Showing posts with label Agriculture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Agriculture. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
The Rural Blog: America's aging farmers often don't have a family ...
The Rural Blog: America's aging farmers often don't have a family ...: As farmland changes hands, there will be far fewer family farms in the U.S. (Photo by Johny Goerend, Unsplash) Whether it's the unpredi...
Monday, February 16, 2026
Sunday, February 8, 2026
The Rural Blog: Agriculture leaders warn of possible 'widespread c...
The Rural Blog: Agriculture leaders warn of possible 'widespread c...: Nearly half of all U.S. farms are not profitable. (Photo by Matthew Putney, DTN) A bipar...
Saturday, February 7, 2026
Lex Anteinternet: Trump gives US ranchers the shaft.
Lex Anteinternet: Subsidiarity Economics 2026. The Times more or les...: January 1, 2026. China is imposing a 55% tariff on some (it appears quite a bit of) beef from Brazil, Australia and the United States. In C...
I'm cross posting this due to Trump's giving ranchers, one are of agriculture where agrarians are hanging on, the shaft.
Subsidiarity Economics 2026. The Times more or less locally, Part 1. The reap what you sow edition.
January 1, 2026.
China is imposing a 55% tariff on some (it appears quite a bit of) beef from Brazil, Australia and the United States.
In Casper, Vintage Wine and Spirits and Wyoming Rib and Chop are closed as of this morning.
Donald Trump vetoed a water project in Colorado which was passed unanimously by Congress, and which is in a district that is represented by MAGA Lauren Boebert and which voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump mostly, it appears, as an act of revenge on Colorado.
The costs of at least 350 drugs in the U.S. are expected to rise in 2026.
Also, according to Trump Golf Tracker, Donald Trump has golfed 79 days out of 347 days since returning to office (22.8% of the presidency), at a taxpayer cost of $110,600,000.
The price of oil today is generally $57.41/bbl, below US profitability. Wyoming oil is generally at $57.84/bbl.
Coal rose to $107.50 /T on December 31, 2025, up 0.80% from the previous day. Over the past month, coal has fallen 0.78%, and is down 13.72% compared to the same time last year.
January 6, 2026
Venezuela takeover has Wyoming oil industry bracing for market changes: Though Wyoming politicos regard Trump's actions as necessary, oil executives do not anticipate immediate windfall.
There's no part of this that will be a positive for the U.S. economy, or Wyoming's. There's been too much oil on the market now for years, which has made Wyoming's petroleum economy unstable. More oil will simply make it worse, much worse. Sinking a bunch of infrastructure into a foreign country will make it worse.
This will be an economic problem, if not a disaster.
And here's another GOP bit of great economic news:
Wyoming spent $2.4M on hunger relief during shutdown emergency: Food insecurity is soaring in the state due to inflation and other factors, food relief experts say.
January 6, 2026
There's a lot of weird war related news circulating today.
Trump claims that the government of Venezuela is going to, well, here:
Trump, who is demented, is now threatening Greenland.
Trump needs to be removed via the 25th Amendment, and like yesterday.
January 8, 2026
Oh we clearly need to add Venezuelan oil to this scenario.
January 9, 2026
Allowing power usage on this scale is simply insane.
January 10, 2026
$350 Million Transmission Project Links Wyoming, South Dakota Power Grids
Broncos Playoff Mania Drives Tickets To More Than $17,000
January 13, 2026
One year in, Trump's economy is a mess
He may have won on a promise to fix everything, but he's only made it worse.
January 19, 2026
Дональд Трамп — агент России, will be imposing tariffs on NATO members over his avarice for Greenland.
Дональд Трамп — агент России.
January 20, 2026
The stock market is collapsing and Treasury bonds are being sold off by the Danish retirement system due to the instability of the American budget.
If this becomes a general trend over the next thirty days the U.S. will go into a recession and the Dollar will cease to be the global reserve currency.
