Liberal Economics.

[W]hat is bemoaned by the right is due not to the left but to the consequences of its own deepest commitments, especially to liberal economics. And it seeks to show that what is bemoaned by the left is due not to the right but to the consequences of its own deepest commitments, especially to the dissolution of social norms, particularly those regarding sexual behavior and identity. The “wedding” between global corporations and this sexual agenda is one of the most revealing yet widely ignored manifestations of this deeper synergy.

Patrick J. Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed.

You've heard what Deneen is observing here before, but it bears repeating.  We do not have a "free market" economic system, but rather a corporate capitalist one, which favors size over everything else, and which reduces individuals to "consumers", not people.  The economy serves only that, and operates exactly as Deneen notes.

Right wing economists and left wing ones, therefore, basically serve the same master, even if they fail to realize it. And everyone serves it in the end, rather than our economy, and everything in it, serving us.

Some basic economics, for economists

The simple reason being, economist grasp almost nothing about the economy and how it actually works, on a more existential level.

Including, even why the economy exists.

And politicians, speaking about the economy, don't look at the whole, but the part, as the whole isn't very satisfactory in a right/left construct.

Indeed, left wing politicians would be horrified by a real deep reform of the economy in ways that would actually work, as would right wing politicians.

Witness the latest by economist Robert Reich:

The economic message that will get Biden reelected and give Dems a majority in both Houses of Congress

Indeed, let's break them down and look at the uncomfortable truth.

The economic goal should be more jobs at higher wages. Right?

Let's start there.  That seems reasonable enough, so I'll basically concede it. But perhaps a better position would be to state that the economic goal would be more worthwhile jobs that allow for individual family independence, at middle class reasonable wages. 

Because, what's an economy for? To serve people.

It isn't really "more decent jobs at higher wages".  Indeed, it would really be all jobs at family supporting wages.  That's not really the same thing.

I don't know that Reich would disagree with that, but it's important to keep it in overall mind.  Economist tend to think that all jobs are super nifty, not matter what they are, as long as 100% of everyone who can work is working, and for good wages.  

Actual people, however, don't think that way. They want decent jobs worth doing to support themselves, and their families if they have one, and most people do.

The irony here is that the left and the right have come around to the same position on this, over the year.  It's a very Soviet, warehouse the children you unfortunately had so that everyone can work, until they are old, of course, as the Boomer run the economy and it's okay if they retire.

We continue.

Yet the Fed, corporate economists, and the GOP have turned the goal upside down — into fewer jobs and lower wages. Otherwise, they say, we’ll face more inflation.

Bob can't quite seem to grasp that unless an overheated economy is slowed down, wages erode.  And the Fed, etc., isn't trying to depress wages.  Inflation itself erodes wages.  They're trying to slow inflation in the only method known to work.

He knows that, but he has a pet thesis that is, as he would put it: 

Rubbish.

And here, several paragraphs later, is the thesis. 

The Fed has raised borrowing costs at 10 consecutive meetings, pushing its benchmark rate to over 5 percent. Yet inflation has barely budged. In April, it dropped to 4.9 percent (year-over-year) from 5 percent in March — according to Wednesday’s Labor Bureau data.

Why are the Fed’s rate hikes having so little effect?

Actually, historically, that's not bad.

An ideal inflation rate would be 0%, or quite frankly slight, perhaps 1% or 2% deflation, to recover some lost ground.  5%, however, is headed in the right direction.  3% for much of my life was regarded as basically no inflation at all, and the extremely low inflationary rates we had until COVID were simply extraordinary.

Oh, COVID, remember that? The thing that closed the ports and kept good from coming in, reminding Americans that we make nothing.

A thing like that could almost have been inflationary.

A think like that may also have served to remind Americans that some of the jobs they had left, pre COVID, were awful.  Note the big decrease in long haul truck drivers, employees in an industry that had already seen a massive departure of Americans in favor of foreign nationals, and which is effectively subsidized, as we've noted elsewhere.

It's an awful job.  It's almost as if we might want to think about doing this more efficiently.

If only private companies could be induced to ship things by rail. . . .oh wait. . . 

Anyhow, raising interest rates hasn't worked as it hasn't been high enough, that's why.  5% is a joke.  It ought to be at least 8%.

And, additionally, because this inflationary cycle is global, that's also why.

Because, left wing economist, global food prices and energy prices have risen dramatically as a former far left wing operative, now politicians, and a person with a strange relationship (listening right wing politicians) with Donald J. Trump, has invaded a neighbor resulting in the first peer to peer, large scale, conventional war since the Korean War.

That's a lot of the reason why.

But, left wing economist states:

Because inflation is not being propelled by an overheated economy. It’s being propelled by overheated profits.

Okay, I'm a distributist, and I'd favor addressing this to the element it's the truth, but it's just frankly not very true.   One basic fact is that those supposedly profiteering business are taking in money that's worth less every day.  No wonder they feel they have to take in more.

But Bob says:

So, what’s causing inflation? Corporations with enough monopoly power to raise their prices and fatten their profits — which the Fed’s rate hikes barely affect.

Okay, well then let's go to a Distributist economy and limit the number of areas business enterprises can operate the corporate business form.  That would be extremely deflationary, make for more good jobs at a wider level, and be much more stable.  It'd do a whole lot more than raising taxes, as Bob suggest, which would be most likely passed on to everyone else.

Any regular economist in favor of that?

Absolute not, as they're all really just corporate capitalist economist and favor slightly tinkering with the mechanics of things. Basically, the difference between a conservative economist and a liberal economist is the difference motor heads of the 70s exhibited on whether they were Holly Carb or Edlebrock fans.

Big whoop.

But here's another uncomfortable truth.  Let's go back to the first item.

The economic goal should be more jobs at higher wages. Right?

Part of the reason that wages rose is that during COVID there was a big decrease in immigration, legal and illegal, into the United States.

For years, economist on the left and right have claimed that immigrants take jobs that Americans won't, never mind that they take what are frankly a lot of middle class jobs in some industries.  As they didn't come in, Americans took those jobs, but demanded living wages.

Supposedly, in the economist world, immigration had no impact on inflation, or jobs, and in fact boosted the economy.  They may have boosted the economy, but its now conclusively demonstrated that they did so by depressing wages.

And this worked an injustice for the native born, including the native born poor.  This was always known at some level as it provided the fuel to the occasional riots and domestic strife at the inner city urban level.

This has also caused liberals like commentator Chuck Todd to directly claim that we're experiencing inflation as we aren't seeing immigrants come in. But what this implicitly admits is that the high American immigration rate operates to keep wages low, and that is what was depressing inflation.  Absent the high immigration levels, wages would rise to their natural level.

And that's what they've been doing.

Setting aside Donald Trump's pal, Vlad "if Czar Nikki owned I still do" Putin, part of what is going on is at attempt at wage stabilization, at American living wage levels, something that was frustrated by decades of wage erosion due to immigration.

Sacrifice. What's Wrong With The World

In the West, we just celebrated Easter.  In the East, where the Old Calendar is sometimes used, it's today.  This might mean, for the observant, that they were in Church the prior Sunday, in which case, for churches using the Catholic liturgical calendar, they heard this.

Then Judas, his betrayer, seeing that Jesus had been condemned,

deeply regretted what he had done.

He returned the thirty pieces of silver

to the chief priests and elders, saying,

"I have sinned in betraying innocent blood."

