1A exists, but the right is being violated on a regular basis. The government engages in its own pay for play system where our rights are violated, and we pay for it twice - when we fund the government with our taxes, and when the government pays out on settlements with our taxes.
Video is stolen from another sub. You can imagine what kind of comments are there.
I keep hearing and reading about how capitalists try to balance the economy in a certain arbitrary window of unemployment level. Apparently that’s what allows paying “slave” wages according to many.
But let’s see how the government benefits from higher unemployment rates:
- more government programs = power expansion
- more dependents = more constituents
- larger pool of individuals that could be involved in government projects
- larger pool of individuals that will join professional military
- crime increases during high unemployment = more need for security forces, more prison bunks are occupied
FDR and his administration usurped a lot of power during the Great Depression. The more I learn about economic recessions and war periods, the more I am convinced that if 1930s wouldn’t be as devastating as they were for the economy, we would have a completely different political landscape and more libertarian political views amongst the population today. While there were still draft evaders during the WWII, there were thousands of people that were willing to be sent to war zone because it was perceived as a better alternative than suffering from starvation at home. A lot of business people got reoriented from producing for civilian needs to become merchants of death, and now they hold a massive political power.
Think about this for a moment - how desperate one must be to make such decision? How much psychological torture before and after making such decision a person has to endure? How much more psychological torture the person has to suffer after returning from the war? Its madness.
Aside from libertarian sources, anytime I come across something that discusses unemployment from political perspective, I never see a word about how the government benefits from high unemployment. The government is always portrayed as “poor government has to take on extra responsibilities”. It’s like people that writing these articles have zero skepticism and it doesn’t even come to their minds to analyze the situation from perspective of the government being a self interested organization. And the worst part, most people that write these articles believe in what they are writing. Ironically, the same people trash the government for being corrupt, wasteful, inefficient, etc. Absolute fucking degeneracy.
TLDR: economic illiteracy and confusion is a standard in masses and in academia. The monopolists that supply our currency will never be replaced by the free market until people understand the subject of time preference, opportunity cost, and money/currency. There’s no conspiracy (though some conspiracies took place), but merely converging self interests of the powerful people that benefit from keeping population illiterate. Pouring more money into public education will only exacerbate the problem, as teachers and academics get funding from the very people that are interested in perpetuating the existing scam we call education. The only peaceful and effective way out (imho) is not through teaching economics, but through radicalizing people into independence as the only acceptable social norm and condition of the individual.
Where do I start…
Besides the stupidity of stretching a $1M for 83+ years of monthly payments, let’s just see how much of it will be lost to inflation. I’ll take US instead of Canada for this exercise.
Back of of the napkin #s:
- if one took $1k/m in Jan 1990, by Jan 2025, they’d collected $260k-$270k in 1990 purchasing terms. 35 years, that’s barely above the quarter of the actual winning.
- if one took $1k/m in Jan 1980, they would’ve collected <$260k in 1980 purchasing power in 45 years.
- if one the deal on Jan 1970, they’ve collected <$250k in 55 years.
- from Jan 1945 to Jan 2025 one would collect <$240k in terms of 1945 purchasing power. 80 years of payments, still less that $1M ($960k) collected in nominal terms.
That’s an absolute lunacy.
Even with insane marginal tax rates of 1945, having $1M taxed would make more sense. The person would’ve received less than $100k on hand, but it still undoubtedly would make more sense. Because alternatively, taking $1k/m tax free in Jan 1945 would require roughly 144 monthly payments to accumulate around the same purchasing power. That’s 12 years of uncertainty, putting one into 1957, with the same purchasing power they could have instantly in 1945.
The opportunity cost is still so obvious even when losing over 90% to Uncle Sam and completely ignoring the uncertainty.
This short demonstration is a proof of complete ignorance (we can call this a lack of sufficiently rational self interest) of certain individuals when it comes to entrepreneurship, money, capital, subject of inflation, opportunity costs, and time preference. All of these are the major topics of Austrian Economics, but in the mainstream today these topics are reduced to formulas, tables, and macro models, all affirmed by “experts” and being taught to be accepted as validated truths. Models built with flawed metrics accounting for actions of tens of millions of individuals as universal truths. That kind of insanity can be produced only by people that don’t have sufficient understanding of the market themselves and their (mis)understanding of an individual person is often rooted in their own personal belief in egalitarianism. Some of them are well meaning social technocrats (like Stephanie Kelton), some are just doing what they are getting paid for (like Alan Greenspan) - both types are demonstrating their self interests by fooling the public as its own expense, both are not taking self interest serious enough to acknowledge that individuals and businesses are capable of doing rational decisions, while their own work only deprives individuals of ability to make rational decisions, so they get validation of their own ideas by producing terrible economic teachings and policy recommendations.
While there are not that many people out there who would take $1k/month, there’s really no shortage of economically illiterate people out there. I remember similar posts in more politicized vs SipsTea subs, and the number of people liking the idea of $1k/m was staggering. I’ve seen dozens of posts in all sorts of personal finance subs where people discuss annuities, permanent life insurance policies, investments, lottery winnings, etc, and a lot of horrible advice gets upvoted to the top. Because people were taught bad economics.
I’m have a strong feeling that a subject of economics is being deliberately moved to “not for peasants” category by over complicating, hyper compartmentalization, fixating on models (aka planning), and macro vs being focused on human and market psychology, rationality, and microeconomics.
Anyone thinking this girl that have chosen $1k/m made her decision in the vacuum of her own empty head didn’t take a second to think about it. An unqualified, especially younger person, usually would seek opinions and/or advice from whoever they find to be more competent of making the right choice when we speak about a fortune like that. Which means the people she spoke with were overwhelmingly on the side of $1k/m over paying taxes on the entire $1M and calling it a day. They don’t know better because they were taught bad economics.
Not to diverge from the subject, but this speaks a lot about quality of education that children and young adults get at schools and colleges. I remember my first economics textbook in the ex soviet state in the 90s, which was a mix of soviet planned economy theory with some of the Keynes’,
Fisher’s, and Samuelson’s work, and it still defined Inflation as nothing but increase in the supply of currency, and it had a clean explanation of how currency inflation affects prices on products and services. Ironically, it wasn’t a new subject to anyone in the classroom because by then, we’ve lived through 3 cycles of hyperinflation in less than 10 years, and everybody knew that inflating currency always leads to hire prices.
Yet today, even educated people, including academics and supposed experts, will engage in all sorts of mental gymnastics to explain price inflation (cost push and demand pull inflation “experts” drive me nuts), where they never put currency supply inflation as the first cause, when it’s really the only cause, as any other changes in prices are nothing but fluctuations which reflect market conditions and consumer preferences.
To conclude-
It doesn’t take long to understand who benefits from such economic illiteracy, especially when it comes to money. We just have to follow the money. Federal government debt soon will hit $40 Trillion. Banks will continue to gamble and inflate prices of real and paper assets as long as “money” can be created out of thin air and they can get bailed out through any number of schemes set by the Federal Reserve. Massive asset holders will continue to exploit the system that allows them to leverage growth in nominal terms to acquire more assets while producing nothing new in terms of value for the market. So realistically, we have <5% of population that controls, benefits, and perpetuates the system in direct and indirect ways. Maybe 20% - 30% of the population that understands it, but prefers to remain silent (upper middle class with diverse assets). And roughly 60% - 70% of the population that’s being exploited by that system. That’s why many young people don’t shy away from calling existing conditions a modern slavery. However, they don’t blame the government, they seek government intervention, when it’s the government who financial crippled them in first place. Some blame capitalism, and the overwhelming majority blames free markets which never been free, and been heavily influenced and controlled through government policies ever since the US was established. Hamiltonians have stolen people’s sovereignty by taking over the control of currency, Keynesians have brainwashed people into aggregate demand based policies, and we’re paying for it with our lives. Because every hour of work is an hour of our lives. An hour that we could spend with our loved ones. An hour we could spend on our hobbies. Younger generations that entered the market around COVID can absolutely call this a legalized slavery/feudalism scheme because they never experienced anything resembling good economy in US terms. And I don’t blame, or judge them for having such opinion.
