Q. Hey #BernieBros, Are You Starting to Figure Out Why We Can't Have Nice Danish Things?
RSS
Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
A. Diversity.
A United States of New Hampshire and Iowa just might be able to afford Bernie’s Scandinavian platform of Free Stuff.
Add in a bunch of South Carolinas, however, and we’re back to Hillary and Jesse levels of corruption and dysfunction.
Follow @steve_sailer
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
The election result shows that even if South Carolina could afford Danish socialism, it wouldn’t vote for it.
A more diverse population means fewer people approve of economically left-wing policies.
Libertarian economist Bryan Caplan has openly stated that he supports mass immigration because it will reduce support for the welfare state and increase support for more economically libertarian policies.
People on the left and many people on the right fail to understand this.
Has libertarian economist Bryan Caplan ever troubled himself to notice that most of these mass immigrants support the welfare state, and so will their kids, and they'll all be able to vote eventually?Replies: @Das, @dfordoom, @David In TN
No more "E Pluribus Unum"--"Homo Homini Lupus" will be the motto of this glorious nation to be!
He looks like Obama. Both would be stumped at how to change a flat tire.
If economics really worked, you would think all these far flung foreigners that Caplan et al love so much would improve their home countries. But the libertarians tell us that the politics of the home country won't let this happen. So, politics trumps economics; politics is the stronger horse. I'm starting to see the light.Replies: @Ivy
That is just one reason Mr. Caplan is not thought of highly here.
Try telling working class/middle class Californians that mass immigration to this state has done anything other than INCREASED the welfare state.
That's as stupid an argument as Buckley's anti-abortion argument: we need more people so as to increase the chances of solving the overpopulation problem.
It's a total fantasy to think that these immigrants will be anything other than big government supporters.
...because they grok viscerally that both do not reflect their ethno-genetic interests.
Mass immigration is not going to increase "economically libertarian policies." Libertarians are the brethren of Andrea Mitchell's husband, whose youthful crush--Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum--wrote the literal book on all that. Like PUA/Game, it's a literary genre.
Muslims and Africans and subcontinent Indians and Chinese aren't well known for basing their societies and actions on early 20th century Jewish New York literary genres.
A lot of things are possible if you assume an isolated polity with border control. High-welfare socialism and libertarianism are both workable to some extent as long as you have the means to cut off the endless supply of welfare claimants or cheap labour that will flood in if they’re not checked. It doesn’t make sense to plan any kind of political system unless you can count on long-term demographic stability.
This strikes me as a fairly profound point. Also, that you could probably replace the words "political" and "demographics" with quite a few others.
"It doesn’t make sense to plan any kind of educational system unless you can count on long-term demographic stability."
"It doesn’t make sense to plan any kind of economic system unless you can count on long-term political stability."
I'm not very read in these kinds of meta-theories, but I do know Hayek talked about the difficulty of navigating an ever-changing legal system (and I think he actually used the analogy of driving down roads with changing rules).
Yes, but Denmark can have Free Stuff because it can Free Ride on the rest of Europe and on the US. It has 5 million people and would be a part of Germany or the Soviet Union without the US.
Actually, Denmark has been independent for long stretches of it's history, without the help of the US - without the US even existing for that matter. And it remained Denmark even when it was under foreign rule.Replies: @Anonymous
Libertarian economist Bryan Caplan has openly stated that he supports mass immigration because it will reduce support for the welfare state and increase support for more economically libertarian policies.
Exhibit 586 of how libertarianism is fundamentally leftist in temperment. There is a deep assumption of creative destruction being a part of the political tool kit. The goals are different, but the real core impulses- the idea of the state and society as a plaything, chaos is worth it, people are fungible, churn as some lemming-like primal desire – runs deep.
Oddly enough Caplan's views on immigration mesh perfection with the globalists who also support mass immigration because it destroys the wages and benefits for workers and which benefits the wealthy.
Here's Paul Krugman on the subject: ""The basic Ricardian model envisages a single factor, labor, which can move freely between industries. When one tries to talk about trade with laymen, however, one at least sometimes realizes that they do not think about things that way at all. They think about steelworkers, textile workers, and so on; there is no such thing as a national labor market. It does not occur to them that the wages earned in one industry are largely determined by the wages similar workers are earning in other industries…..and the idea that it is useful even for the sake of argument to imagine that workers can move from one industry to the other is foreign to them."
This is the basis for Krugman's defense of comparative advantage, which is the nugget of his proselytizing for pan-global trade which is, for him, an unmixed blessing. All workers, everywhere in the world are fungible. None deserve special consideration because that would interfere with the smooth workings of international trade, which supposedly benefits everyone everywhere.
But Krugman is just plain wrong. I'm not going to cite studies or statistics here but will speak from first-hand experience here to explain why.
I took a course in college level machine-metal working once and was surprised to find that to become a serious machinist required a mind set that was very different from our everyday consciousness. Machinists work to the thousandths of an inch. Every step must be deliberated upon and preplanned. Even the tolerances for a drive fit falls into a number of classifications. Everything has been calculated to a gnat's eyebrow. All alloys have been categorized as to qualities and appropriate usage.
To become a machinist means learning to think about the world in an utterly unique way and that way is totally attuned to the way of the world, its behavior and laws. A machinist is always interacting in a lawful manner with a lawful world. And this is a habit of mind that does not occur naturally. It must be taught and learned.
A society lacking a class of educated machinists is missing a portion of its brain. And missing a portion of its brain, it cannot engage with the modern world on an equal footing. Not being able to engage on an equal footing puts it at a permanent disadvantage which makes it perennially servile. Being perennially servile is not an adequate basis for conducting free trade.
Every advanced nation WITHOUT EXCEPTION, has built itself upon a class of precision machinists. NOT ONE has taken the globalists like Krugman's advice and successfully bootstrapped itself to a position of independence without having done so. All have protected their nascent metal working industries and in doing so incubated a class of higher order thinkers. Not one has followed the path of free trade. All have recognized the importance of cultivating a Mindset of conscientious attentiveness to the objective conditions of the world. So, Krugman may argue that it is wasteful for a second rate economy to cultivate its metal working capabilities because it would do better to focus on producing what it can export to Germany but this misses the larger point that doing so precludes its developing critical mental skills and a way of doing the world that is necessary not just to economic progress, but social and political progress as well.
People with a mindset attuned to the objective conditions of the world will not be bothered by such distractions as trannie rights or the spurious claims for reparations by charlatans intent upon defrauding a disoriented, rootless populace. Keeping workers off balance is critical to the globalist's agenda and nothing does this better than treating them as fungible.
Academic Globalists like Krugman overestimate their own usefulness and underestimate the worth of Engineers and machinists without whom the Krugmans of the world would have nothing to speculate about.
I'm not tooting my own horn here, because I'm not a machinist.Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Discard, @Threecranes, @Anonymous
It doesn’t make sense to plan any kind of political system unless you can count on long-term demographic stability.
This strikes me as a fairly profound point. Also, that you could probably replace the words “political” and “demographics” with quite a few others.
“It doesn’t make sense to plan any kind of educational system unless you can count on long-term demographic stability.”
“It doesn’t make sense to plan any kind of economic system unless you can count on long-term political stability.”
I’m not very read in these kinds of meta-theories, but I do know Hayek talked about the difficulty of navigating an ever-changing legal system (and I think he actually used the analogy of driving down roads with changing rules).
Liberal, Harsh Denmark by Hugh Eakin in the New York Review of Books
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/03/10/liberal-harsh-denmark/
A more diverse population means fewer people approve of economically left-wing policies.
Libertarian economist Bryan Caplan has openly stated that he supports mass immigration because it will reduce support for the welfare state and increase support for more economically libertarian policies.
People on the left and many people on the right fail to understand this.Replies: @anon, @Harry Baldwin, @Stephen R. Diamond, @Clyde, @bomag, @e, @James O'Meara, @WJ, @Alec Leamas, @Olorin, @The Plutonium Kid, @Wally
Libertarian economist Bryan Caplan has openly stated that he supports mass immigration because it will reduce support for the welfare state and increase support for more economically libertarian policies.
Has libertarian economist Bryan Caplan ever troubled himself to notice that most of these mass immigrants support the welfare state, and so will their kids, and they’ll all be able to vote eventually?
And increased immigration will cause white people to vote in increasing numbers for right-wing politicians, instead of middle class-friendly centrists like Eisenhower and Nixon.Replies: @bomag, @Lot, @anon
A more diverse population means fewer people approve of economically left-wing policies.
Libertarian economist Bryan Caplan has openly stated that he supports mass immigration because it will reduce support for the welfare state and increase support for more economically libertarian policies.
People on the left and many people on the right fail to understand this.Replies: @anon, @Harry Baldwin, @Stephen R. Diamond, @Clyde, @bomag, @e, @James O'Meara, @WJ, @Alec Leamas, @Olorin, @The Plutonium Kid, @Wally
he supports mass immigration because it will reduce support for the welfare state and increase support for more economically libertarian policies
No more “E Pluribus Unum”–“Homo Homini Lupus” will be the motto of this glorious nation to be!
No, I don’t think they will ever figure it out. At least they will never admit it. It is similar to people who search for ‘good schools’ when purchasing a home, but will never admit they don’t want to send their kid to a school with a black student population in excess of a certain threshold.
What I find interesting is the high correlation I’ve noticed among whites in America wanting socialism and their ability to be able to notice things that you aren’t suppose to notice. Whites of various ethnic backgrounds who support Canadian-style healthcare and Scandinavian-style social welfare benefits generally seem to either deny or despise the topics we discuss at iSteve.
On the other hand whites who notice what you aren’t suppose to notice, and who discuss topics discussed on this blog, generally don’t support the social welfare state.
Why is that? There are obviously exceptions. I suppose the whites who don’t want the giant social safety net have arrived at their position because they have already thought through the difficulties of having such a safety net with a large NAM population. This might explain why Europeans of all political stripes seem to support social safety nets, at least until Merkel ruins their countries.
Does any reader of this blog support Bernie-style policies? If not, would you if our demographics were more like Finland?
I do support federalism and restoring the 10th Amendment though, and don't have a problem with individual states experimenting with things.Replies: @Dave Pinsen
There's a burgeoning Alt Left/LRx movement gathering steam.
http://altleft.com/2015/11/14/a-clockwork-greenshirt-introducing-the-alt-left/
There are certainly quite a few commentators here who fit that description. I am highly sympathetic to this position although ultimately I think my economic views are closer to centrism rather than leftism.Replies: @dfordoom, @Anonymous
But Scandinavian-style welfare policies are fine by me. Of course I'm also very very strongly anti-immigration.Replies: @Das, @Clyde
Yup. I'm a liberal, in the non classical sense. Liberal politics, and a population that can handle them. That said, Charles Murray would probably call me a monstrous hypocrite for living a fairly traditional life myself, which is wrong; I just don't need the babysitting of a conservative political system.
Free college education could work but only for the upper x% of good students. None of this remedial courses or endless tutoring, pc hires nonsense. Academically weak students would follow a path to work or votech.
I support some medical and social security, too.
But this can only work with controlled immigration.
I know other who agree with me. (Social safety net + nationalist)
Steve,
your comments keep closing quickly and I get these wierd legal messages when they don’t. A bit off topic but what is going on ?
The Danish also pay higher taxes (and not just rich Danes). A Dane left a comment detailing those taxes on an article I wrote last week: http://seekingalpha.com/article/3928856-time-consider-trump-insurance#comment-71116206
Of course, higher taxes are easier to tolerate when you know they go to competent, honest government that spends nearly all of it on its citizens.
In the broader US, such a system would simply be a massive corruption farm that funnels money to inefficient overpaid unionized government workers who waste money, and welfare for generations of freeloaders.
Exhibit 586 of how libertarianism is fundamentally leftist in temperment. There is a deep assumption of creative destruction being a part of the political tool kit. The goals are different, but the real core impulses- the idea of the state and society as a plaything, chaos is worth it, people are fungible, churn as some lemming-like primal desire - runs deep.Replies: @rod1963, @Threecranes, @Bill Jones
Agreed.
Oddly enough Caplan’s views on immigration mesh perfection with the globalists who also support mass immigration because it destroys the wages and benefits for workers and which benefits the wealthy.
The problem with Bernie style socialism is that it attracts every goat herder from Pakistan, Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Niger, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. Everyone in the world wants in on that free stuff.
So eventually you need a whacking great military, a big navy, a big air force, a big army, able and ready to push immavaders out. The Sea is a great highway, recall the Sea Peoples who immavaded in the late Bronze Age and ended all the empires: the Hittites, the Assyrians, the Mycenaens, the Minoans, the Babylonians, etc. All but the Egyptians who had to retreat halfway up the Nile.
The same smart phone enabled connectivity that Steve has suggested encourages migration can be used to discourage it. European navies can stop migrant ships, arrest their pilots, tow the ships back to where they came from, disgorge the migrants on the beach and then tow the ships back out and scuttle them. Migrants will Instagram it, tweet it, text about it, etc. and prospective migrants back home will think twice before spending thousands of dollars to end up not getting to Europe.
What I find interesting is the high correlation I've noticed among whites in America wanting socialism and their ability to be able to notice things that you aren't suppose to notice. Whites of various ethnic backgrounds who support Canadian-style healthcare and Scandinavian-style social welfare benefits generally seem to either deny or despise the topics we discuss at iSteve.
On the other hand whites who notice what you aren't suppose to notice, and who discuss topics discussed on this blog, generally don't support the social welfare state.
Why is that? There are obviously exceptions. I suppose the whites who don't want the giant social safety net have arrived at their position because they have already thought through the difficulties of having such a safety net with a large NAM population. This might explain why Europeans of all political stripes seem to support social safety nets, at least until Merkel ruins their countries.
Does any reader of this blog support Bernie-style policies? If not, would you if our demographics were more like Finland?Replies: @Anonymous, @gruff, @Anatoly Karlin, @dfordoom, @RolfDan, @Jesse, @AndrewR, @27 year old, @Thea
I don’t support Bernie’s socialism, and Finland is smaller than our cities and is irrelevant.
I do support federalism and restoring the 10th Amendment though, and don’t have a problem with individual states experimenting with things.
I see the coming failure of Bernie as an opportunity to convert a lot of disillusioned young people. Pitch it right, baby steps at first, and they can be brought round, a lot of them.
https://twitter.com/Gravantus/status/703898173471723520
Yes, they like I said, they can have Free Stuff because they can Free Ride.
What I find interesting is the high correlation I've noticed among whites in America wanting socialism and their ability to be able to notice things that you aren't suppose to notice. Whites of various ethnic backgrounds who support Canadian-style healthcare and Scandinavian-style social welfare benefits generally seem to either deny or despise the topics we discuss at iSteve.
On the other hand whites who notice what you aren't suppose to notice, and who discuss topics discussed on this blog, generally don't support the social welfare state.
