could not make twenty.

Ricardo also acknowledged the need for machinery. But in considering not one industry but two, Ricardo assumed a crucial and false equivalence between physical machinery and monetary capital that has bedeviled economics ever since: he treated the specialized machinery in different industries as if it were equally as liquid (and so could be as easily repurposed) as the money with which it had been purchased.

The gain from trade arose, Ricardo asserted, because of different production technologies in different countries (whether that was due to different labor skills, different weather, or different machinery). These differences could not apply within one country, but did apply between them, so that “the produce of the labour of 100 Englishmen may be given for the produce of the labour of 80 Portuguese, 60 Russians, or 120 East Indians.” The reason for this difference between domestic and international trade was, he claimed, because capital moved easily within a country, whereas it was effectively immobile between them.

This is a confusion of monetary capital (which Ricardo, as a stockbroker by trade, knew intimately) with the physical machinery in factories (about which he knew very little). Yes, monetary capital moves easily in search of a profit—today, even internationally. But machinery is specific to each industry, and the crucial machines in one industry cannot simply “move” to another without loss of productivity.

The archetypal machines for cloth and wine manufacturing in Ricardo’s time included the spinning jenny and the wine press. It is stating the obvious that one cannot be turned into the other, but stating the obvious is necessary, because the easy conversion of one into the other was assumed by Ricardo, and has been assumed ever since by mainstream economic theory.

In fact, the relative mobility which Ricardo assumed for his ubiquitous concept of “capital” is the opposite of what applies to machinery. Machinery designed for one industry simply cannot move to any other, even in the same country; but machinery in one industry can (and frequently is) shipped between countries.

This is a conceptually devastating critique of comparative advantage, which, in combination with my labor mobility argument, should suffice to convince even the most enthusiastic free trader that free trade is intrinsically and inherently disadvantageous in certain specific circumstances, many of which happen to be applicable to the USA today.

Free trade is not always and inherently inimical. The important point is that, contra Ricardo and his mindless adherents, it is not always and inherently beneficial either.

Preorder SJWADD

SJWS ALWAYS DOUBLE DOWN: Anticipating the Thought Police is now available for preorder. It features a foreword by Andrew Torba and its release date is October 9th. The paperback and audiobook will be released in November.

Whether you realize it or not, if you live in the West, you are currently engulfed in a civilization-wide cultural war that is taking place all around you. Maybe you’re aware of it, or maybe you’re not. It doesn’t matter. The cultural war is real and it is vicious. And unlike a traditional shooting war between different nations, in a cultural war there are no civilians. There are no neutral parties, since no fence-sitting is permitted, and there is no common ground to be found. No one is permitted to sit it out or refuse to take sides; sooner or later, you are going to be forced to declare yourself by either publicly submitting to the SJW Narrative or openly rejecting it.

No matter what you do, no matter who you are, and no matter who you know, the SJWs will come after you once they believe you pose a threat to their Narrative, or to their objectives for the organization they are attempting to converge.

The book is named after the Second Law of SJW: SJWs always double down. SJWS ALWAYS DOUBLE DOWN is a much-needed guide to understanding, anticipating, and surviving SJW attacks from the perspective of a man who has not only survived, but thrived, after experiencing multiple attempts by Social Justice Warriors to disqualify, discredit, and disemploy him in the same manner they have successfully attacked Nobel Laureates, technology CEOs, broadcasters, sports commentators, school principals, open source programmers, and policemen.

Written by Vox Day, Supreme Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil and bestselling political philosopher, SJWS ALWAYS DOUBLE DOWN: Anticipating the Thought Police  is the second book in The Laws of Social Justice and a vital weapon in the cultural war against the thought police.

UPDATE: It would appear SJWADD is much anticipated.

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #384 Paid in Kindle Store
#1 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Philosophy > Political
#2 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government >Commentary & Opinion

Thanks for all the support!

Dangerous!

Some of my favorite quotes from Milo’s new bestelling audiobook.

