Posts Tagged ‘the goose that laid the golden egg’

Economists Argue For “Growth Through Cost”

Friday, July 14th, 2017

Almost all Leftist theory is highly convoluted and articulated, but when you drill down into it, you find fundamentally mistakes about how the world works incorporated at its core as assumptions.

For example, economists fundamentally misunderstand the nature of economies when they argue that open borders will provide us with a $78 trillion windfall:

“Open borders would make foreigners trillions of dollars richer,” observes Mr Caplan. A thoughtful voter, even if he does not care about the welfare of foreigners, “should not say…‘So what?’ Instead, he should say, ‘Trillions of dollars of wealth are on the table. How can my countrymen get a hefty piece of the action?’ Modern governments routinely use taxes and transfers to redistribute from young to old and rich to poor. Why not use the same policy tools to redistribute from foreign to native?” If a world of free movement would be $78trn richer, should not liberals be prepared to make big political compromises to bring it about?

…Workers become far more productive when they move from a poor country to a rich one. Suddenly, they can join a labour market with ample capital, efficient firms and a predictable legal system. Those who used to scrape a living from the soil with a wooden hoe start driving tractors. Those who once made mud bricks by hand start working with cranes and mechanical diggers. Those who cut hair find richer clients who tip better.

I admit to some sleight-of-hand editing here in that I placed the conclusion of the article first, and then stuck the actual argument after it. The argument is this: poor people move to rich countries, and earn more money, so those rich countries are now richer.

Spotting the flaw in this logic is not hard, if you are not relying on the idea of one-dimensional categories. Each of those newcomers displaces a native worker and incurs a cost through the wages they must be paid. Even if the native workers move up a level, like from ditch-digger to clerk, this does not change, and in fact gets worse because they also must be paid higher salaries.

Economics is not a zero-sum game but it is not an infinite blank check either. To make new wealth, you must introduce new productivity and a new market. Creating an artificial market for labor, as these economists propose, simply takes from what is existing, recycles it through a scheme, and then claims to have created wealth because the money is in motion.

We might call this “economic growth through cost”: if new workers show up, and you need to pay them, then this constitutes economic “growth” but the economists do not mention the secondary and tertiary effects which obliterate that growth and send the society into a downturn, nor that the growth was only on paper in the first place.

Their thinking resembles another bad economic theory, broken window theory:

The broken window theory states that a broken window adds value to the economy because a replacement must be purchased and that puts money into the economy. Under this type of theory, politicians “create jobs” with regulation and welfare money grows the economy. It is the basis of our new hybrid of socialism and capitalism that relies on re-financialized debt, or the selling of obligations as if they were of positive value.

In other words, if you need more money, just break something and then someone will have to be paid to work on it. This is crypto-socialism at its most obscure, in that the idea is that externalities of socialized cost — a broken window — somehow produce wealth instead of seeing them as what they are, which is a loss of wealth through obligation to pay for something that does not generate future income.

The same is true of immigration. It does not generate future income at any significant level, and instead, simply takes from the existing society and then forces that society to pay its underqualified people even more money, which creates an internal circular Ponzi scheme that guts the society by building a consumer economy on an underclass, at which point quality descends and the middle class is destroyed by taxes that pay for this increasingly-needy underclass as it collapses.

Societies destroy themselves this way. In order to avoid class warfare, which always arises from lower castes against higher, they bribe the lower castes with subsidies. This simply delays and worsens the problem by making the underclasses swell, and this group does not understand things like the government running out of money. “Just print more!” they will say and consider themselves wise for doing so.

Economists are like scientists: they have no special magic; they are simply people who went through degree programs. At that point, their only obligation is to sell themselves, which means coming up with a theory that tells people what they want to believe. Some try to balance this with reality, but the vast majority, as in all human groups, do not.

In advancing theories like the above, they engage in something we might call “the fundamental fallacy,” which is the belief by human beings that they can do whatever they want and it will not have any negative side-effects (unintended effects) on the world; the world will remain as it was when they were children.

That mentality allows them to make the mistake of cutting open the goose that laid golden eggs. Their goose is the Western European population of America, which by not doing the same stupid stuff every other group was doing, made a prosperous nation and staffed it with intelligent, moral and capable people.

Economists of the “let’s get famous” variety ignore that the source of America’s wealth, like Europe’s wealth, is its people, and not just any people, but those with the grit and foresight to make this place out of wilderness populated by uncivilized third world people. America’s wealth came from its human raw material, and this is not an infinite resource, because as it is diluted, it loses its power.

When you read between the lies, this fawning article about the “free” $78 trillion that economists just found lying on the sidewalk — the article literally begins with that metaphor — starts to become clear as not free money, but free costs, while removing the source of your wealth. They have hoodwinked people for generations with this type of shell game theory, but maybe not for forever.

Where to go after Trump

Tuesday, September 22nd, 2015


Donald Trump, being a businessman, saw an economic market in ideas. Some were common and mostly wrong but partly right, and others were more correct. Generally, the more correct has less value because fewer recognize it, but as a crisis deepened — mass immigration threatening to wipe out the character and peoples of the US and EU — Trump saw the idea had ripened for public consumption.

As a result, he broke the taboo barrier on mentioning immigration, which was previously tied to race, which since WWII has been a sacred concept for leftists, mostly because it kicks open any door with a compliant post-Civil War US court system behind it. The left in its own theory refers to the racial issues as a subset of class issues, and treats them as it treated class warfare: a means of arguing that the powers above are unjust, and therefore must relinquish more control. The scope of what is relinquished always widens, and mainstream conservatives stay busy defending the economy against the truly outrageous socialist ideas. As a compromise to achieve that effect, they have ceded the field on all racial debates to leftist rhetoric.

