Claims about American economic growth

From Naomi R. Lamoreaux and John Joseph Wallis:

Before the middle of the nineteenth century most laws enacted in the United States were special bills that granted favors to specific individuals, groups, or localities. This fundamentally inegalitarian system provided political elites with important tools that they could use to reward supporters, and as a result, they were only willing to modify it under very special circumstances. In the early 1840s, however, a major fiscal crisis forced a number of states to default on their bonded debt, unleashing a political earthquake that swept this system away. Starting with Indiana in 1851, states revised their constitutions to ban the most common types of special legislation and, at the same time, mandate that all laws be general in their application. These provisions dramatically changed the way government and the economy worked and interacted, giving rise to the modern regulatory state, interest-group politics, and a more dynamic form of capitalism.

Here is the NBER working paper, titled “Economic Crisis, General Laws, and the Mid-Nineteenth-Century Transformation of American Political Economy,” via Ilya Novak.

Comments

I can't be the only one who noticed the contradictory nature of the following two sentences?

"Before the middle of the nineteenth century most laws enacted in the United States were special bills that granted favors to specific individuals, groups, or localities."

&

"giving rise to... interest-group politics..."

You are not. But it's not contradictory, it's 'Mesa' vs. 'Meta'. US laws 'graduated' so to speak from a 'micro'-focus to the nation at large and larger coalescing interest groups.

In that sense the Civil War only a short time later was also revolutionary. Shelby Foote made mention of this in several of his books that prior to the Civil War "The United States 'ARE'....." was the common reference to the nation vs. what we have now which is "The United State 'IS'...."

The politics and economy of the nation were very much more independent, small, and provincial vs. the United federalism we have today. For someone homesteading in Indiana or Missouri in 1850 it would have been unconscionable to consider the United States as anything other than a conglomeration of states, true states, acting in 'confederation' at a federal level. We simply can't understand what that would be like today, where D.C.'s influence is felt by everyone in this country in some way almost ever day and at every level.

If we study history closely enough, we can understand it without experiencing it personally. One can start with Thomas Jefferson's self-identification as a Virginian, not an American (at a time when "American" often still meant "American Indian"), despite living to the 50th anniversary of the Declaration.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Much like the popular election of Senators, we're finding out that the solutions to problems of the nineteenth century are creating even greater problems in the twentieth and twenty-first.

Respond

Add Comment

Most of us have a simple conception of American government. We got it from our k-12 textbooks. Those simplify. The American revolution happened "because" of the sentiments recent authors select. Similarly the western expansion. The civil war. And yes, the age of trusts. The rise of the progressives.

Depending on the quality of your textbooks, that might be a fairly objective history, but given the limitations of k-12 education (and child development), it can only be "a single path through history." A narrative. Often told with warm fuzzies for the k-6 group.

As a science major I think I only took like one "history" and one "poly-sci" course in college. They were adult level, and told more truths than the k-12 story, but one or two courses can hardly dislodge "the narrative."

I guess the advice we should give is that people read more sources on what really happened, but the reality we have to deal with is that most people won't.

And that might be the .. complacency .. that left John Sutter statues standing in California. John Sutter, hero of my k-6 textbooks, was an SOB.

A long winded way to get to my conclusion: If the olds didn't want indiscriminate tear-down of statues, they should have done the "selection" and pruned the "heroes list" themselves.

(It turns out that Elihu_Yale was also an SOB.)

this part is an exquisite example of a postmodern false dichotomy
"f the olds didn't want indiscriminate tear-down of statues, they should have done the "selection" and pruned the "heroes list" themselves."

today that old woke joke deblasio is canceling Teddy Roosevelt

Actually, the statue in question is more problematic because of the placement of submissive races, and TR's family supports its removal.

Roosevelt’s family — including Theodore Roosevelt IV, his 77-year-old great-grandson and a museum trustee — seems to approve of the decision.