There’s only one way out of this mess. While spending time on trying to educate your friends and strangers online on rather boring and somewhat complex, less applicable economic topics like theories is helpful, I personally believe the idea of independence/freedom and personal responsibility would go much further than trying to teach someone about the differences in schools of thought. Pushing independent contracting, small business, and entrepreneurship hits both - independence and responsibility. Anyone who engages with markets as a business owner/independent contractor/entrepreneur will inevitably learn real truths about money, opportunity costs, time preference, and a cost of government intervention. They’ll become austrians in their thinking and in their actions, which is way more important than knowing the differences in theories.
THE END.
My personal background - I didn’t learn about Austrian Economics from books. I’ve practiced anarcho capitalism within a state before even moving to the US and discovering anarcho capitalism as an ideology. I’ve seen and I participated in de facto free markets as a child, as a teenager, and as a young adult and it’s almost entirely opposite of what people are made to believe about free markets in the West, in countries that never experienced heavily planned economy and heavily controlled currency, and in the US in particular. I learned Austrian Economics and all its ideas via my interactions with other market participants.
Side story: up until around 1995 we were literally doing origami and papier-mache out of sheets with bills printed on them, because adults didn’t bother cutting low denominations into single notes. Most private businesses would not accept them, but nonetheless, the central bank continued to print those and forced them into the market through private banks and by paying a portion of salaries of government employees. So at least a part of that of inflation was mitigated by private market rejecting small denominations notes, but its unknown at what cost to the regular people, because business owners that had to get cash out of banks would keep all high denominations to themselves, and any bureaucrat that had power over controllers and accountants in government entities made sure they don’t get paid in small denominations either (same dynamics was in the 80s while still in socialism with co-ops). So just like in the market economy, in a mixed economy, and in heavily planned economy via interest rates manipulations and incentives schemes, as long as the government sets a monopoly on currency, it’s the less financially fortunate people that will have to bear the cost of inflation.
The problem with “market economy” of the US is that people aka market participants no longer have proper understanding what causes inflation because the existence of private banks and due to the deranged explanations of academics and “experts” that only obfuscate and confuse the public. Children and young adults being taught to think - money is whatever the government declares it to be. They don’t see money as commodity. They don’t see labor as commodity. They are being disincentivized to lower their time preferences due to inflationary policy while being repeatedly told “we need 2% inflation”. And many waste years and tens of thousands of dollars on tuition to be taught the nonsense that supports fiat feudalist system.
The end the end.
I think they banned me for asking how their redistribution system supposed to work, and how is not hierarchical when someone gets to decide who gets what lol
TLDR - statism leads to psychological problems. And we pay for them with our freedoms.
Modern politics in the US runs on cognitive dissonance and gaslighting.
Cognitive dissonance is when you feel tension between what you personally see or believe, and what “your” political “side” expects you to say or think. Gaslighting is when people or institutions push you to doubt your own perception of reality.
The left and right both do this, just differently.
The left often does it through social pressure:
“If you question certain narratives or language, you’re ignorant or immoral.” - that’s your “what about grandma” and “you’re anti-vaxxer” crowd during COVID. Or like those idiots that were screaming “we have a great economy, look at the GDP” during Biden’s term.
The right often does it through fear and tribal loyalty:
“If you criticize our side, you’re helping destroy the country.” - that’s all the dumbasses that can’t stop bringing the past into every conversation and call everyone critical of current party in power a leftist. It’s the same people that will defend war with Iran talking about nuclear weapons and oppressed population of Iran.
Some of this comes from government and media through messaging, selective framing, and narrative control. Some comes from the public itself — social media, online mobs (we usually see who you are), partisan communities, influencers (“we need a ballroom” agents), etc.
A lot of regular people end up feeling stuck between “what I honestly think” and “what I’m supposed to say if I want to fit in with my side.”
Statists don’t realize how much politics relies on emotional manipulation. Sometimes deliberate, sometimes just a result of the system itself. Existing social conditions, media environments, and tribal politics make people more likely to defend “their side” automatically, even when that same political system is exploiting them or only pretending to care about their interests. Instead of questioning the system as a whole, people often end up emotionally invested in protecting one faction from the other.
