Decentralized Economic Coordination: Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom Reply

By Kevin Carson, Center for a Stateless Society

The calculation problem, as stated by Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, has been central to most libertarian arguments against non-market or non-price forms of economic coordination.

The Misesian variant, argued in Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth and Socialism, is based on the role of factor input pricing in allocating inputs among competing uses. We choose between factors of production, so the argument goes, and decide which ones to economize on, by comparing their prices. We decide which uses to put them to by comparing the economic value produced to the cost of the input.

Hayek’s version of the calculation argument is based on complexity: i.e., the sheer volume of information to be processed. Market prices allocate thousands of different resources among thousands of different kinds of production, in ways that a central planning bureaucracy could not cope with.

More…

Where Do You Want to Live: Red State or Blue State? Reply

I would prefer neither as both are rapidly becoming corporate fiefdoms which is part of the reason why I am an anarchist. Nor do I see any need to take advice from some neoliberal mouthpiece and neocon stooge like Stephen Moore.

We’re supposed to be the United States of America. But in many ways, we’re now divided into two very different nations: red states and blue states. Which ones are succeeding? Which ones are failing? And why? To answer these questions, economist Stephen Moore compares them side-by-side.

New Study Pegs COVID-19 Crisis Costs at $16 Trillion—So Far Reply

Reasonable people typically understand that multiple values of parallel importance can co-exist at the same time and that a sensible approach to value conflicts is to make reasonable tradeoffs.
Preventing the spread of a serious illness is a value. Preventing an economic meltdown is a value. Preventing government overreach is a value. Recognizing the class, ethnic, age, and geographical disparities that typically accompany epidemics/pandemics is a value. Recognizing that power-holders can and do use crisis situations for the advancement of their own nefarious interests is a value. Questioning official narratives that often turn out to be wrong is a value. Recognizing that “experts” can often be wrong, particularly in unknown situations, and have self-interest of their own, is a value. Recognizing that cures can be worse than diseases is a value. The swine flu vaccine that was used in response to the 1976 epidemic killed more people than the illness.
Unfortunately, many people want simplistic explanations for everything that can be fitted into comfortable narratives and end up embracing “opinions” that are about as childish as hoping their fairy godmother will make the problem go away.

By Jon Miltimore, Intellectual Takeout

Estimated costs of the coronavirus pandemic are in. The results are not pretty.

A new study co-authored by Harvard economist David M. Cutler and former World Bank chief economist Lawrence H. Summers places the costs of the COVID-19 pandemic north of $16 trillion.

READ MORE

America Does Not Tolerate Losers Reply

This is one of the best critiques of American culture I’ve seen to date. The problem with ruling classes that adopt a “Let them eat cake” attitude is that they tend to not come to a happy ending. Ask the Bourbons and the Romanovs.

Captain Capitalism, This is a guest post by our friend Alexi over at Academic Composition!

Alex Bash (academiccomposition@gmail.com), www.academiccomposition.com

America Does not Tolerate Losers!

As General George Patton prepared the Third Army for the invasion of Sicily, he famously observed “Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser!”. While Patton’s speech was well-regarded by the troops, some of his colleagues judged him to be vulgar and unprofessional.

Love him or hate him, you cannot deny that Patton was a uniquely American character. America was founded by people who were courageous enough to leave the comfort of their old life in Europe. To do this, they had to abandon the aristocracy, tradition, and order of their European country of origin. Upon arriving in the colonies, Americans not only claimed their independence but also pursued a relentless Westward expansion, which forms a key component of America’s core identity: manifest destiny. Galvanized by this belief, Americans aggressively pursued an expansionary foreign policy, as they continue to do so today. Questions about whether this is right or wrong aside, an aggressive foreign policy is a core component of the American identity: that cannot be changed, nor should it be.

The liberals may deride Jackson’s “trail of tears” and “manifest destiny”, but what they fail to understand is that the nation’s core identity cannot be changed. In the “Significance of the Frontier in American History”, Fredrick Jackson Turner showed how the frontier mentality fostered the character of American rugged individualism

More…

Idiocracy Is Here Reply

From a post on social media:

“The issue of war is mostly a non-issue for most voters these days. I even talked to one guy on here who rabidly hates Trump and when I brought up the issue of neoconservative/neoliberal warmongering, his answer was basically “what’s with your hang-up over wars?” Lol I have also noticed that Biden voters especially are against the idea that the problems with the US government isn’t solely Trump’s fault, but rather a structural one. I’ve been called irresponsible, a Russian tool, and a defeatist for even considering such an idea. One of the most frightening things in this country is the amount of ignorance amongst the US populace. The lack of education, the inability to see political events and policies in a larger historical context, and the fact that each individual lives insulated in their own political bubble with a complete lack of awareness of differing perspectives is a bigger problem than whatever administration is supposedly running the country.”

