This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Doug Casey: The Virtues of Capitalism

Freaking Heck's picture




 

Originally posted at: www.capitalistexploits.at

What can be said of Doug Casey? His life and career are the stuff of legend among investors and speculators, especially in the junior resource space.

Doug is a friend and mentor to Chris and I. For over 25 years I've read his monthly missives, devoured his books and attended his   workshops. I credit Doug with leading me to my first big score, and imparting enough wisdom to make me see the sense of holding onto that winner as long as it made sense to. The value of that lesson was something that can never be repaid.

Doug was one of the key people, along with my friend "Dave" ("The Tao of Dave" - http://capitalistexploits.at/2011/02/the-tao-of-dave/) with whom I credit for arming me with the confidence to leave my comfortable life in the States, family, friends and business partners to experience the broader world and invest and speculate in the frontier markets.

Although he isn't always right, and has been early on many of his calls, his viewpoints are always enlightening and entertaining!

Doug, Chris and I correspond fairly often. I rang him up a while back and asked if we could chat about my favorite subject, capitalism. I proposed that we discuss the virtues of capitalism, since these days capitalism is almost universally scorned and misunderstood. It is perceived as an evil system that creates greedy, uncaring and corrupt monsters. As part of the crowd that understands the folly in those perceptions, it's our moral obligation to right this wrong!

Thankfully, Doug graciously agreed to a back and forth on the matter. Read on...

--------

Mark: Doug, thanks so much for speaking with me!

Doug: Mark, I like people in general, and you in particular. Regrettably, most conversations are limited to subjects like the weather, sports, and the state of the roads. I can do ten minutes on those things, but that about exhausts my threshold of boredom. Trivial conversation doesn’t give you much idea about the character of the person you’re talking to—although, paradoxically, sometimes it tells you more than you care to know about them. They aren’t interested in philosophical issues in general, and absolutely don’t like to discuss practical and applied philosophy. Because that amounts to politics and religion—the two things that are anathema to polite company. I don’t expect we’ll do any riffs on religion here, but we can certainly do politics. And economics, which is, most regrettably, intimately related to politics in today’s world.

So it’s a pleasure talking to you.

Mark: Capitalism is oft-misunderstood. I've heard you say that most people tend to mis-use words because they don't truly know what they mean. I agree, and per the subject matter I want to discuss today, I'm convinced the majority have NO idea how to define capitalism. As evidence to this I refer readers to Peter Schiff's YouTube videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahMGoB01qiA) wherein he went to the Occupy Wall Street protests in NYC to defend the 1% and see if those protesting really understood what capitalism was.

I don't know if he just happened to pick the dumbest of the lot, but in general the lack of any coherent understanding of what capitalism TRULY is was shocking. So that everyone reading this is clear, can you define "capitalism" for us?

Doug: If someone can’t define a word precisely, then they actually don’t know what they’re talking about. Imprecise language leads to sloppy thinking. Which inevitably leads to pointless and unresolvable arguments.

But, yes, Peter here is somewhat reminiscent of Jay Leno in one of his “Jay Walking" skits, where he approaches normal looking people and asks them questions like “Who did we fight in the Revolutionary War?”, and gets answers like “The Germans?”. But what do you expect from people who have nothing better to do than hang out in parks and whine?

Of course capitalism got a bad rap from the very start partly because—most people don’t know this—the word was actually coined by Karl Marx. However, the fact is we don’t have capitalism, and never have. Capitalism might be defined as an unrestricted free market, one where—to use Marx’s quite correct distinction—both consumer goods and capital goods are both privately owned and privately controlled.

What almost everybody calls capitalism is actually fascism, a system where both consumer and capital goods are privately owned, but they are strictly regulated and controlled. This is a huge distinction. In socialism—which is now quite rare—capital goods, the means of production, are state owned. In communism, absolutely everything is state-owned. In any event, all the evils attributed to capitalism today are do to state intervention in the economy—regulations, monopolies, subsidies, preferences, taxes, licensing, currency inflation. In a genuine capitalist society you’d have none of these things.

Mark: I think it goes without saying that for the most part, sans inheritance (lucky), coercion (taxation) and theft (mafia), those that control any significant amount of capital are intelligent, hard-working value creators. One cannot legitimately amass wealth without producing something that other people are willing to pay for. Although many people argue that materialism is evil, including religious zealots, the desire for "stuff" is almost baked into our DNA. You've suggested this yourself.

