You too can easily predict the results of dumb government policies
It may surprise you to learn that predicting certain aspects of the future is often quite easy.
Of course those who push policies that will have disastrous results--results which are easily predictable, and indeed are predicted in detail--insist that it's impossible to predict the results of their policies.
Those who push horrible policies must claim that it's impossible to predict their results, because if the policymakers accepted the obvious, logical predictions and still persisted in pushing those policies that anyone could see would result in mass murder or starvation or enslavement, it would mean those pushing the policies are...monsters.
(Cuz they deliberately pushed policies that anyone of average intelligence could see would kill or starve or enslave millions. Had to explain that in case it was unclear to liberals.)
You may well think this is weird, other-worldly stuff. Not at all. In fact anyone can do it. In fact we all do this, all the time. It ain't spooky. It's just that the "elites" claim--falsely--that it's not possible.
Gee, why do you think that is?
I'll show you some easy examples: Is there anyone (other than drug pushers) who thinks the use of illegal drug gives good results? Of course not. So if someone is considering using meth or heroin or similar, would you predict a good outcome, or a bad one?
Or consider gangs: Would you say joining MS-13 would increase a young man's chances of doing well in life? Of course not.
Okay, those were obvious. But on a national scale it's just as obvious. You've just been conditioned to believe it's not.
Suppose a government wins power by telling voters they're being exploited by corporations. To "fix" this "horrible oppression," one of the government's first decrees is to set the price at which a business can sell every product. But when inflation makes it cost more for businesses to buy inventory than what the government allows the business to sell those products for, can you predict what will happen?
Sure you can. Businesses will close--cuz why would anyone stay in business when they were forced to sell at a loss, eh? It doesn't take a PhD in government or economics to predict that one.
Let's try another one: Say a few small, family-run businesses have somehow managed to barely hang on by their fingernails. Then one day the government--wanting to curry favor with voters--decrees that the minimum wage be increased from the equivalent of $7.50 an hour to $22-- a factor of 3. Can anyone possibly predict the result?
No, it's simply impossible to predict.
Just kidding: Anyone can do it.
The few surviving businesses will be forced to lay off employees, and if they don't have enough family members willing to work for scraps, they'll be forced to close outright. Cuz if they were barely breaking even before, the government-decreed increase in minimum wage will put them into the red. (If you went to school in a big Dem-controlled city that means you're losing money every day.)
Again, it doesn't take a PhD economist to predict this certain result.
One more: Suppose government policies have resulted in high inflation--meaning that nation's currency loses a lot of its value against other currencies. What does that do to the price of anything that has to be imported?
Increases. Now: If you live in a country that depends on imports for at least SOME of your food needs, what effect does that have on the total food supply?
Obviously it will cost more, like all imported goods. But with the selling price for food fixed by the government, what does that mean?
It means companies won't buy. Meaning less food in the country. Which means? Hunger.
None of the above is speculation: It's actually happened, in Venezuela. To be more precise, it's happening right now. All the results of the obviously-insane decrees and policies implemented by the socialist government were and are predictable. But it didn't stop them from doing it. Didn't even slow 'em down a whit. Cuz...monsters. Who believe they're immune from the law of human behavior--in this case the economics of forcing people to sell for less than it costs them to buy product.
Okay, class: Now that you're familiar with the territory, we'll try your new skills on a country that's right on the brink of mass murder.
When the president of a country that has two main racial groups constantly claims one race is being ruthlessly exploited by the other, and that the only remedy is to "bring a gun to a knife fight," do you think that's more likely to lead to peaceful, harmonious relations, or is it certain to bring violence and death?
It's obvious. People who are dissatisfied with their lives always want to blame anyone other than themselves. If your president and elites constantly tell you it's all the fault of The Other, and that it's only just and proper for you to take anything you want from them--including their lives--the result is no surprise.
Oh, did you think I was talking about Obama--who actually made the statement quoted? Actually I'm looking at...South Africa, where for the last two decades the head of the black-dominated government has been calling for the death of all whites. At a rally of his political party (the communist-dominated "African National Congress") the previous president was videoed on-stage singing a song with the chorus "Get me my machinegun so I can kill whites."
Yesssss, one can certainly predict the results of that policy, eh?
Oh, you don't think that's actually a serious policy? Actually, it is. The NEW president--a thug who called for even more violence than his rival--has officially proposed that all white-owned farmland be forcibly taken by the black-run government, without compensation. His top supporters have told the base that any whites who resist can be killed. Cuz, justice, comrade.
A top aide of the new president posted on both Facebook and Twitter “I have aspirations to kill white people, and this must be achieved!” And replying to a white critic "Your existence is a crime. Hence we say 'Land or death'."
("Wait, I thought Twatter's official policy was to ban 'hate speech.' Isn't that about the most extreme case of 'hate speech' one can imagine? Why was this thug allowed to use Twatter to say that?" Cuz there are two sets of rules, comrade. Surely you can see what that's absolutely necessary, right?)
So...in 1994, before the old white-run government was forced to turn the government over to blacks, South Africa was a net exporter of food--95% of which came from white-owned farms--most of which had been owned and farmed by the same family for up to 300 years. But since 1994 black gangs have been systematically torturing and murdering white farm families--somewhere around 12,000 since 1994. (The government refuses to publish figures, ignoring those murders, calling them a local problem.)
As a result, today South Africa is a net importer of food. And yet the government has officially made it a policy to seize all white-owned land and force the owners off it. But successful large-scale farming takes experience and knowledge. To say that not everyone can do it successfully is a huge understatement. "But we're gonna force 'em out anyway! Cuz, justice, comrades.
Anyone wanna hazard a wild, wild prediction as to the result?
Yep. Tens of thousands of gruesome murders, followed by famine, then starvation.
But never fear, comrade: The world-wide network of socialist nations will ship millions of tons of food to the starving millions, for long enough that they can get the farms running again. After all, the world's socialist nations did the same for Venezuela, so....
Oh wait...no socialist nations offered so much as a box of crackers to the starving people of Venezuela.
Gosh, that's...odd. You'd think that if socialism is so wonderful--the ultimate in compassionate, successful governance--the Great Savior of humanity--you'd think they'd rush in to help their fellow socialists, eh?
As I said above..."odd."
But never fear, citizens: The compassionate libs of Hollywood and New York City and Washington DC will save the day! They'll wail that the famine is actually the fault of Republican policies in this country, and that simple decency demands that the U.S. lead an "international coalition" of nations to ship millions of tons of food to rescue the starving South Africans from this..."misfortune" that has mysteriously, thru no fault of their own, befallen them.
Of course the fact that this "mysterious" "bad luck" is actually the easily-predicted result of the policies of their own shitty, thuggish leaders will be carefully ignored. Democrats and fake Republicans (like Jeff Flake and scores of others) will vote to ride to the rescue. And hardworking U.S. taxpayers will pay billions...to rescue dumb people from the stupid policies their thug leaders TOLD everyone they were gonna enact!
Easily...predictable.
Next week: The totally-predictable results of unlimited invasion of European nations by uneducated, amoral throat-cutters and rapists determined to take everything that's not nailed down.
Of course those who push policies that will have disastrous results--results which are easily predictable, and indeed are predicted in detail--insist that it's impossible to predict the results of their policies.
Those who push horrible policies must claim that it's impossible to predict their results, because if the policymakers accepted the obvious, logical predictions and still persisted in pushing those policies that anyone could see would result in mass murder or starvation or enslavement, it would mean those pushing the policies are...monsters.
(Cuz they deliberately pushed policies that anyone of average intelligence could see would kill or starve or enslave millions. Had to explain that in case it was unclear to liberals.)
You may well think this is weird, other-worldly stuff. Not at all. In fact anyone can do it. In fact we all do this, all the time. It ain't spooky. It's just that the "elites" claim--falsely--that it's not possible.
Gee, why do you think that is?
I'll show you some easy examples: Is there anyone (other than drug pushers) who thinks the use of illegal drug gives good results? Of course not. So if someone is considering using meth or heroin or similar, would you predict a good outcome, or a bad one?
Or consider gangs: Would you say joining MS-13 would increase a young man's chances of doing well in life? Of course not.
Okay, those were obvious. But on a national scale it's just as obvious. You've just been conditioned to believe it's not.
Suppose a government wins power by telling voters they're being exploited by corporations. To "fix" this "horrible oppression," one of the government's first decrees is to set the price at which a business can sell every product. But when inflation makes it cost more for businesses to buy inventory than what the government allows the business to sell those products for, can you predict what will happen?
Sure you can. Businesses will close--cuz why would anyone stay in business when they were forced to sell at a loss, eh? It doesn't take a PhD in government or economics to predict that one.
Let's try another one: Say a few small, family-run businesses have somehow managed to barely hang on by their fingernails. Then one day the government--wanting to curry favor with voters--decrees that the minimum wage be increased from the equivalent of $7.50 an hour to $22-- a factor of 3. Can anyone possibly predict the result?
No, it's simply impossible to predict.
Just kidding: Anyone can do it.
The few surviving businesses will be forced to lay off employees, and if they don't have enough family members willing to work for scraps, they'll be forced to close outright. Cuz if they were barely breaking even before, the government-decreed increase in minimum wage will put them into the red. (If you went to school in a big Dem-controlled city that means you're losing money every day.)
Again, it doesn't take a PhD economist to predict this certain result.
One more: Suppose government policies have resulted in high inflation--meaning that nation's currency loses a lot of its value against other currencies. What does that do to the price of anything that has to be imported?
Increases. Now: If you live in a country that depends on imports for at least SOME of your food needs, what effect does that have on the total food supply?
Obviously it will cost more, like all imported goods. But with the selling price for food fixed by the government, what does that mean?
It means companies won't buy. Meaning less food in the country. Which means? Hunger.
None of the above is speculation: It's actually happened, in Venezuela. To be more precise, it's happening right now. All the results of the obviously-insane decrees and policies implemented by the socialist government were and are predictable. But it didn't stop them from doing it. Didn't even slow 'em down a whit. Cuz...monsters. Who believe they're immune from the law of human behavior--in this case the economics of forcing people to sell for less than it costs them to buy product.
Okay, class: Now that you're familiar with the territory, we'll try your new skills on a country that's right on the brink of mass murder.
When the president of a country that has two main racial groups constantly claims one race is being ruthlessly exploited by the other, and that the only remedy is to "bring a gun to a knife fight," do you think that's more likely to lead to peaceful, harmonious relations, or is it certain to bring violence and death?
It's obvious. People who are dissatisfied with their lives always want to blame anyone other than themselves. If your president and elites constantly tell you it's all the fault of The Other, and that it's only just and proper for you to take anything you want from them--including their lives--the result is no surprise.
Oh, did you think I was talking about Obama--who actually made the statement quoted? Actually I'm looking at...South Africa, where for the last two decades the head of the black-dominated government has been calling for the death of all whites. At a rally of his political party (the communist-dominated "African National Congress") the previous president was videoed on-stage singing a song with the chorus "Get me my machinegun so I can kill whites."
Yesssss, one can certainly predict the results of that policy, eh?
Oh, you don't think that's actually a serious policy? Actually, it is. The NEW president--a thug who called for even more violence than his rival--has officially proposed that all white-owned farmland be forcibly taken by the black-run government, without compensation. His top supporters have told the base that any whites who resist can be killed. Cuz, justice, comrade.
A top aide of the new president posted on both Facebook and Twitter “I have aspirations to kill white people, and this must be achieved!” And replying to a white critic "Your existence is a crime. Hence we say 'Land or death'."
Your existence is a crime. Hence we say land or death.— Lindsay Maasdorp (@Lindsay_BLF) September 15, 2018
("Wait, I thought Twatter's official policy was to ban 'hate speech.' Isn't that about the most extreme case of 'hate speech' one can imagine? Why was this thug allowed to use Twatter to say that?" Cuz there are two sets of rules, comrade. Surely you can see what that's absolutely necessary, right?)
So...in 1994, before the old white-run government was forced to turn the government over to blacks, South Africa was a net exporter of food--95% of which came from white-owned farms--most of which had been owned and farmed by the same family for up to 300 years. But since 1994 black gangs have been systematically torturing and murdering white farm families--somewhere around 12,000 since 1994. (The government refuses to publish figures, ignoring those murders, calling them a local problem.)
As a result, today South Africa is a net importer of food. And yet the government has officially made it a policy to seize all white-owned land and force the owners off it. But successful large-scale farming takes experience and knowledge. To say that not everyone can do it successfully is a huge understatement. "But we're gonna force 'em out anyway! Cuz, justice, comrades.
Anyone wanna hazard a wild, wild prediction as to the result?
Yep. Tens of thousands of gruesome murders, followed by famine, then starvation.
But never fear, comrade: The world-wide network of socialist nations will ship millions of tons of food to the starving millions, for long enough that they can get the farms running again. After all, the world's socialist nations did the same for Venezuela, so....
Oh wait...no socialist nations offered so much as a box of crackers to the starving people of Venezuela.
Gosh, that's...odd. You'd think that if socialism is so wonderful--the ultimate in compassionate, successful governance--the Great Savior of humanity--you'd think they'd rush in to help their fellow socialists, eh?
As I said above..."odd."
But never fear, citizens: The compassionate libs of Hollywood and New York City and Washington DC will save the day! They'll wail that the famine is actually the fault of Republican policies in this country, and that simple decency demands that the U.S. lead an "international coalition" of nations to ship millions of tons of food to rescue the starving South Africans from this..."misfortune" that has mysteriously, thru no fault of their own, befallen them.
Of course the fact that this "mysterious" "bad luck" is actually the easily-predicted result of the policies of their own shitty, thuggish leaders will be carefully ignored. Democrats and fake Republicans (like Jeff Flake and scores of others) will vote to ride to the rescue. And hardworking U.S. taxpayers will pay billions...to rescue dumb people from the stupid policies their thug leaders TOLD everyone they were gonna enact!
Easily...predictable.
Next week: The totally-predictable results of unlimited invasion of European nations by uneducated, amoral throat-cutters and rapists determined to take everything that's not nailed down.
Labels: Venezuela
posted by SF at
2:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home