The Myth of Main Street

doghouse

King Of The Elite Idiots
Messages
12,430
https://nyti.ms/2nWnaIc

This is one of the most important articles you can read this year.

The Myth of Main Street
Don’t listen to President Trump. Going back to the good old days will cost us

The frustrations that fuel the nostalgia for Main Street are understandable — and longstanding. From the beginning of our country’s history, rural and small-town Americans have been on the losing side of a rising market economy. You can draw a straight line from the Jeffersonians in the late 18th century to the agrarian populists in the late 19th century to Mr. Trump’s voters, all of whom have felt that the city hornswoggled the country. The rage that arose in the 1880s, as rural incomes fell and farm mortgages defaulted while city bankers got rich, does not feel so distant today. But nostalgia for Main Street is misplaced — and costly. Small stores are inefficient. Local manufacturers, lacking access to economies of scale, usually are inefficient as well. To live in that kind of world is expensive.
  • This nostalgia, like the frustration that underlies it, has a long and instructive history. Years before deindustrialization, years before Nafta, Americans were yearning for a Main Street that never quite existed.

    For a few decades in the 19th century, Main Street store owners were a viable engine of American economic growth, selling to local residents and people in surrounding rural areas. But that hasn’t been the case ever since. In the 1920s, a new and more efficient kind of retail emerged, the chain store, which sealed Main Street’s decline. Main Street retailers had been under assault for decades from national mail-order catalogs like Sears, Roebuck, but it was the chain store, typified by A. & P. and Woolworth’s, that vanquished small-town commerce. These stores, buying in volume, could offer low prices that local shops couldn’t match. National manufacturers, through chain stores, delivered goods that were cheaper than ever before. Small-town manufacturing and retail looked like a thing of the past.

    A political uproar ensued. The fight to save Main Street, then as now, was less about the price of goods gained than the cost of autonomy lost. Perhaps the most passionate defender of Main Street was William K. Henderson, the owner and operator of the radio station KWKH in Shreveport, La., and a forerunner of political personalities like Rush Limbaugh. He inveighed against the “ruinous and devastating effect of sending the profits out of our local communities to a common center, Wall Street.” Chain stores, he warned parents, closed the “door of opportunity” for their children, who might otherwise grow up to become “prosperous business leaders.”


    DAVID OPDYKE
    To save Main Street, state lawmakers in the 1930s passed “fair trade” legislation that set floors for retail prices, protecting small-town manufacturers and retailers from big business’s economies of scale. These laws permitted manufacturers to dictate prices for their products in a state (which is where that now-meaningless phrase “manufacturer’s suggested retail price” comes from); if a manufacturer had a price agreement with even one retailer in a state, other stores in the state could not discount that product. As a result, chain stores could no longer demand a lower price from manufacturers, despite buying in higher volumes.

    These laws allowed Main Street shops to somewhat compete with chain stores, and kept prices (and profits) higher than a truly free market would have allowed. At the same time, workers, empowered by the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, organized the A. & P. and other chain stores, as well as these buttressed Main Street manufacturers, so that they also got a share of the profits. Main Street — its owners and its workers — was kept afloat, but at a cost to consumers, for whom prices remained high.

    But this world was unsustainable. It unraveled in the 1960s and 1970s, as fair trade laws were repealed, manufacturers discovered overseas suppliers and unions came undone. On Main Street, prices came down for shoppers, but at the same time, so did wage growth. Main Street was officially dead.

    It’s worth noting that the idealized Main Street is not a myth in some parts of America today. It exists, but only as a luxury consumer experience. Main Streets of small, independent boutiques and nonfranchised restaurants can be found in affluent college towns, in gentrified neighborhoods in Brooklyn and San Francisco, in tony suburbs — in any place where people have ample disposable income. Main Street requires shoppers who don’t really care about low prices. The dream of Main Street may be populist, but the reality is elitist. “Keep it local” campaigns are possible only when people are willing and able to pay to do so.

    In hard-pressed rural communities and small towns, that isn’t an option. This is why the nostalgia for Main Street is so harmful: It raises false hopes, which when dashed fuel anger and despair. President Trump’s promises notwithstanding, there is no going back to an economic arrangement whose foundations were so shaky. In the long run, American capitalism cannot remain isolated from the global economy. To do so would be not only stultifying for Americans, but also perilous for the rest of the world’s economic growth, with all the attendant political dangers. The only choice is turning to the future.


    DAVID OPDYKE
    Also harmful, however, is the complacent and naïve expectation, often found among well-meaning liberals, that everyone, to have a good job, needs to go to college, preferably to learn computer programming (or some other skill in manipulating information) and ideally to move to New York City or San Francisco. If the answer to rural downward mobility is to turn everyone into software engineers, there is no hope. The idea that every truck driver or coal miner can, or should, become a member of the modern professional class is closely related to the belief that unless you have those particular skills, you have no value — which isn’t the case.

    Many rural Americans, sadly, don’t realize how valuable they already are or what opportunities presently exist for them. It’s true that the digital economy, centered in a few high-tech cities, has left Main Street America behind. But it does not need to be this way. Today, for the first time, thanks to the internet, small-town America can pull back money from Wall Street (and big cities more generally). Through global freelancing platforms like Upwork, for example, rural and small-town Americans can find jobs anywhere in world, using abilities and talents they already have. A receptionist can welcome office visitors in San Francisco from her home in New York’s Finger Lakes. Through an e-commerce website like Etsy, an Appalachian woodworker can create custom pieces and sell them anywhere in the world.


    Americans, regardless of education or geographical location, have marketable skills in the global economy: They speak English and understand the nuances of communicating with Americans — something that cannot be easily shipped overseas. The United States remains the largest consumer market in the world, and Americans can (and some already do) sell these services abroad.

    Connecting Americans who live and work in small towns with these kinds of digital platforms is not simply a matter of giving them internet access, as with the new “Broadband for All” initiative of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York (though that is a step in the right direction). We also need programs to support that transition. Right now we are too fixated on “upskilling” coal miners into data miners. We should instead be showing people how to get work via digital platforms with their existing skills.

    The reality of global economics means that Main Street is a place of nostalgia, but again, that has long been the case. What’s novel is that today, the underlying values of Main Street — living and working with autonomy in your own small community — can be attained, as long as you are willing to find that work online.

    John Solak may think that renaming Binghamton’s Main Street will make his city “great again.” What will actually make Binghamton great is connecting its people to the rest of the world. The solution is not to stop the global market, but to help those left out of it find their way from Main Street to the mainstream.

 
Trumpism may be dead now anyway.

Voters wanted a wall, more jobs and lots of deportations.

They did not want another war in the Middle East.

If Bannon is now out, it looks like the swamp may have won an early victory.
 
Mainstreet = formless rabble.

Did people really believe a career CON-MAN from New York out of all places would rebuild the rust belt?

The US as a political entity was constructed to serve the wealthiest oligarchs from day 1. Most of the founders were rich business men, conartists etc. You had rare time frames lets say 1940-60's where the average Joe Blow was living well BBQing and owning a tract home(suburbs). But that is the exception in US economic history....

'Messianism' is the norm amongst the general public now, constantly seeking someone to come along and unify the nation.
 
Our prescription for those remaining in the hinterland is to do the gig economy? How is this advice any different than the Clinton years pushing us to the Internet (New Economy!) because eBay like Etsy can be a 'profession' or what was that other site, eLance or clicking on adverts from Doubleclick (what was that pyramid scheme site again?)

How will those people generate sustainable retirement savings and afford health care doing odds and ends?

I'm not saying I can offer any alternatives but Joe coal miner from West Virginia bet on the wrong horse in his life, or at least his parents did. He should have packed up and tried for investment banking or something. Is our society better or viable with a small(er) clique of investment bankers, lawyers, and doctors? That's another debate.
 
I'm not saying I can offer any alternatives but Joe coal miner from West Virginia bet on the wrong horse in his life, or at least his parents did. He should have packed up and tried for investment banking or something.

Precisely. Yet hardly anyone wants to admit that or have a conversation about it, and until we do, there's no way forward. There is a huge segment that is just going to slip further behind, causing all sorts of societal problems.
 
Joe Coal Miner would have a job in China.

Most industries lost in the US were shipped off somewhere else, and we have a political class complicit in creating that reality because the country is run by people that don't have to care. Just like the writer of that article.
 
Mainstreet = formless rabble.

Did people really believe a career CON-MAN from New York out of all places would rebuild the rust belt?

The US as a political entity was constructed to serve the wealthiest oligarchs from day 1. Most of the founders were rich business men, conartists etc. You had rare time frames lets say 1940-60's where the average Joe Blow was living well BBQing and owning a tract home(suburbs). But that is the exception in US economic history....

'Messianism' is the norm amongst the general public now, constantly seeking someone to come along and unify the nation.

Where are you from Ronin? Go on I double dare you!
 
Joe Coal Miner would have a job in China.

Most industries lost in the US were shipped off somewhere else, and we have a political class complicit in creating that reality because the country is run by people that don't have to care. Just like the writer of that article.


US industries were decimated by double digit interest rates in the late 70's early 80's.

To this day people do not understand the internal conflict at the heart of ANGLO-AMERICAN capitalism. Labor vs USURY.

Double digit interest rates created an incentive for speculators to close down and liquidate plants and then park the money into Tbills earning 14-20% per annum.

The US economy has never recovered from the Volcker/Reagan days and neither has the UK recovered from THATCHERconomics.

What you've had since then is a transformation from a manufacturing economy into a usury economy meaning the financial sector indebting everyone else and acting as a cancer on what is left of the productive economy.

Donald Trump is not going to change this even though he may remember being a victim to it as well(JUNK BONDS).

What is needed is men.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
US industries were decimated by double digit interest rates in the late 70's early 80's.

To this day people do not understand the internal conflict at the heart of ANGLO-AMERICAN capitalism. Labor vs USURY.

What you've had since then is a transformation from a manufacturing economy into a usury economy meaning the financial sector indebting everyone else and acting as a cancer on what is left of the productive economy.

Anglo Saxon economies gave up on manufacturing. German economy did not.

USA cut back on regulation and allowed banksters to get away with the most outrageous strokes.

However, inflation is not a prime cause of the flight from manufacturing.

European also countries tend to be more protective of their companies in the face of hostile foreign takeover bids.
 
The US as a political entity was constructed to serve the wealthiest oligarchs from day 1. Most of the founders were rich business men, conartists etc. You had rare time frames lets say 1940-60's where the average Joe Blow was living well BBQing and owning a tract home(suburbs). But that is the exception in US economic history....

'Messianism' is the norm amongst the general public now, constantly seeking someone to come along and unify the nation.

It simply is not true that oligarchs were centre stage in the USA from day 1.

I don't see messianism as prevalent either. Previously disengaged voters just gave a maverick a shot at the top job because it was worth a shot.

Others have recognised the alienation of the voting public and offered solutions but they did not have the impact or style of Trump. A lot of his campaign was fairly standard paleoconservative fare.
 
I've read the piece now and it is really just globalista marketing fluff and very condescending to "small-town" Americans who can just jolly go and find work as receptionists for us metropolitan digital savvy elites. It's a common trope with leftists and progressives that anything that is provincial, suburban, village or town like must be populated by in-bred dimwits with no viable skill set and are to be exposed as reactionary Luddites compared to the dynamic and professionalism of Tatler photo editors and world citizens.

It also sides with the fallacy that bigger is best, which is another myth that benefits the global corporate entities. As has happened in industrial manufacturing, big entities outsourced very efficient fabrication facilities and labour whose processes and skill set had been honed and perfected over many decades. As with the production of steel, the relocation to India and China was done not because they had better facilities, or better quality products, but because they could allegedly supply the same grade of material for 1/3 or 1/4 of the cost of a European pipe mill or foundry. The result was Iridium 192 sources making their way into the stainless steel supply chain and failures of materials not last experienced in western manufacture since the 1920s.

The experience in the UK has also proven this wrong, the big companies that use to employ thousands of people has given way to small cottage industry sized replacements who are best placed and very cost efficient to take on small batch or smaller sized jobs. In many cases, a small business unit, with a small organisation has many benefits over a large organisation with lots of managers and overheads.
 
Last edited:
You're talking like a business conglomorate is a new thing, but they've existed across the globe since at least the 1600s.
 
It also sides with the fallacy that bigger is best, which is another myth that benefits the global corporate entities. As has happened in industrial manufacturing, big entities outsourced very efficient fabrication facilities and labour whose processes and skill set had been honed and perfected over many decades. As with the production of steel, the relocation to India and China was done not because they had better facilities, or better quality products, but because they could allegedly supply the same grade of material for 1/3 or 1/4 of the cost of a European pipe mill or foundry. The result was Iridium 192 sources making their way into the stainless steel supply chain and failures of materials not last experienced in western manufacture since the 1920s.

The experience in the UK has also proven this wrong, the big companies that use to employ thousands of people has given way to small cottage industry sized replacements who are best placed and very cost efficient to take on small batch or smaller sized jobs. In many cases, a small business unit, with a small organisation has many benefits over a large organisation with lots of managers and overheads.

Bigger industries give work to more people - whole towns in some cases. In the UK many areas have never recovered from the loss of the big employer.
 
Yeah, because Juncker and co went out of their way to look after such areas.

Same as they did for the Greeks...

They did actually. There was quite some EU money flowing into rural British areas. Now that the London based government is back in charge of that money, do you really think they're going to spend it on rural communities?
 
They did actually. There was quite some EU money flowing into rural British areas. Now that the London based government is back in charge of that money, do you really think they're going to spend it on rural communities?

If I recall correctly, one of the reasons the UK is leaving is because they were tired of paying in. Unless I'm mistaken, the UK never took money from Europe.
 
You're mistaken.

Perhaps. But they pay in now to the tune of 13 billion pounds.

Sad graphic... most of them are on the dole. Look at Luxembourg drinking it up.

2JunEUcontribsFINALweb-1-1260x836.jpg
 
Perhaps. But they pay in now to the tune of 13 billion pounds.

Sad graphic... most of them are on the dole. Look at Luxembourg drinking it up.

2JunEUcontribsFINALweb-1-1260x836.jpg

The country has a net pay in. The money goes both ways, and the regions that voted to leave are the ones that received money.
 
UK paid in to EC and then got some of its money back.

Hence Mrs. Thatcher going on the warpath about contributions back in the day.

Best cut out the middleman.

Neglected UK areas will not be any worse off. UK politicians can at least be voted out.
 
UK paid in to EC and then got some of its money back.

Hence Mrs. Thatcher going on the warpath about contributions back in the day.

Best cut out the middleman.

Neglected UK areas will not be any worse off. UK politicians can at least be voted out.

UK paid in 250mm/week to the EU. EU spends 100mm of that per week on rural communities and farmers etc in the UK. I wouldn't trust Westminster to spend the equivalent amount on rural communities. It'll likely go towards defense and snooping on their own citizens.
 
UK paid in 250mm/week to the EU. EU spends 100mm of that per week on rural communities and farmers etc in the UK. I wouldn't trust Westminster to spend the equivalent amount on rural communities. It'll likely go towards defense and snooping on their own citizens.

I forgot to mention. EC accounts never get fully signed off by the auditors despite a big push for this to happen. I would not trust EC politicians with the money - full stop. https://fullfact.org/europe/did-auditors-sign-eu-budget/

At least UK spend will be more transparent.

Farming is a big tax dodge for many of the one per cent in the UK. So they will fight their corner. Hopefully this will help the harder pressed genuine farm workers in rural areas. If not, they can take action against their elected politicians who do them down.
 
Perhaps. But they pay in now to the tune of 13 billion pounds.

Sad graphic... most of them are on the dole. Look at Luxembourg drinking it up.

2JunEUcontribsFINALweb-1-1260x836.jpg

Luxembourg is of course, Junkers and his chums own private tax haven. I had a colleague who was supposedly domiciled there and was allegedly travelling back every night from The Hague there by helicopter. I might add he and his missus had royally screwed this oil company over and I kid you not, where taking in €58,000 a month for quite a few years. A magnificent play, of course, there may have been other parties getting a cut.

UK paid in 250mm/week to the EU. EU spends 100mm of that per week on rural communities and farmers etc in the UK. I wouldn't trust Westminster to spend the equivalent amount on rural communities. It'll likely go towards defense and snooping on their own citizens.

Whatever it goes on, will be decided by the British parliament. This was and remains an issue of sovereignty vs being owned by an immaculate incenstious technocratic oligarchy in the modus operandi of the Soviet Union. We keep on hearing from Remainers in the UK how benevolent and socially aware the EU is, as if the suffering of Greece and the revolutionary levels of youth unemployment in Italy and Spain means nought. Strange.
 
You're mistaken.

The UK, to my knowledge, has always paid more than it has received back. It used to be worse until Thatcher demanded a rebate. The UK was at a disadvantage because of its need to import large amounts of foodstuff.

The UK leaving the EU will hurt the EU more than it will hurt the UK. That is a given.
 
The article, while interesting to read, is nonsense.

The author states that "nostalgia for Main Street is misplaced — and costly. Small stores are inefficient. Local manufacturers, lacking access to economies of scale, usually are inefficient as well" and then suggests that the future looks great because every "Appalachian woodworker can create custom pieces and sell them anywhere in the world". It is a monumentally stupid idea to replace well-paid industrial manufacturing/production jobs with minimum wage service jobs from the digital platform monopolies.

The author states that during the most prosperous decades in the US, main street was protected by laws and regulations and concludes that "this world was unsustainable. It unraveled in the 1960s and 1970s, as fair trade laws were repealed, manufacturers discovered overseas suppliers and unions came undone". Not even considering the many, many countries where this apparently continued to be sustainable, how can the author miss the obvious impact of the legal framework.

I'm not sure there is much more content in this article, so its nonsense.
 
The article, while interesting to read, is nonsense.

The author states that "nostalgia for Main Street is misplaced — and costly. Small stores are inefficient. Local manufacturers, lacking access to economies of scale, usually are inefficient as well" and then suggests that the future looks great because every "Appalachian woodworker can create custom pieces and sell them anywhere in the world". It is a monumentally stupid idea to replace well-paid industrial manufacturing/production jobs with minimum wage service jobs from the digital platform monopolies.

The author states that during the most prosperous decades in the US, main street was protected by laws and regulations and concludes that "this world was unsustainable. It unraveled in the 1960s and 1970s, as fair trade laws were repealed, manufacturers discovered overseas suppliers and unions came undone". Not even considering the many, many countries where this apparently continued to be sustainable, how can the author miss the obvious impact of the legal framework.

I'm not sure there is much more content in this article, so its nonsense.


Finally agree with you.
 
It is hard to agree with all this conspiracy bullshit, but at the same time you gotta wonder what is actually happening all over the world. Does this shit really exist? I mean, how fucking cheap have our leaders become that they sell to the cheapest guy for little to no money. Motherfuckers.
 
It is hard to agree with all this conspiracy bullshit, but at the same time you gotta wonder what is actually happening all over the world. Does this shit really exist? I mean, how fucking cheap have our leaders become that they sell to the cheapest guy for little to no money. Motherfuckers.

You can buy a politician for 5k-25k. Someone should set up a crowd funded lobbyist.
 
The article, while interesting to read, is nonsense.

The author states that "nostalgia for Main Street is misplaced — and costly. Small stores are inefficient. Local manufacturers, lacking access to economies of scale, usually are inefficient as well" and then suggests that the future looks great because every "Appalachian woodworker can create custom pieces and sell them anywhere in the world". It is a monumentally stupid idea to replace well-paid industrial manufacturing/production jobs with minimum wage service jobs from the digital platform monopolies.

The author states that during the most prosperous decades in the US, main street was protected by laws and regulations and concludes that "this world was unsustainable. It unraveled in the 1960s and 1970s, as fair trade laws were repealed, manufacturers discovered overseas suppliers and unions came undone". Not even considering the many, many countries where this apparently continued to be sustainable, how can the author miss the obvious impact of the legal framework.

I'm not sure there is much more content in this article, so its nonsense.

Indeed, what actually "unraveled" in the 1970s was sudden US oil production decline and then a reliance on Middle East oil which enabled the West to be held to ransom with the oil crisis of 1973. This was the beginning of the largest transfer of wealth ever known from Western nations to the countries that sat on the oil. We are still living with the impact of this today, but with new technologies opening up new extraction frontiers in North America we are breaking OPEC's established order.

What happened was not the breaking down of RRP's, inefficient small town production (mass production of clothing has been with us since the late 1700s), or any other misdemeanor by cottage sized industries allegedly running anti-free market monopolies that were costly to the consumer, what it was, was a cartel, but a much bigger and pernicious one than small town America, or indeed that New York Times hack, could ever have imagined.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom