Alt-Retard economics

Having seen and heard a few economically illiterate morons pop up and advocate NATIONAL SOCIALISM as some sort of answer to globalism and free trade, I decided that I would take the five minutes required to demonstrate that national socialism is A) not a coherent economic theory or program, B) not a viable economic system, and C) structurally doomed to fail even faster than the current US system is today.

A) National socialism is not a coherent economic theory.

“The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all.”
– Adolf Hitler

B) National socialism is not a viable economic practice.

USA 6-year budget deficit to revenue, 2010-2016
26.8 percent

National Socialist Germany 6-year budget deficit to revenue, 1933-1939
62.9 percent

C) National Socialism was structurally doomed to fail even faster than the current US system is today.

Both the current US system and the historical Nazi systems were dependent upon credit booms. But the Nazi debt-spending was 135 percent worse than the USA’s insanely profligate ways. The ad hoc National Socialist economics meant that the Nazis either had to surrender to the bankers on whom they had declared metaphorical war or engage in material imperialist war to acquire the resources to pay off their rapidly growing debts.

Anyone who advocates national socialism as an economic solution is either totally ignorant or literally retarded. It is even less credible than libertarianism, free trade, or globalism. Frankly, to call it “retarded” is probably a little too generous.

Mailvox: disproof vs positive claim

RS asked about tariffs and wages:

In your second presentation on Free Trade you said that Hazlitt was erroneous in claiming that tariffs would reduce wages in America and you pointed to the fact that wages have reduced since 1973 event though tariffs have largely been eliminated. In any event, I think that the reduction in wages for American workers since that time is due to the large scale importation of foreign workers which seems orthogonal to tariffs.

It is false to claim that tariffs reduce wages. While it is true that the two primary reasons for reduced American wages are a) twice as many women working than before and b) the importation of foreign workers, the fact is that reduction of tariffs has not increased wages. Perhaps more to the point, wages in China have risen from 445 CNY to 67569, most of this prior to the relaxation of tariff rates in 2010.

It is difficult to separate the various effects, but the point is that we do not see the inverse tariff/wage relationship upon which Hazlitt in part bases his case.

Meanwhile, DH found himself troubled by the thoughts my previous Darkstream raised:

Your recent dark-stream is quite thought provoking. I had difficulty putting my mind at rest enough to fall asleep until way past my usual bedtime. The points you made resonate with me as true, however the argument is left begging for more.

Your reaction to comments stood out as thought provoking as well. While I do not consider myself to be particularly bright on an absolute scale, I have no idea what my I.Q. is. I find it does not require a great deal of intelligence to be frustrated with and isolated from most of those around me.  I relate to your frustration, though I wish it didn’t keep you from completing your thoughts.

Even if we could distill all the best aspects of every “ism” into one best of all “isms”, it would not be accepted upon pain of death either by the elites or their devoted subjects.

The point that I am making is not that communism is good or desirable. It is merely that global free markets and individual sovereignty is incompatible with the survival of both nation and family. It is not an accident that so many globalists are childless individuals with unusual family situations; even the modestly successful expat communities tend to be mostly populated by rootless transients upon whom one can hardly expect to successfully build a society, let alone a civilization.

What passes for global society is intrinsically parasitical, if not downright predatory, and therefore cannot possibly serve as a sound foundation in itself. Globalism requires that cows first transform themselves into wolves, and then, after that impossibility is successfully accomplished, learn to eat grass.

Darkstream: Free Trade part 2

Finally got around to addressing this in tonight’s Darkstream. Hit 13 of Henry Hazlitt’s 23 errors on free trade, which longtime readers already know. I also slapped down a Nazi larper who suggested “national socialism” as an alternative to free trade; one of these days I’m going to have to do an analysis of the Nazi economic program to make the absurdity of it clear to those who can’t move beyond the binary world of “communism bad, ergo expansionary Teutonic supremacy good.”

Adieu, Paris

Trump rejects “another scheme to redistribute wealth out of America” in pulling out of the 2015 Paris Accord on unicorns.

I mean, “climate change”.

“Our withdrawal from the agreement represents a restoration of America’s sovereignty.”

Bilderberg targets Trump

One wonders if the God-Emperor intends to return the favor if the globalists genuinely move against him.

Sources close to the elitist Bilderberg Group conference tell Infowars that globalists see their agenda as being in “deep trouble” and that Donald Trump poses a “dangerous” risk to the international order and must be brought to heel or turfed out of office.

Over the years, Infowars has developed sources close to the conference who feed us information ahead of time as to the real agenda behind the confab, not just the vague list of topics released officially by Bilderberg.

