As an economist by avocation (albeit in energy/environment/regulatory) and lapsed historian (Russian/Cold War, military, diplomacy) I find similarities between what the founders wanted for government and the ideal of perfectly competitive markets to be striking. For example, Jefferson envisioned a country of farmers, well educated and read (at least enough) where no single individual could control the outcome. This is no different in economics where the firms are not of sufficient size to set market prices on their own.
But slavery was the “original sin” not just in governance and rights, but also in economic terms! Large plantations made up agriculture in the south (a form of oligopoly), 3/5 gave outsize political power akin to market power. In the north, small farms were the norm, it began to industrialize, but it was not until AFTER the Civil War those large industries truly became oligopolies or monopolies holding undue political influence (the Gilded Age).
Oligopoly in economics (few firms that could control price), monopolies (single firm market) are anti-competitive as they can control prices. This is what has been created de facto in the political and governing sphere. The old slogan, “Beware the Generals: General Motors, General Foods, General Dynamics, General (fill in the blank if your most despised high ranking officer).” It lead Ike to warn us of the military, industrial complex which itself is economically and now politically oligarchic and monopolistic.
I am no legal scholar, but the plain reading of the law should always hold. Laws need not be so complex, but yet it is as a barrier to entry…in this case to keep people out of the loop and ignorant rather than keeping competition out. I wonder if anybody has examined the connection between the underpinnings of the Scottish Enlightenment ideas and the beginnings of modern Economics? In writing this I find it “coincidental” that Adam Smith wrote “Wealth of Nations” in the same period as the Scottish Enlightenment…as a Scot no less!
More interesting food for thought. To come up with a good NW, do we link economic outcomes to good governance? Maybe it is a way to get more people to see how this works in their lives.
Paul, what a wonderful portrayal of the integration of your background and professional field (s). Your input, very worthy of far deeper consideration. Your economic insights are valuable and certainly not my deep specialty. This makes your input quite helpful. I often learn as much from readers and I give them. Both you and Norman on this thread are asking precisely the right questions. As for the Scottish Enlightenment, writing a previous essay on it was an experience that I enjoyed and liked, above most of the others. While that I did not take any deep-dive into the economy, I did reference some brilliant scholars that have identified, our constitution as the "anti-oligarch constitution." Yes, Jefferson like most of our founders, expected new citizens to be well and accurately informed. As for the "Gilded" age or alternately, the "Robber Baron" era, it is also interesting that it overlapped with the scourge of Yellow Journalism.
Our nation is now suffering from multiple illnesses, some large and some lesser so. Not one of them cannot be healed enough for our nation to once again look and behave like our founders intended. Most of their concepts, revolved around the Scottish Enlightenment, or the "woke" or "progressives" of their era.
As for your question regarding linking "economic outcomes to good governance" I think that this is already built in to our system but convoluted by politicians, elite wealth and bankers, from the very beginning. As you noted, Plantation owners were the oligarchs up through the Civil War but were built on a false economic paradigm, which was free labor costs. In many ways, this is similar to the way folks like Bezos, Musk and others run their interests. There is no shortage of complaints about how strenuous and callous the working situations are with either or them and they are far from being alone.
I will leave a couple of links to the "Woke" Scottish Enlightenment and "Oligarchy" essays. You may have already seen them so just discard if you have.
Scottish Enlightenment and the mere thought of calling it woke made me laugh out loud! Loved it and it was definitely on point!
What is heartening is the back and forth we have had on these ideas and somehow hoping for a breakthrough moment where we can help steer people in the right direction. What may be heartening to you is that many of my clients with boots on the ground, as it were, think similarly. Why? It helps them do their jobs and markets thrive on information transparency and predictability in market rules that are easily understood and all must adhere to. There is no “rules for thee and run amok for me” as markets then fail to deliver what they should for everyday people.
As an economist by avocation (albeit in energy/environment/regulatory) and lapsed historian (Russian/Cold War, military, diplomacy) I find similarities between what the founders wanted for government and the ideal of perfectly competitive markets to be striking. For example, Jefferson envisioned a country of farmers, well educated and read (at least enough) where no single individual could control the outcome. This is no different in economics where the firms are not of sufficient size to set market prices on their own.
But slavery was the “original sin” not just in governance and rights, but also in economic terms! Large plantations made up agriculture in the south (a form of oligopoly), 3/5 gave outsize political power akin to market power. In the north, small farms were the norm, it began to industrialize, but it was not until AFTER the Civil War those large industries truly became oligopolies or monopolies holding undue political influence (the Gilded Age).
Oligopoly in economics (few firms that could control price), monopolies (single firm market) are anti-competitive as they can control prices. This is what has been created de facto in the political and governing sphere. The old slogan, “Beware the Generals: General Motors, General Foods, General Dynamics, General (fill in the blank if your most despised high ranking officer).” It lead Ike to warn us of the military, industrial complex which itself is economically and now politically oligarchic and monopolistic.
I am no legal scholar, but the plain reading of the law should always hold. Laws need not be so complex, but yet it is as a barrier to entry…in this case to keep people out of the loop and ignorant rather than keeping competition out. I wonder if anybody has examined the connection between the underpinnings of the Scottish Enlightenment ideas and the beginnings of modern Economics? In writing this I find it “coincidental” that Adam Smith wrote “Wealth of Nations” in the same period as the Scottish Enlightenment…as a Scot no less!
More interesting food for thought. To come up with a good NW, do we link economic outcomes to good governance? Maybe it is a way to get more people to see how this works in their lives.
Paul, what a wonderful portrayal of the integration of your background and professional field (s). Your input, very worthy of far deeper consideration. Your economic insights are valuable and certainly not my deep specialty. This makes your input quite helpful. I often learn as much from readers and I give them. Both you and Norman on this thread are asking precisely the right questions. As for the Scottish Enlightenment, writing a previous essay on it was an experience that I enjoyed and liked, above most of the others. While that I did not take any deep-dive into the economy, I did reference some brilliant scholars that have identified, our constitution as the "anti-oligarch constitution." Yes, Jefferson like most of our founders, expected new citizens to be well and accurately informed. As for the "Gilded" age or alternately, the "Robber Baron" era, it is also interesting that it overlapped with the scourge of Yellow Journalism.
Our nation is now suffering from multiple illnesses, some large and some lesser so. Not one of them cannot be healed enough for our nation to once again look and behave like our founders intended. Most of their concepts, revolved around the Scottish Enlightenment, or the "woke" or "progressives" of their era.
As for your question regarding linking "economic outcomes to good governance" I think that this is already built in to our system but convoluted by politicians, elite wealth and bankers, from the very beginning. As you noted, Plantation owners were the oligarchs up through the Civil War but were built on a false economic paradigm, which was free labor costs. In many ways, this is similar to the way folks like Bezos, Musk and others run their interests. There is no shortage of complaints about how strenuous and callous the working situations are with either or them and they are far from being alone.
I will leave a couple of links to the "Woke" Scottish Enlightenment and "Oligarchy" essays. You may have already seen them so just discard if you have.
Cheers.
https://www.truthaboutthreats.com/p/oligarchy-is-an-acute-threat-to-democracy?utm_source=publication-search
https://www.truthaboutthreats.com/p/our-founding-fathers-were-woke-and?utm_source=publication-search
Paul, I read your work on the “woke”
Scottish Enlightenment and the mere thought of calling it woke made me laugh out loud! Loved it and it was definitely on point!
What is heartening is the back and forth we have had on these ideas and somehow hoping for a breakthrough moment where we can help steer people in the right direction. What may be heartening to you is that many of my clients with boots on the ground, as it were, think similarly. Why? It helps them do their jobs and markets thrive on information transparency and predictability in market rules that are easily understood and all must adhere to. There is no “rules for thee and run amok for me” as markets then fail to deliver what they should for everyday people.