Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘growth’

Making The Transition To Monarchy

Saturday, August 12th, 2017

The Alt Right has suggested that monarchies are better than current Western democracies. In an attempt to understand this in the real world as it is today, we can look at some statistics.

The Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) ranks more than a 100 countries on a scale depicting economic productiveness. What is interesting is the following group of countries:

  • Netherlands
  • Finland
  • Canada
  • Australia
  • Sweden
  • Denmark
  • Norway

They have been consistently ranked within the top twenty-two productive countries from 1999 to 2015. Viewed as a group, however, it can be said that there is a slight downward movement of their rankings over time, most likely due to the “two-speed world” where economic growth in emerging countries (like BRICS) are offset by stagnation in the erstwhile developed world.

However, there is another characteristic of these countries: they are monarchical in some form or other.

These monarchies have exerted tremendous influence on the rest of the world for a long time, where for them the economic imperative of growth or stagnation is not particularly interesting, because they are mainly interested in stability and not growth, which is like a treadmill in that when the economy comes to depend on it, it must constantly increase or the economy suffers. Monarchies are notorious for preferring stability, which also avoids the overpopulation, land overuse, and proliferation of cities that is common to growth-based economies.

They have made mistakes of course, but that doesn’t mean the alternative right is wrong with its assessment. The point is that monarchies have in some form or other been stable for a very long time. If anything, what these monarchies suffer from is paying too much attention to the will of the people, which always results in conjectural thinking.

The latest experiment implemented by the West is bringing democracy to the third world, which was rolled out after colonialism was systematically withdrawn. They do this because monarchs are now limited to enforcing democracy in their own nations because they are forced to coexist with this, and to fail to enforce it in the third world is a rejection of the notion that it is good.

Consider Nelson Mandela’s organization the African National Congress (ANC) which was classified as a terrorist organization by America at the same time it was funded by the European countries listed above. The people wanted equality; the monarchs did not want mass revolt and the horrors of the French Revolution or Bolshevik uprising in their countries, so they went along with it.

In the grips of democracy, these first world countries do not realize the productive decline they are suffering because they persist in supporting democracy, despite strong indicators that democracy in South Africa is literally failing by the numbers. Worse, they are doubling down like good SJWs by sponsoring the destruction of monarchies in Mandela-land.

The first world monarchies wants to destroy the concept of their own existence in the emerging world, while they themselves get destroyed back in the first world by the same democracy they are supporting. Where initially they sponsored terror, now they have become the terrorists aiming to destroy other monarchies. This is clearly not stable.

While we may be critical of colonialism in practical terms, our real assault on it comes from democratic notions of the equality of all people and therefore, a need to dedicate ourselves to questing for egalitarianism everywhere. This eliminates self-interest by the first world while encouraging the third world to assert its self-interest at our expense.

This shows us that monarchism and democracy cannot coexist. Democracy forms a mentally addictive pathology that then drives our countries to destroy ourselves at the same time they destroy third world monarchies in the same nations where democracy is entering its death-phase. Democracy has become our obsession, and it is working for neither first nor third world nations.

One way forward would be to do what every scenario planner has refused to do since 1992: implement a monarchy in South Africa. They fear this because traditionalism is viewed as anti-“reform,” but the Alt Right’s view is that the opposite is true. Reform has been proven to lower competitiveness down where traditional societies have been proven as stable.

Perhaps we are, like most groups of people afraid for the future, relying on what seemed to work in the past as crutches. Democracy seemed to win the world wars, and growth-based economies provide the way of life that seemed to make our people happy. As its instability threatens both third and first worlds, however, it makes sense to consider monarchy and stability instead of growth and democracy.

Consumerism Arises From A “Circular Ponzi Scheme”

Thursday, June 15th, 2017

Very few understand the roots of consumerism and assume that it is a natural outgrowth of capitalism. In actuality, consumerism occurs when government regulates capitalism, and is done to create economic growth so that government becomes more powerful. Witness this intense video by Asher Edelman, a famed businessman:

He argues that giving tax breaks to the wealthy results in them spending only 5-10% of the money they are able to conserve, but that giving that money to the underclasses ensures that they will spend all of it and then some, “pump priming” the economy with an infusion of cash.

Government took this further and realized that it could borrow to find this money, then pay off the debt with the resulting increase in the value of its currency based on greater demand for that currency caused by its increased valuation based on perceived greater demand because of higher consumer spending.

This creates a circular Ponzi scheme: government pays citizens, who then buy tons of stuff, at which point the value of currency goes up; government borrows against that currency value, dumps more money on the citizens, then taxes everyone to make government more powerful; finally, it uses that tax money to pay off the loans — in theory — and then repeats the cycle again.

Growth powered by consumerism is responsible for globalism, most of the environmental damage that we have done, and overpopulation. In the name of making government powerful, capitalism and a permanent minority underclass have been employed as weapons of growth, which has resulted in an out-of-control spiral which will eventually crash, and come down hard.

Prole Holiday

Wednesday, June 14th, 2017

Do you see now what democracy has been? It was a prole holiday:

Central to the issue is that the rapid rise in living standards and prosperity of the past 50 years has been largely based on rising debt levels, ignoring the costs of environmental damage and misallocation of scarce resources.

A significant proportion of recent economic growth has relied on borrowed money — today standing at a dizzying 325 percent of global gross domestic product. Debt allows society to accelerate consumption, as borrowings are used to purchase something today against the promise of future repayment. Unfunded entitlements to social services, health care and pensions increase those liabilities. The bill for these commitments will soon become unsustainable, as demographic changes make it more difficult to meet.

The lower classes declared they were equal to the upper classes, overthrew them with the help of the stolid and stupid middle classes who “just wanted” to expand their businesses, and we entered a time of progressively fewer standards and less social order with every generation.

Like any group of people who depend on those above them for any sense of order or decency, the proles quickly threw out the roles regarding reality and began spending recklessly, each decision both a benefit to them directly and indirectly, another feather in their cap for their new autobiographical narrative as being artists, altruists, philanthropists, sages and martyrs.

Preening and plucking like monkeys in the trees of Africa, the proles pushed aside concerns of eventual consequences, and did what made them feel good in the moment. There was only one goal, which was to keep the prole holiday going, and that required that we ignore all hierarchy and differences between people. That symbolic need became a mania, which translated into diversity and transgender fetishism, among other distractions.

So now, the prole holiday comes to an end. The money is spent, and all that we can borrow, besides. The excuses have fallen flat; we see that all of our grand ideas and vast altruistic gestures were, in fact, simply cynical gambits for power. Nothing that the prole holiday has done has made life better, and everything is worse and cheapened, which you only notice if you are not a prole.

Even the compliant press has noticed that the prole holiday has failed. What can possibly lie ahead? The fall of idols, for one. But then we realize that the man behind the curtain is more important than the projections on the screen. And the man behind the curtain is a frightened, neurotic prole, in over his head and acting out his own drama.

In a miasma of debt, bad decisions, failed social institutions and a population so degraded that it refuses to reproduce, the prole holiday ends. It turns out that, a millennium later, what “we” thought was a good idea was in fact a lie. This is what our elders warned about: nature does not tell us when we are wrong. It merely waits for us to fail, and then consumes us.

Leftism Destroys The Environment

Wednesday, May 3rd, 2017

Voicing a sentiment often felt but rarely expressed among the Right, French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen blamed globalization for the environmental crisis in which humanity now finds itself:

The plant, with a workforce of some 400 as well as around 300 sub-contractors, is controversial for dumping toxic waste known as “red mud” into a Mediterranean nature reserve for decades.

…The plant “is a symbol because they want us to believe that the choice is between jobs and health and the environment,” Le Pen told a handful of reporters outside the plant during her previously unannounced stop.

“I’m here to say that… there would not be such a choice to make” under a Le Pen presidency, said the candidate, who blames environmental degradation — and many other woes — on “unbridled globalisation”.

She touches a toe into the wider issue, which is that Leftism is an environmental disaster. Egalitarianism — or “everyone do whatever they want” — is perpetually popular, but it creates the conditions for runaway growth.

With egalitarianism, unity of purpose such as having a healthy civilization is erased and replaced with individual self-interest. In addition, because egalitarianism removes responsibility, it encourages transfer of socialized cost to the group through a process known as “externalization.”

This produces a runaway economy where each person, in a desire to acquire individual wealth, creates a unique business or concern that they own and then extracts wealth from it. This produces incentive to cut corners in order to widen margins, encouraging the habits of bad businesses like dumping “red mud” into the sea.

At the same time, because this creates massive social instability, it puts workers on the defensive because they can no longer rely on jobs to endure through the decades. Terrified of going bankrupt, they become dependent on society for jobs, which ensures that politicians can always win votes by claiming to “create jobs.”

This system can only keep going through constant growth, which branches eventually into immigration and social welfare programs as a means of producing more and more buyers. It will never stop until it consumes all resources because the need of individuals, taken as a group, demands more wealth without limits.

During the past two centuries and change during which Leftism has been steadily gaining dominance as the political system of the industrialized world, old businesses have been “disrupted” so that new people can seek wealth, resulting in a turbulent economy which produces mountains of landfills as it opens and closes temporary businesses.

Since any product which sells is considered a positive thing, the economy simultaneously barfs out any number of worthless junk objects for consumption and discarding by the herd, generating more waste. Governments encourage this through entitlement payments, which give citizens more money to spend on personal items.

Globalization accelerates this process by exporting the runaway Leftist economy to the world, necessitating constant new markets and new sources of cheap labor to keep feeding the growth spiral.

A society with a healthy view of environmentalism would have less individual freedom because that way, people would have roles they could count on for a lifetime, be economically secure and not be caught in this constant whirlwind of growth as a means of sustaining individuals. As always, the enemy is us.

“Service Economy” Means Third World Economy

Tuesday, October 11th, 2016

food_service_workers

The Leftist notion of money is demand-side: if enough people are willing to borrow money, that makes it valuable, and therefore it must be worth something. What they fail to understand is that easy money becomes reduced in value. Such is the case of the “service economy.”

In addition to burdensome regulations and expensive legal bureaucracy like that created by affirmative action, Leftist governance has given us constant immigration, high costs incurred by unions, and a workforce swollen to twice its normal size by the addition of women. This has reduced the value of the worker and sent manufacturing jobs abroad.

The Left seems consummately unaware of the effects of its actions. For example, unions thought they were winning, but instead like inept parasites, they killed the goose that laid the golden egg much as Leftists have bankrupted the West by marginalizing its founding genetic stock who were capable of the great things that made the West great in the past.

Between the rising cost of labor and the increasing cost of doing business, the good jobs have gone to very few. This year it is the Silicon Valley geeks who seem to be getting paid a shedload of money to write bad code, but not for long. A few people get those law, medical, architecture and business degrees, and everyone else lumps it at entry-level positions.

Where once we were making products for our own consumption, we now make very little and usually have the making done abroad with the money at home going to a smaller cadre of administrators and specialists. This has created a slow-growing, “anti-materialist” economy in which equality is occurring through lack of better options:

Productivity in the services tends to grow much more slowly than productivity in making stuff. If the Fed targets inflation at 2%, then a slowdown in measured RGDP growth (whether accurate or not) will lead to lower NGDP growth, and therefore lower nominal interest rates. Thus the zero bound problem in monetary policy is partly due to the fact that young people prefer eating out and surfing the web, to the kind of auto-centered lifestyle once described by Bruce Springsteen or the Beach Boys.

As with every other Leftist policy, liberal economics result in equal impoverishment except for the new elite who comfortably do not much of anything important but get paid quite a bit. This manifests itself in the typical incompetence of our leaders and experts who seem unable to even coherently address obvious problems. The situation is unstable and cannot endure.

Undoing modernity

Monday, December 5th, 2011

As mentioned here several times, the founding illusion of modernity occurred in 1789 when people decided that they could do without specialized leaders.

Instead, it was declared that we are all equal. This means that we pick leaders from among us by voting. 222 years on, it seems this has not worked out so well. Corruption is rife. Leaders lie and are totally detached from what their citizens need.

Even worse, our society has run itself on a collision course with doom. We lowered our standards, dumbed down every test, and now are inundated in stupidity and the stupidity by its superior numbers determines who gets elected, what products will be in stores, and how our cities and jobs are designed.

In short, “freedom” and “equality” brought us servitude to the lowest common denominator.

One thing and one thing alone keeps this sick ship afloat: growth. Since equality is a popular notion, meaning that it appeals to the lowest common denominator in all of us like a catchy but moronic pop song or a McDonald’s “hamburger,” people want in to our society and this makes business grow.

However, this is not business of a solid nature. This is consumerism, or the art of selling stuff to ourselves. We are not exporting or generating wealth. We are selling products to each other, and then making products out of the debt and expectations of the companies that sell the products to us.

If you want a model for the death of a civilization, this is it. It cuts itself off from reality, uses its own internal opinions and desires to keep itself afloat, and grows based on this false wealth — or at least grows until it all comes crashing down.

The most recent recession is not the end-of-the-world most people think it is. Instead, it’s a warning hiccup: our economy is unsustainable because it is based on consumerism, which itself is based on the impulse control issues of our least intelligent citizens.

Economics has developed along a single line of thought, in which individuals, isolated from society, have “preferences” for a collection of goods and are motivated by self-interest to pursue the acquisition, at the lowest prices, of the most goods that their economic circumstances allow. Competing businesses, likewise, pursue maximum profit. Economic theory then “proves” that “markets” will establish prices that lead to the most “efficient” allocation of scarce resources. This will maximise growth for the economy as a whole.

Mainstream economics claims to be “value-free”. Students are cautioned not to mix normative propositions with their “positive” analysis. But self-interest is itself a value. This fact is cleverly disguised by putting forward the theory of consumer choice as a uniquely rational response to economic information such as prices, interest rates, tax rates and the like. Any behaviour not conforming to this theory is deemed irrational; other motivations such as altruism, love, the greater good or aesthetic appreciation are not considered: they are not the province of economics.

Such a value system might be just about tolerable if economics were restricted to a narrow sphere of inquiry. But over the past few decades economics has colonised not only much academic inquiry in the social sciences, but also public debate as a whole. Most notably, it has colonised politics. By giving “scientific” support to programmes of deregulation and privatisation over the past 40 years, it has managed to transform our economic structures to conform to its ideal of free markets, in the belief that competition between rational consumers and producers would enforce “correct” prices and lead to an economic optimum. – The Guardian

Before leftism, the idea that “everyone is equal” was viewed as being about as reliable as a ghost story, superstition, idle gossip or snake oil salesman. It was recognized as wishful thinking, not reality. Early critics pointed out that the idea of equality succeeded because it was vague. What does “equal” actually mean?

Its adherents insist that it means equality of opportunity. In reality, that translates into dumbing down of the entry test to any activity, so that the less equal can keep up with the more equal. Even worse, it means a coarsening of standards so that all can participate. Instead of being able to pick from among smart and complete people, we’re picking whichever of the random citizens can complete tests and file paperwork.

People don’t like to face this, but the “solutions” to this problem offered by Occupy Wall Street (and others) are in fact the same “solutions” that created it. Every aspect of OWS philosophy was first parroted by the French while they were busy guillotining enemies of the state. There is nothing new there.

In fact, consumerism/capitalism and equality/socialism are in bed with one another. Equal people buy more products. Equal people are more willing fodder for the machine. They tell you you’re equal, which is another way of saying you’ll only be accepted as more than irrelevant when you slave away in the machine for awhile.

Growth is fueled by this combined assault of leftism and consumerism. By letting people choose which aspects of reality they prefer, instead of making them face reality, we empower them to make terrible decisions and expect the collective to support them. It does, then regulates, opening loopholes that are exploited.

Estimates on the amount of derivatives out there worldwide vary. An oft-heard estimate is $600 trillion. That squares with Mobius’ guess of 10 times the world’s annual GDP. “Are the derivatives regulated?” asks Mobius. “No. Are you still getting growth in derivatives? Yes.”

In other words, something along the lines of securitized mortgages is lurking out there, ready to trigger another crisis as in 2007-08. – Forbes

You can blame bankers for their conduct, but they’re trying to do the same thing everyone else is doing: get out of this system by becoming more equal enough to be wealthy. When you have real money, you can stop 9-t05ing it and putting up with jerks and boring meetings just to get through a day. You have actual freedom, not just political “freedom.”

Even more importantly, what put bankers into this position to make this crazy wealth? First it was the population in hysterics after the last big recession, demanding that the banks be regulated. Next it was the politicians and bureaucrats promising to keep an eye on them. Finally, it was the banks — squeezed out of some of their other practices — turning to new ways to make money.

Why might they do that? Among other things, because that’s what consumers and stockholders, who are regular folk like you and me who ran out and bought some stock, wanted and continue to want. They want profit. Owning BOFA stock can make money. Having an account at BOFA is cheaper if they’re taking fees from someone else.

We constantly look for a bad guy in our society. This bad guy, ideally, is not one of us. He’s someone driven to do evil and if we can just find him and crush him, all will be good again. Yeah, we’ve tried that. A few hundred times. The bad guys crop up again, usually because our rules encourage them.

The evil is within. Growth is a symptom of the evil, but it also justifies the evil and supports it. As our modern dreams do not turn out as rosy as we expected, people are re-thinking modernity. Part of that is a rejection of growth and equality, and a desire for selectivity and quality instead.

Recommended Reading