Furthest Right

Bidenomics: The Wealth Transfer Economy

Rightism consists of a simple idea: nature is wise, therefore we need to pay attention to its patterns, and order our own selves and societies to take advantage of these natural tendencies or principles of the universe.

Leftism on the other hand is a messianic conjectural religion. It begins with an “if,” namely that if morality is more important than reality and Utopia occurs through equality, we should discard everything else and put all of our efforts into working toward that goal.

At some level, it is simply a failure of thinking. There is no one thing that makes everything better; life is as it is, and never really changes, although we can improve our lot within it through have better sanity, organization, institutions, hierarchy, wisdom, and technology.

Leftists in that view represent the worst of the bourgeois mentality of wanting subsidized anarchy with babysitters. They want someone else to take care of all of the problems of life so that individuals need do nothing more than go to jobs and buy things.

The solipsistic human brain — smart enough to reason, not smart enough to avoid rationalization — desires a universe of its own if not disciplined and experienced, therefore it seeks to abolish nature and reality and replace it with a human world which is “safe” and makes the individual powerful.

People do not want to think about death, or how it might have positive aspects; they do not want to think about their own organs, their unstable minds, or nature “red in tooth and claw” which operates in ways that make us squeamish and terrified.

They want to think about the world through the filter of socializing. They understand peer pressure and how to work with it; they also understand how to draw attention to themselves, force others to work with them, and use rules and justifications to achieve what they want or block others from doing the same.

For that reason, your average bourgeois — people with the moralism of cities — person simply wants a powerful warlord to run everything, fix everything, and tax them for the privilege so that the individuals have zero obligation to anything but what they want right now.

This creates for them one fear, which is that someone will know better and point out that the conjecture at the heart of liberalism is in fact nonsense. No one thing makes everything better. For this reason, liberal economies self-destruct over time and leave third world level ruins.

Consequently, Leftism has always been obsessed with scapegoating and revenge. If someone has more money, competence, power, ability, sanity, health, or beauty, this person must be humbled and brought down to the level of the crowd, or the Utopian dream will not work.

Permanent civilization suffers this disorder because it keeps around people who are discontented. Mobile civilizations leave them behind because they are useless. But if someone can keep going to a job, buying stuff with credit cards, and voting in elections, permanent civilizations keep them around.

It is not surprising that early civilizations saw demons as merely bad demigods trying to steal whatever they could, but permanent civilizations become fixated on Satan-like figures who are scapegoats for all that is wrong in the world. This fits in the victimhood pathology and revenge against the rich narrative.

The Leftist impulse toward revenge leads to a wealth transfer economy, based on government taking most of the money in taxes and giving it to those with less so that, in the socialist style, everyone is “equal” in legal, social, and financial terms.

Like his inspiration Carter, the current resident of the White House intends to use wealth transfer to do what The New York Times Leftists agree is the future: world government, world socialism, and democracy with civil rights and taboos against undemocratic thought to keep this government in power.

We now see the Regime propaganda machine warming up to tell us how great Bidenomics is:

The U.S. economy is now pulling off what all these experts said was impossible: strong growth and record employment amidst plummeting inflation. And just as importantly, thanks to Bidenomics, the fruits of economic prosperity are inclusive and broad-based, amidst a renaissance in American manufacturing, investment, and productivity.

Consider some of the headline economic statistics released the last few days, on top of the GDP release. At 3%, inflation is now at its lowest since the pandemic, down from its peak of nearly 10% of last year. Commodity prices have plummeted by at least 50% across the board, ranging from energy, food, agriculture, and metals. Some such as lumber are down a stunning 95% in a year. Even gasoline prices, which have ticked up slightly in the last few weeks, are now lower than pre-Ukraine conflict levels.

Meanwhile, the unemployment rate of 3.7% is at a 54-year low, and the unemployment rate has stayed below 4% for the longest stretch in the last 50 years despite the Fed raising interest rates from 0 to 5.5% in a year. The last time this nation saw such good employment news, LBJ was the President and Bonanza was the top show on TV.

