Capitalism and Socialism: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

[Joe]

Where did you see that those are the 3 key indices? According to the Heritage data, it weights each of 12 factors equally, and they're mostly measures of economic freedom:

1. Rule of Law (property rights, government integrity, judicial effectiveness)
2. Government Size (government spending, tax burden, fiscal health)
3. Regulatory Efficiency (business freedom, labor freedom, monetary freedom)
4. Open Markets (trade freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom)

And Hong Kong always tops the list, despite it not being 'democratic', at least according to Western standards.

See the video here

Index of Economic Freedom: About the Index | The Heritage Foundation

Explore the Index of Economic Freedom to gauge global impacts of liberty and free markets. Discover the powerful link between economic freedom and progress. The 30th edition, once again, illustrates key factors shaping our world's landscape. From @Heritage

www.heritage.org

When it comes down to it, most of these terms are more or less gobbledygook, they may as well have thrown in "freedom and democracy".

many socialist policies (within democratic socialist countries) strike me as misguided and counterproductive, at the very least.

Can you give some examples?

At least according to the Heritage ranking, the U.S. actually increased slightly over the past few years (its lowest ratings are in government spending and fiscal health):

My bad, I was using that video referenced in the link above which noted that US had dropped, but I checked and it's from 2016. There might be evidence of some bias in the US ranking moving up under Trump given that the Heritage foundation is a conservative think tank.

 

[Joe]

Interesting that Western countries, and perhaps first and foremost the USA, manage to actually combine those two pathological ideas to produce something completely horrible and dysfunctional (unless you pump in ever more energy to keep the illusion going). I mean, in the USA the official doctrine is pretty much, and weirdly enough, a combination of shameless egotism, "free market" consumerism AND communist hardcore-egalitarian SJWism.

Indeed, I've also noted recently that massive multi-national US-based corporations, particularly tech corporations, have made massive inroads in shaping and controlling the dominant social narrative, or better said, acting as supposed moderator for the "opposing factions" and keeping them at odds. Consider that the social media giants today get support from both 'sides' of the aisle: conservative free marketeers/limited govt. proponents defend twitter and FB and google because 'they are private corporations and are allowed to censor whoever they want, that's free market capitalism!', while the radical leftists also support them because they are pushing the ridiculous radical equality agenda.

The US really does seem to be the center of self-centered materialism on the planet, although the infection has spread far and wide. Most Americans are still caught (to a greater degree and percentage than most others I'd say) in the belief in the 'American dream' (whatever their subjective version of it is).

 

[Joe]

OK, but are you saying that capitalism is at fault for income inequality?

I don't see how capitalism, i.e. survival of the fittest' can not lead to income inequality. There's a danger of taking Peterson's competence hierarchy idea and thinking that its possible to apply it responsibly in this world. The same goes for idealistic socialism, it's not gonna work in this world. Basically, the theories of these 'isms' have very little practical relevance or application in a global pathocracy.

 

[Joe]

But in fact the current milieu (corporate welfare) is the opposite of capitalism since what we have are companies who have monopolies in certain markets (Big Pharma, Big Weapons, etc.) and then getting the gov't to pay for their production. Lockheed Martin goes to the gov't, tells them "give us $35 billion to build this awesome weapon" and the gov't does it without any kind of free market or open competition.

So you've got the state subsidizing monopolistic corporations through corporate welfare AND giving out no-bid contracts AND engaging in questionable ethics through the revolving door of politicians leaving office and going straight to the board of directors (Nikki Haley just did that for Boeing). This is not at all how capitalism in its purest form is intended to function. It's obviously corrupted.

Right there you're in the same philosophical camp as those who say that no one knows whether or not communism would work because it was never applied. Not saying that's incorrect, but it relates directly to my last point about theories and their practical application in a world such as ours.

 

[Joe]

I think that by applying the principal of relativity and scale, 3D laws should to some extent reflect the laws of higher densities. Human laws that do not recognize their fundamental divine derivation are not laws at all but delusions; like a district court that does not recognize the authority of the supreme court, they will not stand.

There's a quote from Mircea Eliade's 'The sacred and the profane' that kind of echoes the above and the arguments we've given here against 'natural selection'. It also describes atheists pretty well:

The religious man assumes a particular and characteristic mode of existence in the world and, despite the great number of historico-religious forms, this characteristic mode is always recognizable. Whatever the historical context in which he is placed, homo religiosus always believes that there is an absolute reality, the sacred, which transcends this world but manifests itself in this world, thereby sanctifying it and making it real. He further believes that life has a scared origin and that human existence realizes all of its potentialities in proportion as it is religious - that is participates in reality. The gods created man and the world, the culture heroes completed the Creation, and the history of all these divine and semidivine works is preserved in myths. By reactualizing sacred history, by imitation the divine behavior, man puts and keeps himself close to the gods - that is, in the real and the significant.

It is easy to see what separates this mode of being in the world from the existence of a nonreligious man. First of all, the nonreligious man refuses transcendence, accepts the relativity of "reality", and may even come to doubt the meaning of existence. [...] It is only in the modern societies of the West that nonreligious man has developed fully. Modern nonreligious man assumes a new existential situation; he regards himself solely as the subject and agent of history, and he refuses all appeal to transcendence. In other words, he accepts no model for humanity outside the human condition as it can be seen in the various historical situations. Man makes himself, and he only make himself completely in proportion as he desacralizes himself and the world. The sacred is the prime obstacle to his freedom. He will become himself only when he is totally demysticized. He will not be truly free until he has killed the last god.

but this capitalism vs. socialism thing, and the way conservatives are so enamored with their capitalist, antisocialist identity is something that really, really irritates me...

Irritates me too. It borders on hysteria in some quarters, especially the Washington establishment and those that identify most strongly with profane "traditional conservative values" as represented by, and supposedly manifested through, our earthly authorities. During the SOTU speech last month, Trump declared that America would "never be a socialist country". What exactly he meant by that is anyone's guess, but it sounded good to his supporters, not to mention most of the idiots in congress (and that was the point). He said that, of course, in the context of Venezuela and US efforts to stage a coup there ("because socialism" apparently). Venezuela isn't the USA, has a very different history and demographic make up, not to mention less than 10% of the population of the US, but whatever, "socialism (whatever that means) is always bad, everywhere, because Murica".

 

[mariowil7]

I don't see how capitalism, i.e. survival of the fittest' can not lead to income inequality. There's a danger of taking Peterson's competence hierarchy idea and thinking that its possible to apply it responsibly in this world. The same goes for idealistic socialism, it's not gonna work in this world. Basically, the theories of these 'isms' have very little practical relevance or application in a global pathocracy.

If I understood well your comment in relation to Dr. Jordan Peterson, it means that:

"Is Jordan Peterson's view of hierarchies and competence flawed?"

Here is an interesting answer that I found some time ago...

_Is Jordan Peterson's view of hierarchies and competence flawed? - Quora

By Robert Wright
Answered Sep 29, 2018

The short answer is “No. Not likely.”

His view of hierarchies is based on empirical data, as restated in the research studies that have been done in animal and human behavior.

Essentially, hierarchies emerge naturally.
An example of it in the animal world is when a weak animal will cower before a strong animal, and the stronger will decide not to destroy it. It “has mercy”.

An example of it in the human world is when a person selects an auto mechanic or a surgeon based on their rated competences, as related either by certification boards or by the personal experiences of others.

Peterson is concerned that Marxists are pressing the narrative that competency is merely an asserted expression of power based on nothing more than being a member of a power class. He states that a society not based on competence is unstable, regressive and can be swept around by political winds and those with the loudest voices.

Joe, can you elaborate better on that "Dangers" that you talk about?

"...Specifically Responsibility, idealistic socialism and global pathocracy..."

I'm missing something? (quoting from above cited web link:

"...Other species (ants, for instance) do not form this sort of social hierarchy..."
For me it seems that Dr. Jordan Peterson has some Darwinian inclinations With his proposed ideas of hierarchies and competence.

As usual just my two cents!!!

 

[Joe]

Joe, can you elaborate better on that "Dangers" that you talk about?

"...Specifically Responsibility, idealistic socialism and global pathocracy..."

I'm missing something? (quoting from above cited web link:

"...Other species (ants, for instance) do not form this sort of social hierarchy..."
For me it seems that Dr. Jordan Peterson has some Darwinian inclinations With his proposed ideas of hierarchies and competence.

I don't think Peterson has Darwinian inclinations. I was just saying that his talk of competence hierarchies has limits when extended up to the corrupt nutters who think they run this world today. They are in no way competent in the roles they are tasked to fulfill, at least not from the perspective of the masses of ordinary people who lived 'under' them. Competence hierarchies ARE natural in human society, that is self-evidently true, but they have little to with Darwinism.

 

[Niall]

OK, but are you saying that capitalism is at fault for income inequality? Also, taking off from that, does socialism as practiced in the Nordic countries account for why they have less income equality?

I'd say it has little or nothing to do with 'ism' and more to do with the culture/people. The narratives (ideologies, dogmas, etc) for 'why things are so' come after the fact. Income redistribution just isn't as big a deal in some countries. I wonder if Americans accept the high inequality because they hope that one day they'll be at the top of the heap. I would blame Darwinism, but I think that that too took shape because it jived with how people already are.

So, the elites are 'at fault', but the elites are drawn from the people, and together they comprise a culture.

 

[Pierre]

I don't see how capitalism, i.e. survival of the fittest' can not lead to income inequality.

Indeed, numerous authors (of course Proudhon and Marx or more recently Piketty and Hodgson) have described the positive correlation between capitalism and wealth inequalities. Many synergic factors are at work among which:

• access to capital: the capitalist can use his capital as collateral to get extra funding and invest, the worker can't use his work as collateral
• the capital is mobile, so the capitalist can quickly move to profitable markets, the worker due to its diplomas and professional experience is limited to a few industries
• the offspring of the capitalist has access to the best schools, districts, libraries, the offspring of the worker doesn't
• the capitalist is less taxed than the worker (see for example the restrictive access to tax heavens, of which the largest is Delaware)

All those factors point in the same direction: a major dis-balance between the power and retribution of the capital VS labor.

There's a danger of taking Peterson's competence hierarchy idea

Absolutely. Here is the main lie of capitalism: it is described as a meritocracy i.e. retribution is proportional to competences. Nothing could be further from truth.

I've witnessed this lie first hand while being at the bottom of the hierarchy (construction worker, industry worker) and quite high in the hierarchy (executive management, CEO).

My observations from those two very different professional circles lead me to think that, at least in 'high' circle, at best there is no correlation between competency and professional hierarchy, at worse the correlation is negative where the ones who "succeed" certainly exhibit plenty of manipulation, lies, predation, ambition and not much of the traits usually associated with competence: expertise, honesty, intelligence conscientiousness, experience, etc.

During the SOTU speech last month, Trump declared that America would "never be a socialist country"

Socialism and capitalism are meaningless words. Every country has its own definition. Gustave LeBon explained clearly why the "same" ideology varies so much from one country to another. In order to be accepted by the local population, ideologies have to be tailored to the cultural and anthropological specifics of each countries.

Combine LeBon with Lobaczewski idea of secondary ponerization (i.e. infiltration and deformation of an ideological movement by schizoids) and you can see how pathological elites tailor, country after country, a veneer of acceptability over their nefarious ideologies to get the agreement of the local population while behind the customized veneer lies the same schizoidal rot made of destruction and domination.

Back to Trump statement, the USA is not really a capitalist country (in the sense of "free market"), it is has socialist features. For example, there are numerous governmental bodies regulating the markets.

The FDA regulates pharmaceutical drugs approval. By setting a price of $100 million per clinical trial, it creates a capitalistic entry barrier and insures that only the pharmaceutical oligopolies get a share of the juicy pharmaceutical market (the veneer being to provide food and drugs safety).

The SEC (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) is another governmental body supposed to regulate stock markets, while the SEC actually provides a veneer of legality and morality to Wall Street that remains the greatest temple of Ponzi schemes, money laundering and market manipulation in the whole world.

In this sense the USA, along with most "developed countries", gets the worse of "capitalism" combined with the worse of "socialism", I guess it is the hallmark of any highly ponerized country.

 

[Joe]

On this topic:

‘They want to take away your hamburgers like Stalin!’ Green New Deal Dems make juicy target at CPAC

Hamburgers, the iconic American fast-food staple, have become the latest battlefield in US culture and political wars, with conservatives accusing ‘Green New Deal’ Democrats of being secret Reds for going after red meat.

www.rt.com

‘They want to take away your hamburgers like Stalin!’ Green New Deal Dems make juicy target at CPAC

“They want to take your pickup truck, they want to rebuild your home, they want to take away your hamburgers,” former White House staffer Dr. Sebastian Gorka thundered on Thursday, to the applause of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at National Harbor, Maryland.

President Donald Trump’s one-time adviser (January-August 2017) was referencing the ‘Green New Deal’ plan championed by firebrand freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York).

Rolled out earlier this month, the proposal called for “massive transformation” of US society with the goal of achieving net-zero carbon emissions with a decade, but also for the government to provide guaranteed jobs, healthcare, housing and economic security “for all who are unable or unwilling to work,” among other things.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1101133296824594433

 

[mariowil7]

I don't think Peterson has Darwinian inclinations. I was just saying that his talk of competence hierarchies has limits when extended up to the corrupt nutters who think they run this world today. They are in no way competent in the roles they are tasked to fulfill, at least not from the perspective of the masses of ordinary people who lived 'under' them. Competence hierarchies ARE natural in human society, that is self-evidently true, but they have little to with Darwinism.

Thanks Joe, and I understand more clearly now your point of view.

But nevertheless I still think that Dr. Jordan Peterson is knowingly
or not knowingly promoting some form of Darwinism, so here are some pointers:

1.- Competence for what?

1. The toxics ones, are the organizations which hierarchy are predicated on Competence for dominance over other people, that is, competence for using the 48 laws of power or whatever principles you can think of that consists of obtaining something of someone without giving what he deserves.

2. The moral ones are the organizations which hierarchy are predicated on Competence for dominance over reality (don't know what another word to use), that is, competence to realize the principles that are deduced from the goal that you accept as worthy of pursue.

_

https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/7vv1dp

In a sense, all Dominance hierarchies are a subset of Competence hierarchies, it seems. So every Dominance hierarchy is a Competence hierarchy, but not all Competence hierarchies are Dominance hierarchies.

Dominance is raw power competing to win at all costs. Competence is the ability to compete to win (the word 'compete' is even wholly in the word 'competence'), but to also not destroy the game in pursuit of victory. It allows the structure to operate in a healthy manner, with those on top aware that they need to care for those below in order to occupy their elevated position.

