Category Archives: Economics

Not the capitalists.

This has been quite a hot topic of debate lately.

While we wait for The Holy One to give us His verdict on His Three Lettered Domain (Praise Be Upon The Three Letters), I will give my take.

There’s nothing wrong with capitalism. Same goes for the free market. The free market exists, to claim otherwise is Marxist nonsense.

When I cannot fix a leak myself, I call a plumber. The plumber comes and fixes the problem, and I pay him. I hire the plumber because I freely choose to do so. That is the free market.

The way the free market operates from the plumber’s perspective is best described by Nassim Taleb in Antifragility. He talks about cab drivers; he says, a cab driver lives everyday in uncertainty, for he does not know when he will have customers. But, because he delivers a service people want and are free to purchase, he turns profit. He thrives in chaos, despite not knowing who his customers will be in a year from now. That is the free market. It works just the same for the owner of a cab as it does for the CEO of a cab company, for the CEO equally does not know who his customers will be in a year.

This positive uncertainty is what makes it impossible for capitalists to collectively obstruct the free market, for each capitalist wants the market to be free.

Of course, the free market can be gamed, and we will talk about that now, but just because it can be gamed does not mean it is not real. It is like saying cuttlefish don’t have aggressive mating rituals because some cuttlefish disguise themselves as females and so bypass the fighting. No, the fighting rituals are real, and the MtF-trans cuttlefish is a scammer.

In the not-so-free markets, it is similarly obvious when people are scamming. By far the biggest scammer of them all is the state, which simultaneously acts as our church. It’s simplest tactic is its most effective: force you to buy their services. Don’t want health insurance? Tough luck, mandatory. Don’t want to pay the new, even higher taxes? Not gonna fly buddy. You don’t have a choice, and if you think their services are crap, which I’m pretty sure you think, tough luck. You’re gonna pay for them and you’re gonna be grateful.

That behavior, that thuggish stationary bandit behavior, is very typical of our states.

So it is not capitalists pozzing the nation, it is a religiously motivated state that is pozzing the nation, and holding a gun to the head of capitalists to participate in the pozzing.

To claim otherwise, to say that the Bourgeoisie are still oppressing the Proletariat, well, it is Marxist. Was Marxist 100 years ago, is still Marxist today.

Then, to dislike capitalists is a slightly different story. I get the anonymity, the hate. Just because they’re rich does not mean they’re good people. Often, they seem like assholes with money. No one likes an asshole with money.

But, it’s like, everyone has shortcomings. Just because I dislike soybois does not mean I will take away their soy food. Why would I??

People envy the rich and want to take their money. That’s fair, but be honest about what motivates you: envy. Nothing wrong with envy, it’s a very basic human emotion, but don’t turn it into more than it is.

Incidentally we’ve seemed to have finally lost Heartiste on this matter as well. Heartiste says that Cortez’ idea to tax the rich 70% is worth stealing. It is not. It is the classic Boromir mistake: ‘the Ring is too powerful a weapon, we must use it for ourselves!’

Honestly, if I made good money, and I’d get to keep only $300.000 of every $1.000.000 I made, I’d be pissed. That’d be unfair, like an annual robbery.

Even if a billionaire spends all his money funding evil, it will completely pale in comparison to the evil a religious state can achieve with just a fracture of that money. That’s why leftists love socialism: it harms, creates chaos. Such measures always end in more knocked-over apple carts. To think one can use such chaos for good is the Boromir mistake.

I guess, in conclusion, that the capitalists, if anything, are actually pretty fragile. Consider Bezos’ divorce: does it really look like he is in control?


Thomas Piketty is a covetous man

There is 1 leftist strain of thought which still piques my interest: is wealth inequality bad? I have always shelved the question, because I could not answer it satisfactory. But I’ve done some thinking.

The idea at its core is leftist, extensively described by Marx: a small rich elite enjoys a life of abundance at the expense of the lower classes. But even if all socialist corrections fail horribly, the moral question remains: is it fair that the top 10% of the population controls 50% of its wealth?

The best modern day advocate for redistribution policies is Thomas Piketty, whose argument is ‘wealth inequality is bad, government needs to redistribute’, as described in his way-too-long-will-never-read book ‘das Kapital in the 21st century’. Naturally, I disagree.

Now, truth be told, I don’t mind the rich elite having some enemies. After all, I am not the rich elite, and I know some of the rich elite, and I find some of them to be genuine assholes whom I would not at all mind at all, as we say in Holland, to sing a tune lower. Nonetheless, Piketty spouts bullshit.

I believe his data: that a large portion of wealth is in the hands of a minor portion of the population. Apparently not even that disproportional — 10% pop has 50% wealth is much less skewed than the 1% pop 99% wealth I had in mind. But still, disproportional.

Piketty’s solution is a non-solution. You cannot stop the poor from being poor by giving them money. I’ve come to believe that there is no such thing as a free lunch, that that which is not earned is never owned. If your sugar daddy gives you a free iPhone, you will not take care of that iPhone, you are prone to break it, because in your mind it was never really yours. Same with lottery winners; the money they won was never really theirs, they have no clue what to do with it. Same with the poor: give them money and they’ll spend it on exactly the same things they normally spend it on: tobacco, alcohol, drugs. Wealth redistribution doesn’t work, works only to create chaos.

But still, Piketty will insist, it is our moral duty to do something! No, it is not. Ostensibly Piketty talks about moral duty, but in truth he talks about justifying covetousness: that he wants what the rich have, that it is morally just to want what others have, what is not yours. That is not a moral principle, that is a sin.

I’m not saying every rich guy on earth deserves his wealth. Pretty sure there’s a significant amount of cheating scum with loads of money. But whatever way they earned their money, it is their money, not yours. Envy is never sexy.

… Which will not stop Piketty and associated leftists from promoting wealth redistribution. In fact, we have loads and loads of government sanctioned wealth distribution in the West. But we should call these schemes for what they are: jealous, covetous, envious.