  • I came to represent the Left’s greatest fear: an opponent who is cooler, smarter, better-dressed, edgier, and more popular than them. [Now you know why the SF-SJWs hate me. -VD]
  • Simon & Schuster’s CEO, Carolyn Reidy, put out a laughably vague announcement that my book would not include any “hate speech.” I asked for a set of guidelines as to how hate speech would be defined, but that doesn’t exist.
  • White men are the cultural counterpart to the economic bourgeousie class in classical Marxist theory.
  • The establishment’s real fear is that this book will deeply affect readers, especially young people. In particular, they fear that the young people at the epicenter of political correctness in America’s universities will begin to question the ideologies foisted upon them.
  • Twitter even put a “safety” filter on all outgoing links to the blog of Vox Day, sci-fi’s leading right-wing iconoclast.
  • If we are going to win the culture war, we must fight hard and have a hell of a lot of fun along the way.

Notice that SJWs always, Always, ALWAYS resist providing any specific guidelines, but instead prefer establishing committees and councils. They want to be able to punish their enemies and let their friends off, not establish a standard that will be applied to everyone.

One thing you’ll notice if you read Dangerous is that Milo is a much more astute observer than his critics ever give him credit for being. He certainly notices a lot, despite being notoriously self-centered and narcissistic.

Dragon Awards 2017

Congratulations to Larry Correia and John Ringo for winning Best Fantasy Novel for Monster Hunter Memoirs: Grunge. And to Richard Fox, who won Best Military Science Fiction Novel for Iron Dragoons.

The rest of the winners are here. I’m not disappointed about A Sea of Skulls losing out to Larry and John, but I really would have liked to see John C. Wright win in Best YA. But as good as his Moth & Cobweb books are, it was always going to be tough to beat the YA juggernaut that is Rick Riordan.

Too late to worry about it now

Now that whites are learning to play the game properly, the Fake American Left is suddenly wants to change the rules again and give up on identity politics.

Identity politics was conceived and executed from the beginning as a movement of depoliticization. Feminism has become severed from class considerations, so that for the most part it has become a reflection of what liberal identitarians themselves like to call “white privilege.” Feminism, like the other identity politics of the moment, is cut off from solidarity with the rest of the world, or if it deals with the rest of the world can only do so on terms that must not invalidate the American version of identity politics.

For example, because all identities are equally sacrosanct, we must not critique other cultures from an Enlightenment perspective; to each his own, and race is destiny, etc. (Which certainly validates the “alt-right,” doesn’t it?) This failure was noted by neoconservatives some decades ago, a breach into which they stepped with a vigorous assertion of nationalism that should have had no place in our polity after the reconsiderations brought about by Vietnam and Watergate. But it happened, just as a perverted form of white patriotism arose to fulfill the vacuum left by liberal rationality because of the constraints of identity politics.

To conclude, identity politics — in all the forms it has shown up, from various localized nationalisms to more ambitious fascism — desires its adherents to present themselves in the most regressive, atavistic, primitive form possible. The kind of political communication identity politics thrives on is based on maximizing emotionalism and minimizing rationality. Therefore, the idea of law that arises when identity politics engenders a reaction is one that severs the natural bonds of community across differences (which is the most ironic yet predictable result of identity politics) and makes of the law an inhuman abstraction.

This depoliticization has gone on so long now, about 30 years, that breaking out of it is inconceivable, since the discourse to do so is no longer accessible. For anyone trained to think outside the confines of identity politics, those who operate within its principles — which manifests, for example, in call-out culture (or at least it did before Trump) — seem incomprehensible, and vice versa. We are different generations divided by unfathomable gaps, and there is no way to bridge them. The situation is like the indoctrination in Soviet Russia in the 1930s, so that only an economic catastrophe that lays waste to everything, resulting from imperial misadventures, can possibly break the logjam. Short of that, we are committed to the dire nihilism of identity politics for the duration of the imperial game.

The irony of someone called “Anis Shivani” worrying about identity politics in America is downright amusing. Identity politics are the rules of the game in all sufficiently multiracial and multireligious societies. Sort out your identity, build your alliances, pass laws that favor your identity, and screw everyone else.

Shivani uses the word “depoliticization” improperly. What he really means is “deideologicization”.

In any event, identity politics have been baked in the cake since 1965. And it is why the #AltRight is inevitable, regardless of whatever name of the identity is eventually established for white American nationalists.

Back to the Jungle?

I think perhaps the Littlest Chickenhawk is taking this whole Israel First thing a little too far. Kind of racist too, isn’t it?

