Great article man. Below I have created a manifesto for a charter city for Bangladesh. It's mandate is more narrow and even in the best case scenario wouldn't scale to the size of a university town. But it solves a real world problem and is written from the POV of a nationalist and not a libertarian.
"Just a century ago, regulations were light... They dream of a better world where the government doesn’t impose all its answers on its citizens, where they’re treated not as subjects but as customers."
No. We. Do. Not. Full goddamn stop.
We dream of a world where your right to live in peace, safety, and prosperous freedom is NOT dependent on the size of your bank account. Where governments act in the interest of the citizens who elect them to office, and not in the interest of corporations who grease the campaigns of their favorite politicians.
Between the 1930s and 1970s, the U.S. treated its non-millionaire citizens as voters who benefit from the common good, and not as consumers to milk for "rich people play money". The result? Leaps in education, communications, human safety and general health, medical care, technology, infrastructure, rights, modernization, safety and fairness regulations, average income...
But starting in the 1980s, when the Reagan administration and the Friedman doctrine decided that corporations mattered more than citizens, the U.S. has increasingly treated its non-millionaires as wage slaves and "paying customers", who only "deserve" anything if they "can pay for it".
Regulations, public systems, infrastructure, and social nets (which benefit the People) were either torn down or allowed to rot, as politicians and anti-regulation hawks drove money upward toward the already-wealthy, so that they could have even more.
Corporations also began purchasing homes (liquid wealth mobility for the lower 90%) and bulldozed them for apartment complexes (liquid wealth for the upper 10%), turning "owners" with investment into "renters" with nothing to show for it. Software also flipped from something you "own" to something to which you "subscribe", at the whim of the company which publishes it.
Meanwhile, social services (school, medicine, banking) prices went up beyond the ability to afford them, and media transformed from "owned" physical media to "rented" digital, which can be yanked away at any moment for any reason.
This has left everyone else to scrounge for what their diminishing paychecks (in real currency value) could afford. And it has enshittified everything; from families to workplaces to media to products to cities, ensuring that governments become focused not on the good of the People, but the good of their own pocketbooks.
Bonus: Seemingly "successful" places such as Abu Dhabi, Dubai, and Singapore rely on heavy censorship and restrictions on general democratic freedoms for anyone in the lower 90%. Because, you know, if the "poors" rise up, the ultra-wealthy who keep these cities lookin' good can't drink their champagne in peace.
It sounds like you are not part of the group who dreams of a world where the government doesn’t impose all its answers on its citizens, where they’re treated not as subjects but as customers. But there certainly are many people who do!
On the topic of taxation, you might be referring to the top marginal tax bracket, which used to be higher. However, taxes as a share of GDP are substantially higher than they used to be. It is likely one of the big causes why paychecks are so low (aside from the high cost of real estate, which is due to hyper regulation).
Please do help me understand how education, finance and healthcare have gone more expensive. I believe public education is pretty similar, healthcare quality is much better (and free for the poor and elderly), and finance is definitely cheaper.
"who dreams of a world where the government doesn’t impose all its answers on its citizens"
A properly-functioning government is operated by people elected to their office by citizens who share the official's ideals on how government is run, how laws are crafted, and how money is spent. The citizens are represented in good faith by those they elect, and can vote out those who do not conduct themselves in a manner in which the citizens find acceptable.
Good government does not "impose all of its answers on its citizens", but enacts and enforces laws, regulations, treaties, and budgets which they create or uphold, and which reflect the will and desire of the majority of the citizens. If we find those laws to be fair, we as citizens vote for those who will keep those laws. If not, we will vote for those who propose to change them.
But the United States, since Citizens United passed, has been beholden to corporations who pay for the campaings of those who decide that what benefits the corporation (more often than not further Conservative than the public) is more important than what benefits the pubic (further Liberal than corporations).
I am in favor of "Socialism to support all (not 'lavish', but 'support'), and Capitalism for those who want even more." Ensure that your population does not fall through, and incentivise for those who have the time, energy, and vision to go higher.