_

https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/7wmg1j

2. Dr. Jordan Peterson later retracted from the concept of Dominance Hierarchies

3. Dr. Jordan Peterson in his book (12 rules for life) states clearly what he means by Dominance.

As we see in (2) above he lately corrected the use of the term but not the underlying Darwinian implications

Lets see a extract from his book:

Jordan is spelling this out (p. 30 or 29 depending in your translation):

"And this brings us to the third erroneous concept: that nature is something strictly segregated from the cultural constructs that have emerged within it. The order within the chaos and order of Being is all the more "natural" the longer it has lasted. This is because “nature” is “what selects,” and the longer a feature has existed the more time it has had to be selected-and to shape life. It does not matter whether that feature is physical and biological, or social and cultural. All that matters, from a Darwinian perspective, is permanence—and the dominance hierarchy, however social or cultural it might appear, has been around for some half a billion years. It’s permanent. It’s real. The dominance hierarchy is not capitalism. It’s not communism, either, for that matter. It’s not the military-industrial complex. It’s not the patriarchy—that disposable, malleable, arbitrary cultural artifact. It’s not even a human creation; not in the most profound sense. It is instead a near-eternal aspect of the environment, and much of what is blamed on these more ephemeral manifestations is a consequence of its unchanging existence. We (the sovereign we, the we that has been around since the beginning of life) have lived in a dominance hierarchy for a long, long time. We were struggling for position before we had skin, or hands, or lungs, or bones. There is little more natural than culture. Dominance hierarchies are older than trees."

And here are other pages where we can see his Darwinian inclinations (Pages 46, 47, 136 and 246 as a Footnote 18)

Seems to me that some Social Darwinist ideas permeate Dr. Jordan Peterson 12 Rules Book (see above).

4. Social Darwinism (The tricky part)

"The term social Darwinist is applied loosely to anyone who interprets human society primarily in terms of biology, struggle, competition, or natural law (a philosophy based on what are considered the permanent characteristics of human nature). Social Darwinism characterizes a variety of past and present social policies and theories, from attempts to reduce the power of government to theories exploring the biological causes of human behavior. Many people believe that the concept of social Darwinism explains the philosophical rationalization behind racism, imperialism, and capitalism. The term has negative implications for most people because they consider it a rejection of compassion and social responsibility."

_Social Darwinism

5. What are the pillars of Darwin Theory?:

Summary of Darwin's theory

Darwin's theory of evolution is based on key facts and the inferences drawn from them, which biologist Ernst Mayr summarized as follows:

a) Every species is fertile enough that if all offspring survived to reproduce, the population would grow (fact).

b) Despite periodic fluctuations, populations remain roughly the same size (fact).

c) Resources such as food are limited and are relatively stable over time (fact).

d) A struggle for survival ensues (inference).

e) Individuals in a population vary significantly from one another (fact).

f) Much of this variation is heritable (fact).

g) Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce; individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce and leave their heritable traits to future generations, which produces the process of natural selection (fact).

h) This slowly effected process results in populations changing to adapt to their environments, and ultimately, these variations accumulate over time to form new species (inference.)

At least 4 "key facts" listed above are in the Social Darwinism agenda, I will list one (key fact g) the others I think that the forum members easily will identify the others.


6. Last a discussion in the Reddit Social network show us how Pathology (psychopaths)
are always ahead of the game of life.
(Caution the language used by those users is sometimes not so appropriate)

"LS01 3 points · 1 year ago

Competent at dominating?

Herculius 1 point · 1 year ago

Imo you could still call it a dominance hierarchy.. but that the modern human dominance hierarchy selects for competence and "the player who's character is such that he is likely to be invited to play and win across the set of conceivable games" which includes competence but also includes virtues like honesty, fairness, and kindness as well as things like assertiveness and strength.

aanarchist 1 point · 9 months ago

None of those things get you ahead in a dominance hierarchy, only social Darwinism does. Aka kindness is a tool to be applied to get a particular response out of others. Honesty comes with too many negative consequences to be valued in a dominance hierarchy, that's why there's so many psychopaths in the upper rung of society, they aren't bound by things like morality they just apply social Darwinism principles to great success. It's a sign that hierarchies are wrong on principle as well as fundamentally destructive to the human condition, and thus something we have to collectively evolve beyond.

EnlightenedStumping 1 point · 1 year ago

Dominant competency."

_

https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/7vv1dp

7. That is why I think that maybe Dr. Jordan Peterson embraces some Darwinist ideas without having given
a deep tough to them.


As usual just my two cents...

 

[mkrnhr]

Here is the main lie of capitalism: it is described as a meritocracy i.e. retribution is proportional to competences. Nothing could be further from truth.
[...]
My observations from those two very different professional circles lead me to think that at best there is no correlation between competency and professional hierarchy, at worse the correlation is negative where the ones who "succeed" certainly exhibit plenty of manipulation, lies, predation, ambition and not much of the traits usually associated with competence: expertise, honesty, intelligence conscientiousness, experience, etc.

Usually, professional hierarchy is based on the Peter principle "people in a hierarchy tend to rise to their level of incompetence." or in other words, the guy above you doesn't want a competent guy below because one day he'll take his place. Both capitalism and socialism basically sell the same promise to the lower classes (the majority of people): "Someday, you'll have a high status". Capitalism does it using meritocracy (if I work like a slave, someday I will not be a slave anymore) and Socialism does it using equality (if everybody is equal, that means that nobody is above me). It is too easy to say that because socialism is bad, therefore capitalism is good. It's far more complex than that. OSIT.

 

[goyacobol]

7. That is why I think that maybe Dr. Jordan Peterson embraces some Darwinist ideas without having given
a deep tough to them.

mariowil7,

Thanks for the excellent analysis and examples. I think this shows the unconscious impact that Darwinism/NeoDarwinism has had on practically all of us. As for Jordan Peterson's not giving this "deep" thought let's hope he does eventually see what many of us are seeing here. Obviously, I think Darwinism/NeoDarwinism creeps into our consciousness so subtly that we just don't see it without networking.

Even though Jordan Peterson does not see the subtle influences to me he still has had a very positive influence on many. He certainly has the intelligence and still may eventually refine his definitions of reality to the point that he aligns more with what many of us here are learning.

He also was influenced by Jung and his idea of archetypes who as we now know had some very weird influences too.

Without "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" I think we can all benefit from the knowledge shared by those who valiantly do their best to see though the "veil" of chaos.

 

[luc]

‘They want to take away your hamburgers like Stalin!’ Green New Deal Dems make juicy target at CPAC

Well, I must say I can totally understand the conservative sentiment on this one. Living in Germany, the motherland of all green policies, I think this IS complete, totalitarian, mind-mushing, destructive lunacy. Call it what you want, communism, Orwellianism, dictatorship of the narcissists or whatever. BUT "capitalism is the answer" is obviously not the answer.

Capitalism does it using meritocracy (if I work like a slave, someday I will not be a slave anymore) and Socialism does it using equality (if everybody is equal, that means that nobody is above me). It is too easy to say that because socialism is bad, therefore capitalism is good. It's far more complex than that. OSIT.

I think it comes down to the fundamental misconceptions about human nature that are part and parcel of all these theories, which is then easily exploited by pathologicals to fool the masses. Garbage in, garbage out: if your theory is totally flawed and simplistic in its assumptions, and you build a system based on it, the results will obviously be garbage. And it will supply ample "veneers", as Pierre called it.

In the case of capitalism, you don't even have to talk about large-scale public-private corruption or inequality or monopolies. Take public tenders for example. The idea is based on the theory that you should decide about contractors purely based on some "rational" check boxes. So that the magical "free market" can work. But this so simplistic that it's mind-boggling. For example, if you hire a company, wouldn't you want to get along with those guys? Wouldn't it be good to have a great team that works well together to achieve its goals? Wouldn't you want someone you know and trust and know will deliver? But no!! That cannot be! That would be corruption! So Excel sheets! Rational choice!

What happens next is that public officials often find workarounds to hire the people they actually like, and often for good reasons. And if not, bad apples often get the job, because they game the system, offer dumping prices and what have you. You also get a whole mess of lawsuits, because the whole thing just doesn't make any sense. With disastrous results for the tax payer and society. All because of some silly theory that ignores 99% of reality.

