Radical Agenda EP319 – Father’s Day Rants

I won’t be doing a live show today, but I have a fresh episode for you nonetheless. I went down to New York to see my folks yesterday. In the car on the ride over I was energetic and thinking and had my recorder with me.

Radical Agenda EP319 - Father's-Day Rants

Radical Agenda EP319 – Father’s-Day Rants

So in between listening to last night’s episode of the Radical Agenda, I took some voice notes and went on some rants on record. I was going to put them behind the paywall, but I literally have too much stuff. So I just decided I would give you this special preview of what members only bonus content is like.

Today’s episode is almost the full two hours, and contains clips of me critiquing myself on Episode 318, father’s day, British terrorism, and gay riots.

 

  • paendragon

    British terrorism? Turns out the Finsbury park mosque ramming was done by a (GASP!) Tunisian MUSLIM after all LOL!

  • Louis Charles

    May I suggest, on your website a 24hr. Chat Room like old school 2005?

    • Stuart Morrow

      Bear in mind that IRC discloses IP addresses (and web chats are fucking gay).

  • Hadding Scott

    Adolf Hitler in the second paragraph of the first page of Mein Kampf indicates that economics, in the sense of maximizing productivity, have a strictly subordinate role in his thinking: Austria should be united with the German Reich even if it would be economically disadvantageous, he says.

    Where there are competent people and the requisite materials, production is not a problem. Excessive productivity in fact has been a big problem for White, Western nations during the past century.

    Libertarians do not understand how excessive productivity could be a problem, because they look at everything from an individual perspective. For an individual, it is hardly possible to produce too much. For a nation or an industry, however, overproduction means a fall in prices and thus a fall in profits, possibly beyond the point of not being able to break even. Libertarians however continue to project onto national economies their own individual struggles, and fail to understand that the problems of a national economy are very different.

    The point is that we do not live in an age when it is still necessary for a White, Western nation to maximize productivity. This has been true for more than a century. With modern machinery we very easily produce too much. An economic policy that maximizes production is therefore not important.

    • Aaron Thompson

      This is the Malthusian macro/general glut argument. You have two assumptions here: the first is that maximization of productivity exceeds the market equilibrium, thus creating excess. Yet we know that markets naturally move towards equilibrium in self-correcting manner and not upwards to excess. Actually, it’s because of central planning that markets do NOT move towards equilibrium and rather suffer in under- or over-abundance. Same thing for public subsidization. Government tampering in the market will invariably create greater inefficiencies to supply than anything a free market will produce.

      The second assumption is that the general glut is an ever downward spiral that cannot be corrected (except through government involvement; Keynes and Malthus would dump the blame on under-consumption, with Keynes advocating for the liquidation of misers and the promotion of the money flow through stimulus). But consider the following (also for assumption #1): If a company is able to supply “overproduction”, that is supplying more than demanded, why would they bother? If they recognize they are deliberately overproducing and not selling this excess product, they’re simply suiciding. If this isn’t the case, and the producer doesn’t realize they are overproducing, then that field is too saturated (or overinflated, like an economic bubble), and the market will, on the broad scale, eliminate the overabundance by removing excess producers who fail to act best accordingly to the market. This will bring the price of the product back to equilibrium as the overabundance of supply is removed with the overabundance of suppliers.

      • Hadding Scott

        “Yet we know that markets naturally move towards equilibrium in self-correcting manner and not upwards to excess. ”

        You don’t know any such thing. That’s your Libertarian FAITH. It’s a very optimistic view. In reality that is not what happens.

        Only if there is regulation, or self-regulation of production by agreement among the producers, will there be stability. This kind of self-regulation was the standard practice in the Mediaeval period — in other words before capitalism.

        If the producers are genuinely competing and not colluding, then there will always be a tendency toward overproduction until only one producer is left.

        All of this has been understood since Charles de Sismondi wrote it in his Nouveaux Principes d’Economie Politique (1819).

        • Aaron Thompson

          Sismondi also encouraged the inflation of wages as a means of increasing purchasing power. Reality is he was nothing more than the precursor to Malthus and Keynes, arguing the same points they did. The only reason people outside of econ majors don’t know or consider Sismondi is because he, and all like him, were superseded by Keynes, who was actually able to convince the western world to adopt his philosophy.

          Sismondi’s argument regarding overproduction seems sensible enough, however it states overproduction is inevitable because competing producers do not know the amount of goods they are producing, but how does he get to this logic? It seems like he believes producers look at the total product sold in that field and willy-nilly the amount of good they will produce. I work as a sales planner, and there is a lot that goes into forecasting how much product should be made and shipped to retail consumers, including looking at year-over-year data, previous month, previous quarter, etc.,. While we have more technology to aid us in the processing of this data, I find it hard to believe western society producers did not keep record of transactions, warehouse stock, etc., and note things like “how much business did they have previously? How much excess inventory did they have remaining? When are products more popular and more needed to be produced?” Depending on the availability, if they had gross market numbers, it would make more sense to view your market share when considering production than just gross product sold for said market. These would be and are far more useful to the production of a good than randomly mass producing items based on the total of the item sold and nothing more.

          • Hadding Scott

            I suppose that producing the same amount that you were able to sell last year will work out just fine if you don’t happen to have a competitor trying to undersell you and take some of your market-share.

            The fact that depressed wages mean depressed demand is indisputable.

            Sismondi had a different solution from Keynes. Sismondi’s solution to the problem of overproduction was what later became known as Fascist corporatism.

          • Aaron Thompson

            Your production comment is not what I was getting at. What I’m saying is that there are a lot of indicators, including the ones I mentioned, that help a business better forecast production and shipment needs in order to avoid overproduction; in addition, if over- or under-production does occur, businesses are able to correct their model, often by overcompensating for a period in the opposite direction, and attempt to move closer to an equilibrium amount. Production models are not rigidly forced into a single direction ad nauseum.

            Low wages = low demand is misleading in this conversation. While obviously someone with a higher disposable income creates more pressure on demand, particularly on unnecessary goods, than someone with a lower wage and lower disposable income, this isn’t what you’re arguing. You’re arguing that businesses consistently overproduce and this leads to a necessary decrease in worker wages in order to maintain profits as prices decrease due to saturation. In this argument, the production model of a business is perpetually overproducing. This means the producer is consistently suffering from a loss that they need to make up. Taking this to its logical conclusion, they will reach a point where they run out of ways to make up that loss. What happens at that point? They go out of business. Their produced goods are no longer part of the market. Less market supply in an oversaturated market equates to the market heading back in the direction toward equilibrium in supply, and naturally prices will rise again.

            The whole problem with this at its core is the belief that producers are incapable of recognizing a rise or fall in revenue and acting counter in response to this, particularly with the production of goods. But I fail to understand how a business would be so blind as to not correct their production model but intelligent enough to attempt to fix revenue through wage manipulation. Businesses fail, and we do see situations where layoffs happen, and less often businesses ask employees to take a pay cut. But if the core problem is overproduction as opposed to a decrease in market share, I fail to see how any business with this knowledge would correct this through employee wages before production level management. And again, even if they do, the endgame is still the market moving towards equilibrium.

            Also, I would argue that corporate fascism is more in-line with syndicalism than anything Sismondi suggested. Sismondi definitely falls far more in line with the money flow argument of Keynesianism, but it should also be noted that Keynesianism was itself an ideology that its own creator believed was better off existing under a more totalitarian state like Natsoc Germany.

          • Kel Thuz

            and how does that fascist corporatism work out today, in American agriculture – which is totally fascist and quota-controlled to avoid “overproduction”? In total inefficiency. How does that fascist corporatism work out today in European Union, which centrally plans agricultural production and guards its common market with high tariffs against the African foodstuffs? In excessive prices for domestic consumers and a whole lot of waste.

            It is obvious you have no grasp of international trade and how markets work IN TIME to effectively allocate (via entrepreneurial activity, that is: profit-seeking activity) means of production to produce the optimal amount of a given good in a given time, in the best possible place. When states hamper international trade and movement of capital and goods, inefficiencies arise and half-wit fascists start to boss people around “to avoid excess production”.

          • Hadding Scott

            There is no corporatism in the United States. You obviously don’t know what it is. Check Wikipedia. The article on corporatism is actually pretty good.

          • Kel Thuz

            you fall prey to idealistic autistic thinking. Your idealized corporatism does not exist and never existed in modern age, even under Mussolini. Mises pointed it out in his treatise “Liberalism in the Classical Tradition”. Real-world corporatism takes form of that which is observed today in USA and EU, especially in agricultural sector. Nonetheless, it is an extremely ineffective way of running any industry or sector of economy. But what can we expect from people who are not really attuned to this world, but rather live in a world of abstract forms and desire to rule over others to force those abstract forms upon us.

          • Hadding Scott

            You still didn’t read Wikipedia’s article about corporatism to find out what it is, did you?

    • Christopher Cantwell

      You would be a more effective communicator of your ideas if you stopped pretending to know what libertarians understand

      • Hadding Scott

        I happen to know where the blindspots are, largely because I used to be in that matrix myself.

        • Christopher Cantwell

          You disprove that statement every time you make such utterances

  • Gluebrain

    I feel for your mother. You need to make a concerted effort to check in with her regularly.

    • Stuart Morrow

      She should listen to the show.

  • the ultimate gaylord

    Chris you should read the chapter of Mein Kampf “On War Propaganda” to understand why exactly it is the average normalfag doesn’t give a shit about and won’t be swayed by nuanced arguments and is in fact impervious to all of these arguments and data. Especially economics. How is it that hucksters in think tanks have been able to lie to the populace about the “benefits” of mass migration, outsourcing, offshoring for so long? Mostly monopoly of platform and that almost no one knows a goddamn thing about economics or bothers to do the math involved. All of these things are bad for the local country and its people, but think tanks have shilled it successfully on an appeal to “expert authority” for so long because hey some well-coiffed guy with a fancy degree says it’s so, so it must be true.

    Intellectuals want to hear your arguments, see your data and make up their own mind. Unfortunately, most people aren’t intellectuals. Very few are and of those that “are” very few are honest and a lot of them are motivated by group interests to the exclusion of treating arguments and data in a neutral fashion. The great masses of normalfags need propaganda that is: True to life, framed well, and easy for them to understand. That is the essence of Joseph Goebbels propaganda methods. In comparison to the jewish methods of Bernays which is just lie big, lie a lot and control all platforms for the dissemination of information to keep out contrary views and propaganda.

    • Hadding Scott

      Economic arguments are more often than not used to excuse racially destructive policies. Immigration is always justified with an economic argument. It is important to establish that there is something more important than economics.

      • the ultimate gaylord

        Yes it’s obvious on the jew end that it’s being used to profit while destroying white countries racially, but on the think tank shill end with for example Charles Murray it’s self-interest. It’s his proverbial 30 silver shekels.

        There are things more important than economics but you can also point out that even the economic argument doesn’t hold out except for rootless corporations and individuals who benefit while the entire country goes to pot.

  • Stuart Morrow

    18:00 The masses have been indoctrinated with anti-racism long enough that they are never going to accept that

    Also:

    (prev episode) Leftists are effective because they’re so decentralised

    Yes. Shoah #58 @ 35:00

    1:07:50 Hopefully I had the good sense to attach this in Audacity to the prior recording

    You can literally just cat mp3s together with `cat`, and no reencoding takes place. If they are all the same bitrate. The last one’s tags become the tags of the joined version.