"The         Age of the Fine Print: Socializing Costs, Privatizing Profits" --         My new         VDARE.com column is up. It's about the berserk reaction by the         establishment press to the Speaker of the House's announcement that,         rather than go into the smoke filled room with the Senate, the House         would hold public hearing on immigration.
       
        An excerpt:
Let's          step back to put the immigration controversy in a new and broader          historical perspective.
        
        At the end of the Cold          War, Francis Fukuyama announced          that we had reached "The          End of History." Obviously, somebody forgot to send History          the memo.
        
        Yet, in the narrow Hegelian/Marxist sense in which Fukuyama used the          term "History," he was correct. The big controversy of the          20th Century—socialism vs. capitalism—was effectively over. Pure          socialism was dead. Capitalism had survived, but not laissez-faire.          From now on there would be markets, but with government          interference.
       
        Unfortunately, many commentators are still living in the past. They          think basic ideology is still the big issue—the free          market vs. socialism.          Well, history hasn't ended, but it has moved into a new stage. Regulated          capitalism has won, so most of the political struggles in the future are          not going to be about the old boldface big ideas like nationalizing the          means of production, but about the fine print.
        
        The politics of the present and future will revolve around various organized          interests trying to put one over on the disorganized          rest of us in the particulars of legislation.
        
        Contra Fukuyama, there will never be a ceasefire in this struggle          between the clever and the clueless. The Age of Ideology is over but the          Age of the Fine Print is upon us.
        
        For instance, back in 1996 when the California legislature unanimously deregulated          the state's          electricity market, few in public life bothered to read the fine          print because the ideological principle of deregulation seemed so          historically inevitable at the time. Well, it turned out the devil was          definitely in the details. The only people who mastered the minutiae          were the traders at Enron          and other such firms, who raped          California out of billions.
        
        A basic strategy for the crafty to make money is privatizing profits and          socializing costs. To do this, they use tame politicians and journalists          to help them hand their costs of doing business off to the public.          (Economists, when they aren't blinded          by ideology, call these costs "externalities.")
        
        By importing “cheap          labor”, employers shift major costs—such as medical          care and policing—to          you and me.
        
        The Senate Sellout would further increase the burdens imposed on us.
        
        And that's why its supporters in the press don't want us to worry our          pretty little heads about what's in those 118,227 words in the Senate          immigration bill.
A reader writes:
Under  post-Cold War globalization, the Age of Ideology gives way to the Age of  Ethnology. The big question changes from the (Platonic) policy-oriented “what  form of state is best?” to the (Leninist) political-oriented “whose group  rules the state?"
It's pretty clear that cultural identity now trumps political economy in  determining the great questions of statecraft. The equity of civil society and  the efficacy of state polity depends as much upon the citizenry’s individual  natures as it does upon the civitas’ institutional structures.
Cultural identity issues are typically unmentionable in normal ethical language  since they essentially boil down to grabs for power and money by rival  gangs/tribes. That is one reason why cultural theory is so unintelligible – if  its assumptions and conclusions were stated in plain language people would laugh  or throw-up.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
 
 
 
 Posts
Posts
 
 
 
 
 
 
No comments:
Post a Comment