But a nation or society should not punish people for not being able to "get ahead" or even "make ends meet". Not everyone is born lucky enough to always be financially stable and prosperous without outside help.
I myself am financially, economically, and employement-wise responsible. And I have encountered several periods in my life, where I was grateful for government-based financial support. I was not lazy during these periods (they were grindingly boring), but sought employment as quickly as I could. Nevertheless, I was thankful for the financial help, which I was promised by unemployment income.
As Odo of "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" once said: "What better way to gauge another race, than to see how it treats the weak and vulnerable?" (5x12 - The Begotten)
------
"taxes as a share of GDP are substantially higher than they used to be. It is likely one of the big causes why paychecks are so low"
- Paychecks are low because corporations have repeatedly lobbied to keep them that way, to funnel income toward investors and the top 10% (or...1%), rather than to the bottom 90%. Repeated "tax cuts for the rich" have benefited those at the top rather than at the bottom.
Further, real-dollar wages for most Americans has stagnated since the 1980s, again through efforts of corporate lobbyists to ensure that their money is funneled, not to employees, but to investors.
Also note that when I lived in the U.S., I took home 75% of my pay after federal taxes, social security, and insurance. And only through spending frugally was I able to save enough money to successfully leave the country (which is increasily hostile to it's middle- and low-income workers), and move to Europe to be closer to my family. Life in Europe is not perfect, but I fell far more secure and joyful than I did in the States. (Europe's own economic, political, and social issues are for another day).
I was able to save by: not being married (lower taxes and spending), not having children (lower taxes and spending), not having pets (lower spending), not owning a new car (lower taxes and spending), not buying a house (lower taxes), and paying off my credit card and school debt.
Marriage, children, home ownership, new car... Once part of the "American Dream", but now things to be avoided, lest you be punished through excessive, possibly untenable, costs.
I am in favor of higher taxes. Especially on the wealthy. Taxes go into a common good from where rightly-elected officials disribute (locally and nationally) to all in shared services (roads, water, fire, police, education) where all benefit.
A gallon (or liter [litre?]) of milk always costs the same. It won't hurt millionaires and billionaires to pay more to help the rest of us. Plus, the lower 90% will then plough it back into the economy.
Except that we don't have that...$80 Trillion, that was taken from us for 45 years, to spend.
"help me understand how education, finance and healthcare have gone more expensive."
As my response has gone on long enough, the following is a selection of reading material which supports my statement. To sum it up: Neo-liberalism has infected U.S. institutions, flipping the ethical and moral obligation of these institutions from "serve the People, and empower them to strengthen the economy" to "serve the investors, and drain the people into economically powerless debt."
In all fairness, Dubai is a souless Vegas-style monstrosity in the desert... While Tokyo and Singapore work for Asians, but few Westerners can adjust long term. We have NYC, but again, density, and like the popularity of SUVs, Americans want their space.
Americans would love many more New Yorks, and they don't have them because of the prevalence of cars.
I agree that Dubai missed an opportunity with cars, but plenty of cities around the world are car-centric, and Dubai is better than most.
You can have big apartments if you build them as such, the problem is you need to build in height, and NIMBYs have prevented this from happening in the US, in big part for race reasons
Great article man. Below I have created a manifesto for a charter city for Bangladesh. It's mandate is more narrow and even in the best case scenario wouldn't scale to the size of a university town. But it solves a real world problem and is written from the POV of a nationalist and not a libertarian.
https://mdnadimahmed888222.substack.com/p/satyapur-the-delaware-of-bangladesh
The manifesto still has a few shortcoming and I plan to write a follow-up manifesto later this month.
Your thoughts on the subject will be highly appreciated.
I’m not equipped to jusge, but these initiatives are great!
"Just a century ago, regulations were light... They dream of a better world where the government doesn’t impose all its answers on its citizens, where they’re treated not as subjects but as customers."
No. We. Do. Not. Full goddamn stop.
We dream of a world where your right to live in peace, safety, and prosperous freedom is NOT dependent on the size of your bank account. Where governments act in the interest of the citizens who elect them to office, and not in the interest of corporations who grease the campaigns of their favorite politicians.
Between the 1930s and 1970s, the U.S. treated its non-millionaire citizens as voters who benefit from the common good, and not as consumers to milk for "rich people play money". The result? Leaps in education, communications, human safety and general health, medical care, technology, infrastructure, rights, modernization, safety and fairness regulations, average income...
But starting in the 1980s, when the Reagan administration and the Friedman doctrine decided that corporations mattered more than citizens, the U.S. has increasingly treated its non-millionaires as wage slaves and "paying customers", who only "deserve" anything if they "can pay for it".
Regulations, public systems, infrastructure, and social nets (which benefit the People) were either torn down or allowed to rot, as politicians and anti-regulation hawks drove money upward toward the already-wealthy, so that they could have even more.
Corporations also began purchasing homes (liquid wealth mobility for the lower 90%) and bulldozed them for apartment complexes (liquid wealth for the upper 10%), turning "owners" with investment into "renters" with nothing to show for it. Software also flipped from something you "own" to something to which you "subscribe", at the whim of the company which publishes it.
Meanwhile, social services (school, medicine, banking) prices went up beyond the ability to afford them, and media transformed from "owned" physical media to "rented" digital, which can be yanked away at any moment for any reason.
This has left everyone else to scrounge for what their diminishing paychecks (in real currency value) could afford. And it has enshittified everything; from families to workplaces to media to products to cities, ensuring that governments become focused not on the good of the People, but the good of their own pocketbooks.
Bonus: Seemingly "successful" places such as Abu Dhabi, Dubai, and Singapore rely on heavy censorship and restrictions on general democratic freedoms for anyone in the lower 90%. Because, you know, if the "poors" rise up, the ultra-wealthy who keep these cities lookin' good can't drink their champagne in peace.
Hi Mike, thank you I appreciate your thoughts.
It sounds like you are not part of the group who dreams of a world where the government doesn’t impose all its answers on its citizens, where they’re treated not as subjects but as customers. But there certainly are many people who do!
On the topic of taxation, you might be referring to the top marginal tax bracket, which used to be higher. However, taxes as a share of GDP are substantially higher than they used to be. It is likely one of the big causes why paychecks are so low (aside from the high cost of real estate, which is due to hyper regulation).
Please do help me understand how education, finance and healthcare have gone more expensive. I believe public education is pretty similar, healthcare quality is much better (and free for the poor and elderly), and finance is definitely cheaper.
"who dreams of a world where the government doesn’t impose all its answers on its citizens"
A properly-functioning government is operated by people elected to their office by citizens who share the official's ideals on how government is run, how laws are crafted, and how money is spent. The citizens are represented in good faith by those they elect, and can vote out those who do not conduct themselves in a manner in which the citizens find acceptable.
Good government does not "impose all of its answers on its citizens", but enacts and enforces laws, regulations, treaties, and budgets which they create or uphold, and which reflect the will and desire of the majority of the citizens. If we find those laws to be fair, we as citizens vote for those who will keep those laws. If not, we will vote for those who propose to change them.
But the United States, since Citizens United passed, has been beholden to corporations who pay for the campaings of those who decide that what benefits the corporation (more often than not further Conservative than the public) is more important than what benefits the pubic (further Liberal than corporations).
I am in favor of "Socialism to support all (not 'lavish', but 'support'), and Capitalism for those who want even more." Ensure that your population does not fall through, and incentivise for those who have the time, energy, and vision to go higher.
But a nation or society should not punish people for not being able to "get ahead" or even "make ends meet". Not everyone is born lucky enough to always be financially stable and prosperous without outside help.
I myself am financially, economically, and employement-wise responsible. And I have encountered several periods in my life, where I was grateful for government-based financial support. I was not lazy during these periods (they were grindingly boring), but sought employment as quickly as I could. Nevertheless, I was thankful for the financial help, which I was promised by unemployment income.
As Odo of "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" once said: "What better way to gauge another race, than to see how it treats the weak and vulnerable?" (5x12 - The Begotten)
------
"taxes as a share of GDP are substantially higher than they used to be. It is likely one of the big causes why paychecks are so low"
- Paychecks are low because corporations have repeatedly lobbied to keep them that way, to funnel income toward investors and the top 10% (or...1%), rather than to the bottom 90%. Repeated "tax cuts for the rich" have benefited those at the top rather than at the bottom.
- https://www.urban.org/data-tools/american-affordability-tracker
- https://www.lisep.org/tlc
- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tax-cuts-rich-50-years-no-trickle-down/
Further, real-dollar wages for most Americans has stagnated since the 1980s, again through efforts of corporate lobbyists to ensure that their money is funneled, not to employees, but to investors.
- https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/
- https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/
- https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-wages-arent-growing-in-america/
Also note that when I lived in the U.S., I took home 75% of my pay after federal taxes, social security, and insurance. And only through spending frugally was I able to save enough money to successfully leave the country (which is increasily hostile to it's middle- and low-income workers), and move to Europe to be closer to my family. Life in Europe is not perfect, but I fell far more secure and joyful than I did in the States. (Europe's own economic, political, and social issues are for another day).
I was able to save by: not being married (lower taxes and spending), not having children (lower taxes and spending), not having pets (lower spending), not owning a new car (lower taxes and spending), not buying a house (lower taxes), and paying off my credit card and school debt.
Marriage, children, home ownership, new car... Once part of the "American Dream", but now things to be avoided, lest you be punished through excessive, possibly untenable, costs.
I am in favor of higher taxes. Especially on the wealthy. Taxes go into a common good from where rightly-elected officials disribute (locally and nationally) to all in shared services (roads, water, fire, police, education) where all benefit.
A gallon (or liter [litre?]) of milk always costs the same. It won't hurt millionaires and billionaires to pay more to help the rest of us. Plus, the lower 90% will then plough it back into the economy.
Except that we don't have that...$80 Trillion, that was taken from us for 45 years, to spend.
- https://medium.com/civic-skunk-works/the-new-cost-of-american-inequality-80-trillion-e05a4a52024f
------
"help me understand how education, finance and healthcare have gone more expensive."
As my response has gone on long enough, the following is a selection of reading material which supports my statement. To sum it up: Neo-liberalism has infected U.S. institutions, flipping the ethical and moral obligation of these institutions from "serve the People, and empower them to strengthen the economy" to "serve the investors, and drain the people into economically powerless debt."
Higher education:
- https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-college-by-year
- https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/29/how-much-college-tuition-has-increased-from-1988-to-2018.html
- https://theconversation.com/another-kind-of-student-debt-is-entrenching-inequality-274142
- https://jacobin.com/2023/08/us-university-neoliberalism-exploitation-financialization-debt-jobs
Healthcare costs and medical debt:
- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12687089/
- https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/06/16/1104969627/medical-debt-upended-their-lives-heres-what-it-took-from-them
- https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/the-burden-of-medical-debt-in-the-united-states/
- https://www.kff.org/health-costs/health-policy-101-health-care-costs-and-affordability/
Financial fees:
- https://www.library.hbs.edu/working-knowledge/are-banks-the-bad-guys-overdraft-fees-are-crushing-low-income-customers
- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/atm-fee-cfpb-fdic-checking-account-low-income-overdraft-fee/
- https://rooseveltinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/RI_Business-of-Bank-Fees-Economic-Participation_Brief_202406.pdf
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1049007818302057
- https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1247&context=elj
In all fairness, Dubai is a souless Vegas-style monstrosity in the desert... While Tokyo and Singapore work for Asians, but few Westerners can adjust long term. We have NYC, but again, density, and like the popularity of SUVs, Americans want their space.
Americans would love many more New Yorks, and they don't have them because of the prevalence of cars.
I agree that Dubai missed an opportunity with cars, but plenty of cities around the world are car-centric, and Dubai is better than most.
You can have big apartments if you build them as such, the problem is you need to build in height, and NIMBYs have prevented this from happening in the US, in big part for race reasons