Nathan Pinkoski on the state/society fusion; Matt Levine on Michael Saylor; Alberto Mingardi on media and democracy; Aaron Renn on the decline of local business leadership
I was wondering that too. Microstrategy was in the same building as the company I worked for in 2000. I would never have imagined they'd still be around in 2024.
2021 might be reasonable though. The stock shot up from the $20s to over $100 in early 2021, then fell back to the $20s for the next three years.
So basically, this isn't Saylor's first rodeo. It's mystifying that he's gotten so many opportunities.
For mid & long term financial & business health, lots of locally owned & controlled businesses are better.
The real but small efficiency gains, short term, by promoting interstate banking have been partly to blame for the dot.com bubble and more to blame for the 2008 financial crisis.
The USA would be better going back to such restrictions, because the current regime of regs does not allow the “market” to do so in the short or mid-term.
Speculative idea: support creation of new, limited state banking banks, with little regulation except a 20% capital equity requirement, and $250k max deposit insurance, and no interstate banking. Primarily for local in state loan making.
Let's broaden the idea. I regret that the USA has become one homogeneous market, even if the size and growth has probably enabled our wealth and innovation. If we wanted to let the States go back to competing on important differences, what laws would we change?
I don't want tariffs between states, but maybe it's okay to have product regulations vary. I want people to be able to leave any state, but how does that play with non-citizens? Are the 50 different insurance companies really helpful?
Having done a short stint in St. Louis City government back in the 70’s, the Renn article and Dr. Klings comments were most interesting and thought provoking.
The St. Louis that I remember was one of important families like the Danforths of Ralston Purina fortune (acquired by Nestlé in 2001). John Danforth may still own a chunk of the Blues hockey team. He is said to have 15 grandchildren several of whom apparently still reside in the St. Louis area. Longtime Washington University bigwig William Danforth had 4 children whom I am told also reside in St. Louis.
The largest company in St. Louis today is apparently Centene (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centene_Corporation ) which seems to primarily be a federal government contractor processing claims for many of the dozens of federal health care programs. It was notably helmed in recent years by Michael Neidorff (https://www.centene.com/michael-neidorff-obituary.html ) who was quite active philanthropically and committed to St. Louis civic affairs and culture but only fathered two children neither of whom have much of a public profile. However, he and his wife created the Michael and Noemi Neidorff Family Foundation (https://soundhealthandlastingwealth.com/noemi-neidorff/ ) and she is apparently still active in
I really have no idea of how many have St. Louis connections but am curious about their role in the local philanthropy scene but surfing around a bit it seems as if federal grant awards are now much more important than private philanthropy. Maybe the decline in numbers of publicly traded corporations and increasingly private firm ownership reduces the prominence of certain civic elites?
The Taylor family of privately held and St. Louis-based Enterprise Holdings is the closest I can come to finding something similar to the Danforth family. And there is plenty of evidence that they are indeed an elite and philanthropically active family. (https://www.kippstl.org/apps/news/show_news.jsp?REC_ID=358226&id=0 ). One wonders if the Taylor family intentionally maintains a somewhat low profile or whether they are just simply not recognized as fully as they ought to be?
This triggers a couple of questions. Could the apparent dearth of civic elites be due to smaller family size? If there are not many children to carry on the family name and tradition, perhaps the family prominence declines? And how might the rise of private family foundations as a tax planning device contributed to the decline of civic elite traditions? The Tax Reform Act of 1969 and the Revenue Act of 1978 introduced tax incentives for private foundations, including the exemption from income tax and estate tax benefits. Has the ability of the children of prominent families to carry on a family role in the civic elite been inhibited? And for that matter, does it seem as if the word “philanthropist” itself has declined significantly in common usage? (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=philanthropist&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 )
Also interesting and perhaps related is how cities used to be laboratories of progress. For example we read of Bernard Dickman, mayor from 1933 – 1941 and WWI Marine gunnery sergeant as well as three time Exalted Ruler of the St. Louis Elks Lodge:
“Mayor Dickman’s biggest challenge was likely the smoke problem in the City. For many years St. Louis had been attempting to clear its atmosphere of smoke. The Smoke ordinance, creating the Division of Smoke Regulation in the Department of Public Safety, became effective in February of 1937. By 1941, representatives from eighty-three cities in 31 states, the District of Columbia, and Canada, had come to St. Louis to learn about the ordinance and its application.”
With the death of federalism and central control of nearly every aspect of day to day life being exercised out of Washington DC, there are far fewer opportunities for local people to do good.
Regarding that last point: San Francisco, LA, NYC, and Chicago have plenty of corporate headquarters but none seems like a model of good governance. Maybe Renn is correct that there's too much groupthink among this set, but it's also worth considering other factors, like how the nature of a lot of the biggest companies these days doesn't really tie them to any particular locale. EG, Pittsburgh became hub for steel production due to the abundance of coal, natural gas, and navigable rivers in the area. What really ties Twitter to San Francisco, though? So maybe it's just not worth picking fights with local politicians or interest groups anymore.
My observation is that American members of that global elite are perfectly happy for American cities that grew cancerously in the 20th century, to remain Dodge Cities forever, unlike the places where they themselves live.
And any contention that those cities were once trying to civilize, with what local elite they were blessed with - often about half Yankee - is met with patronizing denial.
The rapid growth of these places makes it easy for libertarians to pretend that disorder was essential to their prosperity, and must continue to be so.
A sweet gentleman I met once described to me how his grandparents were barely subsisting, presumably trying to do something with cows or sheep or most probably goats in an improbable and godforsaken spot, probably indeed already ruined by the goats of others, when oil was discovered in the Yates Field.
Within a few years, he and his grandmother accepted an invitation to the coronation of the Queen. True rags to riches.
I'm happy he got to go. He had a sensitive nature - this was obvious on brief acquaintance - and the experience was certainly not wasted on him.
I have something of the populist in me, temperamentally, and I find this little anecdote stands in for me, for the idea that some people and places get culture, are thought to deserve culture, beauty, values beyond the dollar - while others are expected to be content with worshipping money, and be led by money. It's the thought of that cynical invitation, I guess.
The global elite would never live in the places they claim to admire, and want more of, and above all where they want no elite such as themselves, to be permitted to develop.
I live in a state that, despite its mythos as a near-country, has been for most of its history something closer to a colony, to use the word used in one of the links.
And note, I have been everywhere that guy walked, but in the late 90s and early 00s- the decay and loss of commercial vibrancy is astonishing and depressing. And also note that he didn't veer away from the main downtown streets where the city government still pushes out the vagrants which can be found just a few blocks off of his route.
Not what I was expecting but still prompted some thoughts.
How do views of local and global elites differ? I guess that depends a little on how you define elites but local and national interests seem to differ on online vs local retailing, crime prevention, housing restrictions, and homeless. Other than online retailing with inevitable impacts, the bad influence of outside elites isn't at all clear to me. If anything less so after watching the video.
Is 2020 perhaps supposed to be 2000? (For the dotcom bubble.)
Some typos are more annoying than others! That one caused me to start the paragraph over.
I was wondering that too. Microstrategy was in the same building as the company I worked for in 2000. I would never have imagined they'd still be around in 2024.
2021 might be reasonable though. The stock shot up from the $20s to over $100 in early 2021, then fell back to the $20s for the next three years.
So basically, this isn't Saylor's first rodeo. It's mystifying that he's gotten so many opportunities.
For mid & long term financial & business health, lots of locally owned & controlled businesses are better.
The real but small efficiency gains, short term, by promoting interstate banking have been partly to blame for the dot.com bubble and more to blame for the 2008 financial crisis.
The USA would be better going back to such restrictions, because the current regime of regs does not allow the “market” to do so in the short or mid-term.
Speculative idea: support creation of new, limited state banking banks, with little regulation except a 20% capital equity requirement, and $250k max deposit insurance, and no interstate banking. Primarily for local in state loan making.
Let's broaden the idea. I regret that the USA has become one homogeneous market, even if the size and growth has probably enabled our wealth and innovation. If we wanted to let the States go back to competing on important differences, what laws would we change?
I don't want tariffs between states, but maybe it's okay to have product regulations vary. I want people to be able to leave any state, but how does that play with non-citizens? Are the 50 different insurance companies really helpful?
Let's make the list.
What regulation would that exclude? Audits and solvency? Non-discrimination? Worker rights? Construction and zoning?
IDK but 20% capital sounds really high. What is required for banks today?
I’d like to hear more about the local elites thing and its effects in the context of economic and libertarian arguments for global free trade.
Renn is applying the 'Anywheres' vs 'Somewheres' debate to people with high income/high status.
You had me at “buy Bitcoin”. Bitcoin by itself is a short on all this other nonsense.
Or Bitcoin is the best example of the nonsense.
Having done a short stint in St. Louis City government back in the 70’s, the Renn article and Dr. Klings comments were most interesting and thought provoking.
The St. Louis that I remember was one of important families like the Danforths of Ralston Purina fortune (acquired by Nestlé in 2001). John Danforth may still own a chunk of the Blues hockey team. He is said to have 15 grandchildren several of whom apparently still reside in the St. Louis area. Longtime Washington University bigwig William Danforth had 4 children whom I am told also reside in St. Louis.
The largest company in St. Louis today is apparently Centene (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centene_Corporation ) which seems to primarily be a federal government contractor processing claims for many of the dozens of federal health care programs. It was notably helmed in recent years by Michael Neidorff (https://www.centene.com/michael-neidorff-obituary.html ) who was quite active philanthropically and committed to St. Louis civic affairs and culture but only fathered two children neither of whom have much of a public profile. However, he and his wife created the Michael and Noemi Neidorff Family Foundation (https://soundhealthandlastingwealth.com/noemi-neidorff/ ) and she is apparently still active in
charitable services in the area. Looking at a list of St. Louis Fortune 1000 firms ( https://greaterstlinc.com/doing-business/headquarters )
I really have no idea of how many have St. Louis connections but am curious about their role in the local philanthropy scene but surfing around a bit it seems as if federal grant awards are now much more important than private philanthropy. Maybe the decline in numbers of publicly traded corporations and increasingly private firm ownership reduces the prominence of certain civic elites?
The Taylor family of privately held and St. Louis-based Enterprise Holdings is the closest I can come to finding something similar to the Danforth family. And there is plenty of evidence that they are indeed an elite and philanthropically active family. (https://www.kippstl.org/apps/news/show_news.jsp?REC_ID=358226&id=0 ). One wonders if the Taylor family intentionally maintains a somewhat low profile or whether they are just simply not recognized as fully as they ought to be?
This triggers a couple of questions. Could the apparent dearth of civic elites be due to smaller family size? If there are not many children to carry on the family name and tradition, perhaps the family prominence declines? And how might the rise of private family foundations as a tax planning device contributed to the decline of civic elite traditions? The Tax Reform Act of 1969 and the Revenue Act of 1978 introduced tax incentives for private foundations, including the exemption from income tax and estate tax benefits. Has the ability of the children of prominent families to carry on a family role in the civic elite been inhibited? And for that matter, does it seem as if the word “philanthropist” itself has declined significantly in common usage? (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=philanthropist&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 )
Such questions instigated a quick review of the mayors of St. Louis (https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/about/stlouis-mayors.cfm - the short biographies linked to here are immensely interesting). Interestingly lawyers didn’t start showing up frequently until recent decades. Many of the mayors in the first half of the 20th century came from humble origins working as apprentices, serving as enlisted men, making their money in construction) Also of possible interest were the number of sons who went into business with their fathers, particularly real estate development, and then becoming mayors ( street car business: https://dynamic.stlouis-mo.gov/history/peopledetail.cfm?Master_ID=979m ; brick laying: https://dynamic.stlouis-mo.gov/history/peopledetail.cfm?Master_ID=981 ; real estate: https://dynamic.stlouis-mo.gov/history/peopledetail.cfm?Master_ID=983 ; real estate: https://dynamic.stlouis-mo.gov/history/peopledetail.cfm?Master_ID=986 ).
Also interesting and perhaps related is how cities used to be laboratories of progress. For example we read of Bernard Dickman, mayor from 1933 – 1941 and WWI Marine gunnery sergeant as well as three time Exalted Ruler of the St. Louis Elks Lodge:
“Mayor Dickman’s biggest challenge was likely the smoke problem in the City. For many years St. Louis had been attempting to clear its atmosphere of smoke. The Smoke ordinance, creating the Division of Smoke Regulation in the Department of Public Safety, became effective in February of 1937. By 1941, representatives from eighty-three cities in 31 states, the District of Columbia, and Canada, had come to St. Louis to learn about the ordinance and its application.”
(https://dynamic.stlouis-mo.gov/history/peopledetail.cfm?Master_ID=983 ).
With the death of federalism and central control of nearly every aspect of day to day life being exercised out of Washington DC, there are far fewer opportunities for local people to do good.
Regarding that last point: San Francisco, LA, NYC, and Chicago have plenty of corporate headquarters but none seems like a model of good governance. Maybe Renn is correct that there's too much groupthink among this set, but it's also worth considering other factors, like how the nature of a lot of the biggest companies these days doesn't really tie them to any particular locale. EG, Pittsburgh became hub for steel production due to the abundance of coal, natural gas, and navigable rivers in the area. What really ties Twitter to San Francisco, though? So maybe it's just not worth picking fights with local politicians or interest groups anymore.
"Now there are only a handful of major banks in the entire country, and they do not have the same stake in local economies."
Maybe that's a good reason to limit interstate banking. Of course there are reasons in the other direction such as the inefficiency you point out.
What about smaller govt and not thinking we are smarter than the markets?
"Limited government means it is not only the voters’ cognitive abilities that are limited, "
Mingardi doesn't seem decipherable to me. Parts seemed like word salad but this one simply makes no sense to me.
Renn is right, but in practice, how much do the interests of the city diverge from those of global elites?
My observation is that American members of that global elite are perfectly happy for American cities that grew cancerously in the 20th century, to remain Dodge Cities forever, unlike the places where they themselves live.
And any contention that those cities were once trying to civilize, with what local elite they were blessed with - often about half Yankee - is met with patronizing denial.
The rapid growth of these places makes it easy for libertarians to pretend that disorder was essential to their prosperity, and must continue to be so.
A sweet gentleman I met once described to me how his grandparents were barely subsisting, presumably trying to do something with cows or sheep or most probably goats in an improbable and godforsaken spot, probably indeed already ruined by the goats of others, when oil was discovered in the Yates Field.
Within a few years, he and his grandmother accepted an invitation to the coronation of the Queen. True rags to riches.
I'm happy he got to go. He had a sensitive nature - this was obvious on brief acquaintance - and the experience was certainly not wasted on him.
I have something of the populist in me, temperamentally, and I find this little anecdote stands in for me, for the idea that some people and places get culture, are thought to deserve culture, beauty, values beyond the dollar - while others are expected to be content with worshipping money, and be led by money. It's the thought of that cynical invitation, I guess.
The global elite would never live in the places they claim to admire, and want more of, and above all where they want no elite such as themselves, to be permitted to develop.
I couldn't decipher your previous post. I got this one until the last paragraph. Where are these places?
I live in a state that, despite its mythos as a near-country, has been for most of its history something closer to a colony, to use the word used in one of the links.
But where?
I.e., Texas.
I get they might admire cowboys. If I understand who we are talking about I can't see them admiring Texas independence or anything about Texas today.
Looking around at the cities in their present state, I would say completely.
Can you explain or provide a source?
You can start right here, Stu: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySoSwmHga_8
And note, I have been everywhere that guy walked, but in the late 90s and early 00s- the decay and loss of commercial vibrancy is astonishing and depressing. And also note that he didn't veer away from the main downtown streets where the city government still pushes out the vagrants which can be found just a few blocks off of his route.
Not what I was expecting but still prompted some thoughts.
How do views of local and global elites differ? I guess that depends a little on how you define elites but local and national interests seem to differ on online vs local retailing, crime prevention, housing restrictions, and homeless. Other than online retailing with inevitable impacts, the bad influence of outside elites isn't at all clear to me. If anything less so after watching the video.