Why is that? There are obviously exceptions. I suppose the whites who don't want the giant social safety net have arrived at their position because they have already thought through the difficulties of having such a safety net with a large NAM population. This might explain why Europeans of all political stripes seem to support social safety nets, at least until Merkel ruins their countries.
Does any reader of this blog support Bernie-style policies? If not, would you if our demographics were more like Finland?Replies: @Anonymous, @gruff, @Anatoly Karlin, @dfordoom, @RolfDan, @Jesse, @AndrewR, @27 year old, @Thea
To work, socialism must be national.
The last expression of this spirit I remember was JFK's "... ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
At the time, "country" was synonymous with "nation" or "volk" in many white Americans' hearts.Replies: @Ivy
So eventually you need a whacking great military, a big navy, a big air force, a big army, able and ready to push immavaders out. The Sea is a great highway, recall the Sea Peoples who immavaded in the late Bronze Age and ended all the empires: the Hittites, the Assyrians, the Mycenaens, the Minoans, the Babylonians, etc. All but the Egyptians who had to retreat halfway up the Nile.Replies: @Dave Pinsen
The Sea Peoples were great seamen, warriors, and engineers. Today’s migrants are none of those things. It doesn’t take the world’s largest navy to beat them. Many of them wouldn’t have made it to Europe at all if European coast guards and navies hadn’t rescued them and brought them there.
The same smart phone enabled connectivity that Steve has suggested encourages migration can be used to discourage it. European navies can stop migrant ships, arrest their pilots, tow the ships back to where they came from, disgorge the migrants on the beach and then tow the ships back out and scuttle them. Migrants will Instagram it, tweet it, text about it, etc. and prospective migrants back home will think twice before spending thousands of dollars to end up not getting to Europe.
A more diverse population means fewer people approve of economically left-wing policies.
Libertarian economist Bryan Caplan has openly stated that he supports mass immigration because it will reduce support for the welfare state and increase support for more economically libertarian policies.
People on the left and many people on the right fail to understand this.Replies: @anon, @Harry Baldwin, @Stephen R. Diamond, @Clyde, @bomag, @e, @James O'Meara, @WJ, @Alec Leamas, @Olorin, @The Plutonium Kid, @Wally
But most on the right fail to defend the welfare state or resist economically libertarian policies. [Nobody seems to care that Trump is against raising the minimum wage.]
Anyone in America who seriously wants to cut migration would, like Ron Unz, advocate a steep increase in the minimum wage. Few on the right agree.
It won't work unless we have strict border security and enforcement of immigration laws along with a cessation of immigration. All in place before there is even talk of increasing the minimum wage.Replies: @Broski
A better approach, followed by President Eisenhour and later endorsed by César Chávez, is expelling the illegals and letting the market automatically adjust wages higher. Also eliminate the various guest worker visas.
Problem with this theory is that it's based on the preposterous idea that companies will illegally hire a worker, but then follow the law and pay him minimum wage. How incredibly naive.Replies: @Jesse
What I find interesting is the high correlation I've noticed among whites in America wanting socialism and their ability to be able to notice things that you aren't suppose to notice. Whites of various ethnic backgrounds who support Canadian-style healthcare and Scandinavian-style social welfare benefits generally seem to either deny or despise the topics we discuss at iSteve.
On the other hand whites who notice what you aren't suppose to notice, and who discuss topics discussed on this blog, generally don't support the social welfare state.
Why is that? There are obviously exceptions. I suppose the whites who don't want the giant social safety net have arrived at their position because they have already thought through the difficulties of having such a safety net with a large NAM population. This might explain why Europeans of all political stripes seem to support social safety nets, at least until Merkel ruins their countries.
Does any reader of this blog support Bernie-style policies? If not, would you if our demographics were more like Finland?Replies: @Anonymous, @gruff, @Anatoly Karlin, @dfordoom, @RolfDan, @Jesse, @AndrewR, @27 year old, @Thea
Does any reader of this blog support Bernie-style policies? If not, would you if our demographics were more like Finland?
There’s a burgeoning Alt Left/LRx movement gathering steam.
http://altleft.com/2015/11/14/a-clockwork-greenshirt-introducing-the-alt-left/
There are certainly quite a few commentators here who fit that description. I am highly sympathetic to this position although ultimately I think my economic views are closer to centrism rather than leftism.
I basically identify with the Old Left - socially conservative, concerned with economic justice, wanting to hang bankers (after giving them a fair trial of course).Replies: @jack o'fire
Has libertarian economist Bryan Caplan ever troubled himself to notice that most of these mass immigrants support the welfare state, and so will their kids, and they'll all be able to vote eventually?Replies: @Das, @dfordoom, @David In TN
Um, they’ll have extremely low turnout, and when they do vote, it will be for Wall Street-friendly Dems like Hillary, not Bernie Sanders.
And increased immigration will cause white people to vote in increasing numbers for right-wing politicians, instead of middle class-friendly centrists like Eisenhower and Nixon.
The immigrant curse is the degradation of civic life, something voting won't change.
Ed Blum is doing God's work trying to change this by trying to force Texas to base state legislative districts on votes rather than population. Despite the fact this would greatly increase the number of white Republican districts (as well as white democrat districts in Austin), the Texas GOP establishment is opposing him.
Forever? He'd better hope so. That seems like a pretty thin reed to base permanently changing a country on.
when they do vote, it will be for Wall Street-friendly Dems like Hillary, not Bernie Sanders.
Based on what? And at any rate, they won't be voting libertarian, now will they?
And increased immigration will cause white people to vote in increasing numbers for right-wing politicians, instead of middle class-friendly centrists like Eisenhower and Nixon.
Well, they might, but the more immigrants who come in, the less it's going to matter who white people vote for.
“It has 5 million people and would be a part of Germany or the Soviet Union without the US.”
Actually, Denmark has been independent for long stretches of it’s history, without the help of the US – without the US even existing for that matter. And it remained Denmark even when it was under foreign rule.
I do support federalism and restoring the 10th Amendment though, and don't have a problem with individual states experimenting with things.Replies: @Dave Pinsen
I don’t get what size has to do with it. If there were 100 million Finns (in a proportionally larger country), would they be doing poorly? Why?
Exhibit 586 of how libertarianism is fundamentally leftist in temperment. There is a deep assumption of creative destruction being a part of the political tool kit. The goals are different, but the real core impulses- the idea of the state and society as a plaything, chaos is worth it, people are fungible, churn as some lemming-like primal desire - runs deep.Replies: @rod1963, @Threecranes, @Bill Jones
This phrase of yours, “people are fungible”, lies at the very heart of the issue.
Here’s Paul Krugman on the subject: “”The basic Ricardian model envisages a single factor, labor, which can move freely between industries. When one tries to talk about trade with laymen, however, one at least sometimes realizes that they do not think about things that way at all. They think about steelworkers, textile workers, and so on; there is no such thing as a national labor market. It does not occur to them that the wages earned in one industry are largely determined by the wages similar workers are earning in other industries…..and the idea that it is useful even for the sake of argument to imagine that workers can move from one industry to the other is foreign to them.”
This is the basis for Krugman’s defense of comparative advantage, which is the nugget of his proselytizing for pan-global trade which is, for him, an unmixed blessing. All workers, everywhere in the world are fungible. None deserve special consideration because that would interfere with the smooth workings of international trade, which supposedly benefits everyone everywhere.
But Krugman is just plain wrong. I’m not going to cite studies or statistics here but will speak from first-hand experience here to explain why.
I took a course in college level machine-metal working once and was surprised to find that to become a serious machinist required a mind set that was very different from our everyday consciousness. Machinists work to the thousandths of an inch. Every step must be deliberated upon and preplanned. Even the tolerances for a drive fit falls into a number of classifications. Everything has been calculated to a gnat’s eyebrow. All alloys have been categorized as to qualities and appropriate usage.
To become a machinist means learning to think about the world in an utterly unique way and that way is totally attuned to the way of the world, its behavior and laws. A machinist is always interacting in a lawful manner with a lawful world. And this is a habit of mind that does not occur naturally. It must be taught and learned.
A society lacking a class of educated machinists is missing a portion of its brain. And missing a portion of its brain, it cannot engage with the modern world on an equal footing. Not being able to engage on an equal footing puts it at a permanent disadvantage which makes it perennially servile. Being perennially servile is not an adequate basis for conducting free trade.
Every advanced nation WITHOUT EXCEPTION, has built itself upon a class of precision machinists. NOT ONE has taken the globalists like Krugman’s advice and successfully bootstrapped itself to a position of independence without having done so. All have protected their nascent metal working industries and in doing so incubated a class of higher order thinkers. Not one has followed the path of free trade. All have recognized the importance of cultivating a Mindset of conscientious attentiveness to the objective conditions of the world. So, Krugman may argue that it is wasteful for a second rate economy to cultivate its metal working capabilities because it would do better to focus on producing what it can export to Germany but this misses the larger point that doing so precludes its developing critical mental skills and a way of doing the world that is necessary not just to economic progress, but social and political progress as well.
People with a mindset attuned to the objective conditions of the world will not be bothered by such distractions as trannie rights or the spurious claims for reparations by charlatans intent upon defrauding a disoriented, rootless populace. Keeping workers off balance is critical to the globalist’s agenda and nothing does this better than treating them as fungible.
Academic Globalists like Krugman overestimate their own usefulness and underestimate the worth of Engineers and machinists without whom the Krugmans of the world would have nothing to speculate about.
I’m not tooting my own horn here, because I’m not a machinist.
But bear in mind that for example, to encode and decipher the information on a CD requires that the disc rotate at just such a speed and that the laser read and write head travel precisely to this point and that this extreme level of precision in the final products is made possible only by uncompromisingly tight manufacturing tolerances in the machines used to produce them.
We can't get away from machines. Somewhere along the line, information must be transcribed into a physical form that can be stored and retrieved. Think of the accuracy of the machines that control the etching head that creates the paths in stencils for integrated circuits. This is atomic level accuracy.
And this knowledge is cumulative. A nation cannot go from being a banana republic or oil exporter to a computer chip manufacturer without going through the sequential stages that confer intellectual mastery. The essential skill to making complex stuff is a Mindset, a toolbox of mental habits.
We, as a nation, seem to be devolving from a technological leader to a food exporter and thinkers like Krugman see nothing wrong with this--encourage it even. For example, much of the chip technology that was developed in American labs and classrooms has been sold to foreign nations. When a competitor buys a company, they own all of the intellectual property and patents and Asian countries are happy to let America develop processes which they can then step in and buy a few years later when the struggling start up goes belly up for lack of government support--a deficiency which their system rectifies and which Krugman decries for its lack of adherence to pure market, Ricardian comparative advantage principles.
Donald Trump is tapping not just into people's ignorant nativism, as Krugman has diatribed, but rather into their hurt sense of pride at having lost their collective sense of competence and of being in control of their own destiny. Krugman misses this point as only a hot-house, urban-minded Jewish boy can.Replies: @Ivy, @Anon
Ladies and gentlemen, the official Bernie Sanders campaign song:
EWG
Here's Paul Krugman on the subject: ""The basic Ricardian model envisages a single factor, labor, which can move freely between industries. When one tries to talk about trade with laymen, however, one at least sometimes realizes that they do not think about things that way at all. They think about steelworkers, textile workers, and so on; there is no such thing as a national labor market. It does not occur to them that the wages earned in one industry are largely determined by the wages similar workers are earning in other industries…..and the idea that it is useful even for the sake of argument to imagine that workers can move from one industry to the other is foreign to them."
This is the basis for Krugman's defense of comparative advantage, which is the nugget of his proselytizing for pan-global trade which is, for him, an unmixed blessing. All workers, everywhere in the world are fungible. None deserve special consideration because that would interfere with the smooth workings of international trade, which supposedly benefits everyone everywhere.
But Krugman is just plain wrong. I'm not going to cite studies or statistics here but will speak from first-hand experience here to explain why.
I took a course in college level machine-metal working once and was surprised to find that to become a serious machinist required a mind set that was very different from our everyday consciousness. Machinists work to the thousandths of an inch. Every step must be deliberated upon and preplanned. Even the tolerances for a drive fit falls into a number of classifications. Everything has been calculated to a gnat's eyebrow. All alloys have been categorized as to qualities and appropriate usage.
To become a machinist means learning to think about the world in an utterly unique way and that way is totally attuned to the way of the world, its behavior and laws. A machinist is always interacting in a lawful manner with a lawful world. And this is a habit of mind that does not occur naturally. It must be taught and learned.
A society lacking a class of educated machinists is missing a portion of its brain. And missing a portion of its brain, it cannot engage with the modern world on an equal footing. Not being able to engage on an equal footing puts it at a permanent disadvantage which makes it perennially servile. Being perennially servile is not an adequate basis for conducting free trade.
Every advanced nation WITHOUT EXCEPTION, has built itself upon a class of precision machinists. NOT ONE has taken the globalists like Krugman's advice and successfully bootstrapped itself to a position of independence without having done so. All have protected their nascent metal working industries and in doing so incubated a class of higher order thinkers. Not one has followed the path of free trade. All have recognized the importance of cultivating a Mindset of conscientious attentiveness to the objective conditions of the world. So, Krugman may argue that it is wasteful for a second rate economy to cultivate its metal working capabilities because it would do better to focus on producing what it can export to Germany but this misses the larger point that doing so precludes its developing critical mental skills and a way of doing the world that is necessary not just to economic progress, but social and political progress as well.
People with a mindset attuned to the objective conditions of the world will not be bothered by such distractions as trannie rights or the spurious claims for reparations by charlatans intent upon defrauding a disoriented, rootless populace. Keeping workers off balance is critical to the globalist's agenda and nothing does this better than treating them as fungible.
Academic Globalists like Krugman overestimate their own usefulness and underestimate the worth of Engineers and machinists without whom the Krugmans of the world would have nothing to speculate about.
I'm not tooting my own horn here, because I'm not a machinist.Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Discard, @Threecranes, @Anonymous
A good post. Some very good points there. You are right about people not being fungible. There are exceptions however; economists like Caplan and Krugman are themselves actually quite fungible.
Fungible and disposable. Or fungible and expendable. Whichever is more permanent.
And increased immigration will cause white people to vote in increasing numbers for right-wing politicians, instead of middle class-friendly centrists like Eisenhower and Nixon.Replies: @bomag, @Lot, @anon
We have no right-wing politicians.
The immigrant curse is the degradation of civic life, something voting won’t change.
Denmark pays its fair share of Nato expenses.
And increased immigration will cause white people to vote in increasing numbers for right-wing politicians, instead of middle class-friendly centrists like Eisenhower and Nixon.Replies: @bomag, @Lot, @anon
Low hispanic turnout keeps them locked out of statewide office in California, but it doesn’t matter if there are a ton of latin majority districts. They win with 5,000 votes state assembly seats that in white or black areas you need 15,000 votes to win.
