Thursday, September 29, 2016

A Devout Globalist Drops the Mask of Sanity

The staggeringly appropriately named Robert Shiller is professor of economics at Yale and co-author, with George Akerlof, of Animal Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy and Why it Matters for Global Capitalism.  As you can tell he is both a stuffed shirt and a knob gobbler for anyone who needs Globalism to get a bit of fluffing.

He usually does this on the pages of the Guardian.  A previous work was, "Crowdfunding Needs Good Regulation to Flourish."  A brilliant bit of idiocy that never once acknowledged the untenable nature of business that are run on charity. 

Here is his latest for the Guardian.

For the past several centuries, the world has experienced a sequence of intellectual revolutions against oppression of one sort or another. These rebellions operate in the minds of humans and are spread eventually to most of the world, not by war, which tends to involve multiple causes, but by language and communications technology. Ultimately, the ideas they advance, unlike the causes of war, become noncontroversial.

No, do not get excited. This man does not believe that Nationalism qualifies as revolutionary thought. Also he's completely wrong as revolutions against oppression of one sort or another lead to the extermination of perhaps one hundred million people in the 20th century. This was in the very definition of war. But he's a Marxist so he needs to pretend it isn't.

The next such revolution, likely to occur in the 21st century, will challenge the economic implications of the nation state. It will focus on the injustice that follows from the fact that, entirely by chance, some are born in poor countries and others in rich countries. As more people work for multinational firms and get to know more people from other countries, our sense of justice is being affected.

Is it really just Guns, Germs and Steel? Well it has to be if you are leftist. Since the days of Lysenko, biological reality has not been their strong suit. Vox Day maintains that all genetic study will be forcibly terminated in the 21st Century. They can't stand to look at what it has before only indicated. What happens, when it moves beyond indication to proven scientific fact?

This is hardly unprecedented. In his book 1688: the First Modern Revolution, the historian Steven Pincus argues convincingly that the so-called Glorious Revolution is best thought of not in terms of the overthrow of a Catholic king by parliamentarians in England, but as the beginning of a worldwide revolution in justice. Don’t think battlefields. Think, instead, of the coffeehouses with free, shared newspapers that became popular around then – places for complex communications. Even as it happened, the Glorious Revolution clearly marked the beginning of a worldwide appreciation of the legitimacy of groups that do not share the “ideological unity” demanded by a strong king.

No, it actually was the overthrow of Catholic king by Parliamentarians.

Thomas Paine’s pamphlet Common Sense, a bestseller in the 13 colonies when it was published in January 1776, marked another such revolution, which was not identical with the revolutionary war against Britain that began later that year (and had multiple causes). The reach of Common Sense is immeasurable, because it was not just sold but was also read aloud at churches and meetings. The idea that hereditary monarchs were somehow spiritually superior to the rest of us was decisively rejected. Most of the world today, including Britain, agrees.

The same could be said of the gradual abolition of slavery, which was mostly achieved not by war,

Oh, fuck you!

but by an emerging popular recognition of its cruelty and injustice.

That is not how slavery was ended. For one thing slavery damn well hasn't fucking ended.

The 1848 uprisings around Europe were substantially a protest against voting laws that limited voting to only a minority of men: property holders or aristocrats. Women’s suffrage followed soon after. In the 20th and 21st centuries, we have seen civil rights extended to racial and sexual minorities.

This paragraph plays to a number of stereotypes that Globalists have been assiduously backing in Western school systems for fifty years. It's not accurate but it would require a great deal of time and space to refute all of these things.  

And its not like I'd be shifting your paradigm without a clutch, now would I my beloved reader?

All of the past “justice revolutions” have stemmed from improved communications. Oppression thrives on distance, on not actually meeting or seeing the oppressed.

This is the nub of his argument.

The next revolution will not abolish the consequences of place of birth, but the privileges of nationhood will be tempered. While the rise in anti-immigrant sentiment around the world seems to point in the opposite direction, the sense of injustice will be amplified as communications continue to grow. Ultimately, recognition of wrong will wreak big changes.

Globalism will be brought about by altruism.  If a nation is to act against it's interests you always appeal to altruism.  

Hey, I used to be a Randite too.

For now, this recognition faces strong competition from patriotic impulses, rooted in a social contract among nationals who have paid taxes over the years or performed military service to build or defend what they saw as exclusively theirs. Allowing unlimited immigration would seem to violate this contract.

What's yours is theirs you filthy nationalists. This is called free trade.  

But the most important steps to address birthplace injustice probably will not target immigration. Instead, they will focus on fostering economic freedom.

Freedom is very much slavery to someone like this.

In 1948, Paul A Samuelson’s “factor-price equalisation theorem” lucidly showed that under conditions of unlimited free trade without transportation costs (and with other idealised assumptions), market forces would equalise the prices of all factors of production, including the wage rate for any standardised kind of labour, around the world. In a perfect world, people don’t have to move to another country to get a higher wage. Ultimately, they need only be able to participate in producing output that is sold internationally.

Libertarians please take note. Samuelsonian Economics is drastically in favor of international free trade. The difference between their vision of it and yours is they know what they are trying to accomplish with it. 

To achieve factor-price equalisation, people need a stable base for a real lifetime career connected to a country in which they do not physically reside. We also need to protect the losers to foreign trade in our existing nation-states. Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) traces its roots in the US back to 1974. Canada experimented in 1995 with anEarnings Supplement Project. The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, started in 2006, has a tiny annual budget of €150m (£128m). US President Barack Obama has proposed to expand the TAA programme. But, so far, this has meant little more than experiments or proposals.

That part is worth taking note of guys. TAA is going to be the big thing the Globalists are going to pushing hard for next.

Ultimately, the next revolution will likely stem from daily interactions on computer monitors with foreigners whom we can see are intelligent, decent people – people who happen, through no choice of their own, to be living in poverty. 

You have fun with professor.

As I stated earlier, during the 20th century it is quite possible that better than one hundred million people died in pursuit of leftist fantasies. And that was back when they claimed they like people. They sure as hell aren't claiming that now and I sure as hell don't need to see the stuff.


1 comment:

Rob said...

I hope Professor Shiller lives long enough for me to put him in a forced labor camp - oops, I meant re-education camp.

BTW, Parliamentarians are experts on procedures of parliaments. I think you meant "Members of Parliament."