Atlas Shrugged: The Mocking

Monday, December 26, 2016

In Which Megan McArdle Explains Altruism To The Masses

My dear readers,

Many of you have notified me that you are concerned about the economic injustices inherent in gift-giving. Every year, like a communist clockwork, we are expected to give up our hard-earned money to buy presents for others, presents that they probably don't even want. The "holiday season" demands that we rack our brains thinking of something to give a "loved one" that one barely knows. You end up giving them something useless and they end up giving you something you already have, which is a tremendous waste of money that you could have spent on yourself.

Call me Scrooge if you must! But also admit that you don't know your own mother's likes and dislikes enough to think of something to buy her, and after "long thought" you usually resort to the first thing you see when you walk into Macy's: those discount packaged bath salt or perfume sets. Now, now! Don't bother to deny it! People only say that their children share experiences with them, or discuss their likes and dislikes. Actually, they maintain a comfortable silence and simply grab something handy at gift-giving times.

Why do they force themselves to let the moocher and looters drag them down to their levels? We think of interactions between people as a single economic action, where the rich are aristocrats and the poor are sheep to be shorn, but in fact every American also lives in the "gift economy," where people give you things for nothing, with the expectation of you returning the favor in the future. You can keep down expenses on cab rides and improve the consumer experience by asking your sister to take you to the airport and she'll do it because she expects you to return a favor at a later time.

Now, don't try this economic model if you are running a government! Communism failed because Stalingrad refused to feed and walk the dogs when Leningrad went out of town with Moscow! And the reverse is also true: alas, spouses fail to understand why you expect to be remunerated for your time and effort in the bedroom.

Reciprocal altruism is inefficient compared to cash, but exchanging equal amounts of cash would be silly. However, if one person gives more cash than the other, the former is obviously more committed to the relationship and the other side is being cheated, eroding their relationship. This is why we don't let cash intrude in intimate transactions, such as sex. Trying to figure out what to charge each other for services rendered would be a nightmare of complexity and subjectivity, not to mention hurt feelings. What if she felt that a certain activity was worth $100 and he felt her performance was worth no more than $20, the going market rate on the street? Chaos would be inevitable.

So no matter how fond you are of money, go ahead and buy that heavily discounted, unwanted gift for the woman in your life. The old dear will be happy just to have paper and ribbon to play with, an you will probably get a fat inheritance down the line.

Thursday, December 8, 2016

Coming In Last In The Human Race

One of the many reasons that Megan McArdle is a terrible person is that she thinks she can-and, god help us, should-school Ta-Nehisi Coates on race.

Coates is perfectly clear; when both sides believe that a Black man should expect to be murdered if he is disobedient to authority, the Black man never has a chance for justice. The problem is that Megan McArdle agrees with the prosecutor and defense. McArdle is so authoritarian that she assumes the cop had a right to shoot and kill a man for not following orders. (Coates' commenters pointed out that Black men get shot for sitting in a car as well, which McArdle ignored.)

The problem with saying, "Eh, he should have expected to be killed," is that it sounds racist to normal people and McArdle has an image to uphold, at least in her own mind. So McArdle must come up with some socially acceptable reason to be an authoritarian racist (maybe!), and she quickly latches on the idea of pretending Coates is talking about legal strategy, not systemic racism.

Her idiocy was noticed:

The purpose of a defense is to convince 12 men/women to acquit the defendant. If a stirring speech sways the jury, the defendant wins. It is moronic to pretend persuasion is never attempted or is never successful. But that's our libertarian princess; the point is not to be smart, it's to look smart enough to fool her readers and keep the money flowing into her bank account and out of her Amazon account.

McArdle knows she must make a nod towards humanity but it's clear that she doesn't care about justice. She does, however, care about pecking away at her Black former colleague and defending her race.