Dumpster Economics

I think Tolstoy might concede to expanding his point: All happy countries are alike, while each unhappy country is unhappy in its own way. Consider America and Venezuela, for instance. Both are unhappy in their own way…and in their own dumpsters. While ours have commenced exploding, theirs have become cafeterias. There are lessons in both conditions. Perhaps the most surprising of those being that the measure of a people’s happiness can be found in the state of their refuse bins.

And while our detonating dumpsters are certainly suboptimal, tonight I want to focus on those in Venezuela. The situation there appears to be deteriorating faster than Hillary’s motor system, and is generating images even more repulsive as a result.

It’s all really quite unfortunate. Before Hugo Chavez squatted over the countryside, that country had the highest standards of living in its neighborhood. Now the top occupations there are mercenary and line stander. Life has become so dire that empty-eyed wraiths even plunder the zoos to find sustenance in gorilla briskets. At least Harambe died with dignity.

But dignity is now a luxury good in that destitute land. Public coffers are so dusty that the state is struggling to even pay for its own currency. Money costs money, you know. And with high triple figure inflation, new bills are likely to become a primary import staple. Of course the country still sits on a sea of raw petroleum, but how many days in a row can a man stand to eat that? More days than muslims can go without killing, but still no one’s calling them Barrels of Peace.

Anyone reading about Venezuela’s misery will note an extremely frequent remark in the comboxes. This being something to the effect of Socialism Kills. The sentiment is repeated so often (though less probably at Salon.com) that it almost seems a reflex gesture. This lead me to wonder whether there are additional national misery metrics beyond just the blast radius of a country’s dumpsters. Specifically as they pertain to the continuum between socialism and capitalism. This site was extremely useful in addressing that.

Socialism and capitalism are chameleon terms, often taking on the colors of their user’s background. Whether one is used as positive or pejorative is typically a function of the speaker’s fiscal politics. And while they are terms that embody more philosophy than finances, there are figures to roughly approximate the general extent of that philosophy in different countries. Probably the most obvious of these is the percentage of GDP consumed by government. Whatever else they may advocate, capitalists and socialists will always scurry to the low and high sides of this scale.

The first number I was keen to record was Venezuela’s government spending/GDP, since obviously death and deprivation reside at levels more intrusive than this. That figure was 38%. Which is quite a relief until you see that America’s is 38.9%. And now things don’t sound felicitous at all. I call the lemurs!

If we we jettison from consideration city and micro states, along with those countries at war or similarly in process of being helped by America, what follows are the 10 most socialist and capitalist countries.

1. North Korea (100)
2. Cuba (65)
3. Greece (60)
4. Slovenia (60)
5. Finland (58)
6. Denmark (57)
7. France (57)
8. Belgium (55)
9. Sweden (53)
10. Italy (51)

1. Democratic Republic of Congo (13)
2. Sudan (13)
3. Nigeria (13)
4. Guatemala (14)
5. Bangladesh (15)
6. Central African Republic (15)
7. Madagascar (15)
8. Iran (15)
9. Sierra Leone (16)
10. Turkmenistan (16)

I never realized when conservatives talked about unleashing the animal spirits of capitalism it was supposed to be taken as literal. Now note the 10 highest GDP per capita countries.

1. Kuwait (38)
2. Norway (44)
3. Switzerland (34)
4. United States (39)
5. Saudi Arabia (38)
6. Ireland (41)
7. Netherlands (47)
8. Australia (36)
9. Austria (51)
10. Sweden (53)

Ireland is per capita richer than Germany? That’s what it says, though whatever it is about socialism that’s killing Venezuela, its effects seem to be largely depleted by the time they reach foreign shores. In fact, 40% government seems to be about the going rate for wealthy locales. As an aside, the average government consumption in the 10 poorest countries is mid-20s.

Though an indictment of capitalism would only be facetious using strictly these figures. Outside the Kims and Castros, socialism appears very favorable because it’s generally the form of society white people prefer.

Capitalism looks poor in comparison because Africans and Amerinds aren’t competent enough to stand up and maintain the institutions that subsequently vacuum tax dollars from the till. This aside from the fact that their perpetual Kleptocrats will tolerate very little competition for resources from government agencies. And no matter how individually profligate he may endeavor to be, one man is nothing before the spending might of a modern bureaucracy.

