Nobel Prize Winning Economist: Core Problem Is Too Much Centralization ... In Both Government AND the Private Sector

George Washington's picture

Nobel prize winning economist Ed Prescott has previously said that we have to break up the big banks.

Prescott notes in a new interview that centralization – of either government or banking – is a core problem:

[Question] Brussels is using this crisis to grab more powers from governments.  How does that make things even worse?


[Prescott] Dangerous centralization.

China … From 1,000 to 1,300[A.D.] was the richest country, the most advanced. They had done much better than Europe, and they were by far the leader.


But then – under the Ming Dynasty – they got centralized, and they started preserving the status quo. The provinces lost their power.


[The Ming Dynasty got rid of the "press".]


And technological regression set in there.  People from the other end of the Euro-Asia land mass came and humbled that great empire.


[Question] Why is the U.S. economy doomed to fail and what will happen?


[Prescott] They haven’t gotten rid of the too big to fail problem.

They get real big … people know who led to these financial institutes, know that they will be bailed out, will expect it, and therefore the institutes can borrow at a lower rate. So they gamble…


Government likes to get favors out to certain people and then big contributions ….


Dr. Prescott is right …

Numerous studies show that big banks are less efficient than smaller banks.

The New York Times notes:

The economics suggest that big banks are less efficient at credit creation than smaller ones.  And there is no evidence that the simpler financial system we had from the 1940s through the 1970s restrained growth. In fact, for all its innovation, the financial industry of today is less efficient than it was in the age of the railway, according to research by Thomas Philippon at New York University. That is, it charges the rest of society more for financial intermediation than it did 130 years ago.

And see this, this and this.

Indeed, it is well known that – while larger organizations can be more efficient than small ones – when any organization gets too big, “diseconomies of scale” may make them less efficient (and see this).

350px Diseconomics of scale.svg Nobel Prize Winning Economist:  Core Problem Is Too Much Centralization

Below, we’ll discuss some of the reasons this is true. But an analogy will easily make the point.

Giraffes have huge hearts, because they have to pump the blood all the way up to their heads.

Similarly, humans can’t be 100 feet tall and weigh 10,000 pounds.  Our bodies would be too inefficient to survive.

Why Centralization Can Be Bad

As Prescott notes, organizations which become too big tend to spend an inordinate amount of time in preserving the status quo, and thus have less room to innovate.  Inertia often takes over, and the organizations lose their vitality and success. This is especially true since larger organizations are more subject to bureaucratic insularity, which causes stagnation.

Organizations in the public or private sector which become too big also spend huge amounts of time, money and energy on communications between their various parts:

 Nobel Prize Winning Economist:  Core Problem Is Too Much Centralization

They also spend more time and money duplicating efforts,  political in-fighting, and other wasted efforts:

Moreover, the larger an organization, the more centralization and less diversity.   True, numerous business books have touted more of a decentralized “team” attitude in the last decade or so. But many large organizations are still very hierarchical, allowing little diversity of viewpoint.  Groupthink also commonly occurs.

More importantly, when you have a couple of giant organizations in a given market, it means that there are less competitors.  In the banking space, for example, we have extensively documented that breaking up the giant banks would allow small banks to thrive.

So – by definition – organizations that are too big decrease diversity in competition.

And the less diversity, the more vulnerable we become to “black swans”:

It has been accepted science for decades that when all the farmers in a certain region grow the same strain of the same crop – called “monoculture” – the crops become much more susceptible.




Because any bug (insect or germ) which happens to like that particular strain could take out the whole crop on pretty much all of the region’s farms.


For example, one type of grasshopper – called “differential grasshoppers” – loves corn. If everyone grows the same strain of corn in a town in the midwest, and differential grasshoppers are anywhere nearby, they may come and wipe out the entire town’s crops (that’s why monoculture crops require such high levels of pesticides).


On the other hand, if farmers grow a lot of different types of crops (“polyculture”) , then a pest might get some crops, but the rest will survive.


I believe that the same principle applies to our financial system.


If power and deposits are concentrated in a handful of mega-banks, problems with those banks could bring down the whole system.




Moreover, the mega-banks are huge holders of derivatives, including credit default swaps. JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley together hold 80% of the country’s derivatives risk, and 96% of the exposure to credit derivatives.


Even though JP, B of A, Goldman and Citi are separate corporations, they are so interlinked and intertwined through their derivatives holdings that an attack by a “pest” which swarmed in on their derivatives could take down this “monoculture” of overly-leveraged, securitized, derivatives-heavy banking.




Our current banking monoculture threatens not only the biggest banks, but the entire financial system. Pesticides become less effective as pests develop resistance – and, as a byproduct, we poison friendly critters. Likewise, the giants “creatively” work their way around regulations so that the regulations are no longer effective (or at least not enforced, and regulatory capture is widespread. And too much regulation stifles productivity,as an unintended byproduct.


Having power and deposits spread out among more, smaller banks would greatly increase the stability of the financial system. And having more power and deposits in banks using a wider variety of business models (e.g. among banks that aren’t heavily invested in derivatives and securitized assets) will create a banking “polyculture” which will lead to a much more stable financial system.


In other words, if we decentralize power and deposits and increase the variety of banking models, we will have a healthier financial system, we won’t have such an urgent need to try to micromanage every aspect of the banking system through regulation,and the regulations we do have will be more effective.


By the way, I would argue that that is one of the reasons why Glass-Steagall was so important: it enforced diversity – depository institutions on the one hand, and investment banks on the other. When Glass-Steagall was revoked and the giants started doing both types of banking, it was like a single crop cannibalizing another crop and becoming a new super-organism. Instead of having diversity, you’ve now got a monoculture of the new super-crop, susceptible to being wiped out by a pest.


The kinds of things which threaten depository institutions are not necessarily the same type of things which threaten investment banks, hedge funds, etc.

(Remember that things are less diversified and more centralized than they appear. And see this.)

This is true in reporting, trading, and many  other areas.

Decentralization Will Help Many of Our Problems

The Founding Fathers enshrined separation of powers as the very basis of our government, as a way to ensure that centralization would not lead to tyranny. (The Iroquois actually appear to have developed the idea of separation of powers and inspired the Founding Fathers. See this and this.)

Everything has becoming too centralized.

We’ve previously noted that liberals and conservatives tend to dislike different portions of the malignant, symbiotic relationship between big government and big corporations:

Conservatives tend to view big government with suspicion, and think that government should be held accountable and reined in.


Liberals tend to view big corporations with suspicion, and think that they should be held accountable and reined in.

This post shows that both are right.

We’ve gone too far in centralizing governments, the financial sector and other organizations.  We have overshot the mark … and gone from efficiencies to inefficiencies of scale.

The answer is more decentralization.

For example:

  • Decentralization – not some more bigger,  more centralized solution – is the key to our energy problems

It is time to take power away from those that are hurting all of us by putting our time, money and energy into smaller, more local organizations.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
rwe2late's picture

Oppression can come by way of small or large organizations, not only by government.

From the family unit, the extended family, clan, tribe, village, city, state, kingdom, empire.

From a religious organizations, from a Mafia mob, street gang, a political party, the Klan, or a financial corporation.

In a farm business, mining operation, food retailer, or armaments industry.

Governments have historically been organized to give protection from the abuses of other organizations and individuals.

It is a valid question who then will protect us from abuses by government?

Eradicating government protections only opens the door for abuse by others.

Nowadays, there seems no other power to limit the power of government. The other major organization are corporate, and are allied with government, if not integrated. The quasi-independent military is a subset both government and corporate.

Humans organize. They form organizations.

Rule by an elite becomes closed and self-serving.

A society without enforceable laws, governed by unanimous consent is an adolescent fantasy.

Democracy is the best means to govern or regulate those organizations, conflicts, and government itself. The majority should however support protections for the minority, and various individual rights such as habeas corpus and prohibition of torture.

Some of the criteria needed for a democratic republic in general are:

{A} public knowledge about government
1) transparency of government
2) free press (free of control by special interests or government)

{B} minimal political corruption
3) minimal financial incentives for politicians in office
4) minimal financial barriers to run for office

{C} guaranteed rights and minority protections
5) habeas corpus and prohibition of torture
6) freedom from government surveillance and intimidation
7) freedom from persecution for cultural preferences (aka "victimless crimes")

Anusocracy's picture

While a smaller, less aggressive is definitely a great improvement, I prefer a going different direction:

Zero Govt's picture

clicked your link which reads "Law in a Free Nation"

Oh Dear, you just don't geddit!

Law is by design and function someone putting rules on another. It is by definition ending personal freedom. It is abuse of one persons personal space by another

If you want to see how a zero rule "lawless" system works look outside your window at nature. There's 20 billion individuals out there doing their own business everyday and interacting perfectly sensibly by their own rules, individual on individual

there is no central control, no local Govt, and few examples of leaders except some ants and animals sacrifice their independence for the group (a rarity)

if you want to see how freedom (no rules) works check-out free ports where commerce grows expodentially as aposed to Govt regulated where commerce dies (see Greece and Egypt, Commie Russia and China before it)

society and commerce works best on an individual to individual basis, like a farmers market or deals done at a bazaar. It NEVER WORKS as collectives or where pontificating meddling idiots lay down inane rules for others to follow.

Deal with history and reality, cram your data banks with what works and what fails. Rules cause chaos, freedom is uber-flexible and allows/creates the fastest progress. 2,500 years of evidence is piled high like mountains in front of your blind eyes.

Game Over for Govt and Law. End of story. Time to fuking move on from this garbage

Monk's picture

I forgot to add that centralization is inevitable in capitalist systems.


Zero Govt's picture

100% wrong

centralisation is 100% inevitable in Govt systems.... not the free market which has nothing (no authority) to cenralise too. Govt is monopoly, Govt grows monopolies, it is the whore Mother of big corporations that want to destroy competition (see banking, insurance, healthcare, utilities, Big Pharma etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc).

Wake up Mr Living in a Zombie Comatose F'n Stupour

the free market works on no rules (see black markets in drugs, alcahol, cigarettes etc) and like the internet a constant churn of new entrants. The big stupid Govt cannot wreck the free market, it's inhabitants are too small, too fast and too clever and have outwitted Govts, that come and commit suicide, for hundreds of years

the free market constantly churns and replenishes, the Govt markets (banks, utilities etc) are a stagnant pool of inept, propped-up, corrupt crap

Monk's picture

The problem isn't centralization but financial speculation, which is inevitable given a global capitalist economy.


Seer's picture

Are people finally starting to get it?  BIG = FAIL!

rwe2late's picture

 People can be oppressed in small states and small organizations as well as big ones.

How organizational power is distributed and used or abused is critical.

And what will be the purpose for organization?

The common complaints about the Pentagon are not limited to it being "too big", but that is autocratic, secretive, has vile alliances, and regularly employs vile means for vile ends.

Zero Govt's picture

give me one example of the thousands of enterprises in America which one is oppressing their employees?

this is the inane hysterical dribble/lies perpetrated by Unionists and morons in the education system, congratualtions for swallowing this garbage without ever checking out the facts/reality

enterprise works on a purely voluntary basis, you agree with your employer to work for him, you want the job

only Govt is involuntary, it forces on other people rules and regulations without your consent of approval of your employer (ie. the smoking ban in pubs, clubs and workplaces)

capitalism is NOT oppressive, it works on a voluntary basis, you can walk out of a job anytime.. you cannot walk away or negotiate with Govt unless you leave the nation (which the sharper cookies are rapidly doing across Europe and America)

rwe2late's picture


In the present context, decentralization sounds good.

But that will be no panacea.

Balkanization of government, and break-up of corporate empires may only bring temporary relief.

There are historically demonstrated advantages to centralization and having larger organizations.

Small city-states have fought and grown to empires through annexation. Small businesses have expanded to global corporations in order to increase profits through monopoly of markets, resources, or escape from liabilities.

One nuclear plant, a dam, strip-mining for coal, one Spartan mini-state can affect many distant and downstream neighbors.

Humans organize. There are advantages and disadvantages to organizations. That is one of the human conundrums.

There may be no perfect solution . We cannot abjure organization. Instead, like Sisyphus, we may be forever tasked to correct, however temporarily, our unavoidable and self-made faults.

Seer's picture

"Sisyphean" is quite apropos.

Growth will always force a cut-back.  And we have, like all other living things, this need to grow.  Up, then Down, Up, then Down...

With the bigness that we've achieved we are looking at the possibility of the rock not ROLLING down the HILL, but it FALLING over a CLIFF.

Zero Govt's picture

be selective in your choice of words of what, precisely, is falling off a cliff

it's Govt and bwankers that are falling off the cliff

the (real) economy is contracting, more so than usual because it's got a big fat bloated parasite on its back (Govt) sucking its productive wealth in tax/theft

Govt dampens the good times, makes the recessions worse/deeper, and makes recovery slower.... Govt sucks completely, the worst institution ever falsely fabricated by a bunch of thieving parasites and mornic idealists 

so the real economy will keep going through thick and thin, so will the one true free market left, the black market (no rules required) which will enjoy an epic expansion, and we'll all watch Govt hand-in-hand with its most beloved partners in banking on its assured suicide mission (see already the Govt-wrecked Greece, Egypt and coming to a 'Govt-managed' nation near you real soon)

Govt is total garbage ...dribbling idealist Ron Paul is 100% wrong, they're all crap no matter what the size


crawldaddy's picture

He's right. Large "anything" are too slow to adapt, have a vested interest in keeping the status quo, and usually develop of "us" versus "them" mentality in their dogma.

In this modern constantly quicker world , the last thing any country our society needs is these large institutions. They are what are holding the world and its people hostage.

torak's picture

"JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley together hold 80% of the country’s derivatives risk, and 96% of the exposure to credit derivatives."

Not really.  The US taxpayer holds 80% of the country's derivatives risk, and 96% of the exposure to credit derivatives. 

torak's picture

You can't make 25 million in bonuses running the local Savings and Loan.

Hohum's picture

Why listen to this guy--he's a Nobel Prize winner. ;)

Seer's picture

"Selective listening!" :-) (but yeah, I noted this as well- it's one reason why I discourage broad-brush statements)

Sigep0612's picture

The USA has around 7000 banks.  6000 of which are Community Banks (less than $10B).   The 5 largest banks are bigger than the bottom 3000 combined.  However, the  FDIC runs around applying insane regulatory standards to these 6000 banks as if they're a real threat.  These insane rules require compliance which requires added staff which results in less risk taking.  If your a Community Banker and the FDIC stands over your head with a hammer you're not likely to take any risk.  Then the media portrays all banks as unwilling to help small businesses.  So which is it?  

Do we as a nation want more regulation that inhibits growth or do we want safe institutions that will wilt (merge) because they can not afford the wrath of the FDIC?  Some banks will fail and that is ok. 

The big banks control Washington.  Those that think big banks can be broken up are crazy.  My theory is ...give greater freedom to smaller banks.   

Eventually, we will have finacnial institutions that are not FDIC insured

NotApplicable's picture

Why do you act like your opinion matters to the masters? You are not now, nor will you ever be a "nation."

This system is designed to operate EXACTLY as intended by those it serves.

Prepare for the "death" of 6000+ banks as they are consumed by TBTF banks, all because (as you noted) the FDIC has given them but one path that leads directly to the slaughter-house (they have NO way to pay back their TARP funds). Today, only banks with over a billion in deposits have access to Benron.

Next round? Perhaps $10 billion. And so on.


Zero Govt's picture

well said both of you

here we see the reality of the monopoly that is Govt, growing monopolies as Big WS grows from 50% of the financial sector to an even more bloated 70%. Big Govt begets big corporations just as Benny at the Fed has no clue how to help the real economy, he never talks to it, because 'Big' only talks to and does deals with other 'Bigs'

those expecting Big Govt to do anything but perpetrate and promote more Big (monopolies) on us are living in an idealistic academic dreamworld of policies that'll never be accepted, never be inacted and never work

the one and only way out of ruination by meddlers is freedom, freedom from the whore mother of corruption and destruction, Govt

there is no other way to solve this issue but freedom from Govt intervention and regulation/law

Cloud9.5's picture

If you want to see how this is going to play out, then study Detroit.  

Seer's picture

Ah, the once center of the automotive universe...  BIG industry settles in, reaps, then departs... so the way of the locust...

Zero Govt's picture

Seer, Detroit is an example of the US auto industry building a city through its productivity and then the usual downside to the cycle, where employees demand more and more until the industry becomes uncompetitive. i've been through this business cycle with my own business

Detroit fell to the downside cycle even harder as Unions and Democrats demanded ever more largesse, ever more 'rights' and legislation, more pensions (see the Roman Empire through the exact same cycle)

the final part of Detroits story is of course the reality voting Democrat and promises the socialists can revive your community has not worked in decades. Socialism keeps everyone poor, it couldn't regenerate a hot dog stand (it would drive it into the sewer)  

The private sector built Detroit, the socialists have ensured stagnation and decline no matter how many promises they make and how much of others poeples money they piss away

notadouche's picture

The ultimate helicopter parent,  Uncle Sam.  

Money 4 Nothing's picture

Whenever a Governments power becomes Centralized, A Dictatorship is inevitable.



"Most of us have had the experience, either as parents or youngsters, of trying to discover the "hidden picture' within another picture in a children's magazine. Usually you are shown a landscape with trees, bushes, flowers and other bits of nature. The caption reads something like this: "Concealed somewhere in this picture is a donkey pulling a cart with a boy in it. Can you find them?" Try as you might, usually you could not find the hidden picture until you turned to a page farther back in the magazine which would reveal how cleverly the artist had hidden it from us."



machineh's picture

'The Founding Fathers enshrined separation of powers as the very basis of our government, as a way to ensure that centralization would not lead to tyranny.' -- GW

How did that work out, now that Congress and the Supreme Court are just supine rubber stamps for the executive branch?

Basically, 'separation of powers' is just a phony illusion of three independent branches, but all on the same tainted payroll.

Forget 'separation of powers.' SECESSION of powers is the fix. Kick Uncle Sam off the bus, and get yourself free ...

Seer's picture

I believe that this will be the path.  But... we'll still be surrounded by corporate empires (until it finally all gives way).

Anusocracy's picture

Human Beans have to evolve some more.

dannynewmexico's picture

the future is going to bring small self substaining communities....................



get ready

larz's picture

danny new mexico - awesome - we have some in the lake michigan water shed now they are in test mode but can see they will thrive without cental banks, unions or DC.

Money 4 Nothing's picture

Agenda 21 mandates your *theory. 

Palace of the Governors.

mrktwtch2's picture

the only problem is that the new big banks own congress..and the march towards a highly oligarchial system this pace there will only be rich and poor someday and that eventually leads to revolutions as there are way more have nots than haves..

Zero Govt's picture

"Nobel prize winning economist Ed Prescott has previously said that we have tobreak up the big banks."

He's got the wrong end of the stick.

We have to break-up Big Govt, bin all the rules and let the Free Market (ie. no rules) rush back in. The free market will break up the Big Banks, and all the other 'Big' corporations killing the vibrancy of our markets/society

Remember GW, no 1 person, certainly no committee, knows how to make the right changes.. let's give up on God and its copies, like Govt

" definition – organizations that are too big decrease diversity in competition."

Govt is the No.1 problem, it is the protection racket of Big Corpse who wouldn't be half as big without Govt intervention/regulation/corruption in the market

"The Founding Fathers enshrined separation of powers as the very basis of our government, as a way to ensure that centralization would not lead to tyranny."

Yes and writing some wishful thinking down on a scrap of paper 200 years ago didn't work. Writing anything down on scraps of paper and expecting anyone to follow it is an act of futility in truth

God gave us the 10 Commandemnts and fuck me if there isn't 2,000+ websites on MILFS (coveting other mens wives) driving a horse and coaches through that scrap of wishful thinking

Time you gave up on your own political version of the 10 C's GW, Da Constitution truly is just wishful thinking, and pretty boring to most adults who don't need nannying old bean

"It is time to take power away from those that are hurting all of us by putting our time, money and energy into smaller, more local organizations."

You need you eyesight checked GW, small govt's display all the exact same characteristics as Big Govt (corruption with special interests, ignorance, biggotry, spanner in the works of progress, free society and markets).

That's because it's the exact same system, a MONOPOLY

You get nothing out of a monopoly large or small but crap. That's why local Govt is as crap as State Govt and national Govt and international Govt. 2,500 years of history and there's never been a good Govt of any size. Read my lips: Govt is a totally crap idea. Got it?

You really need to understand the problem before you go spraying about your patchy solutions GW ...stop re-arranging dechchairs and regurgitating tired old scraps of paper... modernise old bean

crawldaddy's picture

govt isn't the problem, BAD govt is.


If you want anarchy, head over to one of the dozens of failed states in africa, see how much you like not having a govt.

Zero Govt's picture

Crawldaddy - when you can manage to think for yourself you'll weight all human history, weigh the evidence and realise Govt is anarchy (a small group of individuals running riot across society)

anarchy just happened in Greece and Egypt, a small group (in Govt) wrecking the economy and by default, society

what kicks off civil unrest is an economy in the sewer, caused in Greece by the Govt wrecking the economy in hundreds of rules and Laws and regulations. In Egypt a small trader set himself alight because the State Police demanded his Govt license to do business on a street corner

you have hundreds of examples of meddling (Govt) tossers telling other people how to conduct their business and ruining the market. Why has US oil production tanked over the past 40 years and now politicians want more US production? Because the same meddling idiots ruined US production in mountains of legislation.

Why is full time jobs declining at a rapid rate? Because the meddling US Govt has loaded so much largesse onto employers they're dropping employees for the less cumbersome part-timers 

i don't have to "head over to Africa" to find anarchy, i can find it in Govt 'managed' (murdered) Greece, Egypt, Commie China and Russia, North Korea and the thug US Govt with its global anarchy, invading other nations under false illegal pretences (from Veitnam to Iraq)

Govt is anarchy dipshit, when you can think for yourself you'll work it out. Until then keep 'believing' in ideals as your idealistic meddling toerags of Govt ruin every country in Europe, nearly every town, State in the US including the suicidal national Govt itself. Trainwrecks ahead, ignore the evidence dreamer, keep sucking on hopium it'll all work out according your idiotic belief system that's failed for every year of the last 2,500

NotApplicable's picture

That's not anarchy, that's chaos.

It would behoove you to learn the difference.

(hint: anarchists do not attempt to govern others, but instead approach them on the basis of voluntary cooperation. "Failed states" meanwhile, is a euphanism for civil war, with factions (gangs), fighting over turf).

Seer's picture

OH, PUHLEASE!  More of the "the world will end if there's no govt" line!

What you're seeing is TRANSITION.

If you want to know what govt looks like just take a look at Afghanistan and Iraq.  This is "western" govt at its finest! (yeah, more so Afghanistan as it didn't really have a govt before).  And then there's Belgium...

Zero Govt's picture

Seer, quite right, the idealists cannot relate to reality, they do not see it is Govt wrecking the economy and society (Govt causes anarchy).. instead they regurgitate the garbage academia spews which they swallow whole without thinking and the perverse logic that without Govt anarchy will reign

yet all human history shows it is Govt that is anarchy, a small group of deranged tossers runnign riot across society/the economy. We have trainwrecks from Rome 2,000 years ago to Greece wrecked every 14 years on average to the current brewing suicides of countries like Portugal, Spain, France and assuredly Britain, Japan and America

the anarchy that is Govt, it's in its job description for a small group to be given all the power and 'Lord It' and run riot over the nation afterall, just as Royalty, Religion and tribal cheifs before them did

if you're abig enough idealistic idiots to give up your personal freedom to unaccountable tossers you get precisely what you deserve, being taken to the cleaners

rwe2late's picture


Your ‘philosophy’ is hardly suited even for a hermit.

Your ‘utopia’ is best described by some of your past comments at ZH.

“If you want an example of a free market without any rules (free of Laws, judges, lawyers, regulations, employment and consumer protection legislation) see the brilliant free - black - market in illegal drugs.”

“Yep, some adults telling other adults what or how they should do things. They can all go fuck themselves.”

“So setting rules is stupid par excellence. Free = freedom (no rules, self determination on any issue).”


Zero Govt's picture


so you're all for adults telling, and laying down regulations, for how other adults should conduct their person and their businesses.

1. Got an example of where a rule works?

2. Got an example of any person that knows better than someone else how to run their business? ...Barney Frank maybe, he's spent a career knowing it all, thouygh the finance industry he oversees is a rotting pile of garbage (don't let that stand in the way of your beliefs)

I've got 2,400 examples of rules that don't work, and 2,500 years of evidence piled mountain range high they don't work. You've got fuk-all backing up your case, just a belief system which you can only hold onto by having your head up your arse ignoring reality

regards a "hermit" you can see everyone enjoying ther hermit lifestyle in Greece and Egypt, and Communist China and Russia before them, brought to you by ignorant tossers (in Govt) telling other people what to do, or like GW here thinking a few wise men (pontificating idealists) know better how to instruct society and the economy ...their economies are drowned to suffocation in laws, regulations and red tape and are in the sewer.. that's where meddling idiots like yourself and GW, and rule-makers get you

Freedom works ...there is no evidence whatsoever in the history of humanity rules do, in fact all evidence points unequivicably toward the more rules the faster your economy/society dies (lives the hermit lifestyle)

you're a perfect example of why the commercial brain works, and all others (academics, politicians, economists and idealists like yourself/GW humming a mantra) don't. You cannot weigh evidence and make a good decision. You float in the clouds never to get in touch with mountains of reality to effect real change, your a believer in nonsense like religion 

keep humming your vacuous mantra, "Da Constitution, Da Constitiution.." like Ron Paul. It's Plan B for all idealists, because Plan A, the scrap of paper, didn't work so all you're left with is wishful thinking... Dream On ..and mind your own f'n business

Anusocracy's picture

Are you willing to put your system up against others to see which works best?

I thought not. You're about control, and not what is best for everyone.

You and your ilk is what is wrong with society.

rwe2late's picture

See my other comments #268746, 2687511, and 2688730

Just who do you think you are actually siding with?

The “anti-government” scheme to stop abuses by the privileged few is

for the many to condone the few keeping all their present ill-gotten gains and economic power,


for the many to forsake forming and/or empowering any democratic government to prevent further abuses,

while allowing the wealthy few to employ "privatized" armies of 'Pinkertons' and agents to protect and expand property and privilege.

Anusocracy's picture

You think that there is a place for government in civilized society.

I say you can't have a civilized society if government exists.

You prefer to choose for everyone. I prefer to allow people to choose, like they would choose a religion.

You're about control.

NotApplicable's picture

Once again, yet another attack of a strawman, wholly avoiding the ideas surrounding the ethos of voluntary cooperation and non-aggression toward others.

I like how you made no effort to refute his ideas, but just repeat them back, believing they themselves are full of ridicule. It's like you cannot even take the effort to understand what's being said.

tmorris's picture

I wholeheartedly agree with the author!  We need only look to Mother Nature to gleen the natural order.  Interpreting and applying the rules of nature is where we need a lot of help, however the answers are right in front of us.  

Anusocracy's picture

That's not the solution, we currently live by nature's rules: there are producers and there are predators and parasites.

The solution is to deny predators and parasites access to civilization. That's not likely because most everyone is a predator/parasite wannabe.

The problem looks out from your bathroom mirror.

NotApplicable's picture

I didn't bother to read what I perceive to be incoherence, but tell me, did he advocate voting in support of the state again, in an effort to limit its power?

Skateboarder's picture

Those who recognize and follow nature's rules are completely at peace with life. Sentience facilitates logic and reason, which in turn allow you to see exactly where and what your place in nature is. This might be what the Buddha called 'enlightenment.' Those who don't recognize and follow nature's rules will always be in conflict with themselves and one another.

Logic and reason are the cornerstones of understanding oneself and one's ecosystem. Mastering them leads to utter contentment and a purpose and direction for true progress. Fear and superstition, on the other hand, are what hinder us.