Vol.09--No.2019
The nAbAt a ICC soApboX
Tuesday,Sep 24,2019 
6 Users Online
An Anarchists Take On MacroEconomics | By Anonymous | August 17, 2019 - 17:44 | Posted in CyberGuerrilla | 1 Comment

So, this is a chapter I’ve been working on for a much larger book I hope to publish over the coming months, I will keep publishing more and more pieces here over time, along with the individual pdf files for people to own or use before the book even comes out. I post it here because I think this community will appreciate its content more than most audiences, and I have been working with Anonymous and CyberGuerrilla dating back to 2015. My state of mind will forever be attached to both parties. I hope you enjoy and feel free to let me know your thoughts.

Read/Download PDF in Full: https://www.cyberguerrilla.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Economics.pdf

An Anarchists Take On MacroEconomics

I think it goes without saying at this point, but my brain just doesn’t seem to function the same way as everyone else in society. So, why not use it to break down the effects of good ole fashion American Capitalism on society – eh? Ye-haw!

Last year year while I was living in New York, every time I went to movie theatre I keep seem the same advertisement over and over, week after week. It was an advertisement from the Coca-Cola company detailing how they are trying to ‘build a better tomorrow’ for humanity, how they ‘are working to do good today, so you can have a better tomorrow’ – sentiments like this. It showcased scenes of people all dancing in circles all holding hands, of Coca-Cola workers helping in different communities, or repairing storm damage and delivering water to shelters – etc.

It certainly must have been a successful advertisement campaign, why else show it for so long? Just hearing about it really makes you feel all heartwarming and fuzzy, doesn’t it? Makes you feel really good about the world and what the Coca-Cola company is trying to do, right? Well, that’s just not the way my mind works. For example, every time I saw that video my internal monologue read something like:

Seriously? Coca-Cola does know it’s a liquid candy manufacturing company which infuses its products with carbon-dioxide, that first got famous by mixing cocaine in with their product, right?….. I wonder how much they’ve contributed to Americas diabetes epidemic? …… I wonder how many of their plastic bottles and bottle caps are now currently floating around the great Pacific Garbage Patch or clogging up some whales stomach right now?

I swear, for the life of me, I just cant understand why a liquid candy corporation is trying to sell itself as some great Utopian humanitarian hero of the future? It literally makes no sense to me. But then again, maybe I am just cynical – you think? Regardless, the whole ordeal reminds of an old “Opinion Editorial” I once wrote a couple years ago – long since forgotten. The theme revolved around the concept of how Capitalism has a unique way of corrupting or perverting society, whilst also incentivizing immorality and empowering corruption. What I mean to say it that, at least from my perspective, it just feels like Capitalism has a unique way of motivating people or businesses to make as much money as humanly possible, instead of motivating them to do the best job possible or producing the highest quality product they can.

Here’s what I mean……

This “phenomenon” can be observed in America’s food market where companies, including Coca-Cola, use High Fructose Corn syrup instead of sugar in the production of their products. But did you know that High Fructose Corn Syrup is banned in many countries around the world, such as in Russia and throughout Europe? This is because High Fructose Corn Syrup is far less healthy than traditional sugar. However, American corporations have grown famous/fond for substituting sugar with High Fructose Corn Syrup because it is far cheaper to buy than sugar. Essentially, American companies don’t care if it makes for an unhealthier or lower quality product for their end consumers, if Coca-Cola can save one penny per bottle flavoring with corn syrup instead of sugar, then that’s exactly what they are going to do.

The phenomenon can also be observed in America’s toy manufacturing industry. Remember back in the 40’s and 50’s when everything was made of metal or tin? You can still find many of these toys available today as collectibles. This is because, back in the day, American companies used to strive to produce high quality products – products that would stand the test of time. Today however, all of our toys are made out of plastic and break within a week of being opened. Once again, this is because it’s far cheaper to build/produce something made of plastic than it is metal, so this is exactly the switch American companies have made.

Its effects can also be seen in America’s manufacturing industry, which saw millions of jobs outsourced to India and Asia throughout the 1990’s and 2000’s. Essentially, why would an American company pay an American $15/hour when they could pay some Asian worker $3/hour for the same job? Economically, it just doesn’t make any sense. Consequentially, this is exactly why tens of millions of Americas jobs were outsourced overseas to begin with, so that American capitalists could maximize their profit margins and make as much money as humanly possible.

You can even find it within Americas online entertainment industry. For example, remember when Mark Zuckerberg lost billions of dollars overnight, literally hours after announcing changes to Facebook‘s advertising algorithms – limiting the exposure of advertisements on his social network? At the time, Zuckerberg had came out with a manifesto explaining how he had arrived at this decision as a means of improving/helping society by cracking down on fake news and other click-bait related advertisements which had plagued society and Americas last election in 2016, only to proceed to lose billions for the decision. This was because all of those advertisers made money from Facebook, all the same as Facebook made money from them. So when Facebook cut them off/out, they repaid the favor. But if you just think about it, by trying to do the right thing for American society one man lost billions. Essentially, it is yet another perfect example of why/how it doesn’t exactly pay to do the right or moral thing – at least in American capitalistic society.

No matter where you look or what industry you’re observing, it just feels like the America’s economic model motivates businesses to strive to create the cheapest, lowest quality product they can – that someone will still actually be willing to spend their money on to buy. This is in place of challenging them to compete to produce the best or highest quality product they can, to stand out above their competition and therefore earn peoples money the right way. The way I see it, this is exactly how Capitalism has perverted Americas economic model and culture over time. All of this, by the way, is not to mention all the money America’s military industrial complex profits off every War we wage – literally making trillions off bloodshed and death. Hardly moral by any means, yet death/War is one of America’s most profitable niche markets.

With that out of the way, Capitalism is not the only thing which has corrupted America’s culture over time….

 

Debt & The Failures of American Banking

About this next piece, I hope one day someone can look back at this book and think to themselves: why the didn’t we see or stop this sooner? What the hell were we all thinking? Regardless, at the time of this book, July 2019, the United States Government held 22.4 Trillion Dollars in National Debt. Moreover, United States Congress had operated the United States Government under an annual budget deficit every year since 2002. Despite being tasked with controlling our Nations finances, the US Central Banking System (the Federal Reserve) has allowed the finances of the United States Government to spiral into an unrecoverable hole. As a result, the finances of the average American have also been crippled.

For example, at the time of this book, 80% of Americans admit to being burdened by some form of debt & 70% admit they could not afford their lifestyles without the active use of debt. The average American currently holds over $7,000 in credit card debt. The average ‘homeowner’ owes, on average, $164,000 on their mortgages. The average college graduate in American owes, on average, $29,000 on their student loans. Moreover, it’s estimated that each month, 43% of all households in the US spend more money than they make and 41% of all Americans either have re-occurring medical expenses or hold outstanding medical debts. In total, it’s estimated that the average American adult holds/owes somewhere around $225,238 in debt – each. It should go without saying, but in the 21st century the United States of America and all of its citizens are completely and entirely bankrupt.

Now, if you really want to fry your noodles, consider the fact that, according to the US Treasury Department, only $1.7 Trillion Dollars exists in the form of physical currency. This means that if every coin and Federal Reserve Note in the world were magically handed in right this very instant, not only would there be no money left for anyone in society to spend, but there would only be $1.7 trillion dollars to account for. Breaking things down further, this means that if we’ve spent $22.4 Trillion Dollars in conjunction with our National Debt, but only have $1.7 to account for in reserve, this means only 7.6% of all money actually exists as something tangible. Consequentially, this means that 92.4% of ‘money’ exists only inside in cyberspace, as numbers and figures transferred from computing system to computing system across them inter-webs. In other words, 92.4% of all money is nothing more than fake debt/credit that doesn’t actually exist anywhere, except within the pages of accounting books – right Tyler Durden?

So, how did this happen?…….

What you have to remember is that from the perspective of a bank, such as the Federal Reserve, debt is equal to credit; accounts receivable; an asset. This is why banks have no problem lending loans or extending credit lines because theoretically, the more money they lend out today, the more money they will make for themselves in the future – especially considering interest rates. This has created an economic model putting the entire country, its Government and its people, in an unrecoverable hole of debt. Once again, this is because the more debt which a bank creates on its records, the more assets these banks make on their accounts receivable. In other words, the more poverty and debt the people of this country suffer from, the more it becomes the banking institutions fortunes. Yet another corruption of American society and its economic model; Capitalism.

IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EVER ALLOW PRIVATE BANKS TO CONTROL THE ISSUE OF THEIR CURRENCY, FIRST BY INFLATION, THEN BY DEFLATION, THE BANKS AND CORPORATIONS THAT WILL GROW UP AROUND THEM WILL DEPRIVE THE PEOPLE OF ALL PROPERTY UNTIL THEIR CHILDREN WAKE UP HOMELESS ON THE CONTINENT THEIR FATHERS CONQUERED…I BELIEVE THAT BANKING INSTITUTIONS ARE MORE DANGEROUS TO OUR LIBERTIES THAN STANDING ARMIES… THE ISSUING POWER SHOULD BE TAKEN FROM THE BANKS AND RESTORED TO THE PEOPLE, TO WHOM IT PROPERLY BELONGS.” – THOMAS JEFFERSON

Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1935)

Empires are Made To Fall

A few years back there was a speech given by British High Commissioner James Bevan in which he stated confidently that “Britian’s best days are ahead of us.” A positive message to share with his country indeed, but when I heard this I literally laughed out loud. I mean, Britain used to own half the world including the United States, Australia, Yemen, Hong Kong, India – et cetera – but now all these countries combined have larger economies than Britain itself – some just by themselves. I mean, it’s just a common sense fact, Britain’s “best days” are long since behind them at this point in history – well behind them. Just think about it, dating back to the 1500’s have any countries around the world fallen off any more significantly than France, Britain, Spain and Portugal?

Why do you think the US speaks English, why does Mexico speak Spanish, why does Brasil speak Portuguese and why does half of Canada still speak French? It’s because when those fascist Caucasian imperialist invaded, genocided and dived up ‘the new land,’ Britain got the US, Spain got central America, Portugal got South America and France got Canada. Hundreds of years later now these countries are all their own independent nations, no longer colonies. The way I see history, Britain, Spain, Portugal and France are just a shell of what they used to be here in the 21st century. Their empires fell hundreds of years ago.

From Babylon to Rome to Britain, every empire has seen its rise and fall. Its almost a mathematical certainty that all empires will at one point or another come to an end. In the 20th and 21st century, America has presided as world leader over perhaps the single most prosperous and productive era in human history. But have the times of robust economical development and social innovation met our global limits? Is all the economic stagnation around the world something we must begin to accept as the new ‘norm’ headed into the future, or are we just caught awkward time before the next technological boom of innovation propels society forward?

Before moving on, lets contemplate the phenomenon of economic stagnation and how this has effected global markets in the past. By definition, secular stagnation is a condition of negligible or no economic growth in a market-based economy. In other words, when per capita income stays at relatively high levels, the percentage of savings is likely to start exceeding the percentage of longer-term investments in, for example, infrastructure and education, that are necessary to sustain future economic growth. The absence of such investments and consequently of the economic growth, leads to declining levels of per capita income – and consequently, of per capita savings. With a reduced percentage savings rate converging with the reduced investment rate, economic growth comes to a standstill– id est, it stagnates. While there’s no single definition of secular stagnation, most economists would agree it includes some combination of low growth, low inflation and low interest rates lasting more than a few years. Ever seen those FED rates?

There are many potential explanations for this shift, but the most plausible relates to demography. Growth was rapid in the aftermath of the Second World War, as Europe was reconstructed, and some of the benefits of pre-war technological change filtered through to the economy. Then, from the mid-1960s onward, the baby boomers began joining the workforce. However, now the baby boomers are starting to retire and the cost of caring for these people in retirement is skyrocketing. Perhaps more importantly, the workforce is no longer growing like it once did in the pre-baby boomer era. In fact, it’s only forecasted to shrink as we continue to be crippled by recession. As we have seen over much of the last century, many jobs from cashier clerks to industrial workers have been lost due technological innovation and automation. Other jobs simply never open up, because some boomers can’t afford to retire and it’s hard for someone in their 20’s to compete for a job with someone whom has 40 years experience. So, will future technological advances/innovations open up more jobs for people than they take? Only time will tell.

