I largely agree with your argument as presented, Peter, with the (small?) exception that the market on which capital is being sought has long had governments "interfere", creating artificially steady influx (in form of retirement accounts being limited to certain classes of assets). In my mind not dissimilar to the higher education system "benefitting" (growing artificially) due to cultural messaging around "everybody needs a college degree," IRA brokers and associated parts of the finance economy have grown as everyone needs a "portfolio management team." So, I can see how a lot of "main street" people have had some valid reason to grow suspicious of the actual value produced by the "capital market"... (just as higher education value of several tens of thousands of dollars per year stands in question).
Government distortions are their own matter, and libertarians (and liberty lovers in general, labels notwithstanding) oppose (or should I say "should") oppose them. Cronyism (I reject "crony capitalism" as an oxymoron) or corporatism if you prefer is its own problem and creates its own problems.
And, yes, all the messaging you refer to creates suspicion. But the deviousness of the agitprop creators is that they misdirect blame at capitalism and liberty, rather than at government and distortions.
As for higher education? Charlie Kirk had the right of it. Higher education has become a racket. Obviously, professional fields (STEM, legal, etc) require tertiary education, but even there, I now question why I was required to take 24 credits of humanities and social sciences to complete my engineering degree.
Obviously, there is a place for such education, but with government money involved, the distortions are huge, and countless people end up getting useless degrees that saddle them with debt.
But, again, the blame is misdirected. The misdirection is the problem.
Very much agreed on agitprop being a problem (of misdirection). I do, however, sense that a solution to that problem must involve the people who create the attack surface (justified experience of unfair lobbying by capital over labor). So long as they believe that they can get away with the shenanigans, the people who do not have as much time and interest to look in the causes as you do will simply accept the culprit presented by agitprop as valid and real.
But, lobbying and agitprop are two different things. Lobbyists for labor are playing the same game as lobbyists for capital. The agitprop crowd are trying to tear down the entire system and trojan-horse a command economy in its place, and using the "useful idiot" approach to do so. Cronyism is bad, but the socialist alternative is worse.
What are the steps you have tried to get your blog in front of eyeballs that, in your own model of who needs to make some changes, would matter most...?
That's the hardest part of blogging. I put it out on social media, share links wherever I can, offer links as rebuttals, and hope people notice. And share.
In a deluge of information, it's hard to catch eyeballs.
I largely agree with your argument as presented, Peter, with the (small?) exception that the market on which capital is being sought has long had governments "interfere", creating artificially steady influx (in form of retirement accounts being limited to certain classes of assets). In my mind not dissimilar to the higher education system "benefitting" (growing artificially) due to cultural messaging around "everybody needs a college degree," IRA brokers and associated parts of the finance economy have grown as everyone needs a "portfolio management team." So, I can see how a lot of "main street" people have had some valid reason to grow suspicious of the actual value produced by the "capital market"... (just as higher education value of several tens of thousands of dollars per year stands in question).
Government distortions are their own matter, and libertarians (and liberty lovers in general, labels notwithstanding) oppose (or should I say "should") oppose them. Cronyism (I reject "crony capitalism" as an oxymoron) or corporatism if you prefer is its own problem and creates its own problems.
And, yes, all the messaging you refer to creates suspicion. But the deviousness of the agitprop creators is that they misdirect blame at capitalism and liberty, rather than at government and distortions.
As for higher education? Charlie Kirk had the right of it. Higher education has become a racket. Obviously, professional fields (STEM, legal, etc) require tertiary education, but even there, I now question why I was required to take 24 credits of humanities and social sciences to complete my engineering degree.
Obviously, there is a place for such education, but with government money involved, the distortions are huge, and countless people end up getting useless degrees that saddle them with debt.
But, again, the blame is misdirected. The misdirection is the problem.
Very much agreed on agitprop being a problem (of misdirection). I do, however, sense that a solution to that problem must involve the people who create the attack surface (justified experience of unfair lobbying by capital over labor). So long as they believe that they can get away with the shenanigans, the people who do not have as much time and interest to look in the causes as you do will simply accept the culprit presented by agitprop as valid and real.
This is why I blog.
But, lobbying and agitprop are two different things. Lobbyists for labor are playing the same game as lobbyists for capital. The agitprop crowd are trying to tear down the entire system and trojan-horse a command economy in its place, and using the "useful idiot" approach to do so. Cronyism is bad, but the socialist alternative is worse.
What are the steps you have tried to get your blog in front of eyeballs that, in your own model of who needs to make some changes, would matter most...?
That's the hardest part of blogging. I put it out on social media, share links wherever I can, offer links as rebuttals, and hope people notice. And share.
In a deluge of information, it's hard to catch eyeballs.