When we look at (a) the common good, (b) appreciation/depreciation of human capital, and (c) net production of utility, we are struck immediately by the fact that (a) and (b) are clearly aligned, whereas (c)—the criterion that all modern thinkers agree on, the GDP metric beloved by libertarians and socialists alike—is the misaligned metric.

Analytically, America is being driven like a rented car. If not a rented mule. And when we cast our intuitive eyes across the state of the nation, we see that it is being driven like a rented car. If not a rented mule.

...

Let’s quantify the poisonous effect of importing goods and/or labor into an economy.... [The] toxic impact is as clear as day. If the labor demand (elastic) in the economy does not supply quality work to the labor supply (inelastic), we will see clear depreciation in the human capital. We may not be able to measure this effect (eg, by selling random subjects on some imaginary global slave market), but we can define it in quantitative terms.

If there are not enough good jobs for all the Americans, some of the Americans will become useless bums. Or they will have to take shitty bullshit jobs, which will cause them to fall short of their human potential. It will leave them less valuable as human beings—as human capital—as government slaves....

If it seems paradoxical that accepting the principle that “government slavery” is the key to human freedom and flourishing, it seems no less paradoxical that socialism is the way to ruin and impoverish a society. But it always seems to work out that way. Everything rots when it has no owner—human beings included.

Once we realize that, in a 21st-century economy, the goal of matching labor demand to labor supply is much more significant than the goal of maximizing the supply of comforts and pleasures to the population—either because, according to my super- spergy analysis, we are all “government slaves”; or because, in terms Hillary Clinton would be quite happy with, purpose, skill and meaning are more important to human existence than pixel count on your flat screen TV —we get to turn liberal economics upside down and make it make sense again.

For instance, if we have a lot of professional programmers who can’t find jobs as such, but have to be Walmart greeters, we are racking up fat losses on these human assets. From a depreciation standpoint, it would be economically ideal to give them fake jobs. But ideally, they would not even know the jobs were fake… Instead, we are pumping all the appreciation energy into these H1Bs, who are human assets of another government, while our own human capital rots on the couch.

The difference between migrant labor and free trade is clearly a difference of degree. In both cases, we are using foreign labor to fulfill domestic labor demand. Therefore, the appreciation is being foregone. And human assets depreciate if they are not used. They appreciate when used to the limit of potential. Again, we are driving America like a rented car. It is efficient to change the oil in a car you own, but not one you rent. We own this car, I’m afraid. We should act like it.

But Mr. Poor, didn't you just recently say that you were in favor of Indian immigration?

Modern Americans have enormous difficulty in grasping hierarchical social structures. We grew up steeped in “applied Christianity” pretty much the way the Hitler Youth grew up steeped in Hitler. The suggesting that slavery could ever be or have been, as Aristotle suggests, natural and healthy, is like suggesting to the Hitler Youth that it might be cool to make some Jewish friends. Their idea of Jews is straight out of Jud Süß. Our idea of slavery is straight out of Uncle Tom’s Cabin. If you want an accurate perspective of the past, a propaganda novel is probably not the best place to start. (If you want an accurate perspective of American slavery, I recommend Eugene Genovese’s Roll, Jordan, Roll, which is a little Marxist but only superficially so. No work like it could be written today.)

Let’s observe the relationship between the Cathedral and our old friend, “democracy.” Since 1933, elected politicians have exercised minimal actual control over government policy. Formally, however, they have absolute control. The Cathedral is not mentioned in the Constitution. Power is a juicy caterpillar. Maybe it looks like a twig to most of us birds, but Washington has no shortage of sharp eyes, sharp beaks, and growling bellies.

We can see the answer when we look at the fate of politicians who have attacked the Cathedral. Here are some names: Joseph McCarthy. Enoch Powell. George Wallace. Spiro Agnew. Here are some others: Ronald Reagan. Richard Nixon. Margaret Thatcher.

The first set are politicians whose break with the Cathedral was complete and unconditional. The second are politicians who attempted to compromise and coexist with it, while pulling it in directions it didn’t want to go. The first were destroyed. The second appeared to succeed, for a while, but little trace of their efforts (at least in domestic politics) is visible today. Their era ends in the 1980s, and it is impossible to imagine similar figures today.

What we see, especially in the cases of McCarthy and Powell (the recent BBC documentary on Powell is quite good) is a tremendous initial burst of popularity, trailing off into obloquy and disrepute. At first, these politicians were able to capture large bases of support. At least 70% of the British electorate was on Powell’s side. This figure may even be low.

But Powell — Radio Enoch aside — never had the tools to preserve these numbers and convert them into power. Similar majorities of American voters today will tell pollsters that they support Powellian policies: ending immigration, deporting illegals, terminating the racial spoils system. These majorities are stable. No respectable politician will touch them. Why? Because they cannot afford to antagonize the Cathedral, whose policies are the opposite.

Recall La Wik’s simple summary of the Lippmann system:

"The decision makers then take decisions and use the “art of persuasion” to inform the public about the decisions and the circumstances surrounding them."