Statists will forgo their true principles only to “own” the other side. And as a result - we all lose our freedoms.
Gotta give it to lefties, they are better at memes.
But it’s sure there’s going to be a swath of closeted republicans cosplaying libertarians trying to prove me otherwise.
Post your favorite meme!
No, it’s not okay to harm or harass animals.
But what’s worse is that the government that has monopoly on force and “justice” decides to ignore assault on a person by another private person because their and government’s interests align.
This isn’t something new. Everybody knows it’s always been like that. That’s why we’re probably never going to see convictions from Epstein files.
But somehow, all the statists, and many, if not most of our fellow libertarians still think that Justice and Law Enforcement must be a function of the government.
Just read an article about Utah passing a law making websites liable for failing to conduct age verification.
We had the federal mandate for auto manufacturers built into the (2022?) bill to start producing vehicles that will spy on us and to become remote controlled toys for the authoritarians. And despite the efforts, doesn’t look like it’s going to be taken out.
FISA has been extended.
Last week I’ve learned that RFK’s efforts to reduce CDC’s vaccination schedule for infants and toddlers had been struck down by some judge, so we’re back to the old one. Hep B vax for newborns is back on the schedule boys.
Oh, and Trump still doesn’t give a flying fuck about people not liking the war in Iran.
Vote harder fellows. Surely you’ll vote yourself out of this mess one day. You just need to vote harder.
The growing number of so called influencers spewing their opinions is absolutely astounding. This girl has been shoved into my YT feed for months now, and it’s the first time I’ve opened her video because it’s about the industry I’m in.
Somehow “we” know how to “fix” the industry, though she never worked a day in P&C insurance field. Her conclusion, seemingly based on a single paper she read - price and profit caps through refund mechanism are the way to go. Ironically, she mentions ACA as a success story of a similar approach being implemented.
There are still mutual insurance companies out there today that share dividends with policy holders. Not a single change in rates can be implemented without regulators’ approval for all state admitted carriers. To call her opinion uneducated or uninformed is to give a pass to blatant misinformation or better say propaganda.
Imagine having a debate with someone who has any substantial following and trying to persuade the public of your opinion if you’re not known outside of your small professional circles. Now pair it with the influencer trying to appeal on emotional level by exploiting someone’s financial problems and their ignorance around the subject while your argument requires cold rational approach to the matter. Plus one is pushing “we need more government to protect us” which has been entrenched in people’s minds so deep, that many believe we’re going to have children working in coal mines again if we let the market to self regulate.
It’s an impossible task.
The more stuff I see online, the less optimistic I become about the economy of the U.S. And historically, more countries ran their economies to the ground before implementing proper reforms. It’s just that in the US, it’s a much slower descend vs places where governments have more power over the market.
This influencer has >150K subscribers. That’s a lot of followers, even if more than half of them are bots. It’s still a real power that can be used to pressure state regulators to make changes.
There’s another channel that’s been shoved into my feed all the time. It’s called More Perfect Union. They have over >3.3M subscribers. At some point I’ve watched a few of their videos, and it’s just classical extreme left propaganda. They do review serious issues (which I appreciate of leftists, unlike most of the right wingers they are better at shining the light and more critical of existing problems). However, their approach is always the same - we just need to regulate better, we just need better people at the top.
Imagine the power behind 3.3M subscribers?
Government is a new god. Democracy is a religion.
Alternative title - Exposing the ridiculous idea that we need some form of the authority for protection.
Part 1.
I don’t even know where to start. I’ll just say - learn to protect yourself from from emotional manipulation and brainwashing that’s being done through it.
Long story short - elderly MIL shared with me her thoughts about the article she read this morning. The article was about the pope asking Zuckerberg what’s going to happen with all people that had been let go due to the implementation of AI. It was difficult to listen to her thoughts till the end, but hey, that’s my family, plus it allows to ask more precise questions once you know someone’s thoughts and opinions. Her thoughts compressed in one sentence - it was wrong and immoral to let all those employees go, and more importantly, what’s going to happen to all the people that will be replaced by the AI.
My first questions were - what where the outcomes of mechanization of production in the past, and how are we supposed to employ innovation such as AI? This conversation turned into an argument, her getting heated and more emotional around the whole conversation. I questioned the absurdity about the premise itself - a pope that’s detached from the world 99.9% of people live in, presiding over an institution that protects some of its pedophiles, questioning business decisions from perspective of ethics and morality. Only this helped me to get grounds in my argument, because history, business and economics, are not my MIL strong suits, so I decided to save some time and went straight for the heavy artillery after my first questions.
Her conclusions were based entirely on her emotions. Not until forced to question the authority of the person sending her into that spiral I was able to reach some positive results.
A lesson for my fellow libertarian minarchists that somehow believe in voluntary cooperation being the best and natural form of behavior for 99% of us, yet still being fearful of “foreign invaders” - you’re being emotionally exploited by the same system you dislike today, and you’re being brainwashed into believing that some form of that system itself is still very much needed. We all spend most of our lives by utilizing relationships, especially in the western countries.
Most of those relationships and transactions are anarchic in nature despite some level of regulations that may exist in the background - nobody forces the farmer and the grocery store owner to grow and sell food for you. Nobody forces you to buy food. Every sane person with no special protections understands the market - in order to succeed, one must offer something that’s needed to others without causing harm in the process. People living 4500 miles away from you live just like that.
My questions to you today:
What do you really believe in? Do you have your faith in individuals or the authority?
Why are you so afraid of people if you believe in voluntary relationships?
How much of your fear is substantiated vs being engineered by someone who benefits from it?
I can understand a fear of authority, but in the context of defense in a libertarian society, you are afraid of the people invading your cities. You’re afraid of the soldiers that are comprised of the brainwashed and of those that were forced to go to war with you. You’re so afraid of them, that you’re ready to consent to the authority in exchange for a promise of safety.
To me it seems like your fear of foreigners is exactly what’s going to perpetuate the cycle of reinvention of the system based on imposed authority. You’re not afraid to buy the products foreigners make, the raw materials they source on their territory, yet you constantly live with some level of fear of being invaded by them. How fucking ridiculous is that? If you’re so concerned - don’t give them power. Stop buying anything made outside of your community or made with materials sourced from “potential enemy” states. Don’t exchange knowledge with them. Oh, that doesn’t make much sense, isn’t it?
Stop being so afraid. Learn history. Most large conflicts happen when some psychopaths or powerful individuals with authority like religious leaders start throwing a fit over the actions of their competitors that are the same psychopaths. You’re not going to protect yourself from psychopaths by creating a position with authority above you that eventually will get captured by another psychopath.
This supposed to be a much longer post, but for some reason Reddit didn’t save the draft… though it’s still a long one. So maybe it’s even better that Reddit didn’t save my original draft.
TLDR: “irrational consumer” and “asymmetric information” arguments are mainly lazy and condescending opinions, rather than coherent arguments. Choices derive from subjective self-interest. Regulations restrict and limit options. Less options - worse outcomes with a ton of unintended consequences.
One of the core claims of “irrational consumer” argument is that consumers, especially low income people, are less capable of making conscious and rational decisions because of X, Y, Z, etc. Aside from being arrogant and asinine on its face, this argument takes a few minutes to dismantle. Simply compare shopping habits and shopping processes used by high income vs low income individuals:
- One group prefers buying on platforms like Amazon Prime where the platform provides benefits and guarantees or buy directly from brands or nationally recognized retailers, often purchasing warranty plans, insurance products, etc. They deliberately pay higher price for products that may require more time to assess in terms of performance, quality, and existing client support systems. They pay extra for additional products like extended/expanded warranty to protect themselves from unforeseen events regardless if such step is warranted or not (their time > extra cost). They don’t necessarily posses knowledge, but they have their faith in sellers/producers, and they employ hedging strategies.
