New Discourses Bullets, Ep. 19
Apparently a lot of young people believe not only in something nonsensical but also specifically in socialism. I recently heard an example of a young woman talking about how all the necessities of life both “should be free” and “should be paid for by the government.” Obviously, if they’re paid for, they’re not free, but she means that they’re free for her and paid for by everyone, thus partly her, through the intermediary of the State. This is a terrible idea. To better understand why, it’s best to understand a basic fact of economic decision-making, which are the differences between first-, second-, and third-person purchasing decisions and why government purchasing, which is always third-person, is always least likely to do well by the cost/quality tradeoff. Join host James Lindsay in this episode of New Discourses Bullets as he breaks it down.
Additional episodes of New Discourses Bullets may be found here.
Subscribe to New Discourses Bullets on SoundCloud, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, YouTube, or by RSS.
5 comments
Another problem with the planned (Socialist) economy is what Hayek called the “Socialist knowledge problem”. Hayek believed that decision-makers in a Socialist economy are far less effective at calculating what people want or need versus a free market. Consequently, the Socialist economy will tend to over-supply some goods and services and under-supply others (in reality, actual existing Socialism tended quite chronically to the latter). Of course, there may be exceptions, and as James acknowledges, there is a reasonable case for the mixed economy.
This matter is glossed over by the notion that experts in DEI/Critical Theory should be tasked with delivering equity, which I assume is the delivery of goods, services, and resources to those who need them according to a frame of intersectional inequality. But, by what calculation do these ‘experts’ really know what people need? My guess is there would be some vague appeal to ‘Big Data’, AI, etc’ to solve this problem, or at least provide these ‘experts’ with an alibi.
Yes because in effect the nwo has whipped the leftist groups so that they’d expect advantages by making advantage available. Much of the manipulation works by a very elegant use of quasi enforcement tactics. I.e spreading false rumours that X is illegal when X isn’t in order to signpost the metaphysics of entitlement. So to stages =1 – the advantage to your group is here. 2 – Then it trained the people to believe they had to fight for it – try clear.you must make it known you want it ( complain about other groups ). The quasi enforcement then threatened the other groups & the whole process carried out according to social engineering designs that were spread sociological via advanced databases they refer to as AI.
Its modern divide & rule for the computer age where ‘Tolerance’ is the core story for Intolerance.
Its amazing how all of this all of it processes via some form of interference with Binaries. And not amazing – if its going through a computer it has to a or Zero or a 1 & Ai must obey that simple fundamental even when its software is databasing complex arrays of sociologicalmanipulation. We need to try to focus on this in plain sight fact. It is a fact that is so annoying simple that brains do not want to focus on just a 0 and 1 when we understand how the nwo has orchestrated a huge social ploy that promised Tolerance ( On) – but gave Intolerance (OFF) . Same as lying to people entering gas chambers basically. Unless such basics with 180 flip is seen as a powerful dichotomy, the counter argument will never be very effective.
On Race = promised Tolerance but condition learned in Intolerance.
When things are complex it is only because there are manifold 0’s & 1’s. But these people HAVE TO design social engineering that transports through computer systems & delivers linguistics. So what its of no consequence. At the end of the day anything the nwo says is either malevolent or benevolent.
Malenonent = the oppressed group
Benevolnt = the condition learned advantaged groups sent to oppress.
Back at the designers lab theres a 0 and a 1 to define who got what & the rest of th binary numbers instructs the public sector employees how to say it.
On Leninist “democracy”:
https://intellectualtakeout.org/2018/02/understanding-the-cultural-lefts-intolerance/
This is an interesting argument I’d never think of. Doesn’t socialism include UBI or even some fully “equitable” payroll system? Then you still get to make your own purchasing decisions.
The problem with a “free lunch” is that the whole concept of help and exchange breaks down if you don’t HAVE to “work” to stay alive. In a human society, everyone with an able body is expected to contribute. If they really want to distribute the fruits of their production in some sort of “equitable” way, that’s up to them. It happens naturally among sane people anyway. But if no one works and produces, there will be no fruits of production to share. To expect to be supported when you don’t contribute is to think like a criminal.
The argument for unequal incomes is based on the theory that income proportional to contribution encourages greater contribution. That is also the argument against income tax. Income tax is basically a form of punishment based on some idea that people who make more than average must be cheating.
Can you, will you, Please provide transcripts for these podcasts ?