“In recent years, businesses have been shaped by the beguiling mantra of ‘win-win’. When confronted with any difficult choice – sustainability or efficiency? excellence or equity? stakeholders or shareholders? – their chieftains have kidded themselves into thinking that you can have both. Sustainability leads to efficiency in the long term; equity is the best way of securing excellence; pleasing all the stakeholders leads to higher share prices. This will be the year that finally brings an end to the idea that you can have your cake and eat it. Companies will have to make tough decisions that they’ve been putting off as long as possible. Consumers will no longer wear the idea that, say, the green transition is cost free.
“Win-win was an affordable luxury in an era of free money and rampant virtue signalling. But higher interest rates will make both companies and consumers more cost conscious. And virtue signalling is far from cost free, as several chief executive officers have discovered. Companies will tell their young recruits to put their noses to the grindstone rather than working from home. The yoga classes and pizza parties will be cancelled. The Business Roundtable will soft pedal the talk of stakeholder capitalism.”
– Adrian Wooldridge. He is writing in Bloomberg ($), a business news and information service that at times seems to have bought into sometimes fashionable ideas, but the need to make a profit tends to keep that in check.
A supercharged presidency will then be free to impose a Trumpist agenda without the checks and balances that intervened last time.
The fact that later in his article Mr Woolridge can write this, presumably with a straight face, indicates a man who despite the welcome realism of the main extract is still capable of wilfully ignoring the obvious.
Jojn – yes the ranting in the article against President Trump shows that Bloomberg (owned by Michael Bloomberg – “NET ZERO” supporter and a person who, as Mayor of New York, showed a bizarre obsession with controlling every aspect of the lives of ordinary people) is part of the problem – not part of the solution. As for entering the Capitol Building – Mr Woolridge “forgets” to mention that was the idea of the FBI and spread by their servants such as Mr Ray Epps – although, to be fair, some of the servants of the FBI, and other government agencies, are blackmailed into doing what they do, by threats to themselves and threats against their families (“your young son would be really popular in prison” – it is not a secret how the “Justice” Department operates).
If one is not allowed to “peacefully make your voices heard” and then “go home”, in response to an obviously rigged election (and if anyone thinks “they will just rig the election against Trump – they will allow honest elections if someone else is the candidate” then I have a nice bridge to sell you, 2022 buried that theory – the “mail-in ballots” and the “problems with voting machines” continued in several States) then that leaves the alternative of an actual “insurrection” – rather than what the Corporate State establishment falsely calls an “insurrection” – around a million people (of whom less than 1% entered the Capitol building – I repeat less than one-per-cent of the people who turned up to listen to President speak entered the Capital building, which was about a mile away – and those that did were encouraged to do so by servants of government agencies) turning up UNARMED.
Hardly The Battle of Athens (Tennessee) in 1946. I watched the rigging of the 2020 election via the wonders of mobile telephones – but that was the problem, the baffled people standing helplessly around (around – they often were not allowed in, or were allowed in and then “cleared” if they complained – leaving the officials alone to do what they liked) “counting centres” in big cities (big cities where the drug addicted populations supposedly voted 110% for Mr Biden – although most of these people had never voted before – and where there was a lack of real signature checking – remember much of the population in some of these city areas is illiterate) were holding mobile phones – their ancestors would have been holding rather different things.
Keep talking about these things Mr Woolridge – keep provoking people, keep urinating on people because you think they can do nothing in response. Keep behaving like this and you may well find your precious Credit Bubble Scam “Wall Street” burned to the ground round your ears.
There is still a chance for peace – but not if the establishment, such as Mr Woolridge, keep provoking people, they have got to “stand down”, no more mass “mail-in ballots”, no more “voting machines”, just PLEASE (pretty please with sugar on top – if it is necessary to say that) “stand down”. No more of this – please no more of this.
Turning to economic matters.
Like the European Union the Washington D.C. (and Wall Street – for it is joined at the hip with the government) regime has made trade POLITICAL.
Only a couple of days ago the Washington D.C. regime informed various African countries that trading relations with the United States depended on such things as the African countries changing their laws on homosexual acts, abortion, and so on – blatant Imperialism and Colonialism, but I do not expect the left to complain as it their, Corporate State, Imperialism and Colonialism – also practiced by the European Union and the rest of the dying West.
It is much the same internally – due to tax law (which favours corporate entities against individuals and families) and, of course, the endless flow of funny money (produced, from NOTHING, by the Federal Reserve and the Credit Bubble banks), most shares are controlled by corporate entities such as BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard. The Milton Friedman view of corporations serving “Aunt Agatha” style individual shareholders, if it was ever true, is certainly NOT true now. The Corporations could not give a damn about “Aunt Agatha” – she is probably a “racist” and a “transphobe”, and an “election denier” and “Climate Denier” – if they think about “Aunt Agatha” at all, their thoughts are about how she should be persecuted.
To give a little example – the next “Star Wars” film will be about Ray Palpatine – even though everyone at Disney knows this boring character is despised, because any Corporate Executive who expressed dissent would be OUT as a “sexist” (because Ray “Skywalker” Palpatine is a female character) and a “racist” (as the new Director for the film is a “person of colour” from Pakistan).
Of course, they may change the names of such things as DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) and ESG (Environment and Social Governance) – but whatever new names they come up with, the principles will remain much the same. How could it be otherwise? Remember any Corporate Executive who expressed real dissent in a meeting would be reported to “HR” (Human Resources) by people saying the dissent made them “feel unsafe” – and there would be charges that the dissenting Corporate Manager was an “ist” and a “phobe” – and an “election denier” (if they expressed doubts about signature verification and-so-on) and a “Climate Denier” if they mentioned it is snowing.
The university “educated” (indoctrinated) Corporate elite are not going to change – because they can not change. A dissenting Corporate Manager would be OUT (forced to resign or dismissed in disgrace).
It would not be like the President of Harvard – whose fake “resignation” leaves her on a salary of almost a million Dollars a year (unlike all the people she helped persecute out of Harvard).
Someone who really dissented in the American Corporate world, who wanted to serve CUSTOMERS rather than “world governance” and so on, would be OUT – they would end up in a cardboard box on the street.
Imagine what would happen to a Corporate Executive who said “C02 is a good thing, it is plant food – emissions of C02 do good, not harm” – imagine what “Bloomberg” and co would do to such an employee.
Vivek Ramaswamy believes that Capitalism can be restored in the United States – that the various governance “agendas” (DEI, ESG – and whatever they change the named to) can be defeated.
But whilst the economic system remains tied to Credit Money created from nothing and dished out to the connected – CRONYISM (“capitalism” without real Capital – without Real Savings of commodity money that is valued before-and-apart-from its use as money), and whilst tax law is so biased against individuals and families (biased in favour of corporate entities – including the vast “non profits” such as Harvard and the various “Foundations”), it is hard to see some great Restoration of Capitalism taking place.
As for the churches – we now live in a world where the left (yes the left) support vast sums of taxpayer money going to supposedly religious institutions (so much for the American separation of church and state).
There is really no paradox – as the supposedly religious institutions that get the tax money (university “student loans”, “aid for charitable bodies” and so on) have abandoned Christianity and now use the money to “aid undocumented people” (i.e. engage, with the help of vicious criminal gangs, in people smuggling – people smuggling of truly vast numbers of illegal immigrants into the United States – people who come for government benefits and “public services”, in return for illegally voting), and “Climate Action” – i.e. the campaign to move manufacturing out of the United States to China and other lands, which will in no way reduce C02 emissions – and was never intended to reduce C02 emissions. It is the same with secular charities and foundations.
“How can I tell a fake church from a real one – and how can I tell a real secular charity or foundation from a real one?” – if it is real it will not be getting American tax money.
Jojn: The fact that later in his article Mr Woolridge can write this, presumably with a straight face, indicates a man who despite the welcome realism of the main extract is still capable of wilfully ignoring the obvious.
Why the surprise? Wooldridge notes that Trump is a very angry man and will likely try and use the powers of the presidency to bulldoze through a series of federal agencies and organisations. While some of the wrecking ball approach he will favour might be deserved, it is also likely to be a deeply damaging presidency. He wants to slam tariffs on imports, hammering mid-stream US businesses that will be forced to use more expensive products, as well as US consumers. I see zero sign that Mr Trump, and the sort of Republican Party he has helped fashion, has any serious appetite for a smaller state. I don’t seek the kind of rather admirably classical liberal stance taken by the new top man in Argentina. (We live in extraordinary times.)
So Mr Wooldridge’s disdain is justified in this instance. Trump is all over the place intellectually. And he is getting old.
I don’t think we can get to where you’d like to be without this – without something like a Trump win.
Think of a trip, looking for a beautiful and well-designed and utilitarian destination – the one you’d like to reach.
I think the Uniparty is far too strong and entrenched to ever allow us to get there directly. I also do not see Trump as the driver who can get us there.
Instead, electing Trump would be akin to getting in the car and seeing that Hunter S. Thompson is the driver. It would be destructive, and waylaying, and I’m not sure where we’d end up.
But I think we need that gonzo roadtrip as a teardown process before we can ever realistically expect to arrive at a better destination. A Trump presidency wouldn’t ever build us that beautiful place by the sea – but it would knock down many barriers to getting there eventually.
I don’t think I’ll be voting for Trump in our party caucus. If he wins the nomination – as I expect he will, should he evade prison – I’ll vote for him in the general. If he wins the general election, I’d agree that we’ll be in for a messy four years, and we won’t end up with the destination government I’d prefer. But I don’t see a way to end up at that nice destination without some form of gonzo presidency first.
A Trump presidency would be our (USA) form of abandoning the Tories for the Reform crowd. Not an ultimately rewarding destination – but the value would be in the gonzo journey.
Instead, electing Trump would be akin to getting in the car and seeing that Hunter S. Thompson is the driver. It would be destructive, and waylaying, and I’m not sure where we’d end up.
Thompson ended up killing himself with a gun (he was depressed).
Far too many times do I read defences of Trump and the like on the basis that he is a “destructor”, or a “tragic hero” (like the John Wayne character in the Searchers), etc, or that we need to “burn it all down”. That seems an odd sort of desire from those who call themselves conservatives, given the oft-stated Burkean point about what happens in such circumstances. Oh, I get the point that the alphabet government agencies (the Administrative State) and all the rest need to be cut down and in some cases, eliminated, but to repeat, I don’t see the Trump campaign giving a careful, planned out idea of how much government is going to be cut, where, and why.
I don’t want Hunter Thompson to drive any car near me, whether I am a passenger or not. As for Jan 6 and the insurrection case against Trump, this seems pretty clear to me as a case of Trump being unfit for the job, as defined by the rules and the US Consistitution.
Sorry, but anyone trying to argue that the Jan 6th protest was any kind of insurrection is being silly. If that protest was an insurrection then the BLM riots that ravaged the country, during which hundreds were killed and billions of dollars in property was destroyed, all with the explicit intention of coercing or destroying elements of the government, was an actual revolution. In that case, every person who participated in those riots should be executed for treason, along with all their public supporters in Congress. That would get rid of all of the “Squad” and most of the Democratic Left.
But nobody is calling for that. Calling the protests on Jan 6th an insurrection is just a fairly naked attempt to make sure that Trump can’t stand for election.
It’s shamefully transparent and isn’t fooling anybody who doesn’t hate Trump to begin with.
The biggest question about Trump is this: What the hell are they afraid of? Why have they done all these irrational things to tear down the existing mores and destroy the system, to keep him out of office and prevent him from acting as president while he was in?
Determine that, and a lot will be clear. I still can’t find an actual rational reason for the powers-that-are in the government to have responded to his election the way they did.
Wasn’t that Burke II? Wasn’t Burke I much different? And, do conservatives have to conserve whatever point in evolution society might be at in any one time in order to claim to be “conserving”?
If society swings far to the left, must I fight to conserve that new status in order to claim to be conservative? I don’t think so. I think there are underlying philosophies that are more important then mere order.
My point about Thompson wasn’t, let’s emulate his great sense of tradition and pacifism. It was, perhaps we’ve let unbridled woke-ism garner too much power to expect it to simply go away in the face of a difficult election. I would look to a Trump presidency only as a shock to the system, not for what it might accomplish in terms of policy change. (I don’t think Trump would change policy much anyway. He’s a whacko Dem egotist at heart.)
My guess, from speaking to quite a few of those people, is that they are still so enraged that he interfered with the inevitable coronation of Hilary that he’s become a demon to them. I cannot think of any one thing he accomplished – besides interfering with the expected succession and the successful march of wokeism – that would have made them so angry with him.
I think I’d like to see them even madder. Maybe then the hordes of unthinking voters would see them for what they are. Trump II would accomplish that.
He openly mocks the shibboleths of virtue which the Left demands as tribute from any who would engage in public discourse. He makes up funny names for them and sneers to their faces.
He also has the indecency to be too rich to be bought. How gauche!
And finally, he is a boob. He gilds anything to make it snazzier. He eats cheeseburgers in the White House. He speaks in a coarse New Yawk vernacular combined with a street vendors cadence, which drives the Ivy League set batty. He is tasteless and shamelessly American in style and substance, and is too provincial to know that he is supposed to feel inferior to them.
How could they possibly not hate him?
I think the designated role of the Republican Party post-2008, in the eyes of the left, was to dutifully put forward every 4 years some out of touch stuffed shirt that would meekly oppose them and get beaten. Trump threw a spanner in all that. I’d agree Trump can be all over the place. But don’t mind he was once a democrat at all. In many ways it means he less beholden to the nostrums of the ‘conservative movement’, which whatever its merits in the past, failed to ultimately preserve much except the power of intelligence agencies and the military industrial complex.
Regarding Edmund Burke, there’s the Edmund Burke who emphasises prudence and compromise and against tearing down long developed institutions and practices. There’s also the Edmund Burke who wanted all out war against the French Revolution. Burke was writing in he immediate years of the revolution, still while the revolutionaries hold on power was precarious. In contemporary society, the heirs of Jacobinism and other dubious offspring of the enlightenment have laid waste over decades to the old order almost completely, and they control the state, big business, the media, and most other institutions. Basically we need Burkeans of the Letters on a Regicide Peace stripe right now. And while I hesitate to call Trump as Burkean (he is sui generis), a wrecking ball like him with an almost shameless ego may be exactly what’s required right now.
“What the hell are they afraid of?”
—————————-
1. He is the worst sort of outsider: a businessman. Although he did not start out as an extreme small-government conservative, he has met payroll, understands economics, and definitely came to Washington to implement some reforms.
2. Despite his own, uh, colorful family life – he is at heart a traditional-minded patriot. Not many have credited his experience with his alcoholic brother, and his ringside seat at the drug-fueled NYC club scene. You were expecting a Bible-thumper? This is what a mainstream family guy looks like 30 years after the normalization of drugs, divorce and blended families.
I don’t think he started out to be a conservative crusader, although he always had a populist streak.
The Left has paradoxically created their own nemesis.