A Very Brief Economic Summary-Part 2
"For men, the questions are many, but let's start here: What the fuck does this have to do with feminism and the family court system? IMO, it has everything to do with them.
Feminism, socialism, and the growth of big government are closely aligned. You might say they're bed mates. What are the core concepts of big government?
Big government is shockingly expensive. Government produces nothing; everything government does is paid for through taxation, which is nothing more than skimming off some of the output of the productive members of society. The nanny state massively transfers wealth and keeps tens of millions of people, along with Wall Street Bank Holding Companies, on various forms of public assistance. The list of eligibles for these transfer payments grows endlessly. The elderly, the poor, the infirm, children, and of course bankers, all "deserve" money taken from others.
- People are stupid, and need someone to tell them what to do.
- People are incapable of taking care of themselves, and need government to intervene in their lives and take care of them.
- People who don't agree must be squashed like bugs.
It's positively Randian. Need and political patronage have become the final arbiters of the distribution of the output of society, and government is the distributor. No one ever asks, ever: "Can we afford to keep all these people and all these banks on public assistance? Where will the money come from?" Anyone who dared to ask such questions would be accused of blasphemy.
So where HAS the money come from? Is our society really so productive that we produce enough excess to afford all of those programs? No, of course not. It's come from the same expansionary bank policy I described above. The appearance of prosperity can be created by the presence of cheap money, that is to say by inflating the dollar and by constantly lowering the interest rates:
The peak in the middle of the curve is the late 70s / early 80s when Fed Chairman Paul Volcker squeezed then-rampant inflation from the system by raising interest rates to historic highs. This action encouraged savings, so it discouraged spending and stopped price pressure. This period also saw the last great capital formation in the West. Since then we've been spending like drunken sailors:
The U.S. federal deficit for fiscal year 2009 is now projected to be $1.85 Trillion. It's easy to see that we are NOT producing enough excess to pay as we go, but rather we are borrowing easy money to keep the party going. It's this false prosperity, though, that has been the actual environment we've lived in for the past thirty years. A great number of the adults alive today have lived their entire adult lives in this phony environment of easy money and easy prosperity. Is it any wonder that people start to act stupid?
The easy money / easy credit environment is directly attributable to the deficit spending of the federal government and the expansionary post-Volcker Federal Reserve. Life, as measured by economics, has been easier than it should have been, for more than a generation, because money was easy to get. How can life being easy be a bad thing? People quickly became stupid and self-indulgent. People came to demean the importance of the people around them and begin to concentrate upon themselves; we start to hear terms like "self-actualization" being used in a positive manner. What they're really saying is this: "Everything's easy, so let's have some fun!" Look at any aspect of popular American society over the past 30 years and tell me if that isn't what you see. It was all false, and we're going to pay for it now, but that is what was happening. Self-control and economic conservatism were replace by self-indulgence and conspicuous consumption. People will behave as stupidly as they think they can get away with.
When a married couple truly need each other for survival, they do not divorce, they find a way to make it work. Why should they rationally decide to split up and go to the expense of maintaining two households when doing so would be nearly impossible? Historically, a financially conservative society is one that truly values and respects its productive members. Is there any room in such a society for "Real Houswives"? The answer is obvious, isn't it?
Can a society weakened by 30 years of self-abuse stay intact through historically troubled times? Can that same society that will soon find itself desperately needing the active support and best wishes of all its members afford to throw away those who could be the most productive, its men? I don't think so. It is merely hope, but I hope than reality will wake people up.
Where does that leave us? Reality is coming, and there's no turning back this time. The Fed is fresh out of magic bullets. The system of excess is irretrievably broken. There is no money, or rather, there are no savings, we consumed them all. Central banks have lowered interest rates to zero; governments are projecting epic deficits which have yet to be actually funded by borrowing; it remains to be seen whether anyone will actually loan the US $2 Trillion this year. Yet, in spite of all these reinflation efforts, the system hasn't sprung back to life. The Zimbabwean reality of the printing press will become apparent all too soon, as the Federal Reserve has officially begun a policy named "Quantitative Easing" in which it prints brand new money to by Treasury Bills, Bonds, Notes and Bonds. That day of awakening might come gradually or all at once, but come it must. Public discontent will grow as we realize we can no longer afford to fund two permanent dependency classes (the super poor and the super rich), and as the middle class is decimated by job losses. We will know crime and fear, and probably (hopefully?) massive political upheaval. For the first time in my life (I'm 51), absolutely anything is possible. Anything. I think (I hope) that on the other side of this event we will recall our long-forgotten respect for the intact nuclear family as the basic unit of human survival. These are dangerous times, though, and it's possible that things could "break the other way" into a more authoritarian state than that which we currently occupy. Each and every one of us must become engaged right now in this struggle.
Many libertarian economists are predicting the fall of the nanny state, on economic grounds; we simply can't afford it anymore. This could be a positive development for men, as it could result in an affirmation of society's need for intact two-parent families. It might wake women from their self-actualization fantasies and bring them back to earth.
This thing is big, and it's only just begun.
Fidel's Note: Well, well. It may be true that people are stupid, but I am not so sure they need somebody telling them what to do. Really, can't the people be stupid all by themselves? Do they need any help from the government?
However, the three part formula given in this article is the recipe for a totalitarian nanny state which touches and transforms every aspect of life—whether you think your life needs this or not! After all, they know better than you what is good for you, and if you beg to differ, well, then I reckon you need to get squashed like a bug. . . eh? ;)
Now, our old friend feminism is from first to last a totalitarian project. Perpetual revolution cannot stop; it must drill endlessly into smaller and smaller dimensions of life and establish its dominion in those realms. I repeat, it cannot stop. If it did, that would be the end of feminism. So, it is to feminism's advantage that people indeed become (and remain) stupid—stupid enough they won't see what is being done to them, and will compliantly take instructions from whomsoever appears to know the answer.
But seriously: if people will act as stupidly as they think they can get away with, it shows they are at least THINKING. Which inclines me to "think" that maybe they aren't so much "stupid" as they are lazy, greedy, perverse, etc.
Which means that the only "government instruction" they really need, is to be governed by brute circumstance, and be instructed thereby.
Ad astra per ardua. . .