We’re Witnessing A Complete Breakdown In Western Values

Submitted by Simon Black via SoveeignMan.com,

Two months ago I was with the former President of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe, at his home outside of Medellin.

He was telling me some hilarious stories about his interactions in the early 2000s with Hugo Chavez, who had recently seized power in Venezuela.

Chavez was a fanatic socialist. He believed so strongly in the idea of redistributing wealth from rich to poor.

Yet even when it was clear his policies weren’t working and Venezuela was rapidly sliding into economic chaos, Chavez’s only solution was to double down and redistribute even MORE wealth.

It was the classic definition of insanity.

Chavez failed to understand what Uribe told me so succinctly: “If there’s no wealth creation, there’s nothing left to redistribute.”

We know how Venezuela turned out; its failed socialist experiment led to today’s infamous shortages of food and toilet paper.

But here in Russia is perhaps the most famous example in our modern times.

Marxists came to power in a bloody 1917 revolution with the goal of eradicating poverty and redistributing wealth.

Yet like Venezuela, the only equality the Soviet Union managed to achieve was making everyone equally poor to the point that this vast wasteland of destitution finally collapsed in the late 1980s.

These economic disasters almost invariably start with a rising gap in wealth and income– a growing percentage of the population feeling left behind who rally behind someone promising to “spread the wealth around.”

As Historian Will Durant wrote in his incredible 1969 book Lessons from History:

“The concentration [of wealth] may reach a point where the strength of number in the many poor rivals the strength of ability in the few rich. . . which history has diversely met by legislation redistributing wealth or by revolution distributing poverty.”

This is exactly what’s happening in the West now.

The statistics are obvious: the wealth gap is bigger than it’s been since the Great Depression.

Middle class wages, when adjusted for inflation, are stagnant.

2015 was the first time in years that the average wage increase in the United States actually surpassed the rate of inflation.

But on a longer timeline, household incomes haven’t kept pace with either productivity or the cost of living.

We can see the effects of this anecdotally.

Thomas Piketty’s 2013 book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, which criticized such inequality and advocated a global wealth tax, was an explosive best-seller.

A 2011 Pew Research Center poll showed that 49% of US respondents had a favorable view of socialism.

And of course, Bernie Sanders made wealth and income inequality major issues in his presidential campaign, resonating with tens of millions of people.

On the way over to Russia I was reading an article in Newsweek about Uber, the ride-sharing pioneer that is currently worth around $70 billion.

The author was upset because the company’s stock isn’t publicly traded like Apple or Facebook, meaning he’s not able to own any Uber shares for himself.

He complains that the founders of these tech companies have been “actively deciding to keep as much for [themselves] as possible and shut out the rest of the populace by avoiding public stock offerings.”

According to the author, we’re apparently all entitled to our “fair share” of other people’s businesses and private property.

Unbelievable.

He’s not alone– there’s a growing chorus of politicians beating up on Uber, evidenced by Elizabeth Warren’s statement in March 2016 that “all the benefits [of Uber and related “shared-economy” companies] are floating to the top 10%.”

What an ignorant comment to make.

Uber loses billions of dollars each year.

So if anything, investors’ capital ends up in the pockets of the hundreds of thousands of drivers who use the app to generate extra income.

In reality Uber constitutes an enormous transfer of wealth from investors to workers and consumers. So her comment was totally wrong.

But what was more amazing was that she was complaining about how it benefits the top TEN percent.

Usually these people whine about the top 0.1%, then the top 1%. Now it’s the top 10%.

When will they start complaining about the top 20%? Or those evil people in the top 55%, i.e. the percentage of households that actually pay US federal income tax.

Wealth and income inequality is real, and the gap is growing. So is the consequent rise of socialism.

People know they’re getting screwed. And they are. They just don’t know why.

They have no idea how central bankers who conjure money out of thin air have rigged the entire economy against them.

So instead they blame “capitalism” and naturally embrace its opposite.

Seven centuries ago when Europe was just a plague-infested backwater, glimmerings of economic freedom began to appear on the continent.

The West adopted core values, like the sacrosanct protection of private property; the ability for an individual to work hard and build wealth; and spirited intellectual debate.

This is how western civilization became the most prosperous that history has ever known.

But this is all changing.

Being wealthy used to be a virtue worthy of widespread aspiration.

Now it’s met with skepticism and derision.

Similarly, intellectual dissent used to be embraced.

Now it’s increasingly considered “hate speech” that must be banished from university campuses and their infantile ‘safe spaces’.

And the entire west, it seems, is moving towards an ever-expanding, fiscally unsustainable welfare state that creates swelling masses of dependents.

This is a complete breakdown of western values, and that has serious consequences.

It’s incredible how rapidly this trend has unfolded– it’s a very steep line from the economic chaos of the 2008 financial crisis to where we are today.

And given the speed of this pro-socialist trend, just think about where it’s going to be in a few more years.

More than likely, it will progress straight into your wallet.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
16 Comments
starfcker
starfcker
July 15, 2016 7:33 am

Simon, you piece of crap. There was a time when great wealth, concentrated or not, was fairly earned. Hardly the case today. Socialism steals from the middle class and especially the entrepenuer nowadays, not the theives at the top. Russia is a perfect analogy, i’ll give you that. The system collapsed and when the dust settled, a few people owned everything, and nobody knew how it happened.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  starfcker
July 15, 2016 8:51 am

So maybe those without a big fat 401(k) consider those with them to be wealthy who wealth was not “fairly earned” money.

I imagine that would be a prevailing attitude among the black and some other minority communities.

starfcker
starfcker
  Anonymous
July 15, 2016 8:54 am

Hey anon, fuck you. I’m talking about apple. I’m talking about the banks. Don’t be such a lowlife as to try to muddy it with 401ks

Anonymous
Anonymous
  starfcker
July 15, 2016 10:39 am

You apparently seem to assume your definition of the undefined and very relative word “fairly” is the one everyone holds.

But is isn’t, as I pointed out.

You know what is said about assuming.

starfcker
starfcker
  Anonymous
July 15, 2016 10:48 am

Fairly=honestly. Simple enough, asswipe?

Ed
Ed
  Anonymous
July 15, 2016 10:55 am

“You know what is said about assuming.”

Yes, I know what I say about assuming; if some little twerp can’t even post a screen name, then I’ll assume he sucks chancre studded muslim dicks.

There.

kokoda
kokoda
July 15, 2016 7:53 am

When times are good, politicians not only spend all they can, they also promote more spending programs, and they leave nothing in the kitty for the down episodes. And they grow government, a parasite.

During down episodes, politicians scramble to find revenue and it manifests itself in increased costs (reduction of consumer spending) to the middle class. And they grow government, a parasite.

Spending then outpaces revenue with a compounding effect.

While “If there’s no wealth creation, there’s nothing left to redistribute.” may be true, it is not the origin of the disease.

Wip
Wip
July 15, 2016 8:12 am

So, what is the fucking answer?

starfcker
starfcker
  Wip
July 15, 2016 8:52 am

Wip, the answer is simple. A small government that puts the welfare of it’s citizens first. Checks to concentrated power, glass steagall, sherman anti-trust, and aggressive prosecution of white collar crime. What some of the writers posted on this blog don’t want to understand is, concentrated private interests that have captured government and operate outside of the law, are far more dangerous right now than government itself.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  Wip
July 15, 2016 10:41 am

The answer?

Strict adherence to the Constitution and its limits on governmental power.

Not that that would be popular among most of the public today, or very likely.

Grog
Grog
July 15, 2016 9:48 am

On the contrary, I think most here are very well aware of creeping Fascism.
Believing that a self serving bureaucracy can be limited by checks and laws if facetious.
It is akin to someone asking: “So, how much shit would you like with that ice cream?”

B
B
July 15, 2016 10:54 am

So Communism collapsed in Russia in the late 90s as Capitalism collapsed in the West. 30- years later. Timing.

Stucky
Stucky
July 15, 2016 11:55 am

“Two months ago I was with the former President of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe, at his home outside of Medellin.” ———- SB

Fuck You. I hate name-droppers. But, I’ll bet it sells some more newsletter subscriptions. Yippee!! BTW, I had lunch with Chris Christie yesterday and he thinks you’re a dick.

There must be a middle ground between total wealth redistribution vs one/tenth of one percent owning the vast majority of the country’s assets. What does Simon say about that? Oh, nothing.

Muck About
Muck About
July 15, 2016 12:02 pm

What it all boils down to is “Too many rats in the box.”

The population – like Europe does every 80-100 years or so – is too large and complex to manage, so government tries to get bigger to manage it, becoming less efficient as it grows (think EU) to the point where the government itself is unmanageable. Then we have a die off – war, disease, whatever. Populations are reduced and we start the next cycle (Turning)..

It’s happened in Europe more often simply because the crowds all speak different languages, have different values, et al and are all crammed up together – so pushing and shoving gets easier. We just lucked out for the last 240 years having two oceans to keep the bounders away and a large enough land mass to allow expansion. Now, after all this time, our system of government has been bought and paid for, expanding as governments always do and we’re about to reap what over governed people always get. Less.

Muck

Southern Sage
Southern Sage
July 15, 2016 12:51 pm

Simon is a sinister propagandist. Yes, Hugo Chavez was an ignorant thug, like all Communists and Socialists. That said, it has nothing to do with our situation. The current .001 percent DID NOT earn it. They fiddled it, stole it and rigged the game by bribing our politicians.

Threeblindmice
Threeblindmice
July 15, 2016 1:20 pm

Eat the Rich