All this sparked by the demented avarice of the dimwit in the Oval Office.
January 21, 2026
Trump added $2.25 trillion to the national debt in his first year back in (illegitimate) charge.
Laramie County approves construction of what could become the largest data center in US - WyoFile: Project Jade could eventually use the same amount of electricity as produced by 10 nuclear power plants.
January 26, 2026
Natrona County gas prices soar as Iran tensions, sanctions rock oil markets
January 27, 2026
Posted under fair use exception, there's no other good way to illustrate the dollar tanking like this.
Yeah, Trump sure is making us great again.
February 7, 2026
Trump screws American agriculture:
By the President of the United States of AmericaA Proclamation1. Cattle ranchers have played an integral role in United States history, helping to forge an American identity and an American diet with beef as a key staple food. Today, beef remains vital in the American diet, evidenced by the fact that the United States is the largest consumer of beef by volume, followed closely by China and Brazil. And the United States ranks second in per capita beef consumption globally.2. But in 2022, the United States faced a widespread and severe drought, affecting beef-producing States, such as Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Kansas. Texas and Kansas, for example, continue to face persistent drought conditions. The effects of drought are particularly pronounced for livestock producers as many of their operations rely on precipitation to grow forage crops to feed their herds.3. In addition to droughts, wildfires have affected the grasslands of the western United States, including America’s cattle-producing States. Apart from the direct threat of burns and burn-associated deaths to cattle, cattle ranchers have had to adapt to indirect effects of wildfires, including changes in grazing patterns, loss of feed supplies, and suboptimal animal health for those cattle surviving the wildfires.4. Given the demand for beef, certain United States cattle farmers and ranchers supplement their herds, specifically their feedlot stocks, with cattle (calves) imported from Mexican ranchers. But following new detections of the New World screwworm in Mexico in May 2025, the Department of Agriculture Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service, in conjunction with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), restricted the importation of live animal commodities from or transiting through Mexico, further limiting domestic feedlot stock supplies.5. These factors have combined to result in the United States cattle herd contracting to record lows. As of July 2025, the United States cattle inventory totaled 94.2 million head, including 28.7 million beef cows. This is one percent lower than the United States cattle inventory surveyed in July 2023, continuing the downward trend of cattle inventory in the United States.6. The abovementioned factors have also cumulatively resulted in higher beef prices for United States consumers, including for ground beef. Since January 2021, ground beef prices have continued to rise, reaching an average of $6.69 per pound in December 2025, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics — the highest since the Department of Labor started tracking beef prices in the 1980s.7. Despite the increased prices and the availability of more affordable protein alternatives, United States consumers’ demand for beef remains strong. The United States imported a record high amount of beef in 2024, reaching 4.64 billion pounds, a more than 24 percent increase in beef imports since 2023. Among the beef products the United States imports are lean trimmings, which are blended with fattier domestic trimmings to produce ground beef products, such as hamburgers.8. The Secretary of Agriculture has monitored the domestic supply of beef products subject to a tariff-rate quota (TRQ), including lean beef trimmings falling under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) statistical reporting numbers 0201.30.5085 and 0202.30.5085, and noted the domestic supply of such products and substitutable products combined with the estimated imports of such products under the United States beef import TRQ. The Secretary of Agriculture also advised on related domestic demand and pricing.9. As President of the United States, I have a responsibility to ensure that hard-working Americans can afford to feed themselves and their families. After considering the information provided to me by the Secretary of Agriculture, among other relevant information, I am taking action to temporarily increase the quantity of in-quota imports of lean beef trimmings under the United States beef TRQ to increase the supply of ground beef for United States consumers.10. Section 404 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) (Public Law 103-465, 108 Stat. 4809, 4959-61 (19 U.S.C. 3601)) authorizes the President, in certain circumstances, to modify TRQs on certain agricultural products. In particular, section 404(b) of the URAA (19 U.S.C. 3601(b)) provides that where imports of an agricultural product are subject to a TRQ, and where the President determines and proclaims that the supply of the same or