Von Mises and Hayek were right. Centralization is the big bugaboo. The Controligarchs rightly saw that decentralization doesn’t scale, but the only way in which it doesn’t scale is the control aspect. And what they wanted more than anything else was control.
'in which the state would own essential utilities, banking, and large-scale industry, while small-scale production and agriculture remained in private hands under guild regulation.'
Which still equals the destruction of the home economy. Food production, heating, education and training etc...
Gee I loathe these useless pen pushing academic fat arse twats. Stay the fuck out of our business and everything will be fine.
I do this too. Substack is a mess in this regard. When Substack first started the 'subscription" auto-renew crap, I asked for an opt out button on the subscription page. They promised to put it in the development que. And that is right where it is today...
The ability to Auto-renew/Auto-update that started in the dark days of 2021 needs to be ended. It is a massive privacy violation and exposes the credit card owners to extreme risk when merchant processors, that they have no business relationship with, are given their private credit card details on the renewal of the card. BIG MISTAKE.
Yeah it’s probably not for followers of Marx’s critically flawed religion
Especially given pious Marx acolytes can never quite explain how the dictatorship will wither away apart from in broad, abstract terms. Probably because they are unwilling to accept that their dystopian hellhole simply migrates into infrastructure.
:)) I think I might have been in the first wave in early 2023 to start witching about forced renewals of my 22 subscriptions from 2021-22. Substack wasn't notifying me a week in advance because the platform is so beta...
I am very grateful to certain creators/authors and commenters out here though. Can't say any of them are neo-liberal or neo-con or neo-anything. They just have great information, statistics, links to their graphical work and more. Some of their commentors have teamed up with me to collate ways to detox the C19 injection, support or argue specific points about our horrific C19 reality, see what the nano to micro tech actually looks like in our bodies, consumer products, rainwater, and much more.
Check out this gal. I have developed a similar condition thanks to the contagiousness of the C19 injections. Not as severe. But listen to what she is saying and ponder the ramifications for the future...
04/12/26 [Short-Recorded in 2022??] CIRS - Chronic Inflammatory Response System - A human toxicity meter; she gets sick in seconds.
From a systems perspective the lack of independent autonomous units operating in localised and self-regulated feedback loops creates fragility. This thing is gunna fall over.
Your tracing of the architecture—from Wolf’s 1892 Brussels submission, through the German monetary tradition, into Funk’s wartime proposal, and finally into Keynes’s hands at Bretton Woods—struck me deeply. The fifty‑two‑year gap you highlight, the untraced transmission channels, and the migration of ideas across regimes and crises… it reveals something essential about how global governance actually formed.
To me, Julius Wolf emerges as a foundational figure not because of personal influence, but because his conceptual architecture became the template for a world run through unelected clearinghouses, standards, and compliance systems that ordinary people cannot meaningfully affect.
Reading your article, I felt again something I learned growing up in the Communist Bloc:
when intellectual structures detach from the productive, creative life of society, they begin to generate abstractions that justify their own authority.
Governance as a precondition, standards above governments — these are ideas that arise in cultures where “thought form” becomes separated from “creative thought,” where elites stop understanding the natural science embedded in family, community, and nation.
Your work made me reflect on where the Western world began its path toward self‑destruction. I am not an economist or an accountant — I am a mother and a curious observer — but what I see is this:
Usury and financialization created the need for harmonized standards, and those standards were shaped by people who no longer recognized the organic, human foundations of social order.
Real peace and real cooperation can only come from multiple standards, freely harmonized through collaboration between people and nations — not imposed from above by institutions that claim neutrality while exercising power.
Thank you for bringing this history to light. I read your article more carefully than I read almost anything, because understanding the origins of this architecture matters for understanding our present moment.
