In our dystopian present, where North-Korea-style economics is the norm & newspapers like Forbes have to be distributed underground to keep from being crushed by the eye o’ the Socialist Sauron that is our current World Government, a business shill @ Forbes whose last name is 1 letter ’way from “salesman” pleads, “Wherefore art thou true capitalists?”

It’s clear that either Salsman must be 1 o’ those enviable breed that can say the equivalent o’ “The sky is green” with a straight face or he is even mo’ delusional than I am. Where do I start with this MRA for the rich?

Despite many leftists admitting that capitalism was the victor after the fall o’ the Berlin Wall—which is unsurprising, since leftists love to talk ’bout what victims they are—they forget that our present economy is similar to those s’posedly-fallen socialist economies.

So… Then capitalism wasn’t the victor, after all. Socialism was. He basically says, “The fall o’ the Berlin Wall proved that capitalist countries are the best ’cause the capitalist countries were the 1s that didn’t collapse, even though they’re not truly capitalist, but socialist.” But if, in your own words, capitalism doesn’t truly exist anywhere—they’re all infected with that evil socialism—then capitalism is truly the failure.

What are you trying to argue? That we should feel triumph ’cause we crushed those socialists but feel bad ’cause we’re being crushed by those socialists? You have to pick 1. You can’t be both the winner & the loser @ the same time, dumbshit.

To be fair, there is some truth to capitalist countries being like “socialist”; but this development is hardly new, has been a part o’ capitalism since it’s inception, & is what I would mo’ accurately call “economics in general” than “socialism.” You’re right, Salsman: government intervention in a system run by the government is crazy! Next thing you know, we’ll have police use violent force gainst what the government calls “theft” in opposition to their own totalitarian specification o’ who owns what.

What fantasy eon do people imagine when they talk ’bout this “free” capitalism that must be contrasted with the vile corrupt, government-infested version that has always existed? Colonial times, when General Washington used military force to crush agricultural workers who rose up gainst “rule by a faraway elite, cronyism and corruption at influential levels of government, and regressive tax policy”? Was it during the Gilded Age o’ so-called self-made capitalists, when the country-spanning railroads were funded primarily by government hand-outs? Or was it the “Golden Age o’ Capitalism”—truly the Golden Age o’ Keynesian Welfare Capitalism.

No. Salsman provides no history, no evidence, no nothing for his diatribe. He does what all political narcissists do: he throws his fists down & calls everything he hates “fascist”—or “socialist,” which in this context is the same: “evil”—& demands everyone do everything exactly as he wants now or else! He wants to feel great ’cause he’s a winner & feel great ’cause he’s a poor li’l victim who should get so much sympathy. He & his capitalist buddies are spoiled brats who need to get over themselves.

I want to emphasize that “MRAs for the rich” point, ’cause he truly depicts rich people as the true victims o’ the US, including some weepy article by The Economist, which argues that rich people apparently have to hide for fear that the majority o’ Marxists that Americans surely are will shove a pitchfork into their bellies. There are many lower-class people that are now homeless due to the economic collapse caused by a few corrupt capitalists literally breaking the law & committing fraud—even those lower-class people who had nothing to do with housing, merely losing their job due to the ripple effect. But they live like kings compared to our pitiful rich who deserve all o’ your pity—or a’least those lower-class people deserve their worsened conditions, unlike the rich… ’cause we say so.

This is bewildering. See, dirty anarcho-commies can get ’way with playing the empathy card, ’cause they believe everyone is special & that we should all get ’long. When one believes that “rational self-interest” is the “one moral code” to rule them all, then whining ’bout other people not feeling sorry for you makes you look like a blubbering hypocrite. Tell those capitalists to quit bitching, pull themselves up by their bootstraps, & step-up their hiding skills. The fear o’ being mauled to death by mobs is only the market putting pressure on capitalists to hide better, which will lead them to do so, creating mo’ efficiency in the hiding industry. Think o’ how many jobs we can create through these new industries that focus on helping capitalists hide from angry mobs. Have you no entrepreneurial imagination, Forbes?

This is added with a dose o’ “No True Scotsman” fallacy in regards to the purported fans o’ capitalism:

Not even today’s Tea Party movement seems committed to capitalism in any deep sense.

“I say so, therefore it’s true. I don’t even need to ’splain what I mean by ’any deep sense,’ much less try to prove this terribly humble claim.”

To be fair, it is surprising, this lack o’ ardent support for a philosophy that upholds selfishness… well, ’cept when one selfishly supports government force when it benefits one. Scratch that: this lack o’ ardent support for a philosophy that upholds individualism… ’cept when one complains ’bout how one needs to network so much to succeed in capitalism, which is just a ’scuse for them to attack capitalism’s true philosophy, which is freedom… ’cept for that whole need for government to protect property…

Hmm…

Maybe the reason nobody ardently stands for capitalist principles is that capitalism doesn’t hold any consistent principles.

Salsman seems to interpret “egoism”—a pretentious term for ’selfishness’ that better hides its practitioner’s true mindless narcissism—but seems to expect a lack o’ selfishness when it comes to capitalists such as Buffet & Gates supporting government subsidies that benefit them, which Salsman bemoans. Maybe Salsman should stop being jealous o’ such successful businesses, pull himself up by his bootstraps, & get better @ networking with the government—that’s clearly what the market argues is the superior path to success.

He goes on to misinterpret what are clearly the US’s 4 foremost economists: Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes, Friedrich Hayek, & Barack Obama.

He whines that Marx apparently agrees that capitalism is efficient, & yet still mysteriously criticizes it simply ’cause it’s mean ol’ selfish efficiency. I’m amazed Salsman could be so ignorant o’ Marxism in a way that even Misesians aren’t. Everyone knows that Marx famously—wrongly—argued that capitalism would collapse, ’twas such a wreck o’ a system. You’re right: he totally thought capitalism was practical!

He shows this by showing how Marx preferred capitalism to its predecessors, forgetting to mention that socialism wasn’t ’mong those predecessors. To be fair, it is surprising that a man who practically jerked off to modernity would hate older economic systems.

O, wait, he does acknowledge this in the next paragraph, only to interpret it as “Capitalism will fail ’cause it’s evil.” That’s not an exaggeration: Salsman literally puts “Capitalism must ’fail’ because it is ’evil’” in Marx’s mouth. You know, 1 thing that annoys me ’bout procapitalist propagandists is that they’re terrible @ it. C’mon: was that truly the best strawmanning you could do?

Salsman’s criticism o’ Keynes is nothing but Godwin’s Law. He honest-to-god proves that Keynes’s criticism o’ capitalism is bad ’cause Keynes praised Hitler once (since we know that no capitalist economist ever did¹). Forbes’s writing standards are so low they couldn’t pass a high-school logic class. Why do you rich people keep trying to validate all o’ these mean people’s hatred o’ capitalism by acting like such morons? Does money have chemicals in it that cause brain damage—must be put there by the evil Fed, I bet!

I want to emphasize that this silly blog post written by some bum using mainly Wikipedia links as citations has mo’ academic quality than an article posted on Forbes. If that doesn’t make Forbes feel embarrassed, they must have no shame (they don’t; capitalists never do). C’mon, my 6-year-ol’ nephew could point @ that argument & go, “That’s stupid.” I would be physically incapable o’ writing something like that, it’s so obviously stupid!

(Sadly, this isn’t the worst argument Forbes has used gainst Keynes; ’nother spewed some pseudopsychiatric bullshit to argue that Keynes’s homosexuality ruined economics forever. Forbes is truly the bastion for classical liberalism².)

Salsman’s shameless lack o’ honesty continues when he describes Hayek:

In The Road to Serfdom (1944), where he warned, correctly, that the seemingly benign welfare state can lead to a totalitarian [emphasis mine].

When has this ever proven to be correct? Name 1 welfare-capitalist country that has ever turned into Leninism. Name 1 Leninist country whose origin wasn’t from violent revolution & came from parliamentary social democracy. Remember when Western Europe became totalitarian Leninist dystopias under those vile labor parties?

No? No evidence Salsman? Not 1?

Shocking. You’ve shown yourself to be so intellectually honest, so inscrutable before. I’ll tell you what: I’ll give you the benefit o’ the doubt. Maybe you thought 1984 was a documentary ’bout the UK.

Anyway, he whines that even Hayek doesn’t take seriously the moral quality o’ narcissism; but, ’course, as already demonstrated, neither does Salsman, considering his whines gainst Gates & Buffet selfishly benefiting from government intervention. Capitalism isn’t even based on self-interest or “individualist ethic,” as it demands people throw ’way personal gains through government intervention for the—purportedly—collective benefit o’ superior efficiency. & you’d think anyone trying to form a business—a capitalist collective, essentially—writing for a newspaper the collects procapitalist writers together would realize the absurdity o’ praising capitalism for serving “individualist ethics.”

If Salsman were truly an individualist, he wouldn’t be trying to build his career on digging into capitalists’ pants but by living in the wild, growing all his own food. ’Course, if he did that, he’d likely die; hence why individualism never succeeds & why all o’ the most powerful organizations in the world—including the US & multinational corporations—are immensely collectivist.

But then, maybe it’s all that socialism that causes businesses & Forbes to exist. I’m sure when the capitalist revolution happens—it’s coming any minute now! The socialists are as we speak burying the seeds to their own demise!—businesses will whither ’way & we’ll finally have a Robinson Crusoe in every human!

Last, he criticizes a politician’s propaganda blurbs probably shat out by some speech writer in a minute as futilely as I do for him. Obama may love capitalism, but he doesn’t love it for the right reason—the reason that has never succeeded ever in history. You’re right: how absurd o’ him. Fuck destitute hell holes like Sweden; give me… I can’t even think o’ an example, ’cause Salsman refuses to specify which practical application o’ which arbitrary version o’ capitalism that he supports. Somalia when ’twas “anarchist”?—or rather, Americans’ ignorant perception o’ what “anarchism” is. Pinochetian Chile? The Gilded Age? Well, it can’t be then, ’cause there was that aforementioned socialistic railroad-building existed.

How tragic that this purportedly practical economic system has no actual practical application in history—nothing but evil socialism, whether the practical Western versions or the failing Leninist versions.

& it’s sad that someone who brags ’bout capitalism’s practicality has no practical knowledge himself. Perhaps it’s less that every other purported procapitalist is a shitty procapitalist & mo’ that Salsman is & that the so-called shitty procapitalists understand that capitalism’s practicality comes from its lack o’ consistent principles—that government intervention strengthens capitalism rather than weakening it.

’Course, he isn’t practical-minded, so he obviously doesn’t understand why something could be practical. He’s simply regurgitating American propaganda without understanding the purpose for propaganda: tricking idiots into thinking their dominant ideology is great in every way, even if they’re contradictory. Hence why capitalism is both free, but not too free as to let homeless savages trespass on property; hence why capitalism is both individualist, but not too individualist as to eliminate bureaucratic corporations: “Whatever gets you dolts to let me keep my riches—defend it ardently, even—I don’t give a shit what you idiots want to believe.” I bet Salsman will also write an article on how awesome Washington was for not lying ’bout cutting down that cherry tree or ’bout good ol’ Betsy Ross, who received the design for the American flag straight from American Jesus.

Unless rational self-interest is understood as the one moral code consistent with genuine humanity, and the moral estimate of capitalism thus improves, socialism will keep making comebacks, despite its deep and dark record of human misery.

Considering it’s purported proponent doesn’t even understand it, we must be in trouble then.

Addendum:

Also, fuck Forbes for splitting the article into 2 pages ’tween when I 1st wrote this & when I was finishing the final draft. Stop doing that, you idiots: it only makes it a pain in the ass to find specific parts o’ an article & makes me wade through mo’ o’ Forbes’s dumbass thoughts o’ the day.

---

Footnotes

I’ve begun to feel bad ’bout my article mocking moderate liberals for their recent election failures, not ’cause I mocked moderate liberals—that part I still stand by—but ’cause I mocked some article wherein Noah Smith praises mainstream economists for, by his own account, fucking up the economy by being corrupt liars. Looking back, I should’ve taken this as subtle sarcasm, since clearly no one who is an assistant professor @ a prestigious college—if your college doesn’t just hand out coupons for digital cameras for diplomas, I consider it prestigious—could write this article unironically…

Right…?

This article is not from his usual den o’ faux-nerdy obnoxiousness, but @ the den o’ the pasty-faced known as Bloomberg. Said article has a not-@-all-arrogant title that seems to imply Smith’s humble goal o’ being the the world’s ultimate arbiter on who deserves what. Since “free” market economists supporting economic authoritarianism is the rule mo’ than the exception, that’s not the odd part; no, the fun part must be built up like fresh pancakes…

1st we start with some fun strawmanning:

There’s a common myth that standard economics predicts that people are paid an amount of money equal to the value of the things they produce. Actually, this isn’t true – in fact, the idea doesn’t even make sense.

It’s a good thing this common myth was 1 you made up, then. Most critics assume economists assume that workers get paid based on the value they give, since that is what a logical society would do—though as we shall see, Smith doesn’t think our current economy does. I don’t know any leftist who assumes workers are all just independents who do everything themselves. In fact, that sounds mo’ like a laisez-faire fantasy, if anything. Would be awfully difficult for the evil capitalists to exploit them if said capitalists didn’t actually exist.

In standard economics […] you get paid an amount equal to the amount that the company’s production increases when it hires you.

Which employers surely know, since every business comes with a special “value-creation” meter that can predict just how much value a worker will create before that worker actually does anything. This proves that labor has nothing to do with value-creation, as those scurvy-dog Marxists claim, since they don’t even work to create value: just having their name on the business’s employee list is ’nough to inspire the computers that actually do all o’ the work to feel mo’ confident & to work harder.

People generally don’t produce things individually. They produce things together, with the assistance of capital such as machines and buildings.

It’s ’bout time someone finally told market-critics this. As we all know, leftist critics o’ mainstream economics routinely view the economy as nothing mo’ than independent individuals in some Robinson Crusoe world, nor do they ever acknowledge capital’s involvement in the economy. That’s why Marx’s most famous work was called Das Kapital—’cause as the 1st sentence will tell you, “Das Kapital ist eine bürgerliche Lüge.”

So when a company hires you, its marginal productivity changes, because your presence affects the marginal productivity of everyone else at the company.

I just imagine Smith snickering as he typed this. It’s true, too: a common thought that pops into workers’ heads is, Man, if only I had some guy standing near me, his warm breath streaming down my neck, I’d work so much harder! This empty space is just so distracting!

In other words, in a competitive, classical economy…

O, good, we can just stop here, since we’re not in that kind o’ economy, so its dependent variables can be safely ignored.

Market economists always do that shit, too. They’re like those too-good-to-be-true ads that get you hyped, only for the microscopic print to admit, “only applies to competitive economies,” when “competitive capitalism” is right up there with “benign dictator” or “communism that hasn’t utterly fucking failed” as 1 o’ those elusive concepts that’s s’posed to distinguish it from the evil versions that have actually ever existed in reality.

He brings up this chart that shows that worker productivity & wages generally matched during the mid-20th Century, also commonly known as the “Golden Age” o’ capitalism.

All right. Then he goes into a perfectly normal description o’ how average & marginal productivity differ ’cause… wait, what?

No economic model says that people get paid based on average productivity. If they did, there would be no income left over for capital — no profits, rents or interest. We’d be living in a sort of a [sic] Marxist world, where labor is the only thing with any value.

OK, now go back & look @ that graph he just brought up ’gain—the 1 where average productivity & what people were paid matched so closely.

We must credit Professor Noah Smith, for revealing the government myth o’ the “Golden Age” o’ capitalism to truly be the vile Golden Age o’ Marxism! So that’s how we won the Cold War. Well, like they say: fight fire with fire. I just wish our wise ol’ conservatives would teach these young punks & their radical “free” markets how much better things were in the good ol’ red-blooded American 50s, when everything was swell; teenage women didn’t get pregnant all the time;—or a’least we pretend they didn’t—black people were still kept in fea… O, wait, we still do that; & we all held hands & chanted “This Land is My Land” before statues o’ Marx & Engels.

He then makes up some bullshit ’bout how robots & the Chinese are stealing all our jobs, but the latter’s OK, ’cause Chinese workers will ’ventually get bored & find something else to do. God damn it, Smith, are you mixing up reality with your favorite science fiction books? This is just like that microfiction you wrote ’bout the economy wherein every individual’s income distributions are randomized every so oft. You’re not going to be the Twilight Zone for economics, so give it up. For 1, economics itself is already as logical as the Twilight Zone.

Still, I couldn’t agree mo’ with his reverse Yakov Smirnoff joke:

In a globalized capitalist economy, you don’t get paid what you produce – in fact, you don’t produce anything without others to help. What you get paid is what you can convince other people to give you.

So quit bitching & start whoring yourself to your brethren. Shit, as we saw earlier, Smith’s been doing that for a while. Or would you rather live in 1 o’ those collectivist economies like the Soviet Union or 1950s America?

I didn’t think so.

Nevertheless, this point has been proven in a mo’, ahem, scientific—& I must say mo’ eloquent—manner elsewhere.

Other fine work:

• An aptly-titled article, “Reality Might Topple a Beloved Economic Theory.” This apparently “disquiets” him, which is odd, as the many times it’s done so in the past hadn’t seemed to.

• Here Smith rightfully points out how frivolous the Nobel Prize is, since they love giving those peace prizes to war criminals, & ’cause the winners are all fatties who stuff their face with chocolate—no offense to the fatties who stuff their face with peanut butter, ’stead; they’re still cool.

• Here Smith outright acknowledges that he’s a troll, but just an obnoxiously generic 1—what he calls the true oppressed class! Mostly, this is just a ’scuse for him to spew pseudoeconomic nonsense to pretend he’s a special, brilliant snowflake. He is wrong.

  He also seems to think Lolcats & Rickrolling were creative. He is wrong ’gain.

• Here’s a hilarious article that I’ll also take as trolling wherein he argues that Wall-Street people make so much money ’cause they suffer so much. For instance, you may have to tolerate being an asshole & causing other people harm—& nothing’s worse than having someone else inconvenienced. You may even be inconvenienced ’nough to punching your underling! Think o’ how your hand will hurt after hitting that li’l freak’s hard head!

  He also joins with ’nother Bloomberg writer in trying to sucker young people into giving up such lucrative careers in return for their “soul.” After all, “moral purpose can be worth a lot of dollars – just look at the low wages in the nonprofit sector.”

• Here’s an article wherein he creams himself over a sexy cat fight ‘tween Krugman & some smarmy-looking bastard o’ which I’ve never heard. I’m particularly amused by Smith’s insinuation that Krugman has mo’ sweet-ass cred than Stephen Gould & John Maynard Keynes—Krugman, the same economist who claimed that silly fiction stories about imaginary hot dog factories are mo’ important than facts; the same economist who supported many o’ the causes o’ our current economic depression, while now shamelessly, hypocritically pretending to be on the forefront gainst the very economics he suported before–including the same inaccurate deficit & inflation scaremongering for which Smith hypocritically criticizes Austrian-schoolers.

  Actually, Smith later whines ’bout how tragic 2 rich people disagreeing has become & hearfully wishes they’d just get together & put their dicks in each other’s bums already, your flirtatious bickering isn’t fooling anyone, before Smith’s nerves give in to so much conflict & he faints. I’m always amused by the kind o’ things rich people find troubling. Surely you’ve had greater tragedies in your life, right? Like, maybe you had ice cream fall off its cone once–which, judging by this article, caused Smith to spend months ‘lone in his room with the lights off in deep depression (Some o’ us have learned the wise wisdom o’ optimistic advice from such sites as Careerealism & do not let such circumstances dictate our actions, but take the initiative ourselves, & spend months ‘lone in our rooms with the lights off without waiting for ice cream to fall off our cones, thank you).

• Here’s an article wherein he conflates the worst war in human history to conservatives feeling a tad sad ’bout not being able to take out their bitterness on women & gays as much as they used to. This comes with a side order o’ an appeal to gross collusion ‘tween the 2 milquetoast political classes with the kind o’ smugness that conservatives despise liberals for harboring. This “compromise” is essentially everyone thinking the same way Smith does. ‘Course, anyone with the merest o’ political understanding will predict that conservatives, laissez-faire-libertarians (though in Smith’s defense, I don’t think he even tries to compromise with them, which shows that he has some taste), & leftists (who, in fairness, will hate anything, anyway) will tell Smith to fuck off & continue to hate him; but centrists & moderate liberals can get a warm fuzzy feeling o’ smug satisfaction @ their civility.

  That this smug self-congratulation for moderate liberals comes after their utter fucking failure in American legislative branch is even funnier. Yes, keep telling yourselves you’re successful, liberals. Hee, hee, you’re so cute.

• Finally, we have a ludicruous article praising a ludicrous study that “proves” that economists are not ideological by flaunting their political & linguistic ignorance–that is, after a tacky, irrelevant photo o’ some woman holding up scales. Said study is reams o’ arbitrary mathematical postmodernist nonsense meshed with an arbitrary text-searching test that only checks which words are used, not their actual content. So, for instance, if a paper talks ’bout mental illness, it’s apparently left-wing, while if it talks ’bout bank notes or the Federal Reserve, it’s right-wing (p. 14). That this paper seems to only focus on Democrats & Republicans & already makes assumptions o’ what are “neutral” political activities, which they refuse to include in their data, shows not only that the evidence is partly based on the conclusion–not necessarily nonfalsifiable, but certainly absurd–but that this study’s writers are ignorant o’ politics, as well as language (p. 12-13).

  In truth, the methodology & the conclusion o’ the paper ironically demonstrates the very bias economists in general truly have: centrism. The paper focuses purely on Democrats & Republicans, with those who fall between them considered “unbiased”–which ironically relies on the biased view that the Democrats & Republicans are an objective measure for determining the “biased” sides. This is unsurprising, as economists are superstitiously fearful o’ being viewed as “biased,” & thus try to fake nonbias through simply regurgitating the “centrist” mainstream hivemind. This same philosophy affects the writers o’ this very study, leading them to mistake “centrism” as “nonbiased,” when it isn’t. This can clearly be proved by comparing US politics to other countries’ politics & noting that what is “centrist” in the US may be radically different from other countries’ centrism; & thus, in reverse, that those “centrisms” may be “biased” toward the left or right. In essence, this study tests bias by harboring a bias for the US way o’ thinking. If an economist were to think in a way mo’ like ‘nother country’s dominant ideology, that economist would be evilly biased, while an economist who regurgitates US dominant ideology would be “unbiased.”

  But fuck that boring noise: read the comments for that article & feast on… whatever nonsense these people are blubbering ’bout. The great part o’ the insane asylum known as the internet is that it’s impossible to tell which parts are passive-aggressive sarcasm or authentic delusions–can you discern which is which on this very blog?

  In particular, I’m glad Noah Smith linked this brilliant critique o’ New Republic (though I disagree with Prof. deBoer’s callous indifference toward the well-being o’ Stalin’s cat). I would like to see that kind o’ high-quality analysis from you for once, Smith.

• O shit, how could I forget Smith’s laughable attempt @ foreign-policy analysis with his scaremongering ’bout the upcoming World War 3 gainst the vile Chinese.