- The other group will spend more time reading about the product/service and about the providers, will investigate quality claims and other consumers’ feedback more thoroughly, most often precisely because they can’t afford carelessness that can be covered by extra cost. That’s why platforms like eBay, Craigslist, FB Marketplace, and many others exist. People try to stretch their dollar as far as they can, and that requires extra steps that are generally not taken as often by the higher income people.
So one group has faith, and means, the other uses risk analysis based on the available information.
Yet the latter group is treated as less capable of making rational decisions. The arrogance of academics and regulators is so blatant, but they are the ones setting the rules.
Another common argument:
- “We need to regulate food industry so that a single mom doesn’t feed her children with poison, she has no time to do the research”. I don’t have words in my vocabulary to describe this position. It’s absolutely nonsensical. How someone in their right mind can ask for more regulations in food industry knowing what we know today? Even if we forget about Pay for Play system that allows producers to get away with poisoning people in exchange for slap on the wrist penalties, how? Decades of recommended diets and products that have led to chronic diseases that are in the top causes of deaths for some 20 years now - heart diseases and diabetes. All thanks to high sugar, low fat diets that had very little supporting evidence behind them. Use of pesticides is something even more relevant at this time with RFK’s flip and his mental gymnastics about potential food supply problems. And then there are prescribed opioids.
So instead of forcing people to be more diligent, the idea is that we need to have faith in regulations and in those tailoring regulations. Considering all prior errors and corruption that has been documented, one should ask - are they, academics, regulators, and politicians, acting in the interests of the public, or they are acting in their self-interests?
But let’s give them some benefit of the doubt.
Ironically, most of them never ran a small business, nor belong to the income group they claim to protect, so as a result, it’s the consumers and small business owners that pay the price for the mental gymnastics of those that should know better.
Unintended consequences. Real, most obvious examples:
- War on drugs. Drugs are sold on black market and that strips buyers of any consumer protection. Decades of war on drugs criminalized voluntary transactions at the expense of tax payers. Millions of people have limited job prospects and face social stigma due to government policies that have not produced any meaningful impact, nor produced a positive return on investment in this endeavor.
- Prostitution. It existed thousands of years ago, it exists today, and it will continue to exist. Sex workers face punishment from the state, and are exposed to much higher serious personal risks due to existing conditions of the market. Sex trafficking and sex slavery will continue to remain as massive problems as long as there is no offering on the market that affords legal protections to providers and consumers.
- Healthcare and Pharmaceuticals. Prices are very hard to compare, options are limited, costs rise faster than in nearly any other industry. Liability shields, billions of tax dollars spent on research that’s being patented and sold to the public. Vertical integration schemes that allow concentration of power in hands of the dominant corporations. Consumers have less ability to make effective decisions, extremely high cost of entry for any competition, shortage of providers is getting real in some territories, and a whole industry that leeches of the existing market conditions - associations and professionals organizations that exist mainly to maintain current market conditions.
I would love those that favor regulations over free markets to explain to me - why is that the most regulated industry needs more cheerleaders in a form or “independent” organizations than any other industry? If we, consumers, supposed to have faith in regulators, why do we need some independent experts to convince us to go only to licensed and accredited providers, or take approved drugs and procedures?
(Before someone jumps in attacking something almost irrelevant with attempt to dismiss the entire argument - not all professional associations are bad. Not all of their actions are in favor of status quo. But in regards to healthcare industry, it’s the least independent organization that actually influence rule making decisions)
People aren't perfectly rational, but they still act in their own interest (CEOs making unethical decisions to release bad products knowing that liability lawsuits won’t exceed net profits). Consumers - when buying something, compare prices, read reviews, ask around, and try to learn from other people’s mistakes. If we choose poorly, we feel it and we change our behavior and choices next time. Companies know this, so they compete on price and quality or lose our business.
Now let’s look at consumer electronics. When you buy a phone or TV, you can check hundreds of reviews on dozens of platforms in minutes. You can compare features, specs, and pick what fits most, if not all of your needs within your budget. If a brand cuts corners, it gets known fast and the brand loses customers. That pressure pushes prices down all while it requires improvements in quality and support around the product. That’s why today a $250 phone is more capable than a $3000 personal computer from late 90s - early 00s.