Another example of the "free market" veneer is the idea to privatize large-scale industries because then they will compete on the magical free market. Except there is no free market and it's just pathological networks out to plunder resources. Ya know, people form alliances to enrich themselves across institutions - who would have thought!?

All this nonsense - "free market", "rational choice", "equality", "enlightenment by force-feeding school-education", "separation between state and religion", "helping the poor", "maximizing freedom", "tickle down", "taxing the rich", "natural selection", "maximization of profits", and all the rest. THE WORLD AND LIFE IN GENERAL IS NOTHING LIKE THAT. At all. And yet, we all tend to think along those silly, one-dimensional concepts most likely originating in schizoidal minds, and think not only can we understand the world through such theories, but build systems based on them. And then we wonder why everything falls apart, why nothing makes sense, why ponerology runs its course smoothly, why we can't see beyond all those "veneers" and why everyone is miserable!

 

[flashgordonv]

Well, I must say I can totally understand the conservative sentiment on this one. Living in Germany, the motherland of all green policies, I think this IS complete, totalitarian, mind-mushing, destructive lunacy. Call it what you want, communism, Orwellianism, dictatorship of the narcissists or whatever. BUT "capitalism is the answer" is obviously not the answer.



I think it comes down to the fundamental misconceptions about human nature that are part and parcel of all these theories, which is then easily exploited by pathologicals to fool the masses. Garbage in, garbage out: if your theory is totally flawed and simplistic in its assumptions, and you build a system based on it, the results will obviously be garbage. And it will supply ample "veneers", as Pierre called it.

In the case of capitalism, you don't even have to talk about large-scale public-private corruption or inequality or monopolies. Take public tenders for example. The idea is based on the theory that you should decide about contractors purely based on some "rational" check boxes. So that the magical "free market" can work. But this so simplistic that it's mind-boggling. For example, if you hire a company, wouldn't you want to get along with those guys? Wouldn't it be good to have a great team that works well together to achieve its goals? Wouldn't you want someone you know and trust and know will deliver? But no!! That cannot be! That would be corruption! So Excel sheets! Rational choice!

What happens next is that public officials often find workarounds to hire the people they actually like, and often for good reasons. And if not, bad apples often get the job, because they game the system, offer dumping prices and what have you. You also get a whole mess of lawsuits, because the whole thing just doesn't make any sense. With disastrous results for the tax payer and society. All because of some silly theory that ignores 99% of reality.

Another example of the "free market" veneer is the idea to privatize large-scale industries because then they will compete on the magical free market. Except there is no free market and it's just pathological networks out to plunder resources. Ya know, people form alliances to enrich themselves across institutions - who would have thought!?

All this nonsense - "free market", "rational choice", "equality", "enlightenment by force-feeding school-education", "separation between state and religion", "helping the poor", "maximizing freedom", "tickle down", "taxing the rich", "natural selection", "maximization of profits", and all the rest. THE WORLD AND LIFE IN GENERAL IS NOTHING LIKE THAT. At all. And yet, we all tend to think along those silly, one-dimensional concepts most likely originating in schizoidal minds, and think not only can we understand the world through such theories, but build systems based on them. And then we wonder why everything falls apart, why nothing makes sense, why ponerology runs its course smoothly, why we can't see beyond all those "veneers" and why everyone is miserable!

Indeed. I worked in Asia for some years. We had a large tender we were bidding for. The process required the 3 shortlisted companies to go through an electronic bid process. You logged into the website and entered your price. You were advised if you weren't the lowest price and you could adjust your bid accordingly. St the end of 30 minutes, lowest bid won. Foolproof supposedly. We lost.

I met a guy at a function sometime later. He told me he had won 3 multi million dollar tenders in the last 6 months. I asked how he had managed that. Simple he said. I owned the 3 companies on the short list. Not so foolproof it seems.