  A few succulent bits:

  [A]bout 40% of the world has resolutely refused to adopt U.S.-like systems, and democracy has actually been in retreat since slightly after the turn of the millennium, if you believe Freedom House.

  I don’t, tragically ‘nough, since I can’t imagine a political system that’s virtually never existed ever to be in decline. I love how people who lusciously praise America’s “democracy” are so ignorant o’ the US’s actual political philosophy or what “democracy” even is. Even laissez-faire libertarains o’ all people have bothered to actually graduate high school & learn that the US isn’t a democracy, never was 1, is a republic, which keeps the dirty poor from asserting themselves, yadda yadda. This isn’t obscure shit hidden in badly designed websites by anarchists; any high school history textbook mentions this shit. Smith should read basic history for a mere second before spewing propaganda so he actually gets the propaganda right.

  He then spews data & a few caveat points without any analysis o’ how it matters. Mo’ importantly, nowhere does he actually ‘splain why 2 countries with nuclear weapons should go to war with ‘nother country with nuclear weapons, despite the absence o’ such even in the far bitterer Cold War.

  @ the end he admits that this is all bullshit he pulls out his ass, but then he self-fallatingly declares, “But just in case this is where things are headed, it pays to be honest with ourselves about the facts.” I agree: in case o’ events that have no reason to ever occur outside o’ fantasy literature, we must memorize random data in case China demands us all to win a China quiz or else they’ll send their UFOs down & conquer us all like they did in the teevee movies.

  The comments have a variety o’ sentiments–none o’ which are deeply considered, shockingly. The most fitting would have to be Anonymous’s “What kind of bullshit is this?” even if it comes after the unapt praise for Smith’s economic posts; though, admittedly, learning ’bout (laissez-faire) libertarianism being a Jewish conspiracy o’ Marxists must come as a close 2nd.

  There are mo’ scaremongering, too. Clearly, Smith is obsessed with living out his fantasies o’ living in his favorite Tom Clancy thrillers, even if it requires him to pretend that nuclear weapons have never been invented.

This is probably frivolous—but then, isn’t everything I write?—but I wanted to make ’nother quick post on Mankiw & my grotesque fascination with his rhetorical philosophy, which I think shows the general counterintuitive philosophy o’ centrists: that one becomes smarter when one thinks as li’l as possible.

In an admittedly-rather-ol’ post, Mankiw uses the same patronizing moderate frown he used in the last article I mocked when discussing some hippie @ Ad Busters making fun o’ Mankiw for be a mindless Squealer for economists. Mankiw’s response is… “Yes, that’s exactly what I am.”

When I teach introductory economics, either in the classroom or in my textbook, I view myself as an ambassador for the economics profession. I try to represent the economic mainstream, not my personal political views. Some students may view the economic mainstream as right of center. That assessment is probably correct, at least as judged by the universe of college professors. But the job of an introductory course is to present, as honestly as possible, the consensus of the profession.

Thus, Mankiw’s defense is literally, “If the majority o’ economists say so, it must be right.”

I also love how before that he makes the same simplified story that centrist economists always make ’bout how the right is mean to them, too—O, who is mo’ assailed than mainstream economists? Why aren’t they given reparations already?—& then says, “I suppose the symmetry in the attacks suggests I am getting things about right.”

Reading this quote—as well as the rest o’ the article—notice what Mankiw neglects to do—what he neglects to do in most o’ his work? He neglects to make an actual logical point. Nowhere in his work do I ever see rational arguments. His defenses gainst cries o’ political bias are nothing mo’ than saying that, well, his political bias is the correct 1, which is the center—the US’s dominant ideology. How ironic that centrists like Mankiw can only ever criticize such “extreme” “ideologues” through ideological language, such as criticizing work purely for being “leftist” or “right-wing” or focusing purely on where ideas stand on some imaginary “left-right” spectrum. This is unsurprising coming from a study that takes pride in focusing purely on abstract—i.e. made up in people’s minds—matters, rather than concrete matters.

That the center could be just as ignorant & biased as the left or right eludes Mankiw completely. Never mind the fact that the center has, in the past, included such reasonable arguments that black people & women were inferior, as it includes such reasonable arguments that poor people are inferior today. Those centrists were ’course wrong; but we’re not, ’cause society has clearly learned all that we need. That American centrism is significantly different from the centrism in many other countries is also irrelevant. Those centrists are ’course silly extremists; but we’re not, ’cause… the answer always eludes.

What this tells me is not, as centrists like Mankiw clearly want me to think, that they are just ’bove such vulgarities as political opinions, but that they are just intellectual cowards who are ’fraid to confront their political biases—probably ’cause they’re not confident in their intellectual abilities to ensure that these are biases are logically defensible, ’cause they probably know deep down that what they want & get contradict what a logical ethical system should give them.

Otherwise, a Harvard economist like Mankiw may question, as the Anti-Mankiw article he linked, why his tenure is so great & why he derives so much influence for then-Presidents like George W. Bush when he can’t even ’splain his beliefs without freshmen-level logical fallacies such as “appeal to popularity” or the “golden mean.”

That, or Mankiw may just be a shameless lawyer who spews out rhetoric in the hopes o’ distracting people from the rational fact that he takes in phat loot for spewing propaganda beneficial to powerful classes—which is not just corporations! As any centrist economist will tell you, they also stands for such left-wing, Keynesian ideals as supporting underdogs like the government, too! After all, without government, who will jail the dirty hobos when they perturb white middle-class sensibilities when asking for dimes?

Addendum

In the spirit o’ smugfaced centrism, can I take a second to laugh @ the fact that a leftist organization would call themselves “post-autism economics.” As you can see, the prissy left still hasn’t left their PC fascism. If this were a true-blue conservative organization, you know they would get right to the heart o’ language & call themselves “economics for people who aren’t fucking social retards who might also be Jews I’m not sure yet though if you figure out the secrets o’ the Corporatist Marxist Jew Cabal please tell me ’K thank you.”

Mankiw, as any good-sporting centrist, is “intrigued” by this movement, which is good to hear. As any sensible person will tell you, you must always look @ both sides in every conflict:—there are never mo’ than 2 sides, that’s just too crazy to even consider!—both the bigoted & the nonbigoted.

Actually, we shouldn’t be surprised, since we’re talking ’bout economics, & anyone faintly interested in economics is probably halfway toward becoming a desensitized sociopath. This even includes those who treat economics purely as bile fuel,—an environmentally-friendly energy source, you hippies should appreciate—as anyone reading anything else I’ve written here should have gleaned.

As with most ideas, I’m uncertain ’bout the intelligence o’ economists—not comfortable with accepting them as intelligence ’cause some rich organizations called “colleges” say they are, but also not comfortable with just writing them off as ditsy.

Whenever I see economists try to defend their profession gainst the mean ol’ critics in mainstream media, my uncertainty is only exacerbated. They usually only make themselves look stupider, which is hard to believe from people who are apparently able to graduate from places like Harvard. My paranoiac side makes me want to believe that perhaps these newspapers intentionally pick strawmen economists to make the whole profession look bad, though I’m not sure why they would. I dunno.

Neither precludes us from pointing & laughing, however.

I. Mankiw Doesn’t Know What the Hell He’s Protesting

In smugly-titled New York Times article, “Know What You’re Protesting,” Harvard economist Greg Mankiw protests gainst Occupy Wall-Street hippies & somehow makes them look like scientists & him look like a postmodernist-sputtering hippie. ’Gain, my paranoiac side makes me think this is an elaborate troll-job on Mankiw & Occupy’s part.

He starts with paragraphs o’ self-fellating/self-pitying backstory wherein he treats a li’l walkout as if ’twere the French Revolution. How did you live through it, Mankiw? I hope your metaphorical tweed suit was not ruffled by such uncouth behavior.

I particularly loved this bit:

I have been told that at least one of the students who walked out sneaked back in later: he wanted to support the protest but didn’t want to miss the lecture [Emphasis mine].

Apparently this Harvard-educated scientist never took a single rhetoric class, since if he did, he’d know that “I have been told” is known as weasel-words & that no true scientist uses them. They provide evidence or shut up.

To be fair, this is a believable story: Mankiw’s amazing lectures are, I’m sure, a life-changing moment that could never be replaced by, say, reading 1 o’ the millions o’ economics textbooks out there. How can anyone learn ’bout the Phillips Curve with mere text when one could hear it through Mankiw’s sexy voice? Everyone knows Mankiw’s lectures are fucking rock concerts. I bet this totally-not-imaginary student made sure to get a front-row seat with a bucket o’ popcorn in-hand.

If anything, we should expect the opposite: lazy students pretending to protest so they can sneak a free hour to smoke pot, get laid, make Super Mario World rom hacks, or whatever you punks do nowadays.

If there is any truth to this claim, the answer obviously is that some student stoned out o’ his mind saw the other students walk out; thought, O, is class over already?; & went out with them, only to learn the truth afterward & sneak back in thinking, O shit. Whoops.

So what is his—Mankiw’s, not the stoner’s—rebuke to these foolish peons? Well, after he digresses into some irrelevant bullshit ’bout the 70s, he makes a strong case for his class:

It includes ideas of many greats in the field, like Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Arthur Pigou, John Maynard Keynes and Milton Friedman.

A whole 1 o’ those lived past the 1950s, too! Clearly Mankiw is on the cutting edge o’ economic science. Those students will surely leave that classroom with impeccable knowledge o’ how to get the most cows from bartering pigs.

Then he parrots some student newspaper’s appeal to “nonpartisanship”—an imaginary concept idiots make up so their ideas don’t have to be held up to any authentic standards, & thus have their idiocy revealed. He, ’course, doesn’t provide evidence for his nonpartisanship—as no centrist ever does, since it’s based on an imaginary scale. As true scientists, we should take his word without skepticism.

He then devolves into cretinous dick-sucking o’ Paul Samuelson & whining ’cause some bearded Marxist whined ’bout him not being a bearded Marxist. I could whine for a whole article ’bout he & Nordhaus’s Economics & how the claim that it’s nonideological is as blatant a lie as saying the sky is green; but for now I’ll simply note that Mankiw himself provides no reason why I should like Samuelson’s work other than that Mankiw calls him “left-o’-center.” I love how people who complain ’bout ideology can use nothing but ideological words to defend their arguments—almost as if they’re completely full o’ shit. The fact that “left-o’-center”¹ doesn’t mean anything concrete doesn’t hinder this Harvard economist 1 bit. What a scientist!

I think this was meant to be his bid to cater to the silly leftists, which isn’t consistent with his claim that he doesn’t serve ideology. But if he knew anything ’bout leftists, he’d know its various clans hate each other, anyway. The “left” includes some o’ the most libertarian & totalitarian ideologies in the world; “left” doesn’t mean shit.

Warning: explicit handjobbing ’head:

I don’t claim to be an economist of Paul Samuelson’s stature. (Probably no one alive can.)

Unfortunately, the vile Marxists have a rebuke: Ha! That doesn’t include Zombie Marx!

Back to serious—O, wait, I’m reading an economist’s op-ed. There’s nothing serious here.

Yet, like most economists, I don’t view the study of economics as laden with ideology.

“In our opinion, we’re not idiots.” Apparently, this “scientist” still hasn’t realized that opinions without evidence or rationale are worthless. People will decide for themselves whether you’re ideological or not—& so far you have proven yourself not so, if only ’cause ideological people require a’least some intellectual content in their loony theories.

Most of us agree with Keynes, who said: “The theory of economics does not furnish a body of settled conclusions immediately applicable to policy. It is a method rather than a doctrine, an apparatus of the mind, a technique for thinking, which helps the possessor to draw correct conclusions.”

Well, that is wise, & not mindless buzzwords strewn together: “Economics doesn’t make conclusions; it just chooses methods o’ thoughts based on the conclusions toward which they inevitably lead. Totally different.”

That is not to say that economists understand everything. The recent financial crisis, economic downturn and meager recovery are vivid reminders that we still have much to learn.

So far you’ve yet to show that economists know anything. Literally, the only evidence you’ve given is points in which economists have failed.

Why do so many articles I argue with end up arguing with themse—Mankiw’s ’nother 1 o’ them! You think I didn’t notice the way you slyly snuck in that reference to Zombie Marx. You’re 1 o’ them, too. They’ve taken over every economic school & pit them gainst each other while they sneakily take over. Damn you crafty Marxists.

Widening economic inequality is a real and troubling phenomenon, albeit one without an obvious explanation or easy solution. A prerequisite for being a good economist is an ample dose of humility.

O, fuck off, David Brooks. Then you must be a shitty 1, considering all o’ the self-fellatio earlier.

I want to note ’gain that Mankiw’s basic conclusion is: “Occupy Wallstreet protesters are dumb ’cause they don’t believe I’m equipped to talk ’bout economics, & I agree with them.” Maybe that’s the humility he’s talking ’bout: the paradox o’ an economist who knows he’s an idiot—& yet ’cause he’s an idiot, his knowledge that he’s an idiot must be wrong. “I think I’m an idiot… they think I’m an idiot… I am an idiot… therefore, they must be idiots, too. QED.”

I want to point out the letter Mankiw made the mistake o’ linking to, as it ’gain demonstrates how much smarter Mankiw’s students were than him. I want to particularly emphasize this paragraph:

A legitimate academic study of economics must include a critical discussion of both the benefits and flaws of different economic simplifying models. As your class does not include primary sources and rarely features articles from academic journals, we have very little access to alternative approaches to economics. There is no justification for presenting Adam Smith’s economic theories as more fundamental or basic than, for example, Keynesian theory [emphasis mine].

“Those ideological leftists! All their hippie slogans o’ ’primary sources’ & ’academic journals’!”

Mankiw should take his own advice to know what he’s protesting; others may do the same & won’t have a high opinion o’ his rebuttal when he doesn’t.

Addendum:

I have later learned that “left-o’-center” Mankiw also wrote a delightful paper titled “A Defense of the One Percent,” which is so full o’ hilarity that I may have to dedicate a separate article to it.

The briefest I could say is that its use o’ references barely rises ’bove infantile book reviews & that its overall scientific value is akin to the kind o’ papers I wrote in my freshman Sociology class. I hope this was just something a drunken Mankiw spewed out in 1 night & not something that reached an actual economics journal. I mean, I know they have the highest o’ standards & all. Not like those silly li’l sociologists!

II. Nonfalsifiability: the Apex o’ Science

Our next example is by Andrew Lilico, with ’nother modestly-titled article in the Telegraph, “Good economists are almost always right about almost everything,” forgetting to add the important adage that a good economist is hard to find—& impossible in this tripe.

Good economists are usually about as right as it’s possible to be. There, I said it.

Whoa, hold on there, George Carlin. I can’t take this edgy stand-up next to my Mutts & Family Circus.

I love how ’gain he qualifies it with “good,” & qualifies it further with “as it’s possible to be,” to maximize meaninglessness. I’d think being usually correct is what would define a “good” economist: the true debate is whether most economists are good.

That shouldn’t be controversial. After all, that’s why economists get paid so much…

Nothing’s mo’ scientific than the “Just-So” fallacy.

& I’m sure quite a few heterodox economics make a lot o’ money, too, so this assumption is not only invalid, it’s conclusion is self-contradictory.

…and why societies managed according to economic principles such as sound money, secure property rights and effective competition are much more prosperous than others.

“These societies that exist in my fantasies.”

Actually, most o’ the most prosperous countries are those vile socialistic Nordic countries & Switzerland, which are well known for lots o’ income redistribution & having some o’ the greatest tolerance for intellectual-property piracy. So “secure property rights” is wrong, & “sound money” & “effective competition” mean nothing mo’ than “good things,” & thus prove nothing. An economist’s job is to determine what money is sound & what competition is effective, not to just say that good things are good.