Naturally this situation cannot endure. A slow retreat is still a retreat, and enemies only allow their opposites to retreat when it is advantageous. Even more, leftists have out-maneuvered the conservatives by attacking the core concepts of conservatism such as hierarchy, culture, purpose and noticing of reality. Racial class warfare is being used in order to attack these and not on its own merits, as one can tell when observing liberals rush home to gated whitopias at the end of each workday. And yet, so far conservatives have refused to attack the core of this doctrine, which is class warfare through wealth transfer and replacement of the stubbornly conservative Western European population.

Trump changed this. He announced a strong stand against illegal immigration and has been surging in the polls ever since. If the Republican establishment cannot find a technical reason to block him, he will be their candidate by virtue of having outpaced all of the others on this single issue alone. Trump has let the cat out of the bag however. Seventy years of being unable to talk about race in Western European nations has gone out the window. As some political scientists have it, Trump has widened the Overton Window:

At any one time, some group of adjacent policies along the freedom spectrum fall into a “window of political possibility.” Policies inside the window are politically acceptable, meaning officeholders believe they can support the policies and survive the next election. Policies outside the window, either higher or lower, are politically unacceptable at the moment. If you shift the position or size of the window, you change what is politically possible.

This means that a ripple effect is in motion: one taboo falls, and then taboos linked to it fall as well, because they have been proven to be less than impregnable. People have wanted to talk about these topics for over a half-century, but the leftist grip on media, academia and government has been so strong that such dissident voices were systematically marginalized. Their lives were destroyed by SJW-style gang tactics, and their works were hounded out of bookstores, colleges and from mention in the news. The left knew their strategy depended on keeping these ideas taboo and so they were militant about excluding them. Once one voice spoke up, however, the rip in the fabric of their information boycott has begun to tear.

Already people are speaking more loudly about not just illegal immigration, but immigration more broadly. The question that we have asked for almost a decade on this blog, namely whether diversity can work at all, has collapsed under the assault of the Putnam study, Ferguson, Boston, and common sense. The wisdom of our ancestors recites itself from the grave: no two groups can occupy the same space without destroying each other, even if by passive means, which the left is struggling to put into a separate category other than “genocide,” with minimal success. We are being replaced. This is being done to advance the leftist agenda of total ideological control. This is not an issue about “freedom,” but survival.

Some writers, Ann Coulter in particular, have further widened the Window by speaking more broadly about the problem of replacing Western Europeans with third world populations. She has come close to the sensible viewpoint adopted by nationalists worldwide which is that replacement is genocide, and the traits of the original population will not exist. If you mix America and Mexico, you get Mexico. In fact, if you mix anything together, you get a third world nation, almost all of which are mixed-ethnic, with Brazil being the most archetypal example. Americans are not lining up to move there; in fact the reverse is true: most Brazilians would come here if they could.

This leads to the question of what comes next. Thanks to brave people like Trump and Coulter, the question of whether we should just like back and let the illegal immigration wave sweep us into oblivion has been put on the table. But that troubling word “illegal” seeks to mask the real issue, which is that any third world immigration — in fact, any immigration from places other than the sources of our nativist Western European populations — will replace us and by doing so destroy us. We are facing genocide in the US and EU alike. This is the issue that conservatives are warming up to, but they move very slowly.

For seventy years we have approved immigration, anti-discrimination and affirmative action programs in the theory that the result would be the same America we knew and loved, but with tolerance for other peoples to live among us. Now we realize that they cannot live among us without self-destructing, and that genetics is destiny. If you fill a place with Mexicans, it becomes Mexico; if you fill it with Western Europeans, it becomes like Western Europe. We are destroying America by making it into Brazil, Mexico or any of a dozen other mixed-race countries who are struggling to survive despite typical third-world levels of corruption, filth, criminality and social disorder.

The new target for conservatives is self-preservation. We attempted diversity; it failed; we now see that this failure came about through structural means, i.e. a paradox in the concept of diversity itself that causes it to destroy societies, and cannot be cured by the usual formula of more subsidies, “education” and laws. We should no longer be using the word illegal to describe immigration, but immoral. Immigration, diversity and tolerance are part of the same leftist class warfare platform that aims to replace us. We are the target.

Most of the world would come to the US and EU if they could. On paper, in the short-term, it seems a smart move: go where the money, law and order, social order and hygiene are. But like the children’s tale The Goose That Laid the Golden Egg, having everyone come here — and they outnumber us twenty to one — will simply destroy those things and create more third world. Then the one example of how not to end up in third-world status will be dead and gone, and the entire earth will be covered in a uniform blanket of impoverished, low IQ, criminal and filthy humanity. If there are any among them who have not succumbed to that level, those will be the next targets of the angry mob. Crowdism manifests as liberalism in the first world, but in the third world, it approximates more closely its native state of the torch-carrying mob.

Donald Trump kicked open the door. Overnight, almost a century of liberal propaganda and control fluttered away and now we can breathe independently and talk about these topics again. Other doors must also fall, and if as liberals say we cannot have a democratic society that is not diverse, we have to paint the word DEMOCRACY on yet another door. Our task is simple. Either we overcome this wrong turn in history, or we die, and then everything else that offers hope to humanity dies as well. No task is more important than this, which is why the taboos were so strong — until now.

Recommended Reading