“ our elite feed us a false narrative about a supposedly beneficial social model, while they go about protecting themselves from the worst of its effects.”
Paul Kingsnorth :
“ the machine is eating us alive at its leisure”
Alexander Solzhenitsyn :
“ it will only be broken by the pitiless crowbar of events”
NS Lyons:
“ The gathering darkness of the totalitarianism we face seems to be nothing less than a Faustian effort to deconstruct everything it means to be human.”
Frank Wright:
“The real conflict today is not confined to the wars that the liberal elite depend on for their livelihood. It is between the fantasies of the rulers and the reality of the ruled.”
Don't forget the pandemic. The promises of the mRNA vaccine were made by international pharmaceutical companies, (big pharma) and the medical/government complex was more than complicit in believing the promises. When the truth became obvious, all the parties became obstinate and aggressive at forcing the narrative. For money and power the people were forced into a dangerous and untried therapeutic regimen with unknown consequences. A private/public partnership (cure) exponentially more dangerous than the disease.
While it is true there is no global democracy, the concept of national democracy is getting pretty strained. Leaving China, Russia, and the entirety of Africa, Asia and Latin America out of the discussion , let's just look at what used to be called the Free World. Serial betrayal by the UK Conservatives has left the UK in the grip of the hard left for at least 5 years. France, Austria, and (to some extent) the Netherlands have ignored election results. Germany has done likewise in state elections and will do so in the national elections if they don't just outright ban the opposition party. A narrow majority in Poland is busy suppressing the opposition. All of the traditional conservative parties in Europe would rather form coalitions with the socialists or worse rather than with the new conservatives. Australia set up concentration camps for COVID. Canada engaged in totalitarian practices during COVID and now is engaged in suppression of their Hindu minority in order to maintain the support of the NDP whose leader is conveniently a Sikh in the midst of a diplomatic row with India over being a sanctuary for Sikh separatism. So what is left. Beleaguered Hungary and more beleaguered Israel. I have no doubt that Israel can win its kinetic war but the greater danger (as is the case in Hungary) is the internal and external globalists. Italy, perhaps, but Meloni is still on board with NATO which is the armed wing of the globalists. Ditto for Argentina. I don't think the globalists care what Milei does domestically as long as he stays on the reservation, internationally. So now we are down to the US where whatever happens next month will not be accepted by half the population.
> Serial betrayal by the UK Conservatives has left the UK in the grip of the hard left for at least 5 years.
That would be the case if there was any "hard left". Calling them so is just partisan left-aversion holdover from when such a thing existed. What exists now - and since at least Blair, is a globalist uniparty, fostering the kind of fusion of state and corporate power described in this post. Here's an easy way to tell: those UK conservatives would hardly have done anything different, and hardly did anything different in the past years, than the so-called "hard left".
> Serial betrayal by the UK Conservatives has left the UK in the grip of the hard left for at least 5 years.
That would be the case if there was any "hard left". Calling them so is just partisan left-aversion holdover from when such a thing existed. What exists now - and since at least Blair, is a globalist uniparty, fostering the kind of fusion of state and corporate power described in this post. Here's an easy way to tell: those UK conservatives would hardly have done anything different, and hardly did anything different in the past years, than the so-called "hard left".
Those involved in and benefitting from these public-private partnerships will not stop until they are made to stop. I don't see a scenario where that happens from peaceful democratic action. It is likely that it will only end after a huge amount of suffering makes its continuation unsustainable
So many of our elected legislators on both sides of the aisle are purchased by these entities. It is bewildering to attempt an honest conversation/debate with mercenaries hired not for their sagacity or integrity, but for their processed image.
The reference to the literal rolling of heads hits hardest—and that's because this trend may continue until a group of revolutionaries lashes out, making conflict inevitable. Granted, the technocratic and censorship-based power wielded by these vast public-private partnerships is a huge threat, but as these acts continue, an increasing number of people will become disillusioned enough with the state and its corporate allies to *do* something. Big bad could ensue.
Just look at what happened in the UK. What might happen if an organized group of militants felt emboldened enough to do something to the very people they have come to view as "enemy"? How many of these people already exist? When pondered, the answers to these questions are worrying.
Indeed, populist movements -- however lambasted by the press -- may be the greatest asset of those who treasure true liberty, along with its attendant responsibilities (another discussion entirely).
However, I am sorry that I have a lot to say about this topic.
The first point to make is that no system is perfect, and the pursuit of perfection can be the enemy of the good. Rent seeking is analogous to the accepted liberal principle of the pursuit of self-interest. Human nature is human nature, and it will forever be challenged with the moral balance of egoism and egalitarianism. That balance is why we need the moral framework contained within the word of religion and the word of law.
However, I am generally in support of more public-private partnerships with caveats. In fact, I think government in general should outsource all direct services to the public and perform as regulatory overseer.
I run a company that supports small businesses through government loan programs. The primary program is the Small Business Administration 504 loan program. I see this program, and the larger SBA 7a loan program that banks participate in, as a model for federal government private-public partnership. The full model is imperfect and certainly gets impacted by political agendas, but it significantly meets and exceeds its core mission to provide loans to small businesses to help create and retain jobs by assisting small businesses to start and grow.
The 504 is primary a commercial real estate loan for owner-user small business. To facilitate the program, there is a network of small business non-profits called Certified Development Companies (CDCs) - one of the largest of them that I oversee. CDCs are private non-profit corporations that participate with for-profit commercial banks in a 504 loan.
The typical structure of a finance project is 50-40-10 (hence the name "504" as the mainframe did not have enough bytes available so the name 504010 got truncated to "504")... with the bank doing a 50% LTV piece and taking the first lien position, the SBA (through the CDC) taking 40% and the second lien position... and the borrower with a 10% down payment.
The borrower ends up with two loans... one with the bank and one with the SBA. However, the total of the two loan payments are generally lower than what the borrower could get from a bank alone, if at all, and they would be hit with a larger down payment requirement.
The brilliance of the 504 program design includes bank participation so that the banks don’t lobby to kill the program so they can horde more of the lending opportunities. This is an important consideration for all public-private partnerships… the need to engage the private economy stakeholders with both committed to the public policies / mission driving the programs.
The SBA programs are to fill a gap need for small businesses that cannot qualify for otherwise cannot afford the bank offers but are still worthy of a loan. The public policy goal/mission is to create and retain jobs focused on areas and demographics that are underserved.
There are some people that claim the SBA should not exist because we have a banking industry that should take care of all lending needs. I am a conservative free market capitalist, and I see that the banking industry is too risk averse. Banks cherry-pick stronger credits and over-price their loan products to all but the strongest of borrowers. Ironically the reason that banks are this way is because of other regulatory demands put on them by other federal agencies. This is that other discussion... when government is so large and has its hand in so much of the economy, it invariably creates massive conflicts of interest and mission, and a never-ending list of new inefficiencies.
But the SBA 504 works… it is a model that I think we should expand on for more public-private partnership.
The SBA pools all the 40% loans in the nation for the month and sells them to investors as a debenture bond. This funds the loan pool for the month and sets the SBA portion of the rate. The debenture bond is guaranteed by the federal government. The 50% bank loan is secured by the excess in collateral value with the first lien position. Both situations reduce the risk of loan loss and thus support a lower interest rate. The borrower benefits from a lower down payment and a lower fixed-rate monthly payment… the preservation of capital and operating income allows the business to invest it back into operations to grow and expand.
And here is the cool thing… THE SBA 504 PROGRAM GETS ZERO FEDERAL SUBSIDY. That’s right… the program is self-funding.
I am a capitalist but I also understand that capitalism is largely corrupted to be an excuse to pursue profit and equity at the expense of the greater good to the public. Capitalism as practiced today is primarily a gambling, looting and rent-seeking system. It values individual returns on capital over the greater social good that a well-functioning economy provides. My view is that government should stay out of the actual business of the economy, but provide programs that fill gaps that the private sector does not fill because of the alternatives for greater profit. There is a line that goes too far when it becomes a political agenda without legitimate measurable goals. But we are stupid to think that the invisible hand of free markets can provide enough value to the public when we already have a massive government with its hands in the cookie jar. Since we cannot seem to agree to shrink the size of government, we should change its scope to be the public regulator and overseer of programs delivered by the private economy.
Education is a great example here. We should require all education to be delivered by private businesses that comply with a set of regulations if they are to get public funding. No educator should be a government employee. There should be competition between the private providers of end-user services so that the best model evolves and dominates. Yes, there is a risk that regulatory pressure gets politicized, but with a large private sector industry it would provide power to push back against regulatory pressure that isn’t good for their business model.
Government should not pick winners and losers, but to set common public policy goals and program missions… and foment fair and robust competition for private-sector service delivery.
This is just. It also presents a cunning double bind. Assuming there are architects of our emerging Western order, and that they recognize we now need stronger “all of society” measures to counter the rising juggernaut in Asia, such architects would do well not to foul their own nest, no? They shouldn’t toss their democratic legitimacy out the window. Without legitimacy, after all, they will not survive for the long fight ahead. Yet they toss away, almost with glee. So what gives?
Put another way: Is there really any evidence of architects in the room?
Jane Jacobs, well known for her _Death and Life of Great American Cities_, wrote a very interesting little book, _Systems of Survival_, which discusses "public-private partnership" in anatomizing two systems of morality in society, "Guardian Moral Syndrome" and "Commercial Moral Syndrome "and the dangers that arise when one system corrupts or merges with the other. I have hardly seen it discussed, but recommend it highly. There is of course, a Wikipedia entry for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_of_Survival.
I think you've nailed the uneasiness of the public. When we hear about the threat of populism to democracy, what that really means is that the people might be ready to confront the undemocratic moves being made behind their backs. The only people who are afraid of this are the National Security State and the profiteers. The far-right and the hard left seem to recognize this is happening and if we could get identity politics out of the way, could probably prove to be a powerful voice in this fight. It has become an incestuous relationship in too many ways that count.
It's not hard to see that the people are more and more being marginalized, that nations are erasing borders without consent to bring in the cheapest option for the wealthy at the expense of the middle-classes.
Let's just say I'd rather die than be ruled. For me, though no side is perfect, Trump is the best choice in this situation because at least he tries to acknowledge that America is for Americans and refuses to apologize for recognizing the people left behind. (By left behind, I don't mean they want to be a part of selling out their country, they want to be heard and they want action)
One of the many things the first Trump administration did well was prioritizing bilateral trade agreements over multilateral trade agreements such as NAFTA or the Trans Pacific Partnership. Under multilateral agreements, multi-national corporations can and do take advantage of the ability to direct products to one nation to protect higher prices in a different nation with a larger market.
For example, suppose there is a surplus of oranges in the US. Normally that would drive the price of oranges down for US consumers. The multi-national company scours the list of countries in their multilateral trade agreement, and decide to dump that excess supply in another foreign country, say, Canada. The much smaller market in Canada gets cheap oranges, while the huge US population pays the highest price for oranges grown in their own country.
Bilateral trade agreements stopped this, which was one of the driving forces behind the low inflation of Trump's term.
Excellent illustrations of how Public-Private partnerships have evolved to a point that the individual within the country has no voice to weigh inon policy, policy implementation, funding, oversight or anything at all. Citing the multitude of the immigration NGO web which is aiding and facilitating aliens TOWARD, INTO and AROUND the USA is a prime example of the hyper-evolution of a toxic partnerships now being used to disenfranchise citizens from critical and country changing policy decisions.
Christopher Guilluy
“ our elite feed us a false narrative about a supposedly beneficial social model, while they go about protecting themselves from the worst of its effects.”
Paul Kingsnorth :
“ the machine is eating us alive at its leisure”
Alexander Solzhenitsyn :
“ it will only be broken by the pitiless crowbar of events”
NS Lyons:
“ The gathering darkness of the totalitarianism we face seems to be nothing less than a Faustian effort to deconstruct everything it means to be human.”
Frank Wright:
“The real conflict today is not confined to the wars that the liberal elite depend on for their livelihood. It is between the fantasies of the rulers and the reality of the ruled.”
Me:
We are in big trouble .
Don't forget the pandemic. The promises of the mRNA vaccine were made by international pharmaceutical companies, (big pharma) and the medical/government complex was more than complicit in believing the promises. When the truth became obvious, all the parties became obstinate and aggressive at forcing the narrative. For money and power the people were forced into a dangerous and untried therapeutic regimen with unknown consequences. A private/public partnership (cure) exponentially more dangerous than the disease.
Yes, the pandemic/vaccines/lockdowns were a paradigm of public-private partnership at every level.
While it is true there is no global democracy, the concept of national democracy is getting pretty strained. Leaving China, Russia, and the entirety of Africa, Asia and Latin America out of the discussion , let's just look at what used to be called the Free World. Serial betrayal by the UK Conservatives has left the UK in the grip of the hard left for at least 5 years. France, Austria, and (to some extent) the Netherlands have ignored election results. Germany has done likewise in state elections and will do so in the national elections if they don't just outright ban the opposition party. A narrow majority in Poland is busy suppressing the opposition. All of the traditional conservative parties in Europe would rather form coalitions with the socialists or worse rather than with the new conservatives. Australia set up concentration camps for COVID. Canada engaged in totalitarian practices during COVID and now is engaged in suppression of their Hindu minority in order to maintain the support of the NDP whose leader is conveniently a Sikh in the midst of a diplomatic row with India over being a sanctuary for Sikh separatism. So what is left. Beleaguered Hungary and more beleaguered Israel. I have no doubt that Israel can win its kinetic war but the greater danger (as is the case in Hungary) is the internal and external globalists. Italy, perhaps, but Meloni is still on board with NATO which is the armed wing of the globalists. Ditto for Argentina. I don't think the globalists care what Milei does domestically as long as he stays on the reservation, internationally. So now we are down to the US where whatever happens next month will not be accepted by half the population.
> Serial betrayal by the UK Conservatives has left the UK in the grip of the hard left for at least 5 years.
That would be the case if there was any "hard left". Calling them so is just partisan left-aversion holdover from when such a thing existed. What exists now - and since at least Blair, is a globalist uniparty, fostering the kind of fusion of state and corporate power described in this post. Here's an easy way to tell: those UK conservatives would hardly have done anything different, and hardly did anything different in the past years, than the so-called "hard left".
It's the same in other countries.
> Serial betrayal by the UK Conservatives has left the UK in the grip of the hard left for at least 5 years.
That would be the case if there was any "hard left". Calling them so is just partisan left-aversion holdover from when such a thing existed. What exists now - and since at least Blair, is a globalist uniparty, fostering the kind of fusion of state and corporate power described in this post. Here's an easy way to tell: those UK conservatives would hardly have done anything different, and hardly did anything different in the past years, than the so-called "hard left".
Yes. It's the people against the power.
Those involved in and benefitting from these public-private partnerships will not stop until they are made to stop. I don't see a scenario where that happens from peaceful democratic action. It is likely that it will only end after a huge amount of suffering makes its continuation unsustainable
yeah, the "elites try to be more democratic" part of the post was mostly wishful thinking
See the French Revolution for a useful guide to what eventually happens.
It looks to me you are describing facism.
I think the term fascism has lost all meaning.
So many of our elected legislators on both sides of the aisle are purchased by these entities. It is bewildering to attempt an honest conversation/debate with mercenaries hired not for their sagacity or integrity, but for their processed image.
The reference to the literal rolling of heads hits hardest—and that's because this trend may continue until a group of revolutionaries lashes out, making conflict inevitable. Granted, the technocratic and censorship-based power wielded by these vast public-private partnerships is a huge threat, but as these acts continue, an increasing number of people will become disillusioned enough with the state and its corporate allies to *do* something. Big bad could ensue.
Just look at what happened in the UK. What might happen if an organized group of militants felt emboldened enough to do something to the very people they have come to view as "enemy"? How many of these people already exist? When pondered, the answers to these questions are worrying.
Indeed, populist movements -- however lambasted by the press -- may be the greatest asset of those who treasure true liberty, along with its attendant responsibilities (another discussion entirely).
Illuminating poast, as always. (:
This is a great read. Thank N.S.
However, I am sorry that I have a lot to say about this topic.
The first point to make is that no system is perfect, and the pursuit of perfection can be the enemy of the good. Rent seeking is analogous to the accepted liberal principle of the pursuit of self-interest. Human nature is human nature, and it will forever be challenged with the moral balance of egoism and egalitarianism. That balance is why we need the moral framework contained within the word of religion and the word of law.
However, I am generally in support of more public-private partnerships with caveats. In fact, I think government in general should outsource all direct services to the public and perform as regulatory overseer.
I run a company that supports small businesses through government loan programs. The primary program is the Small Business Administration 504 loan program. I see this program, and the larger SBA 7a loan program that banks participate in, as a model for federal government private-public partnership. The full model is imperfect and certainly gets impacted by political agendas, but it significantly meets and exceeds its core mission to provide loans to small businesses to help create and retain jobs by assisting small businesses to start and grow.
The 504 is primary a commercial real estate loan for owner-user small business. To facilitate the program, there is a network of small business non-profits called Certified Development Companies (CDCs) - one of the largest of them that I oversee. CDCs are private non-profit corporations that participate with for-profit commercial banks in a 504 loan.
The typical structure of a finance project is 50-40-10 (hence the name "504" as the mainframe did not have enough bytes available so the name 504010 got truncated to "504")... with the bank doing a 50% LTV piece and taking the first lien position, the SBA (through the CDC) taking 40% and the second lien position... and the borrower with a 10% down payment.
The borrower ends up with two loans... one with the bank and one with the SBA. However, the total of the two loan payments are generally lower than what the borrower could get from a bank alone, if at all, and they would be hit with a larger down payment requirement.
The brilliance of the 504 program design includes bank participation so that the banks don’t lobby to kill the program so they can horde more of the lending opportunities. This is an important consideration for all public-private partnerships… the need to engage the private economy stakeholders with both committed to the public policies / mission driving the programs.
The SBA programs are to fill a gap need for small businesses that cannot qualify for otherwise cannot afford the bank offers but are still worthy of a loan. The public policy goal/mission is to create and retain jobs focused on areas and demographics that are underserved.
There are some people that claim the SBA should not exist because we have a banking industry that should take care of all lending needs. I am a conservative free market capitalist, and I see that the banking industry is too risk averse. Banks cherry-pick stronger credits and over-price their loan products to all but the strongest of borrowers. Ironically the reason that banks are this way is because of other regulatory demands put on them by other federal agencies. This is that other discussion... when government is so large and has its hand in so much of the economy, it invariably creates massive conflicts of interest and mission, and a never-ending list of new inefficiencies.
But the SBA 504 works… it is a model that I think we should expand on for more public-private partnership.
The SBA pools all the 40% loans in the nation for the month and sells them to investors as a debenture bond. This funds the loan pool for the month and sets the SBA portion of the rate. The debenture bond is guaranteed by the federal government. The 50% bank loan is secured by the excess in collateral value with the first lien position. Both situations reduce the risk of loan loss and thus support a lower interest rate. The borrower benefits from a lower down payment and a lower fixed-rate monthly payment… the preservation of capital and operating income allows the business to invest it back into operations to grow and expand.
And here is the cool thing… THE SBA 504 PROGRAM GETS ZERO FEDERAL SUBSIDY. That’s right… the program is self-funding.
I am a capitalist but I also understand that capitalism is largely corrupted to be an excuse to pursue profit and equity at the expense of the greater good to the public. Capitalism as practiced today is primarily a gambling, looting and rent-seeking system. It values individual returns on capital over the greater social good that a well-functioning economy provides. My view is that government should stay out of the actual business of the economy, but provide programs that fill gaps that the private sector does not fill because of the alternatives for greater profit. There is a line that goes too far when it becomes a political agenda without legitimate measurable goals. But we are stupid to think that the invisible hand of free markets can provide enough value to the public when we already have a massive government with its hands in the cookie jar. Since we cannot seem to agree to shrink the size of government, we should change its scope to be the public regulator and overseer of programs delivered by the private economy.
Education is a great example here. We should require all education to be delivered by private businesses that comply with a set of regulations if they are to get public funding. No educator should be a government employee. There should be competition between the private providers of end-user services so that the best model evolves and dominates. Yes, there is a risk that regulatory pressure gets politicized, but with a large private sector industry it would provide power to push back against regulatory pressure that isn’t good for their business model.
Government should not pick winners and losers, but to set common public policy goals and program missions… and foment fair and robust competition for private-sector service delivery.
Thanks Frank, that's a really interesting example.
This is just. It also presents a cunning double bind. Assuming there are architects of our emerging Western order, and that they recognize we now need stronger “all of society” measures to counter the rising juggernaut in Asia, such architects would do well not to foul their own nest, no? They shouldn’t toss their democratic legitimacy out the window. Without legitimacy, after all, they will not survive for the long fight ahead. Yet they toss away, almost with glee. So what gives?
Put another way: Is there really any evidence of architects in the room?
Jane Jacobs, well known for her _Death and Life of Great American Cities_, wrote a very interesting little book, _Systems of Survival_, which discusses "public-private partnership" in anatomizing two systems of morality in society, "Guardian Moral Syndrome" and "Commercial Moral Syndrome "and the dangers that arise when one system corrupts or merges with the other. I have hardly seen it discussed, but recommend it highly. There is of course, a Wikipedia entry for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_of_Survival.
I think you've nailed the uneasiness of the public. When we hear about the threat of populism to democracy, what that really means is that the people might be ready to confront the undemocratic moves being made behind their backs. The only people who are afraid of this are the National Security State and the profiteers. The far-right and the hard left seem to recognize this is happening and if we could get identity politics out of the way, could probably prove to be a powerful voice in this fight. It has become an incestuous relationship in too many ways that count.
It's not hard to see that the people are more and more being marginalized, that nations are erasing borders without consent to bring in the cheapest option for the wealthy at the expense of the middle-classes.
Let's just say I'd rather die than be ruled. For me, though no side is perfect, Trump is the best choice in this situation because at least he tries to acknowledge that America is for Americans and refuses to apologize for recognizing the people left behind. (By left behind, I don't mean they want to be a part of selling out their country, they want to be heard and they want action)
Great article.
One of the many things the first Trump administration did well was prioritizing bilateral trade agreements over multilateral trade agreements such as NAFTA or the Trans Pacific Partnership. Under multilateral agreements, multi-national corporations can and do take advantage of the ability to direct products to one nation to protect higher prices in a different nation with a larger market.
For example, suppose there is a surplus of oranges in the US. Normally that would drive the price of oranges down for US consumers. The multi-national company scours the list of countries in their multilateral trade agreement, and decide to dump that excess supply in another foreign country, say, Canada. The much smaller market in Canada gets cheap oranges, while the huge US population pays the highest price for oranges grown in their own country.
Bilateral trade agreements stopped this, which was one of the driving forces behind the low inflation of Trump's term.
Excellent illustrations of how Public-Private partnerships have evolved to a point that the individual within the country has no voice to weigh inon policy, policy implementation, funding, oversight or anything at all. Citing the multitude of the immigration NGO web which is aiding and facilitating aliens TOWARD, INTO and AROUND the USA is a prime example of the hyper-evolution of a toxic partnerships now being used to disenfranchise citizens from critical and country changing policy decisions.
I agree with you! See: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S003043870700004X