This is as 50 pound experiment for me. Although I do have a small personal interest in the UK my real interest is in the issues in economics and politics we US-ians share. And I am subscribing mainly so I can dissent and have you or others show me where my dissent is itself wrong.
(Mr. Whitton): "I think if a small country like Britain wanted to be a comparable center of innovation, the markets, technologies, and institutions would have to be novel."
A "comparable center of innovation" sounds kind of like Israel.
The migration thing is shocking for the countries of origin and presumably there are social justice-y arguments for preventing it for their sake. Does anyone ever make those arguments?
Ed, when you get a piece from your substack republished like you have this week with the Spectator, I think you should share the fee with your paying subscribers. Like Bono, you'd be helping the world's neediest.
"What’s so perverse is that, while there is so much to admire and emulate in American culture, we focus in on imitating its worst, most toxic aspects."
Thank you. I like to avoid the focus on that as well. My inclination is to knock the sharpest corners off of points I think are partly wrong. BLM great, how to focus that in better policing? Greta Thunberg alarm about the climate, great, how to find the incentives and investments that will reduce CO2 emissions in the most cost effective way.
"opportunity to harangue your older relatives about systemic racism and white supremacy,"
"To come to help your relatives of whatever age to understand that "systematic racism" just means the multiple and compels ways that "real" racism in the past still has echoes into the present."
Bono's philanthropy has been great, but not as great as his vocal performances from about 1983 to 1994. Amazing passion and power that dude displayed in his 20s and early 30s.
If the point is that Mr. Bono very effectively persuaded the American public, through its elected representatives, to fund a great deal of AIDS treatment and other measures in Africa, and that this was a good thing, then I completely agree.
Obviously he's ridiculously wealthy, but there are loads of people who have his money (or more) who don't do what he does, so it's worthy of admiration.
Yes, it's worthy of admiration. It's even possible that by a utilitarian calculus, the philanthropy of the super-rich does more good than all the sacrificial generosity of the less well off. It seems mechanistic, though, as if one message is, "Don't bother to show love for your neighbor out of your own resources and initiative. Just pay taxes and let the super-rich be your moral exemplars."
(From the Bush Administration White House archives) "On December 1, 2008, President and Mrs. Bush marked World AIDS Day 2008 with Pastor Rick Warren at the Newseum and discussed the success of this Administration's global HIV/AIDS initiative. President and Mrs. Bush have made a historic commitment to the fight against global HIV/AIDS. Since 2001, the Administration has delivered more than $148 billion to fight HIV/AIDS both at home and abroad. Once again, this year, the White House will display the red ribbon on the North Portico to represent the continued battle against HIV/AIDS and to affirm the matchless value of every human life."
According to the archive, this funding was authorized by Congress with bipartisan votes.
What is my point? I'm not sure. Something about Mr. Bono's and the Bushes' receiving the moral credit for spending American taxpayers' (fake, debt) money on what I agree is a very good cause.
This article from 2020 has been overtaken by events. For example, the author said:
** What about George Bernard Shaw, who once wrote that “Any competent historian or psychoanalyst can bring a mass of incontrovertible evidence to prove that it would have been better for the world if the Jews had never existed”?**
Not to worry, author Angela Nagle: Anti-Semitism is good again, having been forcefully affirmed by a higher caste:
This is as 50 pound experiment for me. Although I do have a small personal interest in the UK my real interest is in the issues in economics and politics we US-ians share. And I am subscribing mainly so I can dissent and have you or others show me where my dissent is itself wrong.
welcome!
I've ended up dissenting less than I expected, which suggests that Ed is really just a classic lefty like me. Only half joking.
Time will tell if I have 50 pounds worth of dissents.
(Mr. Whitton): "I think if a small country like Britain wanted to be a comparable center of innovation, the markets, technologies, and institutions would have to be novel."
A "comparable center of innovation" sounds kind of like Israel.
The migration thing is shocking for the countries of origin and presumably there are social justice-y arguments for preventing it for their sake. Does anyone ever make those arguments?
Ed, when you get a piece from your substack republished like you have this week with the Spectator, I think you should share the fee with your paying subscribers. Like Bono, you'd be helping the world's neediest.
that's actually a reasonable argument, if there was some sort of mechanism where I could do that I would!
Pay us in your new Cryptocurrency, WestCoin, which increases in value as civilisation declines.
If that's your play, just invest in bullion, Bitcoin, baked beans and bullets.
You could make a donation to the Missionaries of the Poor in the (collective) name of your subscribers.
Sure. I'll do that when I get the extra money for this article. I can only give half because the other half needs to be saved for HMG.
Will I read in a month's time that Missionaries of the Poor is now spending all its money on equity and BLM?
Nah, they have homes for the handicapped in Jamaica, Haiti, Philippines, etc.
https://missionariesofthepoor.org/
No. Good content creation needs to be well-compensated or we won't have enough of it.
My suggestion was a joke; Ed can make as much money as he wants from his work. I only want to share in the profits when he sells the film rights.
Of course Poland is peaceful, they are getting ready for Russia, after all.
"What’s so perverse is that, while there is so much to admire and emulate in American culture, we focus in on imitating its worst, most toxic aspects."
Thank you. I like to avoid the focus on that as well. My inclination is to knock the sharpest corners off of points I think are partly wrong. BLM great, how to focus that in better policing? Greta Thunberg alarm about the climate, great, how to find the incentives and investments that will reduce CO2 emissions in the most cost effective way.
"opportunity to harangue your older relatives about systemic racism and white supremacy,"
"To come to help your relatives of whatever age to understand that "systematic racism" just means the multiple and compels ways that "real" racism in the past still has echoes into the present."
https://www.therichest.com/luxury/the-8-most-expensive-things-owned-by-u2-frontman-bono/
Nice work if you can get it.
I mean, he's not St Francis of Assisi it's fair to say.
I think my point still stands though.
Bono's philanthropy has been great, but not as great as his vocal performances from about 1983 to 1994. Amazing passion and power that dude displayed in his 20s and early 30s.
If the point is that Mr. Bono very effectively persuaded the American public, through its elected representatives, to fund a great deal of AIDS treatment and other measures in Africa, and that this was a good thing, then I completely agree.
Obviously he's ridiculously wealthy, but there are loads of people who have his money (or more) who don't do what he does, so it's worthy of admiration.
Yes, it's worthy of admiration. It's even possible that by a utilitarian calculus, the philanthropy of the super-rich does more good than all the sacrificial generosity of the less well off. It seems mechanistic, though, as if one message is, "Don't bother to show love for your neighbor out of your own resources and initiative. Just pay taxes and let the super-rich be your moral exemplars."
(From the Bush Administration White House archives) "On December 1, 2008, President and Mrs. Bush marked World AIDS Day 2008 with Pastor Rick Warren at the Newseum and discussed the success of this Administration's global HIV/AIDS initiative. President and Mrs. Bush have made a historic commitment to the fight against global HIV/AIDS. Since 2001, the Administration has delivered more than $148 billion to fight HIV/AIDS both at home and abroad. Once again, this year, the White House will display the red ribbon on the North Portico to represent the continued battle against HIV/AIDS and to affirm the matchless value of every human life."
According to the archive, this funding was authorized by Congress with bipartisan votes.
What is my point? I'm not sure. Something about Mr. Bono's and the Bushes' receiving the moral credit for spending American taxpayers' (fake, debt) money on what I agree is a very good cause.
I loved that article from Angela. I subscribed to her Substack, which was great, but has been dormant since about August. Don't know what happened.
yes it was great. She's a brilliant writer.
This article from 2020 has been overtaken by events. For example, the author said:
** What about George Bernard Shaw, who once wrote that “Any competent historian or psychoanalyst can bring a mass of incontrovertible evidence to prove that it would have been better for the world if the Jews had never existed”?**
Not to worry, author Angela Nagle: Anti-Semitism is good again, having been forcefully affirmed by a higher caste:
https://nypost.com/2022/11/25/black-hebrew-israelites-descend-on-barclays-we-are-the-real-jews/