Monday, February 20, 2017

Two Simple Questions for the Advocates of Mass Immigration

The first question:
If continued mass Third World immigration into Europe results in the sweeping political victory of the populist and far right in Europe, how can such immigration possibly have been a success or a good thing for Europe?
This is exactly what we are looking at in Europe in the next few years: the sweeping political victory of the populist and far right in Europe, such as Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom (PVV), UKIP, the Sweden Democrats, Marine Le Pen’s French National Front, the Danish People’s Party, Alternative for Germany (AfD), and perhaps even Golden Dawn in Greece.

The reason is not just the economic disaster of Neoliberalism or the anti-democratic EU, but the social and cultural disaster of Third World immigration, which in actual fact is very much part of the Neoliberal program.

And we are already seeing the early stages of the social collapse.

Some glimpses of the riots going on in Paris in the past week:



The lying media wants to spin this as mere protests at alleged police brutality. Bullsh*t.

This is partly low-level insurgency by immigrants. This is the slow collapse of Europe. Plain and simple.

The second question:
If continued mass Third World immigration into Europe results in the sweeping political victory of the populist and far right in Europe with large-scale demographic replacement of Europeans and social collapse into civil war, would you still support continued mass Third World immigration into Europe?
Discuss.

Sunday, February 19, 2017

The Economist’s Shameful Defence of Free Trade and Laissez Faire

It’s been going on for about 170 years.

Here is an example from the Economist of 28 March, 1874 – in the midst of the Bihar famine of 1873–1874 – defending the de-industrialisation of India caused by the imposition of free trade on India in British textile exports, even when that industry in Britain had been built up by decades of state protectionism:
“A charge is often made against the English Government that it has injured the Indian population by destroying the native manufactures and replacing them with ‘Manchester goods.’ This is said to have made them more exclusively dependent on the land than they were before, and more helpless in a famine. But the very contrary is the truth. ‘Manchester’ does not give India her manufactures for nothing; India has to buy them, and for that purpose she must produce something which she can sell in the markets of the world. The possession of that saleable commodity is a resource to India in a famine, because she can then expend much of the proceeds in the purchase of food and diminish her demand for Manchester manufactures for a time.

It is an analogous fallacy to say that the English rule has induced the Indian population to devote their industry not to the growth of food, which they would consume in a famine, but to the production of exportable commodities unfit for food which they cannot then consume. In reality, the greatest possible benefit to an Indian district whose food crop has perished, is not to be wholly dependent upon it, but to have another crop—jute, or silk, or sugar—which probably will not perish at the same time, and by the sale of which it can obtain money to buy foreign grain.

The true accusation against the English Government is not that it has lessened the safety of this precarious population, but that it has brought that population into existence. If our rule had never existed their numbers would have been much less. One main effect of our Government has been largely to augment the number of people dependent on crops of the lowest kind of food, and liable to die in the greatest possible numbers if those crops should fail. To put it in the way that Englishmen will understand best, we have rapidly multiplied, and are still rapidly multiplying, a class in India exactly of the kind which the poorest part of the Irish once were, but beyond comparison more numerous than the Irish, and distributed over an area beyond comparison greater than that of Ireland. A more startling result of the sudden application of an exotic civilised Government to an Oriental nation has never been seen before.

The next application is, however, as startling. Having created this vast precarious population, we feel, as Englishmen and as Christians, that we are bound to keep them alive. But this is incredibly difficult. Famine on a great scale, now so uncommon in Europe, is still very common in half-civilised Asia. A slight failure of rain at a particular period may destroy wholly or in part the single crop on which the lowest population which we have described subsists. Severe local scarcities are incessant, great famines are by no means rare. The native rulers formerly did nothing; one effect of these terrible visitations was that the numbers of the people were kept near to a manageable limit. But we have to deal with far greater numbers, and we have said that we will not permit any of them to perish. As by the unintended effect of civilised Government we have given life to an immense number of human beings, we cannot, in common humanity, according to our notions of humanity, leave them to perish.