It’s why so much everyday government policymaking is dominated by economic reasoning, from the price controls imposed upon utilities, such as water and electricity (even called “economic regulation”), to the rules on how economic reasoning has to be used in devising regulation and setting taxes (so-called “impact assessments”).

I’m glad he emphasizes this “reasoning” aspect I’ve never heard ’bout before. I’d usually run my economy like Mario Party: just roll & hope we land on boom! Oops! Landed on a Bowser space! Gliosmar Gutenberg owes $20 trillion in taxes. Better luck next time, Gutenberg.

I love how these economists are so simpleminded & yet so arrogant that they have to make up imaginary opponents to hide the fact that they can’t argue gainst their authentic critics. This is Ayn-Rand level strawmanning: “They can’t be arguing gainst my logic, since it’s so impeccable, so they must just reject reason itself.”

It’s why the tools of economic reasoning, such as game theory, have come to dominate so many other disciplines, from evolutionary biology through moral philosophy to political science and military strategy, most famously including nuclear weapons policy — there is even a branch of physics called “quantum game theory”.

I’ve read quite a few scientists disagree. For instance, I’ve read biologists correcting some economists’ hilarious ignorance o’ biology. Meanwhile, physicists are so opposed to mainstream economics that they made up their own field. Indeed, I’ve noticed a pattern o’ other scientists mocking economists for thinking they’re smarter than they are.

I must confess that this & my broad reading o’ works by famous economists has colored my perception, which is not helped by Mankiw & Lilico. However, I’ll give other economists the benefit o’ the doubt & assume these 2 got in by sucking someone’s dick—forgive me if I doubt carpet-cleaning will get one far in the immensely progressive field o’ economics—or something.

It’s why your television screens are full of economists every day, explaining not just news events, but almost everything, from which football managers are the most skilled to why singer Katherine Jenkins is so successful.

“We may suck @ predicting recessions; but we can predict which team will make the Super Bowl—Go Tunnel Rhinos!”

Some such challenges are easily deflected. Orthodox economics tells us that it is impossible to predict significant financial crises in advance – or else everyone would predict them and trade off that and so they wouldn’t happen. There’s little point in criticising economists for being unable to predict shocks they say are impossible to predict.

“It doesn’t matter if we suck—we’re s’posed to suck. So there!”

Some textbooks will tell you economics is the study of incentives. I unpack that as follows: economics is the discipline that tells you why behaviour makes sense.

“I’ll unpack that by misinterpreting it.” The idea o’ incentives is that you try to influence certain behavior by making that behavior mo’ beneficial; that’s kilometers ’way from manufacturing explanations for why any action is “rational.” I should point out that none o’ these prove that economists are good @ setting incentives (Hint: in a society where bankers are rewarded for fraud by giving them bailouts & stay-@-home spouses are punished for doing society-benefiting work, they aren’t.)

Ironically, “behaviour makes sense” makes no sense. What behavior? Just behavior in general? Is that the bold stand he takes? “I think it’s time we behaved in some fashion, unlike all those inanimate people vegetating round. There, I said it.”

Hey, wait… Is he just regurgitating Mises’s tautological “human action” nonsense? Is Lilico an Austrian economists pretending to be 1 who doesn’t living in a cave? Get out o’ the neoclassicals’ chair, Lilico! We’re s’posed to be having a serious discussion here.

If my left arm goes up, a physicist might tell you about the atoms and molecules and forces that took it there. A biologist might tell you about the electrical impulses in the nerves in my arm and the hormones and energy transport in the blood. A certain sort of old-fashioned psychotherapist might tell you about how raising my left arm resolved the struggle between my super-ego and my ID. But economics is the discipline that seeks to explain why I raised my left arm in terms of why that made sense to me, given my objectives and beliefs.

See, the difference is that the former 2 are actually science, while the latter 2 are just shit people make up in their head that have no way o’ proving or disproving—also known as “pseudoscience.” It’s good to hear that economists presume to read every individual’s mind. No wonder “good” economists are right ’bout everything: they literally have psychic powers.

But rationality is not an assumption of orthodox economic theory in that sense. Instead, it is what is called an “axiom”. No behaviour can prove that people aren’t, in fact, rational, because for an orthodox economist the only kind of explanation of any behaviour that counts as an economic explanation is an explanation that makes sense of that behaviour — that shows why the behaviour is rational.

“So, you see, economics is nonfalsifiable, & thus pseudoscience.”

Economists are apparently like spoiled brats who just make up rules when they start to lose. “Ha! You think you checkmated me, but I’ve decided that that move doesn’t count as an economic explanation ’cause I say so, so you lose.”

Irrationality and other heterodoxy is usually little better than an all-encompassing conspiracy theory, explaining everything and thus nothing — for while many behaviours may not be rational, there is no behaviour that is not irrational.

That’s just the flip-side o’ your argument, & thus yours is just as stupid.

In the 19th century economics faced a mystery. In the Irish potato famine of the 1840s and during the Paris Commune of the 1870s, when the prices of staple food (in the one case potatoes, in the other bread) went up, demand went up also. Pondering this mystery, economists eventually reasoned as follows.

(Slaps forehead.) This makes no sense! Why would people continue to demand food when the price has gone up? You’d think their desire to end deathly agonizing starvation would transfer to cheaper demands—like kitten stuffies—to maximize their utility.

To be fair, he does answer with this very same obvious point. So apparently “good” economists are as smart as some likely-mentally-unstable bum blogging ’bout his favorite Donkey Kong Country levels². So where’s my check then?

So, his idea o’ “good economics” is psychoanalysis—making up any reason one can to ensure any possibility turns out “rational”? Then it’s fitting that he brought up Freudian psychiatry, since his beliefs are just as scientific.

’Course, psychiatry has evolved from Freudianism into something far mo’ scientific. Let’s hope economics does—or has already done—the same by ignoring kooks like this guy.

Suppose instead we had answered: “Obviously, if people were rational, then when prices went up they’d buy less. But they aren’t always rational, as demonstrated by the examples of bread and potatoes.” Then we would have missed the key insight.

We’d be dumbasses. Thankfully, the only heterodox economists who say that exist in Lilico’s fever dreams. I think they’d usually use mo’ potent examples—like pointing to a YouTube video o’ some drunk fuck in a cowboy hat & whip jumping into a bear’s cage so he can try riding it.”

Contrary to most popular commentary, the main financial economics models have worked extremely well during the financial crisis, and remain in place.

“Just look @ the good job we’ve done making up in our head explanations in retrospect for economic phenomena that happened almost 200 years ago. Where would we be without economists?” This is indeed a good sign: we need only wait till round 2190 for economists to finally figure out why this bewildering depression happened.

But even supposing they hadn’t, that wouldn’t have proved we should abandon the attempt to make sense of events; to abandon the attempt to offer an orthodox economics account. For very often it is when we are forced to grapple with a mystery, with behaviour that does not at first seem to make sense, that we produce the greatest insights.

“No matter what, we win. That’s my favorite part: I absolutely hate standards. Then I couldn’t get rich writing mindless tripe like this.”

The insights orthodox economics will eventually produce in reaction to the financial crisis will advance our social and economic life and prosperity even further than economics has done already. For good economists, given time and sound theory, are almost always right about almost everything.

Ha, ha, ha! I can’t fucking believe he repeated my joke as a serious advantage o’ economics.

You know there’s only 1 explanation for this: since, as any “good” economist will note, all actions are rational, this article’s sloppy logic must be rational. There’s a perfect explanation: Lilico’s ’nother Marxist rationally writing nonsense to discredit mainstream economics & push the public into the hands o’ communism.

They’re everywhere now.

