User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: Thinking Big & Strong Towns

  1. #1
    Points: 665,270, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 88.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433314
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,552
    Points
    665,270
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,983
    Thanked 80,903x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Thinking Big & Strong Towns

    Potential solutions.

    First Patrick Deneen Thinking Big to Act Small, then a response to it.

    ...Chesterton, along with his collaborator Hillaire Belloc, perceived a deep alignment between the two main ideological parties of his day (and ours), capitalists and socialists. Both were hostile to a society grounded in stability, continuity, and piety. Both sought the liberation of people from constraints of traditional society. While they apparently differed over the means – the one preferring the expansion of the market and its detachment from traditional norms and limits, and the other preferring the crusades of the reformer state – they saw that the two would become blended while maintaining their apparent hostility, becoming what Belloc called “the Servile State.” Centralization of both political and economic power was the inevitable course of such a purported division, with the loser being the decentralized system, the small shopkeeper, the town, the Church, and the family.

    ...Perhaps we might not call this a “free market,” but what we have achieved is a market of increasingly “free radicals” – people unmoored from contexts of meaning, communities thick with inheritances, practices born of limits, exercises in self- and social constraints. Above all, we have created a national environment hostile to the natural conservatism of “the people,” destroyed by a combination of private and public powers aligned to encourage social disruption, financial instability, and economic insecurity.

    ...A true alternative requires moving beyond the debates over socialism vs. capitalism, and instead asking and answering the question: what will allow the building of ordinary lived human knowledge and common wisdom that arises from the bottom up, essential for building stable and flourishing communities that are resilient and can survive the various global shocks that daily seem to accelerate? Why should we remain invested in and loyal to a system that has to be bailed out at least once a decade by massive creation of fictive money because the cessation of “growth” built on debt would instantaneously collapse the entire global economic, political, and social order?

    The answer is not merely to get the right national economic plan in place, but to make sure any policies have as their “compass” the creation and preservation of human communities that are built from the bottom up, and can thus persist for a long period of time. There needs to be a consilience between broad national policies that inevitably shape the political order, and the kinds of bottom-up local resilience that arises from the unplanned, the tentative, the slow building-up of communities in ways that allow for adaptation and even the possibility of local failure that does not result in systemic collapse....
    John O. McGinnis Strong Towns Need Strong Economies

    ...Deneen rightly notes that market economies can collude with the state to promote individualism, centralization, and other social ills. “Woke capitalism” is just one manifestation of this. Robert Nisbet explained this alliance in his essential book, The Quest for Community. He noted how certain Manchester liberals and political centralizers joined forces to break down communities and other groups that resisted centralization. Nisbet echoed Alexis de Tocqueville’s larger dialectical critique and concern that individualism leads to centralization, and that centralization, in turn, exacerbates and encourages individualism.

    This is an important point that both national conservatives and libertarians have often missed. The proper reaction to collectivism is not individualism but what could be called “associationalism.” As Tocqueville points out, local politics, vibrant civil society, and religion are key obstacles to centralizing tendencies and the “soft despotism” of the modern, schoolmarm state.

    ...In The Quest for Community, Nisbet argued for “a new laissez faire,” by which he meant a flowering of associations, more decentralization, and multiple layers of authority. There is no single solution to the problems we face, but decentralization, smaller-scale approaches, and “strong towns” are an important step. Here too we could see new alliances between a number of groups including the non-progressive Left and Right, small-government conservatives, traditionalists, libertarians, and some localist green movements.

    ...Yes, we need to think big. But acting small means we need to recognize that there is no social engineering plan or national industrial policy devised by “economists, sophists, and calculators” that can solve the problems of individualism and weak communities. This can only be done on a small scale where people have the freedom to solve their own problems....
    Both refer to Charles “Chuck” Marohn's Strong Towns: A Bottom-Up Revolution to Rebuild American Prosperity.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    carolina73 (09-20-2020),Retirednsmilin308 (09-20-2020)

  3. #2
    Points: 665,270, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 88.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433314
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,552
    Points
    665,270
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,983
    Thanked 80,903x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Halfway through Marohn's Strong Towns: A Bottom-Up Revolution to Rebuild American Prosperity and came across this passage which I agree with but also admire his basis in "an unprovable aticle of faith," as is the case of all science soft and hard.