Despite an almost rabid hatred these days of capitalists and big business, I see a lot of people walking around, Tweeting and texting on their beloved iPhones, wearing their Nike tennis shoes and Levi's, while simultaneously trying to undermine and lobby for the destruction of the very system - capitalism - that allowed them to buy those things! The hypocrisy is mind-numbing! How can we make sense of the disconnect between reality and perception here?

Doug: Well, a century ago Schumpeter predicted that capitalism’s own success at producing would lead to its overthrow. I think he was right. Maybe it’s genetic in humans. We’ve apparently always been tribal creatures, where the group held many or most things in common; perhaps that’s just the way the human brain is wired. The fact that capitalism has changed almost everything in the material world over the last 200 years doesn’t mean it’s changed the way people think.

I believe in Pareto’s Law, the 80-20 rule. In this application I’m of the opinion that although perhaps 80% of people are basically decent types, 20% are potential trouble sources, and 20% of that 20%, or 4%, are really bad actors. 20% of that minority are hard core criminals. Criminals believe in coercion, violence, and theft. Unfortunately, they are naturally drawn to the state—which is institutionalized coercion. They concentrate there, and after a while they dominate it. They undermine and corrupt society by promising f”re”e goodies to society, which are stolen from the capitalists—which is to say the innovators and producers. It’s hard for libertarians to counter that with esoteric and seemingly hard-hearted economic theories, however correct.

At this point every country in the world is headed in the wrong direction, philosophically. Most importantly the US, where more than half the people are living at the expense of the other half. And as the economy grinds down in the years to come, things will get worse. Why should the trend change?

I don’t know if that’s a good answer to your question. Maybe it’s because libertarians are a tiny mutant minority. Maybe it’s a spiritual flaw in the nature of man. Or maybe it’s because most people are stupid—stupid defined as not necessarily of low intelligence, but having an unwitting tendency towards self-destruction.

Mark: Almost every other political, religious or economic model besides capitalism supports the premise that a man's efforts and earnings are only virtuous when given to others. It's clear that the leader of the free world, Mr. Obama believes that. He has infamously said, "I just want to spread the wealth around". Doug, is capitalism itself virtuous, or is it what one does with it that is virtuous.

Doug: Capitalism, defined as an unrestricted free market, is innately virtuous. I suppose it’s possible to succeed in a free market without virtue, but it’s unlikely. People—absolutely everybody—prefer to associate with and do business with virtuous people. People who are trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, cheerful, thrifty, brave, and clean. That’s the official list of Boy Scout virtues, although I left out obedience on the grounds it’s not a virtue, and reverence, which is questionable. Irreverence is much more worthy… Add in classical virtues like courage, fortitude, generousity, honor, foresight, prudence, hospitality, thoughtfulness, and patience. Disregard the faux virtues of faith, hope and charity—they’re really moral flaws.

In a totally free market, the most productive people, the people who create the most value for others, are rewarded. The ones with bad habits live under bridges and die young. Justice is another virtue I believe in, and it means that people should get what they deserve. Fascism, which rules the world today, is unjust because the people who are politically connected—not necessarily economically productive—do best.

Capitalism brings out the best in people. Socialism encourages every possible vice. But people have been trained to believe exactly the opposite.   

Mark: One of the most well-known proponents of capitalism was Ayn Rand, whom I know is one of your favorites. In her book "The Virtue of Selfishness", she says, "The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve 'the common good.' It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice."

Socialists and communists often cite the "common good" as the reason for their tyranny. That term is undefinable, as what is good for you, might not be good for me or others. Force and coercion - the things that the socialists and communists rely on - are what's really immoral, correct?

Doug: It’s absolutely perverse how the apologists for statism and collectivism have stolen the moral high ground. It’s one reason I despise Republicans and conservatives, that they accept the moral premises of the enemy, only saying that we should be more moderate in pursuing these supposedly noble goals. Conservatives think they’re being pragmatic, but are perceived—correctly—as just being confused and inconsistent hypocrites.

