Well written. It depends on how one defines "populism" American small "p" populism wasnt something that came and went in short spurts, from the 1830s until the advent of the so called Neoliberal Era it had populist governance structures via a decentralized and pluralistic Academe, press and broader information ecosystem; along with the inherent structure of the system which was an governmentally, economically, politically, and scientifically decentralized system; and the fact that the system was politically dominated by publicly accessible mass member parties. We left that system and went to a deeply centralized and de-democratized one (or de-populism) and we not only got far more structural corruption but also, despite its claims to technocratic expertise, cognitively inferior governance structures
I decided to revisit the period of American history known as the 'Bank War'. After having read five books on it, in order to find out what it was really about I had to pay to access a wide partisan range of papers from the time and then also look through us state level legislative records, and theres something telling about that.
The 'Bank War' was about capital formation, banking and finance regulations, and development economics. California was very close to having a development economics program applied to it that was almost the same as the one that has been applied to the Congo for the past fifty years. Complete with "regulatory harmonization", strict and nonnegotiable economic/legal structures that asserted the concepts of comparative advantage and a highly precise American continental division of labor. Well, we've seen the results.
Using Massachusetts as microcosm, Worcester Ma -- a socio-economic political community -- gaining the ability to, within limits, for the most part dictate the deployment of *its own* area capital led to huge investments in everything from new infrastructure and businesses and a high quality technical academy called WPI (at first a predecessor programs(s) to it) and lots else.
Well written. It depends on how one defines "populism" American small "p" populism wasnt something that came and went in short spurts, from the 1830s until the advent of the so called Neoliberal Era it had populist governance structures via a decentralized and pluralistic Academe, press and broader information ecosystem; along with the inherent structure of the system which was an governmentally, economically, politically, and scientifically decentralized system; and the fact that the system was politically dominated by publicly accessible mass member parties. We left that system and went to a deeply centralized and de-democratized one (or de-populism) and we not only got far more structural corruption but also, despite its claims to technocratic expertise, cognitively inferior governance structures
I decided to revisit the period of American history known as the 'Bank War'. After having read five books on it, in order to find out what it was really about I had to pay to access a wide partisan range of papers from the time and then also look through us state level legislative records, and theres something telling about that.
The 'Bank War' was about capital formation, banking and finance regulations, and development economics. California was very close to having a development economics program applied to it that was almost the same as the one that has been applied to the Congo for the past fifty years. Complete with "regulatory harmonization", strict and nonnegotiable economic/legal structures that asserted the concepts of comparative advantage and a highly precise American continental division of labor. Well, we've seen the results.
Using Massachusetts as microcosm, Worcester Ma -- a socio-economic political community -- gaining the ability to, within limits, for the most part dictate the deployment of *its own* area capital led to huge investments in everything from new infrastructure and businesses and a high quality technical academy called WPI (at first a predecessor programs(s) to it) and lots else.