Yesterday, at the end of @dbongino's pod...he talked about creating a "parallel economy."

@dbongino I have a few questions for you pertaining to this. Specifically, what is the end game of a "parallel economy?"

Did we not have a parallel economy back in the 50s? An econ that was segregated for white people and "negros" (Historical context, NOT derogatory meaning).
So, I understand your idea about creating competition in the market place

Competing News Aggregators
Competing social media platforms
Video hosting platforms
PAYMENT processing platforms

Competing scholarly journals
1000s of competing news outlets...

But a parallel econ?
A parallel econ in it's entity will continue the wedge in the country which, historically, is exactly the discourse and demoralization that the left/communists THRIVE IN!

You're advocating for a systemic chaos system of constant conflict...hear me out.
Will this "parallel econ" create a "parallel country?" What geographic territory will this "parallel economy" hold?

By creating a parallel economy, you're creating a parallel country that is running in two separate, but diametrically opposed directions.

What is your endgame?

More from Economy

1/ To add a little texture to @NickHanauer's thread, it's important to recognize that there's a good reason why orthodox economists (& economic cosplayers) so vehemently oppose a $15 min wage:

The min wage is a wedge that threatens to undermine all of orthodox economic theory.


2/ Orthodox economics is grounded in two fundamental models: a systems model that describes the market as a closed equilibrium system, and a behavioral model that describes humans as rational, self-interested utility-maximizers. The modern min wage debate undermines both models.

3/ The assertion that a min wage kills jobs is so central to orthodox economics that it is often used as the textbook example of the Supply/Demand curve. Raise the cost of labor and businesses will buy less of it. It's literally Econ 101!


4/ Econ 101 insists that markets automatically set an efficient "equilibrium price" for labor & everything else. Mess with this price and bad things happen. Yet decades of empirical research has persuaded a majority of economists that this just isn't

5/ How can this be? Well, either the market is not a closed equilibrium system in which if you raise the price of labor employers automatically purchase less of it... OR the market is not automatically setting an efficient and fair equilibrium wage. Or maybe both. #FAIL

You May Also Like