In a sense more superficial than wiser agricultural land usage by Americans, nevertheless, arguably still very critically important could be state constraints upon what body politic is actually employed in the existing service sector simulacra. It's a symptom not root cause, that most "middle management" in the digital economy has been offshored. But if I'm a resident of Arizona or citizen of Texas then when I contact service/support of any sort, I want that live agent to be a local / regional American in America. It's a fairly narrow brush; would help redirect the wealth extractive corporate policies more in favor of American economy and workers, and would be politically hazardous law to oppose.
I agree 100% with the article and was impressed by the quality of the writing but I am skeptical any of this will happen voluntarily. Wealth of the kind we seek to promote has its drawbacks, which is why it's been largely abandoned by our top 0.01%. It's quite a tall order to get many wealthy people to start the kind of projects we're looking for out of the goodness of their hearts, losing some of their liquidity for the sake of others. But when it happens, we should sing their praises to the moon. Thanks for shouting out Willinks company, I'll definitely check out their products.
The best example of the kind of pro-social wealth we are looking for that I can think of is Musks purchase of Twitter. He bought a failing company that was not commercially viable bc he believed in the power of a free public online square. And God bless him for doing it bc we really needed one in those days when Bidens government was publicly scheming to put out propaganda in the name of fighting "misinformation". He didn't have to do it, and he got tons of flack for it.
I would like to quibble: wasn’t Oswald Mosley leader of the British Fascists? To my mind those ignoble parties used totalitarian methods to crush normal conservative aristocratic institutions.
From this perspective could we not say that chattel slavery severed the connection between owner and tenant, lord and laborer, and allowed them to ignore the condition of their land and its workers? The same economic forces which dislocated the Northern cities also did much to downgrade the genteel farmers of the 18th century to the rapacious agricultural plantation capitalists of the 19th. Lest we forget the most valuable stock capitalizations of that era were not the railroads but were slaves.
Most of the old aristocracy was “fascist” for a couple years in the face of communist tyranny and aggression. As with Franco, that’s not really an accurate label of their beliefs, which were generally just conservatism with some anti-plutocratic economic beliefs
I confess complete ignorance with Franco. When I think of fascist Italy, and much more so Germany, and maybe Japan as well, I see an old aristocracy coerced into supporting neo-absolute monarchs, like reactionary Napoleons, who are merely the inverse (not opposite) of the Stalins and Maos, where the peasants and not the lords are dragged along “for their benefit”. In other words, I see fascism and communism as both equally despotic and chaotic, pulling opposite ends of the caste pyramid for their support
Yeah the totalitarian tyranny of Nazi Germany in particular was very different from what existed in Spain (with Franco being backed by the British aristocracy due to his anti-communist, pro-Christian stance), and Spain is probably the better example of what Mosley and those who supported him generally wanted. Other than a few edge cases, most wanted nothing to do with Nazi tyranny, but did want to find a way to defeat communism, which “democracy” had shown itself largely incapable of in FDR’s America, France, and the Britain of the day
I have many problems with Mosley, but as Cannadine (a centrist, possibly slightly conservative modern author) and others note, what he represented was well in line with what the rightist segments of the aristocracy had long generally supported
I think a lot of the problem is tax policy that pushes liquidation of assets. If you’re a rich sucker that wants to build a family business, you’ll be wrecked by taxes. Far better to shove the money into trusts.
Family ownership can turn negative, though. Canada basically has a fossilized economic oligarchy with low competition. A lot of family ownership hasn’t seemed to help much. You still need actual competition.
In a sense more superficial than wiser agricultural land usage by Americans, nevertheless, arguably still very critically important could be state constraints upon what body politic is actually employed in the existing service sector simulacra. It's a symptom not root cause, that most "middle management" in the digital economy has been offshored. But if I'm a resident of Arizona or citizen of Texas then when I contact service/support of any sort, I want that live agent to be a local / regional American in America. It's a fairly narrow brush; would help redirect the wealth extractive corporate policies more in favor of American economy and workers, and would be politically hazardous law to oppose.
Agreed. Great point
I agree 100% with the article and was impressed by the quality of the writing but I am skeptical any of this will happen voluntarily. Wealth of the kind we seek to promote has its drawbacks, which is why it's been largely abandoned by our top 0.01%. It's quite a tall order to get many wealthy people to start the kind of projects we're looking for out of the goodness of their hearts, losing some of their liquidity for the sake of others. But when it happens, we should sing their praises to the moon. Thanks for shouting out Willinks company, I'll definitely check out their products.
The best example of the kind of pro-social wealth we are looking for that I can think of is Musks purchase of Twitter. He bought a failing company that was not commercially viable bc he believed in the power of a free public online square. And God bless him for doing it bc we really needed one in those days when Bidens government was publicly scheming to put out propaganda in the name of fighting "misinformation". He didn't have to do it, and he got tons of flack for it.
Thanks! Yeah I need to do an article on some realistic ways of starting to encourage this, and some more examples
I would like to quibble: wasn’t Oswald Mosley leader of the British Fascists? To my mind those ignoble parties used totalitarian methods to crush normal conservative aristocratic institutions.
From this perspective could we not say that chattel slavery severed the connection between owner and tenant, lord and laborer, and allowed them to ignore the condition of their land and its workers? The same economic forces which dislocated the Northern cities also did much to downgrade the genteel farmers of the 18th century to the rapacious agricultural plantation capitalists of the 19th. Lest we forget the most valuable stock capitalizations of that era were not the railroads but were slaves.
Most of the old aristocracy was “fascist” for a couple years in the face of communist tyranny and aggression. As with Franco, that’s not really an accurate label of their beliefs, which were generally just conservatism with some anti-plutocratic economic beliefs
I confess complete ignorance with Franco. When I think of fascist Italy, and much more so Germany, and maybe Japan as well, I see an old aristocracy coerced into supporting neo-absolute monarchs, like reactionary Napoleons, who are merely the inverse (not opposite) of the Stalins and Maos, where the peasants and not the lords are dragged along “for their benefit”. In other words, I see fascism and communism as both equally despotic and chaotic, pulling opposite ends of the caste pyramid for their support
Yeah the totalitarian tyranny of Nazi Germany in particular was very different from what existed in Spain (with Franco being backed by the British aristocracy due to his anti-communist, pro-Christian stance), and Spain is probably the better example of what Mosley and those who supported him generally wanted. Other than a few edge cases, most wanted nothing to do with Nazi tyranny, but did want to find a way to defeat communism, which “democracy” had shown itself largely incapable of in FDR’s America, France, and the Britain of the day
I have many problems with Mosley, but as Cannadine (a centrist, possibly slightly conservative modern author) and others note, what he represented was well in line with what the rightist segments of the aristocracy had long generally supported
I think a lot of the problem is tax policy that pushes liquidation of assets. If you’re a rich sucker that wants to build a family business, you’ll be wrecked by taxes. Far better to shove the money into trusts.
Family ownership can turn negative, though. Canada basically has a fossilized economic oligarchy with low competition. A lot of family ownership hasn’t seemed to help much. You still need actual competition.