More idiocy

Yes, it’s Mason again:

The vast influence of the Kochs’ “dark money” has been documented in Jane Mayer’s 2016 book of the same name. It funds, among other things, nearly 300 academic courses at colleges and universities, where the syllabus is dictated by the right: students learn that Keynes is bad, sweatshops are good and climate change is a myth.

Sweatshops are good. Hmm:

For example, teachers using Edvantage can find economics videos explaining how the Environmental Protection Agency is bad for the environment, how sweatshops are good for third-world workers, and how the minimum wage costs workers jobs. Content featuring opposing viewpoints, however, is sparse.

That’s his link, to Slate. The actual video is here. And very roughly speaking it’s a 2.45 condensation of this article by Pau8l Krugman. In Slate.

But matters are not that simple, and the moral lines are not that clear. In fact, let me make a counter-accusation: The lofty moral tone of the opponents of globalization is possible only because they have chosen not to think their position through. While fat-cat capitalists might benefit from globalization, the biggest beneficiaries are, yes, Third World workers.

That is, yes, sweatshops are good.

12 thoughts on “More idiocy”

  1. Socialist scum whining about that which is both true and good.

    If he is such a shit-hot journo–rather than propagandising Marxian scum– why is he not in Venezuela tracing down the roots of the human misery there?

    Oh but of course we already know. As has been pointed out on Samizdata. The BBC and other MSM–or should that be LSM for “left (or lie) stream media” have already pointed out the cause: “kleptomania and mismanagement”.

    Of the S word, nary a sign. Of course.

  2. “only because they have chosen not to think their position through”

    This. Every time.

    In fact the sweatshop example is even simpler: we don’t have to consider second-order effects, we merely have to believe that third world people are rational actors, capable of making their own decisions.

  3. “only because they have chosen not to think their position through”

    I am not convinced there is much conscious thought involved in choosing to not think their position through. For the long term committed hard left, their position is one of faith, belief, a position so entrenched that contrary evidence is subconsciously suppressed.

  4. Bloke in North Dorset

    “.. we merely have to believe that third world people are rational actors, capable of making their own decisions.”

    And therein lies the problem. The hard left don’t want to believe that third world people are capable of making a rational decision because they want to control them. The soft Guardian left think we should give them all our money so they can be as rich as us and not have to work in sweatshops as well as wanting to control them.

  5. The acid test is that someone who genuinely cares about poverty would take the time to learn the basics of economics.

    Anyone who advocates policies which further impoverish the poor whilst claiming to be acting in their interests is a charlatan, a fraud and a hypocrite.

    Like that cunt Paul Mason.

  6. ” The soft Guardian left think we should give them all our money so they can be as rich as us and not have to work in sweatshops as well as wanting to control them.”

    What the Guardian soft left want is the third world preserved in aspic. The poverty provides copious well paid jobs in poverty relief NGOs & endless opportunities for soft left writers to sell articles about third world poverty.
    FFS! Don’t rock the boat!

  7. the cause: “kleptomania and mismanagement”.

    Of the S word, nary a sign. Of course.

    Of course, socialism is a subset of economic mismanagement and systemically encourages kleptocracy, so they’re not entirely wrong.

  8. Interested said:
    “I might be channeling Dave a bit, but does this dark money have a hook nose?”

    If you mean “are they Jewish”, I don’t think so; I think they’re Catholic, fairly sure I’ve read of them supporting various Catholic charities.

    Are you confusing them with Soros?

    Not that it matters.

  9. Bloke in Costa Rica

    If you order the list of political donors in the US by size of donation, where do the Kochs fall? I’d be surprised if they’re in the top 30, or top 50 even. Anyway, if their goal is to move the Republicans in a libertarian direction, there’s not much evidence they’re having any effect.

  10. For example, teachers using Edvantage can find economics videos explaining how the Environmental Protection Agency is bad for the environment, how sweatshops are good for third-world workers, and how the minimum wage costs workers jobs.

    The horror. Alternative views, most of them completely rational. You note Mason doesn’t refute any of them (and I mean refute in the real sense, not the ‘I disagree with’ sense popularised by cretins like Murphy). They are BADTHINK.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *