Yep, there were some whacko ideas floating around back then. It was a time of "IPO mania" pretty much like the Tulip Mania of a few centuries back. One of the things about it that I found most disturbing was to read so many business plans that went on and on about marketing and "first mover advantage" and "monetizing traffic", and relegated a description of the actual product or service to an appendix...or sometimes never mentioned at all. That was a time when too many people believed that simply having a company meant that money would automatically come showering down on your head, and that you could worry about actually producing something later.

One thing about your post that greatly disappointed me was all the space you dedicated to denouncing the idea of a third party. Great, man, I think so too, and I've said so every time I brought up the subject of a centrist nonpartisan movement independent of any party. Trying to start a third political party is a fool's errand, and a guaranteed way to simply throw the election to one party or another. I suspect that more than one so-called third-party has been a shill designed to do just that,

Is my notion of a centrist movement merely a more subtle variation on the "spoiler" dodge? It really isn't, but I'm never surprised at partisan paranoia and I know I have to work at convincing partisans that this is on the level. What I have in mind would be explicitly and strictly not only nonpartisan, but in a sense nonpolitical: It would run no candidates of its own and would not endorse nor support any political candidate...except to the degree that a candidate of any party demonstrates genuine support for political reform. Its main value, I think, would be in formulating a definition of reform that satisfies moderates, so that we have a concrete measure of a politician's commitment to reform...and conversely, in the opposition of some, a means of identifying the most corrupt of the politicians.

A moderate litmus test...what a novel concept, eh?

You know I'll never agree with your argument that only the wealthy have the wisdom to govern. In one post you characterize the wealthy as either lazy and dumb, or venal and obsessed with money; then in the next you claim that they "tend to form more just governments than the poor". You don't see any contradiction between your two positions? I guess not.

What's interesting is to look at the last couple of centuries at who formed various governments and how they turned out. The American Revolution was a revolution of the people and for the people, and it's the model for the most successful governments that followed. Democracies are born when ordinary people rebel against tyrants. What form of government is favored by the wealthy? It sure ain't democracy, with the lone expection of America. It's always tyranny of some sort, from the naked oligarchy of banana republics to military dictatorships (quite the shortcut to wealth there, for somebody on a soldier's pay), to business-government partnerships like fascism.

Other than America, how many democracies were founded by a wealthy elite? C'mon, I really want to know.

I'm running out of time so I'll forego a detailed response to your points about education. I tend to agree with you anyway on the general value of education, so no point padding the post with an elaborate essay that boils down to "yep, mostly".