“The world does not need statues, relics of another age, that reflect neither the values of the person they intend to honor nor the values of equality and justice,” Roosevelt said. “The composition of the Equestrian Statue does not reflect Theodore Roosevelt’s legacy. It is time to move the statue and move forward.”

Native American on foot doesn't = "submissive race"

more woke wingnuts wreck relics of another age
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/effort-launched-to-repair-damaged-holocaust-memorial-in-santa-rosa/

Dr. ML King was a rapist and philanderer. Kind of an SOB wouldn't you say?

rapist?
we are gonna need to see your paperwork on that bold claim

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

If so many are SOBs who must be torn down in various ways, that would likely include you, me, and practically everyone else throughout the human lineage, and it turns history into a kangaroo court. Is there any history left in such a view, in which the viewpoint is necessarily anachronistic and teleological, to say nothing of more delicate perceptions such as empathy?

If my statue has 100 years in the sun, and is then torn down, I think I'm good(*).

* - though as an agnostic I'm not sure I'll really know

But you haven't done anything to warrant a statue; nor have the many vandals destroying cultural heritage, which is precisely the point.

It has nothing to do with changing societal standards or even with the fleeting nature of fame. It's about small people destroying the culture and traditions of their betters so they don't feel so small. Leftism in a nutshell.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

That leads to an amusing thought. If these guys actually made it to Heaven, do they rib each other when their statues go?

Respond

Add Comment

An unpleasant display of kangarooism there.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

A halfway enlightened American, but still hopelessly deluded.

Tear all of the statues down and make Arlington a shopping mall instead of a monument to western neofascism and colonialism. Everything in the national mall should be removed as well to include the Lincoln Memorial. On Lincoln

“As an Illinois legislator, congressman and political leader before the Civil War, Lincoln opposed the abolitionists, supported enforcement of the fugitive slave law, favored removing all blacks from the United States and explicitly endorsed the state’s laws barring blacks from voting, serving on juries, holding office and intermarrying with whites. According to the reminiscences of his contemporaries, he enjoyed minstrel shows and used the word “n” in private conversation and sometimes in speeches.

Lincoln’s commitment to colonizing blacks outside the country, a position he inherited from his political hero, Henry Clay, and advocated publicly for almost his entire political career. This was no passing fancy: Lincoln mentioned the idea in numerous prewar speeches, two State of the Union addresses, several cabinet meetings and in a notorious meeting with black leaders at the White House, at which he urged them to encourage their people to emigrate.“

Lincoln was a real white supremacist who advocated constantly for a white ethnostate and whose racial views are much closer to Nazi Germany than Merkel’s Germany

I am still trying to grasp how you think Arlington County should be a shopping mall instead of a monument to western neofascism and colonialism. Even Arlington Cemetery would not pass muster, being the burial ground first used for those soldiers who defeated the Confederacy.

Don't let the perfect defeat the good. Lincoln ended slavery after the United States was attacked by defenders of slavery. Lincoln's clear moral position against slavery had nothing to do with his never hidden racism.

And this sounds perfectly fitting in Merkel's Germany - "As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy." --ca. August 1, 1858 Fragment on Democracy

Or this. "Now I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social and political evil." --October 7, 1858 Debate at Galesburg, Illinois

Or this, which directly rejects what the Nazis believed about their natural right to enslave inferior races - "That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles -- right and wrong -- throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, "You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle." -- October 15, 1858 Debate at Alton, Illinois

Yes, this is white washing of an unrepentant white supremacist. Your argument is so old it has its own term...

But historians have found Lincoln’s embrace of colonization embarrassing and have emphasized--through what Bennett calls the “fallacy of the isolated quotation"--Lincoln’s condemnations of slavery while ignoring his support of colonization.

Writers on the Civil War era are almost certain to quote Lincoln’s allusion to the “monstrous injustice” of slavery in his Peoria speech of 1854 but not the passage in the same speech asserting that he would prefer to send the slaves, once freed, “to Liberia--to their own native land” (a term he used even though some blacks’ ancestors had been in North America longer than Lincoln’s).

They cite his message to Congress in December 1862 with its eloquent passage about the “fiery trial” through which the nation was passing but rarely note that, in the same speech, Lincoln not only affirmed “I strongly support colonization” but for the first time used the ominous word “deportation.”

Lincoln hoped he could convince African Americans to self-deport, similar to another Republican Senator...

It is fair to say Lincoln's views evolved during the war. By the end, he made a speech publicly supporting voting rights for black veterans. He was murdered by John Wilkes Booth a few days after this statement.

Respond

Add Comment

Where is the far right white John when we need him? Did he self-deport from his Slavic homeland to Germany?

And you continue to conflate moral opposition to slavery with the silly idea that one's racial beliefs have anything to do with abolishing the evil that slavery represents. Something so silly there is not even a term for it yet.

As a trolling tip for underpaid people such as yourself - Americans don't care much about Lincoln the racist, they argue about Lincoln the president that misused his office to launch the War of Northern Aggression.

Though on further consideration, that might not be the best trolling method, as that group of Lincoln haters is exactly the group that would most respect and admire Lincoln the unrepentant white supremacist.

Maybe time to put some Rammstein on as background music when writing about Amerika. Better yet, go with AmeriKKKa, it will really make you shine on your next evaluation report, and reads better than lollobertarian.

I do not understand, is John a Slavic commentor who recently moved? I do not believe I am conflating anything, and you seem to be triggered by Lincoln’s actual positions.

The thesis that Lincoln was an avowed white supremacist was put forth by Dr Lerone Bennet, who was an African American scholar and author. He was also the professor of history who discovered and published Jefferson’s affair with Sally Hemmings.

Lincoln was quite consistent, adamant, and clear that he wanted all people of African descent in the US deported. Those addresses to congress and speeches are quite unambiguous and in the written record for posterity.

But of course this is typical, an American completely ignorant of his own history and triggered when confronted by the truth.

John, Jefferson's affair with Sally Hemmings was not discovered by Dr Lerone Bennet, it was quite known in all the best salons of France. And the fact that Jefferson had children with her was first reported in the very early 1800s by James T. Callender, and such claims were not uncommon in the next decades of Jefferson's life.

You of course can be forgiven your ignorance of Jefferson's Mischling mistress, and their Mischling children.

My name is not John. In Germany, insistently referring to someone as an incorrect name is considered rude.

You seem to be focusing on a rather trifling disagreement over the use of the word discover.

For more than 150 years, most historians denied rumors from Jefferson's presidency that he had a slave concubine. Based on his grandson's report, they said that one of his nephews had been the father of Hemings' children.

Bennett wrote a 1954 article "Thomas Jefferson's Negro Grandchildren",[3] about the 20th-century lives of individuals claiming descent from Jefferson and his slave Sally Hemings. It brought black oral history into the public world of journalism and published histories. This relationship was long denied by Jefferson's daughter and two of her children, and main line historians relied on their account. But new works published in the 1970s and 1990s challenged that position. Since a 1998 DNA study demonstrated a match between an Eston Hemings descendant and the Jefferson male line, the historic consensus has shifted (including the position of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation at Monticello) to acknowledging that Jefferson likely had a 38-year relationship with Hemings and was the father of all her six children of record, four of whom survived to adulthood.[4][5]

This is also not relevant to Lincoln’s well known state of the union addresses and many speeches in which he explicitly argues for deportation of all people of African descent from the US.

We would refer to that idea as white supremacy although it seems you disagree.

We all know you are not John. We also all know you are not German, though you might have a Canadian girlfriend.

Seems like you are easily triggered when an American points out your lack of understanding of American history, or your poor choice of words.

I still do not comprehend the John reference. I am in fact, German. Unsurprisingly academic economists in Europe sometimes read Drs Cowen and Taborrak

I don’t believe I have made any historical or factual errors, on the contrary I’m the only one who has approached this with any sense of rationality at all.