    As an unprovable article of faith, I believe that a financially strong national economy is the byproduct of having financially strong cities, towns, and neighborhoods. I do not believe the opposite: that our cities will be financially strong and healthy if we can only create a strong national economy.

    In short, I believe that economic strength is built from the bottom and works its way up, like a foundation supporting a structure. I do not believe that a focus on success at the national level will result in enduring, fine-grained prosperity in our local communities.
    Also cited in My Journey from Free Market Ideologue to Strong Towns Advocate, Part 7: The Nature of Markets.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Retirednsmilin308 (09-20-2020)

  5. #3
    Points: 5,676, Level: 17
    Level completed: 88%, Points required for next Level: 74
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    TheOneOnly2's Avatar Banned
    Karma
    223
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    1,017
    Points
    5,676
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    451
    Thanked 213x in 161 Posts
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think this is a lot of nonsense. Take farmers for example - always wanting hand outs. The obvious solution is to let them die and for farming to be taken over by corporations that have the capital to move farming into the future and to withstand downturns.

    Markets are no longer based in reality - and that is a result of capitalism creating a great surplus problem. The great surplus has to go somewhere. The solution is to prevent corporations from sitting on profit by forcing them to reinvest a percentage each year.

    The great surplus means that basic needs are covered and surplus is spent on desire.

    The solution to downturns is to allow them to happen - if people lose their jobs so be it. They go on unemployment and not increased unemployment benefits either. If businesses close them %$%$ them. No hand outs. No stimulus. No QE. Sink or swim. That way we are in reality not fantasy created by government debt. Downturns create opportunity.

    Small business should only exist for small markets that arent worth the time to corporations - if a small business has an innovative idea that make them big - or is so good at what they do that they get big then great but most small business or start up will need capital to rise above small business status.

    Its the best combinations that create centralization. The reason small business is small is because they do not represent the best combinations - if they did they would become big.

    https://marxists.catbull.com/archive...nheel/ch08.htm

    Marx talked about the idiocy of rural life and I agree. Its not worth offering the best services to small markets. Everything should always be moving towards centralization whether that be big government or big business. In my opinion towards big business with the government acting as overseer and regulator. Prosperity trickles down not up. Rising tide lifts all boats.

    %$%$ small business and %$%$ small markets.


  6. #4
    Points: 665,270, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 88.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433314
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,552
    Points
    665,270
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,983
    Thanked 80,903x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TheOneOnly2 View Post
    I think this is a lot of nonsense. Take farmers for example - always wanting hand outs. The obvious solution is to let them die and for farming to be taken over by corporations that have the capital to move farming into the future and to withstand downturns.

    Markets are no longer based in reality - and that is a result of capitalism creating a great surplus problem. The great surplus has to go somewhere. The solution is to prevent corporations from sitting on profit by forcing them to reinvest a percentage each year.

    The great surplus means that basic needs are covered and surplus is spent on desire.

    The solution to downturns is to allow them to happen - if people lose their jobs so be it. They go on unemployment and not increased unemployment benefits either. If businesses close them %$%$ them. No hand outs. No stimulus. No QE. Sink or swim. That way we are in reality not fantasy created by government debt. Downturns create opportunity.

    Small business should only exist for small markets that arent worth the time to corporations - if a small business has an innovative idea that make them big - or is so good at what they do that they get big then great but most small business or start up will need capital to rise above small business status.

    Its the best combinations that create centralization. The reason small business is small is because they do not represent the best combinations - if they did they would become big.

    https://marxists.catbull.com/archive...nheel/ch08.htm

    Marx talked about the idiocy of rural life and I agree. Its not worth offering the best services to small markets. Everything should always be moving towards centralization whether that be big government or big business. In my opinion towards big business with the government acting as overseer and regulator. Prosperity trickles down not up. Rising tide lifts all boats.

    %$%$ small business and %$%$ small markets.


    Nonsense you say but you say nothing against the concept of strong towns.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  7. #5
    Points: 8,447, Level: 21
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 3
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    barb012's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    1469
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,909
    Points
    8,447
    Level
    21
    Thanks Given
    1,156
    Thanked 1,459x in 906 Posts
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TheOneOnly2 View Post
    I think this is a lot of nonsense. Take farmers for example - always wanting hand outs. The obvious solution is to let them die and for farming to be taken over by corporations that have the capital to move farming into the future and to withstand downturns.

    Markets are no longer based in reality - and that is a result of capitalism creating a great surplus problem. The great surplus has to go somewhere. The solution is to prevent corporations from sitting on profit by forcing them to reinvest a percentage each year.

    The great surplus means that basic needs are covered and surplus is spent on desire.

    The solution to downturns is to allow them to happen - if people lose their jobs so be it. They go on unemployment and not increased unemployment benefits either. If businesses close them %$%$ them. No hand outs. No stimulus. No QE. Sink or swim. That way we are in reality not fantasy created by government debt. Downturns create opportunity.

    Small business should only exist for small markets that arent worth the time to corporations - if a small business has an innovative idea that make them big - or is so good at what they do that they get big then great but most small business or start up will need capital to rise above small business status.

    Its the best combinations that create centralization. The reason small business is small is because they do not represent the best combinations - if they did they would become big.

    https://marxists.catbull.com/archive...nheel/ch08.htm

    Marx talked about the idiocy of rural life and I agree. Its not worth offering the best services to small markets. Everything should always be moving towards centralization whether that be big government or big business. In my opinion towards big business with the government acting as overseer and regulator. Prosperity trickles down not up. Rising tide lifts all boats.

    %$%$ small business and %$%$ small markets.

    Your thoughts of thinking big businesses should be the norm when it has been proven that big businesses with no check and balances will become Marxist. If we only had small businesses as the norm then the income gap would disappear and we all would have a fair economic system.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to barb012 For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (09-20-2020)

  9. #6
    Points: 143,765, Level: 91
    Level completed: 20%, Points required for next Level: 2,885
    Overall activity: 78.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsOverdriveVeteran
    carolina73's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    43650
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    57,490
    Points
    143,765
    Level
    91
    Thanks Given
    56,065
    Thanked 43,655x in 28,245 Posts
    Mentioned
    154 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Diversity is key and I am not talking about racial diversity.

    The large corporations have one goal and that is market share (grow). When they do not grow then they offer fewer incentives to buy stock.
    They have large R&D departments to increase product value and create new products. They also do not like specials. You use what they make.
    If they can screw the consumer through as a monopoly then they will do that. See Google, Microsoft...

    The medium and small businesses are help to keep the large corporations in check. They provide customized products, better service and can keep pricing in check because they have lower overheads.

    The same for your grocery store but slightly different. There are different products/services at your local butcher than at your local Super-Market.
    Or different quality available at you farm stand.

    Both are important for the market and both give us advantages.

    The same goes for schools - Diversity, instead of a singular public system, allows more mature students to be challenged and less mature students to move at a slower pace. The centralized system bores more mature students and passes less matured kids out before they learn the lessons.

    Centralization is like running a marathon with random people and then telling them they all have to finish together.

  10. #7
    Points: 665,270, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 88.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433314
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,552
    Points
    665,270
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,983
    Thanked 80,903x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Understand that what Deneen, McGinnis , and Marohn are advocating here is a reversal of the existing economic-political hierarchy, a return to an old social order.

    The current system subsumes the people under the state and the state under the economy. This is modern political economy. The system proposed by these writers and others I keep posting is the reverse of that. It subsumes individuals under society, that is local communities of communities, family, neighborhood, religion and other social institutions. It subsumes the state under society, and it subsumes economy under the state. The economy serves the interest of the local community, as does the state.