What, however, must be the effect on the people themselves of this unprecedented and unexpected benevolence? Already we hear reports which fill us with anxiety. We are told that ‘the people are thronging to the relief works to enjoy comparative idleness, and that the sowing of the next crop is neglected.’ The intelligence is the more painful because it was to be expected. These lower Asiatics have not many virtues, but they have one—a patient, anxious, intense industry. This has been implanted in them by long ages of difficult life. It is only by it that they have lived; without it they would have perished. They had no one to help them, and so they were taught self-help. But if they come to believe that they have some supplementary agency to rely upon; that the English Government, whose ordinary strength they know, and whose extraordinary strength they cannot estimate, will keep them alive whatever happens, the one great ingredient of civilisation which they already possess, incessant and careful forethought, will be taken from them, and we shall have filled India with a population more numerous than that which we found there, but physically not better, and morally inferior.” (“Neglected Aspects of the Indian Famine,” The Economist, vol. 32, no. 1596, Saturday, March 28, 1874: pp. 378–379).
Of course, the truth is that British imposition of free trade on India did cause the de-industrialisation and the collapse of its pre-modern manufacturing sectors. See here:
(1) “The Early British Industrial Revolution and Infant Industry Protectionism: The Case of Cotton Textiles,” 22 June, 2010.

(2) “Britain’s Protectionism against Indian Cotton Textiles,” 12 July, 2016.
Even if the Indian economy was “diversified” by new export crops, agriculture is a dead-end, diminishing returns-to-scale sector, and the only real path to prosperity is through a dynamic, growing modern manufacturing sector.

Had the Indian rulers had the foresight and freedom to employ the protectionist policies used by Japan in the 19th century, they would undoubtedly have done much better.

At the same time, it is true that the problems of development faced by India were serious indeed. A 19th century India would have needed to (1) impose birth control and family planning to limit population growth and (2) abolish their caste system which prevented social mobility and the development of social capital, at the very least.

A further point is interesting here. At the time this Economist article appeared (on March 28, 1874), India was experiencing the Bihar famine of 1873–1874 in Bihar, parts of Bengal, the North-Western Provinces and Oudh. The Economist was railing about the expenditures and relief measures taken by the British government in India to prevent mass starvation.

But it was not the free market that prevented mass starvation in parts of India in 1874.

A more diversified production of exportable commodities in India did not prevent mass starvation amongst the poor with no income whose crops failed and who could not afford to buy food. And even if the rich export-oriented commodity producers did have money, they were clearly not interested in paying to avert mass starvation.

Curiously, history ran an experiment for us at this time. As lieutenant-governor of the Bengal Presidency in 1874, Sir Richard Temple (8 March 1826–15 March 1902) used government intervention shunning free markets to deal with the famine:
“The news which reached England in October [1874] that nearly half the population of our greatest Indian province stood in dire peril of famine stirred the public mind to its very depths. The memories of the Orissa fiasco were still recent, and men felt that a repetition of the horrors brought about by procrastination and incompetence would lead to an impeachment of our rule by the entire civilised world. The feeling found energetic expression in Parliament and the press, and the Secretary of State echoed the unmistakable voice of public opinion when he told the Viceroy that ‘Her Majesty’s Government relied on his shrinking from no available means, at whatever cost, to prevent, as far as he could, any loss of the lives of her subjects in consequence of a calamity which threatened Bengal.’

Lord Northbrook rose to the occasion. He placed his Finance Minister, Sir Richard Temple, in charge of relief operations in the threatened tract, which included the western districts of Bengal, still known under their ancient title of Behar. In concert with his trusted lieutenant he took more than adequate measures for feeding a population of 2,500,000 during seven months. ….

Lord Northbrook therefore resolved to supply the anticipated deficiency [of food] by bringing 342,000 tons of rice from beyond the seas, an amount nearly equal to the average annual export from Bengal.” (Skrine 1901: 223–224).
Sir Richard Temple, then, imported nearly half a million tons of rice from Burma and provided relief works and a public dole (Davis 2001: 36). As Davis notes, it was the “only truly successful British relief effort in the nineteenth century” in India, which averted mass excess deaths (Davis 2001: 37).

In other words, mass starvation was averted by aggressive government intervention.

The sequel to this good government and basic human decency was not a happy one, however.

As the full cost of the relief efforts became known,
“… Temple came under withering fire from London for the ‘extravagance’ of allowing ‘the scale of wages paid at relief works to be determined by the daily food needs of the labourer and the prevailing food prices in the market rather than by the amount that the Government could afford to spend for the purpose.’ In public, he was lambasted by The Economist for encouraging indolent Indians to believe that ‘it is the duty of the Government to keep them alive.’ Senior civil servants, convinced (according to Lord Salisbury) that it was ‘a mistake to spend so much money to save a lot of black fellows’ denounced the relief campaign as ‘pure Fourierism.’ Temple’s career was almost ruined.” (Davis 2001: 36–37).
In the subsequent Indian Great Famine of 1876–1878 in Madras, Mysore, Hyderabad, and Bombay for two years, the British government reverted to its laissez faire policy and miserably cruel and inadequate relief measures.

It is estimated that about 5.5 million people died in India from this famine.

In other words, the morally degenerate free market fanatics of that era won out.

All in all, although Classical Liberalism certainly had admirable and defensible ideas, its obsession with the free market and doctrinaire hostility to government intervention essentially boils down to the core idea: it is not the business of government to keep its citizens alive, even under the most dire circumstances, because markets take care of everything.

Thus Classical Liberalism quite clearly has its own level of moral depravity and irrationality, though admittedly not as bad as other authoritarian ideologies of the 20th century.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anonymous. 1874. “Neglected Aspects of the Indian Famine,” The Economist vol. 32, no. 1596 (Saturday, 28 March): 378–379.

Davis, Mike. 2001. Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World. Verso, London.

Skrine, Francis Henry. 1901. Life of Sir William Wilson Hunter. Longmans, Green and Co., London.

Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Prince of Queens YouTube Channel
Prince of Queens on Twitter
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Steve Keen on Credit and Debt Crises

A recent talk by Steve Keen in Mexico City on credit, macroeconomics, and financial crises:



Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Prince of Queens YouTube Channel
Prince of Queens on Twitter
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Saturday, February 18, 2017

How Political Correctness is Destroying Sweden

Here:



As usual, the mainstream Left is worthless because it cannot and will not accept the truth, and so it’s left to the right to seize on the disaster and make political capital out of it.

Friday, February 17, 2017

Steve Keen on Banking and Credit

Steve Keen gave a recent talk in Norway at the Oslo University on banking, credit and economic cycles:

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

More Cultural Leftist Idiocy about Milo

Here:



Where has Milo ever advocated genocide?!?

These cultural leftists are ignorant, stupid, stark, raving mad people, who have no idea about the people they attack.

Milo does not even endorse white nationalism, as can be plainly seen here:



In his public spoken and written work, Milo has decent criticisms of Third Wave Feminism and defends free speech. How is it that a man who defends free speech is a fascist?

Moreover, Milo sometimes defends cultural libertarianism, and at other times civic nationalism and occasionally has some socially conservative opinions no worse than what mainstream socially-conservative Republicans say.

The derangement of the far left and cultural left comes from their ignorance and stupid inability to carefully understand the right and distinguish between quite different strands of the new anti-SJW and nationalist right, and how they differ.

Finally, on the BBC there was at least a vague attempt to do this in this story on the “Alt Right” and its various groups:



As we can see, the label “Alt Right” has been adopted by various dissident conservatives, but they actually form distinct groups as follows:
(1) conservatives or former Liberals who are concerned about the Islamisation of the Western world and oppose mass immigration on cultural grounds, but don’t generally care much about other issues;

(2) cultural nationalists who don’t generally care about race, but oppose the cultural Islamisation of Europe and the disaster of multiculturalism. This group includes movements like the Liberty GB party. These conservatives generally reject anti-Semitism and are quasi-libertarian or Thatcherite on economics;

(3) the “Alt Light”: cultural/civic nationalists who again don’t generally care about race, but oppose the cultural Islamisation of Europe, multiculturalism, as well as many Neoliberal policies associated with globalisation. Many such people read Breitbart and are becoming economic nationalists, though some remain quasi-libertarian on economics. Once again these people are generally not anti-Semitic at all, but can be very pro-Israel and pro-Jewish. Milo Yiannopoulos and Gavin McInnes are associated with this group, but both Milo and McInnes is more libertarian on economics.

(4) the hardcore of the Alt Right. These people are all race realists, anti-Semites, white ethno-nationalists, and are often opposed to democracy. The far right fringe are National Socialist fascists who often support leftist economics, while others reject overt fascism and prefer more quasi-libertarian economics or sometimes leftist economics.
Group (3) is often called the “Alt Light” to distinguish them from (4).

It is also important to distinguish the populist right-wing parties in Europe as related but distinct movements from the Alt Right. UKIP and the Alternative for Germany (AfD) are somewhat similar to group (2) above, since they seem to be nationalist Thatcherites on economics. The French National Front is different again, because it has become increasingly left-wing on economics and is anti-EU and anti-globalisation.

If Leftists have any chance of a serious critique of these new right-wing movements, they need to have the intelligence to understand the different factions and the different beliefs of these groups.

Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Prince of Queens YouTube Channel
Prince of Queens on Twitter
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Monday, February 13, 2017

The Cultural Left’s Descent into Quasi-Nazism

The evidence right here:
Lukas Mikelionis, “Black Lives Matter Leader Says White People Are ‘Sub-Human’ and Suffer From ‘Genetic Defects,’” Heat Street, 12 February, 2017.

Anthony Furey, “Black Lives Matter co-founder appears to label white people ‘defects,’” Toronto Sun, February 11, 2017.
And how long before this fanatical hatred will be considered the new mainstream “edgy” idea of cultural leftists?

We already know that radical feminists can speak causally about the “extinction” of straight white men as if this is a normal and reasonable demand of the cultural left:



Or the radical feminist Julie Bindel in 2015 muses that men should be put into “some kind” of concentration camps.

If this is what the more militant of the cultural left thinks now, imagine what they will be saying in 10 years from now.

Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Prince of Queens YouTube Channel
Prince of Queens on Twitter
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Sunday, February 12, 2017

Friedrich Engels on Why Marx supported Free Trade

In a particularly insightful explanation of why Marx supported not only free trade but also economically and socially destructive free market economics:
“The question of Free Trade or Protection moves entirely within the bounds of the present system of capitalist production, and has, therefore, no direct interest for us socialists who want to do away with that system.

Indirectly, however, it interests us inasmuch as we must desire as the present system of production to develop and expand as freely and as quickly as possible: because along with it will develop also those economic phenomena which are its necessary consequences, and which must destroy the whole system: misery of the great mass of the people, in consequence of overproduction. This overproduction engendering either periodical gluts and revulsions, accompanied by panic, or else a chronic stagnation of trade; division of society into a small class of large capitalist, and a large one of practically hereditary wage-slaves, proletarians, who, while their numbers increase constantly, are at the same time constantly being superseded by new labor-saving machinery; in short, society brought to a deadlock, out of which there is no escaping but by a complete remodeling of the economic structure which forms it basis.

From this point of view, 40 years ago Marx pronounced, in principle, in favor of Free Trade as the more progressive plan, and therefore the plan which would soonest bring capitalist society to that deadlock.”
Friedrich Engels, “On the Question of Free Trade,” Preface
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1888/free-trade/
And Marx and Engels were middle class, bourgeois intellectuals who wanted the working class to suffer viciously just to get their imagined revolution: for Marx and Marxists, human beings and the working class are just means to an end in the most brutal, callous way, not ends in themselves.

Or to put it another way, if even Liberalism or Social Democracy can – to some extent – sometimes treat people as a means to an end, at least this has been strongly historically tempered by the concern for reasonable individual rights and the understanding that collectivism has limits.

Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Prince of Queens YouTube Channel
Prince of Queens on Twitter
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Friday, February 10, 2017

Peter Navarro sounds Eminently Sensible to Me

Peter Navarro seems to have become a major economic adviser to Trump. He’s clearly a smart guy and, unlike hordes of delusional economists, Navarro understands the threat to the Western world from the aggressive mercantilism of China.

And what he says here is so great it is music to the ears:



In fact, generally speaking, everything he says here is in line with what a Post Keynesian would advocate as a trade and industrial policy for America (even if there might be disagreements on precisely how to do it).

If only Trump can implement this protectionist industrial policy properly, it will be fantastic for America.

Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Prince of Queens YouTube Channel
Prince of Queens on Twitter
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Thursday, February 9, 2017

The True Face of US Neoconservatism

Blame the terrible social and economic problems that the US white working class now faces because of Neoconservative and Neoliberal economics and open borders on the white working class itself, and then demand that the white working class be *replaced* by mass immigration because they didn’t vote the way Bill Kristol wanted:



Even worse, this disgusting mentality probably infests the cultural left too and, say, the anti-Brexit Liberal left in Britain: if ordinary people reject cultural leftist/liberal policies in elections, then replace them!

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

A European Poll on Public Attitudes to Immigration

See here:
(1) David Cutts, Thomas Raines, and Matthew Goodwin. “What Do Europeans Think About Muslim Immigration?,” Chatham House, 7 February 2017.

(2) Samuel Osborne, “Most Europeans want Immigration Ban from Muslim-Majority Countries, Poll Reveals,” Independent, 8 February 2017.
Uh oh.

It’s almost like the evidence is rapidly accumulating that the public is increasingly and strongly against mass immigration, on multiple levels, whether it’s open borders immigration within the EU, Third World mass immigration, or mass immigration of a certain religious group.

So why is it that the mainstream left and conservative parties in Europe have utter contempt for public opinion?

If the populist right sweeps into power in Europe by 2020, could it be that this issue might have something to do with it?

Could it be that the only Left that will ever win again in a serious way will have to accept severe immigration restriction? Or is that too much like common sense?

If Europe had politicians and parties who offered people the option of immigration restriction, political and economic independence from the EU, and an old-fashioned, European-style full employment, protectionist economics, such politicians would probably be sweeping into power all over Europe.

As it stands, the only parties in Europe that capture enough of this program (but often minus the leftist economics) are the Conservative Populists, e.g., UKIP, the National Front in France, the Sweden Democrats, Alternative for Germany (AfD), and Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party in the Netherlands.

In fact, in the Netherlands, Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party may actually be the most popular party in the coming election on 15 March (see here and here).

In France, Marine Le Pen is stealing the Left’s economic program and attacking globalisation and urging protectionism:





Since immigration restriction is actually a long-standing Old Left policy, we have reached an astonishing state of affairs in the West when the National Front is presenting a more plausible old Social Democratic or Old Left program than modern French socialists.

A final – and troubling – issue here is that there really are profoundly serious social and cultural problems in Europe with mass Muslim immigration.

But of course the Left won’t talk about it. The Left actively attempts to hide the truth and demonise and slander anybody willing to talk straightforwardly and honestly about it.

The reason why the populist right and even (unfortunately) the far right in Europe is gaining such popularity is that they are, pretty much, the only people willing to talk about the disaster happening in countries like, say, Sweden:



Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Prince of Queens YouTube Channel
Prince of Queens on Twitter
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Monday, February 6, 2017

Trump’s Interview with Bill O’Reilly

Here:



Comments:

(1) it’s a shame President Trump is shifting to Neocon-style agitprop on Iran, though admittedly he was always hawkish-sounding on Iran during the campaign. I hope sense prevails here, rather than another war in the Middle East.

Trump was elected partly because of his promise to reject Neoconservative militarism and nation-building. This is what made him such a remarkable candidate. He must resist the demands to attack Iran from the usual suspects in the region who hate Iran – namely, Saudi Arabia and Israel – as well as their lobbyists and supporters in the Pentagon or State Department.

(2) by contrast, his comments on Putin deserve praise. Ditching the suicidal hostility to Russia, if done, will be a big roll-back of Neoconservative and liberal interventionist warmongering.

(3) at last we have an honest President who admits the American government is not innocent of bad deeds which kill people:



Amazingly, Trump even condemned the 2003 Iraq war as a horrendous mistake that killed many people, implying that George W. Bush and his administration bear moral responsibility for this, and that the media are hypocrites for saying America shouldn’t have a realistic political engagement with Russia just because Russian governments have committed human rights abuses and crimes in the past.

Isn’t this a rather obvious truth? (I will put aside the obvious criticism that we can also say that the 2003 Iraq war was a deliberate war crime, rather than a “mistake”.)

Of course, the American media went absolutely insane over this comment, with denunciations of Trump left, right and centre for (allegedly) committing the crime of “moral equivalence” – that is, for supposedly saying that America is exactly morally the same as Russia.

Of course, Trump said no such thing, and the media was being disgustingly unfair to him.

(4) it’s great to see Trump promoting re-industrialisation of America through protectionism. I think he may well deliver on his promises here, and, if so, he deserves credit.

Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Prince of Queens YouTube Channel
Prince of Queens on Twitter
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Friday, February 3, 2017

Why Did Latin American Import Substitution Industrialisation Run into Serious Problems by 1970s/1980s?

Of course, it is well known that hot money inflows and financial deregulation in the 1970s caused a disaster in Latin America, since, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Paul Volcker’s quasi-monetarist experiment and hiking of US interest rates caused a debt crisis in Latin America that broke their economies in terrible ways. (A phenomenon which, incidentally, was a forerunner of the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997–1998.)

But I am not concerned with that here. This post is concerned with the internal problems with Latin American Import Substitution Industrialisation (ISI) policies.

Erik S. Reinert’s How Rich Countries Got Rich, and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor (2007) lays out the shortcomings of Latin American planning, as follows:
(1) Latin American Import Substitution Industrialisation (ISI) neglected the need for export-led growth in industries and the need to eventually drive these industries to compete on the world market. Competition on the world market was needed with policies to drive innovation, manufacturing productivity growth, and growth in market share. In other words, Latin American planners failed to understand the importance of Thirlwall’s law and Kaldor’s growth laws. Yet, at the same time, pure cut-throat free market competition was not the answer either, but rather gradually reducing protectionism and assisting industries when necessary with government intervention to promote their ability to compete.

(2) technology used in industries tended to lag behind the rest of the world;

(3) failure to create domestic industries that produced more of the technology and factor inputs used in major manufacturing industries;

(4) the type of industries created did not drive demand for large numbers of educated workers and technocratic professionals, and governments neglected the education of such people where there was demand for such workers;

(5) a higher degree of nepotism in the appointment of people involved in industry rather than meritocracy;

(6) problems in land reform and land distribution;

(7) income inequality and failure to expand internal demand restricted the domestic market for manufactured goods and hence capacity of the manufacturing sector to expand. That is to say, the home market remained small;

(8) profits increasingly derived from static rent-seeking;

(9) deleterious competition between producers and suppliers, when in fact intense co-operation (as in the East Asian model) works better by creating highly-integrated domestic supply chains (Reinert 2007: 311–312).
As Reinert notes, the East Asian nations like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan did the opposite of Latin America with respect to the things in the list above (Reinert 2007: 311–312).

Had the planners in Latin American governments not made these mistakes early on, then Latin American industrialisation would have been much more successful, much like the case of East Asian development. Furthermore, since a number of Latin American nations are very rich in natural resources they would have been in a better position for long-run economic growth as compared with East Asia, which is resource-poor.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Reinert, Erik S. 2007. How Rich Countries Got Rich, and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor. Carroll & Graf, New York.

Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Prince of Queens YouTube Channel
Prince of Queens on Twitter
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Thursday, February 2, 2017

Far Left Lunatics Shut Down Milo Yiannopoulos Talk

At the University of California, Berkeley:







This precisely confirms what I said in my last post.

You can bet that tons of these far left idiots think Milo is Literally HitlerTM, even though Milo – for anybody who has taken the time to understand him – is gay, Jewish critic of cultural leftism, who sometimes speaks the language of cultural libertarianism, and at other times of civic nationalism.

For instance, Milo, whatever you think of him, does actually strongly defend gay rights against a certain gay-hating religious fundamentalism from the Third World. Is that fascism?!?

But of course in 2017 these things make you Literally HitlerTM to the insane cultural left and far left. Shame on these people.

Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Prince of Queens YouTube Channel
Prince of Queens on Twitter
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2