That isn't to say that it
is a GOOD option or the best option available. But it is a better option than
continuing the post-1965 trajectory of driving the price of labor ever downward in
order to keep the usury pumps going:
Every single economic policy change since about 1990 has had two
primary effects:
a) lowered real wages through increased labor market participation and/or lowered demand for labor
b) increased the value of fixed assets or investment instruments
In other words, if you were “holding” in 1987, when the oldest Boomers were forty and the youngest were twenty-five, you’re golden now. If you were just starting your career in 1987, you were racing against time. If you’re starting today, the deck has been stacked against you higher than you’ll ever clear. Want to live the middle-class life of 1975? Better hope your IPO nets you ten million bucks. The wealthiest of the Baby Boomers deliberately created a world in which they’d pay less for the things they wanted (employees, labor, televisions) while being paid more for the things they owned (real estate, index funds, 1959 Les Pauls, 1985 Porsche 911s). It was a hell of a trick, wasn’t it?
Eric Chester looks at the hellscape generated by his generation and what he sees is that there aren’t any more paperboys. I look at it and I have serious concerns. I note that support for explicitly socialist government is growing by leaps and bounds. Some of my friends think this is because the Millennials are stupid. “Don’t they know that they won’t be the people who benefit from a communist government?” This is what I think the proto-socialists have figured out:
a) In the event of a Red Revolution in this country, they have a very slim chance of becoming part of the nomenklatura who have power, real estate, and freedom to determine their own lives.
b) If there is no Red Revolution, they have precisely zero chance of ever owning a home, saving for retirement, or starting a traditional family.
a) lowered real wages through increased labor market participation and/or lowered demand for labor
b) increased the value of fixed assets or investment instruments
In other words, if you were “holding” in 1987, when the oldest Boomers were forty and the youngest were twenty-five, you’re golden now. If you were just starting your career in 1987, you were racing against time. If you’re starting today, the deck has been stacked against you higher than you’ll ever clear. Want to live the middle-class life of 1975? Better hope your IPO nets you ten million bucks. The wealthiest of the Baby Boomers deliberately created a world in which they’d pay less for the things they wanted (employees, labor, televisions) while being paid more for the things they owned (real estate, index funds, 1959 Les Pauls, 1985 Porsche 911s). It was a hell of a trick, wasn’t it?
Eric Chester looks at the hellscape generated by his generation and what he sees is that there aren’t any more paperboys. I look at it and I have serious concerns. I note that support for explicitly socialist government is growing by leaps and bounds. Some of my friends think this is because the Millennials are stupid. “Don’t they know that they won’t be the people who benefit from a communist government?” This is what I think the proto-socialists have figured out:
a) In the event of a Red Revolution in this country, they have a very slim chance of becoming part of the nomenklatura who have power, real estate, and freedom to determine their own lives.
b) If there is no Red Revolution, they have precisely zero chance of ever owning a home, saving for retirement, or starting a traditional family.
This is why the
Nationalist Right is inevitable. This is why the globalist world order will
fail, either in Nationalist ice or Socialist fire. And the painful economic
reality is that either course will be more viable than the status quo. This
explains the otherwise inexplicable appeal of Bernie Sanders. As awful as he
is, the jewish socialist is legitimately a less horrific candidate than the
jewish corpocrat.