In the mean time, the United States faces some serious economic hurdles that need to be overcome in the short term before we can ever think about growth in the long term. I remember listening to President Obama once say thatanyone claiming that America’s economy is in decline is peddling fiction.Like Bevan, it was another statement I couldn’t help but shake my head at. While it is true the United States still maintains the largest economy in the entire world, we are not without our faults.

For example while it is true that President Obama created more jobs than any other President in history, it’s also true that there were 5.8 million fewer Americans working full time in 2016 then there were in 2007 – because 92% of the jobs Obama created were part time because employers didn’t want to pay for employee Health Insurance mandated by full time employees under the terms of the Affordable Care Act, another one of Obama’s brain-childs. As a result, the median household income over the same time period fell by 2.2%. Consequently, the percentage of Americans living below the US defined poverty line increased from 12% in 2007 to 14.8% in 2016. Though it is not directly his fault and Mr. Obama did inherit an economy on the verge of collapse, the fact remains that poverty under his administration reached the highest levels the US had seen dating back over 50 years. So, don’t let the charisma and patriotic speeches/rhetoric fool you.

Moreover, during one of his Presidential Address Mr. Obama claims to have “cut the unemployment rate in half” and while this is technically ‘true’, it was only true due to the fact that in 2010 Obama literally changed the definition of how the government calculates unemployment rates. Essentially, in 2010 Obama removed the classification of people who were perpetually out of work or out of the work force for extended times. These people were dropped from the statistics altogether. In doing so, this artificially dropped the “unemployment rate” as it had previously been defined. In fact, based on the old standard of definition for the unemployment rate as it existed prior to 2010, in 2016 the unemployment rate was 15.8%. This means the real unemployment rate had actually risen over 10% under the Obama administration.

This is how the global shift in economic activity has effected United States citizens, but when it comes to government the news isn’t much brighter either. For example, did you know that the United States government has been operating the country under an annual budget deficit literally every year since 2002 running? As a result, our national debt currently sits at 22.5 trillion dollars. In fact, did you know the US’s combined (historical) national debt is up over 350% from 2002 alone – greater than every other country in the world combined? Or that our national debt it up nearly 200% within that last decade? This is happening all while income rates all around the country are dropping and health care expense and poverty rates are rising. These are hardly positive long term trends, especially coupled with the rise of inflation following the bailout.

So, just like Britain of the past, is the United States now beginning to reach the ends of our empire? There’s no denying that our country is in complete decline and global paradigm has begun to shift. Just like so many countries before us, it appears as though the United States has already began collapsing under the weight of its debt/expenses/empire for over a decade now, just how long it takes to reach full collapse is anyone’s guess. I’ve heard many people from China state that the 20th Century belonged to the West, the 22nd century will belong to Asia. Guess we’ll just have to see if that prediction ever plays itself out.

 

The Enigmatic Allure of Socialism

You will never convince me that Socialism or so-called ‘Democractic-Socialism’ isn’t doomed to fail, that full economic collapse isn’t built directly into the economic model itself. For the purposes of this book I am not going to get into a discussion of every single Socialist country which has failed over time – that’s what Google is for. Instead, I want to focus on the overall theory of why socialism has doomed itself to fail – at least as I see it.

I mean, lets just start with the modern problems afflicting the European Union in the 21st century. Just think about it, in 1999 the Euro currency was introduced onto the world stage and while it has gone on to become the second largest currency worldwide, it’s also leading to the inevitable collapse of the EU. In just 20 years since its introduction, Greece’s economy has collapsed, Spain’s economy has collapsed, France’s economy is collapsing and the most powerful country in the entire union, England, is trying to ‘Brexit’ as soon as possible – because they are sick of paying the bills of all the countries failing. Essentially, England knows that the socialist union known as the EU is collapsing – and it’s not a matter of if, but when?

But f*ck talking about England for a second, lets ask the question of why this is happening in the first place? While there are much larger factors at play that I will delve into momentarily, lets use Greece as the perfect example why socialist countries fail. For example, Greece introduced new laws giving workers months off for paid vacation each year, there was free health insurance for employees, raises to the minimum wage, new regulations on businesses – so on and so forth. Sounds pretty cool – right? Who wouldn’t want so much paid vacation time mandated each year – right? Who wouldn’t want to work in Greece then – right?

