Showing posts with label Cheap Food Policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cheap Food Policy. Show all posts

Monday, June 16, 2025

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 92nd Edition. Immigration. How did we get into this mess?

Our Nation’s ICE Officers have shown incredible strength, determination, and courage as they facilitate a very important mission, the largest Mass Deportation Operation of Illegal Aliens in History. Every day, the Brave Men and Women of ICE are subjected to violence, harassment, and even threats from Radical Democrat Politicians, but nothing will stop us from executing our mission, and fulfilling our Mandate to the American People. ICE Officers are herewith ordered, by notice of this TRUTH, to do all in their power to achieve the very important goal of delivering the single largest Mass Deportation Program in History.

In order to achieve this, we must expand efforts to detain and deport Illegal Aliens in America’s largest Cities, such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, where Millions upon Millions of Illegal Aliens reside. These, and other such Cities, are the core of the Democrat Power Center, where they use Illegal Aliens to expand their Voter Base, cheat in Elections, and grow the Welfare State, robbing good paying Jobs and Benefits from Hardworking American Citizens. These Radical Left Democrats are sick of mind, hate our Country, and actually want to destroy our Inner Cities — And they are doing a good job of it! There is something wrong with them. That is why they believe in Open Borders, Transgender for Everybody, and Men playing in Women’s Sports — And that is why I want ICE, Border Patrol, and our Great and Patriotic Law Enforcement Officers, to FOCUS on our crime ridden and deadly Inner Cities, and those places where Sanctuary Cities play such a big role. You don’t hear about Sanctuary Cities in our Heartland!

I want our Brave ICE Officers to know that REAL Americans are cheering you on every day. The American People want our Cities, Schools, and Communities to be SAFE and FREE from Illegal Alien Crime, Conflict, and Chaos. That’s why I have directed my entire Administration to put every resource possible behind this effort, and reverse the tide of Mass Destruction Migration that has turned once Idyllic Towns into scenes of Third World Dystopia. Our Federal Government will continue to be focused on the REMIGRATION of Aliens to the places from where they came, and preventing the admission of ANYONE who undermines the domestic tranquility of the United States.

To ICE, FBI, DEA, ATF, the Patriots at Pentagon and the State Department, you have my unwavering support. Now go, GET THE JOB DONE! DJT

Trump on "Truth Social". 

Over the last few days soldiers of the California National Guard have been backing up ICE in immigration raids in Los Angeles.  The Marine Corps is as well.  The Marines, we now are told, have actually performed an arrest.  There are somewhere between 11.0 million to 18.6 million illegal immigrants, mostly, but not exclusively, from Central America in the country.  During his run for a second term, Donald Trump basically promised to deport them all, but he's really not been much more successful than President Obama was on the same topic.

Of that number, probably about 1.6 million came in during the Biden Administration, not all of them as Republicans seemingly like to suggest.

Lots of reasons are given for this situation, most of which are devoid of historical analysis, and therefore, inaccurate.  We'll take a more indepth view here.

As noted, most illegal immigrants into the US are from Central America. At one time, "illegal alien" almost always tended to mean an illegal entrant who was Mexican, but that never really reflected the entire situation.  As late as the 1980s, the second largest group of illegal entrant into the US were Irish, something almost uniformly ignored.  Indeed, illegal aliens in the US come from all over the globe.  Nonetheless, the big problem is a Central American one.

When you conquer a foreign people and arbitrarily draw a map of convenience for yourself on what you are keeping, you create a problem.

That may sound like a non sequitur, but we need to start there.  

The United States fought Mexico from 1845 to 1848, wi th most of the last part of that period being an occupation of the country.  The Mexican War is more complicated than its generally considered to be, and I'll not go into the origins of the war.  Suffice it to say, however, that a result of the war, the principal result in fact, was that the US acquired 55% of Mexico.

Now, that 55% is a bit deceptive in that the US did not acquire 55% of the Mexican population.  In 1848, when the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed by Mexican representatives chosen by hte US to sign it, the overwhelming majority of Mexicans lived south of the Rio Grande.  There were, however, Spanish speaking populations north of the river, with most of them living in Texas, which Mexico had not regarded as properly lost, New Mexico, and California.  Mexican populations, however, stretched all the way up into Spanish speaking settlements in Colorado as well.  

Depending upon where they lived, many of those Hispanic populations were distinct with distinct histories, which also set them apart from the population of Mexico, although that population is more diverse then imagined.  The closer you got to the Rio Grande, however, the more "Mexican", the population was.

The border was extremely fluid, although real, and would be for decades thereafter.  People crossed back and forth over it fairly readily for various reasons.  To the extent there was control of the border, on the US side it was by the US Army, and on the Mexican side, the Mexican Army, both of which occasionally crossed the border in pursuit of Native Americans.

It was the Mexican Revolution that really began to change things.

Mexican refugees crossing into the United States in 1915.

The Mexican Revolution saw an increased rate of border crossing as various groups of displaced people picked up and fled into the US.  The US was a haven for combatant leaders and politicians from all sides of the war itself, which remained the case for decades.  Villa famously attacked Columbus, New Mexico, in 1916, but he also had taken refuge in the US prior to that.

The Revolution caused the US to really patrol the border in earnest for the first time, with the National Guard serving on the border up until early 1917, while the U.S. Army crossed the border in pursuit of Villa.  In the popular imagination the war ended in 1920 when Obregón sworn in as President after having rebelled against Carranza, but that simply isn't true.  Villa was assassinated in 1923 and Plutarco Elías Calles came into power as a radical anti Catholic in 1924, which resulted in heavy repression of CAtholicism even though over 80% of the population was Catholic. This sparked the actual last major rebellion against the government in the form of the Cristero War, which lasted until 1929.

As with earlier phases of the Revolution, the Cristero War caused refugee populations to migrate to the US.  Indeed, the Cristero's weren't even the first religious refugees of the war, as Mormon populations had in some instances migrated out of Mexico earlier.  As that had an ethnic component to it, the Mormons were mostly Americans culturally or in fact, we should note that migrant Japanese populations in Mexico were in some instances evacuated by the U.S. Army during the Punitive Expedition.

There were concerns about the large number of migrants even then, with it interestingly being the case that some of the existing Hispanic populations were amongst those concerned, which has tended to be the case more recently as well.  Colorado passed the first law in the US banning marijuana as Hispanics native to the state associated it with Mexican refugees, with whom they did not wish to be confused or associated.

These various events caused the Border Patrol to be created in 1924. By that time, the really hot period of the Mexican Revolution was over, and the Cristero War had not yet begun, so the early Border Patrol entered the story at a time that is quite different from the present.

Indeed, while the  Cristero War saw an influx of migrants, its end came with the arrival of the Great Depression, during which illegal immigration was not a major problem.

But that brings us to why this Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist is being published first here, rather than on Lex Anteinternet where  they normally are.

Let's take a look at pre World War Two agriculture. . . and economics. . . and marriage.  Well, let's take a look at the US before World War Two.

It's easy to say, "it's was a different country", but it wasn't.  It was much different, however.

Ironically, lots of rank and file Trump supporters look back to that era, or the one that came immediately after it in the 1950s, as a Golden Age they'd wish to return to.  And to some extent, now without good reason. . . although they themselves would largely choose to keep the moral laxity of the post 1960s, as long as it applied to men and women.  What they seemingly want, sort of, is the economy of the 1950s with the personal morality of the high Playboy era.  Or maybe they want the 60s themselves, but without the drugs and Vietnam, but with good paying industrial jobs, no fault divorce, and Fran Gerard.1

The pre World War Two world, indeed, the pre 1980 world, was much less corporate than it is now.  While there were chain stores of one kind or another, Piggly Wiggly, Safeway, Woolworths, etc. much of retail was very local.

From Safeway's website.

Agriculture in much of the country was of the classic "family farm" type. Ranching definitely was.  Outside of the South, remote owners of farms and ranches was extremely unusual.  The South stood out as an exception due to historical reasons, as there was a tremendous amount of sharecropping in that region, but the owners of the land were still local.  Hobby agriculture was a thing, but it wasn't a major thing.

Economics were almost much thinner.  The middle class was much poorer than it is today and large portions of it lived very near the poverty line. The reverse is true today.  Much of the middle class slips into the upper class periodically, and drops back out of it, without realizing it. They don't consider themselves "rich", but they periodically, statistically, are.  

Indeed, while its disturbing to many, including frankly distributist, the modern American economy has had the effect of making Americans as a whole extremely wealthy.  Americans like to note that the average wage hasn't rising in years, but because average prices have effectively dropped, in comparison to inflation, their spending power has continually grown.

Not that everything has been perfect, by any means.  As often noted, it's impossible for families, for the most part, to get by on a single income, which cuts against what I just stated.  

Popular traditionalist meme with some truth to it, but it requires more thought than this.  Also, this pertains more to the 50s and 60s, than it does to eras before it.

Considering that, however, we need to start off with noting that what people imagine as "traditional" really means the 1950s, in this sense, with the "1950s" really being the years from about 1955 to 1965, that is from the end of the Korean War to the beginning of largescale troop deployments in Vietnam.  The "American Graffiti" era, in other words, which is set in the early 1960s, ot the 1950s as sometimes imagined.  The economy really was exceptional then for a wide variety of reasons.  Europe and Asia's economies had been flattened by the Second World War.  China's economy, which was not a major player in the world in any event, was removed from the international scene by its fall to Communism.  The US was really on the only major industrial power in the world that didn't suffer two decades of economic recovery due to the war.  Technological advances of the 30s and 40s came inot the American market on a largescale due to the end of the Great Depression.  American education advanced enormously due to the GI Bill.

Before 1940, however, families got by on one income due to home economics, to a large degree.  That is, people lived in smaller houses, they had one car, they didn't go on extended vacations, they didn't buy "home entertainment centers", and so on.  We've dealt with it extensively, but unmarried women and men living in the communities they grew up in, lived with their parents.  It was unusual for an unmarried man to own a home.  Men and women basically went from their families home and economic care right into marriage, as a rule.

If they got married.

We haven't dealt with that much either.  By and large, most people in American society got married.  But there were entire classes of people that did not.  One we've dealt with before is Catholic Priests.  As we've noted, the Priesthood, and religious orders, were two ways in which Catholic men and women could have what amounted to a middle class existence without getting married.2 

Other professions of that era had the same feature, however.  Enlisted soldiers in the services were largely unmarried.  They were not paid well, particularly in the lower grades, although that was somewhat made up for by the government providing housing, food and clothing.  If they were married, it was usually only after they'd climbed in rank, which in the pre World War Two Army took an extremely long time.  Junior officers were rarely married either, although more senior ones normally were.

And agricultural workers, those who worked for wages, were often unmarried.  Working cowboys almost never were.  Their jobs just didn't pay enough for them to marry.

Cowhands are a particularly interesting example.  The end of the open range meant that ranches became more established and were normally family outfits.  But the sons of those who were not to inherit the ranch, as well as some men who were just attracted to an outdoor life, provided a pool of men who became cowboys working for wages. There was more of a need for cowboys at the time than there is now, as machinery had not made inroads into agriculture like it has since.  There are lot of things a person could point to in the case of farming, which became much more mechanized in the 1950s, but this is also true of ranching, which had not yet seen the introduction of the 4x4 truck.  Cowhands were expected to provide their own equipment, but the ranch provided everything else for them.3 Even on farms, there were lifelong farm workers who were just that, unmarried men who spent their lives working on a farm they did not own.

That's where things circle back into the story of immigrants and agriculture.

Prior to World War Two, temporary agricultural labor was usually local.  Farms tended to be small in comparison to the giant ones that exist now, and the labor was often made up of the extended families of the farmers.  There was temporary labor, including Hispanic labor from Mexico near the border, but its need didn't exist to the extent it later did.  As noted, people lived closer to poverty, which meant that they endured those conditions more readily, by necessity.  The world was simply smaller too.  People didn't consider it odd to send teenagers, or even children, into the fields during the summer months.

World War Two removed thousands of those people from their pre war lives, including their prewar economic existences.  Men who had been sent all around the country, and overseas, didn't tend to return to agricultural work involving remaining single, and they didn't have to either, given the post war economy. Women who had worked in fields prior to the war worked in factories during it, and had grown used to a new life. They had no interest in returning to the pre war lifestyle either, and they also didn't have to.

Somebody had to do the work.

During the war, Mexican labor was brought in to do it under the Bracero program.  And to some degree, the situation it created, has been with us ever since.  Yeoman's Fourth Law of History at work.

So now what?

Well, in order to really reduce the number of immigrant farm workers, legal and illegal, at work in American fields, you'd need to create a situation in which Americans would do the work. That won't happen in the current farm economy, however.

After the Second World War the US went to a "cheap food" policy, and we've had it ever since.  We note this as one thing you could do is pay Americans the necessary rate to work in the fields, but that would be grossly in excess of what immigrant laborers are now getting paid.  That raises all kinds of moral issues, but one practical issue is that if we are going to address this, just like the topic of imported foreign products, the time to do it was decades ago, not now.  Indeed, in the case of immigrant farm labor, the time to address it would ideally have been 1945.

In other words, it'd cause a huge spike in food prices.

Another thing you could do would be to try to address industrialization of agriculture.  When farms were smaller and there was less of a need  for extra labor.  That could be done by making the remote corporate ownership of farms illegal, although that would frankly not address all of the problem by any means.

Any way it is looked at, it would mean that Americans would pay more at the grocery store, and the question there is whether or not they're willing to do it for a major societal shift.  Hardcore National Conservatives are banking on Americans being able to be forced into this.  

Trump?

Richard Ortiz is a migrant worker in Nipomo, California where famous photographer Dorothea Lange took a photograph of the Migrant Mother, Florence Owens Thompson in the 1930s


Florence Owens Thompson.   The mother of ten children, her first husband was the son of a farmer with whom she became a migrant farm worker.  Her second, if he was a second, would have been a common law arrangement.  She also occupied a wide variety of other occupations through the 1940s.  In 1952 she marred a hospital administrator and her life obtained stability.  Essentially, her life demonstrates exactly what we've set out above.

I somehow doubt it.  But who knows.


Suffice it to say, in much of this, basic morality seems to have gone right out the window.

Footnotes

1.  This is not how National Conservatives see things, however, which is one of the ironies of the Trump movement.  National Conservatives have a definite Benedict Option worldview and the libertine nature of the post 1960s American culture doesn't fit into that at all.  Immigrants frankly don't much either.

2.  I'm not suggesting that people's callings were not real.  Indeed, because of economic conditions, and society norms, particularly regarding the conduct of young women and men, callings were easier to hear.  I would note, however, that the economic realities of the era probably at least influenced the thinking of some people.

3. Good descriptions of this can be found in Louise Turk's book Sheep! and Doug Crowe's book A Growing Season, all of which discuss this in the context of cowboys.  A good description of it in a novel can be found in Horseman, Pass By, by McMurtry.

Last edition:

Subsidiarity Economics 2025. The Times more or less locally, Part 7 and Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 91st Edition. Reality is hard.


Saturday, May 24, 2025

Appearance. Shape and being in shape and women (men will come next).

Donna Reed as a Yank centerfold.  Reed was well known actress by this time, and is perhaps best known for her role in The Best Years Of Our Lives.  Her actual last name was Mullenger but as she started acting during World War Two, her studio changed it to Reed over her objection.  She became a peace activist during the Vietnam War.

Some time ago we received a comment here from a reader, and the reader emailed me after the recent item on fashion, and reminded me that I said I'd do a threat on the topic.

So here it is.

The threads were these ones:



The comment was this one:
Anonymous said...

I read this, and your other post on Fran Camuglia. Wow, what a sad life.

I have an observation that I wonder if you would comment on that your post seems to illustrate. The pretty girls of the 50s and 60s looked different than they do now. They were beautiful, but softer, and more natural looking. Even the real dolls like Camuglia, with their exaggerated features, were softer and prettier. Think Marilyn Monroe.

I don't know what's changed it, but maybe the emphasis on "working out" has. Seems like you have really fit girls, and then really out of shape girls, and not much in between.

My replies were:

Thanks for your comment. Her life was tragic.

On your observation, people do indeed look different at different ages in the past, but I haven't really thought of it in this context. Having thought of it now, a little, I think there's something to your observation. As a minor personal observation, "working out" was not really a thing, as you note, in the 70s when I was growing up. Thinking back to high school I can't really think of any overweight kids at all. I'm sure there were some, but it must have been really rare. It seems to me that high schoolers now look older than we did when we were there, but oddly kids of my fathers vintage, who graduated high school in the 40s, looked much more mature. Nobody looked bulked up, or "ripped", or whatever.
This might be worth a post on the site, after I ponder it a bit.



By the way, while I've already noted it in these posts, her life being tragic isn't unique in terms of Playboy centerfolds. Quite a few of their stories are pretty grim, and Playboy contributed to that. In this case, quite frankly, she was off to a really bad start as it was, as she was married absurdly young, divorced very rapidly, and objectified forever when still in her teens.


I noted that it might be worth a post at the time, and then I went on to other things.  The email reminded me of it.

Well, in thinking about it, and I have no real scientific way to discuss this, my observational comment is, on this question, while I think there are some morphological changes we can observe in women, there aren't really that many.

That's probably surprising.

Let's start off with a couple of things, the first being that the first part of our discussion necessarily references young women.  That's important, I think, for reasons that will become clear.

The second observation is that time period and method of illustration matters.  We're not really going to get, for example, very accurate depictions of women, or men, at a certain point in our past.

Let's start with that.

A lot of comments like this, and I've seen them before, are based on photographs.  I.e., in this case, somebody is looking at a photograph of a Playboy model from 1967 and drawing conclusions from that.  But can we?

Probably not.


Most early photography was in the category of portraiture.  Old portraits give us a much more realistic idea of what people looked like than "published" photographs do.  And certainly better than pornography does.   Indeed, that's one of the fundamental destructive aspects of pornography, which we'll get into later.  

Anyhow, cameras had to develop for quite some time before snapshots or the like appeared.  In the meantime, illustration really developed and that gives us a pretty good idea of what standards of beauty were up to at least 1920.  Illustration made use of models, who were chosen for their physical appearance, but they rarely strayed massively from the mean. The first real "standard" was Florence Evelyn Nesbit, who became the Gibson Girl.   She was pretty, to be sure, but didn't depart from the mean in a massive fashion


This was equally true of lesser known models, and indeed, it was mostly true for early movie stars as well.



Movies began to take over from illustrations as the bearers of standards in the 1920s and certainly had by the 1930s.  Female movie stars began to be more and more chosen for their beauty as well as their acting talents by the late 1930ss, which did result in an exaggerated standard in the sense that not every woman you meet is going to look like a movie start.

Teenage girls with cameras in the 1930s.

Actress Susan Hayword as a Yank centerfold.

But, nonetheless, while they were pretty, only in very rare instances were they somebody whom you might not meet, appearance wise, at the Piggly Wiggly.

Lauren Bacall as a teenager.

It wasn't until the 1950s that this really began to change.  

Starting in the 1950s, and I'll place the date as 1953 when the first issue of Playboy came out, the beauty standard became emphasized and highly exaggerated in terms of physical features.  The first Playboy centerfold was Marilyn Monroe, against her will, and her features in some ways became the standard.

Or rather her imagined features.

Playboy emphaszied the supposed "girl next store" with teh concept htat she'd lost her moral compass, was sterile, stupid, and very top heavy.  Marilyn Monroe's early movies, indeed the bulk of them, portrayed characters just like that.  The funny thing is that Monroe's own early modeling photographs didn't depict her in taht fashion at all




The photos above, from the 1940s, show a young Monroe as an actual sort of girl next door.  Her physical features were no doubt the same as they were in her earliest movies, but they weren't being emphasized.  Soon after these photographs they would be, and in movies like Gentlemen Prefer Blonds, they were on display.

Playboy,. as noted, arrived in 1953.  The 1950s gave us a host of actress that were Monroe knockoffs, some with even more exaggerated features. By the early 1960s a wave of Italian and other European actresses hit, all of whom were very topheavy, although they weren't portrayed as dumb.  Playboy and its followers kept on keeping on and if anything exaggerated things more.  Camuglia comes from that era.

Indeed, it was so notable, it made up one of the comedic lines in 1963's It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World:
J. Algernon Hawthorne: I must say, if I had the grievous misfortune to be a citizen of this benighted country, I should be the most hesitant at offering any criticism whatever of any other.
J. Russell Finch: Wait a minute, are you knocking this country? Are you saying something against America?
J. Algernon Hawthorne: Against it? I should be positively astounded to hear of anything that could be said FOR it. Why, the whole bloody place is the most unspeakable matriarchy in the whole history of civilization! Look at yourself, and the way your wife and her strumpet of a mother push you through the hoop! As far as I can see, American men have been totally emasculated. They're like slaves! They die like flies from coronary thrombosis, while their women sit under hairdryers, eating chocolates and arranging for every second Tuesday to be some sort of Mother's Day! And this positively infantile preoccupation with bosoms. In all my time in this wretched, godforsaken country, the one thing that has appalled me most of all is this preposterous preoccupation with bosoms. Don't you realize they have become the dominant theme in American culture: in literature, advertising and all fields of entertainment and everything. I'll wager you anything you like: if American women stopped wearing brassieres, your whole national economy would collapse overnight.
In a lot of ways, we're still in it.  It's what's given us plastic surgery and a host of other horrors.

