Monday, January 21, 2019

Soak the Rich?

In a word, yes.

There’s some difference of opinion about economic issues in Der Movement, between what I would call the populist wing and the laissez-faire wing.  The former group would in general support, at minimum, a mixed-economy, or in more extreme cases, a corporatist or national socialist economic regime. These right-wing populists tend to support such economic strategies such as social credit, citizen’s dividend, guaranteed minimum income, a cap on salaries, a sharply progressive income tax, single-payer healthcare, and a racial interests-first modulation of the economy.  The more extreme members of this group would like to confiscate the wealth of aracial and anti-White wealthy Whites (never mind non-Whites) and send the ex-wealthy race traitors to work camps.

The latter group are more consistent with the typical hyper-capitalist amen corner of global capital represented by the Chamber of Commerce puppets of the GOP.  This wing preaches unrestricted free market policies, predatory capitalism, “sweet business deals,” and rail against social welfare protections even for their own race by using the pejorative label “socialism” (that is supposed to scare us away from any policies that benefit the mass of our people as opposed to the wealthy few).This latter wing tell us that attacks on the wealthy are based on “envy.”

I identify with the former group.  I have discussed economics in previous posts, but here I will focus on responding to three arguments that the laissez-faire stepandfetchits make in defense of the fatcats feeding like maggots on the corpse of America.

1. The wealthy earn their money.  To some extent yes, and to that extent of course productive people should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their labor.  But the problem is that in a free market economy, earnings are based on what the market will bear, on the basis of pure supply and demand.  So, if there is a demand for athletic entertainment and if the supply of highly-skilled athletes is low, then we observe the spectacle of baseball players earning $30 million per year, all for hitting a little white ball with a wooden stick. Is that earning a salary through productivity that boosts societal good?  Is the market always right?  Can there not be inefficiencies in the market?  Even pro-capitalist economists admit that possibility.

Did the Sackler family earn their wealth in a manner we would approve of?  No doubt there were many “sweet business deals” that eventually led to the degeneration of White America via opioids – is that merely fair free market economics?  Is it a fair earning for an actor to get millions of dollars for a movie or for some episodes of a TV series?  We have businessmen who loot the economy, CEOs who profit while jobs are outsourced and their company goes bankrupt, lawyers who twist and distort the legal system in ways the founders never intended…all “earning their money?”  Are they “investing in the economy” or merely investing in themselves?  If their consumerism “boosts GDP” who benefits?  The wealthy and the Chinese who sell us all the junk the wealthy (and we) consume?  Is a growing GDP the measure of a healthy society?

2. People need to be incentivized to be productive, so they must be allowed to have theoretically unlimited earnings; we cannot impose values on people as to what their desire (read: greed) for money should be in order to do “X, Y, Z” that is beneficial for society, or at least the economy.  We are told that the wealthy would not have become wealthy to begin with if they weren’t selfish and greedy. Perhaps, but an intelligent and disciplined person should have limits.  We’ll be told that we cannot measure another person’s greed, and that we cannot know what level of compensation would be required to incentivize another person to strive in ways that enhance the public good. Well, let’s try anyway.  Let’s consider marginal utility.  How much do you need?  Greg Johnson once proposed a one million dollar per year salary cap (adjust for inflation), and I think that is reasonable.  Is more really necessary?  At what point is a $30 million salary necessary?  How much more enjoyment will they get from that thirtieth million, compared to the societal good that can be accrued if the excess money is utilized in ways that benefit race, people, and nation?  If a person needs an ever-expanding salary to do their job well and be satisfied, then there is something wrong with their character, and with the character of the broader society in which they live and work.  At what point does a minute gain in satisfaction – in many cases nothing more than an ego-boost – justify the concentration of fiscal resources in the hands of a few, a few who cannot possibly utilize that money in a manner that is reasonably necessary for judicious and balanced life satisfaction?

And there is the old, crude yet true, statement: Don’t shit where you eat.  At some point, the shenanigans of the selfish wealthy destabilize society to an extent that it puts the long term well-being of the wealthy themselves into question.   Again - marginal utility. And here we get into negative marginal utility.  If you can have a one billion net worth and enjoy it in a stable society or wreck that society in pursuit of ten billion, is it worth it to choose the latter?  We go back to the excuses made above – “if they weren’t greedy they wouldn’t have made one billion to begin with” and “who are you to say where a person’s economic striving should end?”  I respond that if a person can make one billion by being a selfish destroyer then something is wrong with the economy and that the striving should end at the point where the organic solidarity of the society is wrecked, to the detriment of most, if not all.

3. The wealthy can do what they want with their money and/or they do societal good with it.  Is unbridled hedonism and conspicuous consumption a societal good? How about rent-seeking behavior to influence the political process so that billionaires can make some more billions off the backs of the dispossessed American worker? What about rent-seeking support for cheap labor, both insourced via mass migration or outsourced via globalist economics?  What about open support for anti-White causes – something many, many wealthy Whites do?  How many wealthy Whites do we know who support pro-White causes?  Other than Regnery, I can’t think of a single one.  They can do what they want with their money?  No, not when “doing what they want” is socially and racially destructive.  Or illegal or immoral. Would we say it is OK for the wealthy to, say, buy child sex slaves?  Obviously not.  There are limits to “doing what you want.” 

Obviously, I have no problem with Whites who accumulate wealth through hard work, disciplined saving, and prudent investing – the White upper middle class. I have no problem with Whites who are very wealthy through talent, productivity, and inventiveness. Of course, in both cases, the “no problem” depends upon that those in question were not indulging in aracial hedonism, greedy rent-seeking, or, worse, explicit support for anti-White causes - there I would indeed have a problem.  But otherwise, and even more so, if the well-off Whites were pro-White to some degree or another, they deserve their wealth, we should celebrate their success, and they should enjoy that success and keep their earnings.

But as regards the rest – the hedonists, the greedy, the rent-seekers, the anti-Whites – after “the revolution” they should be dragged out of their mansions, their wealth and assets confiscated, and if they are lucky, they will be allowed to live and make use of themselves doing forced hard labor in work camps.  Balancing the books, and all that.