directly competitive or substitutable agricultural product will be inadequate, because of a natural disaster, disease, or major national market disruption, to meet domestic demand at reasonable prices, the President may temporarily increase the quantity of imports of the agricultural product that is subject to the in-quota rate of duty established under the TRQ. And section 404(d)(3) of the URAA (19 U.S.C. 3601(d)(3)) provides that the President may allocate the in-quota quantity of a TRQ for any agricultural product among supplying countries or customs areas and may modify any allocation as determined appropriate by the President.11. After considering the information provided to me by the Secretary of Agriculture, among other relevant information, I find that imports of lean beef trimmings into the United States are currently subject to the United States TRQ for beef and determine that the supply of lean beef trimmings or directly competitive or substitutable agricultural products will be inadequate to meet domestic demand at reasonable prices because of a natural disaster and major national market disruption. Accordingly, I determine that it is necessary and appropriate to temporarily increase the quantity of imports of lean beef trimmings subject to the in-quota rate of duty established under the beef TRQ. In addition, I determine that it is appropriate to allocate all of the increased in-quota quantity of beef, as established by this proclamation, to Argentina.12. Section 604 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2483), authorizes the President to embody in the HTSUS the substance of statutes affecting import treatment, and actions thereunder, including the removal, modification, continuance, or imposition of any rate of duty or other import restriction.NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 404 of the URAA, section 604 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, do hereby proclaim as follows:(1) For calendar year 2026, the aggregate in-quota quantity for certain products described in Additional U.S. Note 3 of Chapter 2 of the HTSUS will be increased by 80,000 metric tons (mt).(2) The additional 80,000 mt described in clause (1) of this proclamation will apply only to lean beef trimmings classifiable under HTSUS statistical reporting numbers 0201.30.5085 and 0202.30.5085.(3) The additional 80,000 mt described in clauses (1) and (2) of this proclamation will be administered on a first-come, first-served basis in four quarterly tranches. The first tranche of 20,000 mt will open on February 13, 2026, and close on March 31, 2026. The second tranche of 20,000 mt will open on April 1, 2026, and close on June 30, 2026. The third tranche of 20,000 mt will open on July 1, 2026, and close on September 30, 2026. The fourth tranche of 20,000 mt will open on October 1, 2026, and close on December 31, 2026.(4) The additional 80,000 mt described in clauses (1) and (2) of this proclamation is allocated in its entirety to Argentina.(5)(a) To establish the TRQ amendments described in this proclamation, the HTSUS is modified as set forth in the Annex to this proclamation.(b) The United States Trade Representative (Trade Representative), in consultation with CBP, shall determine whether any additional modifications to the HTSUS are necessary to effectuate this proclamation and shall make such modifications to the HTSUS through notice in the Federal Register, including any technical correction to the Annex to this proclamation.(6) The Secretary of Agriculture shall continue to monitor the domestic supply of lean beef trimmings, as the Secretary considers appropriate, and shall advise me on the domestic supply of lean beef trimmings or directly competitive or substitutable products, combined with the estimated imports of such products under the TRQ as adjusted by this proclamation, and how such availability relates to domestic demand at reasonable prices. The Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the Trade Representative, shall inform me of any circumstances that, in the Secretary’s opinion, might indicate the need for further action and shall recommend to me any additional action I should take, if necessary.(7) Each executive department and agency (agency) is authorized to and shall take all appropriate measures within its authority to implement this proclamation. The head of each agency may, consistent with applicable law, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, redelegate any of these functions within their respective agency.(8) Any provision of previous proclamations and Executive Orders that is inconsistent with the actions taken in this proclamation is superseded to the extent of such inconsistency. If any provision of this proclamation or the application of any provision to any individual or circumstance is held to be invalid, the remainder of this proclamation and the application of its provisions to any other individuals or circumstances shall not be affected.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand thissixth day of February, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-six, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and fiftieth.DONALD J. TRUMP
Well that not only hurts Wyoming, it directly hurts me.