So, overall, what I'm saying is that actual physical appearance didn't change that much, but rather the publicized standards did, to women's detriment.

So what about the gym?

When Camuglia appeared in Playboy in the early 1960s "working out" wasn't a term.  Indeed, gymnasiums were around, but their atmosphere wasn't quite what it is today.  In a lot of places the gym was the YMCA.  Indeed, in this locality, it was for years, before, some time in the 1970s, private gyms began to appear.  

Early gyms really had all the features of moder nones, they were just less used and sort of used by a clas sof urban people who was unusually into physical fitness, save for weight lifters, who are a different class entirely.

Having said all of that, women have been involved in athletics, if not working out per se, for decades.

Australian female Olympic swimmers, 1932.  These women look pretty darned fit.

Girls basketball team, 1907.  Playing basketball while dressed like this must have been a huge pain.

Indeed, nobody was "working out", really, until the 1960s. There wasn't much of a need to.

That doesn't mean that people weren't physically active, however.  Women were involved in Olympic sports right from the onset, for example.  And as late as the 1970s, at least, an incredible number of women engaged in some sports, such as tennis and golf.  My mother, who grew up in the 1930s and 40s, was an avid golfer at one time, and a real fan of tennis. She also constantly rode a bicycle, and she swam nearly daily up until her final decline.  Yes, she's an unusual example, but not that unusual.

Her mother, I'd note, was also a tennis player.

There's sports, of course, but there's physical work.  And everyone engaged in a lot more physical activity by necessity.

Which catches us back up, sort of, to the 1950s.  As we've discussed here before, domestic machinery really came in after World War Two, and with that, a decline in physical activity.  This meant more women went into office work.

The 1950s also brought the country the "cheap food" policy, and we still live in that era, and that's where things really begin to change.  This was noted the other day on Twitter in a post by O.W. Root

O.W. Root@NecktieSalvage

Currently there are two extremes that didn't really exist en masse before.

1 - Extreme obesity
2 - Extreme gym culture

Maybe one day those extremes will fade and a more  traditional historic norm will replace them.
That pretty much nails it in a way, other than to say lots of people are neither part of a gym culture or obese.

A lot of people are taller, however.  That's been well noted.  It's a nutritional thing, but here's one area where people, including women, have a different morphology than they once typically did.  Contrary to what people tend to think, however, its flatted out since the late 1970s after having really gotten ramped up, around the globe, in the 1890s.

Now, here's one more thing that's changed.  Women in particular used to at one time very much "age" once they hit their 40s.

Contrary to what people think, people don't "live longer" than they once did. Rather, premature mortality has dropped way off.  But people did "age" more quickly.  If you look at photographs of married couples the appearance of women over 40 is often shocking in comparison to now.  Now, for various reasons, women in their 40s are not regarded as old or even middle aged, but often if you go back to mid century they'll have a much older appearance.  I"ve seen photographs of women in their 40s whom you would easily guess were in their 60s.

That's probably all due to the stress of life and hard work.

So, all in all, I don't think the evidence supports the assertion there's been much of a change at all.  I do think that an emphasis on a certain look, or a series of appearances, has changed over time, but more recently its broadened back out, which is a good thing.

Iceland girl delivering milk.

Mexican women in festive dress

Saturday, May 10, 2025

The Agrarian's Lament: Distributism in a time of economic insanity.

The Agrarian's Lament: Distributism in a time of economic insanity.

Distributism in a time of economic insanity.

The heavy duty, or at least heavy, premium American automobile of the golden age of American manufacturing which Trump seems to dream can be restored through tariffs.
In reality, capitalism is based on the idol of money. The lure of gain gradually destroys all social bonds. Capitalism devours itself. Little by little, the market destroys the value of work. Man becomes a piece of merchandise. He is no longer his own. The result is a new form of slavery, a system in which a large part of the population is dependent on a little caste. 

Robert Cardinal Sarah.

I don't use the term "insanity" here lightly.  Donald Trump is, I am convinced, rather dumb, obviously economically ignorant, and suffering from dementia.  That nearly half the country could vote for him is simply beyond me, but they did, and the Republican Party, which was once the party of business has fallen right into line.

I suspect Americans voted for him as they have a poor grasp of economics themselves and see it only through what they've experienced in their own live and that of their immediate predecessors.  Americans, came to view the economy sort of like Billy Joel expressed it in Allentown:

Well, we’re living here in Allentown

And they’re closing all the factories down

Out in Bethlehem they’re killing time

Filling out forms

Standing in line


Well, our fathers fought the second World War

Spent their weekends on the Jersey shore

Met our mothers in the USO

Asked them to dance

Danced with them slow


And we’re living here in Allentown

But the restlessness was handed down

And it’s getting very hard to stay


Well we’re waiting here in Allentown

For the Pennsylvania we never found

For the promises our teachers gave

If we worked hard

If we behaved


So the graduations hang on the wall

But they never really helped us at all

No they never taught us what was real

Iron and coke

Chromium Steel


And we’re waiting here in Allentown

But they’ve taken all the coal from the ground

And the union people crawled away


Every child had a pretty good shot

To get at least as far as their old man got

But something happened on the way to that place

They threw an American flag in our face


Well, I’m living here in Allentown

And it’s hard to keep a good man down

But I won’t be getting up today

 

And it’s getting very hard to stay

And we’re living here in Allentown

Problem is, a sense of economic nostalgia evolving into economic rage doesn't grasp economics at all.