Consider those headlines carefully. We have a drop in inflation for now, but not to levels that ameliorate the incredible rise over the past three years which has amounted to the loss of a third of the value of our currency.

What about those jobs and unemployment? Let us consider that this, like most government programs, is actually a disguised subsidy, “giving” jobs to those who cannot do them, leading to the competence crisis through employment wealth transfer:

In February 2020, the high-water mark before the emergence of the coronavirus, there were 152.5 million people working. In August, the first month to pass the February 2020 level, there were 152.8 million employed. In September, the figure topped 153 million for the first time on record.

Yet digging into the numbers, we see that the recovery has not been uniform. White Americans, male and female, are still employed at lower rates than they were before the pandemic emerged.

In other words, the centralized command economy caused by government regulations, subsidies, and payments has knocked White people out of jobs so that it could employ minorities, which in the theory of pacifist egalitarianism makes the country stronger by eliminating conflict between have-nots and haves.

If we dig a little farther, we can see that this is an “economic recovery” in the Soviet style, driven entirely by government spending:

The impact of legislative accomplishments is already working its way into the economy. The $1.2 trillion Infrastructure and Jobs Act is creating 15 million new jobs across all 50 states, with 80% of those jobs requiring no more than a high school diploma (not even including secondary downstream jobs such as in offices and retail services).

Furthermore, the Infrastructure Act prioritizes buy-in-America sourcing, as well as union workers, further bringing well-paying industrial and manufacturing jobs back to America. The $738 billion Inflation Reduction Act is not only lowering costs for healthcare and energy but also investing $391 billion in clean energy technologies which will create millions of jobs across every geographic region. And the $500 billion CHIPS Act is securing and reshoring sensitive U.S. technological supply chains where we rely on East Asia for 75% of our chip supply and has catalyzed another $300 billion in private sector investment across dozens of new domestic semiconductor foundries.

The victimhood mentality leads to societies like this: they take from the competent to give to the less competent, at which point no one of competence is in power and the real wealth of the civilization, its high IQ populations and functional institutions, is depleted.

Then the recession kicks in and takes the form of a sort of permanent malaise like we saw after the French Revolution. No one does much at their jobs, since these are entitlements and not opportunities in their psychological outlook. Politically selected people take leadership roles instead of the best.

As a result, the society becomes incompetent at the lower levels. Its leaders may still be intelligent, but they are commanding a social structure which cannot respond to needs at lower levels, therefore commands come out from on high but are never fully able to be obeyed.

This cuts to the core of the Affirmative Action debate as well as the question of egalitarian moralism. Affirmative Action says that we should hire people based on political needs, instead of competence. This rapidly replaces a White workforce with a diversity workforce that has not been selected for competence.

In egalitarian moralism, it is important to treat the good and bad alike, “equal good to everyone.” This expands on the Christian idea that we should be good to the good and good to the bad, because in a religion with a personal god, all that matters is how nice you are.

The pagan and mobile civilization notion, namely “good to the good, bad to the bad,” follows natural selection and original human morality, which is functionalism. Keep the useful people, and drive off the incompetents, criminals, retards, perverts, and idiots.

This reasoning takes an economic attitude toward inequality: we get better value by having the competent in power, so reward them more, and let everyone else enjoy the “commons” of functional institutions, stable economies, working technologies, strong military, and new inventions that the competent create.

Egalitarians must be anti-realistic in order for their philosophy to make sense to themselves because they are denying nature, which is actually mathematics. Some will be better at some things than others, so those end up more powerful than others, which is the “inequality” that Leftists bemoan.

The great class war in the West that has caused our decline can thus be seen as a mass theft by the have-nots. They want to trade the competence of civilization for what benefits them in the short term, so that they can do what they want and maintain an absence of conflict.

The conflict that they fear is a natural striving for achievement, which is different than competition as we think of it now. Achievement means someone will be the first to climb Everest; competition means that someone else sets up the rules and methods by which something can be achieved, and whoever conforms most wins.