A fine overview of a fascinating topic... but, good grief man! -- do you never sleep? Thorough, and finely crafted, as always. Was not able to finish at one sitting. My wood splitter beckons while the air is cool and calm and the sun cheerfully shines. But I feel confident in saying that many of the architects of the System(s), such as our man Wolf here, are not nefarious hatchers of sinister schemes, but men sincerely trying to solve obvious problems in rational and moral ways (as our Escape Artist author once noted). That such plans may go askew or come under the control of nefarious actors usually is not the architect's original design or intention. A tool may be used for good or ill depending on whose hand it's in. And even then I would think that "nefarious plotters" themselves usually imagine that their means, which may be ugly, are intended, in their minds, to bring about improved ends, given the crooked timber with which they have to work. Indeed, the crooked timber seems to be the main stumbling block. And not in the sense that a pure and virtuous majority are unaccountably co-opted by a tiny cabal of the wicked. No sir -- you and I seem to be the crooked timber. Seem to constitute that swamp of sin whose fetid miasmas feed this foul festering farrago of corruption. (Well, maybe not ME, my friends, but YOU, on the other hand...;-) However that may be thanks again to esc for another wonderfully interesting construction. I love the way you stack wood, man.
Absolute Historical brillence - one must supprt this site. Being 81 & change, am unwinding from some others, and will provide as I can. This openly spoken in thanks.
Something that ESC might think on in parallel to the articles, especially the Sumamry Report,
is the Vatican, was gaining wealth, with one foot in both families in the European Wars. The Vatican is one of the major funders ( along with out Tax dollars ) of the Muslim invasion as we see tand also emasculated Europe. This through the Catholic Charities. My cousin being an Episcopalian Priest, we no loner speak. AggregationFor those who are more sophisticated, here is bit of a Link on the History, ending with 1929, treaty and huge payout in land release: https://historyofchristianitypodcast.com/2025/05/10/the-vatican-a-history-of-the-worlds-smallest-state/#google_vignette
While this might not seem appropriate, this is not about the lay people but the Aggregation of massive wealth, the hidden History concerning humanity, and the ability to gain in an either or situation. That and the hidden link of Pedophilia within the Church, and seeming silence concerning Epstein - We must speak out without fear, as is our duty.
Be blessed all who are here, the material is monumental in exposing with specific and simple brilliance.
The permission to share works is of great value in this fight for survival.
To all, be blessed
Raven6 1965 - 1993 In Oath to Defend against Both Foreign & Domestic
The current state of "the cooperation of capital and labour" is that the Tech Bro's say everyone can get OpenClaw and have their own business. Same in China. The CCP has actively encouraged and subsidized citizens to form and operate “one-person companies” (OPCs, or yī rén gōngsī / 个体户-style solo enterprises) using agentic AI tools (Grok). "Labour" as a class is dead as a doornail.
Well I don't think labor as a class is dead yet - but it is migrating to the "public-private" model in the west, wherein government becomes the manager/investor and eventually controls the output of the enterprise.
Reading this excellent piece makes me realize that Wolf might not have been a bogyman. His ideas were sound, only that some grifters in the coulisses understood the power of it if engineered to benefit their greed. Without that it indeed could had benefit humanity.
this system ultimately strips any semblance of democratic principle. it's 'stakeholder capitalism' or whatever you want to call it, where the 'stakeholders' sitting in the clearinghouse are not elected, but are ultimately not in charge (those who synthesise the standard from the ethic quietly are).
Are you saying Algo authoritarianism? Because there seems to be a group that is particularly motivated in building, maintaining enforcing this system...
Well, I read the first 4 or 5 screen pages before giving up. The evidence as far as that was that Wolf was an anti-socialist reactionary. Take:
"The machine, he argues, is not the enemy of the worker but the instrument through which productivity gains are transmitted to workers through lower prices."
This is perverse. Productivity gains go to the capitalist. Any small surplus devoted to such other transmission is aimed not at benefitting workers, but at lubricating the wheels of exploitation.