But at least he’s willing to stand up for his right not to fight for his country.

North Korea ups the ante

The North Koreans send a very strong “back off” message to the USA:

North Korea today detonated a hydrogen bomb sparking a powerful 6.3 magnitude earthquake amid an ‘escalating’ nuclear crisis.

The terrifying tremor was detected in the northeast of the country where the Punggye-ri test site is located – but was so strong that it shook buildings in China and Russia.

State television claimed the country’s sixth nuclear test – 10 times more powerful than its fifth – was a ‘perfect success’ and could pave the way for a frightening new range of missiles loaded with hydrogen bombs. It added that the underground test – which was directly ordered by leader Kim Jong-un – was a ‘meaningful’ step in completing the country’s nuclear weapons programme.

Following the blast Donald Trump slammed North Korea as a ‘rogue nation’ which is a ‘great threat and embarrassment to China’ – finishing with the thinly-veiled threat: ‘They only understand one thing.’

‘He wrote on Twitter: North Korea has conducted a major Nuclear Test. Their words and actions continue to be very hostile and dangerous to the United States. North Korea is a rogue nation which has become a great threat and embarrassment to China, which is trying to help but with little success. South Korea is finding, as I have told them, that their talk of appeasement with North Korea will not work, they only understand one thing!’

This would probably be a very good time to not live anywhere near the East or West Coasts. I’d be astonished if North Korea hasn’t already planted a bomb or two in a Chinese container that is sitting in a US port.

There are no good options here.

Some things don’t change

Mike Glyer reports that someone named Steve J. Wright is “reviewing” A Throne of Bones the way atheists used to do chapter-by-chapter “reviews” of TIA:

Steve J. Wright has assigned himself the quest of reading and blogging about Vox Day’s epic fantasy novel A Throne of Bones and has written half-a-dozen posts this past week. The first is: A Throne of Bones by “Vox Day” – Preamble, on Managing Expectations. Wright doesn’t think much of the writer either as a storyteller or a technician, and all the posts come at the book at an angle similar to this passage in the third post, A Throne of Bones – Chapter 1:

Well.  Basically, in this chapter, Beale is managing to do a little with a lot – his style continues to be ponderous, awkward and clunky, nothing very much happens, and the deficiencies of style lead to the failure of his attempts at characterization – Corvus is clearly meant to be a super-competent military commander, but his laboured and over-long dialogue make him come across as a pompous old windbag instead.

I think that’s the trap – Wright is giving a solid, honest review of something he doesn’t find very interesting. And it’s contagious. When a fanwriter feels contempt for the material he’s discussing, the only way to win is to treat it humorously, because otherwise an audience finds it wearing to keep reading someone taking a superior point of view.

I mentioned this before, and when I did, I was thinking this all reminded me of something else, though. Then, when I saw Glyer’s reference to it, the recollection hit me, almost entirely unlike a cheetah. What it reminded me of is Michael Moorcock’s nominal critique of Tolkien, although, as we know, Moorcock was really just whining about the fact that nearly everyone who is literate prefers Tolkien’s books to his own tedious, poorly-plotted, scrawny little “epics”. And even those who aren’t literate would definitely prefer a Lord of the Rings movie to an Elric one.

Can you even imagine the latter? Ninety minutes of an albino, probably played by Idris Elba these days, repeatedly alternating between self-serving betrayals and self-pitying bouts of weeping. Moorcock’s work didn’t even rise to the level of Harry freaking Potter, never mind the lasting epic greatness of Tolkien.

The sort of prose most often identified with “high” fantasy is the prose of the nursery-room. It is a lullaby; it is meant to soothe and console. It is mouth-music. It is frequently enjoyed not for its tensions but for its lack of tensions. It coddles; it makes friends with you; it tells you comforting lies….

The Lord of the Rings is much more deep-rooted in its infantilism than a good many of the more obviously juvenile books it influenced. It is Winnie-the-Pooh posing as an epic. If the Shire is a suburban garden, Sauron and his henchmen are that old bourgeois bugaboo, the Mob – mindless football supporters throwing their beer-bottles over the fence the worst aspects of modern urban society represented as the whole by a fearful, backward-yearning class for whom “good taste” is synonymous with “restraint” (pastel colours, murmured protest) and “civilized” behaviour means “conventional behaviour in all circumstances”. This is not to deny that courageous characters are found in The Lord of the Rings, or a willingness to fight Evil (never really defined), but somehow those courageous characters take on the aspect of retired colonels at last driven to write a letter to The Times and we are not sure – because Tolkien cannot really bring himself to get close to his proles and their satanic leaders – if Sauron and Co. are quite as evil as we’re told. After all, anyone who hates hobbits can’t be all bad.