Well this will be fun at the next gathering "are you surprised that Trump. . . "
And something to remember:
Tom Lubnau: This Session, A Failed Budget Shuts Wyoming Down
Last edition:
Subsidiarity Economics 2025. The Times more or less locally, Part 13. Disassociation.
Labels: 119th Congress, 2020s, 2025, Chuck Gray, Coal, Economics, Government, Health Care, Petroleum, Populism, Republican Party, Taxes, Unions, Wyoming, Wyoming's boom and bust economy
First set of Labels: 2020s, 2026, Agriculture, Australia, Brazil, China, Donald Trump, Food, restaurants and bars, Taxes, The Second Trump Administration, United States, Wyoming, Wyoming (Casper)
Tuesday, February 3, 2026
What have you done for me lately? Addressing politicians in desperate times, part 5.
An agricultural country which consumes its own food is a finer thing than an industrial country, which at best can only consume its own smoke.
Chesterton.
A long time ago I started a post on one of our companion blogs about agriculturalist and the Republican Party. I can't find it now, maybe I published it, or maybe I didn't.
As I"m in both worlds, the urban and the agricultural, I get exposed to the political views of both camps. The Trump administration has made this a really interesting, and horrifying, experience. By and large professionals detest Donald Trump and regard him as a charleton Farmers and ranchers are, however, amongst his most loyal base, even though there's no real reason for them to be such. Indeed, with the damage that Trump is doing to agriculture this will be a real test of whether farmers and ranchers simply reflexively vote Republican or stop doing son and wake up.
The Democratic Party, not the GOP, saved family farmers and ranchers in this country when the forces of the unabated Homestead ACt and the Great Depression were going to destroy them. They've seemingly resented being saved from those forces, however, as an impingement on their freedoms, and they've bristled at every government act since that time. Farmers and ranchers would rather sink in a cesspool of their own making than be told how to properly build one, basically.
We here, of course, aren't a pure agricultural blog. This is an Agrarian blog, and that's different. We are, quite frankly, much more radical.
"The land belongs to those who work it."
Zapata.
Agrarianism is an ethical perspective that privileges an agriculturally oriented political economy. At its most concise, agrarianism is “the idea that agriculture and those whose occupation involves agriculture are especially important and valuable elements of society
Bradley M. Jones, American Agrarianism.
Still, we can't help but notice that American agriculturalist, more than any other class of businessmen, have voted to screw themselves by voting for Donald Trump. They voted for tariff wars that leave their products marooned here in the US while foreign competitors take advantage of that fact. They've voted for a guy who thinks global warming is a fib (which many of them do as well) in spite of the plain evidence before their eyes, and the fact that this will destroy the livelihoods of the younger ones. They've voted to force economic conditions that will force them off the lands and their lands into the hands of the wealthy.
Indeed, on that last item, they've voted for people who share nothing in common with them whatsoever and would just as soon see them out of business, or simply don't care what happens to them.
They've voted, frankly, stupidly.
Well, nothing cures stupidly more than a giant dope slap from life, and they're getting one right now. The question is whether they'll vote in 2026 and 2028 to be bent over, or start to ask some questions.
We're going to post those questions here.
1. What connection does the candidate have with agriculture?
They might not have any and still be a good candidate, but if they're running around in a plaid shirt pretending to be a 19th Century man of the soil, they should be dropped.
They should also be dropped if they're like Scott Bessent, who pretends to be a soybean farmer when he's actually a major league investor. Indeed, big money is the enemy of agriculture and always has been.
I'd also note that refugees from agriculture should be suspect. The law is full of them, people who were sent off to law school by their farmer and rancher parents who believed, and in their heart of hearts still believe, that lawyers, doctors and dentist, indeed everyone in town, don't really work. All of these refugees live sad lives, but some of them spend time in their sad lives on political crusades that are sort of a cry out to their parents "please love me".
I know that sounds radical, but it's true.
2. What will they do to keep agricultural lands in family hands, and out of absentee landlord hands?
And the answer better not be a "well I'm concerned about that". The answer needs to be real.
From an agrarian prospective, no solution that isn't a massive trend reversing one makes for a satisfactory answer to this question. Ranches being bought up by the extremely wealthy are destroying the ability of regular people to even dare to hope to be in agriculture. This can be reversed, and it should be, but simply being "concerned" won't do it.
3. What is your view on public lands?
If the answer involves transferring them out of public hand, it indicates a love of money that's ultimately always destructive to agriculture in the end.
Indeed, in agricultural camps there remains an unabated lust for the public lands even though transferring them into private hands, whether directly or as a brief stop over in state hands, would utterly destroy nearly ever farm and ranch in local and family ownership . The change in value of the operations would be unsustainable, and things would be sold rapidly.
Public lands need to stay in public hands.
4. How do you make your money?
People think nothing of asking farmers "how many acres do you have" or ranchers "how many cattle do you have", both of which is the same as asking "how much money do you have".
Knowing how politicians make their money is a critical thing to know. No farmer or rancher, for example, has anything in common with how the Trump family makes money, and there's no reason to suppose that they view land as anything other than to be forced into developers hands and sold.
5. What is your position on global warming?
If its any variety of "global warming is a fib", they don't deserve a vote.
6. What is your position on a land ethnic?
If they don't know what that means, they don't deserve a vote.
7. What's on your dinner table, and who prepares it?
That may sound really odd, and we don't mean for it to be a judgment on what people eat. . . sort of. But all agriculturalist are producing food for the table. . . for the most part, if we ignore crops like cotton, or other agricultural derived textiles, of which there are a bunch, and if we ignore products like ethanol.
Anyhow, I'll be frank. If a guy is touring cattle country and gives an uneasy chuckle and says, "well, I don't eat much meat anymore" do you suppose he really cares about ranching? If you do, you need your head checked.
You probably really need it checked if the candidate doesn't every grill their own steak but has some sort of professional prepare their dinner every night. That would mean that they really have very little chance of grasping
8. What's your understanding of local agriculture?
That's a pretty broad question, but I'm defining agriculture very broadly here. Indeed, what I mean is the candidates understanding of the local use of nature, to include farming and ranching, but to also include hunting, fishing and commercial fishing.
Indeed, on the latter, only the commercial fishing industry seems to have politicians that really truly care what happens to them. How that happened isn't clear, but it does seem to be the case.
Otherwise, what most politicians seem to think is that farmers wear plaid flannel shirts. I see lots of them wondering around in photographs looking at corrals, or oil platforms, but I never see one actually do any work. . . of pretty much any kind. That is, I don't expect to see Chuck Gray flaking a calf, for example.
Last and prior editions:
Claiming the mantle of Christ in politics. Don't support liars and don't lie. Addressing politicians in desperate times, part 4.
Claiming the mantle of Christ in politics. Addressing politicians in desperate times, part 3.
Questions hunters, fishermen, and public lands users need to ask political candidates. Addressing politicians in desperate times, part 2.
Labels: 2026 Election, 2028 Election, Commentary, Democratic Party, Politics, Questions for politicians, Republican Party, Trailing threadLabels: 2026 Election, 2028 Election, Camping, Climate Change, fishing, hunting, Politics, Public Lands, Questions for politicians, Right Wing Politics and Politicians, The Land Ethic, This is why we can't have nice things
Addressing politicians in desperate times. A series.
Wednesday, January 28, 2026
Tuesday, January 20, 2026
Rejecting Avarice. Some radical rethinking.
Cease being intimidated by the argument that a right action is impossible because it does not yield maximum profits, or that a wrong action is to be condoned because it pays.
Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac
We just published this item here on Donald Trump's insatiable lust for the destruction of land, lands even beyond our borders.
The Agrarian's Lament: Lex Anteinternet: Manifest Destiny and the Second ...: Lex Anteinternet: Manifest Destiny and the Second Trump Administrati... : Westward the Course of Empire Takes Its Way, dramatizing Manifest ...
In the movie The Patriot, which is okay but not great, commences with these lines:
I have long feared, that my sins would return to visit me, and the cost is more than I can bare.
In a lot of ways, that opening scene is the best one in the movie.
No nation has a singular linear history, even though people tend to hear things that way. "This happened, and then that happened, resulting in this. . . ". In reality, things are mixed quite often, and things are quite fluid with juxtapositions.
Shakespeare claimed:
“There is a tide in the affairs of men
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat;
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.”
Perhaps. But in reality the tide in the affairs of men drags everyone along with it. But it's a rip tide. People's individual goals, desires and aspirations often are quite contrary to the tide on the surface.
That's certainly been the case with the United States.
If you have a Trumpian view of the world, the history of the United States looks like this, sort of:
This again. It never occurs to many that the mines and cities aren't really everyone's dream. It particularly doesn't occur to a rich real estate developer who isn't smart and whose values are shallow.
Lots of people have that view. We came, we saw, we exploited, and everyone got happy working for Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk.
Trouble is, that's not true for a lot of reasons, a core one being it doesn't comport with who we really are. The entire worship of wealth and what it brings, and the wealthy and who they are, is deeply contrary to our natures, and frankly men like Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump, and Elon Musk are deeply perverted. Not because of their relationship with women, or because their names appear in the Epstein files in some context, although in the case of Trump, we really still don't know what context, but because of their shallow avaricious acquisition for and desire for wealth.
Timothy warns us:
Those who want to be rich are falling into temptation and into a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires, which plunge them into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all evils, and some people in their desire for it have strayed from the faith and have pierced themselves with many pains.
And not only have their pierced themselves, but they pierce others, and entire societies with them.
So let's look at a few concrete things that we feel should be done.
Among the rich you will never find a really generous man even by accident. They may give their money away, but they will never give themselves away; they are egotistic, secretive, dry as old bones. To be smart enough to get all that money you must be dull enough to want it.
G.K. Chesterton, A Miscellany of Men
Revisit the Homestead Act.
Right from the onset of English colonization of North America, there was a pull between business exploitation and the simple desire for an agrarian place of one's own.
The truth of the matter is that when the nation started off, most people weren't "Pilgrims" seeking shelter from religious oppression. Nor did they wish to be servants of big mercantile enterprises. Most of the early English colonists were from agriculture or the trades and wanted to just work for themselves. That's about it.
The American Revolution was as much about that as anything else. When American Colonials dumped tea in harbors, they were protesting taxes, but what they were also doing is dumping mercantile controlled property into waste. It was grown somewhere else and it belong to rich remote classes.
The struggle was always there. The American South in particular had the planter class which depended upon enslaved labor to raise a market crop. That was about generating wealth. Most Southerners, in contrast, were Yeoman who had small places of their own. When the Civil War came the wealthy had the South fight the war.
The analogies to the present day are simply to thick to ignore.
The Homestead Act came about during that war, and in real ways, it expressed a Jeffersonian dream. People willing to invest their own labor could acquire a place of their own.
The drafters of the Act never envisioned the wealthy controlling the land. In some very real ways it was wealthy landowners that the North was fighting at the time.
Over the last few days residents of Wyoming have read about Chris Robinson, CEO of Salt Lake City-based Ensign Group, L.C., buying the Pathfinder Ranch. I have nothing about him personally, but the listed price for the ranch was $79.5M due to its giant size.
I can personally recall when it was owned by locals At that price, rather obviously, Robinson isn't planning on making money from cattle. And to make matters a bit worse, residents of Natrona County got to read about another local outfit going up for sale, which is much smaller, for $9M.
Even into my adult years, by which time it was already impossible for somebody not born into ranching or farming to buy a place such that it could be their vocation, most ranches were owned by locally born ranchers. This trend of playground pricing is making the status of the land the same as that which English colonists were seeking to escape from.
This could be fixed by amending the Homestead Act. The homesteading portion of that is fixed, but it would still be possible to go back and amend it such that land deeded to individuals under it, had to remain in agricultural use, and had to be held by families that made their money that way. exclusively.
I know it won't be, anytime soon, but it should be.
Revisit "Ad coelum ad damnum"
One of the absolute absurdities of the original Homestead Act is that it gave away not only the surface of the land, but the mineral rights as well. This made the system sort of like buying lottery tickets. Some people got rich just of because of where they'd chosen to homestead.
I really struggle with the concept of private ownership of minerals, including oil and gas, in the first place. I understand private enterprise exploiting it, but owning it? Why? It's not like private enterprise put the minerals in the ground.
Addressing this creates real constitutional problems, but ideally the mineral wealth of the nation should belong to everyone in it, not private parties. And it should be exploited, or not, in the national interest, not in the primary economic interest of those who claim to own it.
I know that this brings up the cry of "that's Socialism". It probably really is, but an unequal accidental distribution of mineral wealth on lands taken from the native inhabitants isn't just. At a bare minimum, something needs to be looked into. Indeed, as there was no intent to transfer that mineral title in the first place, perhaps it could collectively be restored and held in truth for the descendants of those original inhabitants.
Tax the wealthy
Every since Ronald Reagan there's been a ludicrous idea that taxing the wealthy hurts the economy. We know that this is completely false. We also know that a certain percentage of the wealthy will allow themselves to become obscenely wealthy if allowed to, and that they'll harm everyone else as a result.
There's no reason on earth that anyone ought to be a billionaire. Indeed, if you have more than $50M in assets, you have too much and something is potentially wrong with your character. High upper income tax rates and wealth taxes can and should address this. Elon Musk can be nearly just as annoying if his net worth was $50M as whatever it currently is, but he'd be a lot less destructive.
An alternative to this, if this is simply too radical, is to prevent corporations from owning most things, and to provide that once they get to be a certain size, at least 50% of their ownership goes to employees of those corporations. It'd at least distribute the wealth some, and keep avarice from defining our everyday existence.
Final thoughts
What seems to be clear in any event is that we cannot keep going in this directly. Today's "conservatives" serve the very interests that the American Patriots rebelled against, remote wealth. In spite of their tattoos and car window stickers, they'd form the Loyalist Militia trying to put down an an agrarian revolution in 1776. The thing is, that those conditions always lead to revolution. They did in 1776 in North America, and then again in more extreme form in France a few years later. They lead to the uprisings of 1848, the Anglo Irish War in 1916 and the Russian Revolution in 1917. It's time to address this while we can, as it will be addressed.
Thursday, January 1, 2026
Lex Anteinternet: Subsidiarity Economics 2026. The Times more or less locally, Part 1. The reap what you sow edition.
Lex Anteinternet: Subsidiarity Economics 2026. The Times more or les...: January 1, 2026. China is imposing a 55% tariff on some (it appears quite a bit of) beef from Brazil, Australia and the United States. In C...
Subsidiarity Economics 2026. The Times more or less locally, Part 1. The reap what you sow edition.
January 1, 2026.
China is imposing a 55% tariff on some (it appears quite a bit of) beef from Brazil, Australia and the United States.
In Casper, Vintage Wine and Spirits and Wyoming Rib and Chop are closed as of this morning.
Donald Trump vetoed a water project in Colorado which was passed unanimously by Congress, and which is in a district that is represented by MAGA Lauren Boebert and which voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump mostly, it appears, as an act of revenge on Colorado.
The costs of at least 350 drugs in the U.S. are expected to rise in 2026.
Last edition:
Subsidiarity Economics 2025. The Times more or less locally, Part 13. Disassociation.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)