They said,

"What is that to us?

Look to it yourself."

Flinging the money into the temple,

he departed and went off and hanged himself.

We all know, of course, that Judas was Christ's betrayer.  Not too many stop to think that he was seized with remorse and hung himself.

Why was he so miserable?

Probably for the same reason that Western society, on the whole, is.

He thought of himself and chose his own inner wishes rather than being willing to sacrifice.

It's struck me recently that this is the defining quality of our age. We won't sacrifice and don't believe we should have to.  It explains a lot.

Interestingly, in a matter of synchronicity, after I started writing this I happened to listen to an episode of Catholic Stuff You Should Know on Augustine's City of God and Lewis' The Great Divorce that ties in perfectly.  It's here:

The one that explains exactly where we are.

CAN WE BUILD THE CITY OF GOD?

And I do mean exactly.

Also, a matter of synchronicity, we passed the 111th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic after I started this.  

The wealthy men on board the doomed ship, and a lot of the other men, stayed on the sinking ship so that women and children would be saved.  The men who went were largely the crew, needed to man the lifeboats as part of their tasks.  Otherwise, men didn't complain, they just stepped aside so that as few women and children as possible wouldn't die. A Catholic Priest stayed with them to prepare them for entry into the next life.  All of them were living up to a standard, but the interesting thing to note there is that it was a standard.  They were heroic, but not because they exceeded the standard, but rather because the occasion came to apply it, and they unflinchingly did.

Now we shove women into combat, something that in any prior age would be regarded as an outright societal act of cowardice and a complete failure of male virtue.

We've come a long ways, all right.  And not in a good way.

Sacrifice was almost the defining quality of any prior age, or at least those that preceded the late 1960s, and very much the defining quality of the 18th through mid 20th Centuries.  Men would die before they'd let women and children be injured, and if they didn't, they'd be branded as cowards for the rest of their lives.

Most people married, and marriage was understood to have a sacrificial element to it in numerous ways.  People didn't "write their own vows", the vows were part of the ceremony and they were, well, vows.  Promises you weren't getting out of, in other words.

Latin Rite English wedding vows still reflect this.  The entire series of events reads goes as follows.

First, the Priest asks a series of questions, to which the couple responds "I do", or words that effect:

(Name) and (name), have you come here to enter into Marriage without coercion, freely and wholeheartedly?"                   

"Are you prepared, as you follow the path of Marriage, to love and honor each other for as long as you both shall live?"                       

"Are you prepared to accept children lovingly from God and to bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?"

Only after ascent to that, the Priest reads:

Priest (or deacon): Since it is your intention to enter into the covenant of Holy Matrimony, join your right hands, and declare your consent before God and his Church.

Groom: I, (name), take you, (name), to be my wife. I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honor you all the days of my life.

Bride: I, (name), take you, (name), to be my husband. I promise to be faithful to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, to love you and to honor you all the days of my life.

The element of sacrifice is so strong in marriage, that in Croatia, a Catholic country, an added element is present, in which the Priest states:

You have found your cross. And it is a cross to be loved, to be carried, a cross not to be thrown away, but to be cherished.

That's really heavy.  That's not a fuzzy bunny, flowery rose, type of view of marriage at all.  You're signing up for a real burden.

But one to be cherished.

And that's the thing that the West has lost. 

We don't want to sacrifice at all.

If you look at life prior to the late 1960s, sacrifice was darned near universal.  Everyone, nearly, married and divorce was rare.  People sacrificed for their marriages.  Most married couples had children, and having children entailed sacrifice.  Reflecting the common values of the time well, the screenwriter of The Magnificent Seven summed it up in this fashion in a comparison of family men to hired gunfighters:

Village Boy 2 : We're ashamed to live here. Our fathers are cowards.

Bernardo O'Reilly : Don't you ever say that again about your fathers, because they are not cowards. You think I am brave because I carry a gun; well, your fathers are much braver because they carry responsibility, for you, your brothers, your sisters, and your mothers. And this responsibility is like a big rock that weighs a ton. It bends and it twists them until finally it buries them under the ground. And there's nobody says they have to do this. They do it because they love you, and because they want to. I have never had this kind of courage. Running a farm, working like a mule every day with no guarantee anything will ever come of it. This is bravery. That's why I never even started anything like that... that's why I never will.

The line, "And this responsibility is like a big rock that weighs a ton. It bends and it twists them until finally it buries them under the ground." was literally true for many.  Indeed, it's been noted that up until some point after World War Two Finland, which rountinely comes in as the happiest country on Earth, had a very early male death rate, simply because the men there worked hard, and basically worked themselves into the grave for their families.

People were not, of course, perfect, and therefore children naturally arrived on the scene with an unmarried origin.  Depending upon the age of the couple, that often ended up in a marriage before the child was born, adding an added element of sacrifice in which the couple sacrificed, in essence, an element of freedom or even their future for what they'd brought about. When that didn't occur, the child was more often than not given up for adoption, which involves an element of sacrifice, but because it arises in a different context, we'll not get too deeply into that.

Things tended to be focused on that fashion. There were people who didn't follow this path, but they were a minority.

This has been portrayed, since the 1970s, as some sort of horrible oppression.  But the surprising secret of it is that people seem to be hardwired for it, and when it's absent, they descend into, well, a descent.

None of which is to say that sacrifices aren't present in the modern world. They are, although by and large society tries enormously to avoid them.

It's tried the hardest in regard to the natural instincts of all kinds.  People are able to avoid nature, and so they do, least they have to sacrifice. But that's a sacrifice in and of itself, but for what?

The self, is what we were told initially.  But the self in this context turns out to be for the economy.  In a fairly straight line, we're told that you should avoid commitments to anything requiring commitment, so that you can get a good career, make lots of money, and go to Ikea.

Very fulfilling?

Ummm. . . 

No, not at all.  

In The Great Divorce, which I haven't read but which Catholic Things summarized extensively, Lewis placed a self focused Anglican Bishop in the role of the self-centered intellect.  Self Centered is the epitome of the current age.  And that self-centered role placed the figure in Hell.

We're doing a good job of that figuratively for the same reason, and literally as well.

Prior Related Threads:

What's wrong with the (modern, western) world, part 1. A thought on community

What's wrong with the (modern, western) world, part 2. Care, lack of care, and an existential lack of focus.

Lex Anteinternet: What's wrong with the (modern, western) world, part 3. Our lost connection with animals.

Blog Mirror: Office Hours: Fake brand competition, monopoly power, and inflation

An interesting article by Robert Reich on monopolies:

Office Hours: Fake brand competition, monopoly power, and inflation

Of course Reich, like most conventional economist, even though on the left, points this out, but then starts whistling pasts the graveyard on it.  The solution to this sort of thing, and it is an obvious problem, is a much more distributist economy.  Not simply slightly adjusting the dials on the Sherman Anti Trust Act or corporate tax rates, although both of those need to be addressed.

Friday Farming. The Farm, Comrades.

A news announcement from Governor Gordon:

Wyoming Lands World’s Largest Vertical Farming Research Facility

 

CHEYENNE, Wyo. –  Governor Mark Gordon has announced a historic economic development investment, as the State Loan and Investment Board (SLIB) approved a grant to support development of the world’s largest and most advanced vertical farming research center in Laramie. The project will support the retention and creation of nearly 200 high-paying jobs in the community.

The company, Plenty Unlimited Inc., is dedicated to advancing the emerging technology field of indoor agriculture. The new research center in Laramie expects to utilize an internship-to-employment pipeline to hire local workers, as well as hire recent University of Wyoming graduates. The investment by the Wyoming Business Council supports the new direction of the Council, by adding value to Wyoming’s core industries and activating new economic sectors. 

“Wyoming is proud to invest in the continued success of a business that was first innovated here in Wyoming by one of our own and demonstrated at the 2015 World Expo,” said Governor Mark Gordon. “The level at which Plenty will be operating in this new facility will truly advance Wyoming’s preeminence as a global center of indoor agricultural research. This center gives us a tremendous opportunity to promote a state-of-the-art R&D cluster and further diversify our state’s economy.” 

The $20 million Business Ready Community Business Committed grant from the Wyoming Business Council to the City of Laramie will be applied to construction and infrastructure costs for the 60,000-square-foot facility, which will be built on 16 acres at the Cirrus Sky Technology Park in Laramie. Additional funding, land and support for the project is being provided by the City of Laramie and the Laramie Chamber Business Alliance (LCBA).

Plenty has its origins in Laramie. Chief Science Officer Dr. Nate Storey co-founded Bright Agrotech as a University of Wyoming graduate student in 2010 and established an innovation center in Laramie.This eventually led Storey and a group of entrepreneurs to found the startup Plenty Unlimited in 2014, which later bought Bright Agrotech. Today, Plenty has more than 400 employees nationwide and the company’s R&D work over the past two years drove more than 100 new patent filings for innovations as diverse as new crop growing systems, a way to detect plant stress and new tomato plant varieties.

“As a Wyoming native, I have devoted my career to advancing plant science in my home state and am proud to be a part of helping the State play a leading role in advancing a new field,” said Storey. "This state-of-the-art facility will not only accelerate our R&D pipeline but will also create an incredible opportunity to attract and employ a talented workforce to further innovation and diversification for Wyoming."

With the SLIB’s approval, the project will be shifting into the design phase, with plans to begin construction later this year and open the facility in early 2025. Plenty’s team and research work will transfer to the new facility from its current Laramie location once it is completed.

-END-

M'eh.

Vertical farming is a real thing, but the expectation that it's going to produce all of our food in the future is frankly unlikely, and a freaking nightmare.  It's industrial agriculture at its scariest, often accompanied by a vision of the future in which this has become necessary due to vast overpopulation of the planet.

Careful demographers, even if they provide overpopulation warnings, are now at the point where they tend to give them with a footnote, as it's now well known that we're darned near at the point of peak population right now. That is, while population continues to go up in some places, it's not really going to for that much longer, and it's declining, or even crashing, in much of the world  It would be declining in the United States but for the fact that up until recently: 1) the GOP saw all immigrants as their lawn care workers, working cheap; 2) the Democrats saw all immigrants as future Democratic voters, and the entire nation still thinks the "nation of immigrants" thing means that the US has to take in immigrants at an absurd level forever.  The falsity of those nations is now beginning to sink in, in no small part as the American people basically fill the country is full up and things need to back off.  If they were allowed to, like every other European country, and like Japan, and like China, our population would be declining.  At some point in this current century, the entire globe's population will be declining.  By next century, it'll be crashing.

And that won't be a crisis.

Part of the reason it won't be a crisis is that it'll allow people everywhere to live more natural lives. But in the meantime we keep getting suggestions like this.

It's interesting how Communist collective agriculture and Corporate industrialized agriculture tends to arrive at the same point.  Agriculture that's industrialized and of scale.

People don't really like it.

Moreover, people need a connection with nature, and agriculture is part of that. 

Well, if some have their way, there'd be less of that.  Rather, we'd be free from the burden of our serfdom comrade and liberated to work in the cubicles.

Nifty.

Appendix: Down the rabbit hole. (Additional topic references).

This appendix consists of additional labels for this entry:

Down the rabbit hole.

Croatia is banning shopping on Sundays

Tourism-Dependent Croatia Moves to Ban Shopping on Most Sundays

A Bloomberg headline.

Good for them.

A government spokesman stated; "We want to make it possible for retail employees to spend Sundays with their families”

More than 85% of Croatians are Roman Catholics.  Sunday is, of course, the Christian day of rest, and Christians are supposed to take this seriously.  Catholics, although they frequently don't, are definitely supposed to take it seriously, save for good reason to the alternative.

Here's out this shakes out in Europe, but as to large supermarkets:

By Imre Kristoffer Eilertsen - Own work, CC BY 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=107694359

Red on this map generally means closed. Green means wide open. Blue means that supermarkets hours are restricted to around six hours.

What all can we tell from this?  Well, perhaps not too much.  Some of the results are surprising.  The countries that are in red don't surprise me.  All but two of the geographic areas depicted are Catholic or Orthodox, and that's part of their cultural heritage.  But some of the green areas are too.  And Norway is a highly secularized Lutheran country, albeit one with a very strong social conscience that they inherit from their Medieval Catholicism, even if they would prefer to pretend it come from their Reformation Lutheranism.

Partial restrictions in France don't surprise me, but in England they do, given as the UK is the birth place of the corporate capitalist economy.

In North American, "blue laws" are state by state, and province by province, but it would be rare to find restrictions in our "you are a consumer" shot 24 hours a day culture anymore.  And of note, South American has no restrictions, even though you might guess that it would.

Well, kudos to Croatia.

Blog Mirror: "We keep you alive to serve this ship", Part 1 of societal institutions and work. - November 04, 2022

"We keep you alive to serve this ship"

Ben Hur

Just observing things, It's really struck me over time how certain social programs, of the left and the right, basically amount to nothing other than serving the needs of businesses, particularly large business entities, no matter how they are styled. This is so much the case that certain huge proponents of some programs who would regard themselves as real fire breathing leftists are actually heavy-duty capitalists, and don't know it.

This shows in their justification for the programs.

Let's, once again, make reference to our evolved place in a state of nature, and where we are actually at.

In a state of nature we'd not do what most of us do daily, which is to leave our abode and clock in time somewhere else, to come back to our home.  In our natural state, while we would leave our families, the family would be the focus all the time.  In our industrial societies, our work is.  Most people spend most of their lives with people they are brought in contact with solely because they serve an economic interest, and nothing else.

Men got there first, long before women. But starting in the early part of the 20th Century, if not slightly before, that changed for women and now women are basically expected to work away from their homes and families.

Everyone is.

When looked at this way, we see why left wing emphasis on child care, and paradoxically abortion, are part and parcel of serving industry.  If women can be prevented from having children, they can, ie., they'll have to, go to work. That's what they should be doing, working.  If they must have children for some weird biological and psychological reason, well then government sponsored child warehousing, i.e., daycare, will force them back into work in another fashion.

Either way, they'll be freed, i.e., forced, to serve work.

Almost all the post 1945 liberalization of domestic law and structure works this way.  Easy no-fault divorce makes it easy to dump families, sending everyone unhindered and untethered into work. Where that results in women falling below the poverty line due to their children, as they foolishly chose to have children, government funded daycare will address it.  Abortion must be kept legal, we are told, as it means women can go to work.

What if things didn't work this way?

Well, men would still be men, and women be women, but they'd have to fund their families themselves, and at least attempt to choose more wisely.  That would have a lot of collateral impacts, but chief among them would be, frankly, less of a focus on work and more of a focus on the domestic.

But that would also mean that a society based on consumption, and which reduced its members to consumers, would be focused on families instead.

And then who is going to make and buy all that crap?

So the next time you here Bernie Sanders spouting off about something like universal child care, remember, what he's really saying, whether he means it or not, is:

"We keep you alive to serve this ship"

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist Part XXVII. The Pope Francis Followup Edition.

Pity poor Pope Francis, whatever he says, he makes people mad.

Recently I posted on Durveger's Law and American politics.  A similar law, it seems, applies to people's views of whatever the Pope is doing, even though only the College of Cardinals cast a vote on his election, and there's no "first past the post" type system.  Americans, or at least Americans, having divided themselves into liberals and conservatives, try to pigeonhole everyone else into the same left/right divide.  And this includes American Catholics.

Pope Francis just won't go there.

Early in his papacy, he issued Laudato si', which addressed a lot of issue, including economics.* While what he said wasn't really that much different from earlier Popes, and various Popes have been critical of capitalism as well as socialism, this has somehow been missed in recent years by Americans.  Indeed, while the Papacy has been very hostile to communism, and quite hostile to socialism, its treatment of capitalism has been far from praiseworthy.  It's worth remembering that distributism came about due to a Papal Encyclical.  Most Americans, including most American Catholics, don't know what distributism is, however.

The year before last, he followed up on his economic comments with an epic length letter on economics, called Fratelli Tutti.  Maybe because of other events, that one was largely missed.

Anyhow, his economic comments convinced some American conservatives including Catholic conservatives that the Pope must be a hard left socialist, even though there was certainly no evidence of that.

Problems really ensued, however, when the Pope issued Amoris Laetitia, which contained some vague language and which resulted in the issuance of a Dubia by several cardinals seeking clarification. The reason for this is that the encyclical could be read to suggest, maybe, that the Pope seemed to be taking a position contrary to earlier Popes in regard to the Sacraments and couples that were outside marital norms of the Church, or not.  At least the very careful Catholic intellectual Fr. Hugh Barbour suggested that it was being misread and reflected certain European conditions rather than those outside of Europe, and had to be carefully considered, but others were not so convinced.

The Pope, to the consternation of many, never answered the Dubia but, interestingly enough, it seems that Pope Emeritus Benedict actually may have, something that's been missed.  That this happened might, or might not, be an indication of a soft message from Pope Francis, and if so it would be a very conservative one.

Indeed, while not really recalled much now, the Pope's early comments on homosexuality were certainly very conservative, and have continued to be.

Anyhow, late last year and then again early this year, the Pope clearly had enough of Rad Trads who were being aggressive about everything and he has acted to enormously restrict the Tridentine Mass.  And he also sent the Church into a Snyodal process, both of which have arched up the backs of conservatives, although I suspect the latter is a way of taking the wind out of the sails of the German bishops who seem to be headed towards a liberal schism.

So, just when people think they have him figured out, he makes a blunt statement about childish couples, suggesting they're selfish.  

And now he's commenting on "cancel culture".

The part of his statement making waves is the following one.

The diminished effectiveness of many international organizations is also due to their members entertaining differing visions of the ends they wish to pursue. Not infrequently, the centre of interest has shifted to matters that by their divisive nature do not strictly belong to the aims of the organization. As a result, agendas are increasingly dictated by a mindset that rejects the natural foundations of humanity and the cultural roots that constitute the identity of many peoples. As I have stated on other occasions, I consider this a form of ideological colonization, one that leaves no room for freedom of expression and is now taking the form of the “cancel culture” invading many circles and public institutions. Under the guise of defending diversity, it ends up cancelling all sense of identity, with the risk of silencing positions that defend a respectful and balanced understanding of various sensibilities. A kind of dangerous “one-track thinking” [pensée unique] is taking shape, one constrained to deny history or, worse yet, to rewrite it in terms of present-day categories, whereas any historical situation must be interpreted in the light of a hermeneutics of that particular time, not that of today.

Hmmm. . . some things in there are pretty liberal. . . and some quite conservative.

And predictably it enraged some on the far left, who amusingly dragged out the same historically ill-informed diatribes used by Protestant "reformers" during the Reformation, an interesting example of how fake history never goes away.

Will conservatives take a second look?

My guess is not.

Here's his most recent address, the wave making parts highlighted

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS POPE FRANCIS
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE DIPLOMATIC CORPS ACCREDITED TO THE HOLY SEE

Benediction Hall
 Monday, 10 January 2022

________________________________

Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen!

Yesterday concluded the liturgical season of Christmas, a privileged period for cultivating family relationships, from which we can at times be distracted and distant due to our many commitments during the year. Today we want to continue in that spirit, as we once more come together as a large family which discusses and dialogues. In the end, that is the aim of all diplomacy: to help resolve disagreements arising from human coexistence, to foster harmony and to realize that, once we pass beyond conflict, we can recover a sense of the profound unity of all reality.

I am therefore particularly grateful to you for taking part today in our annual “family gathering”, a propitious occasion for exchanging good wishes for the New Year and for considering together the lights and shadows of our time. I especially thank the Dean, His Excellency Mr George Poulides, the Ambassador of Cyprus, for his gracious address to me in the name of the entire Diplomatic Corps. Through all of you, I extend my affectionate greetings to the peoples you represent.

Your presence is always a tangible sign of the attention your countries devote to the Holy See and its role in the international community. Many of you have come from other capital cities for today’s event, thus joining the numerous Ambassadors residing in Rome, who will soon be joined by the Swiss Confederation.

Dear Ambassadors,

In these days, we are conscious that the fight against the pandemic still calls for a significant effort on the part of everyone; certainly, the New Year will continue to be demanding in this regard. The coronavirus continues to cause social isolation and to take lives. Among those who have died, I would like to mention the late Archbishop Aldo Giordano, an Apostolic Nuncio who was well-known and respected in the diplomatic community. At the same time, we have realized that in those places where an effective vaccination campaign has taken place, the risk of severe repercussions of the disease has decreased.

It is therefore important to continue the effort to immunize the general population as much as possible. This calls for a manifold commitment on the personal, political and international levels. First, on the personal level. Each of us has a responsibility to care for ourself and our health, and this translates into respect for the health of those around us. Health care is a moral obligation. Sadly, we are finding increasingly that we live in a world of strong ideological divides. Frequently people let themselves be influenced by the ideology of the moment, often bolstered by baseless information or poorly documented facts. Every ideological statement severs the bond of human reason with the objective reality of things. The pandemic, on the other hand, urges us to adopt a sort of “reality therapy” that makes us confront the problem head on and adopt suitable remedies to resolve it. Vaccines are not a magical means of healing, yet surely they represent, in addition to other treatments that need to be developed, the most reasonable solution for the prevention of the disease.

A political commitment is thus needed to pursue the good of the general population through measures of prevention and immunization that also engage citizens so that they can feel involved and responsible, thanks to a clear discussion of the problems and the appropriate means of addressing them. The lack of resolute decision-making and clear communication generates confusion, creates mistrust and undermines social cohesion, fueling new tensions. The result is a “social relativism” detrimental to harmony and unity.

