Great article. I feel like your average Twitter leftist would be so much happier just learning more about economics and backing solid policy. Most of them seem to be leftists not because they cracked open Das Kapital and liked it, but because someone online told them they wouldn't have to work anymore.
Strange also that leftists are unwilling to embrace data driven economics. Wouldn't a solid economics background inform their moral stances better? Isn't the best communist the one who can best articulate the policy decisions that bring them to their desired state of being? Aren't they always on about how evidence based their takes are? Why do they reject the very concept of data?
Even more confusing is when leftists reject the idea of democracy because "democracy doesn't work" when socialism is quite literally meant to be economic democracy. Combine these contradictions with the foggy proto-sociological assertion that "all history is class warfare" and data oriented people like me just have no clue what to even do with them. They're like flat earthers of economic policy.
Speaking as a reformed leftist, my advice is the old adage, "meet them where they're at". When a leftist is critiqued by someone to the right of them on economics, they will immediately assume you are either a corporate shill or a useful idiot (for capitalism or whatever). The latter is easy to dispel by simply presenting a well-informed case. The hard part is the former. I would recommend finding a controversial position you're willing to take that shows you have skin in the game. For example, a "neoliberal" or "capitalist" who is willing to critique Israel or admit to using drugs in a public forum can prove they're not on some payroll to tweet propaganda. I like to think of it as a way to "ante up" or "prove your not a cop". I know it sucks, but I think that's the best way to get your message taken seriously. After that, it's just a matter of focusing on issues like housing and immigration, and the rest should fall into place.
Great post! If you don't mind indulging my thoughts;
-While many leftists accept that we need growth, quite a few still believe that in a not-so-long future, we may achieve "post-scarcity" or near it, and then we could distribute away the problems with society. So is not like they don't believe that distribution is the ultimate solution, is that such a solution is deferred to when we are ready. You touched upon it in the equality section, but I think it bears repeating, there will never be post-scarcity.
Until people realize and internalize that human necessities and desires are infinite and resources are always limited (1 Googleplex $ GDP is still less than infinite) so we never are going to achieve post-scarcity. We will forever be bound to a scarce reality. Not so much an attack on leftist economic thought but still, it is a necessary reminder.
-You touched on your Addaedum, but this article ring quite hollow for the leftists that will probably see it as quite a generalist in its approach. Your average Twitter left-leaning user is probably a demsoc whose views aren't that challenged in this article.
Not that I'm against it, I'm not, but I don't understand how allowing free immigration would increase the income of these immigrants and increase global output. For instance, in my country, I see much of the immigrants that come from other countries begging for money in the streets. I can't see how a constant influx of people in a market with limited amount of easily accessible jobs could lead to poor immigrants having a good income? Honestly the only solution the reading of this text offered me is that there is simply too many people in the planet, our productivity and resources are too limited for that, and the ones who can't afford to survive will inevitably die, and this is not a solution, this is precisely the problem.
Fortunately, not of this is true. Immigrants see their incomes go wayyy up, because most of them get jobs. They go from places where there is nothing to do and people are struggling to get the necessities, to areas where there is abundant opportunities, whether that be working in construction, service work, or transportation. The quantity of jobs is not fixed, it is the product of supply and demand. More workers means a greater supply of labor, but also a greater demand for goods!
This is neoliberal slop that is overemphasising income equality metrics at the expense of the distribution of actual property.
$18k per person is a sufficient annual income if you are not renting a home - if you mainly need to pay for food and clothing.
Mass immigration radically improves the dollar income of poor people in the Third World by destroying the living standards of poor people already residing in the First World to the benefit of ... rich people residing in the First World.
Countries like Belgium or even Sweden and Norway have very high levels of INCOME equality, but not of wealth equality. The USSR in the 1950s had relatively high levels of INCOME inequality, but a high level of wealth equality.
The entire financial capitalist class is behind mainline Western narratives on climate change. Even the major oil companies propagate these ideas because they do not actually threaten their control over natural resources. If anything, such claims enforce artificial scarcity and increase their profits.
So if we follow the ideas in this essay, we might please a privileged college professor or an oligarch-funded think tank, but we would (1) have open borders and wages for most jobs would collapse further plus all the social problems that major displacements of populations would bring (including higher housing costs while wages are falling), (2) have total free trade which would ensure virtually nothing is made in Western countries while OP also maintains an anti-Russian geopolitical position, and (3) go in for "climate change" panics which will deliberately destroy any productive economic activity in favour of more fictitious financial bubbles.
A neoliberal recipe for disaster from a privileged kid trying to impress rich foundations.
Great article. I feel like your average Twitter leftist would be so much happier just learning more about economics and backing solid policy. Most of them seem to be leftists not because they cracked open Das Kapital and liked it, but because someone online told them they wouldn't have to work anymore.
Strange also that leftists are unwilling to embrace data driven economics. Wouldn't a solid economics background inform their moral stances better? Isn't the best communist the one who can best articulate the policy decisions that bring them to their desired state of being? Aren't they always on about how evidence based their takes are? Why do they reject the very concept of data?
Even more confusing is when leftists reject the idea of democracy because "democracy doesn't work" when socialism is quite literally meant to be economic democracy. Combine these contradictions with the foggy proto-sociological assertion that "all history is class warfare" and data oriented people like me just have no clue what to even do with them. They're like flat earthers of economic policy.
Speaking as a reformed leftist, my advice is the old adage, "meet them where they're at". When a leftist is critiqued by someone to the right of them on economics, they will immediately assume you are either a corporate shill or a useful idiot (for capitalism or whatever). The latter is easy to dispel by simply presenting a well-informed case. The hard part is the former. I would recommend finding a controversial position you're willing to take that shows you have skin in the game. For example, a "neoliberal" or "capitalist" who is willing to critique Israel or admit to using drugs in a public forum can prove they're not on some payroll to tweet propaganda. I like to think of it as a way to "ante up" or "prove your not a cop". I know it sucks, but I think that's the best way to get your message taken seriously. After that, it's just a matter of focusing on issues like housing and immigration, and the rest should fall into place.
Cool as always.
Great post! If you don't mind indulging my thoughts;
-While many leftists accept that we need growth, quite a few still believe that in a not-so-long future, we may achieve "post-scarcity" or near it, and then we could distribute away the problems with society. So is not like they don't believe that distribution is the ultimate solution, is that such a solution is deferred to when we are ready. You touched upon it in the equality section, but I think it bears repeating, there will never be post-scarcity.
Until people realize and internalize that human necessities and desires are infinite and resources are always limited (1 Googleplex $ GDP is still less than infinite) so we never are going to achieve post-scarcity. We will forever be bound to a scarce reality. Not so much an attack on leftist economic thought but still, it is a necessary reminder.
-You touched on your Addaedum, but this article ring quite hollow for the leftists that will probably see it as quite a generalist in its approach. Your average Twitter left-leaning user is probably a demsoc whose views aren't that challenged in this article.
I feel like Dem Socs would have their view of government somewhat challenged, they tend to talk about corporate influence a good bit
I genuinely do not understand why human necessities and desires would be infinite. Why is that?
Not that I'm against it, I'm not, but I don't understand how allowing free immigration would increase the income of these immigrants and increase global output. For instance, in my country, I see much of the immigrants that come from other countries begging for money in the streets. I can't see how a constant influx of people in a market with limited amount of easily accessible jobs could lead to poor immigrants having a good income? Honestly the only solution the reading of this text offered me is that there is simply too many people in the planet, our productivity and resources are too limited for that, and the ones who can't afford to survive will inevitably die, and this is not a solution, this is precisely the problem.
Fortunately, not of this is true. Immigrants see their incomes go wayyy up, because most of them get jobs. They go from places where there is nothing to do and people are struggling to get the necessities, to areas where there is abundant opportunities, whether that be working in construction, service work, or transportation. The quantity of jobs is not fixed, it is the product of supply and demand. More workers means a greater supply of labor, but also a greater demand for goods!
https://fee.org/articles/there-is-a-strong-case-for-open-borders/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwt_qgBhDFARIsABcDjOe8YNLHXaq4lzsquanXkhs5mXxWKceGgUJOBgCTAs-mM0rDw5Kkb6IaAi-PEALw_wcB
This is neoliberal slop that is overemphasising income equality metrics at the expense of the distribution of actual property.
$18k per person is a sufficient annual income if you are not renting a home - if you mainly need to pay for food and clothing.
Mass immigration radically improves the dollar income of poor people in the Third World by destroying the living standards of poor people already residing in the First World to the benefit of ... rich people residing in the First World.
Countries like Belgium or even Sweden and Norway have very high levels of INCOME equality, but not of wealth equality. The USSR in the 1950s had relatively high levels of INCOME inequality, but a high level of wealth equality.
The entire financial capitalist class is behind mainline Western narratives on climate change. Even the major oil companies propagate these ideas because they do not actually threaten their control over natural resources. If anything, such claims enforce artificial scarcity and increase their profits.
So if we follow the ideas in this essay, we might please a privileged college professor or an oligarch-funded think tank, but we would (1) have open borders and wages for most jobs would collapse further plus all the social problems that major displacements of populations would bring (including higher housing costs while wages are falling), (2) have total free trade which would ensure virtually nothing is made in Western countries while OP also maintains an anti-Russian geopolitical position, and (3) go in for "climate change" panics which will deliberately destroy any productive economic activity in favour of more fictitious financial bubbles.
A neoliberal recipe for disaster from a privileged kid trying to impress rich foundations.