The fallacious notion of central planning has plagued economic life for decades now, but in recent years the cancer of social engineering and economic tinkering has metastasized from the public into the private sector, where companies the likes of Tesla and Amazon engineer high-tech ‘solutions’ to non-existent problems that invariably involve the replacement of the human workforce with machines.
Neophiles like Elon Musk conveniently paint the designed obsolescence of the Human race as inevitable and even beneficial, but more and more people are starting to ask just what is so inherently wrong with flesh and blood cabbies, fast food workers and truck drivers.
Sure, we’ve all met our share of lippy baristas whom we sure wouldn’t mind being sacrificed to the holy gods of automation, but by and large human workers are pretty decent at their jobs. Jobs they dutifully perform at least eight hours a day, five days a week, often for very little pay and under outright degrading conditions.
From their pedestals, the elites – from the heads of Central Banks to Silicon Valley luminaries – continue to disparage the masses as lazy and incapable of providing for themselves outside of the welfare state.
Only the oracles at the central planning agencies are allowed the use of analog techniques in their decision making process. When Fed Chairman Janet Yellen announces that asset valuations are high (and that Obama is no longer in office), and that she believes it would be ‘unwise’ not to raise rates, her completely subjective (and likely partisan) assessment of the state of the economy is taken as canon backed up by sound data and sophisticated economic models.
Talk about a double standard.
Still, for the average joe, a guaranteed stipend doled out by the government sounds like a killer deal. Let machines do all the work while we enjoy the consumerism oriented utopia the government has created for us.
On the face of it, automation, coupled with a universal basic income sounds like the humanistic answer to the problem of work. Unfortunately, this theory doesn’t hold under close scrutiny, in that it is premised on the existence of a benevolent dictatorship vying for the rights and well-being of the common man.
In reality, the entrenched bureaucratic structure is interested in no one’s interests but its own, and sees its citizens as mere cattle to be controlled, taxed and allowed to exist only within the confines of the technological plantation and only for the purpose of glorifying the leaders at the apex of the social pyramid.
Now, quite a few people are onto the ruse. In fact, despite being portrayed by the self-appointed experts as ignorant rednecks, Donald Trump supporters knew what was at stake going into Election Day on November 8. It was self-evident that, in Hillary Clinton’s dystopia of a borderless, hemispheric trade bloc, the standard of living for all but the privileged few would be eroded to match the common lowest denominator of third world impoverishment, paving the road for the rapid expansion of the welfare state.
Trump supporters, relentlessly ridiculed by the press – both at home and abroad – were playing a sophisticated game of three-dimensional chess, reading far ahead all the way to the technocrats’ endgame.
Whether their gambit will pay off is for history to decide, but one thing is for certain: on the night of November 8, 2016 the American people came, they saw, and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Presidential aspirations died.