Ed Blum is doing God’s work trying to change this by trying to force Texas to base state legislative districts on votes rather than population. Despite the fact this would greatly increase the number of white Republican districts (as well as white democrat districts in Austin), the Texas GOP establishment is opposing him.
Anyone in America who seriously wants to cut migration would, like Ron Unz, advocate a steep increase in the minimum wage. Few on the right agree.
It won’t work unless we have strict border security and enforcement of immigration laws along with a cessation of immigration. All in place before there is even talk of increasing the minimum wage.
Funny that Steve should post this today. I made a similar point (that certain flavors of socialism aren’t necessarily insane if you assume a small, stable, honest, hard-working and highly cohesive population) to some fellow right wingers the other day and got slammed for it. They condescendingly explained to me that socialism would always fail, under every conceivable set of conditions.
Kind of like the way free-market economics inevitably brings great prosperity and freedom to everyone under every conceivable set of conditions, I guess…
I think it’s easier maintaining a welfare state with smaller populations than larger ones in general.
Actually, Denmark has been independent for long stretches of it's history, without the help of the US - without the US even existing for that matter. And it remained Denmark even when it was under foreign rule.Replies: @Anonymous
Yes, and Denmark was very poor for most of that history and did not have the welfare state it does today. Denmark and Scandinavia were generally poorer than southern Europe until about a century ago.
Here's Paul Krugman on the subject: ""The basic Ricardian model envisages a single factor, labor, which can move freely between industries. When one tries to talk about trade with laymen, however, one at least sometimes realizes that they do not think about things that way at all. They think about steelworkers, textile workers, and so on; there is no such thing as a national labor market. It does not occur to them that the wages earned in one industry are largely determined by the wages similar workers are earning in other industries…..and the idea that it is useful even for the sake of argument to imagine that workers can move from one industry to the other is foreign to them."
This is the basis for Krugman's defense of comparative advantage, which is the nugget of his proselytizing for pan-global trade which is, for him, an unmixed blessing. All workers, everywhere in the world are fungible. None deserve special consideration because that would interfere with the smooth workings of international trade, which supposedly benefits everyone everywhere.
But Krugman is just plain wrong. I'm not going to cite studies or statistics here but will speak from first-hand experience here to explain why.
I took a course in college level machine-metal working once and was surprised to find that to become a serious machinist required a mind set that was very different from our everyday consciousness. Machinists work to the thousandths of an inch. Every step must be deliberated upon and preplanned. Even the tolerances for a drive fit falls into a number of classifications. Everything has been calculated to a gnat's eyebrow. All alloys have been categorized as to qualities and appropriate usage.
To become a machinist means learning to think about the world in an utterly unique way and that way is totally attuned to the way of the world, its behavior and laws. A machinist is always interacting in a lawful manner with a lawful world. And this is a habit of mind that does not occur naturally. It must be taught and learned.
A society lacking a class of educated machinists is missing a portion of its brain. And missing a portion of its brain, it cannot engage with the modern world on an equal footing. Not being able to engage on an equal footing puts it at a permanent disadvantage which makes it perennially servile. Being perennially servile is not an adequate basis for conducting free trade.
Every advanced nation WITHOUT EXCEPTION, has built itself upon a class of precision machinists. NOT ONE has taken the globalists like Krugman's advice and successfully bootstrapped itself to a position of independence without having done so. All have protected their nascent metal working industries and in doing so incubated a class of higher order thinkers. Not one has followed the path of free trade. All have recognized the importance of cultivating a Mindset of conscientious attentiveness to the objective conditions of the world. So, Krugman may argue that it is wasteful for a second rate economy to cultivate its metal working capabilities because it would do better to focus on producing what it can export to Germany but this misses the larger point that doing so precludes its developing critical mental skills and a way of doing the world that is necessary not just to economic progress, but social and political progress as well.
People with a mindset attuned to the objective conditions of the world will not be bothered by such distractions as trannie rights or the spurious claims for reparations by charlatans intent upon defrauding a disoriented, rootless populace. Keeping workers off balance is critical to the globalist's agenda and nothing does this better than treating them as fungible.
Academic Globalists like Krugman overestimate their own usefulness and underestimate the worth of Engineers and machinists without whom the Krugmans of the world would have nothing to speculate about.
I'm not tooting my own horn here, because I'm not a machinist.Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Discard, @Threecranes, @Anonymous
I was trained to be a machinist and I worked at it for a couple years, until I got a better offer and became a schoolteacher. I do not call myself a machinist though, because I did not put in the years it takes to deserve that title. However, you are exactly right about the mental traits required to do that work. I have long thought that nobody should receive a liberal arts degree without demonstrating competence at some manual skill or other. A manual skill forces you to learn that reality will not conform to your wishes, tantrums, ignorance, or daddy’s money. That a misstep in the beginning will produce failure at the end. Plus or minus .002 is not plus or minus .004. A weld that fails under 50,000 psi is not good enough. If a circuit breaker keeps flipping, you’ve miswired something. Things that Krugman and his kind will never grasp.
Kind of like the way free-market economics inevitably brings great prosperity and freedom to everyone under every conceivable set of conditions, I guess...Replies: @Broski
Socialism is a for-us-by-us system for Jews and Western European Gentiles. Maybe Asians can do it too. It seems to work alright amongst Jews and whites, but less so elsewhere. Capitalism works pretty well too, of course.
Socialism has been a disaster for Jews. It didn't even work well in Israel. It doesn't work for most whites either. Socialism only seems to work in cultures where generations of individuals and families farming in marginal climates have taught people to value production, trust among neighbors and the benefits of cooperation. That is basically just Scandinavia, and to some extent Japan and Korea (I realize N. Korea looks like a poor example, but it is more Communist/Fascist than Socialist. South Korea is in many ways a well-run "Socialist Democracy"). Any culture where merchants and trade dominate tends to be a poor match with socialism. Not just Jews - I would argue the English and Dutch are not culturally disposed to socialism either, neither are the Chinese.
"...system for Jews..." - Bringing up Jews obscures the subject because Jews regardless of the system are firsts of all motivated by their ethnic interests. When discriminated and constituting the underclass socialism is promoted. But after reaching the top 10% the immigration leading to societal fragmentation and lack of cohesion is promoted.
The presence of ethnic minority in the US (Afro-Americans) from the day one of the existence of this country was the deciding factor that socialism could not be created. The lack of cohesions, ethnic animosities, suspicions and low trust guaranteed that the dominant social narrative would be that of liberal and anti-communitarian persuasion. So if you are an American proud of American economic liberties... thank your ancestors for bringing African slaves and if you think your SS check is too low curse them.
Has libertarian economist Bryan Caplan ever troubled himself to notice that most of these mass immigrants support the welfare state, and so will their kids, and they'll all be able to vote eventually?Replies: @Das, @dfordoom, @David In TN
Have libertarians ever troubled themselves to notice anything about the real world?
Are you kidding? Libertarians are the only ones who look objectively at the real world! At least, that's what every libertarian I've ever met has told me.Replies: @Rifleman, @dfordoom
It won't work unless we have strict border security and enforcement of immigration laws along with a cessation of immigration. All in place before there is even talk of increasing the minimum wage.Replies: @Broski
The reason to employ foreigners, be they stoop laborers or HI-B tech guys, is that they are cheaper than domestic workers. Raising the minimum wage and removing immigrants will both increase the cost to hire foreigners, but the minimum wage will only affect the stoop laborers. It will have no effect on the IT imports, and will cause numerous other ripple effects as does any market distortion. Better than nothing, though.
can we admit that pre-diversity scandanavia was the pinnacle of nationhood?
Gasp! Sew-shall-ism!
Diversity or Nice Danish Things?
Why not both?
Capitalism in one country,appy polly loggies to uncle joe.
What I find interesting is the high correlation I've noticed among whites in America wanting socialism and their ability to be able to notice things that you aren't suppose to notice. Whites of various ethnic backgrounds who support Canadian-style healthcare and Scandinavian-style social welfare benefits generally seem to either deny or despise the topics we discuss at iSteve.
On the other hand whites who notice what you aren't suppose to notice, and who discuss topics discussed on this blog, generally don't support the social welfare state.
Why is that? There are obviously exceptions. I suppose the whites who don't want the giant social safety net have arrived at their position because they have already thought through the difficulties of having such a safety net with a large NAM population. This might explain why Europeans of all political stripes seem to support social safety nets, at least until Merkel ruins their countries.
Does any reader of this blog support Bernie-style policies? If not, would you if our demographics were more like Finland?Replies: @Anonymous, @gruff, @Anatoly Karlin, @dfordoom, @RolfDan, @Jesse, @AndrewR, @27 year old, @Thea
I do, sort of. Although I think free university education for everyone is absolute nonsense. We should be sharply restricting access to higher education, limiting it to the very small minority who actually require it.
But Scandinavian-style welfare policies are fine by me. Of course I’m also very very strongly anti-immigration.
There's a burgeoning Alt Left/LRx movement gathering steam.
http://altleft.com/2015/11/14/a-clockwork-greenshirt-introducing-the-alt-left/
There are certainly quite a few commentators here who fit that description. I am highly sympathetic to this position although ultimately I think my economic views are closer to centrism rather than leftism.Replies: @dfordoom, @Anonymous
I had no idea there was an organised alt-left. I want to join! But apparently they disapprove of “organized religion, traditionalism and sexual puritanism” all of which I’m strongly in favour of.
I basically identify with the Old Left – socially conservative, concerned with economic justice, wanting to hang bankers (after giving them a fair trial of course).
But Scandinavian-style welfare policies are fine by me. Of course I'm also very very strongly anti-immigration.Replies: @Das, @Clyde
Free college for people who are actually capable of doing college-level academics is a great idea. The current system screws over high-IQ kids who come from families with modest incomes.
Yes, I agree completely. Sharply reduce the number of college places, especially the useless degree courses. And make college free for the relatively small number who will actually benefit from it, and who will actually benefit society when they graduate.
For those who want to do useless hobby course like Gender Studies - let them pay full price. Or better still, let them do something else. Like getting real jobs, where they'll contribute to society and develop self-respect.
Of course that assumes a society that offers people the chance to get real jobs that are decent jobs. That will require ending mass immigration and free trade.Replies: @TangoMan
Not so. Immigrants ( and I am talking about the ones we least want, ie, those least able to look after themselves without resorting to mischief) believe deeply in trickle down economics: it’s better to be a welfare beggar in Tennessee than a well to do burgher in Timbuktu.
There's a burgeoning Alt Left/LRx movement gathering steam.
http://altleft.com/2015/11/14/a-clockwork-greenshirt-introducing-the-alt-left/
There are certainly quite a few commentators here who fit that description. I am highly sympathetic to this position although ultimately I think my economic views are closer to centrism rather than leftism.Replies: @dfordoom, @Anonymous
Holy moly, this is me. I had no idea this existed before I read it.
I basically identify with the Old Left - socially conservative, concerned with economic justice, wanting to hang bankers (after giving them a fair trial of course).Replies: @jack o'fire
Make your own group, call it ALT-LINKS (German for “Old-Left”). You can enjoy being a traditional wrecker and be popular again.
Another ROOTS reboot.
And a new BIRTH OF NATION.
It looks like younger generation of Hollywood Jews are following in their parents and grandparents footsteps and reminding Americans of the same thing all over again.
White Guilt is rebooted like Blockbuster movies.
New superman movie, then new ‘white guilt’ movie. Recycled for a new generation.
And every year has to have its Holocaust movie.
ROOTS REBOOTS
Normally, Jewish groups only get one state-mandated Holocaust guilt day every year to hammer white gentile guilt into your children's heads in the classroom. If they asked for TWO mandatory Holocaust training days to have at your kids, teachers would balk. However, with "Roots" coming out again after 40 years they can pitch it as a "Once in a lifetime opportunity!"
Alternatively, check the ADL's lesson plan page. I expect the "Roots" lesson plan will appear presently.
A more diverse population means fewer people approve of economically left-wing policies.
Libertarian economist Bryan Caplan has openly stated that he supports mass immigration because it will reduce support for the welfare state and increase support for more economically libertarian policies.
People on the left and many people on the right fail to understand this.Replies: @anon, @Harry Baldwin, @Stephen R. Diamond, @Clyde, @bomag, @e, @James O'Meara, @WJ, @Alec Leamas, @Olorin, @The Plutonium Kid, @Wally
He is ivory tower, he is tenured, he’s got his story and he’s sticking to it. Though it’s ironic that this lion of libertarianism is subsidized by Virginia taxpayers. Look at who pays his salary. He’s sucking off the welfare state in his own way.
He looks like Obama. Both would be stumped at how to change a flat tire.
But Scandinavian-style welfare policies are fine by me. Of course I'm also very very strongly anti-immigration.Replies: @Das, @Clyde
Only problem is Scandinavian style social welfare systems seem to make people soft and stupid and too nice. Which in this era of smart phones and flash mob immigration means you will allow your nation to be invaded by incompatible third worlders. You are so stupid you will even encourage this and invite them to come.
I'm not sure it's social welfare systems that make people soft and stupid. I'm inclined to think it's mass media, indoctrination in the education system and democracy. And of course feminism, which feminises everything it touches.Replies: @Wally
The depersonalization/dehumanization inherent in scale.
Bernie bros should be wooed by Trumpenproles. A sensible economic nationalism v borderless globalism; which leaves more room for creating something like a Northern European social democracy? (Wouldn’t it be hilarious if, just as Europe was destroying its social democracies with diversity, the US, under Trump, was heading in the other direction?)
Then there’s the racial divide. We’re about to enter the most bitterly contested presidential election of our lifetimes. Hillary will demagogue Trump mercilessly as racist as well as stoke the flames of general black resentment as Dems do every election year now. Add a little black angst at the thought of the first black president retiring, increasing as the day nears. Politically Hillary runs a huge risk of overdoing it. Morally it’s indefensible, but the media won’t even go there.
But the point is this black anger will start alienating the sensible white leftist on the ground who might actually have something on the ball intellectually and morally. When we see young people defecting from the Left, I think we’ll have us a movement.
True. Whether it is the national socialism of Israel supporting and developing the Jewish people as a people, or the national socialism of Germany in the 30s, the national spirit has to be engaged. It is essential to tie socialism to nationhood (and national duty) to prevent and shame freeloaders.
The last expression of this spirit I remember was JFK’s “… ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”
At the time, “country” was synonymous with “nation” or “volk” in many white Americans’ hearts.
You would think that at sone point Bernie might have noticed that places like Italy and Portugal seem unable to adopt Danish style socialism despite actually being in Europe and having plenty of opportunities to observe Danish growth over the decades. I would guess that successful socialism depends on homogeneity, a well educated populace and a work ethic developed through generations of family farming in marginal climates. Based on those criteria you probably could have a socialist democracy in Vermont or Minnesota, but even Maine would be a disaster.
