"I wouldn't deny that there is something fun about entertainment." Very sagacious Nicholas.
The point about the "first born son" management is interesting. It seems that feudalism was essentially the strategy of favoring inter-generational stability over competent leadership, and liberalism is the strategy of favoring competence over familial nepotism. This ends up being a much more dynamic and successful system. You could argue that having some sort of monarchy at the head of state with a bunch of meritocratic managers underneath is much less bad than the reverse (elected president, but hereditary middle-management) because the sum total of middle management decisions is more impactful in terms of competence than the decisions of the monarch. Hence why Britain's monarchy hasn't been terrible in terms of allowing the country to liberalize, but a country like Germany, where capital ownership was much more hereditarian, took longer.
In England, Henry VIII opened up land ownership in 1536, whereas in Germany, it was the princes who led the Lutheran revolution in order to gain *more* localist power. Protestantism was more liberalizing in England than in Germany -- which is part of the reason why Northern Germany was never the economic center of the country.
This is also part of why Prussia did better than the rest of northern Germany -- absolutism from the top decreased the power of the nobility and allowed for more meritocratic middle management. Where the monarch was weak (HRE), you had more entrenched nobility.
It was too funny watching him trample all over the oh-so-deeply held & strongly expressed beliefs about whether it is right to raise funds off of his newfangled notoriety like an hour after the podcast ended
Richard Hanania meets Richard Hanania
"I wouldn't deny that there is something fun about entertainment." Very sagacious Nicholas.
The point about the "first born son" management is interesting. It seems that feudalism was essentially the strategy of favoring inter-generational stability over competent leadership, and liberalism is the strategy of favoring competence over familial nepotism. This ends up being a much more dynamic and successful system. You could argue that having some sort of monarchy at the head of state with a bunch of meritocratic managers underneath is much less bad than the reverse (elected president, but hereditary middle-management) because the sum total of middle management decisions is more impactful in terms of competence than the decisions of the monarch. Hence why Britain's monarchy hasn't been terrible in terms of allowing the country to liberalize, but a country like Germany, where capital ownership was much more hereditarian, took longer.
In England, Henry VIII opened up land ownership in 1536, whereas in Germany, it was the princes who led the Lutheran revolution in order to gain *more* localist power. Protestantism was more liberalizing in England than in Germany -- which is part of the reason why Northern Germany was never the economic center of the country.
This is also part of why Prussia did better than the rest of northern Germany -- absolutism from the top decreased the power of the nobility and allowed for more meritocratic middle management. Where the monarch was weak (HRE), you had more entrenched nobility.
But congrats on the exposure with a big league Substacker. :)
It was too funny watching him trample all over the oh-so-deeply held & strongly expressed beliefs about whether it is right to raise funds off of his newfangled notoriety like an hour after the podcast ended
He’s donating half of it.
Well he actually donated all of it
Your Gofundme not exactly doing Karmelo numbers huh
I fee the same way about economics podcasts. Could you do a more substantive summary?