Our original leadership hierarchy got into that position through achievement and maintained it via achievement, creating the natural inequality that Leftists detest. Despite calls for social mobility, competence wins out in nature:

Prof. Clark found that social status is about 75 percent heritable between generations. In the West, this figure holds for all historical eras, all social systems and all ranks of society; it holds for income, wealth, education and longevity. Most surprising of all, there has been no dramatic rise of social mobility in modern times; previous scholars have both overestimated the degree of social mobility we enjoy today and underestimated that which existed in earlier times.

The Marxists are right: Something “looking suspiciously like social class” still exists. However it is not a result of the “capitalist mode of production” that could be eliminated through revolution. Instead, social status is passed on much like a genetic trait; it remains constant under all sorts of social and political systems.

How did Prof. Clark reach such a conclusion after thousands of sociologists had missed it? He followed the fortunes of particular surnames over the course of centuries, whereas previous studies of social mobility looked at changes in status over two, or at most three, generations. Status always involves a sizable element of chance, which artificially inflates the appearance of social mobility over just a generation or two. Hence, previous sociologists had estimated the heritability of status at around 40 percent. Using larger datasets over many generations is like calculating a moving average: It cancels out the short-term effects of chance. The picture that emerges is one of considerable short-term social mobility that masks longer-term stability and slow change.

The Left seeks to abolish this at class, ethnic, and racial levels by dumbing down the standards so that people can be promoted based on political reasons, just as the Soviets did with Party membership in order to exclude anyone but True Believers.

To the have-nots, hierarchy created by achievement is discriminatory, since it keeps the have-nots from having what the haves have, which would be given to them through the power of a centralized command economy instead of coming naturally as a result of achievement.

Consequently, paralleling the Biden effort to make diversity the center of his regime, the have-nots conceal their actual agenda, which is revenge on the haves by forcing lowering of standards so that equality can be forced upon the population:

New York City Police Department was fighting lawsuits over “discriminatory” test results thirty years ago. Police, fire, and other municipal departments all over the country have been similarly affected across an entire generation.

Attempted solutions have included every kind of rigging and “race-norming” of results, the dumbing-down of the tests to a point where well-nigh everyone passes (candidates then being promoted by lottery or straightforward race quotas), the hiring of expensive consultants to devise bias-free tests, or just giving up on tests altogether, as New Haven has now done …

The unhappy fact is that different ethnic groups exhibit different profiles of results on tests. Attempts to devise a test on which this does not happen have all failed, across decades of effort, criticism, and analysis.

Naturally, lowering standards leads to a competence crisis. The competent are ejected for not having the right political characteristics, and the people who take over are less competent because they were selected for political reasons and not their competence.

This shows us how Bidenomics is actually doing: everyone on the Left champions it to the point of being willing to look at current data and ignore the much bigger longterm damage, simply because Bidenomics appeals to them for political reasons, just like the Carter years did.

In reality, what Bidenomics has done is create an economy essentially controlled and subsidized by government, which means that as soon as the subsidies end, its added sectors like green energy and affirmative action hiring will collapse, leading to a bigger recession.

Others have noticed this move to “state capitalism” which like mixed economy and market socialism refers to a socialist-capitalism hybrid, but in this case, depicts one where centralized subsidies create a command economy in the Chinese model:

Mr. Sullivan cites the “massive” subsidies that China has made in the “key industries of the future, like clean energy, digital infrastructure, and advanced biotechnologies.” This isn’t criticism. It’s admiration. The rest of the speech explains why the U.S. needs to adopt the Chinese government’s investment model. And this was inside the context of China’s Xi Jinping’s reasserting the state’s foot on its top private companies, such as Alibaba.

The “investment model” being described is government subsidy of industries for ideological reasons as a method of Keynesian “pump priming,” similar to what existed under FDR and LBJ in America that resulted in a fundamental transformation towards government control of the economy.

Affirmative action, regulations, lawsuits created by statute, and high taxes are all drivers of this form of total control which was well-known even in the age of the ancient Greeks. When government takes in a substantial amount of money, it pays it out, too, and determines winners and losers that way.

Much of Bidenomics involves subsidies for vital industries that make them dependent on government and therefore, places them under centralized ideological control. This also follows the China model of a state-controlled economy used to enforce ideological goals, much like deplatforming and political correctness in the West:

The U.S. has embarked on the most sweeping foray into industrial policy—the use of government resources to help favored sectors—in generations. Congress has enacted hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies for semiconductors, renewable energy and infrastructure. President Biden, like President Trump before him, has used tariffs, export controls and “buy American” policies to both bolster domestic industries and counter China.

The Biden administration’s Chips and Science program is funneling about $53 billion toward semiconductor manufacturing and development. The Inflation Reduction Act might ultimately offer $1 trillion in aid to renewable energy. The Energy Department has $400 billion in lending authority at its disposal.

In fact, the core of Bidenomics seems to be this tax-subsidy control apparatus. Instead of waiting to see what works, government has determined that it will sponsor what makes The New York Times readers in coastal cities swoon because it seems to be working, thanks to the subsidies.

That in turn energizes speculators who see that they can make tremendous money by shuffling assets around these government-created industries, keeping them on the safe side of the law but contributing to massive waste, in addition to these programs which are as doomed to fail as ethanol subsidies.

Biden himself describes his economic policy as essentially command economy capitalism like that we see in China:

In a recent speech, the president officially embraced the term “Bidenomics” to describe his economic policies, which he characterized as the federal government “investing in key industries of the future, making targeted investments to promote domestic production of semiconductors, batteries, electric cars, clean energy.” In other words, the administration is pursuing a government-directed industrial policy using taxpayer subsidies and mandates to pick economic winners and losers.

Government subsidies don’t improve Chinese firms’ productivity or profitability, but they do goose employment—at least in the short term. The Chinese government craves social stability, so the subsidies are as much a jobs program as they are an attempt to improve productivity and technology. The most visible measurement of success for many subsidy programs is the number of jobs created, not new technologies brought to market. Political considerations trump economic efficiency.

Worse, China’s industrial policies have created a culture of corruption. Companies try to manipulate the system to their advantage. The most politically connected firms tend to get the most subsidies. Some firms cook the books to get government innovation grants while others reclassify unrelated expenses as R&D to qualify for more subsidies. Still others manipulate employment numbers to get subsidies.

We see a lot of “nobody wants to work anymore” sentiment on the streets and the internet, which reflects the nature of politically-created jobs: government creates a monopoly of itself by determining who is hired, and therefore once people are hired, they hang out doing very little of anything.

The Soviets had the same problem. The guy who filed reports about how many beets had been grown did what he was told, namely writing down the figures given to them by others and filing them. Only later did they find out everyone was lying when the beets in the store were fewer in number by far than reported.

Naturally in a system where the winning game is to do the minimum, the people with actual skill tend to hide away so that they may survive. If you are productive, you merely make your fellow workers look bad and they turn on you, so you have to accept mediocrity as a lifestyle.

The same thing is happening in the US as people flee these newly federally controlled industries and leave behind a hollowed out workforce, which leads to the supply chain crisis because many firms lack the employees to keep producing:

The skilled-trades industry continues to experience high demand for workers, with job openings far outpacing the supply of qualified workers to fill them, according to an analysis by PeopleReady Skilled Trades, a specialty job-placement company.

To expand the pool of skilled workers, the Labor Department funds efforts to attract more women to careers in the trades. Some states offer tax credits and tuition support to businesses that hire and train apprentices, the first step toward gaining a professional license. The National Association of Home Builders, a trade group, has a Workforce Development outreach program to promote careers in the skilled trades.

In the meantime, costs have gone up across the board. Businesses treat taxes like losses because they do not contribute to profits, and affirmative action, regulations, legal fees, and costs of changing business practices to fit new edicts from Washington DC fall into the same category.

This means that all costs are passed on down to the consumer, leading to them cutting back on spending for the future so that they may keep the basics flowing. Contrary to what is reported by the luvvies, Bidenomics is not doing great, and in fact is simply draining the nation of its past wealth.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn