In the spirit of Chesterton's Fence: the value of extensive labor markets and state infrastructure isn't just that they reduce the overall labor-intensiveness of production, it's that they provide a way for people to exit toxic personal and local relationships by taking refuge in the impersonal and the large-scale.
This is the dark side of local community: it can so easily be abusive and repressive if a family member or local elder decides to take advantage of the power their intimate relationships and commitments give them. In the precapitalist era, people typically had no recourse against that abuse. State and market both helped reduce that abuse greatly during the 19th and 20th centuries. Any plan for the reinvigoration of localism needs to preserve enough of a robust, practically viable right of exit to prevent backsliding.
I keep thinking of Jacob Levy's _Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom_ here. You're proposing an expansion of pluralism and that probably is, on the current margin, what we need. But the reasons for rationalism, and the problems with pluralism, that Levy discusses aren't inherently easier to address now, so they need more explicit addressing if a pluralist resurgence is actually to be net beneficial.
May 25, 2023·edited May 25, 2023Liked by Brink Lindsey
I think one impediment to building community is that life at home has become so incredibly satisfying in modern America.
I live in a "third world country" and one thing foreign visitors always talk about is the vibrant street life. Friends meeting at cafes until 10pm on weekdays, kids playing in the streets every afternoon/evening, people sitting outside on plastic stools, etc.
But to a large extent all of that is the result of being poor. People meet at cafes because their homes have 8 people in 600 square feet. Kids play in the streets because nobody has backyards, there aren't any parks, and the schools have gates that literally lock after classes so you can't even use their playgrounds (and staying in the house sucks because it is 600 square feet....). People sit on plastic stools because the food cart owner can't afford rent on a decent place with air conditioning and nicer chairs.
Meanwhile I visit family in the US and the only reason they leave their house during our 2-week visit is to go to work or go buy something. And with work from home and online shopping there were precious few instances of that for 2 of the 4 family members. And my brother works at a grocery store so they never even need to go grocery shopping...he just picks stuff up after work. But I get it! They have nice furniture, a pool, multiple TVs, a stocked fridge, Nintendo Switch, PlayStation, streaming service, a basketball hoop, two dogs that are fun to play with, a nice coffee machine, a freezer with even more food. Bedrooms big enough you can hide out there all day if you want your own space. Two living rooms so grandpa can watch sports all day and the rest of the family can watch a movie.
I feel like you almost need some kind of stick to go with the carrot. Something to make being at home so unpleasant people will go out and meet their neighbors. Unpleasant enough that you'll keep meeting them despite all the little frictions (the house on the left is weirdly overprotective of their kids, so we don't really bother talking to them and whatnot) that would make it easy not to when just staying at home is so nice, so easy.
"Vertical farming, artificial meat, renewable energy, and 3D printing are among the new technologies that make the transition to human-scale abundance imaginable." Speaking of artificial meat, what do people think, so far? I've tried Impossible Foods' Wild Nuggies, and they're not bad with ketchup.
Great essay! In human terms, we definitely need each other. I liked the creative thought about shifting legal frameworks on IP. Our complex world is awash in restrictions and protections. While there are good reasons for how this complex arrangement developed, society can suffocate with the accumulated weight of legal frameworks. Thoughtful reforms are needed. It's great to hear all the optimistic ideas.
We are fully capable of fixing what we have broken. The only question is how much pain it will take for us to open to change. Walter Scheidel wrote The Great Leveler. It tells the story we refuse to hear. Timothy Snyder is giving a free on-line class on Ukraine. Class 20 is on the uprising at Maidan. It is the story of deep pain and revolution. It is a story of what the human animal can be in a state of desperation. Your story might well happen, but it will take the complete failure of the present system.
Thanks for another very thoughtful essay. The end-state has much intuitive appeal, regardless of if or how we get there. Since status-seeking seems to have such a powerful hold on us, channeling it in productive ways seems critical. Status based on production (making excellent bread or building attractive stone walls) seems more promising than status based on consumption.
I've been thinking about one point you make in the last couple of instalments, and I'm not sure I follow it.
You've argued that measures to reduce the cost of living (land deregulation to reduce housing costs, technological progress to reduce energy costs...) would encourage a shift towards less market work. But I don't really see why that would be the case.
What's surprised many people in the decades since Keynes' "Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren" is that even with a drastic increase in real hourly wages, average paid hours worked per week haven't fallen very much. (I'm not going to look up the numbers but I suppose that over a large part of that period it's actually been increasing, because of the movement of women into the paid labor force.)
Higher real wages are a good thing, whether they result from higher nominal wages or from falling prices. But I don't see why increased affluence delivered in the form of lower prices would be free from the bias (if it is a bias) in favor of rising consumption over rising leisure.
Bear in mind, as well, that falling real prices for specific goods won't normally lead to a fall in the general price level, even if those goods happen to be a large share of total living costs. Macroeconomic policy would adjust to keep the general price level stable or slightly rising, so in practice all these deregulatory and technological gains would still show up in the form of higher dollar salaries. If there's a good reason to nudge people towards less paid work, some other measure is needed.
My hunch is that there really is a market failure in the consumption/leisure balance, and that it probably stems from the fact that people gain social status by having more consumer goods than their peers, but not by working less than their peers. If I'm right about that, it creates a "hamster wheel" effect in which almost everyone works more hours per year than they would prefer, assuming a constant hourly wage.
And if you want a targeted government intervention to fix this problem, it's very simple. Conservative economists are always reminding us that income and consumption taxes are distortionary because they reduce the incentive to work. But if status competition creates a collective bias towards overwork, then those types of taxes are also antidistortionary, and it's not at all clear whether an increase at the margin would raise or lower total welfare.
So the case for raising those taxes to provide things like free health care and very generous cash child benefits is drastically strengthened. There's your policy prescription.
There is no way to get there from here. It would require at least one political party to propose something like that and since both of our political parties are wholly owned subsidiaries of oligarchy there is no chance. I don't care how ideal or how popular something might be with the general public. Capitalist logic forbids it from happening if either 1. It would make a significant number of oligarchs less rich or 2. it does not make someone some oligarch much richer. And if that isn't true explain to me why we can't get single payer healthcare in the US. We are on a one way train towards feudalism, or anarchy. those are literally the only options.
Recently I pondered that the 'work from home' movement could result in a sort of 'return' to the agrarian lifestyle--where all the work was at home--without being 'agrarian.' I'm intrigued by the idea and its ramifications (...and its plausibility).
But for much of these suggestions, Mr. Lindsey, I'm left wondering how your suggestions are, fundamentally, different from a small town or neighborhood. It seems like what you are suggesting is and idealized something-like-towns-or-neighborhoods, that grow more food. You want people in close contact, who can and do help each other in life, and who make sure everyone's basic needs are met. Well... I mean, sounds *great*, but not *new*. Could you clarify how what you're suggesting is different from "a return to the way things used to be, but we have smartphones and laptops to do our business at home."
One of my first thoughts reading this was, "omg, those community meetings would never end and it would be awful". But then I considered that maybe the worst aspects of participatory local government in the U.S. are caused by the kind of atomization you've described - there's really no need for most people to care about specific local issues, so only a handful of eccentrics (e.g. me) show up to push their ideas, and they show up a lot. But in a more self-governing community, a lot more people would have an interest in showing up, and it would be harder for the wacky few to push policy in weird, self-serving directions.
I would say that as we allow capitalism to operate more fully, in law and governance (e.g. charter cities) community and culture (neighborhoods and education), we'll get to a better place than what you are suggesting. I'm not at all attached to the end state being optimized by for profit entities - they will most likely be a combination of Ostromian diverse institutions. But I do see for profit entities accelerating progress towards a more humane future. Much of our misery is due to the endless conflict of political hatreds which simultaneously prevents innovation in the most important human domains. A world of competing for profit governance entities with a world of competing for profit neighborhood developers inspired by a world of for profit education/human development entities will reduce human misery rapidly. Part of the inspiring work associated with such a world consists of building thousands of new cities, communities, and subcultures associated with diverse practices associated with well-being. Right now, thanks to government dominance in key domains, it is easier to innovate in gambling and pornography than in happiness and well-being. Reduce the scale of the bully who keeps us all miserable (government controlled sectors such as law, governance, community and well-being) and we'll be able to innovate our way to a better world. Public schools alone cause lasting misery at an unimagined scale,
You say that this way of thinking "is not at present the program of any popular movement", but if not, why not make one? one challenge is that there are many variations of the ideas here...so where to draw the boundaries of such a movement? there is some overlap with the growing pro-natalist movement, and this: https://steader.substack.com/
First, this has been a great series, and I find all of your posts interesting, and dense food for thought.
Second, you last post reminded me that I attended an interesting event by BALLE (Business Alliance for Local Living Economies) and you might be interested in their work.
Dear Brink, As you will see if you take the trouble to read far enough—the whole thing is only a hundred pages long— my advocacy of the idea of factories in the countryside run on part-time jobs is firmly rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition, a tradition whose underlying theme, at least as I understand it, is the long human struggle from servitude to freedom. You really should read it, and perhaps write about it. You would be the first. Here is the ebook: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00U0C9HKW
In the spirit of Chesterton's Fence: the value of extensive labor markets and state infrastructure isn't just that they reduce the overall labor-intensiveness of production, it's that they provide a way for people to exit toxic personal and local relationships by taking refuge in the impersonal and the large-scale.
This is the dark side of local community: it can so easily be abusive and repressive if a family member or local elder decides to take advantage of the power their intimate relationships and commitments give them. In the precapitalist era, people typically had no recourse against that abuse. State and market both helped reduce that abuse greatly during the 19th and 20th centuries. Any plan for the reinvigoration of localism needs to preserve enough of a robust, practically viable right of exit to prevent backsliding.
I keep thinking of Jacob Levy's _Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom_ here. You're proposing an expansion of pluralism and that probably is, on the current margin, what we need. But the reasons for rationalism, and the problems with pluralism, that Levy discusses aren't inherently easier to address now, so they need more explicit addressing if a pluralist resurgence is actually to be net beneficial.
I think one impediment to building community is that life at home has become so incredibly satisfying in modern America.
I live in a "third world country" and one thing foreign visitors always talk about is the vibrant street life. Friends meeting at cafes until 10pm on weekdays, kids playing in the streets every afternoon/evening, people sitting outside on plastic stools, etc.
But to a large extent all of that is the result of being poor. People meet at cafes because their homes have 8 people in 600 square feet. Kids play in the streets because nobody has backyards, there aren't any parks, and the schools have gates that literally lock after classes so you can't even use their playgrounds (and staying in the house sucks because it is 600 square feet....). People sit on plastic stools because the food cart owner can't afford rent on a decent place with air conditioning and nicer chairs.
Meanwhile I visit family in the US and the only reason they leave their house during our 2-week visit is to go to work or go buy something. And with work from home and online shopping there were precious few instances of that for 2 of the 4 family members. And my brother works at a grocery store so they never even need to go grocery shopping...he just picks stuff up after work. But I get it! They have nice furniture, a pool, multiple TVs, a stocked fridge, Nintendo Switch, PlayStation, streaming service, a basketball hoop, two dogs that are fun to play with, a nice coffee machine, a freezer with even more food. Bedrooms big enough you can hide out there all day if you want your own space. Two living rooms so grandpa can watch sports all day and the rest of the family can watch a movie.
I feel like you almost need some kind of stick to go with the carrot. Something to make being at home so unpleasant people will go out and meet their neighbors. Unpleasant enough that you'll keep meeting them despite all the little frictions (the house on the left is weirdly overprotective of their kids, so we don't really bother talking to them and whatnot) that would make it easy not to when just staying at home is so nice, so easy.
"Vertical farming, artificial meat, renewable energy, and 3D printing are among the new technologies that make the transition to human-scale abundance imaginable." Speaking of artificial meat, what do people think, so far? I've tried Impossible Foods' Wild Nuggies, and they're not bad with ketchup.
Great essay! In human terms, we definitely need each other. I liked the creative thought about shifting legal frameworks on IP. Our complex world is awash in restrictions and protections. While there are good reasons for how this complex arrangement developed, society can suffocate with the accumulated weight of legal frameworks. Thoughtful reforms are needed. It's great to hear all the optimistic ideas.
We are fully capable of fixing what we have broken. The only question is how much pain it will take for us to open to change. Walter Scheidel wrote The Great Leveler. It tells the story we refuse to hear. Timothy Snyder is giving a free on-line class on Ukraine. Class 20 is on the uprising at Maidan. It is the story of deep pain and revolution. It is a story of what the human animal can be in a state of desperation. Your story might well happen, but it will take the complete failure of the present system.
That is not nihilism, that's history.
Thanks for another very thoughtful essay. The end-state has much intuitive appeal, regardless of if or how we get there. Since status-seeking seems to have such a powerful hold on us, channeling it in productive ways seems critical. Status based on production (making excellent bread or building attractive stone walls) seems more promising than status based on consumption.
I've been thinking about one point you make in the last couple of instalments, and I'm not sure I follow it.
You've argued that measures to reduce the cost of living (land deregulation to reduce housing costs, technological progress to reduce energy costs...) would encourage a shift towards less market work. But I don't really see why that would be the case.
What's surprised many people in the decades since Keynes' "Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren" is that even with a drastic increase in real hourly wages, average paid hours worked per week haven't fallen very much. (I'm not going to look up the numbers but I suppose that over a large part of that period it's actually been increasing, because of the movement of women into the paid labor force.)
Higher real wages are a good thing, whether they result from higher nominal wages or from falling prices. But I don't see why increased affluence delivered in the form of lower prices would be free from the bias (if it is a bias) in favor of rising consumption over rising leisure.
Bear in mind, as well, that falling real prices for specific goods won't normally lead to a fall in the general price level, even if those goods happen to be a large share of total living costs. Macroeconomic policy would adjust to keep the general price level stable or slightly rising, so in practice all these deregulatory and technological gains would still show up in the form of higher dollar salaries. If there's a good reason to nudge people towards less paid work, some other measure is needed.
My hunch is that there really is a market failure in the consumption/leisure balance, and that it probably stems from the fact that people gain social status by having more consumer goods than their peers, but not by working less than their peers. If I'm right about that, it creates a "hamster wheel" effect in which almost everyone works more hours per year than they would prefer, assuming a constant hourly wage.
And if you want a targeted government intervention to fix this problem, it's very simple. Conservative economists are always reminding us that income and consumption taxes are distortionary because they reduce the incentive to work. But if status competition creates a collective bias towards overwork, then those types of taxes are also antidistortionary, and it's not at all clear whether an increase at the margin would raise or lower total welfare.
So the case for raising those taxes to provide things like free health care and very generous cash child benefits is drastically strengthened. There's your policy prescription.
I was reading this thinking WFH! WFH! Very happy when I got to it. I'm thinking along somewhat similar lines but need a lot more time to spell it out.
There is no way to get there from here. It would require at least one political party to propose something like that and since both of our political parties are wholly owned subsidiaries of oligarchy there is no chance. I don't care how ideal or how popular something might be with the general public. Capitalist logic forbids it from happening if either 1. It would make a significant number of oligarchs less rich or 2. it does not make someone some oligarch much richer. And if that isn't true explain to me why we can't get single payer healthcare in the US. We are on a one way train towards feudalism, or anarchy. those are literally the only options.
Recently I pondered that the 'work from home' movement could result in a sort of 'return' to the agrarian lifestyle--where all the work was at home--without being 'agrarian.' I'm intrigued by the idea and its ramifications (...and its plausibility).
But for much of these suggestions, Mr. Lindsey, I'm left wondering how your suggestions are, fundamentally, different from a small town or neighborhood. It seems like what you are suggesting is and idealized something-like-towns-or-neighborhoods, that grow more food. You want people in close contact, who can and do help each other in life, and who make sure everyone's basic needs are met. Well... I mean, sounds *great*, but not *new*. Could you clarify how what you're suggesting is different from "a return to the way things used to be, but we have smartphones and laptops to do our business at home."
One of my first thoughts reading this was, "omg, those community meetings would never end and it would be awful". But then I considered that maybe the worst aspects of participatory local government in the U.S. are caused by the kind of atomization you've described - there's really no need for most people to care about specific local issues, so only a handful of eccentrics (e.g. me) show up to push their ideas, and they show up a lot. But in a more self-governing community, a lot more people would have an interest in showing up, and it would be harder for the wacky few to push policy in weird, self-serving directions.
I would say that as we allow capitalism to operate more fully, in law and governance (e.g. charter cities) community and culture (neighborhoods and education), we'll get to a better place than what you are suggesting. I'm not at all attached to the end state being optimized by for profit entities - they will most likely be a combination of Ostromian diverse institutions. But I do see for profit entities accelerating progress towards a more humane future. Much of our misery is due to the endless conflict of political hatreds which simultaneously prevents innovation in the most important human domains. A world of competing for profit governance entities with a world of competing for profit neighborhood developers inspired by a world of for profit education/human development entities will reduce human misery rapidly. Part of the inspiring work associated with such a world consists of building thousands of new cities, communities, and subcultures associated with diverse practices associated with well-being. Right now, thanks to government dominance in key domains, it is easier to innovate in gambling and pornography than in happiness and well-being. Reduce the scale of the bully who keeps us all miserable (government controlled sectors such as law, governance, community and well-being) and we'll be able to innovate our way to a better world. Public schools alone cause lasting misery at an unimagined scale,
https://flowidealism.medium.com/are-public-schools-causing-an-epidemic-of-mental-illness-1b37b6c0ef3e
You say that this way of thinking "is not at present the program of any popular movement", but if not, why not make one? one challenge is that there are many variations of the ideas here...so where to draw the boundaries of such a movement? there is some overlap with the growing pro-natalist movement, and this: https://steader.substack.com/
First, this has been a great series, and I find all of your posts interesting, and dense food for thought.
Second, you last post reminded me that I attended an interesting event by BALLE (Business Alliance for Local Living Economies) and you might be interested in their work.
Looking them up, it looks like they’ve rebranded as Common future: https://www.commonfuture.co/
Dear Brink, As you will see if you take the trouble to read far enough—the whole thing is only a hundred pages long— my advocacy of the idea of factories in the countryside run on part-time jobs is firmly rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition, a tradition whose underlying theme, at least as I understand it, is the long human struggle from servitude to freedom. You really should read it, and perhaps write about it. You would be the first. Here is the ebook: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00U0C9HKW
Fascinating post. The late 19th century and early 20th century cooperative movement seems to be mostly forgotten. Of course, making cooperation work is tricky, and involves mixing self-governance and economic success: https://edwardcbanfield.org/2024/01/05/a-new-edition-of-edward-c-banfields-government-project-has-been-published/