Since historians rejected the Sally’s Hemmings claim until the 1970s surely Dr Bennet’s 1954 seminal article and research would be a form of discovery, and pointing to the affair being “well known in certain salons 220 years ago” is entirely beside the point.

Not only are you incorrect, if you are all in fact the same comment author projecting onto me your habit of switching names, you are also bringing into the argument irrelevancies.

Advocating for the removal of all people of African descent is clearly white supremacy. Only one purely motivated by the comfort of false narratives and oblivious to facts could not see it.

Lincoln was a white supremacist, based upon his own words and deeds.

The importance of being earnest while trolling a safe space for white supremacists.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Since I'm not a stick in the mud, I wouldn't mind moving all statues to "statue parks" for a .. time out. heh.

But thinking of this in terms of k-12 education, and child development .. schools don't have a hold on "adults" long, if at all.

It's definitely an adult topic that all humans are flawed, even those touched by greatness. The great see some things, but may be blind to others. That's the human condition. Elihu Yale saw the value of education, but was blind to the fact that Africans might benefit.

Can 11th and 12th grades communicate that complexity? I don't know. But it might be good to try. And it might be good to start early, rather than teaching k-6 kids how well Pilgrims and indians got along .. and then a slow burn before you explain that we mostly killed them all.

Fortunately for this discussion we do not need to discern greatness or infer what lies in the heart of anyone.

Amerika was founded upon racism and slavery. Lincoln wanted all African Americans deported to Liberia to fulfill his ideal white ethnostate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project

Tear down the monuments

I know you are trolling us Americans, but you have touched upon our founding contradiction. The Declaration and the Constitution were great, but they also contained blindness. Something we have been inching our way to address. The arc of the moral universe is long ..

Nice examples of teleology and anachronism.

Respond

Add Comment

I do not believe this constitutes trolling. I simply believe a modern nation should not have monuments to those who preached white supremacy and used their power and station in life to attempt to bring “pure” ethnostates into being.

Lincoln forcefully advocated for eliminating the presence of all people of African descent in the United States. He wove this idea into multiple state of the union addresses. He attempted to convince African American civil groups that they “owed” it to white Americans to self deport after all of the civil war carnage.

It is past time for the Lincoln and Washington monuments to be dismantled. Frederick Douglass or Harriet Tubman would be a wonderful alternative to literal white supremacists cast in marble

The Washington monument is a giant phallic symbol, not the figure of a literal white supremacist cast in marble.

Another tip - get more subtle, and start talking about tearing down monuments to BWC.

My name is not John. Americans become so triggered when confronted by their own history.

The facts can speak for themselves, Dr Bennet even wrote a book outlining Lincoln’s commitment to white supremacy and a white ethnostate.

The enlightening book which I read some years ago was entitled Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream.

The forward:

[The] basic idea of the book is simple: Everything you think you know about Lincoln and race is wrong. Every schoolchild, for example, knows the story of "the great emancipator" who freed Negroes with a stroke of the pen out of the goodness of his heart. The real Lincoln ... was a conservative politician who said repeatedly that he believed in white supremacy. Not only that: He opposed the basic principle of the Emancipation Proclamation until his death and was literally forced – Count Adam Gurowski said he was literally whipped – "into the glory of having issued the Emancipation Proclamation," which Lincoln drafted in such a way that it did not in and of itself free a single slave.

Well, I know this is wrong - "Every schoolchild, for example, knows the story of "the great emancipator" who freed Negroes with a stroke of the pen out of the goodness of his heart."

Lincoln freed no slaves in the Union, he only freed slaves in the Confederacy. Maybe you need to read some higher quality history. Especially since Lincoln's proclamation did actually free slaves in areas occupied by Union troops in what was previously Confederate territory.

And really, why not just quote Lincoln? “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races … I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

Hope that wasn't too triggering for someone in Merkel's Schlaraffenland.

I don’t understand, John is also not named John? You are making an American humor reference, yes?