You can always tell when gammas with literary ambitions have it in for an author that normal people like. They hone in on the “prose” and the “style” like lasers, because literary style is a sufficiently nebulous and subjective subject to let them natter on about it without risking being disproven. I’ve only seen one of his posts – I have no use for criticism that is not substantive – and saw he had already committed two major howlers with regards to military history and the use of magic. He’d be wise to stick to complaining about the style, which no one has ever claimed is any better than “workmanlike”. Including me.

But let the critics natter on, by all means. This is a big step forward from simply being ignored. The more hate from these circles, the better. I expect that in another few years, they’ll start hedging their bets by starting to mention a few of the positive aspects that presently manage to escape their collective notice. And it would certainly be ironic, to say nothing of highly amusing, if Mr. Wright’s take eventually proved to be as much of an obvious joke as Mr. Moorcock’s.

What’s interesting about all this is that someone who shall remain nameless to protect his reputation, but is a Respected and Well-Known Name in science fiction and fantasy circles, told me some years ago that he expected I would eventually become a leading fantasy writer. I’m not there yet, to be sure, but the notion is considerably less ridiculous than it appeared at the time. I have to admit, I scoffed at it myself, not out of humility, but out of a recognition of my stylistic limitations. Of course, since then, I’ve learned that style is only one of the four major components of a novel, and it is far from the most important one. No one reads Eco or Murakami or Tolkien for their literary styles. If I’m very fortunate, perhaps one day someone will write a hate-review called “The Dichotomy of Day” about me in The Atlantic instead of merely posting it on a personal blog.

Anyhow, should you wish to judge my “ponderous, awkward and clunky” style for yourself, Summa Elvetica & Other Stories is still free.

Black vs Blue and Green

More unexpected consequences of the NFL anthem protests:

There is new fallout from the fierce debate over Cleveland Browns players kneeling during the national anthem. Cleveland safety forces have backed out of a plan to hold a large flag on the field for the opening game.

A dozen Browns players created a firestorm during a recent preseason game by not standing during the anthem. They created the largest demonstration in the NFL during the anthem since former San Francisco quarterback Colin Kaepernick started his protest more than a year ago.

Some police officers and paramedics are doing something about it. The Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association and ILA Local 1975, representing the city’s dispatchers, EMTs and paramedics, said the Browns came to them weeks ago, and the team wanted city safety forces to hold the flag on the field for the opening game.

EMS union president Daniel Nemeth said it sounded great until a group of Browns players took a knee during the anthem.

“This hit home with me. I am a veteran, an 8-year veteran with the U.S. Marine Corps. So, to disrespect the flag by taking a knee is not something I was going to be a part of,” Nemeth said.

We tracked down police union president Steve Loomis out of state at a police convention.

“I’m here at a national police convention, and soon as they hear that I’m from Cleveland, the first question is ‘What about those stinking Browns?’” Loomis said. “So if the ownership of the Browns and the league are going to allow that type of stuff to happen, and then come to us and say,  ‘We want you to help us with the flag,’ that’s hypocritical. We’re not gonna participate.”

At this rate, the sports media should stop worrying about NFL owners ever hiring Colin Kaepernick -which they will never do anyhow – and start worrying about them having him disappeared.

The trials of dark-lording

Nick Flor-ProfessorF‏Verified account @ProfessorF
 The formula for success, has always been: work hard, do excellent work, respect others. Do that and you will overcome most biases.

Supreme Dark Lord‏ @voxday
I find a formula of work hard, do excellent work, behead your enemies, drink their blood, and pile their skulls in the garden works for me.

Spacebunny Day‏ @Spacebunnyday
Yeah, well, it doesn’t work for me.  We have guests coming for a bbq tomorrow – go clean up the garden.

They never tell you about this sort of thing in dark lord school.