Addendum:

For an actually intellectually-valuable critique o’ Lilico’s fine work by an authentic economist, one can read this article by Steve Keen, which claims that Lilico didn’t even interpret what he was defending correctly—which is unsurprising, as a lot o’ what he said didn’t even make sense. I’m glad my original but unstated thesis that these 2 are merely madman who snuck into the realm o’ economics has been confirmed.

Why write an article on a subject you know nothing about?

Why not? It never stopped Mises Daily from writing ’bout economics.

You walked into that 1, guys.

Anyway, some philosopher named Amia Srinivasan @ the New York Times made the mistake o’ taking laissez-faire libertarianism seriously & civilly asked ’bout their many logical inconsistencies as good moderate liberals always do. The Mises Institute Mises Daily, parroted by the Mises Institute, as every narcissistic political group that views themselves as the greatest victims in the world, take this as further evidence o’ the mainstream media’s irrational hatred o’ the 1 true economic system. This time that charge is led by David Gordon in The New York Times Got Libertarianism Wrong Yet Again.

What Srinivasan does is compare 2 laissez-faire libertarians—1 who was so anal that he himself used the term Utopian in his book, showing that even he knew he was full o’ shit—& 1 who tries to temper his crazy religion with some acknowledgement o’ reality. These comparisons are common ’mong good moderate liberals: much as there’s the “civil” or “rational” Republican as opposed to the loud-mouthed louts liberals are used to getting misspelled death threats from, there is the dream o’ the laissez-faire libertarian who doesn’t type his posts from a subterranean cave.

I disagree with her claim that either o’ them might be rational, but that’s not the topic now. What is is Gordon’s illiteracy:

It isn’t just that he finds it “difficult to say” that you deserve what you get in the market. He doesn’t say it at all. […] In his account, you get what you are entitled to, a very different matter.

Thesaurus.com & Oxford disagree:

Gordon tries to distinguish these terms by defining the former as “patterned” & Nozick’s as “historical,” despite neither o’ these having any relevance to these terms. Nor does he describe what he means. It’s clear that Srinivasan’s examples o’ people being poor or rich due to luck are based on the past, & thus just as historical as whatever Nozick’s beliefs are—’less Gordon doesn’t understand what that word means, either.

The example he gives offers no further understanding, either: someone needs a kidney, someone else has 1 ideal for the picking. Should the latter be forced to give it up? He connects this to income, despite many significant differences. He acknowledges that these are morally arbitrary, but nevertheless insists that to redistribute income or kidneys would be wrong ’cause they’re “entitled to them.” He doesn’t answer why or how this doesn’t fall under Srinivasan’s problem.

Furthermore, the income example is flawed, since it’s not intrinsically connected to one’s body & can be redistributed without even touching its owner. If 1 loiterer’s on ’nother’s property, she is not coercing him in any way; in contrast, if the latter does force her to leave, he is using coercion. Only in laissez-faire libertarians’ arbitrary definitions for “coercion,” “freedom,” or “entitled property” is this different; & they have no cause to complain if one refuses to accept their arbitrary definitions.

The question to ask is, if property control—& that’s what it is, the control over others’ use o’ certain property, regardless o’ what they want to call it—is not based on merit, what is it based on? In order for the market to be defended as an objectively just mechanism for distributing property—’bove the public’s opinion or other consequentialist concerns—then it must have an objective measure o’ value to compare it to. If not, then market economics is nonfalsifiable & unscientific—an economic theology.

His linguistic blunders continue:

He does not hold that “any exchange between two people in the absence of direct physical compulsion by one party against the other (or the threat thereof) [is] necessarily free.” He does say that if you face severely limited options, and your predicament comes about because others have acted within their rights, your choice is still voluntary. This is a rather more nuanced claim, a matter that escapes Srinivasan’s attention.

No it isn’t: it’s the same thing. Free & voluntary mean the same thing. If one is not necessarily free then, by definition, their actions are not voluntary. I turn to Oxford & Thesaurus.com ’gain:

What annoys me most ’bout Austrian-schoolers is that relying on deductive reasoning would require godly-perfect logical thinking for a brilliant linguist—keeping in mind that praxeology bases its strength purely on the words it’s based on, rejecting math as well. So it’s shocking how linguistically ignorant Austrian-schoolers are. Or a’least their readers are: Gordan could be intentionally using Orwellian language for propaganda purposes.

He complains ’bout Srinivasan’s confusion, which shows a lack o’ self-awareness, considering the word-twisting he uses. If New York Times writers get libertarianism wrong, it can probably be attributed to self-proclaimed libertarians being so bad @ ’splaining themselves. I mean, this is the New York Times we’re talking ’bout: the same newspaper that has writers who outright brag ’bout how they can’t read. When even I in my ivory tower—that’s what I call my room in my mother’s basement, by the way—can’t understand how A can be A & not A @ the same time, how can you blame them?

Nowhere does Nozick say that the structure of libertarian rights exhausts morality.

Personal anecdote: I just recently started reading an excellent book called To the Point: A Dictionary of Concise Writing that mocks the use o’ vague academicspeak in political writing as a way to evade clear truth. I bring it up ’cause this article has convinced me o’ its writer’s accuracy.

What is the “structure of libertarian rights” & what does he mean by “exhausting” morality? That it only handles some aspects o’ morality, & not all? Then how does it handle morality in other aspects that contradict it? That’s why rational philosophies do “exhaust morality.”

Rather, rights tell us when force or its threat may be permissibly used.

Right. As all rights in all moral systems do. Thank you for reiterating that right-libertarianism is a philosophy & not a study o’ beetle mating habits.

It is not at all the case that anything you are free to do, according to this structure of rights, is morally permissible.

Petty critique, but doesn’t “according to this structure of rights” sound cultish?

Speaking o’ Orwellian language: So Libertarian morals do not simply allow you to do morally just actions… but also immoral actions? Should we add “Injustice is Just” to the Ministry of Truth’s list o’ slogans?

Srinivasan’s whole purpose is to criticize laissez-faire libertarianism’s lack o’ moral coherency. You are acknowledging it yourself. Is that what his argument is? “Yes, but it’s not s’posed to be morally correct”? Then what value does it have as an ethical system. Or does Gordon think “morals” & “ethics” are different, too? (Spoiler alert: they’re not.)

Neither is it the case that moral obligation is confined to freely chosen commitments[.]

So he acknowledges that laissez-faire libertarianism is, in fact, authoritarian in that it forces you to do things gainst your will.

[A]gain, Srinivasan wrongly conflates moral obligations and enforceable obligations.

Probably ’cause she can’t psychically guess what you mean by the latter. Is he describing what one is physically capable o’ doing in a “might makes right” way? ’Cause if he is, with his defense o’ that & his downplaying o’ pesky morals, he seems to be describing nihilism mo’ than laissez-faire libertarianism.

I must confess, with the all o’ the acknowledgements o’ laissez-faire libertarianism’s lack o’ ethics, I suspect Gordon may secretly be a leftist who snuck into the Mises Compound in an attempt to bring it down from the inside. That’s the only explanation for why these arguments are so bad.

While Gordon accuses Srinivasan o’ conflating synonyms, he appears to be unable to understand why someone writing on morality would be obsessing over moral obligations. How absurd o’ her.

Srinivasan goes on to reject Nozick’s claim that a “minimal state” is redistributive. I’d complain ’bout a so-called libertarian using the weaselly term “minimal state” to shroud their hypocritical view on when coercion is useful—when it benefits them—& when it isn’t—when it benefits the poor.

Gordon gives 3 reasons why this isn’t true:

People are not forced to pay for the minimal state, though they would find it in their in their interest to do so[.]

A consistent theme: the true difference ’tween laissez-faire libertarianism & authoritarianism is that the latter is a’least honest, while the former plays word games like this to hide its authoritarian nature. Like a mob boss, Gordon says, “Theoretically you don’t have to support our government; but if you don’t, well, I’d hate to see what happens to you…”

[A]nd the monopoly prices charged by the dominant agency really are redistributive, not just seemingly so.

Gordon offers no evidence. He literally just says, “It is so. So there.”

Further, the minimal state does not arise entirely through free bargaining. The Dominant Protective Association prohibits other agencies and independents from imposing risky decision procedures on its clients.

The bullying commies…

It’s unfortunate that the Mises Institute didn’t select someone with a better knowledge o’ libertarianism to write ’bout it. But the article, replete with errors as it is, may do some good: it may bring the incoherency o’ libertarian ideas to the attention o’ readers who otherwise might not have realized them. After all:

As Quine once said after Nozick had complained to him of a negative review, I think by Carlin Romano, of Philosophical Explanations, “Every knock a boost.”

I concur. “Every knock a boost”! Thank you, Quine: a great fortune-cookie writer is you.

Addendum:

David Gordon’s totally a leftist. I bet that Resurrecting Marx, though seeming to be an attack gainst him, is his way o’ sneaking his vile Marxism into the pure Church o’ the Market. I’m on to you.

Look @ that cover. Marx looks so disappointed. “You spent your money on this? Truly?”

Can the ’analytical Marxists’ save Marx from himself. Gordon says no way.

To be fair, Gordon does make a good point: it’s hard to save someone when they’ve been dead for over a century. & if resurrection is the goal, Marxists should know that they need a’least a gallon o’ bourgeois blood for the sacrifice to succeed.

Addendum 2:

Hilariously, there’s a tiny disclaimer @ the bottom o’ the article that says, “Note: The views expressed in Daily Articles on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.” If this article is evidence o’ the quality o’ “Daily Articles,” then ’twas wise to specify this.

Right-libertarians generally hold a simplistic interpretation o’ reality—’specially economic reality—largely based on Western traditions, safely unhindered in a world where the debate is whether capitalism is awesome or “too much freedom.”

Thus, it’s no huge surprise when I read Randall Halcombe’s “Joseph Stiglitz on Crony Capitalism” @ the official church o’ Mises, the Mises Economics Blog¹, which reads like a middle-schooler’s attempt to discuss the political economy:

Although Joseph Stiglitz has a reputation as one of the most prominent defenders of big government…

I always thought Karl Marx had that reputation, but never mind. I’m sure Stiglitz scoffs @ the pure “anarchy” present in “Marxist-Leninist” states like North Korea.

It does appear to me that throughout the political spectrum, from left to right, there is a substantial consensus that government is the cause of many of the problems people perceive.

It’s shocking that problems in a political system might be caused by the organization that manages said political system. If Halcombe had taken only a minute to think ’bout it, he might’ve realized that opposition to too much capitalism—& especially it in general—in a capitalist country presupposes criticism o’ the government that maintains said capitalist system. I don’t know what logic exists in the belief that the US would be better off if ’twere socialist—or whatever alternative one wants—but that the government need not change to be, you know, socialist. It’d be quite a creative solution: change the political system without changing it @ all!

To be fair, I have to remember that right-libertarians are used to debating liberals; so this “solution” has likely been encountered in debates many times before.

The disagreement is over how to solve those problems.

(Slaps forehead.) So that’s the rub. I was so sure that with the left & right agreeing on the government needing to change in some way—a terribly specific diagnosis—they’d surely agree on how. We were so close to bringing that bipartisan Utopia dwelling in the Third Way’s fever dreams to fruition!

He goes on to explain how Stiglitz criticizes income inequality, caused by the “negative impact o’ government”—which isn’t equivalent to “too much impact.” He further connects Stiglitz to right economists through their criticism o’ cronyism, carefully ignoring the vital role the market plays in causing cronyism (I’ll delve in this later in this article).

I am encouraged to see that people throughout the political spectrum, from Stiglitz to Stockman to Schweizer, recognize government power as the source o’ many o’ our contemporary problems.

As we all know, Stiglitz is right there with Bakunin & Kropotkin on the far left.

& just ’cause you found some other guys in your li’l club who call themselves right-wing doesn’t mean they represent a significant role in the general movement. I can just imagine Mitch McConnel with his arm in mid-stretch to grab his cash from MoldyFumes, inc.², only to stop with his pupils dilated & his hands grasping his hair, screaming, “No! I can’t! What would the famous Stockman & Schweizer think?”

Those on the left see more government, and better government, as the remedy to poor government policies, which seems counter-intuitive.

Sigh. This is the equivalent o’ a 3rd-grader’s attempt to describe leftism & fails. There’s no such thing as “mo’ government,” ’less one means “mo’ people in government,” which is, indeed, what those further on the left want: direct democracy. If the government exists, it exists, whether it uses police force to maintain 1 resource distribution or ’nother, or whether it chooses to ignore resource distribution entirely (note: never heard o’ a market defender backing this last choice). Only supporting government when it defends one’s riches, but not when it actually expects compensation for that, isn’t “libertarian”; it’s just narcissistic.

Why would we think a bigger government would work better than the government mess we already have?

1. Nobody calls for “bigger” government, ’cause that’s not a real thing. That’s an abstract label people on the right made-up.

The only way that argument makes sense is if we’re arguing ’tween splitting up the US or not. That’s not the discussion @ all, so Halcombe’s clearly mixing his words up.

2. The current government mess has nothing to do with the government being “too big.” If one’s belief is that the problem with the US’s economy is the rich being too powerful, then obviously the problem is that the government prefers the rich—that is what Stiglitz was actually saying. I don’t know why Halcombe had to complicate it with this abstract nonsense.

Stiglitz has already explained how all the incentives lean toward making government more responsive to the elite, at the expense of the masses.

& this is caused by either income inequality—which can only be fixed by income redistribution—or a lack o’ sufficient laws gainst excess lobbying. The solution to both requires “mo’ government” in the right-libertarian argot; hence Stiglitz’s diagnosis.

I don’t think Halcombe understands the implications o’ this point—though, to be fair, Stiglitz may not, either, considering his claim that “[i]t doesn’t have to be this way.” Think: the incentives make government corrupt. That’s the opposite o’ what Halcombe is arguing: rather than just the government corrupting the market, this shows that the market corrupts the government.

If anything, this shows that pure laisssez-faire is self-defeating: the economic inequality it’ll create will also create unequal influence over government, giving the rich superior control over the majority—as already happens now. If some o’ them benefit from cronyism—& some do, which is why they push for it—then they will have the superior means to make that goal become legal reality. Thus, laissez-faire naturally creates the very cronyism that s’posedly violates it.

That’s the paradoxical nature o’ power: power itself is all that can prevent other power. That’s what a “power vacuum” is: when there’s no power structure, there’s nothing to stop some other group from taking power. Thus, a lack o’ government intervention, rather than making society freer, only allows them to be defacto replaced by rich citizens who are not so shy ’bout using their economic advantages to enforce their own power. If anything, the imaginary “less government” solution is what’s counter-intuitive.

That also ’splains why the problem with cronyism is far deeper than just there not being ’nough “wise” economists like Stiglitz who somehow figured out that US politics & economics is corrupt—not unlike a 50-year-old finally learning that Santa Claus isn’t real. The very same cronyism gives those that benefit from it superior power over government, thus making it difficult to change it in any way that goes gainst what they want—which is said cronyism. It’s cyclical, with the market corrupting the government corrupting the market corrupting the government, & so on. This is why said cronyism is not new, but goes far back into US history—& will surely continue to thrive, regardless o’ the paper-spined promises o’ such benign capitalists as Stiglitz.

But if we agree that government has caused many of the problems we all see–all of us from the political left to right–then we are part-way toward finding a solution that we all agree would fix those problems. My thought is: eliminate what we all agree is the cause.

You know, I’ve just realized that there actually is something that laissez-faire libertarians who want a capitalist society without government & moderate liberals who want a capitalist society without cronyism & poverty can both agree they oppose: brutal reality.