You seem to be confusing me with Dr Bennet, I did not write the book’s forward. That is his forward to his own text explaining the purpose of his text. I am also not a renowned history professor at Northwestern.

But he is, and the book uses mostly primary sources to let Lincoln speak for himself.

Lincoln was very committed to deporting all people of African descent to Liberia, which is a clearly white supremacist idea. I don’t understand why reckoning with factual history is so triggering to Americans.

Also, Schlaraffenland is not a real place, if you are trying to remember something from a German class you once took.

'You are making an American humor reference, yes?' Nope - this time simply referencing the fact that your name is never fixed.

And you probably missed the quote, it being a primary source to let Lincoln speak for himself.

I like the focus - the party line is always interesting to see in action.

I’ve only ever commented on this blog as A German. I am indeed German.

What you’re doing is referred to in the LA Times piece as a fallacy of isolated quotation.

But historians have found Lincoln’s embrace of colonization embarrassing and have emphasized--through what Bennett calls the “fallacy of the isolated quotation"--Lincoln’s condemnations of slavery while ignoring his support of colonization.

Writers on the Civil War era are almost certain to quote Lincoln’s allusion to the “monstrous injustice” of slavery in his Peoria speech of 1854 but not the passage in the same speech asserting that he would prefer to send the slaves, once freed, “to Liberia--to their own native land” (a term he used even though some blacks’ ancestors had been in North America longer than Lincoln’s).

They cite his message to Congress in December 1862 with its eloquent passage about the “fiery trial” through which the nation was passing but rarely note that, in the same speech, Lincoln not only affirmed “I strongly support colonization” but for the first time used the ominous word “deportation.”

Pretty sad that instead of facing the fact that the intention or desire of removing all people of African descent from the US is blatantly white supremacist, you appeal to absurd conspiracy theories of international espionage and saboteurs.

Delusions of grandeur with a heavy dose of denial.

That while you complained about the wrong name, you completely ignored the much more insulting Hey, Du. It is how some Germans insultingly speak to Slavs, and other people they consider inferior, whose German is very poor.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

... but it bends toward nationalism.

I am appreciative that Germany has no statues of Hitler. But should Germans tear down statues of Wagner? Strauss? Von Aufsess? Nietsche? None of these men were perfect in their tolerance and ecumenism, but they represent (at least to me) German achievement at some of its finest. And I don't know what Bach, Mozart (who was Bavarian not Austrian), and Beethoven thought of non-Germans or Jews, but their legacy deserves to be and must be preserved forever.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"Tear all of the statues down and make Arlington a shopping mall instead of a monument to western neofascism and colonialism. "

And what would you do about Italy or Egypt? Surely those statues to past Emperors or Pharaohs all must go.

Neither Egypt nor Rome exists on this earth as the same polity, nor even necessarily the same people if you believe the genetics studies.

When Amerika dissolves and is replaced by a non white supremacist government with a sane parliamentary system the people can decide on which statues to bring back.

"Neither Egypt nor Rome exists on this earth as the same polity,"

Then there shouldn't be any problem with destroying those ancient monuments. After all why should modern Italy cares if all of the statues of Roman emperors are turned into some nice grade of gravel.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

The story of all nations includes ignominious chapters, which we need to come to grips with better. But only one country on Earth has turned this into a national self-obsession, maybe because the monstrosity of its regime, abetted at its height by a solid majority of its citizenry, marks it out as special. A national ethos of "We will never forget that we are the worst people ever" can't work for everyone.

As far as Lincoln specifically, he was consistent in seeing slavery as a moral evil throughout his life. He was also a pragmatic man, who hoped to contain and ultimately stamp out slavery without the massive bloodshed ultimately required.

Lincoln was skeptical of a harmonious multi-racial society. But the aspirations of the American Project exceed even what Lincoln thought was possible.

Until recently, most Americans would I think agree that, warts and all, our increasingly multiracial and massive nation has lumbered unevenly forward on this front.