Given that this is the first year since both Brexit and Trump came to pass, the effort to derail both is very much the primary focus of discussion amongst globalists in attendance this week.

The reason that three members of the Trump administration – HR McMaster, Wilbur Ross and Chris Liddell have been invited to attend this year’s meeting in Chantilly, Virginia is that Bilderberg thinks there is still a chance to put pressure on Trump to force him to back down on his America-first agenda.

With the U.S. about to pull out of the Paris climate agreement, Trump is “dangerously obsessed” with derailing the current world order, according to one Bilderberger, a fear that has intensified since Trump chided world leaders at the G7 summit last week.

Globalists are baffled as to Trump’s “erratic” style of governance and are panicked that he could undo decades of work they put in to build the new world order.

The globalist elitists STILL haven’t figured out that their agenda isn’t in deep trouble due to Trump, or Duterte, or Babymetal, but because it simply isn’t viable and does not function the way they believed it does.

And if they are seriously conspiring to overthrow the legally elected President of the United States, well, that’s literal treason.

Immigration and taxation

Interesting to observe that immigration has not only harmed the USA by making it less wealthy by lowering per capita wages, but also by significantly increasing per capita taxes.

By 1965, the fiscal year Lyndon Johnson beat Barry Goldwater, the federal government collected about $116.817 billion in taxes from a population of about 194,302,963. That year federal taxes equaled about $601 per capita — or $4,578 in 2016 dollars.

In fiscal 2016, according to OMB, the federal government collected about $3.268 trillion in taxes. That equaled about $10,114 for each of the 323,127,513 people in the country.

There can no longer be any doubt that mass immigration is not only an economic negative for a nation, but is severely destructive in multiple senses.

Alt-Right is inevitable

A cuckservative finally realizes that moral posturing is no substitute for fighting back:

If you’re in a fight with someone, and you never do anything but parry blows and dodge, you can at least hope for him to tire himself out.

But he’ll have regained his endurance by the next morning. And, as he actually enjoys just throwing blows at you, and you’ve done nothing to convince him this is a counterproductive idea — he will be back.

If you never actually hit him right the fuck back — when is he ever going to learn that fighting is not a good idea?

Many of us — and I blame myself here — have been pushing an idea of unilateral disarmament in this arena, hoping they would just learn how awful and venomous they are.

But they don’t. I think they take a rather different lesson from our passive resistance than the one they intended.

We intended that by passively resisting, they would see us as showing moral courage and would learn from us that ceaseless violence and bullying and collectivized political campaigns run against everyday citizens pursuing no public office are wrong.

But they didn’t learn that.

What our self-restraint has taught them is quite the opposite–when we refuse to fight back, they take that as signalling that deep down, we know they’re right and that we are the monsters, and thus, our refusal to engage them in the fight they’ve started does not prove our moral rightness, but instead our moral corruption.

These people would have saved themselves a lot of time and frustration by simply reading SJWAL. And it’s going to take them more time, and more SJW lunacy, before they actually start fighting. Even in this post, Ace feels the need to virtue-signal about how he doesn’t want to fight, and he laments discovering that it is necessary to do so.

He shouldn’t. The Alt-Right enjoys the conflict. We love it when they hand us yet another excuse for a reprisal. We are the happiest of warriors and we like nothing better than to see our enemies in full, panicked flight before us.

The Alt-Right is inevitable because everyone who doesn’t join it will have submitted to the social justice Left. And not every cuck and con and libertarian and liberal is willing to do that. We’re not going to convince them. The SJWs are, because they’re certainly not going to stop on their own.

Darkstream: why Communism is better than free markets

This one should amuse the VFM. I sort of lost my patience with the midwits and binary thinkers who think that the correct way to respond to someone saying something original is to quote conventional boilerplate of the sort that anyone who is even half-educated already knows. Anyhow, it should also interest those of an economic bent, as in the course of explaining the observation that Communism is better for a nation in the long-term than liberal democratic capitalism, (the what, if you will) I was able to explain the economic reasons why that always had to be the case.

This doesn’t mean that socialism isn’t economically retarded; it is. But it is that very retardation that tends to protect a nation from the ravages of the global free markets. And if you’re tempted to respond that the global markets aren’t truly free, well, watch the Darkstream first.

It might help to remember the fact that X being better than Y does not mean that X is either good or desirable in itself.

The superiority of a conceptual model

John C. Wright answers the question and points to what he styles the more rational model.

“Do you have any suggestions for finding faith? I see the necessity of religion, and Christianity in particular, but aside from history and cultural affinity I don’t have actual belief.”

My suggestion: Pray.

Also, consider that the Christian worldview is more coherent, robust, and rational than any secular worldview.

Our model explains things such as why stars look fair and beautiful to our eyes when it serves no credible Darwinian purpose to do so.

Our model explains the naturalistic fallacy, that is, the gap between ‘is’ and ‘ought’ which secular philosophy cannot explain, and some cannot even address.

Our model explains how free will can exist inside a deterministic universe. A materialist cannot even formulate the question in a rational way.

Our model explains why humans seek beauty. Social-evolutionary explanations for this are less convincing than astrology.

Our model explains how creatures with free will capable of grasping intellectual abstractions can arise in a universe which contains no such thing as intellectual abstractions.

Our model allows investigation of final causes in nature, without which nature cannot properly be understood.

Our model explains the prevalence of so many theists throughout history. The theory that over nine tenths of mankind, including some of the most brilliant thinkers in their age, were raving lunatics who hallucinate about imaginary sky beings is not credible and not supported by evidence.

Our model explains the various miracles and supernatural wonders that are in the older history books, and which, for no scientific reason, were excised from being reported.

Our model explains both why there is a plurality of religions and why there are striking similarities between them.

Our model explains the origin of the universe. By definition, if the universe were all that existed, exists and ever will exist, than a material cause for it is impossible.

Our modern explains the current hegemony of the West and makes clear the meaning and purpose of what otherwise seems like insane and suicidal attempts by the apparently sober and sane men on Left to undermine and destroy it.

There is more there. It’s interesting to note that Tara McCarthy observed that for her, a non-believing nationalist, the most compelling evidence for Christianity is the globalists’ irrational hatred and fear of it. As I’ve recommended in the past, look hard at evil. Look as deeply and directly at it as you can bear.

And once you realize that it is real, material, self-aware, and intelligent, if that’s not enough to cause you to turn to Jesus Christ in humble repentance and gratitude, well, chances are that you’ll learn to fear God in a very different manner.

They’ve got nothing

Literally nothing. And they know it now too:

The spell worked its magic for three decades. For three decades humanity believed in the blessings that globalization would bring in its wake. It was assumed that in the end everyone involved will benefit when we remove regulations, when corporations become ubiquitous throughout the world, when the banks have lots of money, when tax havens exist, and of course when government stays out of our hair. What prevailed was the primacy of the economy, whether in Herne, New York or Shenyang. It was as simple as that.

But times have changed. Once considered to be the High Temple of market dogma, the mighty financial world was about to collapse ten years ago, before it had to be rescued by – surprise – the rest of us.

What also collapsed was the myth that markets can regulate themselves. Simmering unrest emerged, borne by diffuse fears, half-knowledge and justifiable rejection of what has gone wrong with globalization. It became an opportune time for con men and authoritarians.

We now see a void that cannot be remedied by trying to fix details. What the world needs instead is a new leitmotif, a new guiding concept. We indeed need it before populists of all stripes fill this void by inciting people against each other. Time is of the essence….

The greatest promise has remained unfulfilled: Half of the Americans today have seen stagnating or even significantly lower real incomes since 1989. In Germany, there are 40 percent who are less well-off in real terms, and half of Germans possess practically no wealth. And nearly one in four Germans works for little pay. Such enormous wealth gaps between the rich and the poor existed in the nineteenth century as well.

Depending on the calculation, progress has thus by-passed a third to half of the population. The Americans and Britons were the first to be jolted by this development through the election victories of Trump and Brexit. Ironically it is those very countries who most eagerly followed the mantra of the free markets that are now confronted with Industry 0.0 and social division. Meanwhile, IMF experts are having to concede that capital markets are probably not so efficient after all. And the once orthodox-liberal OECD is only defining growth these days as good growth if it benefits the poor.

The myth of the past has become passé. What is missing is the new, powerful concept…. What we need to find is a unifying formula to define the new paradigm: the leitmotif.

Finding it is a tremendous challenge. It cannot be as simple as the market-works-wonders formula. Yet it must be simple enough to make it plausible to everyone. The solution probably lies somewhere in the middle: in a better controlled, enlightened globalization that can do without the compulsion to standardize everything throughout the world. What is needed is a new balance of liberties with built-in safeguards against excesses. And an environment in which politicians can again shape and decide on policies instead of rescuing banks or states without having much choice in the matter.

The great irony is that the author quite clearly doesn’t realize that “the myth of the past” was a con all along, and what he’s begging for is a new and improved con from the same set of con artists.