In the end, a comprehensive commitment on the part of the international community is necessary, so that the entire world population can have equal access to essential medical care and vaccines. We can only note with regret that, for large areas of the world, universal access to health care remains an illusion. At this grave moment in the life of humanity, I reiterate my appeal that governments and concerned private entities demonstrate a sense of responsibility, developing a coordinated response at every level (local, national, regional, global), through new models of solidarity and tools to strengthen the capabilities of those countries in greatest need. In particular, I would urge all states, who are working to establish an international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response under the aegis of the World Health Organization, to adopt a policy of generous sharing as a key principle to guarantee everyone access to diagnostic tools, vaccines and drugs. Likewise, it is appropriate that institutions such as the World Trade Organization and the World Intellectual Property Organization adapt their legal instruments lest monopolistic rules constitute further obstacles to production and to an organized and consistent access to healthcare on a global level.

Dear Ambassadors,

Last year, thanks also to the lessening of the restrictions put in place in 2020, I had occasion to receive many Heads of State and Governments, as well as various civil and religious authorities.

Among those many meetings, I would like to mention that of 1 July 2021, devoted to reflection and prayer for Lebanon. To the beloved Lebanese people, who are working to find a solution to the economic and political crisis that has gripped the nation, I wish today to renew my closeness and my prayers. At the same time, I trust that necessary reforms and the support of the international community will help the country to persevere in its proper identity as a model of peaceful coexistence and brotherhood among the different religions.

In the course of 2021, I was also able to resume my Apostolic Journeys. In March, I had the joy of travelling to Iraq. Providence willed this, as a sign of hope after years of war and terrorism. The Iraqi people have the right to regain their dignity and to live in peace. Their religious and cultural roots go back thousands of years: Mesopotamia is a cradle of civilization; it is from there that God called Abraham to inaugurate the history of salvation.

In September, I travelled to Budapest for the conclusion of the International Eucharistic Congress, and thereafter to Slovakia. It was an opportunity for me to meet with the Catholic faithful and Christians of other confessions, and to dialogue with the Jewish community. I likewise travelled to Cyprus and Greece, a Journey that remains vivid in my memory. That visit allowed me to deepen ties with our Orthodox brothers and to experience the fraternity existing between the various Christian confessions.

A very moving part of that Journey was my visit to the island of Lesbos, where I was able to see at first hand the generosity of all those working to provide hospitality and assistance to migrants, but above all, to see the faces of the many children and adults who are guests of these centres of hospitality. Their eyes spoke of the effort of their journey, their fear of an uncertain future, their sorrow for the loved ones they left behind and their nostalgia for the homeland they were forced to depart. Before those faces, we cannot be indifferent or hide behind walls and barbed wires under the pretext of defending security or a style of life. This we cannot do.

Consequently, I thank all those individuals and governments working to ensure that migrants are welcomed and protected, and to support their human promotion and integration in the countries that have received them. I am aware of the difficulties that some states encounter in the face of a large influx of people. No one can be asked to do what is impossible for them, yet there is a clear difference between accepting, albeit in a limited way, and rejecting completely.

There is a need to overcome indifference and to reject the idea that migrants are a problem for others. The results of this approach are evident in the dehumanization of those migrants concentrated in hotspots where they end up as easy prey to organized crime and human traffickers, or engage in desperate attempts to escape that at times end in death. Sadly, we must also note that migrants are themselves often turned into a weapon of political blackmail, becoming a sort of “bargaining commodity” that deprives them of their dignity.

Here I would like to renew my gratitude to the Italian authorities, thanks to whom several persons were able to come with me to Rome from Cyprus and Greece. This was a simple yet meaningful gesture. To the Italian people, who suffered greatly at the beginning of the pandemic, but who have also shown encouraging signs of recovery, I express my heartfelt hope that they will always maintain their characteristic spirit of generosity, openness and solidarity.

At the same time, I consider it essential that the European Union arrive at internal cohesion in handling migration movements, just as it did in dealing with the effects of the pandemic. There is a need to adopt a coherent and comprehensive system for coordinating policies on migration and asylum, with a view to sharing responsibility for the reception of migrants, the review of requests for asylum, and the redistribution and integration of those who can be accepted. The capacity to negotiate and discover shared solutions is one of the strong points of the European Union; it represents a sound model for a farsighted approach to the global challenges before us.

Nonetheless, the migration issue does not regard Europe alone, even though it is especially affected by waves of migrants coming from Africa and from Asia. In recent years, we have witnessed, among others, an exodus of Syrian refugees and, more recently, the many people who have fled Afghanistan. Nor can we overlook the massive migration movements on the American continent, which press upon the border between Mexico and the United States of America. Many of those migrants are Haitians fleeing the tragedies that have struck their country in recent years.

The issue of migration, together with the pandemic and climate change, has clearly demonstrated that we cannot be saved alone and by ourselves: the great challenges of our time are all global. It is thus troubling that, alongside the greater interconnection of problems, we are seeing a growing fragmentation of solutions. It is not uncommon to encounter unwillingness to open windows of dialogue and spaces of fraternity; this only fuels further tensions and divisions, as well as a generalized feeling of uncertainty and instability. What is needed instead is a recovery of our sense of shared identity as a single human family. The alternative can only be growing isolation, marked by a reciprocal rejection and refusal that further endangers multilateralism, the diplomatic style that has characterized international relations from the end of the Second World War to the present time.

For some time now, multilateral diplomacy has been experiencing a crisis of trust, due to the reduced credibility of social, governmental and intergovernmental systems. Important resolutions, declarations and decisions are frequently made without a genuine process of negotiation in which all countries have a say. This imbalance, now dramatically evident, has generated disaffection towards international agencies on the part of many states; it also weakens the multilateral system as a whole, with the result that it becomes less and less effective in confronting global challenges.

The diminished effectiveness of many international organizations is also due to their members entertaining differing visions of the ends they wish to pursue. Not infrequently, the centre of interest has shifted to matters that by their divisive nature do not strictly belong to the aims of the organization. As a result, agendas are increasingly dictated by a mindset that rejects the natural foundations of humanity and the cultural roots that constitute the identity of many peoples. As I have stated on other occasions, I consider this a form of ideological colonization, one that leaves no room for freedom of expression and is now taking the form of the “cancel culture” invading many circles and public institutions. Under the guise of defending diversity, it ends up cancelling all sense of identity, with the risk of silencing positions that defend a respectful and balanced understanding of various sensibilities. A kind of dangerous “one-track thinking” [pensée unique] is taking shape, one constrained to deny history or, worse yet, to rewrite it in terms of present-day categories, whereas any historical situation must be interpreted in the light of a hermeneutics of that particular time, not that of today.

Multilateral diplomacy is thus called to be truly inclusive, not canceling but cherishing the differences and sensibilities that have historically marked various peoples. In this way, it will regain credibility and effectiveness in facing the challenges to come, which will require humanity to join together as one great family that, starting from different viewpoints, should prove capable of finding common solutions for the good of all. This calls for reciprocal trust and willingness to dialogue; it entails “listening to one another, sharing different views, coming to agreement and walking together”. Indeed, “dialogue is the best way to realize what ought always to be affirmed and respected apart from any ephemeral consensus”.  Nor should we overlook “the existence of certain enduring values”. Those are not always easy to discern, but their acceptance “makes for a robust and solid social ethics. Once those fundamental values are adopted through dialogue and consensus, we realize that they rise above consensus”. Here I wish to mention in particular the right to life, from conception to its natural end, and the right to religious freedom.

In this regard, in recent years we have seen a growing collective awareness of the urgent need to care for our common home, which is suffering from the constant and indiscriminate exploitation of its resources. Here I think especially of the Philippines, struck in these last weeks by a devastating typhoon, and of other nations in the Pacific, made vulnerable by the negative effects of climate change, which endanger the lives of their inhabitants, most of whom are dependent on agriculture, fishing and natural resources.

Precisely this realization should impel the international community as a whole to discover and implement common solutions. None may consider themselves exempt from this effort, since all of us are involved and affected in equal measure. At the recent COP26 in Glasgow, several steps were made in the right direction, even though they were rather weak in light of the gravity of the problem to be faced. The road to meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement is complex and appears to be long, while the time at our disposal is shorter and shorter. Much still remains to be done, and so 2022 will be another fundamental year for verifying to what extent and in what ways the decisions taken in Glasgow can and should be further consolidated in view of COP27, planned for Egypt next November.

Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen!

Dialogue and fraternity are two essential focal points in our efforts to overcome the crisis of the present moment. Yet “despite numerous efforts aimed at constructive dialogue between nations, the deafening noise of war and conflict is intensifying”.  The entire international community must address the urgent need to find solutions to endless conflicts that at times appear as true proxy wars.

I think first of Syria, where the country’s rebirth does not yet clearly appear on the horizon. Even today, the Syrian people mourn their dead and the loss of everything, and continue to hope for a better future. Political and constitutional reforms are required for the country to be reborn, but the imposition of sanctions should not strike directly at everyday life, in order to provide a glimmer of hope to the general populace, increasingly caught in the grip of poverty.

Nor can we overlook the conflict in Yemen, a human tragedy that has gone on for years, silently, far from the spotlight of the media and with a certain indifference on the part of the international community, even as it continues to claim numerous civil victims, particularly women and children.

In the past year, no steps forward were made in the peace process between Israel and Palestine. I would truly like to see these two peoples rebuild mutual trust and resume speaking directly to each other, in order to reach the point where they can live in two states, side by side, in peace and security, without hatred and resentment, but the healing born of mutual forgiveness.

Other sources of concern are the institutional tensions in Libya, the episodes of violence by international terrorism in the Sahel region, and the internal conflicts in Sudan, South Sudan and Ethiopia, where there is need “to find once again the path of reconciliation and peace through a forthright encounter that places the needs of the people above all else”. 

Profound situations of inequality and injustice, endemic corruption and various forms of poverty that offend the dignity of persons also continue to fuel social conflicts on the American continent, where growing polarization is not helping to resolve the real and pressing problems of its people, especially those who are most poor and vulnerable.

Reciprocal trust and readiness to engage in calm discussion should also inspire all parties at stake, so that acceptable and lasting solutions can be found in Ukraine and in the southern Caucasus, and the outbreak of new crises can be avoided in the Balkans, primarily in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Dialogue and fraternity are all the more urgently needed for dealing wisely and effectively with the crisis which for almost a year now has affected Myanmar; its streets, once places of encounter, are now the scene of fighting that does not spare even houses of prayer.

Naturally, these conflicts are exacerbated by the abundance of weapons on hand and the unscrupulousness of those who make every effort to supply them. At times, we deceive ourselves into thinking that these weapons serve to dissuade potential aggressors. History and, sadly, even daily news reports, make it clear that this is not the case. Those who possess weapons will eventually use them, since as Saint Paul VI observed, “a person cannot love with offensive weapons in his hands”. Furthermore, “When we yield to the logic of arms and distance ourselves from the practice of dialogue, we forget to our detriment that, even before causing victims and ruination, weapons can create nightmares”. Today these concerns have become even more real, if we consider the availability and employment of autonomous weapon systems that can have terrible and unforeseen consequences, and should be subject to the responsibility of the international community.

Among the weapons humanity has produced, nuclear arms are of particular concern. At the end of December last, the Tenth Review Conference of the parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which was to meet in New York in these days, was once again postponed due to the pandemic. A world free of nuclear arms is possible and necessary. I therefore express my hope that the international community will view that Conference as an opportunity to take a significant step in this direction. The Holy See continues steadfastly to maintain that in the twenty-first century nuclear arms are an inadequate and inappropriate means of responding to security threats, and that possession of them is immoral. Their production diverts resources from integral human development and their employment not only has catastrophic humanitarian and environmental consequences, but also threatens the very existence of humanity.

The Holy See likewise considers it important that the resumption of negotiations in Vienna on the nuclear accord with Iran (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) achieve positive results, in order to guarantee a more secure and fraternal world.

Dear Ambassadors!

In my Message for the World Day of Peace celebrated on 1 January last, I sought to highlight several factors that I consider essential for promoting a culture of dialogue and fraternity.

Education holds a special place, since it trains the younger generation, the future and hope of the world. Education is in fact the primary vehicle of integral human development, for it makes individuals free and responsible. The educational process is slow and laborious, and can lead at times to discouragement, but we can never abandon it. It is an outstanding expression of dialogue, for no true education can lack a dialogical structure. Education likewise gives rise to culture and builds bridges of encounter between peoples. The Holy See wished to stress the importance of education also by its participation in Expo 2021 in Dubai, with a pavilion inspired by the theme of the Expo: “Connecting Minds, Creating the Future”.

The Catholic Church has always recognized and valued the role of education in the spiritual, moral and social growth of the young. It pains me, then, to acknowledge that in different educational settings – parishes and schools – the abuse of minors has occurred, resulting in serious psychological and spiritual consequences for those who experienced them. These are crimes, and they call for a firm resolve to investigate them fully, examining each case to ascertain responsibility, to ensure justice to the victims and to prevent similar atrocities from taking place in the future.

Despite the gravity of such acts, no society can ever abdicate its responsibility for education. Yet, regrettably, state budgets often allocate few resources for education, which tends to be viewed as an expense, instead of the best possible investment for the future.

The pandemic prevented many young people from attending school, to the detriment of their personal and social development. Modern technology enabled many young people to take refuge in virtual realities that create strong psychological and emotional links but isolate them from others and the world around them, radically modifying social relationships. In making this point, I in no way intend to deny the usefulness of technology and its products, which make it possible for us to connect with one another easily and quickly, but I do appeal urgently that we be watchful lest these instruments substitute for true human relationships at the interpersonal, familial, social and international levels. If we learn to isolate ourselves at an early age, it will later prove more difficult to build bridges of fraternity and peace. In a world where there is just “me”, it is difficult to make room for “us”.

The second thing that I would like to mention briefly is labour, “an indispensable factor in building and keeping peace. Labour is an expression of ourselves and our gifts, but also of our commitment, self-investment and cooperation with others, since we always work with or for someone else. Seen in this clearly social perspective, the workplace enables us to learn to make our contribution towards a more habitable and beautiful world”. 

We have seen that the pandemic has sorely tested the global economy, with serious repercussions on those families and workers who experienced situations of psychological distress even before the onset of the economic troubles. This has further highlighted persistent inequalities in various social and economic sectors. Here we can include access to clean water, food, education and medical care. The number of people falling under the category of extreme poverty has shown a marked increase. In addition, the health crisis forced many workers to change professions, and in some cases forced them to enter the underground economy, causing them to lose the social protections provided for in many countries.

In this context, we see even more clearly the importance of labour, since economic development cannot exist without it, nor can it be thought that modern technology can replace the surplus value of human labour. Human labour provides an opportunity for the discovery of our personal dignity, for encounter with others and for human growth; it is a privileged means whereby each person participates actively in the common good and offers a concrete contribution to peace. Here too, greater cooperation is needed among all actors on the local, national, regional and global levels, especially in the short term, given the challenges posed by the desired ecological conversion. The coming years will be a time of opportunity for developing new services and enterprises, adapting existing ones, increasing access to dignified work and devising new means of ensuring respect for human rights and adequate levels of remuneration and social protection.

Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

The prophet Jeremiah tells us that God has “plans for [our] welfare and not for evil, to give [us] a future and a hope” (29:11). We should be unafraid, then, to make room for peace in our lives by cultivating dialogue and fraternity among one another. The gift of peace is “contagious”; it radiates from the hearts of those who long for it and aspire to share it, and spreads throughout the whole world. To each of you, your families and the peoples you represent, I renew my blessing and offer my heartfelt good wishes for a year of serenity and peace.

Thank you!

So, one week the Pope suggests that furbabies aren't babies at all, and that it's selfish to avoid children, a very conservative, and very Catholic, position.  Now he follows it up with a suggestion that cancel culture is a bad thing, yet another conservative position.  

It's pretty hard to get radical left wing out of that.

And it's hard to really place him in that right/left divide. 

All of which suggests that he should get more credit than he does, and that his statements should be carefully watched, including by conservatives like me.

Blog Mirror: Southern Rockies Nature Blog: A Depressing Visit to the Cabela's Mothership

Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.

Edward Abbey

I haven't kept up on the Cabala's news, but frankly Cabela's in recent months have been a bit depressing.  So it wasn't a huge surprise when I read the Southern Rockies Nature Blog entry here:

Southern Rockies Nature Blog: A Depressing Visit to the Cabela's Mothership: Entrance to the Cabela's store in Sidney, Nebraska. I first visited Cabela's headquarters store in Sidney, Nebraska, when it was st...

My comment there:

I hadn't been aware of the news, but it doesn't surprise me one bit.

Even before the merger with Bass Pro Shop it was obvious that things weren't what they once were with Cabelas. The change really came after it started opening up mega satellite stores.  

Like you, I first went to Cabelas when it was in downtown Sidney.  It was great.  The big Interstate store, when it was the only one, wasn't bad but it never had the same feel as the downtown store, which was obviously the headquarters of a store that had principally moved to catalog sales and been hugely successful at it.

That store had a very "Nebraska" feel to it.  There were always a lot of things associated with waterfowl and the people working there, real adults, tended to be discussing recent duck hunts.  The big Interstate store was very good, but something was already drifting.

I worried when they started opening the satellites, it wasn't going to go well.  At first it seemed to, but the one in Thornton didn't quite have the right feel.  When the sale to Bass Pro Shop came, I knew it was over with then.  Bass Pro Shops, as you note, is a Southern, not a northern, thing and they are very different.

Well, my prediction is that Cabala's will collapse, another victim of the American belief that retail size is all that really counts.

I used to love Cabela's, probably the same way that some people loved the old Herter's catalog.  And it frankly had that model, it was a catalog store.  Herter's, for those who can recall it, also had a unique catalog that used to come full of outdoor gear and which also contained commentary from the owner of the store.  Herter's actually inspired the original owners of Cabela's with their business model, and as it began to come up it bought some lines, including foam decoys, from Herter's.  After Cabela's did that, in fact, Herter's slid into bankruptcy, ceasing to exist in 1981.

By that time, Cabela's was very much in the ascendancy. . .using the same model.  You'd get a catalog a couple of times a  year, but frankly the only one you really paid much attention to was the fall catalog, and maybe the winter catalog.  You could tell that these guys were out of small-town Nebraska.  The hunting stuff was waterfowl centric and good.

The Sidney store itself was a bit of a charming mess.  It was tiny, weirdly organized, and had the great "bargain cave" that was packed with great stuff wall to wall that somebody had returned.  I still have a pair of Chippewa packers boots that somebody had returned, something I could not have afforded otherwise, that I picked up there probably in 1989 or so, the first time I went there.

The people who worked there, moreover, were really knowledgeable.  Men from the town who were hunters themselves.  You had the impression that this was a part-time job that gave them extra money while they were doing something else. . . maybe working on the farm or something.

Then they moved to the highway.  

Lots of people hve fond memories of the huge headquarters out on the Interstate, but it was never as good as the downtown store. This doesn't mean it was bad, but it wasn't as good.

Well, the United States being what it is, a nation that's completely failed to grasp that Capitalism and Free Marketism are not the same thing, it was probably inevitable that the success of the headquarters interstate store meant that identical stores started popping up elsewhere.  The first one I was ever in was in Rapid City, and indeed I found something on sale there that I bought, so I shouldn't complain. That store and the one in Billings, weren't bad.  One then sprung up in Thornton Colorado, and frankly it's never been more than okay at best.  I still stop in there, but it's been uniformly disappointing in recent years.

In 2017 Bass Pro Shop came along and swallowed up Cabela's.

That was part of the capitalist anti-free market monopolistic impulse that inevitable as well. Bass Pro Shop was and is a big outfit.  Focused on southern bass fishing, it had built itself up into a huge retail chain.  At some point some of its catalogs wound up in my mailbox but unlike the Cabela's catalog, they usually ended up in the trash pretty soon after that.  I don't live in the South and while I fish, I don't do that kind of fishing.  When the merger, or buyout (more accurate), came, I worried that it would mean the end of Cabela's.

And it more or less has.

The Bass Pro Shop conglomerate owns Sportsman's Warehouse as well, and I can't say that I've seen a change there, as Sportsman's was never doing that well here, and it may have actually improved somewhat, but you can see the problem here.

And it doesn't have to be that way.

All giant retailers can and do exist as they have a corporate structure, and corporations are creatures of the government.

Eh?  What about free market and competition, and all that jazz?

Nope, they're creatures of the government.

It as the British who invented them, and more specifically, they came about due to British colonialism.  It simply wasn't possible to raise large amounts of capital, i.e, cash, from people who would risk it all, like it would if you were investing in a partnership, for giant colonial enterprises.

Here perhaps an example would best illustrate the situation.

If I'm looking to put together a bunch of cash to invest in a colonial enterprise in East India, and its going to take a lot of it, I'm going to have to get a lot of it from a lot of people. But most of those people are going to stay safe and warm in Old Blighty  So, when I go to Lord Smithers, or whomever, and as for £10,000 Sterling, and he asks how safe his investment is, if I’m honest I'm going to have to tell him about the risks, and part of that risks is that some competing enterprise or person might file suit against all the partners, if that's what we are, including Lord Smithers.  At that point, he'll probably decide to keep his silver and go back to forcing Scottish peasants off the land so he can raise sheep instead.

But, if I get Parliament to create a new legal creature, the corporation, I can tell Lord Smithers that all he's risking is his personal cash.  No individual liability at all. That's a much better deal.

Indeed, that will not only appeal to Lord Smithers, who has big amounts of spare cash, but also to the new middle class.  Lots of Mr. Jones, and Mr. Smiths, who don't have £10,000 Sterling, but who might have £10 or £20.

You get the point.

But there was a dark side to that which nobody anticipated at the time.  Sure, corporations allowed for the build up of lots of cash in a new economic system, capitalism, but nobody ever thought that it would be used for anything other than gigantic investment high-risk entities.  Sure, the East India Company (really the first true corporation) or the Hudson's Bay Company, but not retailers.  Indeed, early on corporations were restricted in their existence and took specific legislative acts in order to exist.  The first free corporations act, i.e., a bill allowing for parties meeting certain requirements simply to incorporate on their own, in the US first came about in 1811.  That New York act was restricted to manufacturing.  The first general incorporation act in the US didn't come about until 1896.

1896.

So when you hear all the stuff from confused free marketers about how this has always been, and how corporations should be free of government influences. . . well, they're creatures of government influence and haven't been around in the moder form all that long.

They've certain spread and like all businesses, they have a monopolistic instinct.  People may tell you that they're all hip and cool in competition, but truth be known, every business would prefer to be a monopoly. And that's why they buy each other. Medium-sized retailers buy out small ones, big ones buy out large ones, the goal is to be the only one.

The irony is that as this occurs, service doesn't really improve.  The larger things become, the less it knows about the local.

Indeed, Cabela's showed its Nebraska origin throughout its independent existence, which was okay if you were from a neighboring state.  And it somewhat got the neighboring states too, as its winter catalog and summer catalog showed. As noted, Bass Pro Shop never did.  Sportsman's Warehouse, even though it was founded in Utah, obviously didn't as it would stock stuff in its stores that you'd never use here.

On top of it, big v. small ultimately becomes a price v. quality war, which was probably part of Herter's problem.  Herter's stuff was good.  But at some point, the real attraction to big is low price to an extent.  This is only partially true of a niche store, like Cabela's, as part of it is also having stuff you can't find elsewhere.  Indeed, L. L. Bean, which has just started to go down the fatal extra retail outlet road, really had that down for eons.

The ultimate example of this is of course Walmart, whose low low prices have depressed the quality of retail goods in the US.  Things really aren't as good as they used to be in some categories, quality wise, because of Walmart, which is so aggressive in its desire to have the lowest prices in the universe that it's caused manufacturers of some durable goods to use cheaper components. Consumers don't see this.

All of this has done a bunch of different things to the American retail scene.  On one hand, it had really served to drive prices down.  It's also served to drive manufacturing overseas, although there's more to it than that, and its served to drive prices down as well.  And its drive local businesses out of existence.  Americans who praise this particular system in its current form, and there are many, probably more than who critique it, fail to note that at some point low low prices by a giant retailer mean that everyone has low low wages and can't afford to buy crap.  And indeed, there's also the problematic economic problem of the tendency of profits to decline, which has been theorized upon by every economist from Adam Smith on, but which capitalism ultimately can experience for some of the reasons we're noting, although there are many other factors and the rule isn't an iron clad one itself.

Anyhow, all of that gets back to this.

Chances are that a local sporting goods store, or even a small chain, may better serve your needs than a large one.  I've seen that a lot of times with sporting goods stores and chains, and I start to worry when one is so successful it begins to expand. I really worry when it starts to buy out its competition.

Probably the only real saving grace of all of this is that it tends to function much like the analogy noted above, if left untreated.  Things get so big, they cease to function efficiently, as they can't, and die.

That may be beginning to happen to the Bass Pro Gargantuan.  I still have my Cabela's card for some reason, but it does't have the attraction it once did.  And now, more often than not, I just drive by the one in Thorton or Billings and don't stop.  And my catalog isn't met with anticipation the way it once was, and it head for the round file pretty quickly.

I'll bet I'm not the only one.

Congress is shocked, shocked to find that Facebook acts like any other company.

Seriously, a body that can't get its act together on anything else is surprised that what is functionally a news outlet in a capitalist society acts like a news outlet in a capitalist society.

M'eh.

"Get a job".

"Get a job".

That was a tagline on Twitter the other day.  

Interestingly, people of all stripes had very similar reactions.

Ted Cruz

@tedcruz

·

8h

Um, get a job? There are millions of vacancies, and small businesses across the Nation are desperate for workers.

Quote Tweet

ABC 33/40 News

@abc3340

· 12h

Jobless Americans have few options as benefits expire https://bit.ly/3BNLgL6

Marcus Jimenez

@supersmshmarcus

·

29m

Get a job? Get two jobs? Join the military? Stop relying on other people and put in some effort?

Quote Tweet

ABC 33/40 News

@abc3340

· 12h

Jobless Americans have few options as benefits expire https://bit.ly/3BNLgL6

Even to the point of mirth.

The Babylon Bee

@TheBabylonBee

·

14h

Liberal Wants To Join A Union But Realizes He'd Have To Get A Job

Liberal Wants To Join A Union But Realizes He'd Have To Get A Job

PORTLAND, OR - Henry Trudeau is passionately pro-union. He changes his profile picture to support unions that are going on strike and

Back in the primary campaign the idea of a Universal Basic Income was floated, principally by Andrew Yang.  While, as some (i.e., me) have noted, the concept has been tried under other names, nobody seemed to notice that or the lesson that it provides.

Basically, that lesson is that most work isn't fun, and given a chance not to work, most people won't work.  The Pandemic assistance funds, which suspended rent evictions and provided income for those forced out of work proved to be a giant experiment on this very topic.  And we're finding that a lot of people, and frankly they can't be blamed, would rather not go back to work.

And why would they?

Indeed, this amounts to a giant societal experiment that frankly is shocking employers and "elites".  The naive assumption of liberal elites is that everyone wants to work a job in the city that has "value" and contributes to their sense of well-being.  The naive assumption of employers has been that all workers see value in their work and work because they want to work.  There's always been a back current here and there which has been put different ways in different eras, but which basically has held that there's some people who don't work because they're lazy, but that's very few people.

In the meantime, before the Pandemic, some well regarded national surveys discovered that in the US the vast majority of people are dissatisfied with their work, as in they don't like it.

And that's because we're not designed to work the way we do, and no computer company ran by 30-year-olds with employee this or that is capable of changing that.

Basically, we're meant to have our own.  Our own heard of cattle, really, but if not that, our own farms, or failing that, our own businesses.  From these, we'd provide for our own, that being our own families.

That's in our DNA.

Working for Amalgamated Amalgamated is not.

Now, we've built this industrialized society and it has brought us, as capitalists will tell us, vast, vast, wealth.  There's no disputing that.  The wolf is further from our door than ever before.  Capitalist believe that we should be, accordingly, really happy.

But societally, it doesn't seem we are.

Socialist use to blame that on the oppression of the propertied class until Socialism simply meant the oppression of the hierocratic class followed by economic stagnation, which nobody liked.  And it never got the point either.  If Capitalism has come to mean that everyone should work behind a computer screen in a cubicle at Amalgamated Amalgamated, Socialism envisioned everyone as either a functionary or a lathe operator.  

Nobody ever imagines, for example, somebody owning a small grocery store for some reason.

And we're still not doing that.

Indeed, what this entire episode would do, to a thinking society, is to pose the question, why don't people want to go back to work?  The answer wouldn't be hard to find.

And then society would do something about it.

Of course, doing something about it, in the state of society we're in, would be extremely difficult, and that's part of the problem. Right now, people need to go back to work, whatever that work is, or everything will completely collapse.

But they don't have to like it.