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 new mercantilism There is strategic competition with economic rivals, notably China, especially around advanced technology, supply-chain dominance, and industrial sovereignty.
But tariffs raise costs for domestic firms that rely on imported components, in some cases hurting US manufacturers rather than helping them. Indeed, recent data show US manufacturing has contracted, with some firms citing tariffs as a reason for layoffs or relocation. Retaliation from trade partners can offset gains via higher tariffs abroad, disrupted supply chains, and increased uncertainty.
The welfare benefits of rising domestic output are modest under many models because gains might be outweighed by efficiency losses, higher consumer prices, and reduced variety. And the government risks politicizing trade decisions, which may lead to cronyism or poorly targeted protection by helping politically connected sectors rather than broadly boosting national economic health
– Madsen Pirie
|
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.
|
It’s sad that this even needs to be pointed out. Protectionism backfires almost always.
America’s most sensible policy regarding industry is on energy. US energy input costs are far below those in Europe. That’s a major edge. And largely self inflicted in Europe’s case.
For sectors that have military dimensions, it would be better to shield certain industries temporarily and with a clear limit.
What about IP theft and China in particular? My suggestion for any country is to require all Chinese exporters to enter JVs. They require that of us, so it’s fair to return the favour. That includes tech transfer.
Tariffs are a blunt instrument in response to these specific issues. That includes complaints about currency manipulation, much of which doesn’t really apply. The dollar is down quite a bit against a basket of currencies, including the yuan.
The dark night of tariff-driven bankruptcy is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe.
The Ghost of Thomas Wolfe
@Johnathan Pearce
For sectors that have military dimensions, it would be better to shield certain industries temporarily and with a clear limit.
But it is more than military matters. What about antibiotics? What about silicon chips? What about rare earth minerals? There are many things that have a national defense aspect that don’t go boom. This isn’t a guess, we know exactly what happened with regards to China’s sale of PPE during the Covid crisis. Fortunately, PPE is pretty easy to make.
I’m not sure of the answer. I am opposed to tariffs for the same reason I am opposed to taxes. But I think these things do address the fundamental narrowness of some economic reasoning. We are not logical people. We are not trading partners trading with only economic goals. Trade reduces the risk of war for sure, but economics does a poor job often of factoring in the egos and ambitions of men who run countries.
What about IP theft and China in particular? My suggestion for any country is to require all Chinese exporters to enter JVs. They require that of us, so it’s fair to return the favour. That includes tech transfer.
Of course an easy way to fix this problem is to compete on a level playing field by eliminating the patent laws that are so burdensome and destructive to competition. But I think you and I have gone round on that one before.
One thing I have been thinking about is this. To be clear my thinking on this could well be muddied, so I am happy to be corrected.
Let’s say I am a US company making antibiotics. Part of my cost of selling to the US public is the taxes I pay — taxes that you might consider a fee for operating in the economic system the US government maintains. However, if I am a Chinese company making antibiotics I do not pay US taxes, and so I am not paying a fee to operate in the economic system the US government maintains. I might pay taxes at the point of sale, or my intermediaries might pay taxes, but the manufacturer itself does not pay taxes in the way a US manufacturer does. A tariff imposes just such a fee. So, by this argument I think tariffs are not much different than corporate taxes.
Would I favor eliminating both? Yes, I think so. But it seems not charging this fee to foreign producers gives them an unfair advantage in our marketplace. Of course they pay taxes at home — but those taxes do not fund the US economy, merely their own.
OK, like I say, my logic could well be flawed, but just something I am thinking about.
And by the way, Mexico’s leftist leader is also embracing tariffs, remarkably similar to those of the Trump admin.
Fraser: But it is more than military matters. What about antibiotics? What about silicon chips? What about rare earth minerals? There are many things that have a national defense aspect that don’t go boom. This isn’t a guess, we know exactly what happened with regards to China’s sale of PPE during the Covid crisis. Fortunately, PPE is pretty easy to make.
Well, when almost everything becomes a matter of security, then you could use that to justify autarky or worse. (I am sure that’s not your intention!)
For most of these things there are plenty of alternatives that make the case for more, not less, free trade: stockpiling of non-perishable items for when they could be needed (speculators in commodities do this all the time, from wheat to iron ore); the mothballing of steel/other facilities in “standby” mode that can be brought on-stream when needed, and so on. If the cost of these measures is more than having to pay high external prices for when there is a shortage, that is the market’s way of saying the costs aren’t worth it. It makes most sense in my view to let market participants hash this out.
Again, all of these approaches are topic-specific rather than indiscriminate, as tariffs tend to be. Also, even targeted tariffs are the result of political horse trading with the lobbyists pitching for this or that exemption, and let’s just say that politicians, even those less venal than Trump, love the power of life and death this gives them over a sector. It is inherently bad.
Patents: Fraser, yes, you are on interesting ground there. To the extent that reform makes sense, it makes sense regardless of whether a foreign power is shitting on IP law protections or not. As for taxes, it seems the overall direction of travel for governments should be to reduce the burden of government and get taxes down, including corporate ones. (As we know from what is called tax incidence, all taxes are ultimately paid by people – a fact lost on much of the Left with its endless calls to hit corporations.)
The great Free Trade economists agreed that imports had to be paid for by exports – the idea that imports could be paid for by creating money from nothing only became fashionable in the 1970s (after the break with any shred of sanity – which occurred in 1971) – as late as that.
So the entire basis of this conversation is false – as it pretends that the present system is Free Trade as Adam Smith and others understood the term. If the United States or Britain are importing non vital goods and paying for these imports with exports of goods – that is fine (that is what Adam Smith and the others meant by Free Trade – that is what John Bright or A.L. Perry stood for), but not a system of importing goods and “paying for them” with “money” created from nothing – leading to more and more of the nation, including the land of the nation, being foreign owned – as this “money” is used to buy assets inside the nation.
As for depending on enemies, such as the People’s Republic of China, for vital goods, or having vital goods (such as computer chips) made only a few miles from an enemy, and thousands of miles from the United States (basing the production of vital advanced computer parts in Taiwan), such ideas are so clearly insane, that they need no further discussion. Adam Smith pointed out that “defense is more important than opulence” as “opulence” which depends on having goods made by enemies, or in vulnerable places near enemies, will-not-last – it can not last.
The system we have now is not Free Trade as Adam Smith, or A.L. (Arthur Latham) Perry, or Frank Fetter, or any of the great economists would have understood the term – even as late as the 1960s the system we have now, “money” created from nothing and used to “pay for” endless imports, would have been considered utterly insane – because it is utterly insane.
