We all have problems, kid.
Let’s Celebrate Marxmas by Crying Into Our Golden Goblets As Forbes Whiteknights the Poor Rich
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…
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.
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.
1 Mises: “It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aimed at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has for the moment saved European civilization.”
Note that I am linking to everyone’s favorite Mises cult, the Mises Institute out o’ pretend fairness. In said article, Tucker unsurprisingly defends Mises gainst some “statist-nationalist” “smear artist” @ Slate. Sadly, Tucker’s righteous fury doesn’t distract from the flimsiness o’ his denialist apology: that Mises argued that fascism is useful only in the short run as a “lesser evil” doesn’t change the fact that he defended a totalitarian purely for the purposes o’ violently squashing his other political rivals. It may not show that Mises was evil—which “statist-nationalist” Lind wasn’t alleging, anyway—but it did show what a hypocritical opportunist he was—in a sense, it showed that he was an economist.
Interestingly, Tucker doesn’t bother to defend gainst Lind’s point ’bout Hayek saying he preferred “liberal” dictatorships—dictatorships that serve Hayek ’stead o’ other people—to democracy, nor his point ’bout Hayek & Friedman’s—albeit, Friedman was a neoclassical, so maybe they hate him & his money-tainting Monetarism—support o’ Chilean genocidal dictator, Pincohet.
& yeah, we could spill mud on Marx for his cheating & biological child he refused to acknowledge or his racism gainst Slavs or Proudhon’s antisemitism. I’m too tired o’ research to give links—& fuck laissez-faire libertarians: they can do their own research for once. ’Sides, you can easily find this info within the exciting gossip fights ’tween Marxists & anarchists.
’Course, as a curmudgeon, I would love it, still: as long as economists get trashed, I’m content.
2 The “classical” version being freedom only for rich, white, Christian, heterosexual males.
It’s Official: Noah Smith’s a Troll Economist
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…
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.
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.
How to Stop Being an Optimistic Asshole
I. A Boring Public Service Announcement
My favorite part ’bout a lot o’ “positive” people—not all o’ them, you whiny bastards I imagine might complain if anyone read this dreck—is how they oft use it as a way to mask the fact that they’re oft terrible people. This makes sense: positivity is aesthetically pleasing—to most people, a’least—& thus does a better job o’ hiding any ugliness ’neath.
This is why a lot o’ narcissistic know-it-alls are cynics: they love the challenge o’ being as ugly & provocative as possible; if people still find their arguments compelling under such ugliness, well, they must be truly good arguments. Positivity, meanwhile, is oft used to hide the most banal—& oft revoltingly reactionary, as in Goins’ case I went over in ’nother article—garbage.
Indeed, it shouldn’t be surprising that “positivity” & “reactionary” should be affiliated as they are both based on the evidenceless belief that the status quo is valid & that those who don’t agree with it are just “negative.” Women who complain ’bout sexism are just whiny bitches who need to quit bitching & “lean in”—into the CEO’s dick, amirite? Sweat-shop workers in developing nations need to quit whining & learn to love their life-long gruel. After, all they clearly chose to live that way, since humans can clearly do whatever they want—fuck the complexities o’ reality!
Positivity is also linked quite oft with power, while cynics are universally despised. This is, ’course, ’cause power structures are mo’ powerful when people think ’bout all its good points than its bad. This is why there will always be a seat in bland political talk shows for ditsy morons who just spew ’bout the American Dream & how democratic the US is, despite all o’ the scientific evidence gainst either.
“Positive” Americans try to take credit for the positive aspects o’ attacking power that led to our present status quo, ’course. For instance, Martin Luther King Jr. was “positive” when he attacked blatant racism, which we ’course know is evil now, but the people who criticize deeper racism that exist today or economic issues are just complainers. Never mind the fact that MLK Jr. considered the civil rights movement a failure ’cause it didn’t go far ’nough—’specially in terms o’ economics. Reality isn’t as important as the ability for positive successful people to feel superior to people & the past without having to reevaluate their own situation—to do so would be negative, after all.
II. Be Who I Tell You To Be Or Else :)
On the subject o’ revolting “positive” reactionaries is a Lifehacker—what the fuck is that s’posed to mean?—article ’bout the positive topic o’ how cynics are all assholes & should mend their disgusting ways. ’Stead, he literally advocates lying so that you fit in—which shows that the shallowness o’ Klosowski’s philosophy matches the shallowness o’ his writing.
To be fair, one can’t go wrong with introspection—lord knows, Americans could use some self-awareness for once—to examine how one’s behavior affects others & a way to balance that with one’s own emotional concerns, which may include counseling.