Cars is another great example. There’s an unbelievable variety of vehicles offered world wide, yet most national markets are kept somewhat isolated for multiple reasons. Aside from idiotic protectionist policies, there are many vehicles that can’t be offered in the US due to regulatory standards. And yet despite auto manufacturers being very constrained by regulations, modern vehicles are cheaper, more reliable, and offer a lot more value for your dollar compared to vehicles offered 30 or 50 years ago.
There are also policies that contradict each other - mandate to lower emissions while keeping CAFE and some safety standards that literally force production of larger vehicles that require more powerful engines that burn more fuel, and maybe they do offer better safety for drivers, they are more deadlier for pedestrians. The trade offs couldn’t be more obvious.
The bottom like is that regulators aren't neutral, they also act in their own self-interest. Their incentives push toward rule-making (that’s literally what they get paid for), and protecting their position. Approving some product or service that later causes problems can damage one’s career. Delaying or blocking something does not. So the bias is toward "no" or "not yet”. That slows innovation, keeps new products off the market longer, and favors large corporations who can afford cost of compliance and exploit Pay for Play system.
On top of that, regulators face weaker feedback.
If a bad product hits the market, consumers react immediately. But if a good product is delayed or never approved, the cost is invisible. There are no news about something that never existed. That makes it easier for “no” and “not yet” decisions to persist.
So the comparison isn't irrational consumers vs smart and protective regulators. It's self-interested consumers and businesses, constantly correcting through feedback and competition vs self-interested regulators whose incentives lead to slower decisions, higher barriers, and invisible mistakes, causing all sorts of unintended consequences, suffocating markets, and creating a system that is prone to corruption.
Lastly, the overall approach is hard to call fair or scientific. A couple of dozen of academics and regulators make decisions for hundreds of thousands people whether they should be allowed to try experimental treatments, often subjugating them to slow deaths from serious illnesses like cancer. The premise is the treatment can exacerbate their conditions, but a healthy individual has no right to dictate someone with cancer, possibly with months or a few years to live, on what type of treatment they are ready to try. Same for those suffering from PTSD and depression. Opioids are okay, but something that’s not as addictive and extremely effective like DMT is prohibited. A person with low income might be able to finance a vehicle that isn’t as safe as 4L engine 6000lbs beast, get a higher paying job 50 miles away that eventually will pay for a safer vehicle, but the regulators have decided they know better for them.
This whole idea is immoral, besides being damaging to markets, but it’s universally applied across regulatory agencies. One has to be intellectually lazy, purposefully blind, and/or delusional to reject free market mechanisms of regulation over monopolized control presented as a greater good, while being funded by the biggest beneficiaries of the regulations that are being produced, very often written by ex- or future executives of the very same companies.
I watched this video in another sub, and I thought - once you ask the right question, you can easily explain a lot of things from AE perspective, without triggering the “you’re an armchair expert who doesn’t use math” response from brainwashed normies that can’t see economics outside of their complex models and bullshit stats.
All my life it’s been pretty obvious to me that gender pay gap exists due to personal choices men vs women make when it comes to employment and entrepreneurship (at least for the last 35-40 yrs). Obvious gaps between a guy doing plumbing work vs a woman that works as a clerk worth zero attention. True gaps where the profiles are identical, and the only difference is gender, are extremely rare, and we already have laws that expose business owners to discrimination lawsuits for that.
So my question is - have you or anybody you know personally experienced a gender pay gap? A true gender pay gap where it was unfair?
I am now wondering about this because governments and research institutions waste billions of dollars on finding out reasons, isolating industries, explaining why’s, coming up with solutions, tracking stats, etc, and people are still, till this day, being gaslit by this topic when it’s brought up in political and/or economic debates. At this point, all the arguments about gender pay gap are nothing more than a deliberate effort to pit the people against each other. Same goes for # of men vs # of women in the workforce, especially when it comes to particular industries.
Also, let me know which other obvious non-issues you see being politicized, that are just as easy to debunk as the gender pay gap myth, through dumbing down the question and getting a response that is in line and expected from AE perspective.