And:
"Social reform — limiting child labour, restricting women’s factory work, reducing working hours — raises production costs. Any country that imposes such protections unilaterally disadvantages its own industry against countries that do not. Therefore social policy must be international."
This too is risible. So 'social reform' must wait until all countries are agreed on it - a counsel of impossibility.
This person Wolf is a reactionary capitalist apologist, and really, is beneath contempt. Billions of wasted pixels here.
the first objection - that productivity gains go to capitalists, not workers through lower prices - is completely wrong. Wolf's point that workers benefit through lower prices is one of the most empirically well-supported claims in economic history. consumer goods that took weeks of labour to afford in 1890 now cost hours.
incidentally - why did Marx want to monopolise credit and not money with the single state bank in plank 5?
This is the central and fundamental economic anchor in the Communist Manifesto:
"Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly".
The key aspects underlying this are the following:
- Take control of the financial system away from private bankers and concentrate it under government authority.
- Establishing a single, state-owned national bank that holds an exclusive monopoly on lending and credit creation.
- This was intended to allow the state to manage the economy and direct resources according to a common plan rather than market forces.
In modern interpretations, this plank (5) is associated with the creation of national central banks, such as the Federal Reserve System in the United States, which fulfills the goal of centralizing credit.
In historical perspective, bolshevism - and subsequent communism - which led to the USSR was an ideology (doomed to fail) to establish a centrally planned economy.
"The Gosbank (Russian: Госбанк, Государственный банк СССР, Gosudarstvenny bank SSSR—the State Bank of the USSR) was the central bank of the Soviet Union and the only bank in the entire country from 1922 to 1991.
Gosbank was one of the three Soviet economic authorities, the other two being "Gosplan" (the State Planning Committee) and "Gossnab" (the State Committee for Material Technical Supply). The Gosbank closely collaborated with the Soviet Ministry of Finance to prepare the national state budget."
Adjusted for the macroeconomic order, the Gosbank was an equivalent of the FED.
More relevant, because underexposed, were the large capital flows from and to the USSR.
he came in with a preconceived, marxist view, and this view will not be rocked because he cannot actually debate his belief. that his first point even is smashingly wrong per empirical evidence matter little, because it was marx who said so, and his word alone of course will suffice - and never mind marx per his own word 'stood hegel on his head'. that's not worthy of note, and certainly not suggestive of rampant inversionism throughout all of his writings. in short, if you accept marx's 'intent' on face value, then you already bought into the destination.
that this fundamentally is a pious, religious view is of course ironic.
i really do want him to answer this question, however
>incidentally - why did Marx want to monopolise credit and not money with the single state bank in plank 5?
i doubt he understands the difference, but if he did, he'd realise where i'm going with this. hence, the only 'safe' reply is to stay quiet.
Thanks for this clear history of the development of political economy in the 19th and 20th centuries, Esc.
I wonder if you have looked into the works of Thorstein Veblen, "America's coonskin cap economist". Veblen was very insightful as to workings of capital and production, and human motivations, but generally avoided being prescriptive.
Veblen had a subtle sense of humor, that many would miss on an attempted quick read.
To my mind there may be validity to the idea that international institutions are useful and needed, though there are two ways of going about "calibrating" them. One of which is beautifully deoncstructed by you, and which seems to be the default at the moment, namely the centralizing control freakery. The other way is something along the lines that the authors describe in this article: https://brownstone.org/articles/the-right-to-health-sovereignty/
"Measure success not by expansion of the IHO but by its progressive redundancy as national capacities mature."
(This is how I see good parenting and mentoring and coaching and any form of interpersonal enterprise as well, incidentally. True coaches and leaders (parents teachers and doctors etc.) the moment they start leading (or parenting teaching doctoring etc.) they seek to set their charges (followers children students patients etc.) free. . . of their limiting conditions, beliefs, and effete dependence on them. They seek to empower and liberate us all. . . by way of absenting themselves as our coaches and leaders and etc.)