But for sake of meaningful analysis, here’s some direct comparisons:

Austria (51) and Switzerland (34) offer a good one. These contiguous states are very similar aside from a dramatic difference on the soc-cap scale. This should be something quite noticeable when crossing the border. Yet in broad scale, it isn’t. They are both peaceful, prosperous, first-tier societies. Though the more capitalist Swiss income is higher than more socialist Austria’s.

You will see nearly identical results in comparisons between Ireland/Uk, France/Germany, and Australia/New Zealand. All similarly situated and desirable countries with significant soc-cap disparities. Yet most would hardly know the difference without looking closely. Clearly soc-cap isn’t determinative within normal boundaries. Though direct wealth comparisons do favor the more capitalist country in every instance above.

Here’s another comparison for sake of diversity. Malawi (49) and Tanzania (20) are also bordering states with enough similarities as to be indistinguishable from a safari’s vantage point. Both are obviously desolate shitholes. And (again) despite roosting on opposite ends of the soc-cap scale, they produce essentially congruent results. In Tanzania’s case ($2,667 per capita income), socialism must kill even when it’s extreme capitalism. Though as with previous examples, socialist Malawi is relatively even worse.

I did find one comparison where the pattern broke. Looking at the contiguous states of Angola, Zambia, and the DRC, the most socialist by a wide margin (Angola) was also by far the wealthiest. I fear one day we’ll be equally wealthy.

So here are the conclusions:

1. It’s almost comical how many perfectly good insults get wasted arguing about political and economic systems, when so much outcome is correlated with demographics.

2. Socialism doesn’t kill until it gets extreme. Capitalism doesn’t kill until it gets black.

3. In most relevant comparisons, capitalism favors higher mean (though not necessarily median) income. The distinction is not trivial.

4. Venezuela has other problems.

5. Whether philosophically committed to socialism or capitalism, your best place to start is with several million white people. The proof is in the dumpsters.



13 thoughts on “Dumpster Economics

  1. Pingback: Dumpster Economics | Reaction Times

  2. This false distinction between “economic systems” is only a way of buying time until the biological truth dawns on the sheeple. Befuddle them with talk of socialism and capitalism while you destroy the greatest treasure they could ever have, i.e. their gene pool.

  3. China from 1940 to 1980 Vs. China today. People thrive under freedom and central planning is not freedom.

    The percent of GDP devoted to public sector stats are almost meaningless. In America almost all health care spending is counted as private sector, but the terms of your insurance as well as your purchases are dictated; banks are private sector, but the USG makes them whole when they lend foolishly and reviews who they lend to, broadcasting is private sector but requires permission from the USG (and before the Internet was surprisingly uniform in its point of view), drug companies are private sector, but the FDA determines what they can sell, housing and higher education are private sector, but tax and lending policies ensure overinvestment in both, taxi’s are private sector but for some reason local governments have to outlaw or hobble uber, the internet is private sector but try to sell an email and text only connection and you go to jail.

      • There is a difference between preventing a man from engaging in fraud or poisoning his neighbor, and having a central committee determine how half or more of his honest income is expended. The left says freedom is simply freedom of the strong to exploit the weak and the racist to discriminate against the minority; so give up your freedom already. Somehow when they start running things everything gets better for them and worse for you.

        All of the people’s states in Europe are deeply in debt, have no opportunity for youth and are about to face the consequences of spending other people’s money. Heck, America went from each generation living twice as well as their parents to the next generation facing, not a doubling of their living standard, nor a stagnation of their living standard, but a decline in their living standard due to fascism (USG control of all aspects of private business).

      • I’m glad you understand that living under laws and regulations is not an ipso facto injury to human dignity. It was easy to infer otherwise from your grocery list above.

        A list that began, btw, with the assertion that public spending to GDP is meaningless. So meaningless, in fact, that one comment later you are citing it prominently as theft from an honest man.

        I also just browsed a list of countries by debt/GDP. Some in Europe are very high, some, like very socialist Denmark for instance, are not. Fortunately, as a function of their parsimonious government outlays, African countries are generally very low debt (Eritrea excluded). And thus are “thriving under freedom,” presumably.

        Though to be clear, my thesis is not that socialism is desirable or capitalism is not. It is rather that any honest man, or even one who is an economist, should understand that the quality (and harmony) of a country’s human capital is far more important to its outcome than the broad range appetite of its government.

  4. Very interesting. How would the normie-cons explain these results, considering their ideological commitment to muh limited government?

    And if not socialism, then why exactly is Venezuela so fucked up? Almost alone among tropical Latin American countries, there was significant European immigration to Venezuela, though the 43.6% of Venezuelans who claim to be white is obviously a gross exaggeration.

    Porter wrote: “Of course the country still sits on a sea of raw petroleum…” They have the world’s largest proven oil reserves, and even that may only be a fraction of all the recoverable oil in the Orinoco basin. Though most of that is hard-to-extract bitumen, similar to the Alberta oilsands.

    So with a sizable white population and enough oil to make the Persian Gulf sand negroes jealous, 15% of the population must either dumpster-dive for dinner or starve. Way to go, amigos!

    And why, after 18 years of the Chavez-Maduro “Bolivarian Revolution,” are they still less socialistic than the United States? Good God these people are incompetent. Compared to Venezuela, Haiti looks like a model of good governance and economic dynamism.

    • How would the normie-cons explain these results, considering their ideological commitment to muh limited government?

      It’s almost a cheap shot on mentally inert targets, but I’m always tempted to ask stock cuckservatives just what would be their problem with any of those ten most capitalist countries above. They all feature very low taxes and small government. That’s pretty much the permissible range of conservative advocacy at this point. So what’s wrong with Nigeria and why wouldn’t they want their own country to be just like it? How could that question be answered within contemporary conservative orthodoxy?

      • “How could that question be answered within contemporary conservative orthodoxy?”

        You can’t answer the question because there is no ‘proper’ way to do so without mentioning the unmentionable. All of those mostly socialist countries still function because they are the whitest countries in the world. All the other countries don’t function because they are full of blacks. Look at any of those African countries, and you are looking at the result of an average IQ of 70 or so, at most. In other words, its a country full of sub-Forrest Gump level morons that are hyper violent to boot. There is no possible way to have a functioning society with half of it sporting a sub 70 IQ. Blacks can’t even maintain an existing city that is built and then handed to them. Take zimbabwe, it was once a thriving country that had abundant food, then the blacks took over, kicked out all the white people, and now they can’t even feed themselves. Its pathetic, and there is no economic system that is going to function with people that stupid.

        One of the arguments I’ve always made when liberals bring up how we should be more socialist like Denmark is that the ONLY reason that works there is because almost everyone there is white, and that it wouldn’t work here. This usually results in me being banned from commenting on the site(twice). We have 50 million dindus and 20 million or so illegals, most of whom refuse to support themselves. What will be interesting to see in Europe is how this is eventually proven right. They never imported a bunch of african slaves like we stupidly did, so they don’t have the dindu problem like we do. However, they are importing a shitload of third worlders from all over the MENA region who are as dumb if not dumber than our very own dindus. This will collapse their cute little welfare states within a generation or two.

  5. Indeed:

    Per capita wealth correlates overwhelmingly with national average IQ, except for countries of the former Communist world (presumably, the careers and job trajectories of much of the current workforce were permanently stunted by getting off to a bad start behind the Iron Curtain), and countries lucky enough to have oil money. Full-blown Soviet-style Socialism will rapidly turn a relatively prosperous country into a destitute pile of rust, bread lines, and eroding concrete, but the beneficial effects a 1.5% reduction in capital gains taxes won’t usually be immediately obvious to anyone who isn’t an economist. Free markets are better than socialism, sure, but there are diminishing returns to economic liberalization after a certain point. Outside the DPRK, demographics matter a lot more than economic policy.

    (In defense of the Libertarians, it’s worth noting that countries with natural economic advantages know they can afford higher taxes, while less intrinsically-lucrative countries often reduce taxes and regulation in the hope of luring away business from wealthier neighbors. This tendency does somewhat obscure the effect of economic policy on national wealth).

  6. You make a good point. Socialism only works with Whites and no one else. However, White populations can make virtually any system work as long as they stay White. National Socialism is the only socialism possible here. Without removing the brown sludge, the socialism will choke on the growth of brown and the displacement of White. Even the enemy admits that welfare and socialism do not go together with brown. The border must be walled off from brown, and the brown has to be thrown out. Globalists move in if socialism is not predicated on White Nationalism.

    • A former soviet satellite state that is suffering from putsch, dismemberment, and low-level war is one explanation. Another is that Slavs typically occupy the left flank of the white prosperity bell curve.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s