    In a way it is similar to the US under the Articles of Confederation but it is older. It is an ancient order, much like what Aristotle described as the city and its polity.

    It is anti-enlightenment, anti-individualism, as also described in The conservatives who want to undo the Enlightenment. If I understand Vermeule's Integralism there, it would restore a sense of family, religion, and politics--home, hearth, land--as one.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  11. #8
    Points: 143,765, Level: 91
    Level completed: 20%, Points required for next Level: 2,885
    Overall activity: 78.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsOverdriveVeteran
    carolina73's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    43650
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    57,490
    Points
    143,765
    Level
    91
    Thanks Given
    56,065
    Thanked 43,655x in 28,245 Posts
    Mentioned
    154 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Understand that what Deneen, McGinnis , and Marohn are advocating here is a reversal of the existing economic-political hierarchy, a return to an old social order.

    The current system subsumes the people under the state and the state under the economy. This is modern political economy. The system proposed by these writers and others I keep posting is the reverse of that. It subsumes individuals under society, that is local communities of communities, family, neighborhood, religion and other social institutions. It subsumes the state under society, and it subsumes economy under the state. The economy serves the interest of the local community, as does the state.

    In a way it is similar to the US under the Articles of Confederation but it is older. It is an ancient order, much like what Aristotle described as the city and its polity.

    It is anti-enlightenment, anti-individualism, as also described in The conservatives who want to undo the Enlightenment. If I understand Vermeule's Integralism there, it would restore a sense of family, religion, and politics--home, hearth, land--as one.

    And a simpler time sounds great but people are not going to give up their cell phones and you cannot make them in each town. Planes and airports are not going to go away. AOC's trains to Hawaii are going to keep running !

    We can return our government to more local control. We can stop the dumping from China and countries that use slave level wages to steal American jobs to allow for more local businesses to start and expand. WalMart grew to where it is because of China. Prior to that it was US made brands that just helped to supply areas that no one was servicing. Just like the dollar style stores do today.

  12. #9
    Points: 665,270, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 88.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433314
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,552
    Points
    665,270
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,983
    Thanked 80,903x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina73 View Post
    And a simpler time sounds great but people are not going to give up their cell phones and you cannot make them in each town. Planes and airports are not going to go away. AOC's trains to Hawaii are going to keep running !

    We can return our government to more local control. We can stop the dumping from China and countries that use slave level wages to steal American jobs to allow for more local businesses to start and expand. WalMart grew to where it is because of China. Prior to that it was US made brands that just helped to supply areas that no one was servicing. Just like the dollar style stores do today.

    It's not a back-to-the-future proposal, that is, not a proposal to go back in time politically, economically, technologically. You can't do that. It would be a slow, gradual process of returning control to local communities but not reverse technological trends. Everything your second paragraph says.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  13. #10
    Points: 5,676, Level: 17
    Level completed: 88%, Points required for next Level: 74
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    TheOneOnly2's Avatar Banned
    Karma
    223
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    1,017
    Points
    5,676
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    451
    Thanked 213x in 161 Posts
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Nonsense you say but you say nothing against the concept of strong towns.
    I live in a small town. And I did mention that Marx spoke of the idiocy of rural life and that I agree. In Australia it is difficult to attract professionals to rural areas like where I live. To encourage doctors the government will offer free accommodation and extra pay which I don't particularly agree with. For specialists though you are likely going to have to travel or wait until you can get an appointment with one that visits periodically. Often someone suffering serious health problem's will have to be helicoptered to a place that has bigger hospital and specialists in emergency. That's one example of the idiocy of rural life. With air travel - and I would encourage the west to invest in bullet trains its not as idiotic to live in small towns as when Marx was around but it still has its problems. It may suit some but it won't suit most.

    And I don't understand what exactly you are suggestion. Like I said - its all a bunch of nonsense. What powers do you want local government to have exactly and how will this lead to strong small business in towns? What are you even talking about?

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts