We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day The main problem with having discussions about economics and financial markets is this: People look at these complex phenomena through entirely different prisms; they use vastly dissimilar – even contrasting – narratives as to what has happened, what is going on now, and what is therefore likely to happen in the future. Citing any so-called “facts” – statistical data, or the actions and statements of policymakers – in support of a specific interpretation and forecast is often a futile exercise: The same data point will be interpreted very differently if some other intellectual framework is being applied to it.
– The opening paragraph of Detlev Schlichter’s latest commentary on the state of the world, entitled Beyond Repair – This will not have a happy ending.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Ah yes, our old friend ‘meta-context’ 🙂
Schlichter been producing some pretty interesting stuff lately.
One issue I have is that while there *are* some quite complex aspects to certain features of economics (largely occurring because of the actions and the obfuscations of government), a lot of aspects at issue are actually fairly simple and the complexity argument is just either obtuseness or an attempt to win by claiming “I am considerably more smarter than you” (which is almost always untrue).
If you were driving in a car with one of these people and you asked if you had enough fuel to reach your destination, they would bring up all the computers and little moving parts in the engine bay and say that they couldn’t really say as it was too complicated.
Richard Thomas makes the point I was going to.
The economic situation is complex. So is a maze. But simple actions get you through it.
The trouble with Keynesians or other wilful conmen is that they insist the only way to get through the maze is going backwards on one’s hands and knees.
The solution is dead simple, and that is to let real human preferences drive the economy; the market.
Conmen make things complicated.
In fact it’s one of the first signs to look for, and the unnecessarily fancy language that goes with it.
The article is excellent. I agree with the writer 100 per cent.
Red pills, please!
Excellent article. I like the Matrix analogy.
What is so great, from an anarchists perspective, in this, is that the more narratives there are, and the less reconcilable they are with each other, the greater the pressure is for secessionist, devolutionist, defederalization and other movements of separationism. Let the Narrative Wars begin….
The only real difference between The Matrix and the current financial situation is that at some point in the latter, policymakers will all be forced to swallow a red pill.
The market is funny that way.
John B, very true. The art of a successful illusionist is misdirection. People need to wake up and realise the queen isn’t the middle card. Nor the one on the right. Nor the one on the left. The queen is up the hustler’s sleeve.
I used to say that a financial collapse was politically, not economically, inevitable. In that certain lines of policy could be followed that would avoid it – but these lines of policy would not be followed, because of the false ideas that dominate the political process (and it is mostly false ideas – not a Star Chamber of financial interests, although, YES, greed for subsidies does play a role).
However, this basic point is no longer true. No matter what policy is now followed – a meltdown (at least an economic meltdown) can no longer be avoided.
So the basic issue is not “how do we avoid a terrible economic mess – a Great Depression”.
The Great Depression is going to happen – no way to avoid it now (the endless putting off of the “evil day” by bailout after bailout has turned the “evil day” into something much worse).
What matters now is preventing an economic breakdown (a Great Depression) turning into the breakdown of civil society (now much weaker than it was in the 1930s) – i.e. a full collapse into tyanny and chaos.
The basic reason I like Glenn Beck (in spite of all his faults) is that he understands this.
Most people (including most libertarians) are trapped in the “how do we prevent the economic mess” stage, or even in the “there is no fundemental problem – we just need to change direction” stage.
Hardly anyone is standing up and saying…..
“You are going to suffer – your friends and your family are going to suffer as well. But you must have courage – you must not be exploited by people who will try and make you blame the rich for your suffering, and you must help other people as much as you can”.
That is the truth – but few people are communicating the truth.
People face a choice – and it not a choice between suffering and not suffering.
It a choice between trying to help themsleves and other people as much as they can.
Or.
Calling out to the government for help (regardless of the consequences) and blaming “the rich” for everything.
Interestingly some of the people working very hard (and spending lots of money) on trying to make people hate “the rich” are very rich themselves.
They may be very clever – but they are playing a dangerious game.
The game the Duke of Orleans played – and lost.