1968 Oldsmobile 442.

The US didn't become an economic and manufacturing giant because of something really special in the American system or some amazing native genius.  It was the simple forces of economics that apply to corporate capitalism, combined with the Second World War, that caused it.

Largescale industry can really only be developed through capitalism or socialism.  In Europe, it was capitalism that introduced it in the form of the Industrial Revolution.  The US as a manufacturing titan came about as the Industrial Revolution came to the US late, not because we were better at it.  The arrival of industrialism in the United Kingdom and a united Germany reflected the eras in which it occurred, and it occurred there first.  Capitalism, in the end, just like socialism, seeks to serve itself, and in the case of capitalism it does it by viewing human beings as consumers, as opposed to the socialist workers, and trying to get them to consume as much as possible.  It does that by seeking to make products faster and cheaper, amongst other strategies.  Seeking efficiency products not only relentlessly advance, but manufacturing methods do as well.  But manufacturing method require massive investment of capital.  Once machines are in place, the economic incentive is to use them as long as they can be, given the investment.  This means that new start ups always have the advantage in equipment, as they are starting with newer stuff.

Added to that, industrial Europe was destroyed during World War Two to a large extent.  The Allied air forces bombed German industry into rubble.  What was left after the war was taken back to the Soviet Union if was east of the Elbe.  The Soviets themselves had suffered massive economic dislocation in of their factories, which were forcibly created in the Communist system.  Japan's industry, which was real, but not nearly as advanced as the other major combatants, had been destroyed by the United States Army Air Force.  The US, however, remained untouched and with a massive consumer demand built up due to the war and the Great Depression, US industry came roaring back and dominated the globe. . . right up until other countries could rebuilt, which very much started to show itself by the late 1960s.

One of the things nearly destroyed during the Second World War was Distributism.  Distributism really came up as a line of thought as a "third way" between Communism and Capitalism during the 1920s and the Great Depression   The tensions that came out of World War One saw the Socialist far left dramatically rise in power and take over the government of Russia, and briefly Hungary.  They vied for control of Germany, and effectively did take over Poland in a modified form.  Wars and struggles broke out in numerous places as Socialism sought to effect global change.  In opposition to it rose not only fascism, but extreme capitalism.  Distributists sought to effect a more sane and humane path.  But when the war came they, and their intellectual fellow travelers the agrarians, put aside their efforts to support the war effort, which in the West meant unleashing capitalism in aid of the war effort.  When the war ended, the economic crisis that it had brought about in Europe and the Cold War caused it to carry on, and very successfully, with Distributism being all but forgotten.

Capitalism, however, if not heavily regulated, results in the same end result as Socialism, single entity control of a machine that serves itself.  In Socialism the machine claims to serve the workers, but claims to identify itself as the workers.  In Capitalism the machine serves itself while claiming to serve "consumers".  Neither system really cares about people at all.

American capitalism, particularly after Ronald Reagan, favored unyielding corporate growth, with one corporate machine eating another.  As foreign economies rebuilt after the war, or started up after the war, corporations naturally moved manufacturing overseas, and the American government did not stop to do anything about it, believing fully in capitalism.  To a certain extent, it favored manufacturing moving overseas as it conceived as many manufacturing jobs as less than ideal, and with some reason to look upon them that way, but just as the nation had a "cheap food" policy that hurt family farmers, it had a "cheap goods" policy that hurt the domestic manufacturing sector.

It can well be argued, and it has been, that something should have been done to arrest the relocation of American manufacturing.  But in reality, that day was long ago.  It was clear in the 1970s what was occuring, but the nation, lead by a much more sober and serious group of politicians, did not elect to intervene.  Now, of course, we have Donald Trump, who doesn't seem to grasp even basic economics and who has made his money, it might be noted, in a highly anti distributist industry.

It's nearly impossible to define what Trump's economic vision is, as he probably doesn't have one.  It seems to be ruled by nostalgia and a complete failure to grasp basic economic principals.  Trump seems to look back on the econmy of his youth as a natural one, and believe that if tariffs are imposed all the old industries will come home.  A very wealthy man, he doesn't seem to care what that does in terms of imposing his tariffs all at once, and if it creates a devastating trade war, so be it.

What Trump has no interest in, however, is disrupting capitalism.  He's okay with whipping corporate entities into relocating into the US, or devastating the economy with the thesis he can make it happen, in what amounts to a type of autarky, but the basic evils of capitalism are of no interest to him.

Some closer to Trump envision something more sinister, it seems, a jump starting of an AI driving manufacturing economy.  The concept is that tariffs will not only pressure industry to relocate here, but when it does, the next stage in the relentless Industrial Revolution evolutionary cycle will occur.  Basically, baseball caps now made in Vietnam (none of them seem to be made here) will be made by robots in the US.  Human laborers in Indochina, who depend on their jobs to feed their families, will be made unemployed while factories owning robots here in the US will profit.