’Course, Klosowski doesn’t advocate that or even consider the option, since he probably can’t even comprehend the idea o’ someone pondering a subject for longer than the average simple point-by-point slideshow that all o’ these articles try emulating.
’Stead, you should just adjust your personality to how he wants it; & if that causes conflict with your friends or family, well, good: they’re not good friends, anyway. See, where I come from, this is called a “cult.”
Only later, after bashing cynics for paragraphs, does he turn round & admit the strengths o’ cynics & flaws o’ optimists. Well, then why didn’t you call this article “Balancing Positivity & Negativity”? Would’ve saved me the time o’ typing this shit—time that could’ve been spent doing nothing but bashing other people’s work ’cause I secretly want to be them, please be my best friend, sniff.
God damn it, the only times centrism is ever logical is when nobody’s ever centrist yet ’gain.
I started with the balanced point. (I said that not all positive people are bad ’fore proceeding to bash positive people; that’s balanced.) ’Cause I’m better.
Also, it’s funner to lure the optimists in with candy ’fore dumping my waste bin right onto their faces.
III. Cynics Are Shitty Artists
’Nother article peddles some pseudoscientific test ’bout problem-solving & uses that to argue that creativity & positivity are purportedly linked—’cause Pinola apparently knows nothing ’bout creativity.
Why is it that all o’ these positivity lovers also love such obvious shams? Yeah, a website called “Positive Ratio” that promises that “Positivity shows you how to tap into your hidden emotional potential to achieve a flourishing life” sounds truly credible. I’d totally cite that in my college papers. Here’s a tip, dipshit: if a website claims to guarantee a “flourishing life,” it’s a scam; elsewise, we’d have solved world hunger by now.
To be fair, she has a point: cynics have never created good art, ever. Think o’ how much better Nirvana’s music would’ve been if Cobain thought positively for once. & “Waste Lands.” (Sigh.) I don’t see why T. S. Eliot couldn’t have been constructive for once & not mire in such worthless bleakness.
& don’t get me started on Jonathan Swift, who only ever had mean things to say ’bout everything. Maybe ’stead o’ making all o’ those snarky attacks gainst the British government, whom I’m sure were doing the best they could for the starving Irish, he could’ve looked @ the positive aspects—how such mistakes made us stronger!
IV. Treat Cynicism Like the Plague
I also love how much “positive” advice tells you to stay ’way from unpositive people. Hey, is someone withdrawn ’cause their mother’s dead or something? Stay ’way from that dead weight! Don’t want the cool kids @ the capitalist table not to let us join their clique.
How ’bout I avoid “positive” people, ’stead. They sound like privileged, bigoted assholes.
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?
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.
Idealist Careers Understands the Important Occupational Issues
Holding a name brimming with realism & depth, I’m shocked to see that Idealists Careers’ advice for what to research before a job interview is not such silly things as pay, duties, benefits, & such, but what this company does in the community & what their “values” are.
(Hint: If this value is anything but “making money,” said company probably won’t last long. ’Course, they also won’t last long if they admit that outright; the difference is ’tween smart executives who know they’re bullshitting for strategic purposes & people who write dreck like this. ’Less they’re just bullshitting for strategic purposes, too…)
“You know, if I don’t pay these bills they’ll repossess my car & my children will starve… but how can I take their filthy lucre when they don’t even let me hang up my Brony posters?”
1 o’ these carefully-chosen answers was yourself, which I’m sure caused the writer to orgasm @ the depth o’ her writing, even if it makes no sense in the concrete. To be fair, she does have a point: you never know when some stalker executive will dig through your ol’ personal affairs & judge you for them. “You listen to Less Than Jake? You’re no true punk fan, you fucking poser. Get out o’ my office!”
I remember I got my job when my interviewer showed me a rant I scrawled on the internet with my feces ’bout butchering all o’ the bourgeoisie1 & the yuppie douches who want to be bourgeoisie, but they’ll never be, give it up already. We had a hearty laugh ’bout that.
Admitted Lover o’ Mediocrity Changes Mind, Now Thinks Mediocrity Is for Lazy Dumbasses who Love Sports
It’s sad that after Goins’ bold salute to mediocre writing, he’s now1 changed his mind, calling “jack-o-all-trades” morons who like sports.
Ironically, he’s talking ’bout writing; but writing is 1 o’ the few industries where having well-rounded skills is a boon—a’least for fiction writers. Fiction-writing involves creating believable worlds, which are usually inspired by, even if not based on, the real world. Knowledge o’ the real world can involve knowledge in everything. Want to write a good biologist & truly understand their point o’ view? Researching biology will help. & yes, though sports don’t interest me, even I acknowledge that knowledge o’ sports would benefit someone writing a sports story.