LEVIATHAN AND ITS ENEMIES: Anonymous Elites in Power 2

It’s interesting how anticapitalism is starting to grow on the Right because many have realized the corporations are not their friends. Conservatives are always wondering why they are unable to effectively resist the leftward totalitarian drift. I would argue it is because they accept many of the same premises and foundations as their hated progressives such as, for example, the legitimacy of the state and related forms of paternalism. Social justice warriors are merely social conservatives under another name. They merely replace the traditional pieties of “faith, family, and flag” with new ones like race, gender, sexuality, health, science, equality, and ecology. Now, that the corporate class is embracing the new pieties, proponents of the old ones are moving toward anticapitalism.

Kamala Harris: Queen of the Crony Capitalists Reply

By Christopher Whalen, The American Conservative

During the vice presidential debate between Senator Kamala Harris and Vice President Michael Pence, the former claimed that she was the only one in the race who had “prosecuted the big banks.” This was completely wrong.

In fact, as California attorney general, Kamala Harris pretty much let the big banks do what they wanted while extracting billions in extortion money from their shareholders. Not a single executive of a large bank was prosecuted during the Obama administration. Harris typifies the modern-day progressive politician, using regulation and threats of enforcement actions to accumulate a political war chest.

As California attorney general, she was more than willing to live large off of business and the productive.

During the vice presidential debate between Senator Kamala Harris and Vice President Michael Pence, the former claimed that she was the only one in the race who had “prosecuted the big banks.” This was completely wrong.

In fact, as California attorney general, Kamala Harris pretty much let the big banks do what they wanted while extracting billions in extortion money from their shareholders. Not a single executive of a large bank was prosecuted during the Obama administration. Harris typifies the modern-day progressive politician, using regulation and threats of enforcement actions to accumulate a political war chest.

READ MORE

“Free-Market Fundamentalists” or Corporate Super-Statists? Reply

It is fashionable for critics of the corporate state to lambaste neoliberals and supply-siders for supposedly adhering to “free-market fundamentalism.”

“Free-market fundamentalism” is something you find among the lower to middle levels of the capitalist class or the petite bourgeoisie, and sectors of the lower middle to the upper-middle class who work in the private sector and are mostly just concerned about taxes. Even most of these people are just conventional economic conservatives and not hard-core free marketers in the vein of Benjamin Tucker or Murray Rothbard. The upper strata of the power elite are statist plutocrats and imperialists who can use any system to their advantage: progressive, social democratic, neoliberal, fascists, royalist, even communist. Unfortunately, many critics of corporate plutocracy familiar with Antony Sutton’s study of the relationship between the USSR, the Third Reich, and Western capital or the relationship between the Rockefeller internationalists and Maoism.

There are a lot of old interviews with Sutton on YouTube that are worth watching. Most of his books are available for free online nowadays as well. I don’t think you can really understand the history of the 20th century without reading Sutton.

David Rockefeller had an article in the New York Times in 1973 describing how supposedly great Maoism was.

The super-capitalists have always preferred doing business with totalitarian regimes, whom they would try to cultivate as subordinate colonies or junior partners (the kind of relationship the US has with China today) because they don’t like having to compete in an open market. It’s easier to just go directly through the state. It’s why Nicolae Ceausescu was given MFN trade status at the height of the Cold War. The only problem is that sometimes it blows up in their face as it did with Hitler. Other times they will hire them as “mercenary monsters” (like the Soviet and East Asian Communists in WW2 or the Salafists in the Cold War) and then have to contain a monster of their own creation.

What they really have against figures like Assad, Kim, Chavez/Maduro, Castro, Saddam, Khomeini, Qaddafi, Nasser, Allende, Arbenz, Ho, etc is that these guys all refused to play ball with this kind of international system. That’s why they get labeled as “rogue states.” Pol Pot on the other hand was fine once he was brought into the CIA fold.

How Hatred Came To Dominate American Politics Reply

By Lee Drutman, Five Thirty Eight

To anyone following American politics, it’s not exactly news that Democrats and Republicans don’t like each other. Take what happened in the presidential debate last week. President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden did little to conceal their disdain of one another. And although the debate marked a low point in our national discourse, it was a crystallization of a long-developing trend: loathing the opposing party.

More…

The Fed’s Quest for Higher Inflation: What Could Go Wrong? Reply

By Stefan Gleason, Money Metals Exchange

The Federal Reserve is warning investors in no uncertain terms that higher rates of inflation are coming. Yet markets, for the most part, have disregarded that warning.

Bond yields, for example, remain well below 2% across the entire duration range. Stock market valuations continue to reflect a sanguine outlook for inflation. And crude oil futures suggest limited upside pressure on prices.

It seems the Fed has a credibility problem.

More…