6 Comments
Feb 13Liked by Michael Magoon

Brilliant piece. Thanks!

Expand full comment

Enjoyed the read!

However, if you would not have been a democrat from 1830-1963 or 1965-today, then I think you might be looking at the wrong party.

Seems to me that if you want to reform entitlement programs then you are closer to a mainstream 1980's-2015 Republican (you said Reagan was right, and Paul Ryan and others were very close to him) or a moderate Republican today. While Trump does not want entitlement reform, many Republicans do, so if a moderate Republican wins the 2028 primary the party could shift back and agree with you on most of the concerns you outlined here.

Expand full comment
author

LOL

Thanks for the recruitment attempt, but I am very happy to be an Independent, thanks. I would rather make choices election-by-election based on the individual candidate.

What Republicans mean by "entitlement reform" is typically cutting costs, and they typically focus on Social Security and Medicare.

My concern is mainly with overhauling means-tested programs so they offer Upward Mobility for young people and help to create a prosperous working class. So far, neither major party is trying to do that.

Hopefully, my writing on Upward Mobility will find some traction within one of the major parties (but I am not holding my breath). In fairness, I think that you are correct that Republicans are more likely to be willing to change their minds on this issue than Democrats, but both parties are focused on other issues.

Expand full comment
Feb 13Liked by Michael Magoon

As a moderate Republican who is very much on board the progress train, I had to try, lol.

Thank you for the nice comment and for this wonderful site. I'm Working on reading less of the mainstream press and more of the "Progress" substacks. Yours is my favorite so far. Thank you for feeding my rational optimism. Looking forward to the new book.

Expand full comment

Social Insurance is insurance.

The net present value of payments must roughly match payments. People will tolerate modest cross subsidy to solve the underwriting problem, but not too much cross subsidy.

But in a society with wildly different genetic potential, large cross subsidy is inevitable.

Relatively homogenous societies could pull off social insurance. But the gap between white and black is so large it’s impossible (and the USA is diverse in other ways). It can’t be social insurance, only welfare.

The other issue is that upward mobility can solve material needs. But it doesn’t solve social needs. It doesn’t solve the fact that there is only one man and one woman. That status is a zero sum game. Etc.

if we all get richer, people will still value dominance and hierarchy. Solutions to that urge are assisted by not fulfilled by material progress.

Finally, one notes that you end in 1965. Even MLK history ends in 1965. It gets darker after, nobody wants to talk about the late 60s. Because equality under the law can’t bring equality of outcome, but equality of outcome is presumed by the assumption of equality of genetics. When this can’t be satisfied, totalitarian solutions are proposed.

Expand full comment

> Social insurance programs

The problem with the social insurance programs is that financially they are set up like pyramid schemes, and now they're reaching the point of collapsing.

Expand full comment