Here's Paul Krugman on the subject: ""The basic Ricardian model envisages a single factor, labor, which can move freely between industries. When one tries to talk about trade with laymen, however, one at least sometimes realizes that they do not think about things that way at all. They think about steelworkers, textile workers, and so on; there is no such thing as a national labor market. It does not occur to them that the wages earned in one industry are largely determined by the wages similar workers are earning in other industries…..and the idea that it is useful even for the sake of argument to imagine that workers can move from one industry to the other is foreign to them."
This is the basis for Krugman's defense of comparative advantage, which is the nugget of his proselytizing for pan-global trade which is, for him, an unmixed blessing. All workers, everywhere in the world are fungible. None deserve special consideration because that would interfere with the smooth workings of international trade, which supposedly benefits everyone everywhere.
But Krugman is just plain wrong. I'm not going to cite studies or statistics here but will speak from first-hand experience here to explain why.
I took a course in college level machine-metal working once and was surprised to find that to become a serious machinist required a mind set that was very different from our everyday consciousness. Machinists work to the thousandths of an inch. Every step must be deliberated upon and preplanned. Even the tolerances for a drive fit falls into a number of classifications. Everything has been calculated to a gnat's eyebrow. All alloys have been categorized as to qualities and appropriate usage.
To become a machinist means learning to think about the world in an utterly unique way and that way is totally attuned to the way of the world, its behavior and laws. A machinist is always interacting in a lawful manner with a lawful world. And this is a habit of mind that does not occur naturally. It must be taught and learned.
A society lacking a class of educated machinists is missing a portion of its brain. And missing a portion of its brain, it cannot engage with the modern world on an equal footing. Not being able to engage on an equal footing puts it at a permanent disadvantage which makes it perennially servile. Being perennially servile is not an adequate basis for conducting free trade.
Every advanced nation WITHOUT EXCEPTION, has built itself upon a class of precision machinists. NOT ONE has taken the globalists like Krugman's advice and successfully bootstrapped itself to a position of independence without having done so. All have protected their nascent metal working industries and in doing so incubated a class of higher order thinkers. Not one has followed the path of free trade. All have recognized the importance of cultivating a Mindset of conscientious attentiveness to the objective conditions of the world. So, Krugman may argue that it is wasteful for a second rate economy to cultivate its metal working capabilities because it would do better to focus on producing what it can export to Germany but this misses the larger point that doing so precludes its developing critical mental skills and a way of doing the world that is necessary not just to economic progress, but social and political progress as well.
People with a mindset attuned to the objective conditions of the world will not be bothered by such distractions as trannie rights or the spurious claims for reparations by charlatans intent upon defrauding a disoriented, rootless populace. Keeping workers off balance is critical to the globalist's agenda and nothing does this better than treating them as fungible.
Academic Globalists like Krugman overestimate their own usefulness and underestimate the worth of Engineers and machinists without whom the Krugmans of the world would have nothing to speculate about.
I'm not tooting my own horn here, because I'm not a machinist.Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Discard, @Threecranes, @Anonymous
Reply to my own post, bad form, I know but some of you may say to yourselves, “Yeah, machine metalworking, that’s so old school, brick and mortar type stuff. We’ve moved beyond that. We’re in the information age today.”
But bear in mind that for example, to encode and decipher the information on a CD requires that the disc rotate at just such a speed and that the laser read and write head travel precisely to this point and that this extreme level of precision in the final products is made possible only by uncompromisingly tight manufacturing tolerances in the machines used to produce them.
We can’t get away from machines. Somewhere along the line, information must be transcribed into a physical form that can be stored and retrieved. Think of the accuracy of the machines that control the etching head that creates the paths in stencils for integrated circuits. This is atomic level accuracy.
And this knowledge is cumulative. A nation cannot go from being a banana republic or oil exporter to a computer chip manufacturer without going through the sequential stages that confer intellectual mastery. The essential skill to making complex stuff is a Mindset, a toolbox of mental habits.
We, as a nation, seem to be devolving from a technological leader to a food exporter and thinkers like Krugman see nothing wrong with this–encourage it even. For example, much of the chip technology that was developed in American labs and classrooms has been sold to foreign nations. When a competitor buys a company, they own all of the intellectual property and patents and Asian countries are happy to let America develop processes which they can then step in and buy a few years later when the struggling start up goes belly up for lack of government support–a deficiency which their system rectifies and which Krugman decries for its lack of adherence to pure market, Ricardian comparative advantage principles.
Donald Trump is tapping not just into people’s ignorant nativism, as Krugman has diatribed, but rather into their hurt sense of pride at having lost their collective sense of competence and of being in control of their own destiny. Krugman misses this point as only a hot-house, urban-minded Jewish boy can.
We coulda been somebody, we coulda been a contenda, and so we shall again
And a new BIRTH OF NATION.
It looks like younger generation of Hollywood Jews are following in their parents and grandparents footsteps and reminding Americans of the same thing all over again.
White Guilt is rebooted like Blockbuster movies.
New superman movie, then new 'white guilt' movie. Recycled for a new generation.
And every year has to have its Holocaust movie.
ROOTS REBOOTSReplies: @Big Bill
Check with your children’s teachers as the “Roots” release date approaches. I expect they are planning to present some thoughtful lesson plans to hammer home the white gentile guilt narrative. The new “Roots” is a golden opportunity for the ADL and bleeding heart teachers to do a propaganda tie-in.
Normally, Jewish groups only get one state-mandated Holocaust guilt day every year to hammer white gentile guilt into your children’s heads in the classroom. If they asked for TWO mandatory Holocaust training days to have at your kids, teachers would balk. However, with “Roots” coming out again after 40 years they can pitch it as a “Once in a lifetime opportunity!”
Alternatively, check the ADL’s lesson plan page. I expect the “Roots” lesson plan will appear presently.
And increased immigration will cause white people to vote in increasing numbers for right-wing politicians, instead of middle class-friendly centrists like Eisenhower and Nixon.Replies: @bomag, @Lot, @anon
Um, they’ll have extremely low turnout,
Forever? He’d better hope so. That seems like a pretty thin reed to base permanently changing a country on.
when they do vote, it will be for Wall Street-friendly Dems like Hillary, not Bernie Sanders.
Based on what? And at any rate, they won’t be voting libertarian, now will they?
And increased immigration will cause white people to vote in increasing numbers for right-wing politicians, instead of middle class-friendly centrists like Eisenhower and Nixon.
Well, they might, but the more immigrants who come in, the less it’s going to matter who white people vote for.
It seems to work alright amongst Jews and whites, but less so elsewhere.
Socialism has been a disaster for Jews. It didn’t even work well in Israel. It doesn’t work for most whites either. Socialism only seems to work in cultures where generations of individuals and families farming in marginal climates have taught people to value production, trust among neighbors and the benefits of cooperation. That is basically just Scandinavia, and to some extent Japan and Korea (I realize N. Korea looks like a poor example, but it is more Communist/Fascist than Socialist. South Korea is in many ways a well-run “Socialist Democracy”). Any culture where merchants and trade dominate tends to be a poor match with socialism. Not just Jews – I would argue the English and Dutch are not culturally disposed to socialism either, neither are the Chinese.
You are working off the assumption that this would be enforced. A lot of illegals around here are paid off the books at pittance wages. With the passage of yet another statute, is this new law going to magically be enforced? We have statutes now that would ameliorate the problem, but they go unenforced.
Would the State enforce a minimum wage? Would a higher minimum wage attract more illegals? Would the State check the IDs of workers enjoying the minimum wage?
A better approach, followed by President Eisenhour and later endorsed by César Chávez, is expelling the illegals and letting the market automatically adjust wages higher. Also eliminate the various guest worker visas.
When it comes to Muslims in Europe, the New York Review of Books gets it — or, at least, is beginning to: http://goo.gl/jCtiXz
Remarkable.
A more diverse population means fewer people approve of economically left-wing policies.
Libertarian economist Bryan Caplan has openly stated that he supports mass immigration because it will reduce support for the welfare state and increase support for more economically libertarian policies.
People on the left and many people on the right fail to understand this.Replies: @anon, @Harry Baldwin, @Stephen R. Diamond, @Clyde, @bomag, @e, @James O'Meara, @WJ, @Alec Leamas, @Olorin, @The Plutonium Kid, @Wally
There are a multitude of immigrants we could slot into Bryan Caplan’s niche and improve the place. He should advocate for a replacement, and then roll himself out of existence. For the Greater Good.
If economics really worked, you would think all these far flung foreigners that Caplan et al love so much would improve their home countries. But the libertarians tell us that the politics of the home country won’t let this happen. So, politics trumps economics; politics is the stronger horse. I’m starting to see the light.
Have libertarians ever troubled themselves to notice anything about the real world?
Are you kidding? Libertarians are the only ones who look objectively at the real world! At least, that’s what every libertarian I’ve ever met has told me.
“Anyone in America who seriously wants to cut migration would, like Ron Unz, advocate a steep increase in the minimum wage.”
Problem with this theory is that it’s based on the preposterous idea that companies will illegally hire a worker, but then follow the law and pay him minimum wage. How incredibly naive.
"Problem with this theory is that it’s based on the preposterous idea that companies will illegally hire a worker, but then follow the law and pay him minimum wage. How incredibly naive."
Well, the argument is that a high and strongly enforced minimum wage will push employers into taking the native born worker. That, of course, assumes that the foreign worker is always going to be lower quality and only hired because they're cheaper. Even if that's the case, it's missing the wider point. Also, if they're going to enforce the min. wage laws that strongly, why not just enforce the immigration laws strongly?
There are very many good reasons to steeply raise the minimum wage, but the only one with any connection to immigration is that it would force the employers to automate and eliminate a lot of the low skilled drudge work that Americans don't want to do for what the employers are willing to pay. Claiming anything else just pointlessly alienates the libertarians and fiscal conservatives who might be open to closing the borders.
Correct, and this is why social welfare systems are popular in sheltered, ethnically homogeneous places such as Minnesota, New England, of Canada (Canada is diverse but its diversity is mostly Asians). In such places people can expect to get back what they put in (in the form of free tuition, parks, competently and non-corruptly administered services), and aide goes mostly only to one’s needy neighbors or friends such as the temporarily or honestly unemployed, mentally ill, etc. According to Transparency International, Denmark is the least corrupt country in the world.
In the broader US, such a system would simply be a massive corruption farm that funnels money to inefficient overpaid unionized government workers who waste money, and welfare for generations of freeloaders.
“Denmark and Scandinavia were generally poorer than southern Europe until about a century ago.”
That is ridiculous bulls**t. I don’t think I will need to waste any more time considering your opinions.
The copious literature of Scandinavian-American immigrants and their children does tend to suggest a hardscrabble life back in the old country. Whether it was worse than Sicily, Lombardy, Thessalonia, or the Balkans is open to question.Replies: @5371, @AP
I see Anonymous commenting everywhere all over the internet. He is one of the world's most prolific commenters. You're going to have a hard time avoiding his comments.
'That is ridiculous bulls**t. I don’t think I will need to waste any more time considering your opinions.'
It is my impression that the wealth of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies was largely destroyed in the aftermath of the Risorgimento, much as the wealth of the American South was in the War Between the States. It is interesting to compare Lampedusa's The Leopard with (say) Faulkner's The Unvanquished, or even Margaret Mitchell's Gone With the Wind.
Both the Mezzogiorno and the American South had warm climates and were agriculturally fertile. They had agricultural economies that were in good part based on cash crops - cotton and tobacco in the American South, olive oil and wine in southern Italy. Their late 19th-century poverty was due to the disruption of their established economies by war.
By contrast, the climates of Scandinavian countries were cold and had short growing seasons. They were poor for the same reasons that Scotland was poor; arable land was sparse and none too fertile, while crops were limited to those that could be grown in a brief summer. Subsistence farming was the norm, rather than that of cash crops. The literary heritage of this part of the world gives us a good picture of its poverty - for example, Vilhelm Moberg's The Emigrants series, which describes its subjects' bleak lives both in Småland in southern Sweden, and in Chisago County, Minnesota.
Of course the impressions derived from literature are subjective, but it is more easily accessible than comparative economic data. For what it is worth, here is Wikipedia's description of Småland:
"In the 19th century, Småland was characterized by poverty, and had a substantial emigration to North America, which additionally hampered its development. The majority of emigrants ended up in Minnesota, with a geography resembling Sweden, combining arable land with forest and lakes. (...)
"Old Swedish encyclopedia Nordisk familjebok describes the inhabitants of Småland as follows: the Smålandian is by nature awake and smart, diligent and hard-working, yet compliant, cunning and crafty, which gives him the advantage of being able to move through life with little means.
"A running joke local to Sweden, is that Smålandians are very economical, ranging from modestly frugal to utterly cheap. Ingvar Kamprad said that the Smålandian are seen as the Scotsmen of Sweden."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Småland
Of course, no matter what the reasons for 19th-century European poverty, the Old World dealt with it by exporting its surplus population, much of it to North America. The differences between then and now lie in the availability of an open frontier in the 19th-century United States, and the absence of a welfare state. Immigrants then had to be self-sufficient, and expected to be so.Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Reg Cæsar, @Buffalo Joe
2. 1,500 of the best educated young people have emigrated to high-tech jobs elsewhere in the world.
3. EU sanctions have crippled Finnish GDP; plus Putin is taunting them with sending all the MENA migrants coming from the northern border (Murmansk area more or less). There's another Putin-planned scary development (get to later if Steve posts something connected to that) for Finland, and, it seems he is relishing punishing all the EU for Crimea annexation, by flooding EU countries with migrants.
4. Private companies, even large ones, are not doing well (Nokia was bought/saved by Microsoft); paper and pulp is in jeopardy; outsourcing, etc.)
5. Baby boomers and the "war children," are both sucking up a lot of healthcare - there is an alarming amount of pancreatic/stomach/liver/throat cancer in Finland - Tsernobyl, China pollution wafting over?
6. 32,000 migrants who have come there for hand-0uts and live off of Finns. Supposedly, Finland is rounding up 20,000 and sending them on Finnair back to somewhere, who knows where, in MENA lands. BBC is only site where you can actually, get some info, Finnish papers too. I have found articles where there are great debates about EU officials demanding that the media not broadcast all the negative stuff the migrants do.Replies: @Buffalo Joe
Has libertarian economist Bryan Caplan ever troubled himself to notice that most of these mass immigrants support the welfare state, and so will their kids, and they'll all be able to vote eventually?Replies: @Das, @dfordoom, @David In TN
The libertarians are too willfully stupid to notice reality.
