What a fantastic (and depressing) way of unfolding the world! A really comprehensive and (rarely seen these days) neutral summary of how did we get here and what scenarios may develop. Worth printing and saving, as well as sharing with everyone. A big thanks! PS: El Gato article in note 24 is indeed a great supplement, worth reading.
What Obama and Trump did for me is to start ripping the blinders off. Obama Act II started making me uncomfortable, then Trump came along and made me start questioning my wholesome, naive, wonderful view of America. Damn him to Hell! You have just put all of it in context and in front of me in a way that I could feel but could not name. Could not explain. This is one of those papers I wish I could force feed into everyone's brain so that we all know where we have all stood and stand now. I have questions when/if you have time:
1. Is it better to live in an authoritarian or totalitarian world?
2. What would we be looking at had Kamala won? I know it would be more of the same, but end game?
3. Why did the Empire builders decide to go with division, encouraging population decimation, attacking faith-based life, traditional family, community cohesion, and upward mobility for the middle-class? It seems there better plan would have been to keep the workers working, distracted, happy at home, and out of their business? With all the money blown, it makes no sense to go after the biggest group of taxpayers and the most likely group to fight back?
Also, thank you for the history lesson and giving another tug at these blinders.
Not all the way through yet, but I immediately thought about the family dynamic when the parents try too much gentle parenting....their refusal to accept respondibility of their power is unsettling to children even if they can't articulate it
One challenge you did not address is that not only has American Government spending gotten out of control, but it has been accompanied by a relentless push to cut taxes (and to also complicate the tax code so that favored individuals and groups don't have to pay).
The DOGE efforts, or whatever successor organization comes into existence, will not avoid a debt style collapse if revenue is also cut in the process. Right now, it looks like the proposed cuts in revenue will be faster and steeper than the cuts in spending. We will see.
It's a persistent problem, and complicated by the total tax burden which has the country in a sort of death spiral. The impulse to *simply* cut taxes to spur growth will not work now like it did under JFK (or even under Reagan, when it worked less well). There isn't the population in the prime productivity demographic to make it work.
The total tax burden is one problem. The way those taxes are taken is another. Throughout the twentieth century, the strategy to distribute taxes so broadly that the total burden would be hard to calculate worked to spectacular (and destructive) effect. Public support for massive spending simply wouldn't exist if the majority of the people understood that the total tax burden on the economy is well north of fifty percent (a level unheard-of even in feudal times).
Total indebtedness is a third problem--not just the Federal budget, but the states, counties, municipalities, and individuals as well (as pointed out in the article). No matter which way you slice it, it's gonna be a wild ride.
For my money, the BEST solution (and I don't know if it's gonna be good enough) would be to couple tax cuts and spending cuts with *radical* deregulation to re-open economic sectors, and thus maximize the growth potential of our shrinking productive-aged population. The Jones Act, for example, oughta go tomorrow.
Regardless of what happens, it's gonna be a wild fucking ride.
You don’t need the tax cuts to get the advantages of radical deregulation. Heck, it doesn’t even have to be radical to make a big difference. The Jones Act needs to go. The standing on lawsuits to stop development needs to be radically narrowed (letting NGOs sue is a horrid thing). Most professional licensing needs to be changed to a “certification of quality” rather than a requirement to operate. That’s three that would dramatically help revive things off the top of my head.
> the Nazi scientists and philosophers imported into the United States through Operation Paperclip
Philosophers?? Please elaborate.
----
Not that it really matters, but one of the things I am scared of is the proportion of people completely brainwashed by the system, but wielding some sort of power and/or leadership. Who are not getting at all what's going on.
Just went back and checked--everyone I had in mind (Schmidt and Heidegger, for example) was very influential and well-published in post-war US, but didn't actually live in the US. I am changing the body of the article to fix the error.
A few weeks ago, you posted a comment about four basic types of government (or society?) and ranked them best to worst for just regular folks who wanted to go about their business having a decent life. Is the US the #1 one? Now or at some (or any) points in the past? Is Europe? I remember you telling me China (historically) has been the worst one (the #4). What are some current examples of each?
This was the comment (augmented with current examples)
At bottom, there are only 4 political systems:
1) Only the rich may become powerful (the US)
2) Only the powerful may become rich (China, most of Europe, Russia)
3) Only the exceptional may become either rich or powerful (used to be the US, and sometimes is now, but much more rarely than it once was. Britain during its ascendancy had some of this too)
4) Only those willing to kill the rich may become powerful (and vice versa) (Revolutionary France, Revolutionary Russia, large swaths of Medieval Europe)
If your priority is to live a life largely unmolested, you should prefer options 3, 1, 4, and 2, in that order
Ouch. I think you just forcibly raised my IQ by a few points. And part of me wants to go back to being dumb.
This hurts, but... yeah.
What a fantastic (and depressing) way of unfolding the world! A really comprehensive and (rarely seen these days) neutral summary of how did we get here and what scenarios may develop. Worth printing and saving, as well as sharing with everyone. A big thanks! PS: El Gato article in note 24 is indeed a great supplement, worth reading.