It's immoral.

But what of Distributism?

Some of this probably should make any distributist rethink some basic propositions, as frankly Distributism, like Trump's tariff policy, would have the impact of making some things more expensive.  Maybe many things.  But the economic impact of it would be distinctly different.

Distributism policies, as long noted here, would take the corporations out of retail and agriculture.  In agriculture, for the most part, that would not actually have a great impact on prices, save in certain instances (poultry for sure, perhaps pork).  But it would also have a levelling effect.  Virtually nobody would get fantastically wealthy in these industries, but many rank and file workers would get back up into the real middle class.  Therefore the economic impact would be levelling, more than anything else.

Manufacturing, as we've noted here before, is a much tougher nut to crack.  We've  had some suggestions in the past, but frankly the lesson of the Trump tariffs is that they may frankly be unrealistic.  We'd favor partial employee ownership of larger manufacturing entities.  We could still argue for that, but it's tough for industries like the clothing manufacturing industry, whose workers are mostly overseas.  I suppose it could still be argued for, however.  A person here, however, can't be nativist.  Economically, that is, it can't be argued that ownership in the corporation by Nguyen is any less important than Johnson, all things being equal.

It'd be pretty hard to effect, however, in countries whose economies are state run.  Again, perhaps something could have been done about that, but it would have had to start in 1975, rather than 2025.  Trump's policies, which don't fit this mold, are coming all at once, and fifty years too late. That might suggest, of course, that something could be done, but it would have to be done gradually.

If nothing else, however, Trump and his spastic policies might serve to give Distributism a little voice.  Corporate Capitalism resulted in the situation Trump seeks to address.  There's no reason to believe Corporate Capitalism is going to get us out of it.  Distributists have been warning about capitalisms long term impacts for years. Socialism has demonstrated what its were, and that's what killed it.

Perhaps the Distributist Lament can get a little more heard.

Friday, February 9, 2024

The worst immigration argument

Victory Farm Volunteers registering in Lane County. Oregon.  Lovina Wilson, farm labor assistant, routes the first three children, and that is what they are, to register during the Mobilization Day program at the Frances Willard School in Eugene. The enrollees in the photo are, left to right, facing table front row: Glenn Cash,13; Howard Cash, 11; and Don Mickelwait, 13.  This photo was taken in 1946, right after World War Two, demonstrating that wartime manpower shortages were ongoing.  This would be, quite frankly, more than a bit much today, as these individuals are way to young to seriously work on a farm, unless they are working on their family farm, and they were frankly way too young then.  Note the boys are wearing white t-shirts, with nothing emblazoned on them, and that girls are in the crowd as well.

There are a lot of varieties of this argument I keep seeing:

If you’re out here talking sht about immigrants but still going to the grocery store to feed yourself, that’s clown sht of the highest order. 

Stop being lazy & get your hands in the dirt or shut the fck up.

From, of course, Twitter.

This is baloney.

To distill the argument, it is that the US must dare not get control of its border with Mexico, or at least not a fair degree of control, as the US is dependent upon those illegally crossiong for food production.

That argument is first and foremost baloney, as it somehow makes the assumption that the huge number of immigrants arriving from Central and South America are in fact arriving in order to work on farms. That isn't happening.  They want to work, no doubt, but the migrant farm system is well established, and they aren't seeking to get jobs in cabbage fields this summer and then go back home.

In reality, most are economic migrants or migrants from Central and South American failed states.  The US is racing towards becoming a failed state itself right now.  Our government isn't working, and we're about to elect an imagined Caudillo who will have to turn on migrants like a health inspector turns on expired milk.  

But economically, the farm sector isn't employing them.

Lots of other things are, such as the construction industry, local small businesses, and back door employment, which explains who we got in this mess.  Democrats imagined, wrongly, that all future migrants are Democratic voters.*  Republicans imagined them all as somebody who was going to mow their lawn for cheap.  Turns out that they are none of those things.**

In reality, they take entry level manual labor jobs which, frankly, would go to Americans who need them, but for the price depression impact this has.

Which gets to the next thing.

The "agriculture depends on migrants" argument is, really, that American agriculture is habituated to cheap farm labor because the Federal Government, with apocalyptic visions of the future after World War Two, created a cheap food policy.

Frightened that Depression Era conditions would return after World War Two, and then frightened that conditions were going to go into the waste bin due to the Cold War, from 1945 on the government has done everything it can to keep foods as cheap as possible.  Americans bitch about food prices, but they spend about 9% of their budget on food, and it generally keeps going down.  The U.S. Government has tracked food prices since 1929, and it's the lowest ever, generally.  From 1929 to 1952 Americans spending on food consumed generally above 20% of a family's income.  In 1932, it was 22%.  In 2008, in contrast, it was 5.6%.

That's great, for family budgets, and it has ancillary impacts on a lot of industries.  Cheap food means that people can go to good restaurants (where you are actually a lot more likely to run into an illegal alien than in a cabbage patch) and have a really good dinner for pretty cheap, and then sit there over dinner and bitch about food prices.  This hasn't always been the case.  When Americans "ate out" well into the 1970s, they probably meant that they went to a diner for lunch.  Growing up, trips to restaurants for dinner were so rare that they only occured, normally, when it was some sort of special occasion, like a birthday or anniversary.  To take a date to a restaurant was a big deal, even when I was a college student.  You were trying to really impress a girl if you took her out for a meal, and later you assessed the damage to your finances that had ensued.

Even fast food joints to some extent expressed this.  We would often hit the burger joints on the weekends, but not daily.  By the time my son was in high school, however, high schoolers hit the nearby fast food joints every day.  Indeed, when I was in high school I ate in the cafeteria, the first time I'd eaten routinely at school.  I didn't particularly like it, but that's what there was.  When our high school cafeteria was condemned during my first year of high school, and prior to their building a new one, I briefly ate downtown, but it was too expensive, and I took up just brining a bad sandwich I'd made myself at home and sitting in the football stadium to eat it.

Glory Days indeed.

Now, fast food fare is absurdly cheap.  Quite a few people I know hit Dirty Ron's Steakhouse every morning for a couple of Egg McMuffins and a cup of Joe on the way in to work, and frankly, they're not bad (and no, that nickname aside, that establishment is not dirty at all).  And I've met working adults, including professionals, who go to Subway, or whatever, every day for lunch.  "Value Meals" and the like are incredibly cheap.  All of this because of a "cheap food" policy.  Part of that policy is related to legal farm migrants, but they are not flooding across the Rio Grande or the desert and claiming asylum.

Nor, frankly, is an ongoing "cheap food" policy a good thing.

The cheap food policy has helped make Americans increasingly fat while driving smaller agricultural entities out of business.  It's contributed to the concentration of everything, and not in a good way.  It's made food prices unrealistically low, while divorcing Americans from the reality of the actual cost of things.  It should end.

Part of that would be, quite frankly, to end the modern version of the Bracero program that has depressed the value of farm labor.  When it came in, in 1943, it made a little bit of sense, maybe, perhaps.  But eighty years later, it doesn't.  Americans will work any job, contrary to what is claimed about them, but at wages that are realistic.  Immigrant farm labor wages won't attract them, as the wages are too low.

In an era in which thousands of Americans are out on the streets without jobs, and in which there are rural areas that are basically depopulated save for the injured and left behind in smaller towns, lying between the consolidated farms, and in which we have urban areas and reservations that are hardcore reservoirs of poverty, if people were paid real wages, there's a ready-made source of labor.  Sure, they aren't the best jobs in the world in some ways, but they are jobs.  And they're also jobs for middle class younger people, who have a demonstrated interest in topics of the soil.

The numbers involved are not small. The US takes in 3,000,000 migrant farmworkers per year.  Ending a program such as this would result in a big impact to farm production, and it'd jump food prices for sure as the positions were, and they ultimately would be, filled with American residents.  It'd frankly also spur mechanization, which I'm not particularly keen on, as right now there are very expensive agricultural implements that are not employed as migrant farm labor is cheaper.

But ultimately, the principal of subsidiarity should come into play here for lots of reasons.

None of the reasons involve the thousands crossing the US Southern border, who are people facing an existential crisis that must be addressed.  They aren't the migrant farmworkers however.  That's a completely different topic.

Footnotes:

*Democrats have long assumed that Hispanic immigrants are natural Democratic voters, without learning the lessons of demographics or history.  

Immigrants tend to be Democratic voters early in their demographic's migration history.  Irish immigrants were.  Italian immigrants were.  This frankly had a lot to do with patronage.  But as they became established, this became much less the case.  To declare yourself "Irish" today doesn't mean that somebody should automatically assume you are a Democrat.

And that's true even if you have 100% Hibernian heritage, or to take the Italian example, if you can trace your lineage back to Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus' third cousin, once removed.  Truth be known, in a species in which Joe Cro Magnon pretty quickly asked Lucy Neanderthal out on a date, those straight lines of lineage don't last very long.  To declare yourself "Irish" today, in the US, might merely mean that you think the Irish drink green Budweiser with corned beef sandwiches on St. Patrick's Day.

Moreover, Hispanics in the US have and retain (although they are rapidly losing it) a very distinct culture which is existentially Catholic and conservative.  This is so much the case that the radicals of the Mexican Revolution, in the form of the Constitutionalist, sought to stamp it out, much like their semi fellow travelers the Bolsheviks went after Orthodoxy in Russia after 1917.  And they had a similar success rate, which means lots of Mexican Hispanics, which is what most Hispanics in the US are often only semi observant, but culturally Catholic still.  Given that, the darling issues of the Democratic Greenwich Village set, which forms the central corps of Democratic thought, are deeply at odds with what most Hispanics believe. And this only becomes more the case when Hispanics from outside of Northern Mexican ancestry are considered.  So, not too surprisingly, they're turning Republican.

They are also due to the border crisis itself.  Hispanics along the border whose ancestors settled there two hundred years ago, or in the wake of the Mexican Revolution, or even in earlier recent migrant waves, are not really of the same culture, no matter how dimwitted Americans are about it, as those now crossing and the flood is wrecking their communities.  Americans may see Hondurans and Guatemalans, as well as Venezuelans, as being the same as people from Chihuahua, but people from Chihuahua who live in Eagle Pass do not.

**And they are people, which oddly seems forgotten, except as an argument over the crisis.  Democrats thinking they were mindless sheep who could be herded into the voting booths and Republicans thinking they were something akin to slaves is inexcusible.