At the most basic level, a libertarian immigration policy would demand each immigrant be wholly self-sufficient, and each of his dependents dependent on him alone (or a sponsor), not the state. Eighty, ninety, ninety-five-- where do we find a number?-- percent of today's intake don't qualify on libertarian grounds.
Most pseudolibertarians today support "same-sex marriage", totally a creation of the state, as it barely existed in any form before the state turned its attention to it. (Real marriage predates the state by many millennia.) But as Jennifer Roback Morse, an economist in libertarian circles for decades, and once on the LP's board, explains, the only reason for the state to be involved in a couple's fate at all is that they can produce a being too weak to defend its own interests.
You could make a chart with two columns labelled "Non-Aggression Principle" and "Political Correctness Pseudoprinciple", and see into which, on various issues, today's self-described libertarians fall.
What I find interesting is the high correlation I've noticed among whites in America wanting socialism and their ability to be able to notice things that you aren't suppose to notice. Whites of various ethnic backgrounds who support Canadian-style healthcare and Scandinavian-style social welfare benefits generally seem to either deny or despise the topics we discuss at iSteve.
On the other hand whites who notice what you aren't suppose to notice, and who discuss topics discussed on this blog, generally don't support the social welfare state.
Why is that? There are obviously exceptions. I suppose the whites who don't want the giant social safety net have arrived at their position because they have already thought through the difficulties of having such a safety net with a large NAM population. This might explain why Europeans of all political stripes seem to support social safety nets, at least until Merkel ruins their countries.
Does any reader of this blog support Bernie-style policies? If not, would you if our demographics were more like Finland?Replies: @Anonymous, @gruff, @Anatoly Karlin, @dfordoom, @RolfDan, @Jesse, @AndrewR, @27 year old, @Thea
I think the “free” education should be limited mainly to connecting the able to in-demand professional qualifications. I don’t think it helps the country that someone who has talent can’t afford to become an engineer, or that they have a lifetime of debt. The kind of qualifications targeted would be the same that H1b visa applicants have. This could kill two birds with one stone – less immigration and a better qualified native population.
Depressingly, every political issue in the US is ultimately about the race problem.
Gun control? It is all about white homeowners who are scared of black invaders coming to rape their wives.
Medicaid? It is all about obese black diabetics who need kidney dialysis to stay alive.
Education? It is all about making sure there are enough affordable private schools to educate the white children, while the public schools deal with the black children and those who have behavioral or mental health issues.
When my wife was in Sweden several years ago, one of her hosts said he couldn’t understand conservative America’s obsession with lower taxes. He told her, “I’d be happy to give the government half of my money in taxes!” (He was a sort of middle income guy.)
It reminds me of how proud the left is of it’s ignorance. He maybe wouldn’t giving the government half of his money, but he probably would mind giving it to criminally inclined blacks who turned every large city in Sweden into pit. Of course, this was before Sweden’s latest mass immigration from the third world, so maybe he’s changed his tune by now.
Kathy Shaidle’s best line ever was, “I thank God every day that it’s always been too cold to grow cotton in Canada.” Same sentiment should apply in Scandinavia. But, as I said, the left is very proud of it’s ignorance.
What I find interesting is the high correlation I've noticed among whites in America wanting socialism and their ability to be able to notice things that you aren't suppose to notice. Whites of various ethnic backgrounds who support Canadian-style healthcare and Scandinavian-style social welfare benefits generally seem to either deny or despise the topics we discuss at iSteve.
On the other hand whites who notice what you aren't suppose to notice, and who discuss topics discussed on this blog, generally don't support the social welfare state.
Why is that? There are obviously exceptions. I suppose the whites who don't want the giant social safety net have arrived at their position because they have already thought through the difficulties of having such a safety net with a large NAM population. This might explain why Europeans of all political stripes seem to support social safety nets, at least until Merkel ruins their countries.
Does any reader of this blog support Bernie-style policies? If not, would you if our demographics were more like Finland?Replies: @Anonymous, @gruff, @Anatoly Karlin, @dfordoom, @RolfDan, @Jesse, @AndrewR, @27 year old, @Thea
“Does any reader of this blog support Bernie-style policies?”
Yup. I’m a liberal, in the non classical sense. Liberal politics, and a population that can handle them. That said, Charles Murray would probably call me a monstrous hypocrite for living a fairly traditional life myself, which is wrong; I just don’t need the babysitting of a conservative political system.
Imagine had a wiser president than Lincoln simply let the place go, with a 61% black majority. The Union would be that much whiter, and South Carolina would be South Africa. Minus the impromptu organ removals on the back alleys.
A more diverse population means fewer people approve of economically left-wing policies.
Libertarian economist Bryan Caplan has openly stated that he supports mass immigration because it will reduce support for the welfare state and increase support for more economically libertarian policies.
People on the left and many people on the right fail to understand this.Replies: @anon, @Harry Baldwin, @Stephen R. Diamond, @Clyde, @bomag, @e, @James O'Meara, @WJ, @Alec Leamas, @Olorin, @The Plutonium Kid, @Wally
Libertarian economist Bryan Caplan has openly stated that he supports mass immigration because it will reduce support for the welfare state and increase support for more economically libertarian policies.
That is just one reason Mr. Caplan is not thought of highly here.
Try telling working class/middle class Californians that mass immigration to this state has done anything other than INCREASED the welfare state.
Problem with this theory is that it's based on the preposterous idea that companies will illegally hire a worker, but then follow the law and pay him minimum wage. How incredibly naive.Replies: @Jesse
“Anyone in America who seriously wants to cut migration would, like Ron Unz, advocate a steep increase in the minimum wage.”
“Problem with this theory is that it’s based on the preposterous idea that companies will illegally hire a worker, but then follow the law and pay him minimum wage. How incredibly naive.”
Well, the argument is that a high and strongly enforced minimum wage will push employers into taking the native born worker. That, of course, assumes that the foreign worker is always going to be lower quality and only hired because they’re cheaper. Even if that’s the case, it’s missing the wider point. Also, if they’re going to enforce the min. wage laws that strongly, why not just enforce the immigration laws strongly?
There are very many good reasons to steeply raise the minimum wage, but the only one with any connection to immigration is that it would force the employers to automate and eliminate a lot of the low skilled drudge work that Americans don’t want to do for what the employers are willing to pay. Claiming anything else just pointlessly alienates the libertarians and fiscal conservatives who might be open to closing the borders.
Do either of you have a source?
The copious literature of Scandinavian-American immigrants and their children does tend to suggest a hardscrabble life back in the old country. Whether it was worse than Sicily, Lombardy, Thessalonia, or the Balkans is open to question.
http://dev3.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/1/1699/papers/Broadberry_Klein.pdf
Scroll to page 20.
Denmark was always wealthier than southern Europe.
In 1870 and 1890 Italy had a higher per capita GDP than Norway, Sweden and Finland. But by 1913 only Finland was poorer than Italy.
Portugal and Greece were always poorer than the Scandinavian countries.
Spain was slightly poorer than Sweden and Finland in 1870, slightly richer than those two in 1890, and fell behind in 1913.
“Denmark and Scandinavia were generally poorer than southern Europe until about a century ago.”
“That is ridiculous bulls**t. I don’t think I will need to waste any more time considering your opinions.”
It’s been argued convincingly before that those populations were desperately poor compared to other populations. I’m somewhat skeptical, but even if it’s completely true, all that means is that the Scandis quite recently found a very specific political and economic system that works for them.
What I find interesting is the high correlation I've noticed among whites in America wanting socialism and their ability to be able to notice things that you aren't suppose to notice. Whites of various ethnic backgrounds who support Canadian-style healthcare and Scandinavian-style social welfare benefits generally seem to either deny or despise the topics we discuss at iSteve.
On the other hand whites who notice what you aren't suppose to notice, and who discuss topics discussed on this blog, generally don't support the social welfare state.
Why is that? There are obviously exceptions. I suppose the whites who don't want the giant social safety net have arrived at their position because they have already thought through the difficulties of having such a safety net with a large NAM population. This might explain why Europeans of all political stripes seem to support social safety nets, at least until Merkel ruins their countries.
Does any reader of this blog support Bernie-style policies? If not, would you if our demographics were more like Finland?Replies: @Anonymous, @gruff, @Anatoly Karlin, @dfordoom, @RolfDan, @Jesse, @AndrewR, @27 year old, @Thea
Divide and conquer. Each half of the political divide is given part of the truth and taught to hate people who think differently. Socialim is as reviled on the right as ethnonationalism is on the left. Hence very few people ever come to hold national socialist views (especially given the stigma towards 20th century national socialism).
So to answer your question, yes I do but really only for white people (as defined by most people). Thus I face opprobrium from all sides.
Correlation is not causation. The suigenocidal policies of the Swedes might come from a similar source as their welfare policies but they are not a direct result of such.
That’s fucking awesome
“Libertarians” today are quite a bit less libertarian than those of the past. For instance, they’re now silent on anti-discrimination law (which by standard libertarian theory should apply only to the state.)
At the most basic level, a libertarian immigration policy would demand each immigrant be wholly self-sufficient, and each of his dependents dependent on him alone (or a sponsor), not the state. Eighty, ninety, ninety-five– where do we find a number?– percent of today’s intake don’t qualify on libertarian grounds.
Most pseudolibertarians today support “same-sex marriage”, totally a creation of the state, as it barely existed in any form before the state turned its attention to it. (Real marriage predates the state by many millennia.) But as Jennifer Roback Morse, an economist in libertarian circles for decades, and once on the LP’s board, explains, the only reason for the state to be involved in a couple’s fate at all is that they can produce a being too weak to defend its own interests.
You could make a chart with two columns labelled “Non-Aggression Principle” and “Political Correctness Pseudoprinciple”, and see into which, on various issues, today’s self-described libertarians fall.
A more diverse population means fewer people approve of economically left-wing policies.
Libertarian economist Bryan Caplan has openly stated that he supports mass immigration because it will reduce support for the welfare state and increase support for more economically libertarian policies.
People on the left and many people on the right fail to understand this.Replies: @anon, @Harry Baldwin, @Stephen R. Diamond, @Clyde, @bomag, @e, @James O'Meara, @WJ, @Alec Leamas, @Olorin, @The Plutonium Kid, @Wally
“Libertarian economist Bryan Caplan has openly stated that he supports mass immigration because it will reduce support for the welfare state and increase support for more economically libertarian policies.”
That’s as stupid an argument as Buckley’s anti-abortion argument: we need more people so as to increase the chances of solving the overpopulation problem.
Are you kidding? Libertarians are the only ones who look objectively at the real world! At least, that's what every libertarian I've ever met has told me.Replies: @Rifleman, @dfordoom
Are there ANY libertarians without at least a touch of Asperger’s or autism??
Sure, but the manpower and armaments come from elsewhere, and Denmark would not be able to sustain it itself. There’s a reason Denmark offered little resistance to German invasion and had one of the lowest casualty rates in the war. I’m not damning them for this BTW; I don’t really care.
Fortunately for all of them the Danish king didn't get cocky like the Belgian king in WWI.
The last expression of this spirit I remember was JFK's "... ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
At the time, "country" was synonymous with "nation" or "volk" in many white Americans' hearts.Replies: @Ivy
Too many these days just say Folke Off
If economics really worked, you would think all these far flung foreigners that Caplan et al love so much would improve their home countries. But the libertarians tell us that the politics of the home country won't let this happen. So, politics trumps economics; politics is the stronger horse. I'm starting to see the light.Replies: @Ivy
Can a libertarian professor justify tenure?
But bear in mind that for example, to encode and decipher the information on a CD requires that the disc rotate at just such a speed and that the laser read and write head travel precisely to this point and that this extreme level of precision in the final products is made possible only by uncompromisingly tight manufacturing tolerances in the machines used to produce them.
We can't get away from machines. Somewhere along the line, information must be transcribed into a physical form that can be stored and retrieved. Think of the accuracy of the machines that control the etching head that creates the paths in stencils for integrated circuits. This is atomic level accuracy.
And this knowledge is cumulative. A nation cannot go from being a banana republic or oil exporter to a computer chip manufacturer without going through the sequential stages that confer intellectual mastery. The essential skill to making complex stuff is a Mindset, a toolbox of mental habits.
We, as a nation, seem to be devolving from a technological leader to a food exporter and thinkers like Krugman see nothing wrong with this--encourage it even. For example, much of the chip technology that was developed in American labs and classrooms has been sold to foreign nations. When a competitor buys a company, they own all of the intellectual property and patents and Asian countries are happy to let America develop processes which they can then step in and buy a few years later when the struggling start up goes belly up for lack of government support--a deficiency which their system rectifies and which Krugman decries for its lack of adherence to pure market, Ricardian comparative advantage principles.
Donald Trump is tapping not just into people's ignorant nativism, as Krugman has diatribed, but rather into their hurt sense of pride at having lost their collective sense of competence and of being in control of their own destiny. Krugman misses this point as only a hot-house, urban-minded Jewish boy can.Replies: @Ivy, @Anon
People in the current election cycle are demonstrating a visceral reaction to the impact of the reverse colonialism that has been the de facto economic and social policy for the past few decades.
We coulda been somebody, we coulda been a contenda, and so we shall again
Here's Paul Krugman on the subject: ""The basic Ricardian model envisages a single factor, labor, which can move freely between industries. When one tries to talk about trade with laymen, however, one at least sometimes realizes that they do not think about things that way at all. They think about steelworkers, textile workers, and so on; there is no such thing as a national labor market. It does not occur to them that the wages earned in one industry are largely determined by the wages similar workers are earning in other industries…..and the idea that it is useful even for the sake of argument to imagine that workers can move from one industry to the other is foreign to them."
This is the basis for Krugman's defense of comparative advantage, which is the nugget of his proselytizing for pan-global trade which is, for him, an unmixed blessing. All workers, everywhere in the world are fungible. None deserve special consideration because that would interfere with the smooth workings of international trade, which supposedly benefits everyone everywhere.
But Krugman is just plain wrong. I'm not going to cite studies or statistics here but will speak from first-hand experience here to explain why.
I took a course in college level machine-metal working once and was surprised to find that to become a serious machinist required a mind set that was very different from our everyday consciousness. Machinists work to the thousandths of an inch. Every step must be deliberated upon and preplanned. Even the tolerances for a drive fit falls into a number of classifications. Everything has been calculated to a gnat's eyebrow. All alloys have been categorized as to qualities and appropriate usage.
To become a machinist means learning to think about the world in an utterly unique way and that way is totally attuned to the way of the world, its behavior and laws. A machinist is always interacting in a lawful manner with a lawful world. And this is a habit of mind that does not occur naturally. It must be taught and learned.
A society lacking a class of educated machinists is missing a portion of its brain. And missing a portion of its brain, it cannot engage with the modern world on an equal footing. Not being able to engage on an equal footing puts it at a permanent disadvantage which makes it perennially servile. Being perennially servile is not an adequate basis for conducting free trade.
Every advanced nation WITHOUT EXCEPTION, has built itself upon a class of precision machinists. NOT ONE has taken the globalists like Krugman's advice and successfully bootstrapped itself to a position of independence without having done so. All have protected their nascent metal working industries and in doing so incubated a class of higher order thinkers. Not one has followed the path of free trade. All have recognized the importance of cultivating a Mindset of conscientious attentiveness to the objective conditions of the world. So, Krugman may argue that it is wasteful for a second rate economy to cultivate its metal working capabilities because it would do better to focus on producing what it can export to Germany but this misses the larger point that doing so precludes its developing critical mental skills and a way of doing the world that is necessary not just to economic progress, but social and political progress as well.
People with a mindset attuned to the objective conditions of the world will not be bothered by such distractions as trannie rights or the spurious claims for reparations by charlatans intent upon defrauding a disoriented, rootless populace. Keeping workers off balance is critical to the globalist's agenda and nothing does this better than treating them as fungible.
Academic Globalists like Krugman overestimate their own usefulness and underestimate the worth of Engineers and machinists without whom the Krugmans of the world would have nothing to speculate about.
I'm not tooting my own horn here, because I'm not a machinist.Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Discard, @Threecranes, @Anonymous
Wonderful post! I actually might use this in a college class I teach, when we come to discuss free trade. Chimes well, with the writings of Ha Joon Chang and others.
What I find interesting is the high correlation I've noticed among whites in America wanting socialism and their ability to be able to notice things that you aren't suppose to notice. Whites of various ethnic backgrounds who support Canadian-style healthcare and Scandinavian-style social welfare benefits generally seem to either deny or despise the topics we discuss at iSteve.
On the other hand whites who notice what you aren't suppose to notice, and who discuss topics discussed on this blog, generally don't support the social welfare state.
Why is that? There are obviously exceptions. I suppose the whites who don't want the giant social safety net have arrived at their position because they have already thought through the difficulties of having such a safety net with a large NAM population. This might explain why Europeans of all political stripes seem to support social safety nets, at least until Merkel ruins their countries.
Does any reader of this blog support Bernie-style policies? If not, would you if our demographics were more like Finland?Replies: @Anonymous, @gruff, @Anatoly Karlin, @dfordoom, @RolfDan, @Jesse, @AndrewR, @27 year old, @Thea
I would support Bernie-style economic policies if we had the 95+% White population to back them up.
Denmark sure sounds like a nice place.
Bicycles, blondes, social cohesion…
What’s not to like?
Too bad they have such formidable obstacles to immigration…
Otherwise I might not mind paying the high taxes to join their fine well ordered community.
…Wait… I see what they did there.
“Socialism is a for-us-by-us system…” – Cohesion of society seems to be the necessary condition for some form of socialism to work (say Scandinavian countries till 1980s). Immigration destroys this cohesion. So who supports immigration? Socialists or neo-liberals? Actually both, but neo-liberals do it with the hidden agenda of destroying the socialism while socialists are open to immigration out of ideological blindness that made talking about ethnicity and its effects on the cohesion a taboo. In the end the socialists are the useful idiots of the neo-liberals.
“…system for Jews…” – Bringing up Jews obscures the subject because Jews regardless of the system are firsts of all motivated by their ethnic interests. When discriminated and constituting the underclass socialism is promoted. But after reaching the top 10% the immigration leading to societal fragmentation and lack of cohesion is promoted.
The presence of ethnic minority in the US (Afro-Americans) from the day one of the existence of this country was the deciding factor that socialism could not be created. The lack of cohesions, ethnic animosities, suspicions and low trust guaranteed that the dominant social narrative would be that of liberal and anti-communitarian persuasion. So if you are an American proud of American economic liberties… thank your ancestors for bringing African slaves and if you think your SS check is too low curse them.
Though the post is an obvious straw man, I would respond with a few thoughts. Even if/when Clinton gets the nom, either through cheating or winning cleanly, it will still be worth it for a few reasons.
First, and if nothing else, Bernie’s run has exposed the system in general, and the Dem party in particular, for what it is: a a rigged game run by corrupt insiders. I don’t think we’re likely to believe in political fairy tales about the magnificence of the 2-party system ever again.
Second, the Overton window has been pushed pretty far That is, the range of political options or policy choices that we are able to talk about is wider than ever. Examples on the left and the right – leftists can argue for free, nationalized health care. A slightly tweaked private insurance system is not the best that we can do.
We’ve made a Hillary presidency less likely – no Hillary presidency means several thousand American servicemen won’t be killed in pointless Middle East wars in the next 4 years.
We’re organizing for next time. Since there’s no reason to believe the economy will be anything except still terrible in 4 years, the fundamentals still favor leftward change. Finally, I really think this election could be the last chance for peaceful, Constitutional change within our existing system of government. I for one didn’t want to let the duty to at least try to fix this country slip by.
I really like your remarks, Discard. Thanks for sharing that.
I’ve never considered the discipline it takes to work in that profession, but I’m not surprised based on how sloppy my amateur carpentry projects have turned out.
I’ve been of this sentiment for a long time. Something about our unique American restless striving to ascend in class standing together with our status anxiety that is the flip side of our uncertain social position and the promise of social mobility guaranteed by the American dream probably means that exercises in solidarity like the one you suggest don’t find much resonance. Requiring mastery and completion of some skill or trade for admission to humanities or liberal arts sure sounds like something out of Chairman Mao’s playbook. But that doesn’t make it a bad idea. I knew a number of people who came of age in East Germany and they expressed a kind of (N)Ostalgie for having the kind of social order you propose. It was unfortunate that so many useful and functional institutions and norms were flushed when they got taken over by the big rich Western brothers. Perhaps the idea you propose is something so useful and wholesome that both the left and the right could get behind?
Finally I won’t pretend to know the inside of Prof. Krugman’s heart, but I bet you’ll still find plenty of respect in the ivory tower for people who work with dirt under their fingernails. Of course not from everybody there; some academics are hopeless snobs. But not all working-class folks are philistines are rubes either…
The first step is to understand that Bernie Sanders isn’t actually socialist and isn’t trying to give people a bunch of free stuff.
So we’ll ignore the fact that the main points of Bernie Sander’s rhetoric deals with political and economic corruption and instead focus on the shiny things.
Universal healthcare: Pharmaceutical companies have virtual monopolies and post-patent use third parties to bribe doctors to prescribe name brand drugs over generics. Hence why Americans pay thousand-fold markup prices for drugs when Europe doesn’t because over there, government actually gets to negotiate / regulate prices. Single-payer removes the need to advertise, the skimming by over-compensated senior execs, and the 20% administrative fees where it’s more profitable to hire people to haggle over who’s actually footing the bill for the absurdly priced drug or procedure.
University tuition assistance: Agree with what has been said here. Many jobs in America don’t require a college education so why waste people’s time sending them there. The next step then is to realize there are many jobs in American (service, food service, construction, agriculture) that are essential, if not skilled, and the people that work them deserve better than starvation wages.
The copious literature of Scandinavian-American immigrants and their children does tend to suggest a hardscrabble life back in the old country. Whether it was worse than Sicily, Lombardy, Thessalonia, or the Balkans is open to question.Replies: @5371, @AP
Scandinavians’ life expectancy at birth was always much longer than that of those born in more clement climes. That, at least, is fact not opinion.
“You are right about people not being fungible. There are exceptions however; economists like Caplan and Krugman are themselves actually quite fungible.”
Fungible and disposable. Or fungible and expendable. Whichever is more permanent.
But bear in mind that for example, to encode and decipher the information on a CD requires that the disc rotate at just such a speed and that the laser read and write head travel precisely to this point and that this extreme level of precision in the final products is made possible only by uncompromisingly tight manufacturing tolerances in the machines used to produce them.
We can't get away from machines. Somewhere along the line, information must be transcribed into a physical form that can be stored and retrieved. Think of the accuracy of the machines that control the etching head that creates the paths in stencils for integrated circuits. This is atomic level accuracy.
And this knowledge is cumulative. A nation cannot go from being a banana republic or oil exporter to a computer chip manufacturer without going through the sequential stages that confer intellectual mastery. The essential skill to making complex stuff is a Mindset, a toolbox of mental habits.
We, as a nation, seem to be devolving from a technological leader to a food exporter and thinkers like Krugman see nothing wrong with this--encourage it even. For example, much of the chip technology that was developed in American labs and classrooms has been sold to foreign nations. When a competitor buys a company, they own all of the intellectual property and patents and Asian countries are happy to let America develop processes which they can then step in and buy a few years later when the struggling start up goes belly up for lack of government support--a deficiency which their system rectifies and which Krugman decries for its lack of adherence to pure market, Ricardian comparative advantage principles.
Donald Trump is tapping not just into people's ignorant nativism, as Krugman has diatribed, but rather into their hurt sense of pride at having lost their collective sense of competence and of being in control of their own destiny. Krugman misses this point as only a hot-house, urban-minded Jewish boy can.Replies: @Ivy, @Anon
Why are machinists still needed? Couldn’t a robot do that job?
What I find interesting is the high correlation I've noticed among whites in America wanting socialism and their ability to be able to notice things that you aren't suppose to notice. Whites of various ethnic backgrounds who support Canadian-style healthcare and Scandinavian-style social welfare benefits generally seem to either deny or despise the topics we discuss at iSteve.
On the other hand whites who notice what you aren't suppose to notice, and who discuss topics discussed on this blog, generally don't support the social welfare state.
Why is that? There are obviously exceptions. I suppose the whites who don't want the giant social safety net have arrived at their position because they have already thought through the difficulties of having such a safety net with a large NAM population. This might explain why Europeans of all political stripes seem to support social safety nets, at least until Merkel ruins their countries.
Does any reader of this blog support Bernie-style policies? If not, would you if our demographics were more like Finland?Replies: @Anonymous, @gruff, @Anatoly Karlin, @dfordoom, @RolfDan, @Jesse, @AndrewR, @27 year old, @Thea
Not exactly Bernie style, but I do support social safety nets and believe executives are compensated far too much while low level workers make too little.
Free college education could work but only for the upper x% of good students. None of this remedial courses or endless tutoring, pc hires nonsense. Academically weak students would follow a path to work or votech.
I support some medical and social security, too.
But this can only work with controlled immigration.
I know other who agree with me. (Social safety net + nationalist)
A more diverse population means fewer people approve of economically left-wing policies.
Libertarian economist Bryan Caplan has openly stated that he supports mass immigration because it will reduce support for the welfare state and increase support for more economically libertarian policies.
People on the left and many people on the right fail to understand this.Replies: @anon, @Harry Baldwin, @Stephen R. Diamond, @Clyde, @bomag, @e, @James O'Meara, @WJ, @Alec Leamas, @Olorin, @The Plutonium Kid, @Wally
One of the most irrational, illogical comments I have read here. Do you really believe this garbage? Caplan is an open borders nut and as other commenters have noted, third world immigrants aren’t exactly Jeffersonian democrats who believe in free trade, low taxes and smaller government. They are net takers of government benefits. 1/2 of all immigrants, legal or illegal, in Texas are on the government dole, one way or the other.
It’s a total fantasy to think that these immigrants will be anything other than big government supporters.
A more diverse population means fewer people approve of economically left-wing policies.
Libertarian economist Bryan Caplan has openly stated that he supports mass immigration because it will reduce support for the welfare state and increase support for more economically libertarian policies.
People on the left and many people on the right fail to understand this.Replies: @anon, @Harry Baldwin, @Stephen R. Diamond, @Clyde, @bomag, @e, @James O'Meara, @WJ, @Alec Leamas, @Olorin, @The Plutonium Kid, @Wally
No, it demonstrates that if the United States’ demography approximated South Carolina’s Democratic primary electorate rather than those of New Hampshire and Iowa, American socialism would proceed along the lines of a racial spoils system with the choicest bits and lion’s share of mo munny fo dem programs reserved for the all-time champions of the Oppression Olympics, the native U.S. black population. It’s a matter of blacks asserting their place as at the top of the Democrats’ client class hierarchy and jealously guarding it against white interlopers who want silly things like free state college tuition (which is probably already the case for whichever poor black South Carolinians make it into the state’s colleges and universities). Whites are meant to the the payors, not the payees.
The money is also supposed to be distributed via the black community’s hierarchy of big men so that ample graft can be skimmed off for the leaders to live high and reinforce their big man status. Hillary seems to be more at peace with this state of affairs.
A more diverse population means fewer people approve of economically left-wing policies.
Libertarian economist Bryan Caplan has openly stated that he supports mass immigration because it will reduce support for the welfare state and increase support for more economically libertarian policies.
People on the left and many people on the right fail to understand this.Replies: @anon, @Harry Baldwin, @Stephen R. Diamond, @Clyde, @bomag, @e, @James O'Meara, @WJ, @Alec Leamas, @Olorin, @The Plutonium Kid, @Wally
“A more diverse population” doesn’t approve either of Jewish/bolshevik or Scandinavian/democratic socialist policies…
…because they grok viscerally that both do not reflect their ethno-genetic interests.
Mass immigration is not going to increase “economically libertarian policies.” Libertarians are the brethren of Andrea Mitchell’s husband, whose youthful crush–Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum–wrote the literal book on all that. Like PUA/Game, it’s a literary genre.
Muslims and Africans and subcontinent Indians and Chinese aren’t well known for basing their societies and actions on early 20th century Jewish New York literary genres.
That is ridiculous bulls**t. I don’t think I will need to waste any more time considering your opinions.
I see Anonymous commenting everywhere all over the internet. He is one of the world’s most prolific commenters. You’re going to have a hard time avoiding his comments.
‘“Denmark and Scandinavia were generally poorer than southern Europe until about a century ago.”
‘That is ridiculous bulls**t. I don’t think I will need to waste any more time considering your opinions.’
It is my impression that the wealth of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies was largely destroyed in the aftermath of the Risorgimento, much as the wealth of the American South was in the War Between the States. It is interesting to compare Lampedusa’s The Leopard with (say) Faulkner’s The Unvanquished, or even Margaret Mitchell’s Gone With the Wind.
Both the Mezzogiorno and the American South had warm climates and were agriculturally fertile. They had agricultural economies that were in good part based on cash crops – cotton and tobacco in the American South, olive oil and wine in southern Italy. Their late 19th-century poverty was due to the disruption of their established economies by war.
By contrast, the climates of Scandinavian countries were cold and had short growing seasons. They were poor for the same reasons that Scotland was poor; arable land was sparse and none too fertile, while crops were limited to those that could be grown in a brief summer. Subsistence farming was the norm, rather than that of cash crops. The literary heritage of this part of the world gives us a good picture of its poverty – for example, Vilhelm Moberg’s The Emigrants series, which describes its subjects’ bleak lives both in Småland in southern Sweden, and in Chisago County, Minnesota.