But now, lots of people seem to be buying into Lincoln's skepticism. Too bad.

Steve Sailer probably would agree that slavery is evil. But I doubt even Sailer or Unz would forcefully advocate for deportation of all African Americans.

In the near future a Lincoln address will be illegal to broadcast or even say in public since it easily qualifies as hate speech.

You have a giant statue of this man on your national mall. Instead of owning it and fully coming to grips with the straight line from Lincoln to Trump, you close your eyes and look away.

Good luck on Lincoln and hate speech. Though for some odd reason, dictators hate people speaking like this - "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

150 years on, the project is still going on - which explains why fearful autocrats remain determined to bring down America.

They have all failed, and perished from this earth.

Germany is not an autocratic country, rather we are a federal republic. We are certainly not determined to bring down America, although we would much prefer if you would stop destabilizing large parts of the globe with ill conceived and murderous neocolonial schemes.

If you believe calling for the deportation of all Americans of African descent in the pursuit of creating a white ethnostate is not white supremacy, then the US is much farther down the rabbit hole than I had realized.

1619 indeed

Lincoln never called for deportation, which involves someone being removed against their will - One of President Abraham Lincoln's policies during his administration was the voluntary colonization of African American freedmen; he firmly opposed compulsory colonization, and in one instance ordered the Secretary of War to bring some colonized blacks back to the United States.

That's right, he was so dedicated to white supremacy he had the Secretary of War bring blacks back to the U.S.

If I remember correctly the actual word deportation was used by Lincoln himself in the address but I read the book years ago.

It is true that he was focused on voluntary removal of all people of African descent from the United States in the pursuit of a white ethnostate.

I don’t see what Putin has to do with Lincoln’s white supremacy ideas. Russia continued a communist form of slavery well into the 80s.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Of course Germany is no longer an autocratic country. After the Americans ruined Hitler's plans, it only took four decades for the East Germans to get rid of their Russian backed autocrats, tear down the Berlin Wall, and then drive out the Red Army, with America's enthusiastic blessing.

Putin probably still has fond memories of his KGB days in Germany - before all of his countrymen were booted out.

Respond

Add Comment

You're hilarious. Idle and possibly ill-advised musing on a solution to what Lincoln saw as a problem (his skepticism about a harmonious multi-racial society) from 160 years ago is now blithely equated with an actual planned and significantly executed mass extermination of millions of actual human beings on racial grounds (Jewish, Roma, Slav, etc) from 80 years ago.

It's all just like "white supremacy" man.

Seriously, have we laid to rest any skepticism around a harmonious
multi-racial society? The past few months don't feel like the clincher here.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Interesting. I worked for my state's legislature back in the mid-1970s, and my state's constitution still has many of the reforms mentioned embedded in it. The reference to the "modern regulatory state" as being an egalitarian reform might confuse some readers, but one must remember the alternative: a politician handing out favors to his supporters. In other words, the Trump administration. That's not to suggest that America's version of the "modern regulatory state" is a model, because it's not. But we only have to look into the mirror to figure out why. https://www.the-american-interest.com/2013/12/08/the-decay-of-american-political-institutions/

Respond

Add Comment

this part is a exquisite example of a postmodern false dichotomy

" If the olds didn't want indiscriminate tear-down of statues, they should have done the "selection" and pruned the "heroes list" themselves."

today that old woke joke deblasio is canceling Teddy Roosevelt

Another poster said the exact same thing above

heh

we suspect cornpopsrustyrazor is being"moderated"

Using we when speaking of oneself is inappropriate for anyone but monarchs.

are legion & will choose our own pronouns
as per ze/zer/zem postmodern fashion/canadian law

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Yes Indiana went bankrupt due to crazy infrastructure spending, and by buying shares infrastructure companies. The spending was so massive and spread so thin that only one project was near completion by the time interest payments had to be stopped. We amended our constitution in 1981 to allow pension funds to buy equities. : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Mammoth_Internal_Improvement_Act

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment