[boomskats]

> The politicians know that people only care about the first stage of effects.

I think this is a slightly reductionist view, but the effect is the same and unpacking it here won't change anything.

In the least snarky way possible, can anyone think of an example where capitalism promotes or encourages long-term thinking?

[lockhouse]

I have a great example of it!

In 1759, Arthur Guinness signed a 9,000 year lease for his brewery.

https://www.historydefined.net/how-the-guinness-brewery-sign...

[eesmith]

OTOH, https://acdc-beverage.com/guinness-a-brand-that-doesnt-pay-r... :

> Guinness actually doesn’t pay any rent for its iconic St. James’s Gate Brewery in Dublin. That’s because the site has been owned by the Guinness family since 1876, and the current lease runs until 2031.

From 1759 to 1876 is 117 years.

FWIW, as far as I can tell, a 9,000 year lease would have conflicted with the rule against perpetuities. Certainly Cadell v Palmer (1833) set the limit as "lives in being plus twenty-one years[1]" and I gather from https://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/rRuleAgainstPer... that something similar have applied in Ireland at the time of Guinness, certainly by 1833.

As an interesting observation, Arthur Guinness II lived 1768-1855 and 21 years later is 1876. I'm now curious about the actual text of the lease, but I can't easily find a copy online.

[1] For the life of a person currently alive or in gestation, and for 21 years after their death. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_lives_clause with a recent notable use in the US at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Florida_Tourism_Oversi... .

[tomatocracy]

I don't think the rule against perpetuities ever prohibited the creation of very long leaseholds, so long as the lease itself vested within the period, because the reversion would already have been vested at the grant of the lease. There are plenty of examples of 999-year leases granted in the 19th century for example.

[eesmith]

Yes, it looks like you're quite right. Thanks for correcting me!

I've confirmed it with several sources, from several different legal systems:

> The rule is not concerned with the duration of interests. A lease for 999 years does not violate the rule; nor does an estate in fee simple, which may last for ever. The rule is satisfied if an interest must 'vest' within the per- petuity period, even though the interest may last beyond it. - http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbULawRw/1969/19...

> Although a lease may be given for an unlimited term or even in perpetuity, the reversion is clearly not obnoxious to the rule, since it is a vested interest. - in LEASES AND THE RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES, https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/1... (there are many concepts and words I don't understand)

> It’s not related to the rule against perpetutities at all. The rule deals with interests in proprerty which are floating around in a trust, waiting to be vested in someone. They can only float around unvested like this if the terms of the trust require that the must vest in someone within the perpetutity period. - https://davidallengreen.com/2023/03/happily-ever-after-disne...

I was particularly happy about a comment in that last link: "When I was a law student I think I understood the rule against perpetuitities for about an hour – luckily that coincided with my exams."

[tomatocracy]

The interesting thing (to me at least) about the rule against perpetuities is that it never prevented (at least in England) the the one thing you would have thought it was actually aimed at - fee tail estates (ie interests in land which are essentially a series of life tenancies to heirs specified at the original grant) because those were specifically provided for by statute (although other ways to get out of entailed estates were devised).