Country v City Life
Via Frank
NPR had an interesting poll researcher today who sounded legitimate.
He said the divide in the US isn't so much between Red and Blue state as
between those who moved for their career versus those who stayed
behind. He said this is especially true for white people.
The reasons for staying in one's community tended to be to care for
relatives or out of attachment. (Also, I assume if one lacks ability
himself, he might have less opportunity to leave, more need to depend
locally. So, you'd expect some brain drain.)
He also mentioned quality education providing advantages (opportunities
to move and excel), also providing a cultured advantage. However, I
would add how those who excel are not necessarily "superior" but rather
plug into the system well. So, it's useful human resources being
rewarded for useful service. For example, someone who blindly trusts in
the system, accepts surveillance and domination, might prove to be a
very useful cog for those in power.
That is to say, to use a term, what's desired are good slaves who don't ask questions, don't think independently.
Anyway, so that's the divide in the US: Those who move versus those who
remain. Cosmopolitans vs. Rooted Families & Communities.
Nice. And our ideal of course, is to have a small society that welcomes foreign investment. But we'd protect the rights of our citizens.
ReplyDeleteSo, we might offer zero tax on businesses, yet a consumption sales tax and consumption import tax to pay for the limited services of the government. Businesses would need to pay any use taxes though. But they'd only need to pay for what they use, would not be expected to support society. The investment, rather, would be intended as an economic exchange between equals, (foreign investment and domestic labour).
And starting off, we'd need to compete in the global marketplace, so we'd perhaps suffer from low wages. But over time, capital would build up, and we'd be wealthier.
And we'd willingly work.
I'm no libertarian, and I don't want foreign capitalists running our societies; but I do realise that in the global economy, our labour competes with everyone else's. So, we must offer the best deal to attract foreign investment.
Those societies which demand that businesses fund free healthcare, free retirement, high wages, bribes to politicians, etc. will just attract no investment.
It's noteworthy that foreign investors would tend to want the merging of a small state into larger states. So, they should be seen as a devil with whom we deal, not as some hero. If allowed, the foreign capitalist would trick us into enslavement.
If we managed such a society, it would be a wonderful, wealthy place full of opportunity. A larger society would be able to manage trade protections, a smaller society fewer and less of those.
Those in poverty should depend on private charity or should work. And those in retirement should have saved up. It's not a cruel society that relies on private funds to care for the weak. Business investment will flow elsewhere if allowed.
I've sometimes flirted with other ideas. I think there's something to be said for locals owning productive assets. But at least early on when needing to attract investment, the above is how to proceed.
If government taxes business very little (only via user taxes), then that business will be able to afford to pay better wages. So, this serves my distributist ideals even if sounding libertarian. Businesses pass costs on to the consumer and to the worker. High business taxes mean more expensive goods and lower wages.
I do like the death tax though. Because I don't want a large wealth disparity within society. Again, I'm a distributist.
But they'd only need to pay for what they use, would not be expected to support society.
DeleteMakes sense.
===================
they should be seen as a devil with whom we deal, not as some hero. If allowed, the foreign capitalist would trick us into enslavement.
Good point.
==============
I do like the death tax though.
My family, a simple country doctor/farmer paid taxes on everything he made and then his descendants had to pay once again.
Then have him pay twice, or thrice :)
DeleteWealth gaps are partly why the US has died. We need something durable.
And sorry for the lengthy rant above. Small window to type in. But my focus is on a durable polity. My conclusion is the previous society in the US didn't work, though it had positive aspects.
We made an experiment, and it had some success but ultimately failed. Needs tweaking.
That's Bull Shit! All the drafted Vets that moved away and then used the GI Bill to educate themselves are part of this???? I think NOT!
ReplyDeleteI believe you may have commented on the wrong link.
Delete