Here:
When ever I read some advocacy for distributism, I’m invariably reminded of this passage in P.G. Wodehouse:
“Bingo,” I cried deeply moved, “you must act. You must assert yourself. You must put your foot down. You must take a strong stand. You must be master in the home.”
He looked at me a long strange look.
“You aren’t married, are you , Bertie?”
“You know I’m not.”
“ I should have guessed it anyway”
In similar manner the advocates of distributism do their worst to likewise make that economic system look as impractical and as absurd as possible to anyone with any practical experience who is actually making a living in the manner distributism advocates go all misty eyed over.
Of which Thomas Storck’s latest article in the Distributist Review is a classic example. Staying on its primary subject the article is correct and makes a number of good points, but when it strays into economics it is so far from reality that one can only wonder in astonished disbelief if he actually knows anyone down on the street who is actually making a living supporting a family with his hands, because it’s not the buying “unnecessary things or just plain junk” that keeps them working more than two hours a day.
Or working more than four hours per day. Or working more than eight hours per day. What is typically being purchased those eight working hours per day is hand to mouth survival, with dentist bills and the like eating up all the excess.
Not that the distributists are alone, in fact one of the most disheartening problems I find online is that virtually all commentators on economic and social issues are Never actually out working in the private sector earning their daily bread from hand to mouth. Of which the libs, and libertarians are by far the most egregious. And if it wasn’t so uncharitable, I would wish nothing better for them than they be forced to live by the principles and solutions they so charitably would force upon my family.
In contrast, the distributists at least are advocating a good economic solution, but unfortunately combine it with romantic and impractical nonsense.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thank you very much for posting this.
ReplyDeleteIt's a pleasure.
ReplyDeleteGood points, although in defense of distributism, John Médaille’s work has done much to update the theory to the point where I think it can hold its own against most other modern theories of political economy.
ReplyDeleteDear Mr. Linday:
ReplyDeleteI can only think that you have misconstrued my article, "Buy Junk or Starve." My main point was that the U.S. economy depends upon people buying things they do not need, much of which is simply junk. You need merely walk through a mall here in the U.S. to see that. The recession has limited people's discretionary spending, and as you rightly point out, many are struggling to simply make ends meet. But our economy is structured such that simply spending on the essentials is not enough to keep the "engine of growth" humming along. Therefore we have the dilemma I suggested in my title.
My example of people working more than two hours to produce and buy junk was simply an example to make a point, and I began it by saying, "If mankind could..." If you look at it I think you will see that I was not describing the actual economic situation in any way in that example.
I do not usually respond to negative comments about my writing made on other sites, but judging from your profile you seemed to be a fair-minded person. Thus I am hoping that you will take another look at what I actually said and perhaps revise your comments.
They are not mine. This article is from another site and is reproduced here in order to encourage the debate to which you are such a welcome contributor. Why that site's author calls himself "love the girls", I have no idea. Probably better not to ask.
ReplyDeleteOK, that was not clear to me. And I notice I spelled your name wrong. Sorry.
ReplyDeleteOh, I'm very used to that. One of my brothers lives in Scotland, where my father came from and where Lindsay is a common name, and he says that one of the most noticeable things is that no one has any trouble spelling it.
ReplyDeletePlease note that it is Mr. Storck who asks if two hours was sufficient. And uses eight hours solely to describe an allotment of time which could only mean purchasing junk.
ReplyDeleteI in turn even doubled that two hours to four hours, both absurdly low numbers, that it's assumed Mr. Storck considers realistic and more so because of the doubling. And if Mr. Storck wants to "make a point", points are much better made with realistic numbers.
It is further worth noting, that Mr. Storck did not revise his numbers, thus the 'if' is not an 'if' as if the numbers were wrong and unrealistic, but the if of a proposition that Mr. Storck considers realistic.
It is further worth noting that in the past Mr. Storck has likewise proposed in Caelum et Terra that subsidiarity calls on us to use horses and buggies when traveling distances too far to walk but not sufficiently long to require a car. An article which likewise called to mind when I read it of Bingo's response to Bertie Wooster.
David Lindsay writes : "Why that site's author calls himself "love the girls", I have no idea. Probably better not to ask."
ReplyDeleteSince you do ask. Solely for the mirth of it. I liked it when I first heard of it being used by someone on an online video game site. Jansenists and libs. often throw fits over it, albeit not for the same reason. Which likewise enhances its entertainment value.
Since Thomas Storck mistakenly posted a response to my post here on David Lindsay's blog thinking David Lindsay wrote it, I think it's only fair to Mr. Storck to help him out by putting his response to my post where he would have intended it, on my blog.
ReplyDeletebtw, what Mr. Storck really should have apologized for was mistaking the writings of some architect-carpenter for those of David Lindsay's, a far greater offense than misspelling his name.