Monday, March 16, 2020

Scrooge McDuck

A young friend among my wife's FB friends posted a  meme about blank supermarket shelves, comparing the empty shelves of socialism, which conservatives decry, and "late-stage-capitalism" empty shelves during the TP-and-disposable-wipes crisis of 2020.  He did not say that this proved equivalency, merely noting that he had seen the two posted near each other in some way online.  He is a polite young man, a middle-school teacher whose wife is homeschooling, and I think he doesn't want to offend.  I have seen other posts that suggest he is very sympathetic to socialism.

His first two commenters, both also young, were thorough opposites.  The first noted that under capitalism, the shelves would be restocked tomorrow. I thought that an efficient argument, and am grateful that there are young people who can manage such things on short notice.  The other made the comparison that "if you don't like people hoarding toilet paper, then imagine how much damage it does when an extremely small fraction of the world's population hoards so much of its wealth." I am no longer on FB and don't like to drag my wife into such discussions, so I wrote nothing.  I did begin to think about what, exactly, I might theoretically say, reasoning that I might have to answer this in some context sometime.  The first young man got in very quickly, while I was looking at the page:  "Hoarding.  lol"

I thought that similarly efficient.  That is the key problem. I should research who that young man is and put his name forward as someone we should elect to something. Except politics would be a waste for him. Perhaps I should sneak over and just let him know I'm impressed. He may need encouragement.  There is a sizable group who thinks that the wealthy are in some sense hoarding, a good communist accusation that is thoroughly inaccurate. The mental picture is of Scrooge McDuck.

via GIPHY

I suggest that this is not just a humorous exaggeration on my part. They may be sophisticated enough to think that it is in bank accounts (Narrator: It's not in bank accounts), or in stocks or property (not in the usual sense, no), but they still think that it is sitting somewhere, not doing any real work.  Their picture is that other people have paid money into their various accounts, and this could be readily disbursed to others, if we could just pry it loose.  That it might be the estimated value of a company that is employing people and providing a service or product others are interested in does not enter into their imagination.

For those who think I am being unfair to such folks - let us call them Bernie Bros, though the thinking permeates even the more reasonable Democrats like Yang - please notice he wrote "hoarding."  I didn't make him say that.  He thinks that.  And I have heard such things enough times that I feel confident they are a significant portion of the Democratic Party.  Are they a majority?  A significant minority?  Only 20% of that group?  It doesn't matter. This is a sizable group that is batshit crazy and they have power.  (They don't think they have power because they do not relent until they have control, and then move the goalposts until they have even greater power. I gather that even the Scandinavians outside the major cities have had just about enough.)

It will be argued that plenty of Democrats believe in capitalism.  Look at Hunter Joe Biden, of Dunder-Mifflin fame.  John Kerry liked capitalism well enough to marry it.  Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Barack Obama - all of them started out with deep suspicions of capitalism but came to love it.  Notice that they like the old-fashioned plutocrat capitalism part, not the free market per se.  But still, it's not really socialism, except as a hybrid. Jimmy Carter was a medium-sized business owner, and that may have provided the reasonable grounding he maintained, even as his hatred of conservatives became more fevered and fanatic.  Bloomberg likes that brand of capitalism as well.  Yes, yes, there are many who try to keep a foot in both canoes.

So what? There are enough crazies that they have to be accounted for at this point.  It's not like 1992 when Bill and Hillary could sell themselves as this modern, draft-dodging, Fleetwood Mac, marijuana-brownie-eating sexual-equality* couple, keeping all the Wall Street Democrats chuckling into their sleeves in the background. (See also Obama, Barack.) Carthago delenda est! (Gore was the man from Carthage, btw.  The irony is delicious.)

*

6 comments:

RichardJohnson said...

He is a polite young man, a middle-school teacher whose wife is homeschooling.
Right there we see a contradiction.No public school for the teacher's child? Or am I incorrect in assuming he teaches at a public school?


I have seen other posts that suggest he is very sympathetic to socialism.
Recall how Bernie loves Scandinavia and also wants to tax billionaires out of existence? Guess what? Scandinavia has more billionaires per capita, or there are fewer inhabitants per billionaire in Scandinavia.
List of countries by the number of billionaires

Country Population per Billionaire (thousands)
Sweden 322
Iceland 359
Norway 376
United States 559
Finland 786
Denmark 958

Adding up population and billionaires for Scandinavia, we get 465 thousand Scandinavian inhabitants per billionaire, compared to 559 thousand inhabitants per billionaire in Scandinavia.

Which is why, when asked a question about Scandinavian economics that might have required some knowledge, Bernie replied that he wasn't an expert on Scandinavia. Not an expert, but he says that Scandinavia is the model he wants to follow. Something doesn't compute.

RichardJohnson said...

Also recall that "hoarding" is a standard shibboleth in response to supply problems in Marxist-ruled countries. Yes, food production has collapsed due to some combination of "land reform,", price controls, government regulations, or inflation, but the real reason there is no food in the markets is "hoarding."

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Richard, great stats and I thank you. I had never considered that angle. The Scandinavian countries have few people, a high percentage of engineers, and this preponderance of billionaires should not surprise us.

As to the young man, he is off the hook on that, I think. The children are still young (preschool?), but his brilliant wife is making sure they are "up to snuff" (read "at least two grades ahead,") by the time they land in first grade. They are that lovely sort who live poor because she is home, and still think it is their intense effort, not their genetics, that is making the difference. If I were nearby they would be a gentle project of mine, but I doubt I shall be more than a passing influence. They may figure it out on their own. It is my view that raising boys past the age of eight is a gradually conservative influence for those who attend to reality. Their boys will be far and away the smartest kids in the class. The school will reward bright conscientious girls instead, and there will be a cognitive dissonance for them. This is an average, certainly. An absolutely brilliant girl who deserves the honor might well be in their classes. We actually valued such females and tried to point them out as potential daughters-in-law. Yet they are not well-off, not in prime school districts, and the percentages go down on this. More likely, they both, including the moderately-feminist wife, will begin to see the reality as their sons go through the grades.

"Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterward." Vernon Law

RichardJohnson said...

Correction
Adding up population and billionaires for Scandinavia, we get 465 thousand inhabitants per billionaire in Scandinavia, compared to 559 thousand inhabitants per billionaire in the United States.

Jonathan said...

Their picture is that other people have paid money into their various accounts, and this could be readily disbursed to others, if we could just pry it loose. That it might be the estimated value of a company that is employing people and providing a service or product others are interested in does not enter into their imagination.

There are multiple fatal errors of analysis here. Some of these errors manifest themselves in beliefs that wealth is static rather than created, that it exists as a stash of gold, currency or physical property, and that some people unjustly control too much of it and it could and should be spread around. Other errors manifest in the not-unrelated assumptions that if property were evenly distributed among individuals a very few individuals wouldn't outperform most of the others by orders of magnitude over time, and that many individuals wouldn't always squander whatever wealth they were given.

There is also a failure in not understanding that demographics aren't static, i.e., that "the poor" of a generation ago aren't necessarily today's poor, and that there are obvious patterns in the life stories of people who go from poor to rich, as well as of those who make the opposite journey.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

"Clogs to clogs in only three generations." Or if you prefer the American version, "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves."

While that is true for wealth, I don't think it is true for either piety or intelligence.