One point on footnote 24, the easiest explanation of it is simply a 70s cover of National Lampoon magazine.
Before my time. Can you link to the cover in question?
I swear, just when I think there is no pop culture reference you don't get :)
https://x.com/PulpHerb/status/1887920510287090112
Nice!
What Obama and Trump did for me is to start ripping the blinders off. Obama Act II started making me uncomfortable, then Trump came along and made me start questioning my wholesome, naive, wonderful view of America. Damn him to Hell! You have just put all of it in context and in front of me in a way that I could feel but could not name. Could not explain. This is one of those papers I wish I could force feed into everyone's brain so that we all know where we have all stood and stand now. I have questions when/if you have time:
1. Is it better to live in an authoritarian or totalitarian world?
2. What would we be looking at had Kamala won? I know it would be more of the same, but end game?
3. Why did the Empire builders decide to go with division, encouraging population decimation, attacking faith-based life, traditional family, community cohesion, and upward mobility for the middle-class? It seems there better plan would have been to keep the workers working, distracted, happy at home, and out of their business? With all the money blown, it makes no sense to go after the biggest group of taxpayers and the most likely group to fight back?
Also, thank you for the history lesson and giving another tug at these blinders.
Not all the way through yet, but I immediately thought about the family dynamic when the parents try too much gentle parenting....their refusal to accept respondibility of their power is unsettling to children even if they can't articulate it
A great piece. Thanks.
My pleasure!
One challenge you did not address is that not only has American Government spending gotten out of control, but it has been accompanied by a relentless push to cut taxes (and to also complicate the tax code so that favored individuals and groups don't have to pay).
The DOGE efforts, or whatever successor organization comes into existence, will not avoid a debt style collapse if revenue is also cut in the process. Right now, it looks like the proposed cuts in revenue will be faster and steeper than the cuts in spending. We will see.
It's a persistent problem, and complicated by the total tax burden which has the country in a sort of death spiral. The impulse to *simply* cut taxes to spur growth will not work now like it did under JFK (or even under Reagan, when it worked less well). There isn't the population in the prime productivity demographic to make it work.
The total tax burden is one problem. The way those taxes are taken is another. Throughout the twentieth century, the strategy to distribute taxes so broadly that the total burden would be hard to calculate worked to spectacular (and destructive) effect. Public support for massive spending simply wouldn't exist if the majority of the people understood that the total tax burden on the economy is well north of fifty percent (a level unheard-of even in feudal times).
Total indebtedness is a third problem--not just the Federal budget, but the states, counties, municipalities, and individuals as well (as pointed out in the article). No matter which way you slice it, it's gonna be a wild ride.
For my money, the BEST solution (and I don't know if it's gonna be good enough) would be to couple tax cuts and spending cuts with *radical* deregulation to re-open economic sectors, and thus maximize the growth potential of our shrinking productive-aged population. The Jones Act, for example, oughta go tomorrow.
Regardless of what happens, it's gonna be a wild fucking ride.
You don’t need the tax cuts to get the advantages of radical deregulation. Heck, it doesn’t even have to be radical to make a big difference. The Jones Act needs to go. The standing on lawsuits to stop development needs to be radically narrowed (letting NGOs sue is a horrid thing). Most professional licensing needs to be changed to a “certification of quality” rather than a requirement to operate. That’s three that would dramatically help revive things off the top of my head.
A thousand-word review of a book about the growth of the apocalyptic mindset from several years ago now.
http://www.intergalacticmedicineshow.com/cgi-bin/mag.cgi?do=columns&vol=randall_hayes&article=037
A very nicty little piece. Thanks for the link :-)
Great piece!
----
> the Nazi scientists and philosophers imported into the United States through Operation Paperclip
Philosophers?? Please elaborate.
----
Not that it really matters, but one of the things I am scared of is the proportion of people completely brainwashed by the system, but wielding some sort of power and/or leadership. Who are not getting at all what's going on.
Just went back and checked--everyone I had in mind (Schmidt and Heidegger, for example) was very influential and well-published in post-war US, but didn't actually live in the US. I am changing the body of the article to fix the error.
A few weeks ago, you posted a comment about four basic types of government (or society?) and ranked them best to worst for just regular folks who wanted to go about their business having a decent life. Is the US the #1 one? Now or at some (or any) points in the past? Is Europe? I remember you telling me China (historically) has been the worst one (the #4). What are some current examples of each?
This was the comment (augmented with current examples)
At bottom, there are only 4 political systems:
1) Only the rich may become powerful (the US)
2) Only the powerful may become rich (China, most of Europe, Russia)
3) Only the exceptional may become either rich or powerful (used to be the US, and sometimes is now, but much more rarely than it once was. Britain during its ascendancy had some of this too)
4) Only those willing to kill the rich may become powerful (and vice versa) (Revolutionary France, Revolutionary Russia, large swaths of Medieval Europe)
If your priority is to live a life largely unmolested, you should prefer options 3, 1, 4, and 2, in that order