“But Americans (or British people) are no longer capable of making advanced goods” – if (if) that is the case, then America (or Britain) is going to die, regardless of trade policy.
The education system and the culture, needs to be restored – the “Progressive” “Social Revolution” needs to be reversed.
Importing vital goods because the population has, allegedly, become degenerate, is NOT a solution – quite the contrary.
For the first time in decades the US will see fair trade as thanks to Trump levelling the playing field for American workers and businesses.
I understand the concerns about tariffs but imo they have their place as a tool for achieving economic and strategic objectives — and I certainly trust trump over the TDS media.
The tariffs are Trump’s response to a long-standing bee in his bonnet about the rest of the world “freeloading” off the US. What he should have done was moved against China but not shafted allies around the world. For example, at one point he was ranting about Japan not buying American cars, despite most of these not fitting on Japanese roads. He hit Vietnam with tariffs when the “unequal trade” was tiny in magnitude and some support for Vietnam would have cultivated another ally and trade partner in Asia. Clearly both he and Vance hate the EU, so he’d be happy to hurt the US economy a little in order to hurt the EU more.
As for the materials argument….
If the United States, which has iron ore and other materials – and all forms of energy, can not even make steel competitively – then it might as well admit death. Admit that it is dead – that it can not live.
Tariffs should not be needed – American steel should be competitive without them.
However, the American Dollar is greatly overvalued – the idea of a fiat currency being the “World Reserve Currency” is utterly insane and should be ended.
The exchange rate needs to drastically change – downwards.
“But American living standards will fall”.
Living standards based on Credit Money bubbles, rather than productive work, are artificial and can not be maintained.
Bizarrely a majority of the American House of Representatives (including some RINO members) believe that “Collective Bargaining” in government service, which even Franklin Roosevelt held was a conspiracy against the taxpayers, is somehow a “good thing” – and wish to overturn President Trump’s March 2025 Executive Order against Collective Bargaining in large parts of the government service.
The political establishment is a long way from understanding that government backed “Collective Bargaining”, rightly held by W.H. Hutt (“The Strike Threat System”) to be a machine for creating UNEMPLOYMENT, needs to be ended in industry – steel, cars and so on on.
Neither government or government backed (and they have been government backed for more than 90 years) “Collective Bargaining” unions, have any legitimate place in American industry.
“But Britian – what about Britain”.
Sadly a long discussion of the British economy would be a waste of time – as there no longer a real foundation for the British economy, we import food, raw materials and manufactured goods (yes we have farming, mining and manufacturing – but nothing like what a nation of some 70 million people should have) and “export” Credit Bubbles – discussing the British economy is like discussing a bucket – that has no bottom on it.
Given the relative (relative – there is some, just not enough) lack of farming, mining and manufacturing in the United Kingdom in relation to a population of some 70 million people – this bloated population can not be sustained, so there will be, in due course, a radical reduction in the population of the United Kingdom.
That reduction is likely to be a very unpleasant process.
The population density of the Czech Republic is 137 people per square kilometer.
The population density of England is 430 people per square kilometer.
It is true that the population density of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is much lower than England – but they, in part, depend on subsidies from England – which is, itself, not a sustainable economy (it used to import food and export manufactured goods – and whilst it still has both farming and manufacturing industry, it now imports BOTH food and manufactured goods – it also imports raw materials, whereas the United Kingdom used to be a major exporter of coal and so on).
The population of England will fall dramatically in due course – as its economy (its real economy) can not sustain the present population.
Those who have the financial means to do so would be well advised to leave the United Kingdom before this adjustment gets under way – as the process is likely to be very unpleasant.
Many people of financial means have already left, or are leaving.
Paul, you sound like the “population bomb” doom-monger, Paul Ehrlich, from
the early 1970s. He famously lost a bet vs Julian L Simon.
Population density isn’t the issue: weak real productivity, lack of innovation and upward mobility are the problems.
Marius is spot on. Hammering other countries as well as China is one of Trump’s main errors. It undermines his own stated goals, to the extent he has them. That’s a point that ragingnick to consider.
None of this criticism should be dismissed as “TDS”. That’s getting a bit shopworn as a line.,
Marius – neither the European Union or the United Kingdom can really be considered “allies” of the United States.
After all if President Trump or Vice President Vance spoke or wrote in the way they normally do, and were citizens of the United Kingdom or of the European Union (“Hate Speech laws” are mandatory for E.U. “member states”) they would be sent to prison – and it does not take more than a few minutes watching the BBC or “France 24” English language (but French government owned and run) television to see the vicious hatred of the United States (not just hatred of President Trump and Vice President Vance – hatred of American principles generally).
The United States is already, and rightly so, in the process of granting political asylum to people persecuted for their political beliefs by the GERMAN government (Germany is the most important economy in the European Union) – where even mild mockery of the political elite may result in fines and imprisonment.
So it makes no sense to consider these governments “allies” – allies do not want to send you to prison, allies do not hate you. The United Kingdom, France, Germany and so on, are not allies of the principles of the Constitution of the United States – indeed these governments consider the Bill of Rights (the First Amendment, the Second Amendment – and so on) to be “Crime Think”, and ALSO have a deep hatred (actual hatred) for the principles of Christianity – for example France holds abortion to be a “Constitutional Right” and the British government considered abortion, but NOT cancer care, to be “essential medical care” even during the Covid lockdowns – and is pushing the chemical sexual mutilation of children, to leave them infertile.
Vietnam is a Communist Party Dictatorship – and whilst it did have border clashes with the People’s Republic of China in 1978 (and still has a border dispute now), it can never really be an ally – under the current regime, the situation may change if the Communist Party regime there falls.
However, I AGREE with you about Japan.
It is true that some governments of European Union “member states” insist they are allies of the United States – and that they reject the (utterly evil) principles of the European Union and the rest of the “International Community” (United Nations agencies and-so-on).]
However, these nations (Hungary springs to mind) are caught in a contradiction – in that what they say they believe in, is not compatible with European Union membership.
So they will have to choose – are they friends of the United States, or friends of the “International Community” (of which the European Union is part) – they can not both, the contradiction must be resolved one way or the other.
They can not be an ally of the United States AND an ally of the governments of the United Kingdom, France and so on.
By the way – “France 24” is, in a way, deeply amusing.
They have some sort of folk memory that they are supposed to have “discussions” – so they invite on guests, but the guests always have the same opinions (world-view) as the presenters of “France 24” – so the “discussions” are just repeated statements of the same opinion (“Trump evil”, “yes Trump evil”, “I agree – Trump evil” – or whatever the subject for the “discussion” is).
Of course if a guest were to express a dissenting opinion, for example on whether it is desirable to have an increasing number of followers of Islam in France, that guest would risk arrest and imprisonment in France – as in other Western European nations, and in Canada, Australia and so on.
Johnathan Pearce – please read my comment again.
I made it clear that I was not objecting to population as such, I was pointing out that production does not match this population.
I have typed that we do not produce anything like what we need to in to sustain a population of this size – because that is so.
It is NOT just a matter of food – as we also import raw materials and manufactured goods.
It is NOT that we have no farming, mining or industry – it is that we do not have enough farming, mining or industry to sustain a population of some 70 million people.
British production, of food, or raw materials, or manufactured goods is not going to massively expand – it is (with endless taxation, regulation, and crippling energy costs) going to contract – we are going to produce even less than we do now.
This is not very complicated – and you are a highly intelligent person, I suspect you (deep down) understand this matter very well and have contingency plans to leave this country before it falls apart – and you are wise to have such plans, should things turn very bad – which they will. Indeed you yourself have written, and written very well, on how British farming and manufacturing is being crippled – production is not going to expand, production is going to contract – the population of 70 million people will not be sustained.
But then I am breaking my own rule – and going into a long discussion of a hopeless situation, so I will stop here.
It is possible (unlikely – but possible) that America will survive – that is why there is still the torture of hope about the United States, sadly, tragically, there is no such torture of hope about the United Kingdom.
And now the British Museum is being looted – some 400 items stolen.
The decay continues – a little while ago it was Louve in Paris, first the robbery (made easy by the new “inclusive” cabinets which, unlike the old ones, did not go into to the floor when attacked – and the new “inclusive” cabinets were also ugly, as one would expect), and then by water damage – destroying ancient books and documents.
But why preserve the history of historic nations when it is the obvious intention of the international establishment to destroy these historic nations.
Treason, treason, treason.
That word, treason, sums up the policies of the international establishment – their economic policies (“spend, spend, spend” “it is good for GDP”), and their cultural and social policies.
Most certainly including their migration policy – which will eventually lead to genocide, the death of peoples who have existed for thousands of years.
@Johnathan Pearce
Great comments as usual. However, I want to focus on practicalities — the reality that we do no live in a world of perfect markets and the reality of politics and public sentiment profoundly interfere with market action.
For most of these things there are plenty of alternatives [to tariffs to ensure supply of critical goods]
Yes there definitely are market mechanisms to manage this however, a lot of these mechanisms are not approved of, and oftentimes criminal. We see this all the time. A hurricane hits and the normal market mechanism is that Walmart would anticipate, over stock, and then move into the area and sell the necessary goods at much higher prices to compensate them for their risk and good planning. Or Johnathan the entrepreneur would get a boat, float through the flooding and sell hot food and emergency supplies at three times normal market costs.
However, this is called “price gouging” and is frequently illegal, and even if not illegal, is highly frowned on, destroying reputations and may start riots in the street. No amount of arguing about Milton Friedman is going to fix that problem.
As to having steel mills or whatever on standby — who is going to pay for those? Probably not the steel company — sure in a free market they might as an insurance against supply shock or whatever, where they could charge far higher prices to compensate them for that. But, as we just discussed, that is often illegal. The government could fund it or subsidize it, but that is really the opposite of what you want anyway.
that is the market’s way of saying the costs aren’t worth it. It makes most sense in my view to let market participants hash this out.
Except that the government won’t allow that. When the market says this the government and large swaths of the general public consider it hate speech and want to throw someone in jail.
So let me say this a different way. Jesus tells us that the wise man builds his house upon a rock and the foolish man on the sand. Were companies and trade built on the solid rock of a free market economy, everything you say would to spot, on, high five, 100% agree. But companies and trade are built on the sand of a highly interventionist, politicized economy. And when you build your house on the sand you have to do a lot of stuff that seems counterproductive and stupid, but is necessary to keep it afloat.
Patents: Fraser, yes, you are on interesting ground there. To the extent that reform makes sense, it makes sense regardless of whether a foreign power is shitting on IP law protections or not.
That’s true, but I think it misses a nuance. If I have 100,000 problems to solve which do I solve? I prioritize and chose the most pressing one. So if patent law is one of 100,000 things the government needs to fix the fact that it is exacerbated by the Chinese IP situation pushes it much further up the priority list. Of course the fact that it would be impossible to change the patent law significantly in the west immediately pushes it back down again. But I can dream, can’t I?
As for taxes, it seems the overall direction of travel for governments should be to reduce the burden of government and get taxes down, including corporate ones.
That’s true, however, I just wish those who railed against trade tariffs were as equally vocal about corporate taxes, because, as I said earlier, to my lights they are kind of the same thing, except that those tariffs are imposed on foreigners, and I think we should be more concerned about our domestic industry than foreign industry, much though trade is a good thing.
Now I should also say that Trump is using Tariffs for more than revenue collection, but to manipulate behavior. But it is worth pointing out that all tax codes do this too — they manipulate the taxes to encourage you to buy a house or donate the charity or buy municipal bonds. And I certainly have mixed feelings about this. There is a lot I like about Trump, but I do feel in a number of ways he is getting over his skis. But with this, and the aforementioned house on the rock or the sand, I am reminded of these stupid game shows. You are starving and are given the option of eating spiders or worms. You might dream of a steak dinner with a nice cold beer, but you still gotta pick one or you’re gonna starve.
“So the entire basis of this conversation is false – as it pretends that the present system is Free Trade as Adam Smith and others understood the term.”
Of course. Sure.
And the elephant in the room is the welfare state.
You can’t have a welfare state financed by high taxes (and money printing) and compete with China. You can’t subsidize dozens of millions of people so they can do drugs on welfare money, and refuse to work. You can’t inflate wages artificially, by minimum wage laws, unions, and most of all by welfare – and the compete with China manufactured goods. ( Welfare inflates wages because people have the alternative of living on welfare, and will refuse to work for low wages).
And regulation. You can’t regulate industry to death (especially environmental regulation) and compete with China.
So, with or without tariffs – there is no an iota of free trade in the world.
Of course, tariffs, especially tariffs alone, won’t help correct all the problems mentioned above. They might help a little to correct some minor problems (like imbalance of trade), and might not. But this is a minor problem, if at all.
We do not see Trump address the real problems. Like the deficit and money printing. He seems happy with the deficit and only wants to increase it. He is happy with the welfare, he refuses to contemplate entitlements reduction. Etc…
So, Trump’s economic policy is mostly empty bluster.
Trump should be praised for some of his initiatives. Mostly for fighting the climate change idiocy. Maybe a little for reducing illegal immigration. And, of course, for fighting wokeism. On these issues he is a huge improvement over his predecessors.
As for tariffs – and his frequent and arbitrary oscillations on them – it would have been much better if he would have refrained from wasting his energies on this.
Its weird that mercantilism was never complained about much when China did (and does) it, or indeed when Germany did it, but when Trump tries to do it all hell breaks loose, with the free trade zealots denouncing him left right and centre, in a way they never did for anyone else. Funny that.
Both Chinese & German economic policies have always been rather frowned upon on this particular website well before Trump became a thing 😀
Paul,
A densely populated country like the U.K. makes a living in a number of ways. I doubt there’s some calamity of such a scale in the offing to lead to the kind of collapse you seem to keep predicting. The same risk can apply to many other Western countries.
What I suspect is more probable is a slow, relentless downward erosion of things here in the U.K.
Jacob: my sentiments exactly.
Fraser: the problem with your arguments is that, as I wrote earlier, the real-world imperfections you give, including government stupidity, could be used to justify even more stupidity and intervention in a ratchet effect. Tariffs also feed on a sense of resentment and entitlement that rarely produces good outcomes. And the political corruption, lobbying and all the rest is not good.
I don’t understand the “hate speech” point and how it applies to leaving certain things to a market.
In things like a standby steel mill: there no reason why a defence department couldn’t have a basic budget to keep a few things under its oversight so it has resources to built ships or whatever. It’s like having a backup generator in a remote farmstead.
If governments are meant to provide a safety net then then providing things like backup resources (lifesaving equipment, some production facilities, medicines, etc) seems a legit thing. But again, this is about a targeted approach. And there are benefits to having as free economy as possible: fast-growing places can buy lots of stuff, forge supply chains, invest in new ideas, R&D, etc. There are risks in trying to do everything ourselves. Trade can be a risk mitigator.
That’s what the direction of travel should be.
“Both Chinese & German economic policies have always been rather frowned upon on this particular website well before Trump became a thing”
Frowned upon is not the same thing as decrying it as the end of civilisation. Where were the anguished calls over the last 25 years for China and Germany (and Japan thinking about it) to abandon their economic policies for the good of world trade? Nowhere, thats where. TDS (and overt anti-Americanism) is obviously as alive and well in right wing circles as much as left wing ones.
Although “GDP” in Britain is starting to shrink – it is NOT really “GDP”, which is a measure of spending, that matters – what matters is production, and production PER PERSON.
The amount of food, raw materials and manufactured goods produced per person.
This Adam Smith and every Free Trade economist before the 1970s (yes as late as the 1960s) understood.
And this is what people who, falsely, claim that the present, utterly insane, system is “Free Trade”, do not understand.
What matters is the amount of food, raw materials and manufactured goods produced – per person.
“But services….”
Yes – for example Elko Nevada trades in services, such as prostitution and gambling, as well gold mining (it is the center of the American gold mining industry) as well as cattle ranching and manufacturing.
But anyone who thinks that a nation of 70 million people (the United Kingdom) can base its economy on “services” and import food, raw materials AND manufactured goods – is wrong.
Just flat wrong.
As the terrible horror of the coming years will show.
And do NOT call it “Free Trade” – as none of the great Free Trade economists would have supported the present insanity.
As the economist Walter Block pointed out many years ago – prostitution and gambling, although traditionally (and, unlike Professor Block, I think rightly) condemned by most moral teachers, are less corrupt than what banking and financial services have mutated into in the modern world – government supported Credit Bubble blowing.
But even if banking and financial services were entirely honest, 100% about Real Savings (the actual sacrifice of consumption), the idea that a nation of some 70 million people (the United Kingdom) could base its economy on this – is false.
As for basing an economy on the obscenity that, government backed (Credit Bubble) banking and financial services have mutated into – that is terrible folly.
The Credit Bubble, a.k.a. money printing, is mainly used to finance the bloated welfare state. Huge pensions starting at an early age, unemployment benefits, assured minimal income (without working), exaggerated disability benefits, “free” health care, council housing… etc. etc….
It is also this that disincentives people from working and producing. And it makes production uncompetitive vs. other countries that have much smaller welfare benefits.
So, while Paul sees the Credit Bubble as the main culprit, I see the welfare state as the root of all evil, including the Credit Bubble.
Jacob – I do not disagree with what you say.
I take your point Sir.
Even though, historically, government backing for Credit Bubble finance started well before the Welfare State (one can find backing for it in, for example, the writings of the charlatan Walter Bagehot – unjustly held up as some sort of hero of sound finance and moral probity), these days the modern bloated Welfare State is a great driver of it – how else would such a crushingly vast government be financed?
And do not forget the vast number of people who work for the state – whose income and pensions are vastly higher than the unemployed they supposedly serve.
The future?
It is obvious – mass suffering is the future.
For example, there is no way a population of 70 million can be sustained by the farming, mining and manufacturing industry of the United Kingdom. And the idea that the mutant form of banking and financial services that we now have is sound economic activity – is Moonshine.
And farming, mining and manufacturing in the United Kingdom are not going to grow – they are going to shrink.
Why?
It’s not a facetious question.
I’m asking why you think that feeding people (etc) is the root of all evil?
————
The very, very root of the problem is “first order” interventions.
The State, as it actually exists (I don’t care what you think it “should be for”), upholds “first order” interventions – removing the means of production from the masses by various means, so that they are unable to make a living for themselves. Tucker’s Big Four are the most obvious ones, but in the past couple of centuries these have been added to and superceded by others (I’d probably want to look at patents and other IP laws as being primary in today’s world)
In order to prevent popular uprisings (*cough* guillotines), the State then has a whole bunch of “second order” interventions, which it employs as a safety valve. This includes, but is not limited to, welfare payments and other such.
Brilliantly, it then made it seem like the “second-order” interventions were the problem. And, somehow, people agreed – I know why, it’s because they thought that “other people” were benefitting when they shouldn’t.
*Shrugs*
Either way, the most important thing is to not be fooled.
The “first order” interventions are the ones you need to be angry about – not the “second order” ones that the State REALLY REALLY wants you to be angry about and is laughing at you when you are.
neonsnake.
“root of all evil” is too strong.
But it is the root of much evil – both economically and culturally, societal harm.
Economically these efforts by the state to take over the basic functions of civil society start SMALL, hitting only a few people, but, over time, the spending massively grows – and what had originally been only a few people becomes more and more people.
For example, Forster of the 1870 Education Act assured everyone that his Act would just “fill the gaps” where there were not enough voluntary (non state) schools, and the new state schools would wither away over time – but the opposite happened, the state schools grew and grew, and the voluntary schools were destroyed – leading to non state education largely becoming a thing for the wealthy.
Ditto the Liberals of the early 1900s insisted that their new schemes would just “fill the gaps” as not everyone was covered by Friendly Societies (the mutual aid societies) and would wither away over time – but again the opposite happened, more and more people became dependent on the state, and fewer and fewer people remained independent of the state for things such as medical care or old age provision.
In the United States in the 1960s President Johnson made the same claims – his “War on Poverty” would fill the gaps not covered by voluntary provision – and would wither away over time.
Yet again the opposite happened – the state grew and grew (Medicare and Medicaid together cost less than 5 billion Dollars at the start – how many HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of Dollars do they cost now).
Nor is it “just” matter of economic bankruptcy – which these efforts by the state to take over the basic functions of civil society, inevitably leads to.
It is also the cultural, societal wreaking, once proud independent communities begging for “Food Stamps” (created in 1961), traditional families destroyed, crime and degeneracy massively increased (over generations – the creation of an underclass) – till these schemes are either rolled back (very difficult with vast numbers of people made dependent upon them) or society collapses into savagery and chaos – and the people who suffer most in such circumstances are THE POOR.
None of this is a new discovery – Aristotle was not always correct (far from it), but his condemnation of such schemes, which some city-states experimented with in his time, is sound.
They are not “just” bad (disastrous) economically, they are, over time, cultural poison – twisting and ruining the population. And it is very hard, very hard indeed, to roll them back once large numbers of people have become dependent upon them.
One only has to look at such things as the horrible decline of life for ordinary American cities since the “Great Society” programs started 60 years ago, or at the end of the small voluntary hospitals that communities all over Britain used to provide (provide voluntarily) – instead Britain has a medical bureaucracy (created in the 1940s – and modeled on the Soviet health system created in the 1920s), with few hospital beds compared to the size of the population.
The health situation is worse than most people know – and it is getting worse still.
And, contrary to the fantasy claims of the media, the American situation is much the same – with taxpayer money funding a mixed government and corporate bureaucracy, and everything crushed by endless regulations and government backed “professional bodies”.
During Covid doctors who saved the lives of their patients with effective Early Treatment were often PUNISHED.
I will write that again.
During Covid doctors who saved the lives of their patients with effective Early Treatment were often PUNISHED.
Let that sink in.
Following “policy” was more important than human lives.
That is the same for all bureaucracy – government or government backed corporate bureaucracy.
“I’m asking why you think that feeding people (etc) is the root of all evil?”
It is feeding people with money taken by force (taxed) from people who work and produce. And it is much more than “feeding”. It is sustaining – with few constraints.
You have more and more people who produce nothing being sustained (involuntarily) by those who work and produce. And welfare is always ratcheting up. Never down. The democratic current system is such that no politician can reduce “gained rights” – i.e. – the “right” to get something for nothing (entitlements). Continuing the current course we will soon reach the absurd state where all have entitlements and “rights” and nobody produces anything.
I agree with this.
I wholeheartedly agree that the State has created a culture of dependency, and almost cannot resist putting it’s paws in. My personal experience of this was during the early days of Covid, when I was very involved with some of the mutual aid groups that sprung up; eventually, local councils attempted to co-opt them (my local council was Conservative-run, but the same was very much true of Labour and Lib-Dem councils) and basically ruined the ones they “successfully” co-opted – essentially for the very obvious reason that a “top-down” approach was completely incompatible with what was needed.
I certainly – and I’m pretty sure I’ve been very vocal indeed about this – am a fan of mutual aid; my preference is absolutely that vs state-aid. My reasons are many and varied, but certainly the failings of a top-down approach are amongst them. I’m also sympathetic to the culture of dependency argument, although my main concern in that vein is that it leads people to think that “voting” is the only thing they can do to better their lives (and the lives of others), so instead of helping people, they add an “I’ve Voted!” border to their Facebook profile and think that they’ve “done their bit”.
Also – Jacob’s point re. it being funded by taxation is fair (I’m going to ignore MMT, mainly because every time I think I understand it, I lose the thread and go “no, but hang on?”)
BUT, with all of that said:
Of the many things that my taxes are spent on, welfare is one of the ones I’m least likely to lose sleep over. The rates of fraud (in the UK at least) are absolutely tiny, to the point of irrelevance. Things like PIP (disability benefits) are very, very hard to get (took me 9 months of appeals a couple of years ago to get the bare minimum for a spinal condition which has left me basically housebound) and utterly demeaning.
There’s other things – the fire brigade has been discussed recently, and ambulance services as well, which I certainly don’t get apoplectic about – but welfare is very much within my “I’d rather we lived in a world where it wasn’t needed, but given the world I actually live in, I’m not getting red in the face about supporting people who need it to live.”
—
The thing that I always find quite interesting about these kind of discussions, and I might not articulate this well, is that we all agree on certain things.
As a for-instance, we agree that housing prices are ridiculous, and we all agree (I think) that regulations preventing the building of new housing is at least one of the causes, yeah?
There’s plenty of other regulations that strangle small businesses, and act as “barriers to entry” for people wanting to start their own; instead they favour already existing businesses, which means that more and more people cannot simply “start their own business”, and are instead reliant on wage-labour to survive, and with rising costs (housing, food etc) and wages not keeping up with inflation, this means that more and more people are – therefore – struggling to make ends meet, and become reliant on welfare – mainly through no fault of their own. But people don’t seem able to make the link – academically, we’re all “against” that kind of thing, but people don’t seem to be able to make the link between that kind of thing and people not being able to make ends meet.
This is what I mean by “first order” interventions – the endless regulations, the practical prohibition on building houses, and many, many other interventions by the state on the behalf of “big business”. Those are what I personally am angry about, and those are the ones that keep me up at night, as it were.
Get rid of those, allow people to be “productive” on their own terms, and THEN come and talk to me about reducing welfare after it’s not needed anymore.
“welfare is one of the ones I’m least likely to lose sleep over.”
I think there is a misunderstanding here. Welfare isn’t about helping a few unfortunate people cope.
Welfare is a massive and systematic transfer of wealth. Entitlements make up 60% of the US federal budget. They are mainly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. There are many other programs while another 15% of the budget is interest on debt. These expenditures are constantly growing. This state of affairs is 1. insane, 2. unsustainable, 3. impossible to correct under the current regime.
We can compare it to some parasite plant or fungus that feeds off a tree. The parasite grows and grows (there is nothing to prevent it) until both die, the host first and the parasite too.
A side effect (there are many) is that production is disincentivized, and local manufactures can’t compete.
We can cancel SS and Medicare as soon as you pay me back all of the dollars that were taken from my pay for 45 years on top of what they took for taxes, with appropriate interest for those two programs.
You don’t get to simply decide “never mind” without paying me back. That’s theft. You deciding that it’s too expensive strikes me as “I’m not paying my house payments anymore, they’re interfering with my vacation budget. But I’m keeping the house.”
You can certainly stop taking those deductions from people starting now, and ending the future payment for them. That would be just.
Adam Smith and his contemporaries assumed capital would be kept at home. The libertarians who idolized him advocated the opposite. We are returning to tradition. That makes globalists who justified the destruction of our industrial sovereignty through usury angry.
Side note on Social Security: it’s been a welfare program from day 1. You were never entitled to the taxes levied on you for it. That is a socialist lie in contradiction of the economic facts and the law, and if anyone truly believes it they need to be the first parasites on the helicopters.
bobby b.
As Lewis points out – there is no real “trust fund” there never were any investments.
It was ruled by the Supreme Court as far back as the 1930s that government pensions were a welfare program, and that the “contributions” were a tax (nothing more).
First, in the 19th century, education (for most people) was taken over by the state, then old age was taken over by the state (which led to the gradual death of the adult Fraternities, both religious and SECULAR, that used to be so much a feature of British and a American life), then health care was taken over by the state – including in the United States where taxpayer funding and endless regulations twist and mutate everything.
Finally, from the 1960s onwards, poverty was made a permanent condition – with a vast network of programs designed to keep people poor and make more and more people dependent on them.
Yes DESIGNED – Cloward and Piven (and other Marxist “intellectuals”) were quite open about what they intended to do – and they did it.
Undermine “capitalist” society by making more and more people dependent on government services and benefits – and not just destroy the West economically, destroy it CULTURALLY by promoting vicious behaviour and undermining virtues – indeed (as the Fabians and the Bloomsbury Set, and so many others in Britain, had done) seek to make the traditional virtues something to laugh at.
Supposedly when “capitalist society” is destroyed a wonderful “new society” will appear.
In reality all that will appear is a wasteland of ashes and dried blood.
Lewis – NO.
Adam Smith and the others did not assume that capital would be kept at home – they agreed that Real Savings (Capital) would be invested where there was the best return – and that it was the duty of people to make sure that Britain was a good place to invest in.
What they did not expect was crushing taxation to fund domestic government spending – even in the 1930s Britain had lower taxes and government spending than most other nations, so a state of affairs were British government spending, on domestic programs, and taxation would be utterly crushing could not have been anticipated by Adam Smith and the others.
Nor did the great economists anticipate a situation where the British government would actively push “Collective Bargaining”, even para military tactics such as “picket lines” (“peaceful picketing” is an oxymoron – it is like saying “dry liquid”) – which is exactly what the Acts of 1875 and 1906 did.
It would have been unreasonable to expect Adam Smith to predict such insane Acts of Parliament – pushed by governments, such as the Liberal Party one of 1906, who then stood pretending to be amazed as the Structural Unemployment that they themselves had created – and presenting such things as “Labour Exchanges” as a “solution” to Structural Unemployment created by Government Backed Collective Bargaining.
The “solution” of J.M. Keynes in 1936 (in his General Theory….) of create more money (from nothing) and spend it – was also an example of “let us ignore the real issue – let us deliberately miss-the-point”.
As for “Usury” – that word traditionally means lend out Real Savings (the actual sacrifice of consumption) for interest.
There is nothing wrong with lending out Real Savings (the actual sacrifice of consumption) for productive investment – for interest.
What is wrong is modern “banking” where “money” is created from nothing and then lent out – Credit Bubble blowing.
Such “broad money” bubbles always eventually burst – so then government then faces a choice.
“To bail out – or not to bail out”.
And they tend to choose to bail out” – thus ensuring that the next Credit Bubble will be bigger, will be worse.
“Shylock” DOES NO HARM – but the Credit Bubble “banker” does a great deal of harm – especially if they are backed by governments and their Central Banks.
Central Banks do not “discipline” the system – they make it worse, vastly worse.
American banking before 1913 was bad – after 1913 (after the creation of the Federal Reserve system) it was worse – much worse.
And, contrary to the endless propaganda. the Bank of England was always a mess – although it has got much worse over time.
One point that is often overlooked is that the “General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money” in 1936 was NOT published at a time of recession, let alone a “Great Depression” in the United Kingdom. Although, yes, some industries (and farming – indeed especially farming) were in real trouble.
Output was at all time HIGH in Britain (not in the United States – in Britain) in 1936. Overall industrial output – although, again, some industries were indeed in real trouble – other industries were doing well.
The Unemployment was Structural (caused by Government Backed Collective Bargaining) – it was not due to a “recession” or “depression”, because there was no such thing in Britain in 1936 – again the Unemployment was Structural.
In short – J.M. Keynes was talking out of his backside.
As for British industry NOW in 2025 – things are very bad indeed, and are going to get a lot worse.
And creating more money (from nothing) will do bugger all to help the British economy – indeed it will make everything worse.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland had very severe problems in 1936 – very severe problems.
However, it was a vastly stronger society than it is NOW.
And even on the narrow question of “were should you invest your life savings?” – Britain was not a bad place to invest in 1936.
Investing here NOW (in 2025) would be insane.
Which helicopters, precisely?
@Jacob
I’ve already covered this.
The state is, indeed, a mechanism for vast wealth transfer from the “productive” to the “unproductive” for sure.
In which case, be angry at the laws, regulations, etc that allow for actual labourers/workers input and contributions to be captured and siphoned off.
As I said above – you want to go after welfare? Fine. You can do that, but only once you’ve dismantled all of the the laws and regulations that siphon wealth off of the people doing the work and upwards to the people who don’t.
Again – y’all are ostensibly very against regulations etc that stop people from starting businesses and earning their own living or owning their own means of production, but the moment someone like me points out that “And this is why people require welfare”, you all start going “No, they can just get a job or start their own business!!!1111!!!!one!!!!1111eleven”
The cognitive dissonance is astounding.
Be angry at the State for preventing people from being productive. Don’t be angry at the people who the State has prevented from being productive, and are now reliant on the breadcrumbs it throws it them.
Those who use violence to take the money or goods of others, have no moral grounds to complain if defensive violence is used against them.
Whether or not helicopters are used is a practical question – not a moral one.
The Marxists would have let no “capitalists” survive in Chile, and if someone owned NOTHING and still opposed the Marxists – they would, like the “henchmen of the Kulaks” doctrine in the Soviet Union (used against people who owned nothing, but objected to the robbery and murder of those who did) have also been killed.
And those who complain about alleged CIA intervention in 1973 are rather quiet about American support for the Christian Democrat Party in Chile against the Conservative government in 1964 (only nine years before).
And if we are talking about military coups – those who condemn the 1973 military coup, are oddly silent about the 1924 military coup which overthrew a conservative government in Chile. There is a smaller gap between 1924 and 1973 than there is between 1973 and now – 2025.
Let us see what today’s election brings in Chile.
In the Spanish Civil War the Marxists and the “Anarchists” claimed to be different – and often killed each other.
However, both of them (Marxists and “Anarchists”) took food from farmers by force – whereas the Nationalists paid for food from the farmers.
From the point of view of the farmers (including small scale farmers), not wishing to be robbed, which side to support was obvious.
All large scale Collectivist experiments eventually fall into starvation – it is the nature of the beast.
As Governor Bradford of the New Plymouth colony it what is now Massachusetts noted – for than four centuries ago now (the Communal experiment collapsing into starvation in the early 1620s).
Sadly I doubt the Professors in Harvard understand this matter – or anything else concerning the Res Publica.
As the late William F. Buckley noted – “I would rather be governed by people selected at random from the Boston telephone directory”.
Lastly – those who complain about an “oligarchic elite” should remember that it was paper money and credit bubble banking that concentrated wealth in Chile in the 19th century. As it has done in so many nations.
The process by which this happens is not some hidden secret – it has been known for some 300 years, since Richard Cantillon described it – which is why it is called the Cantillon Effect.
I disagree with Mr David Hume on philosophical matters – but his hostility to paper money, corporations and credit bubble banking was fairly sound.
It is odd, or perhaps not odd at all, that the modern world slavishly follows Mr Hume on philosophical matters where he was wildly wrong (and dangerous – harmful), whilst totally ignoring his economic warnings – which were largely just.
I understand. Problem is, there’s a generation or two of oldsters who were told that this was to be their retirement program, and so they didn’t pursue any other plan.
They simply sent in 12% of every paycheck – on top of the ample taxes – and planned their life accordingly. There are a LOT of people out there for whom SS is their sole income in their dotage – and they are in that spot because We The People told them to do that, and took their money – ON TOP OF THE EFFIN’ TAXES – when they had it.
Now, if you suddenly say “sorry, we forgot to set up the trust”, you’re going to be supporting those people on welfare. And they’re going to be pissed.
I’m not making a legal argument here. I’m passing on a threat.
“The rates of fraud (in the UK at least) are absolutely tiny, to the point of irrelevance. Things like PIP (disability benefits) are very, very hard to get (took me 9 months of appeals a couple of years ago to get the bare minimum for a spinal condition which has left me basically housebound) and utterly demeaning.”
I think you’ll find thats because you are a genuine claimant, telling the truth about your health. If you are prepared to lie through your teeth (safe in the knowledge you’ll never be found out) then getting money out of the State is a piece of the proverbial.
Logically your claim that fraud in the disability benefit system is also extremely suspect. The number of successful claimants are climbing at stupendous rates. One either has to consider that the UK’s public health is either declining at rates not seen even in wartime, or that a lot of people are swinging the lead (or playing the system, take you pick of description). And anecdotally I could name half a dozen people who I know are on PIP but seem to be perfectly capable of working, judging by their day to day lifestyles. And I don’t even live among the benefit claiming classes. If I know plenty of cases of people who shouldn’t be getting payments, then on your average council estate they will be ten a penny.
Will the helicopter that you deeply desire to throw me out of be privately owned, or part of the (taxpayer funded) military budget, out of curiousity?
bobby b – I agree, the old (and the not so old) have been systematically lied to and cheated by taxation and by media (and education system) propaganda.
Some people warned these schemes were “Ponzi Schemes” or “pyramid scams” (“chain letters”) at the start – but they were crushed.
We must also face the grim reality about many ordinary people – not just the corrupt, indeed actually evil, “intellectual elite”.
In Chile yesterday 40% of the vote went to robbery and murder – to rob everyone of their property and to murder anyone who resists, indeed (most likely) to murder any property owner even if they did NOT resist robbery.
In New York City just over a month ago a million (a MILLION) people voted for a person who made no secret of the evil, the vicious evil, he represents – they knew, and they voted for this evil.
And in Virginia people voted for as Attorney General (head of the “Justice” system) a person who wishes to murder his political opponents – and murder their children, this was exposed during the campaign – and people voted for him. The voters KNEW – and they have made their choice.
Just as in your own Minnesota – people have TWICE voted for a person as Attorney General knowing (knowing) the vicious evil, and corruption, that he represents.
The smiling neighbour who seems so friendly, votes for people who want you robbed and murdered.
People who vote for Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison or Mayor Elect Mamdani (or for the Communist Party candidate in Chile) may smile and talk in a friendly way – but they know (they KNOW) the evil they are voting for – that they wish other people to do the robbing and murdering (rather than getting their own hands dirty) does not make them any better.
One can continue to say of the voters “they do not know – they can not possibly know, they are nice people” as much as one likes, but the above remains the truth – as the election for the Attorney General of Virginia shows.
Someone you have known for years, indeed all your life, can turn on you as an “exploiter and oppressor” at any time – the “friendship” meaning nothing, and even very poor people can be accused of being “capitalist bloodsuckers”.
My father’s relatives had experience of this in the Netherlands – when the National Socialists arrived.
But it does NOT just happen to Jews.
Possibly, and of course my experience is but one anecdote. But fraud rates for PIP specifically are less than half a percent, according to the relevant studies.
But, I have a “legible” condition (not visible in the sense that you’d know if you met me for 15 minutes, but visible in the sense that I have various MRI/CAT/X-Rays etc which show without a doubt that my spine is in bad shape, with all the various knock-on effects of nerve damage, loss of motor fucntion etc) – compared to something like ADHD or autism or etc, which I presume are harder to provide “hard” evidence for (happy to take corrections on that last part, I’m making an assumption that may not be true).
But still: I was denied twice over; in the initial interview, I lost points because I was able to establish a rapport with the interviewer. Apparently not the done thing if you’re unwell (I – evidently wrongly – thought that I shouldn’t be an arse to the poor young-sounding lady on the end of the phone who had presumably done 4 or 5 identical interviews that day by the time she got to mine).
Previously, I hadn’t really given toooooo much thought to the idea that the DWP deliberately denied benefits to people, but my own experience changed that. Lots of little things all piled up to add up to “they *know* I’m legally entitled, they’re just pushing back and hoping I give up”.
One of my “favourites” was during the initial interview, I was asked if I have pets. I do, in fact, have pets and answered honestly that I have two budgerigars. I could “feel” the click into gear – “this is how we deny him”. Immediate follow-up question, with a noticeable change of tone: “Walk me through how you go about taking them for a walk”.
Yes, you read that right. Took me about 30 seconds to put my brain back in gear, and luckily I had the presence of mind NOT to say “Obviously I put them a fucking enormously long piece of string and run round the garden like they’re a pair of kites. Fucks sake.” and simply say “I said budgerigars, not dogs”. But it was really obvious that “hah! Got him! If he can look after dogs, then he’s clearly not unwell!” was a point that had been told to consider, and to push on (I was still asked to describe how I *do* look after them)
This is already too long, but I’d also note that “unwell” people are sort of incentivised to hide it. I do NOT make it clear how ill I am to my colleagues (I’m 100% WFH, obviously) because I don’t want to be made redundant for “unrelated reasons, we pinky swear”. Similarly with friends and family – you hide it to keep interactions as “normal” as possible. And, of course, PIP is an in-work benefit, meant to encourage independence by giving you some breathing room (it’s expensive to be disabled). As noted, I do indeed work; albeit on reduced hours.
At the end of the day, these sort of discussions come down to a difference in “values”.
Jacob notes, essentially, that “taxes are theft”. I couldn’t agree more, and I have noted the same previously and in different contexts. Do I “deserve” my PIP payments, if they’re taken from others by force? Maybe not.
But we *do* live in a world where taxes are basically a given, and the government(s) will spend them. As much as I would prefer a different world, I’m not 14 years old, so I need to act like a grown-up and think about where I want those taxes spent. Am I losing sleep over the fire brigade? No. But why should I be paying for other people to have their fires put out when I have no say in how much of my tax goes to that department? People should be more careful! Schools? Why the hell am I paying for schools? I don’t have kids! Disability payments? Why should I pay for your mobility scooter? I didn’t cause your illness! Why should I pay for police? It’s not my fault you can’t defend yourself or your property. Learn to throw a punch, you pussy (or fire a gun, or swing half a snooker cue, or whatever).
And if you can’t do any of those things, then earn enough to pay someone – a private contractor – who can. Don’t ask me to fund your safety through my taxes.
And so on. Basically, every single service provided by taxation is a “wealth transfer”. But at some point in my list above, most people are going to be thinking “um, hang on, I don’t agree with that, and realistically actually I think those services should be provided by taxes in the world that we actually exist in, because I don’t like the idea of dear old Ethel at number 7 starving to death because we decided that State Pensions are Robbery”.
As it actually stands, most Libertarians are against taxation in theory, but are tentatively for it when it comes to their own “values”. In many cases, this means funding the military or the police (in the best case, this is to protect personal property, and I have a decent amount of time for the better and more honest right-libertarians who are on that side). In mine, it means funding programs for people who are starving.
There are, however, some people who have an utter cognitive breakdown about this, and view “I think people shouldn’t die of starvation when it can be prevented” as the height of all evil, and simultaneously hold “I’m absolutely fine with taxes on everyone when it comes to funding the military and police – ie. the pointy end of the State” as the height of all good. I would gently suggest that these people are not, as much as they might pretend to be, anti-Statist at all; they are in fact Statists of a much, much higher-level, because they can’t conceive of a world where such things can be achieved without a State. And do, indeed, have a mental age of 14.
We can cancel SS and Medicare
Being conservatives (beside libertarians) we don’t promote revolutions. No, SS and Medicare should not be canceled outright, in one drastic step. That would be unjust, beside being impossible.
They should be wound down, gradually. Benefits and deductions should be gradually reduced. And if the people prefer to keep a government pension plan, fine. But it needs to be fully funded by taxes and not by money printing.
It would have been much better if the government pension plan was optional. That is – those who wish to enroll – fine. But those who don’t should not be forced (by taxation) to participate. Of course, this is utopian, because the whole point of the SS is to force the rich to finance the pensions of everyone (and sustain government and it’s corruption in running the program).
Once these schemes have been established and people made dependent upon them, they are almost impossible to peacefully roll back.
It is true that the “free food” and so on, in Constantinople was ended – but only when the forces of Islam captured Egypt, which is where the East Roman (Byzantine) government got the “free food” from. It was NOT a choice by the East Roman government – the “bread and games” ended when it could not carry on any more, just as it had ended in the Western Empire when everything fell apart (about a century before) due to the invasions of the Germanic tribes – who, being immigrants, did not see any reason why they should feed a lot of idle people in Rome and other cities. Although they did find the richer Romans useful – both for plundering and for torturing to death (which is how Boethius died).
Turning back to the modern age…..
To tell someone who has made no provision for their old age “sorry – but that pension and health care you were counting on, no longer exists” would be rather harsh – and people have been told they need make no provision for their old age, told that for very many decades.
So the costs, both economic and cultural (societal) increase and increase – till society collapses.
For those who think the American left would act differently from Marxists in other countries….
A typical American leftists is the Mayor of Los Angeles – Karen Bass.
Mayor Bass used to go to Cuba regularly – because she loved the Castro regime, especially what it did to “reactionaries”.
Given the power she, and the other American leftists, would torture and murder – and would be filled with glee as they did it.
And their voters would support them – after all the newly elected Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia not only wrote about his fantasies of murdering his political opponents – he also delighted in the idea of murdering their children.
The people who voted for him knew this.
Occham’s Razor comes into play.
Do not complicate things when there is no need to do so.
If local leftists tell you they want to kill you, and they are friends (close friends) with regimes that have murdered lots of “Reactionaries” – take-them-at-their-word, that is what they will do if they get a chance to do it.
And if people vote for them, such as the one million people who voted for Mayor Elect Mamdani in New York City, that is also what THEY want to do.
What Mr Mamdani, and his father (who is as despicable as he is), stands for was not a secret – everyone knew of his fanatical hatred of the United States.
And that HATE (violent hate) is what the one million people voted for.
They are not going to be bought off by a bit more welfare money – they want human blood.
Alright, I’m calling it: I genuinely think you need help (of the psychiatric kind).
I’m not kidding. Over the past however long, you’re “they want to murder us” has gone way beyond anything hyperbolic and rhetorical, and into what feels like something more…serious. You’ve also expressed suicidal thoughts several times.
At the end of the day, the people voting for Mamdani (etc) or other of the mildest most milqe-toast dem-socs on offer are NOT about to start dragging people like you into the street and murdering you. The most radical thing they’re likely to do is want people to pay higher taxes and implement rent control. Which, whether you agree or not, is a very long way from what you’re suggesting.
I don’t think this site, the people that are enabling you, or whatever youtube channels you’re watching, or etc, is doing you any good at all at this point, Paul.