The best approach to make sure the incentive structure doesn't morph into a self-seeking dynamic is presented in the article by brownstone. Would you agree?
the people who developed this structure NEVER told you they were doing it. consequently, you cannot trust this to have been done with your interest at heart.
they see what i see. but their conclusion is far off mine. i excavate the full, generalised structure. so do they. but their conclusion is an AG Huff'esque "don't fundamentally change anything underlying"
i did wonder how come brownstone in essence have completely ignored me, given their reputation of catering to the supposed dissident. this report appears to hint at a reason.
Been reading through a good number of your posts over the past few hours, really compelling stuff. Even as someone familiar with most of the names mentioned, Wolf is a new one for me. And of course, the meticulous sourcing is much appreciated.
I'd imagine you're familiar with Burnham and his "Managerial Revolution" specifically, have you detailed it in a post or do you have any quick thoughts?
Von Mises and Hayek were right. Centralization is the big bugaboo. The Controligarchs rightly saw that decentralization doesn’t scale, but the only way in which it doesn’t scale is the control aspect. And what they wanted more than anything else was control.
'in which the state would own essential utilities, banking, and large-scale industry, while small-scale production and agriculture remained in private hands under guild regulation.'
Which still equals the destruction of the home economy. Food production, heating, education and training etc...
Gee I loathe these useless pen pushing academic fat arse twats. Stay the fuck out of our business and everything will be fine.
I was waiting for it! Big thanks once again. (And yes, I shall upgrade to paid, I just have to find out how to avoid automatic recurring payment.)
I do this too. Substack is a mess in this regard. When Substack first started the 'subscription" auto-renew crap, I asked for an opt out button on the subscription page. They promised to put it in the development que. And that is right where it is today...
The ability to Auto-renew/Auto-update that started in the dark days of 2021 needs to be ended. It is a massive privacy violation and exposes the credit card owners to extreme risk when merchant processors, that they have no business relationship with, are given their private credit card details on the renewal of the card. BIG MISTAKE.
Save your money. This site is only for Neo-liberal wank-fests - but if that's what you like . . .
Yeah it’s probably not for followers of Marx’s critically flawed religion
Especially given pious Marx acolytes can never quite explain how the dictatorship will wither away apart from in broad, abstract terms. Probably because they are unwilling to accept that their dystopian hellhole simply migrates into infrastructure.
Accounting and control and all.
:)) I think I might have been in the first wave in early 2023 to start witching about forced renewals of my 22 subscriptions from 2021-22. Substack wasn't notifying me a week in advance because the platform is so beta...
I am very grateful to certain creators/authors and commenters out here though. Can't say any of them are neo-liberal or neo-con or neo-anything. They just have great information, statistics, links to their graphical work and more. Some of their commentors have teamed up with me to collate ways to detox the C19 injection, support or argue specific points about our horrific C19 reality, see what the nano to micro tech actually looks like in our bodies, consumer products, rainwater, and much more.
Check out this gal. I have developed a similar condition thanks to the contagiousness of the C19 injections. Not as severe. But listen to what she is saying and ponder the ramifications for the future...
04/12/26 [Short-Recorded in 2022??] CIRS - Chronic Inflammatory Response System - A human toxicity meter; she gets sick in seconds.
https://odysee.com/@CosmicEvent:5/A-young-woman-gets-sick-all-the-time-around-toxic-zombies-who-to:8?view=shorts
Very important point Geir. Please share when you work it out ?
So good to begin to become familiar with your work ESC.
Blessings from Aus.
From a systems perspective the lack of independent autonomous units operating in localised and self-regulated feedback loops creates fragility. This thing is gunna fall over.
Exactly! see Nassim Nicholas Taleb's books.
That swan is BLACK!!!
Your tracing of the architecture—from Wolf’s 1892 Brussels submission, through the German monetary tradition, into Funk’s wartime proposal, and finally into Keynes’s hands at Bretton Woods—struck me deeply. The fifty‑two‑year gap you highlight, the untraced transmission channels, and the migration of ideas across regimes and crises… it reveals something essential about how global governance actually formed.
To me, Julius Wolf emerges as a foundational figure not because of personal influence, but because his conceptual architecture became the template for a world run through unelected clearinghouses, standards, and compliance systems that ordinary people cannot meaningfully affect.
Reading your article, I felt again something I learned growing up in the Communist Bloc:
when intellectual structures detach from the productive, creative life of society, they begin to generate abstractions that justify their own authority.
Governance as a precondition, standards above governments — these are ideas that arise in cultures where “thought form” becomes separated from “creative thought,” where elites stop understanding the natural science embedded in family, community, and nation.
Your work made me reflect on where the Western world began its path toward self‑destruction. I am not an economist or an accountant — I am a mother and a curious observer — but what I see is this:
Usury and financialization created the need for harmonized standards, and those standards were shaped by people who no longer recognized the organic, human foundations of social order.
Real peace and real cooperation can only come from multiple standards, freely harmonized through collaboration between people and nations — not imposed from above by institutions that claim neutrality while exercising power.
Thank you for bringing this history to light. I read your article more carefully than I read almost anything, because understanding the origins of this architecture matters for understanding our present moment.
A fine overview of a fascinating topic... but, good grief man! -- do you never sleep? Thorough, and finely crafted, as always. Was not able to finish at one sitting. My wood splitter beckons while the air is cool and calm and the sun cheerfully shines. But I feel confident in saying that many of the architects of the System(s), such as our man Wolf here, are not nefarious hatchers of sinister schemes, but men sincerely trying to solve obvious problems in rational and moral ways (as our Escape Artist author once noted). That such plans may go askew or come under the control of nefarious actors usually is not the architect's original design or intention. A tool may be used for good or ill depending on whose hand it's in. And even then I would think that "nefarious plotters" themselves usually imagine that their means, which may be ugly, are intended, in their minds, to bring about improved ends, given the crooked timber with which they have to work. Indeed, the crooked timber seems to be the main stumbling block. And not in the sense that a pure and virtuous majority are unaccountably co-opted by a tiny cabal of the wicked. No sir -- you and I seem to be the crooked timber. Seem to constitute that swamp of sin whose fetid miasmas feed this foul festering farrago of corruption. (Well, maybe not ME, my friends, but YOU, on the other hand...;-) However that may be thanks again to esc for another wonderfully interesting construction. I love the way you stack wood, man.
Absolute Historical brillence - one must supprt this site. Being 81 & change, am unwinding from some others, and will provide as I can. This openly spoken in thanks.
Something that ESC might think on in parallel to the articles, especially the Sumamry Report,
is the Vatican, was gaining wealth, with one foot in both families in the European Wars. The Vatican is one of the major funders ( along with out Tax dollars ) of the Muslim invasion as we see tand also emasculated Europe. This through the Catholic Charities. My cousin being an Episcopalian Priest, we no loner speak. AggregationFor those who are more sophisticated, here is bit of a Link on the History, ending with 1929, treaty and huge payout in land release: https://historyofchristianitypodcast.com/2025/05/10/the-vatican-a-history-of-the-worlds-smallest-state/#google_vignette
While this might not seem appropriate, this is not about the lay people but the Aggregation of massive wealth, the hidden History concerning humanity, and the ability to gain in an either or situation. That and the hidden link of Pedophilia within the Church, and seeming silence concerning Epstein - We must speak out without fear, as is our duty.
Be blessed all who are here, the material is monumental in exposing with specific and simple brilliance.
The permission to share works is of great value in this fight for survival.
To all, be blessed
Raven6 1965 - 1993 In Oath to Defend against Both Foreign & Domestic
U.E.L.
S. of Rev.
The current state of "the cooperation of capital and labour" is that the Tech Bro's say everyone can get OpenClaw and have their own business. Same in China. The CCP has actively encouraged and subsidized citizens to form and operate “one-person companies” (OPCs, or yī rén gōngsī / 个体户-style solo enterprises) using agentic AI tools (Grok). "Labour" as a class is dead as a doornail.
Well I don't think labor as a class is dead yet - but it is migrating to the "public-private" model in the west, wherein government becomes the manager/investor and eventually controls the output of the enterprise.
A system under which labor has exactly zero rights.
Reading this excellent piece makes me realize that Wolf might not have been a bogyman. His ideas were sound, only that some grifters in the coulisses understood the power of it if engineered to benefit their greed. Without that it indeed could had benefit humanity.
this system ultimately strips any semblance of democratic principle. it's 'stakeholder capitalism' or whatever you want to call it, where the 'stakeholders' sitting in the clearinghouse are not elected, but are ultimately not in charge (those who synthesise the standard from the ethic quietly are).
this system leads to authoritarianism.
Are you saying Algo authoritarianism? Because there seems to be a group that is particularly motivated in building, maintaining enforcing this system...
What i meant, what if the "stakeholders" were really democratic representatives of humanity?
they never are, and even if they were, they don't affect the standards synthesised from the ethics
Another Caroll Quigley?
This is an amazingly well-sourced tour de force.
Rodney Atkinson
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/and-into-the-fire-rodney-atkinson/1116066469
and Into The Fire: Fascist Elements in Post War Europe and the Development of the EU
By Rodney Atkinson, Dorich William, Spalton Edward is well worth a read for those new to the subject. https://www.scribd.com/document/102198946/Germany-s-Four-Reichs-Harry-Beckhough
Europes New Fuhrer - Bletchley Park Codebreaker Harry Beckhough https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S69KsyL4otg
Well, I read the first 4 or 5 screen pages before giving up. The evidence as far as that was that Wolf was an anti-socialist reactionary. Take:
"The machine, he argues, is not the enemy of the worker but the instrument through which productivity gains are transmitted to workers through lower prices."
This is perverse. Productivity gains go to the capitalist. Any small surplus devoted to such other transmission is aimed not at benefitting workers, but at lubricating the wheels of exploitation.
And:
"Social reform — limiting child labour, restricting women’s factory work, reducing working hours — raises production costs. Any country that imposes such protections unilaterally disadvantages its own industry against countries that do not. Therefore social policy must be international."
This too is risible. So 'social reform' must wait until all countries are agreed on it - a counsel of impossibility.
This person Wolf is a reactionary capitalist apologist, and really, is beneath contempt. Billions of wasted pixels here.
You sound like a raging Marxist.
Here’s something else you should feel free to ignore
https://escapekey.substack.com/p/the-withering-away-of-karl-marx?utm_source=publication-search
But you don't seem able to defend the two examples of idiocy that I gave above. No point in my reading more of the same kind of trash, sorry.
haha, but you're completely wrong!
the first objection - that productivity gains go to capitalists, not workers through lower prices - is completely wrong. Wolf's point that workers benefit through lower prices is one of the most empirically well-supported claims in economic history. consumer goods that took weeks of labour to afford in 1890 now cost hours.
incidentally - why did Marx want to monopolise credit and not money with the single state bank in plank 5?
It seems you miss (or ignore) the bigger picture.
This is the central and fundamental economic anchor in the Communist Manifesto:
"Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly".
The key aspects underlying this are the following:
- Take control of the financial system away from private bankers and concentrate it under government authority.
- Establishing a single, state-owned national bank that holds an exclusive monopoly on lending and credit creation.
- This was intended to allow the state to manage the economy and direct resources according to a common plan rather than market forces.
In modern interpretations, this plank (5) is associated with the creation of national central banks, such as the Federal Reserve System in the United States, which fulfills the goal of centralizing credit.
In historical perspective, bolshevism - and subsequent communism - which led to the USSR was an ideology (doomed to fail) to establish a centrally planned economy.
"The Gosbank (Russian: Госбанк, Государственный банк СССР, Gosudarstvenny bank SSSR—the State Bank of the USSR) was the central bank of the Soviet Union and the only bank in the entire country from 1922 to 1991.
Gosbank was one of the three Soviet economic authorities, the other two being "Gosplan" (the State Planning Committee) and "Gossnab" (the State Committee for Material Technical Supply). The Gosbank closely collaborated with the Soviet Ministry of Finance to prepare the national state budget."
Adjusted for the macroeconomic order, the Gosbank was an equivalent of the FED.
More relevant, because underexposed, were the large capital flows from and to the USSR.
don't waste your time.
he came in with a preconceived, marxist view, and this view will not be rocked because he cannot actually debate his belief. that his first point even is smashingly wrong per empirical evidence matter little, because it was marx who said so, and his word alone of course will suffice - and never mind marx per his own word 'stood hegel on his head'. that's not worthy of note, and certainly not suggestive of rampant inversionism throughout all of his writings. in short, if you accept marx's 'intent' on face value, then you already bought into the destination.
that this fundamentally is a pious, religious view is of course ironic.
i really do want him to answer this question, however
>incidentally - why did Marx want to monopolise credit and not money with the single state bank in plank 5?
i doubt he understands the difference, but if he did, he'd realise where i'm going with this. hence, the only 'safe' reply is to stay quiet.
Indeed, this is probably just another case of cognitive dissonance in the context of ideology.
Thanks for this clear history of the development of political economy in the 19th and 20th centuries, Esc.
I wonder if you have looked into the works of Thorstein Veblen, "America's coonskin cap economist". Veblen was very insightful as to workings of capital and production, and human motivations, but generally avoided being prescriptive.
Veblen had a subtle sense of humor, that many would miss on an attempted quick read.
What did Wolf think of Rudolf Steiner and Dreigliederung der sozialen Organusmus?
To my mind there may be validity to the idea that international institutions are useful and needed, though there are two ways of going about "calibrating" them. One of which is beautifully deoncstructed by you, and which seems to be the default at the moment, namely the centralizing control freakery. The other way is something along the lines that the authors describe in this article: https://brownstone.org/articles/the-right-to-health-sovereignty/
"Measure success not by expansion of the IHO but by its progressive redundancy as national capacities mature."
(This is how I see good parenting and mentoring and coaching and any form of interpersonal enterprise as well, incidentally. True coaches and leaders (parents teachers and doctors etc.) the moment they start leading (or parenting teaching doctoring etc.) they seek to set their charges (followers children students patients etc.) free. . . of their limiting conditions, beliefs, and effete dependence on them. They seek to empower and liberate us all. . . by way of absenting themselves as our coaches and leaders and etc.)
The best approach to make sure the incentive structure doesn't morph into a self-seeking dynamic is presented in the article by brownstone. Would you agree?
the premise is easily shot down.
the people who developed this structure NEVER told you they were doing it. consequently, you cannot trust this to have been done with your interest at heart.
that report... troubles me.
they see what i see. but their conclusion is far off mine. i excavate the full, generalised structure. so do they. but their conclusion is an AG Huff'esque "don't fundamentally change anything underlying"
i did wonder how come brownstone in essence have completely ignored me, given their reputation of catering to the supposed dissident. this report appears to hint at a reason.
https://escapekey.substack.com/p/iso
Been reading through a good number of your posts over the past few hours, really compelling stuff. Even as someone familiar with most of the names mentioned, Wolf is a new one for me. And of course, the meticulous sourcing is much appreciated.
I'd imagine you're familiar with Burnham and his "Managerial Revolution" specifically, have you detailed it in a post or do you have any quick thoughts?