Whelp, the problem becomes that fact that someone has to pay for all these things/entitlements. This then places the burden on businesses, whom get over taxed and then lose even more money on top on that with Government mandates, increased employee benefits/wages – et cetera. Remember good ole fashion Capitalism – yeah? Why would a business then operate out of Greece when they could have a lower tax burden and decrease expenditures by simply moving to Austria or Germany? So that’s what businesses there did. As a result, when all the businesses leave there are now less jobs in Greece, which not only impacts unemployment rates but also cuts funding to the Government, whom relies on money from taxing businesses and the pay checks of citizens living there.

As the old saying goes “Socialism is Great! Until you run out of other peoples money.” Consequentially, this is why Greece bankrupted itself, by over taxing people and over regulating businesses without adjusting Government programs or expenditure. When the people lose money, the Government loses money and when the Government loses money it can’t afford to finance itself and the country fails. Such has been the case in Spain, Greece, France and Venezuela recently – and such is Socialism for that matter, the same reason why the Socialist economic model will always be doomed to fail for all time.

What you have to understand here is that all Socialist believe the solution to all problems is more Government, that to solution to every failure of Government is more/bigger Government. And the bigger the Government becomes, coupled with inflation, the more money the Government then needs to spend sustain itself; the more money they then need to steal from citizens living there and businesses operating there. It is also a problem of Liberalism in general, I think. Yes, I’m a fiscal and social conservative myself, so my opinion may be biased here, but I do not think my ideology to be relevant.

For example, what makes liberalism, liberalism in the first place is the notion that all problems in society need to be dealt with in live time as they are happening. Meaning that the issues of today must be dealt with as the come. This way, over time, as society/humanity shifts and evolves over time, the Government will be well adjusted to evolve along with it. Here in the United States, the core foundations of social Democracy (Democratic Party) believe it’s the duty of the Government to respond to whatever is most popular/important at that moment in time, for all time. Meaning that whatever issue seems to be getting the most headlines or fuss over that day is what the Government ought to be dealing with or responding to that day.

A good example of this is Barack Obama’s trangendered bathroom legislation. Catering to needs of .03% of the population as opposed to the 99.7% of the rest of it, because the transgendered bathroom issue was the most popular/controversial thing in this country in that moment which needed dealing with. On the other end of the spectrum, the core foundation of maintaining a republic (Republican Party) entails holding a much more long term and stable political view, to base politics off a core set of principals that do not get corrupted by the so-called ‘popular’ issues of the time. Meaning that what’s popular or pressing today might not be in the best interest of the Republic in the future, so it’s therefore best to never over-react for the sake of short term popularity/approval. Political liberals would then counter; well we’ll just deal with the future when we get there. But that is my whole point, the need for liberal or socialist ideology to keep over funding itself, by making new regulations, programs, responses to each new issues every day, adding to the programs, regulations and responses of yesterday.

Extreme liberalism/socialism just naturally creates a Government monster which needs to keep over feeding itself, which will always require more and more amounts of money to operate/sustain itself the longer it exists and the bigger Government becomes. In turn, this will always lead to continuously increasing taxes and stealing more and more wealth away from the people living there- eventually collapsing each country over the weight of it’s own expenditure. Again, when the people lose start to lose money the government then loses money. It is a self-defeating economic model that should be clear for anyone to see.

 

Marxism Works, Politicians Do Not

This is a brief concept I would like to address because I know and work with a lot of open Communists these days, whom are otherwise ostracized from their societies – especially here in the West. Of course, talk of modern Communism or the history of it wouldn’t be complete without addressing its failings, so I would like to have conversation about my theory why Communist theory has continued to fail over time – century after century.

Of course, most people just joke that Communism naturally turns people lazy. Meaning that Communists countries don’t seem have a way of motivating anyone to do anything like Capitalist ones do, because the Government consumes so much money/power from the citizens that the citizens and every aspect of their lives then becomes dependent on the exercises, policies and priorities of their Government – which may not always be ideal or moral. But this is also exactly the point, why Communism always fails every-time; because of the politicians executing Karl Marx’s theories.

