Wednesday, October 14, 2015

2015 Nobel Prize Winner Decries "People [Who] Divorce Themselves From Government Control by Living Inside Gated Communities"

Don't for a minute be confused about some of the analysis and commentaries put out about the new Nobel Pize winner, Angus Deaton.

He is an egalitarian, hater of the natural state of inequality on the planet, and favors all sorts of government interventions into everyday life and objects to those who attempt to escape the clutches of the interventionism.

 According to The Guardian, Deaton recently decried “the trend for the world’s richest people to divorce themselves from government control by living inside gated communities and buying their own healthcare and police protection.”

From his 2013 book The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality:
The very wealthy have little need for state-provided education or health care… They have even less reason to support health insurance for everyone, or to worry about the low quality of public schools that plagues much of the country. They will oppose any regulation of banks that restricts profits, even if it helps those who cannot cover their mortgages or protects the public against predatory lending, deceptive advertising, or even a repetition of the financial crash. To worry about these consequences of extreme inequality has nothing to do with being envious of the rich and everything to do with the fear that rapidly growing top incomes are a threat to the wellbeing of everyone else.
Bottom line: Deaton like Thomas Piketty has a hate for wealth and capital accumulation and maintains an absurd view on inequality (SEE:This Is What Those Who Are Concerned About Inequality Fail to Grasp) and sees a major role for government in changing the world so it looks more like the way he would like it.



  1. Is there any evidence the ultra rich as a class are more likely to oppose banking regulation? Evidence I've seen suggests they only lean slightly to the right of the general public. My guy feeling is the further away you get from New York and Chicago, the more likely you are to be in favor of banking regulation.

  2. I came to the conclusion some time ago that winning a Nobel Prize is practically meaningless. The winners seem to lack any original thought or ability to refine and their intellectual output is mostly just (literally) nonsensical gibberish like that in the excerpt.

    I also have to question the intellectual capacity and methodology of a man (and the selection committee) who cannot comprehend that the application of logic and reason in economics (as elsewhere) is fundamental.
    Read that excerpt again. It is so full of holes, you could drive a truck through it.

    Isn't it interesting that most everything these folks rail against typically finds an answer in government intervention, if not by direct causation, at least in correlation?

    I'm certainly no genius, but, I believe I should win the Nobel Prize just for having the honesty and integrity and mental capacity to recognize that.

    On second thought, they can keep it.

  3. Another intellectual justifying government interventions for the very wealthy on the top of the pyramid. Those people who can afford to live in totally private gated communities are a threat to those the intellectual class serves. The top of the pyramid doesn't live in gated communities. They have gated estates with miles of private roads and such all to themselves.

  4. These are absolutely disgusting, violent psychopaths. No wonder people want to live in gated communities, to get away from people like this.

  5. The wealthy do not rely on government provided public schools or healthcare. But they do rely on government money printing, war making, regulation, licensing and policing to maintain their status and keep upstart competitors down.

    Leftists don't hate wealth and capital accumulation. They hate big shots pushing around little guys. They're just confused about how the powerful victimize the vulnerable. They do not understand that the state is the primary mechanism whereby the powerful rule the roost.

    Libertarians fail to communicate with leftists because we argue with their sentiments. Don't waste one second trying to convince Bruce Springstein that rich people are deservingly awesome and poor people are lazy losers. Don't waste one second trying to convince a hippie that rich corporate executives are the victims of overzealous greenpeacers. Embrace and affirm their sentiments. Anything less will immediately discredit you in their eyes and they will walk away reaffirmed statists.

    Once you have affirmed their sentiments, THEN try to explain that it is state power that allows rich people to victimize poor people and it is state power that allows big industrial operations to disregard their neighbor's property rights.

    Libertarians carry around a big millstone from their conservative roots that instinctively makes them dismiss the sentimental impulses of the economically illiterate masses. America is full of smelly hippies, pissed off minorities and rape survivors who would make great libertarians if we could be bothered to sift through the cultural barriers. Instead we largely just leave them to the Cultural Marxists then scratch our heads and look foolish as they all become unassailable mascots for the left.

    Any time a statist points to a victim and says they need help, say "yes". If you're an old school Catholic and some statist wants to talk about the plight of gay communist muslim transgendered conjoined-twin refugees from Syria... don't roll your eyes, don't talk about sexual morality or the labor theory of value. Don't make the conversation about your feelings. Talk about US foreign policy and how helpful it would be if the US withdrew from the entire region.