Of course the impressions derived from literature are subjective, but it is more easily accessible than comparative economic data. For what it is worth, here is Wikipedia’s description of Småland:
“In the 19th century, Småland was characterized by poverty, and had a substantial emigration to North America, which additionally hampered its development. The majority of emigrants ended up in Minnesota, with a geography resembling Sweden, combining arable land with forest and lakes. (…)
“Old Swedish encyclopedia Nordisk familjebok describes the inhabitants of Småland as follows: the Smålandian is by nature awake and smart, diligent and hard-working, yet compliant, cunning and crafty, which gives him the advantage of being able to move through life with little means.
“A running joke local to Sweden, is that Smålandians are very economical, ranging from modestly frugal to utterly cheap. Ingvar Kamprad said that the Smålandian are seen as the Scotsmen of Sweden.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Småland
Of course, no matter what the reasons for 19th-century European poverty, the Old World dealt with it by exporting its surplus population, much of it to North America. The differences between then and now lie in the availability of an open frontier in the 19th-century United States, and the absence of a welfare state. Immigrants then had to be self-sufficient, and expected to be so.
This deserves a heavy metal rebuttal. Perhaps from Spiñal Tap.
Quite easily. On a contractual basis.
'That is ridiculous bulls**t. I don’t think I will need to waste any more time considering your opinions.'
It is my impression that the wealth of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies was largely destroyed in the aftermath of the Risorgimento, much as the wealth of the American South was in the War Between the States. It is interesting to compare Lampedusa's The Leopard with (say) Faulkner's The Unvanquished, or even Margaret Mitchell's Gone With the Wind.
Both the Mezzogiorno and the American South had warm climates and were agriculturally fertile. They had agricultural economies that were in good part based on cash crops - cotton and tobacco in the American South, olive oil and wine in southern Italy. Their late 19th-century poverty was due to the disruption of their established economies by war.
By contrast, the climates of Scandinavian countries were cold and had short growing seasons. They were poor for the same reasons that Scotland was poor; arable land was sparse and none too fertile, while crops were limited to those that could be grown in a brief summer. Subsistence farming was the norm, rather than that of cash crops. The literary heritage of this part of the world gives us a good picture of its poverty - for example, Vilhelm Moberg's The Emigrants series, which describes its subjects' bleak lives both in Småland in southern Sweden, and in Chisago County, Minnesota.
Of course the impressions derived from literature are subjective, but it is more easily accessible than comparative economic data. For what it is worth, here is Wikipedia's description of Småland:
"In the 19th century, Småland was characterized by poverty, and had a substantial emigration to North America, which additionally hampered its development. The majority of emigrants ended up in Minnesota, with a geography resembling Sweden, combining arable land with forest and lakes. (...)
"Old Swedish encyclopedia Nordisk familjebok describes the inhabitants of Småland as follows: the Smålandian is by nature awake and smart, diligent and hard-working, yet compliant, cunning and crafty, which gives him the advantage of being able to move through life with little means.
"A running joke local to Sweden, is that Smålandians are very economical, ranging from modestly frugal to utterly cheap. Ingvar Kamprad said that the Smålandian are seen as the Scotsmen of Sweden."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Småland
Of course, no matter what the reasons for 19th-century European poverty, the Old World dealt with it by exporting its surplus population, much of it to North America. The differences between then and now lie in the availability of an open frontier in the 19th-century United States, and the absence of a welfare state. Immigrants then had to be self-sufficient, and expected to be so.Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Reg Cæsar, @Buffalo Joe
Lindström, Minnesota, while not in Chisago County, lies right next to Chisago City. Sadly, the state took away their umlaut.
This deserves a heavy metal rebuttal. Perhaps from Spiñal Tap.
'That is ridiculous bulls**t. I don’t think I will need to waste any more time considering your opinions.'
It is my impression that the wealth of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies was largely destroyed in the aftermath of the Risorgimento, much as the wealth of the American South was in the War Between the States. It is interesting to compare Lampedusa's The Leopard with (say) Faulkner's The Unvanquished, or even Margaret Mitchell's Gone With the Wind.
Both the Mezzogiorno and the American South had warm climates and were agriculturally fertile. They had agricultural economies that were in good part based on cash crops - cotton and tobacco in the American South, olive oil and wine in southern Italy. Their late 19th-century poverty was due to the disruption of their established economies by war.
By contrast, the climates of Scandinavian countries were cold and had short growing seasons. They were poor for the same reasons that Scotland was poor; arable land was sparse and none too fertile, while crops were limited to those that could be grown in a brief summer. Subsistence farming was the norm, rather than that of cash crops. The literary heritage of this part of the world gives us a good picture of its poverty - for example, Vilhelm Moberg's The Emigrants series, which describes its subjects' bleak lives both in Småland in southern Sweden, and in Chisago County, Minnesota.
Of course the impressions derived from literature are subjective, but it is more easily accessible than comparative economic data. For what it is worth, here is Wikipedia's description of Småland:
"In the 19th century, Småland was characterized by poverty, and had a substantial emigration to North America, which additionally hampered its development. The majority of emigrants ended up in Minnesota, with a geography resembling Sweden, combining arable land with forest and lakes. (...)
"Old Swedish encyclopedia Nordisk familjebok describes the inhabitants of Småland as follows: the Smålandian is by nature awake and smart, diligent and hard-working, yet compliant, cunning and crafty, which gives him the advantage of being able to move through life with little means.
"A running joke local to Sweden, is that Smålandians are very economical, ranging from modestly frugal to utterly cheap. Ingvar Kamprad said that the Smålandian are seen as the Scotsmen of Sweden."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Småland
Of course, no matter what the reasons for 19th-century European poverty, the Old World dealt with it by exporting its surplus population, much of it to North America. The differences between then and now lie in the availability of an open frontier in the 19th-century United States, and the absence of a welfare state. Immigrants then had to be self-sufficient, and expected to be so.Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Reg Cæsar, @Buffalo Joe
The wealth of the Old South was tied too closely to the proximity of Africans to be a good long-term bet anyway.
I have remarked before that the highest per-capita concentration of millionaires in the U.S. was at one point during the antebellum period supposed to have been in Natchez, Mississippi. Then the Thirteenth Amendment transformed the blacks from assets to liabilities in one fell swoop - and liabilities they have remained ever since.
He seems to not know Scandinavian history. Sweden has always been fairly wealthy and became wealthier after Nobel invented dynamite and other explosives. This is also, why ironically, Sweden is so sanctimonious by wanting to be seen as an example to the rest of the world, with its humanitarian aid and welcoming of migrants/immigrants, and all. Serious “white guilt,” because of all the money they made in the world wars…or some other neurotic societal, self-destructive tendency.
Norway now has had oil for decades (one of the reasons OBL was also “determined to strike” Norge) – getting that oil from the bottom of ferocious, freezing-cold seas is only for the highly intelligent, and brave – so, it is richer than Sweden now.
Denmark has been centrally located for centuries. Denmark is a leading country of shipbuilding (think Maersk and other lines)and steel and iron; good point earlier, for the posters about machinists and metal fabricators. Danish ship-owning families (and Norwegians) have always stuck together….very important. So, there are very many “good” jobs for the majority of students who don’t go to Denmark’s nation’s leading universities.
Iceland is a delightful island nation (but being crazy-stupid, is asking for migrants) isolated like Rivendell; neither poor nor rich…it is wonderful to vacation there, but the weather is an issue, even for me.
Finland, always the poorest country next to the Scandinavian ones, has never had oil, minerals, gas, metals in its ground. Finland (100 yrs ago was a Grand Duchy of Russia) is sort of, a la’ Trump, “a disaster.” right now. Why?
1. has been in a recession for 3 years; recovered slowly from the 1992 economic downfall from USSR implosion.
2. 1,500 of the best educated young people have emigrated to high-tech jobs elsewhere in the world.
3. EU sanctions have crippled Finnish GDP; plus Putin is taunting them with sending all the MENA migrants coming from the northern border (Murmansk area more or less). There’s another Putin-planned scary development (get to later if Steve posts something connected to that) for Finland, and, it seems he is relishing punishing all the EU for Crimea annexation, by flooding EU countries with migrants.
4. Private companies, even large ones, are not doing well (Nokia was bought/saved by Microsoft); paper and pulp is in jeopardy; outsourcing, etc.)
5. Baby boomers and the “war children,” are both sucking up a lot of healthcare – there is an alarming amount of pancreatic/stomach/liver/throat cancer in Finland – Tsernobyl, China pollution wafting over?
6. 32,000 migrants who have come there for hand-0uts and live off of Finns. Supposedly, Finland is rounding up 20,000 and sending them on Finnair back to somewhere, who knows where, in MENA lands. BBC is only site where you can actually, get some info, Finnish papers too. I have found articles where there are great debates about EU officials demanding that the media not broadcast all the negative stuff the migrants do.
And it goes without saying that the taxpayer shouldn’t have to pay for anyone to go to college to study acting, puppetry, sociology, queer theory, whiteness studies, or other such useless pursuits. Anyone who has an interest in such things should pay for it themselves.
I have thought about this for several years: any HS student who has combined SAT score of 2000 (now 1400) and ACT score of 32+ should be accepted into 3 programs of their personal choice, completely tuition-free regardless of income. Or, at least have an academic scholarship of 80% off of tuition at a HYP, for example. Only 20% USA students plan on majoring in a STEM field. All STEM field applicants should be expected to apply “Early Action” limited to 3 choices, so no more applications (and $65-$80 application fees) to all 16 programs of elite universities & 2-3 applications to state universities.
duh, you need machinists to build the robot.
Agree with both of you. Wanted to only add, that the obvious nature of a Denmark, which had been ethnically homogeneous while on its way (before migrants started to arrive in the late 70’s) to becoming this fantasy Legoland that Bernie and other liberals celebrate, is a low-corruption/high-trust nation, with a small population. Socialism, or Democratic Socialism, whatever, can ONLY work in High-Trust/Low-Corruption nations, mono-cultural societies, etc. Plus, the most successful ones ( now, sadly, past history), were very nationalistic and homogeneous. Like my cousin would say, “everybody pays into the system, everybody gets.” This just has not worked anywhere else than Denmark and a few other countries…and, there was an assumption that migrants would become an asset and not a drain – epic fail for 20 years or more.
First, and if nothing else, Bernie's run has exposed the system in general, and the Dem party in particular, for what it is: a a rigged game run by corrupt insiders. I don't think we're likely to believe in political fairy tales about the magnificence of the 2-party system ever again.
Second, the Overton window has been pushed pretty far That is, the range of political options or policy choices that we are able to talk about is wider than ever. Examples on the left and the right - leftists can argue for free, nationalized health care. A slightly tweaked private insurance system is not the best that we can do.
We've made a Hillary presidency less likely - no Hillary presidency means several thousand American servicemen won't be killed in pointless Middle East wars in the next 4 years.
We're organizing for next time. Since there's no reason to believe the economy will be anything except still terrible in 4 years, the fundamentals still favor leftward change. Finally, I really think this election could be the last chance for peaceful, Constitutional change within our existing system of government. I for one didn't want to let the duty to at least try to fix this country slip by.Replies: @melendwyr
What do you mean “we”, white man?
Wow, another quality post by Sailer, the guy whose ancestors didn’t know how to spell.
Regarding socialism, welfare, etc., the only viable option in a society with a large component of non-whites would be a requirement that each race can only receive handouts proportionate to the amount it pays in taxes. Hard to implement, of course.
Yes, in a country with poor soil and unpredictable weather a farmer may be wealthy one year and begging charity from his neighbors the next. It’s pure luck and nothing to do with how industrious he may be. People from such places will be socialists by nature, and will remain so long after memories of famine have disappeared.
Exhibit 586 of how libertarianism is fundamentally leftist in temperment. There is a deep assumption of creative destruction being a part of the political tool kit. The goals are different, but the real core impulses- the idea of the state and society as a plaything, chaos is worth it, people are fungible, churn as some lemming-like primal desire - runs deep.Replies: @rod1963, @Threecranes, @Bill Jones
People are not fungible and as Africa demonstrates so well, IQ is not additive.
.
Yes, I agree completely. Sharply reduce the number of college places, especially the useless degree courses. And make college free for the relatively small number who will actually benefit from it, and who will actually benefit society when they graduate.
For those who want to do useless hobby course like Gender Studies – let them pay full price. Or better still, let them do something else. Like getting real jobs, where they’ll contribute to society and develop self-respect.
Of course that assumes a society that offers people the chance to get real jobs that are decent jobs. That will require ending mass immigration and free trade.
I know a woman who earned a Ph.D in biochemisty from a German university who did this because at every juncture along the way there was no better career alternative immediately available and she hated working in the lab. We already have a variation of this going on now where students take on student loans and go back to school simply so that they can live in a troubled economy. This woman told me that there were plenty of other students in graduate school for that very reason, they didn't know what else to do, it was free (or she got a stipend, I can't remember all the details) and so they just did the easiest thing which was to continue on with their education. She ended up getting married and dropping out of the workforce to focus on raising her kids, so all told, she went through the schooling, did a few post-docs (which she hated) and then pulled the plug.
How are these people a good investment for society?
“The wealth of the Old South was tied too closely to the proximity of Africans to be a good long-term bet anyway.”
I have remarked before that the highest per-capita concentration of millionaires in the U.S. was at one point during the antebellum period supposed to have been in Natchez, Mississippi. Then the Thirteenth Amendment transformed the blacks from assets to liabilities in one fell swoop – and liabilities they have remained ever since.
Yes, that’s a real problem. But you can trace the beginnings of the welfare state to Germany under Bismarck. It didn’t seem to make 19th century Germans soft and stupid.
I’m not sure it’s social welfare systems that make people soft and stupid. I’m inclined to think it’s mass media, indoctrination in the education system and democracy. And of course feminism, which feminises everything it touches.
Witness the US disaster and the coming downfall of the EU.
Are you kidding? Libertarians are the only ones who look objectively at the real world! At least, that's what every libertarian I've ever met has told me.Replies: @Rifleman, @dfordoom
They tell me the same thing! I think they actually believe it. It’s sad!
And then they would tell me how their lives were changed by reading Atlas Shrugged. They seemed really confused when I reminded them that that was a work of fiction.
There's something about being really proud of yourself for using logic. You either end up joining a cult that worships some dead novelist, or you end up cowering in fear of some AI in the future who's going to torture you for all eternity if you think about an AI in the future torturing you for all eternity, or some crazy thing.
It's amazing to wonder at what they'll come up with next.
RolfDan, The better students don’t accumulate as much debt, they get scholarships, instructor and research jobs. When my son got his MBA he had a reasonable debt load. When he interviewed he mentioned his loans and all the prospective employers said they would pay it. My youngest child is pursuing her MBA and her current employer is paying her way. I agree with commenter Harry Baldwin, Puppeteering, Race Studies etc., you are on your own.
'That is ridiculous bulls**t. I don’t think I will need to waste any more time considering your opinions.'
It is my impression that the wealth of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies was largely destroyed in the aftermath of the Risorgimento, much as the wealth of the American South was in the War Between the States. It is interesting to compare Lampedusa's The Leopard with (say) Faulkner's The Unvanquished, or even Margaret Mitchell's Gone With the Wind.
Both the Mezzogiorno and the American South had warm climates and were agriculturally fertile. They had agricultural economies that were in good part based on cash crops - cotton and tobacco in the American South, olive oil and wine in southern Italy. Their late 19th-century poverty was due to the disruption of their established economies by war.
By contrast, the climates of Scandinavian countries were cold and had short growing seasons. They were poor for the same reasons that Scotland was poor; arable land was sparse and none too fertile, while crops were limited to those that could be grown in a brief summer. Subsistence farming was the norm, rather than that of cash crops. The literary heritage of this part of the world gives us a good picture of its poverty - for example, Vilhelm Moberg's The Emigrants series, which describes its subjects' bleak lives both in Småland in southern Sweden, and in Chisago County, Minnesota.
Of course the impressions derived from literature are subjective, but it is more easily accessible than comparative economic data. For what it is worth, here is Wikipedia's description of Småland:
"In the 19th century, Småland was characterized by poverty, and had a substantial emigration to North America, which additionally hampered its development. The majority of emigrants ended up in Minnesota, with a geography resembling Sweden, combining arable land with forest and lakes. (...)
"Old Swedish encyclopedia Nordisk familjebok describes the inhabitants of Småland as follows: the Smålandian is by nature awake and smart, diligent and hard-working, yet compliant, cunning and crafty, which gives him the advantage of being able to move through life with little means.
"A running joke local to Sweden, is that Smålandians are very economical, ranging from modestly frugal to utterly cheap. Ingvar Kamprad said that the Smålandian are seen as the Scotsmen of Sweden."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Småland
Of course, no matter what the reasons for 19th-century European poverty, the Old World dealt with it by exporting its surplus population, much of it to North America. The differences between then and now lie in the availability of an open frontier in the 19th-century United States, and the absence of a welfare state. Immigrants then had to be self-sufficient, and expected to be so.Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Reg Cæsar, @Buffalo Joe
Crawfurdmuir, My ancestors came from Sicily and about 25 years ago we (the male heirs) sold off the remaining landholding on the island. Sicily’s biggest source of income ( legal that is) is tourism. Their agricultural production accounts for less than 4% of Sicily’s GDP and is less than 2% of Italy’s GDP. Climate is great, soil quality good where it exists.
I don't doubt that what you say is correct today. My comments related to conditions prevailing in the mezzogiorno 150 years ago. In just the same way, agriculture now accounts for a smaller share of GDP in most of the US and Europe, and a much smaller amount of employment than it did in the 19th century before the spread of industry.Replies: @Wally
2. 1,500 of the best educated young people have emigrated to high-tech jobs elsewhere in the world.
3. EU sanctions have crippled Finnish GDP; plus Putin is taunting them with sending all the MENA migrants coming from the northern border (Murmansk area more or less). There's another Putin-planned scary development (get to later if Steve posts something connected to that) for Finland, and, it seems he is relishing punishing all the EU for Crimea annexation, by flooding EU countries with migrants.
4. Private companies, even large ones, are not doing well (Nokia was bought/saved by Microsoft); paper and pulp is in jeopardy; outsourcing, etc.)
5. Baby boomers and the "war children," are both sucking up a lot of healthcare - there is an alarming amount of pancreatic/stomach/liver/throat cancer in Finland - Tsernobyl, China pollution wafting over?
6. 32,000 migrants who have come there for hand-0uts and live off of Finns. Supposedly, Finland is rounding up 20,000 and sending them on Finnair back to somewhere, who knows where, in MENA lands. BBC is only site where you can actually, get some info, Finnish papers too. I have found articles where there are great debates about EU officials demanding that the media not broadcast all the negative stuff the migrants do.Replies: @Buffalo Joe
Lagertha, Norway and Sweden have vast deposits of iron ore and it was coveted by Germany in WWII.
My sister spent a couple of weeks in Denmark in ’73. She was college age and hung out with them. She mentioned that the Danes had developed an obsession about finding out if some product contained alcohol and how to get it out of the rest of the product and drink it. Stuff like medicines, mouthwash, whatever they could find. A fifth of cheap liquor was $15 and more, with inflation that’s $75+. Almost all of it taxes.
Regarding the machinists, those have always been difficult, expensive jobs to fill. 65 years ago, the aircraft companies were just starting to make jet airplanes, they needed lots of machinists to make the stamping dies to make the skin of the planes. They had found out double curvature shapes were needed to go 600 mph; the simple single curvature that worked with prop jobs wouldn’t. Double curvature is like a riding saddle, curves in two directions. Single is like a barrel. Steve Sailers dad would know all about this.
To speed up production and cut costs, the machine tool companies started making numerical control milling machines, lathes, shapers, to make those parts. Somebody programmed the machine to cut the metal; the operator just loaded the blank into the machine, pushed the green button to start and watched. If anything went wrong, he called the service guy. This has been the path we’ve been on since. The only skilled machinists work in a prototype shop and make one or two parts and then the programmer does his thing with those.
My dad started at GM in ’54 as a skilled machinist. 500 guys worked 60 hour weeks for 20 years. By the time he retired in ’86, there were 30 left. All computer operators had replaced the other 470. I got the bug from him, got a room in the house that is my machine shop with the lathes, milling machine, and all the tooling and measuring stuff. Some hobbyist will probably end up with all of it after I croak; all of it is commercially obsolete.
Commenters who think that Bryan Caplan is the last word on libertarians and immigration should pay more attention to Hans-Hermann Hoppe and others associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute–the most prominent libertarian center in the country and in fact anywhere. Or, indeed, they can simply consult Unz Review’s own brilliant Ilana Mercer. They won’t find any advocates of open borders and invite-invade the world, quite the contrary.
Ryan McMaken?
Ludwig Von Mises Institute and Lew Rockwell.com have been AWOL - at best - on immigration for this entire century.
“Sicily’s biggest source of income ( legal that is) is tourism. Their agricultural production accounts for less than 4% of Sicily’s GDP and is less than 2% of Italy’s GDP. ”
I don’t doubt that what you say is correct today. My comments related to conditions prevailing in the mezzogiorno 150 years ago. In just the same way, agriculture now accounts for a smaller share of GDP in most of the US and Europe, and a much smaller amount of employment than it did in the 19th century before the spread of industry.
A more diverse population means fewer people approve of economically left-wing policies.
Libertarian economist Bryan Caplan has openly stated that he supports mass immigration because it will reduce support for the welfare state and increase support for more economically libertarian policies.
People on the left and many people on the right fail to understand this.Replies: @anon, @Harry Baldwin, @Stephen R. Diamond, @Clyde, @bomag, @e, @James O'Meara, @WJ, @Alec Leamas, @Olorin, @The Plutonium Kid, @Wally
I don’t think Caplan took into account racial and ethnic competition for resources. Identity politics and democracy don’t mix well.
I wish someone like Ron Unz could get behind a scheme like this. Like the minimum wage, it seems like it could be something that left and right could both agree on.
The copious literature of Scandinavian-American immigrants and their children does tend to suggest a hardscrabble life back in the old country. Whether it was worse than Sicily, Lombardy, Thessalonia, or the Balkans is open to question.Replies: @5371, @AP
Here is a source:
http://dev3.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/1/1699/papers/Broadberry_Klein.pdf
Scroll to page 20.
Denmark was always wealthier than southern Europe.
In 1870 and 1890 Italy had a higher per capita GDP than Norway, Sweden and Finland. But by 1913 only Finland was poorer than Italy.
Portugal and Greece were always poorer than the Scandinavian countries.
Spain was slightly poorer than Sweden and Finland in 1870, slightly richer than those two in 1890, and fell behind in 1913.
pay more attention to Hans-Hermann Hoppe and others associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute– the most prominent libertarian center in the country and in fact anywhere… They won’t find any advocates of open borders and invite-invade the world, quite the contrary.
Ryan McMaken?
Ludwig Von Mises Institute and Lew Rockwell.com have been AWOL – at best – on immigration for this entire century.
My favorite was when Objectivists would always brag about how they were the only ones who looked at the world as it really was, and how, unlike everyone else in the world, they relied on pure logic.
And then they would tell me how their lives were changed by reading Atlas Shrugged. They seemed really confused when I reminded them that that was a work of fiction.
There’s something about being really proud of yourself for using logic. You either end up joining a cult that worships some dead novelist, or you end up cowering in fear of some AI in the future who’s going to torture you for all eternity if you think about an AI in the future torturing you for all eternity, or some crazy thing.
It’s amazing to wonder at what they’ll come up with next.
Yeah, you’re right. The paleolibertarians were pretty good. That doesn’t mean that the movement, by and large, isn’t pretty funny.
Regarding the machinists, those have always been difficult, expensive jobs to fill. 65 years ago, the aircraft companies were just starting to make jet airplanes, they needed lots of machinists to make the stamping dies to make the skin of the planes. They had found out double curvature shapes were needed to go 600 mph; the simple single curvature that worked with prop jobs wouldn't. Double curvature is like a riding saddle, curves in two directions. Single is like a barrel. Steve Sailers dad would know all about this.
To speed up production and cut costs, the machine tool companies started making numerical control milling machines, lathes, shapers, to make those parts. Somebody programmed the machine to cut the metal; the operator just loaded the blank into the machine, pushed the green button to start and watched. If anything went wrong, he called the service guy. This has been the path we've been on since. The only skilled machinists work in a prototype shop and make one or two parts and then the programmer does his thing with those.
My dad started at GM in '54 as a skilled machinist. 500 guys worked 60 hour weeks for 20 years. By the time he retired in '86, there were 30 left. All computer operators had replaced the other 470. I got the bug from him, got a room in the house that is my machine shop with the lathes, milling machine, and all the tooling and measuring stuff. Some hobbyist will probably end up with all of it after I croak; all of it is commercially obsolete.Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
Commercially obsolete can still be practically useful. My grandfather’s saw still cuts wood.
There is a recent Danish movie on Denmark’s one (two?) day war with Germany. A handful of young guys in bicycle platoons wielding old carbines and frantically pedaling down rural roads to confront a German armored division.
Fortunately for all of them the Danish king didn’t get cocky like the Belgian king in WWI.
Whaaa? I think I just said that Finland is POOR as far as its “land?” I love you Buffalo Joe, don’t get the elections and run-up make you all ADHD.
there are NO metals in Norway. Ok, full disclosure: if there were metals underneath the mountains/fjords of Norway (think about that) my entire family history would be different. Here I am a nobody, posting on Steve’s blog, BUT, if Norway had metal/oil (what it has now, and what Norway’s claim is in the Bering Sea and the rest of the Arctic Sea) within its territories in 1955-1965, world history may have been different.
A more diverse population means fewer people approve of economically left-wing policies.
Libertarian economist Bryan Caplan has openly stated that he supports mass immigration because it will reduce support for the welfare state and increase support for more economically libertarian policies.
People on the left and many people on the right fail to understand this.Replies: @anon, @Harry Baldwin, @Stephen R. Diamond, @Clyde, @bomag, @e, @James O'Meara, @WJ, @Alec Leamas, @Olorin, @The Plutonium Kid, @Wally
Caplan is no libertarian.
I'm not sure it's social welfare systems that make people soft and stupid. I'm inclined to think it's mass media, indoctrination in the education system and democracy. And of course feminism, which feminises everything it touches.Replies: @Wally
Social welfare systems only work with unified, ethnically cohesive populations.
Witness the US disaster and the coming downfall of the EU.
Identity politics and social welfare don’t mix at all.
This is why welfare properly belongs to the church, not to the state. The church doesn't have guns, and doesn't set immigration policy.
I don't doubt that what you say is correct today. My comments related to conditions prevailing in the mezzogiorno 150 years ago. In just the same way, agriculture now accounts for a smaller share of GDP in most of the US and Europe, and a much smaller amount of employment than it did in the 19th century before the spread of industry.Replies: @Wally
But who cares for Italy anymore since it’s rapidly becoming not Italian?
Bicycles, blondes, social cohesion...
What's not to like?
Too bad they have such formidable obstacles to immigration...
Otherwise I might not mind paying the high taxes to join their fine well ordered community.
...Wait... I see what they did there.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
They also have a state church. (Would you join?) Think about that for a moment. What level of cohesion does it take to have a state church? Could any state but Utah pull it off?
But identity politicians support social welfare measures more than anybody else– except their followers, of course. So it’s in the inherent interest of the social welfare state to import identity politicians and their clients.
This is why welfare properly belongs to the church, not to the state. The church doesn’t have guns, and doesn’t set immigration policy.
Well, England has a state church, with the Queen as its head, but it doesn’t count for much. There are probably more Muslim worshippers in London’s East End than Church of England worshippers in the whole of England.
http://www.steuer-forum-kirche.de/church-tax-short.pdf
Yes, I agree completely. Sharply reduce the number of college places, especially the useless degree courses. And make college free for the relatively small number who will actually benefit from it, and who will actually benefit society when they graduate.
For those who want to do useless hobby course like Gender Studies - let them pay full price. Or better still, let them do something else. Like getting real jobs, where they'll contribute to society and develop self-respect.
Of course that assumes a society that offers people the chance to get real jobs that are decent jobs. That will require ending mass immigration and free trade.Replies: @TangoMan
Yes, I agree completely. Sharply reduce the number of college places, especially the useless degree courses. And make college free for the relatively small number who will actually benefit from it, and who will actually benefit society when they graduate.
I know a woman who earned a Ph.D in biochemisty from a German university who did this because at every juncture along the way there was no better career alternative immediately available and she hated working in the lab. We already have a variation of this going on now where students take on student loans and go back to school simply so that they can live in a troubled economy. This woman told me that there were plenty of other students in graduate school for that very reason, they didn’t know what else to do, it was free (or she got a stipend, I can’t remember all the details) and so they just did the easiest thing which was to continue on with their education. She ended up getting married and dropping out of the workforce to focus on raising her kids, so all told, she went through the schooling, did a few post-docs (which she hated) and then pulled the plug.
How are these people a good investment for society?
Lagertha, I’m the only guy here you love, right? I won’t share.
Not true. Finland has always been rich in minerals and metals. They have a freaking gold mine running, to mention just one current mining operation.
In Germany if you are a member of a church the State will collect 9% of your income and remit it to the church.
http://www.steuer-forum-kirche.de/church-tax-short.pdf
late; so, doesn’t matter. My idea will never be respected/accepted because it cuts out mediocre students of all stripes and shapes.