As I have always personally believed, Communism and Marxist theory in general has always failed because the men/leaders that Karl Marx inspired were not Karl Marx himself. What I mean to say that Karl Marx is a household name all around the world to this very day for a reason, he was a very smart man with a high set of morals and ethics, whom had a completely upstanding set of principals for revolutionizing Government, society and communities. On through to today, 200 years later, Karl Marx’s economic philosophies continue to inspire and he is still regarded as one of the most influential philosophers of all time. But that’s also the problem.

What you need to understand is that Marxism/modern Communism fails time after time not because of Marx’s theories, but because the men whom go on to lead Communist countries are not Karl Marx himself. I bet if Karl Marx were ever President over a country he would have a perfectly fine society to live in, but Karl Marx was never a politician or leader of any Nation/Army – he was merely an intellectual. Therefore, in my opinion, the failure of all Marxist states is then a failure of the men whom tried to lead those countries – not because the political theory itself. I mean, Karl Marx is a true original. It’s literally impossible for any Government leader to have his same set of ethics, morals, mentality, intelligence, principles of Marx for themselves. They are just not the same person he was, so they cant lead a country the same way he would have. This explains why Communism always becomes corrupt by leaders, bankrupted because of mis-allocated tax funds and/or War efforts before the countries collapse. Again, this is not because of a failure of Marx’s philosophies, but rather the personalities/mentalities of the people he inspired – whom could never act or behave or lead in the same manner/fashion Marx would have.

Inflation & Wages

I guess I’m writing this here today because it’s a hot button issue in America at the time of this article and keeps getting more and more press as we head closer into the election season. To set this up, Political ideology aside, its a fact that wages have not kept up with the cost of inflation and the average American make less today comparably to what the average American used to make in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Inflation has skyrocketed in the United States ever since the Federal Reserve stimulus package of 2009 stock markets continue to inflate and set new all time records seemingly each passing month now. Meaning that, theoretically, a minimum wage hike may be deemed necessary if anyone in this country is to maintain the same quality of life headed into the future, because monetary inflation is only going to keep soaring in the immediate future.

Liberals contend that wage increases will be necessary to help each individual in society, while conservatives warn of the increased strain/burden increased wages will put on businesses which provide people with money in the first place – remember the enigma of Socialism? While there are two trains of though on this issue, it’s my book – so I want to point out a couple fallacies in this economic wage debate, as well as address a few other issues.

Some contend that raising the minimum wage would immediately put more money in the pocket of low-wage workers, who would then spend the money on things like housing, food, gas and luxuries. Arguing that this boost in demand for goods and services would only then help to stimulate the economy and help create new business market emerge. I don’t necessarily argue, but it’s a commonly held liberal belief that tax breaks to/for the rich will never work because the rich will simply just keep/hoard the money for themselves instead of equitably re-investing it back into society or the economy. As they then put forward, in order to expand the economy, we must put more money into the hands of the ‘common man,’ who is more apt to spend a higher percentage of their yearly earnings – thus benefiting the entire economy. But there is an entirely separate train of thought, which happens to be my own.

The way I see it, and I’ve been homeless before, by raising the minimum wage for everyone we would be stealing billions of dollars from employers without actually increasing the amount of money available to them within the closed economic system itself. This can only result in two things, an increase in the costs of goods and services charged by businesses and a decrease in the overall workforce. Though everyone would like to make more money, you have to realize how raising the minimum wage would effect the people giving money to the working class in the first place; businesses.

Simply put, raising minimum wages naturally increases the cost of running a business – it’s cause and effect. However, to cover this new expense businesses/employers will either have to lay off a certain number of employees or raise the costs of their products, because it would be the only two options available to maintain the same level of net profit they did before being mandated to increase wages to their employees. No one knows how many people would actually be laid off if a theoretical nationwide hike on the minimum wage went through to something like $10-15, but it could theoretically cost millions of jobs.

Furthermore, raising the minimum wage prices people out of the workforce. For example, the reason so many people don’t make more than minimum wage today is because they do not have the skill set, education or training to justify a higher salary. So, if the work force is cut and you are one of the previous minimum wage workers whom gets laid off, it’s now going to be exponentially harder for you to find any new job anywhere else. It’s just a fact, with more unemployment and higher wages comes more competition for any new available positions in that market. If you already did not have the skills, education and training before wage hikes went through then you run the risk of being priced out of the market entirely afterwards, perhaps forcing many families to move and uproot, or become more defendant on Federal assistance/entitlements – then requiring the Government to increase expenditure and demand more taxes, perpetuating the cycle.

Raising the minimum wage further hurts businesses by increasing taxes upon that business. For example, some businesses are taxed according to payroll. Therefore, the more workers you have and the more you pay them, the higher your taxes will be. When we look at Medicaid and Social Security, both the employee and employer pay the same amount in taxes. If the minimum wage is increased from 10$ to 15$, employers are now paying 6.2% in taxes on 15$ than they were at 10$. So not only would wage hikes force businesses to pay more money to each individual employee, but it also forces them to pay more to the Government in taxes – a perhaps crippling double whammy that would cost/effect everyone in society.

Believe it or not, US businesses and corporations exclusively already operate under some of the highest tax burdens in the entire world. In a time of recession when entrepreneurship and small business ownership are significantly declining, we cannot continue to hamper peoples aspirations to be in business. In fact, it’s the duty of the government to do the exact opposite of this – at least in my opinion.

Playing this logic out a little further, Australia has a minimum wage much higher than here in the United States comparatively. In fact it’s $15 dollars and hour. It sounds nice – right? Why would anyone want to work in the US when you could earn more in Australia – right? Well, its not until you dig a little deeper into the economics of it all that you start understand the pitfalls of such a high wage. For example, if you go into a store and buy a bag of Doritos anywhere in Australia this will cost you somewhere around $4.50 or a soda for $3. By comparison, you can buy that same bag here in the United States for $2.50 and that soda for $1.89. So, it’s not just as simple as raise the minimum wage and people will have more money for a better quality of life. The fact is, in a closed economic market, all the money being spent buy businesses to cover a higher wages has to come from somewhere. This comes in an increase in the cost of goods and services to customers, like Doritos, and a decrease in the total workforce.

 

The Paradox of Wage Equality

I know, what a sexist headline – right!? I must be a real hate monster and misogynist – right!? Well, you’ve just been triggered, so f*ck what you think – I’m just here to educate fools on the realities of the situation at hand.

The fact of the matter is that the whole notion of equal pay for women is nothing but a fallacy, and the people advocating on behalf of it the strongest are either perverting labor statistics or under educated – take your pick. Believe it or not, it is actually true that women get paid less than men for the same job. So, what the hell am I even on about then – right?

What you need to understand is that women make less than men because, on average, the average female works fewer hours per year than the average man. This is for a number of reasons, but most notably things like pregnancy, maternity leave, spending more time with the family/babies than men are apt to do. Men also don’t get pregnant for 9 months. So, you take less hours per year for one women than her male counter-part and you can absolutely make the argument that she was paid less than him. But was she, really? I mean, it’s all just talking points and logical fallacies – which frustrates me. The fact is that women are not paid less per hour than men for the same job, they just tend to make less than men for the same job, on average, because they work fewer hours.

It’s just common sense when you take half a second to think about it. If a women was doing the literal same job as a man and was getting paid less for it, than that’s an automatic discrimination lawsuit which should have no problem succeeding in court. So, why aren’t you hearing about women winning easy court battles over wage discrimination? It’s because it’s all just logical fallacy. They are not getting paid less, per hour, than a man – so they aren’t actually being persecuted or discriminated against.

At the same time, this is why continue I dismiss this issue politically as well –because its just not a legislative branch issue, it’s a judicial branch issue, which is why politicians should just stop addressing it. It’s all for show and it’s all just a waste of time – in my opinion.



One Response to An Anarchists Take On MacroEconomics

  1. This is probably the worst article I’ve ever read on here.

Leave a Comment (Anonymous).

Comment author must fill out name and e-mail. (Email will not be published).

NOTE - You can use these (HTML tags and attributes):

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Whoever you are, we are ungovernable! Whoever lays his hand on us to govern us, is a usurper and tyrant, and we declare you our enemy.