Contrariwise, no one will ever be a master @ writing, since one can always improve—though perhaps that applies to everything.
But then, I don’t think this article was meant as a serious philosophical question—for 1, “serious” & “philosophical” never go together. ’Stead it’s meant to congratulate himself for being “nerdy” & “alternative,” man. Everyone says this ’bout themselves—even people who were bullies; it’s just that everyone likes to think o’ themselves as victims who succeeded gainst unbelievable odds, rather than honestly acknowledging that we all succeed ’cause we weren’t born in a place where children are forced to fight for their survival gainst rabid tigers (’less you were, reader, in which case you admittedly probably did earn your success gainst unbelievable odds & you may ignore this critique).
I listened to Led Zeppelin and wore baggy T-shirts. I was not cool, and I paid the price for it in social capital. That awkward feeling of being left out lingers with me even today. Because I still do things that make me weird.
He must’ve grown up in the 50s when not following a carefully-orchestrated set o’ instructions for walking down a hall got you labeled an insane commie. See, in my school days, being “weird” was considered cool—& by weird I mean the definition he uses: not authentically gross to society, like a man wearing skirts & makeup or having a massive facial deformation for life, but liking a famous band & wearing imperfectly-pressed clothing. Harmless weird: the kind o’ weird that feeds the feeling o’ rebellion but without actually having the immense social pressures that warrant that feeling. All I hear ’bout is how awesome being a nerd is, since it fits the pattern perfectly, even if their only criteria is that they push buttons on a hunk o’ plastic plugged into a TV every once in a while.
This is all used to regurgitate the same myth o’ the genius loser who becomes rich—where I come from, if you’re not living every second in cold-sweat fear o’ frostbite from wandering the subarctic urban wilderness in homelessness, you’re rich, so I’m going to assume Goins is rich—due to their genius loserness. This despite the fact that social skills are the most useful skill for success & the reality that most powerful people are actually morons. Have you ever listened to a business executive or politician open his—usually his—mouth? Those are the geniuses who rule the world?
The irony is that the world’s true losers probably aren’t the 1s sitting round measuring their victim dicks—probably ’cause they’re actually victims, & thus too busy running from the totalitarian government snatchers hunting them down & can’t type ’cause their hands have been chopped off & had arthritis, anyway. Also they have cancer, but that hasn’t impeded them from blogging yet.
Life is not an accident for these people [“people who matter,” as opposed to those who should just kill their shitty selves]; they are living intentionally.
You hear that victims o’ that tsunami? Stop letting accidents rule your lives, already! ’Course, many o’ these people don’t have lives anymore, so we can see that Goins’ philosophy has turned true!
This is the cost of greatness. (And I’m learning to embrace it.)
Ha, ha, ha! What a cocksucker.
I also love the book he quotes that uses “you” to contrast those other “fools,” the intended audience obviously intended to feel the author’s hand reach out into their pants. “O yes! O yeah! Please tell me I’m special mo’. O yeah… That’s so goood.”
[Paragraphs that can be summarized as, “Having capabilities that deserve praise for being based on effort require actual effort, dumb ass.”]
I’m glad that he feels the need to tell me this. I’m sure there are plenty o’ people who somehow missed the billion other inspirational puke smacking their foreheads & going, “You mean sitting on my couch & scratching my dick doesn’t get me rich?” ’Course, as we gleaned earlier, this article isn’t aimed @ those people. You’re obviously not 1 o’ them. No, he’s talking ’bout the bad, lazy people—the poor slobs, the dirty people. Essentially, he’s talking ’bout social stereotypes—ironically attacking the very misfits o’ which he only pretends to be. It’s the same reactionary bizarro world regurgitated a million times: us poor rich geniuses are being pulled down by the immensely powerful lazy bums!
You will be tempted to resign and give in to the taunts of your enemies and critics.
Yes, lets shake our fists @ the mean ol’ critics. They aren’t artists after all, who put work into their satire as much as other writers. No, only those who don’t satire artists—the very class that coincidentally always makes this point—can be considered artists. Artists, after all, are very sensitive, unlike those lazy bums who scratch their groins & treat their radioactive poisoning as an accident.
How many enemies do writers earn? Maybe if these writers are revolutionaries actively trying to topple governments. But is some dork who scribbles inspirational “lit fics” ’bout dogs with cancer—I don’t know if Goins writes these; he could write sci-fi parodies for all I know—truly going to rile up someone ’nough to make them call for their blood & want to wear their skin as a suit?
I mean, I always felt that way ’bout my favorite authors, but that was out o’ love, not ’cause we’re enemies. Why can’t you understand basic empathy, Goins, you sociopath?
Your hands will crack and bleed, your back will hurt, and you will cry.
Well, a’least I got this part right. Though I didn’t even know this had anything to do with me writing; I never even thought ’bout why ’twas so fun.
In all of this, you will be humbled and humiliated…
I’ve noticed that those who praise humility rarely exhibit it themselves, & this includes Goins, who just earlier admitted his love for the cost o’ his greatness. This is probably ’cause humble people quickly learn that in a cut-throat competitive world, admitting that others are better is ’bout as effective as a mouse lying right before a cat. ’Course, the hunt also involves headology & thus pretending to be humble is a great way to lure your victims into a false feeling o’ safety so the pounce will be mo’ successful.
What I’m saying is, Goins wants to eat people, though you shouldn’t be surprised to find such behavior in the kind o’ maniac who listens to Led Zeppelin o’ all things.
Understand what you’ll have to give up, how you’ll be misunderstood, and the loneliness associated with any kind of greatness or leadership.
Yes, people who control others are the true victims o’ society. For instance, I always remember whenever I see some poor Yemenese person whose name will never be remembered by anyone be blown into bloody bones & ashes from a drone dropped on her, a tear ran down the President’s cheek as he pondered the loneliness deep in his heart from all o’ the people who don’t understand him, man. Then he writes shitty beat poetry & that sympathy all goes ’way.
See, I must confess my philosophical difference: if I were to compare leaders & “great”—successful—people to, say, mentally-aberrant homeless bums, I’d say the latter is probably a tad bit lonelier. Granted, the former is probably only having his—usually his, let’s be honest here—dick stroked so his “greatness”—his power—will rub off on them.
In fact, I’d wager that a society where people think only ’bout how they can be masters over other people & how the spirit o’ the bullies from their past still block their paths with said spirits’ evil mediocrity might be a quite lonely place to live no matter who you are. I’m sure Goins would disagree; but then, he’s surely part o’ the conspiracy gainst me, which is why all o’ my fan fiction are rejected by those corporate fascists @ Penguin, just as those corporate fascists in high school called my stories submitted to the papers gay—they were bisexual, you ditzy Cises!
For me, it’s been writing — pursuing how to do something as best I can (and giving up a lot of other pursuits in the process).
You know, I take back everything I said before—well, ’cept for the part ’bout me liking to wear my favorite writers’ skin like a suit. Consider this line & then look back & consider the quality o’ work he’s crafted. I change my tune: Goins, you now have my heartfelt sympathy.
The irony in all of this is that in my disdain for sports I’m actually learning what it means to be an athlete — what it means to strive and strain and push through the pain to achieve a goal.
[There was a pause here while I jabbed a fist into my maw to stifle the loud guffaws. Well, that & ’cause I like the taste o’ my flesh.]
I, too, grit my teeth when I feel the gravelly pain stump into my fingers from the billion keyboard taps! ’Course, this isn’t from my writing, but from my simple joy o’ slamming my fingers gainst hard objects. But still!
If the idea of hustling like you’ve never hustled and hurting like you’ve never hurt before actually appeals to you, then there’s hope.
Then I guess there’s no hope, ’cause that phrase sounds terribly written. When I think o’ “hustling,” I don’t think “work”; I think shitty dancing.
Even worse, you probably stole that line from a Poison song.
As for me, I’m tired of being good at many things, of being a jack-of-all-trades. I want to be a master of one.
I’m always awed by the narcissism o’ Americans that lead every 1 o’ them to believe that they’ll be the master o’ something. It’d be refreshing to see 1 who actually does the math & realizes that the net # o’ masters is far lower than the net # o’ not-even-jacks-o’-all-trades & acknowledge they’ll probably end up a superfluous office drone—or worse, on the run from drones dropped by totalitarian government snatchers.
Do you admit that you’re a superfluous office drone/insane bum on the run from drones dropped by totalitarian government snatchers & that you’re a sick fuck who smashes your fingers gainst hard objects? Share in the comments.
1 Or earlier? Couldn’t find a date on either article. How do you fuck that up? Doesn’t WordPress automatically add that? Or does he intentionally hide the date ’cause he thinks it’ll make his work mo’ timely, foiling anyone who has to cite these articles in APA. ’Course, nobody’s going to cite Goins’ inspirational pieces, ’less they love the look o’ Fs on their papers; but still, as much as I love Web Pages that Suck, Flanders’s advice not to use dates creates quite an annoyance from the user-side.
Then put a sweater on, asshole.