If I had known the news in this 2nd term would be so different from the first, I would have voted for President Trump, Josiah. I support something closer to national self-sufficiency. Tariffs and some degree of re-industrialization seem necessary to that end.
This is a balanced article, but one point worth emphasizing is why land reform recurs throughout history: wealth can be preserved indefinitely through institutions, while human lives are brief. A poor man must earn far beyond subsistence just to secure basic assets: a home, a place to raise children, and land to grow food or store property.
Foreign nations often approach wealth and taxation with very different assumptions than Americans do. When Chinese entities, Singaporean funds, or Arab royals buy U.S. land, they treat it as a permanent asset, often holding it for generations. This is reflected in how land is structured in Western cities: hundred-year leases and cascading subleases.
America’s policies should prioritize the interests of Americans, especially those trying to start families, not the speculative profits of retirees trying to squeeze every dollar from a sale. Affordable land and housing are essential for family formation.
Between maximizing profits and keeping land and housing costs low for citizens, policy should favor the latter.
Corporations may be treated as 'persons' under the law, but that doesn't mean policy should be neutral toward them. Supporting Americans in building wealth must take precedence over enriching corporations or foreign investors.
I agree with you. If we want to support family formation the first thing we should do is reduce the regulatory and tax burden on young families. Social Security, Medicare, and government pensions transferred some $3 trillion to retirees last year from young working families. That makes wealth accumulation harder.
Our centrally planned welfare state is also massively inefficient at satisfying the needs and wants of consumers. It simply cannot do so. The differences between tens of millions of human beings are so varied as to make that kind of knowledge and planning impossible. The only interests being served are those of the people in power. Hospitals and doctors are some of the biggest grifters in America.
Capitalism and the free market are the best tools at creating more prosperity (satisfying the wants and needs of the biggest slice of the population possible). The government should protect the free market (our freedom to choose who to associate with and who to trade with) instead of waging war against it.
People will seek and find wealth on their own if we let them but we need to let them. Foreign investment in a healthy regime is fine. It comes with some downsides but the upsides, I argue, are worth it. People want material wealth and protection. The market provides the first and the government provides the second. Maybe people should want something different, but I think we should deal with men as they are.
This week we found out Singapore now owns 5% of Michigan's upper peninsula. Do you think they'll operate like good neighbors to the American citizens there?
So there's theory, which generally I would agree with you, but then there's our reality, which is where foreign nations are out to exploit our weaknesses.
Letting someone offload their rural property for a higher value is arguably the free market microeconomic position, but the downside that it might go to a hostile foreign power is a pretty major downside. And I don't think we can ignore the trends here that look very bad.
Put a 1000% transfer tax on any foreign government owning property and, frankly, maybe a 100% non-American citizen tax on anyone buying property in America.
I'm not arguing against what you are saying, but I am pointing out the costs of imposing that policy. If we ban foreign investment it will come at a price. There is no doubt about it.
It will also come with benefits as you point out. I think we should try and optimize this trade offs as best as we can. If voters feel too much pain from capital controls it could empower the left.
There are also easier solutions like executing foreign drug dealers or more rigorously enforcing the laws we already have.
Foreign land ownership isn't just about wealth, it's about control over something permanent and finite. If land is a foundation for families, communities, and national strength, then policy should treat it that way. I’ve explored this tension in my own publication too.
If I had known the news in this 2nd term would be so different from the first, I would have voted for President Trump, Josiah. I support something closer to national self-sufficiency. Tariffs and some degree of re-industrialization seem necessary to that end.
This can be accomplished by changing the American tax code and reducing the regulatory burden on Americans
This is a balanced article, but one point worth emphasizing is why land reform recurs throughout history: wealth can be preserved indefinitely through institutions, while human lives are brief. A poor man must earn far beyond subsistence just to secure basic assets: a home, a place to raise children, and land to grow food or store property.
Foreign nations often approach wealth and taxation with very different assumptions than Americans do. When Chinese entities, Singaporean funds, or Arab royals buy U.S. land, they treat it as a permanent asset, often holding it for generations. This is reflected in how land is structured in Western cities: hundred-year leases and cascading subleases.
America’s policies should prioritize the interests of Americans, especially those trying to start families, not the speculative profits of retirees trying to squeeze every dollar from a sale. Affordable land and housing are essential for family formation.
Between maximizing profits and keeping land and housing costs low for citizens, policy should favor the latter.
Corporations may be treated as 'persons' under the law, but that doesn't mean policy should be neutral toward them. Supporting Americans in building wealth must take precedence over enriching corporations or foreign investors.
I agree with you. If we want to support family formation the first thing we should do is reduce the regulatory and tax burden on young families. Social Security, Medicare, and government pensions transferred some $3 trillion to retirees last year from young working families. That makes wealth accumulation harder.
Our centrally planned welfare state is also massively inefficient at satisfying the needs and wants of consumers. It simply cannot do so. The differences between tens of millions of human beings are so varied as to make that kind of knowledge and planning impossible. The only interests being served are those of the people in power. Hospitals and doctors are some of the biggest grifters in America.
Capitalism and the free market are the best tools at creating more prosperity (satisfying the wants and needs of the biggest slice of the population possible). The government should protect the free market (our freedom to choose who to associate with and who to trade with) instead of waging war against it.
People will seek and find wealth on their own if we let them but we need to let them. Foreign investment in a healthy regime is fine. It comes with some downsides but the upsides, I argue, are worth it. People want material wealth and protection. The market provides the first and the government provides the second. Maybe people should want something different, but I think we should deal with men as they are.
Some concrete examples: Chinese drug gangs are invading rural Maine, buying up cheap properties, and buying up local politicians.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/06/chinese-drug-gangs-buying-up-rural-us-land/
This week we found out Singapore now owns 5% of Michigan's upper peninsula. Do you think they'll operate like good neighbors to the American citizens there?
So there's theory, which generally I would agree with you, but then there's our reality, which is where foreign nations are out to exploit our weaknesses.
Letting someone offload their rural property for a higher value is arguably the free market microeconomic position, but the downside that it might go to a hostile foreign power is a pretty major downside. And I don't think we can ignore the trends here that look very bad.
Put a 1000% transfer tax on any foreign government owning property and, frankly, maybe a 100% non-American citizen tax on anyone buying property in America.
Why? Because we live here.
I'm not arguing against what you are saying, but I am pointing out the costs of imposing that policy. If we ban foreign investment it will come at a price. There is no doubt about it.
It will also come with benefits as you point out. I think we should try and optimize this trade offs as best as we can. If voters feel too much pain from capital controls it could empower the left.
There are also easier solutions like executing foreign drug dealers or more rigorously enforcing the laws we already have.
Foreign land ownership isn't just about wealth, it's about control over something permanent and finite. If land is a foundation for families, communities, and national strength, then policy should treat it that way. I’ve explored this tension in my own publication too.