And, yes, I’m a huge fan of Rand, primarily because she offered a moral defense of capitalism. I’m only sorry she didn’t go far enough; unfortunately, she wound up defending the necessity of a state. It’s also unfortunate that a religious cult has formed around some of her ideas, full of dogmatic acolytes who look on her every opinion as holy scripture. But, then again, another law I believe in is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which holds that everything degenerates over time. That would appear to apply to intellectual movements as well the material world. As further proof of that I offer the fact the pundit Glen Beck now describes himself as a libertarian. That word is now clearly on its way to perdition, like the word “liberal” before it.

Mark: Recently British MP Daniel Hannan argued at the "Occupy Wall Street Oxford Debates" that the bailouts were an "ethical crime" and a generational offense. As we've said herein, bad businesses should be allowed to fail to make way for better-run organizations to take their place. Yet, the politicians on both sides of the pond voted to bail out their campaign contributors at the expense of the taxpayer in 2008, and they continue to do it to this day.

Capitalism has been ravaged by politicians and an empowered elite that need to limit and/or eliminate competition to survive. It's only cronyism that keeps them afloat at all. So, if bailing out failing businesses is unethical, then allowing them to fail would be THE ethical thing to do. I know the answers to this, but humour our freshman readers a bit and explain why allowing bad businesses to fail is more ethical, and ultimately pro-growth for the economy, than bailing them out.

Doug: Well said, Mark. The important thing to remember is that if a business—whether it be a bank, a manufacturer, a food producer, or what-have-you—is allowed to collapse, it’s largely a financial phenomenon. The real wealth—the buildings, the factories, the technologies, the skills of the workers—still exist. They’re simply redeployed. In a capitalist society the owners of the business are punished for running it badly, which is correct and proper.

In today’s fascist societies, however, uneconomic businesses are propped up by the taxpayers. And managers and shareholders are rewarded, instead of bankrupted. So, perversely, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Mark: Doug, I've heard you and others I respect argue that amassing as much capital as one can is morally the "right thing to do". In fact, in your book, Totally Incorrect, Louis James paraphrases you, saying "...money is a positive moral good in society because the pursuit of it motivates the creation of value..." Can you explain this further?

Doug: Yes, this speaks to my thoughts on charity. I’m opposed to conventional charity, not because it doesn’t do some good, but because its major unseen consequence is to disipate capital, while it often cements poor people in bad habits. Conventional charity’s main purpose is to allow the rich to feel righteous.

If you really want to be a philanthropist, and benefit humanity, then you should create more wealth, and increase the supply of capital. That’s what separates us from our primitive ancestors living hand-to-mouth in caves. It’s the accumulation of capital, through productive activity, that raises the general standard of living.

Mark: Back to Rand for a moment. In her book "For the New Intellectual", she says, "Capitalism demands the best of every man—his rationality—and rewards him accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him. His success depends on the objective value of his work and on the rationality of those who recognize that value." This implies that lazy people will not, and should not succeed, and that ill-conceived and/or poorly-managed businesses will fail.

However, in this world of too big to fail, and "everyone gets a ribbon", ineptitude and laziness are almost considered maladies or handicaps that should be subsidized! We wrote a post called "The Strawberry Generation". Therein we talked about the belief among today's youth that regardless of their ability or motivation they are "entitled" to anything and everything they desire, most-specifically a high-paying job right out of college. It's almost ingrained in the DNA nowadays. Given that reality, I'm not too optimistic; how about you?

Doug: I’m of two minds on this subject. On the one hand, the longest trend in existence is the Ascent of Man, and it’s still in motion; that’s cause for optimism.

There are essentially two reasons for our upward progress. One reason is that even the average man—although especially the independent thinker—intuitively realizes that he has to produce more than he consumes, and save the difference. That;s not just how you become rich, it’s how you ensure your survival. Saving builds capital. The other reason is science and technology, which both compound because of capital, and add to it. And there are more scientists and engineers alive today than have lived in all previous history put t ogether.

On the other hand, it appears that half the people in the US, and even more in some other places, chronically consume more than they produce. They’re essentially parasites that vote for a living. Their numbers are growing, they seem to feel more entitled than ever, they control the political systems of the world, and they’re becoming bolder and more strident. Furthermore, the type of sociopaths that are attracted to government appear to have reached a critical mass. They’ve long controlled the school systems, which serve to indoctrinate kids with destructive ideas. In addition, governments seem to have co-opted many or most of the advances in technology—drones, military robots, surveillance cameras everywhere, massive communications monitoring—and this impresses me as quite destructive.

So there’s no guarantee that progress will continue.

Mark: I know how you feel about charities, and both Chris and I agree; most of them aren't worth a damn. But, it's a fact that there are those that cannot care for themselves. Those born with major disabilities, mental retardation, or those who are injured physically and can no longer work in any capacity. In a true capitalist society, how would those individuals be cared for? Who is responsible for them.

Doug: Despite the fact that no good deed seems to go unpunished I, personally, like to help people. But I’m rather discriminating. My policy is to only aid people of good moral character; the best allocation of my time, and the best thing for society, is to try to make the able more able, not fight an uphill battle for minimal returns. Further, when I help someone it’s usually through a loan, albeit one that I never expect to be repaid. That has several advantages. It allows me to assess the character of the recipient, by seeing whether he repays it. It encourages him to use it wisely. And if it’s paid back, it allows me to repeat the action, and “pay it forward”, if you will. Only an idiot tries to be a cornucopia, giving money it to the benighted to fritter away till there’s none left.

But that’s just my approach. If others want to help the halt, the lame and the retarded I’m all for it, and wish them well. I don’t want to invalidate others choices. It’s their money; they should use it as they think best. That’s what makes a market, differing desires and approaches to problems. I simply urge them to act responsibly, which means to do it themselves, instead of guiltily giving money to some massive charity bureaucracy with executives hauling down a million dollars a year. Which is a fair description of most popular charities today.

Mark: Doug, how about coming to Fiji with us to sit down with the Prime Minister and see if we can't get him to see things our way (laughs). All joking aside, I know you entertained something like that in Vanuatu...trying to turn it into a capitalist stronghold. You even told me you had a couple thousand acres picked out there for a "Galt's Gulch-like" community, years prior to Cafayate. What happened?

Doug: Well, one of my hobbies for many years has been pitching heads of state on a radical plan that would radically transform their backwater hellholes into Hong Kong on steroids. I’ve had some really fun, and weird, adventures in the process. But while it’s possible I could get lucky, it’s an extreme longshot. So I view it as entertainment.

But I also just wanted a neat place to live. So we bought 1300 acres on the edge of the wine-growing town of Cafayate in NW Argentina and have built a world-class resort there. Fantastic amenities of every type— you name it, we have it, or soon will. I did it because I wanted a place that had all the facilities and amenities a civilized person could want, but isolated. I want to watch the riots on my wide screen in the company of friends, not out my front window. I invite your readers to come down and check it out.

Mark: Doug, this has been great! I know you get asked this question a lot, but in closing what countries seem to stand a chance? And, if you were in your 20's again (ah, that would be nice for all of us...) where would you be planting your flags? Where is capitalism still understood and considered the virtuous path?

Doug: I was a big promoter of Burma a few years ago, back when nobody went there, you could get a suite in the best hotel in Rangoon for $40 a night, and you could still cut deals with the generals. But that ship has sailed; the place is now overrun with Uhuru jumpers. Mongolia is still interesting for lots of reasons. In the Western Hemisphere I’d go to Guyana, or especially Surinam. But I think Africa is the place to be. If someone with some moxie were to camp out in Windhoek, Maputo, Luanda, Kinshasa, or the capitals of the smaller countries in West Africa for a month it’s got to pay off. You have to go some place few people go, where you have a marginal advantage.

But where is capitalism understood? Basically nowhere, although people in the Orient have the best intuitive understanding of it. I’d forget about Western Europe; it will be a petting zoo for the Chinese in a couple of generations.

Mark: Chris and I agree wholeheartedly, as does our young upstart colleague, Scott. We plucked this young man from the jaws of Wall Street and are deploying him in the markets you speak of.

Thanks Doug, let's do this again soon! Enjoy wherever you're at right now!

--------

With no further comment...

- Mark

"Two things are infinite – the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 05/17/2013 - 11:58 | 3573136 Helvetico
Helvetico's picture

Slavery was a fairly good example of Capitalism unrestrained by pesky ethical systems. Child labor, too. Why can't we go back to the good old days of no regulation?

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 13:26 | 3573412 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

No, anything with capitalism has full power of consent (no slavery allowed) for all participants. Anything depriving power of consent (rights, freedoms) of a person (slavery) is strictly anti-capitalism. It’s the very definition of the word.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 16:32 | 3574187 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

According to you, or Mankiw? Certainly not the man who coined it.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 23:10 | 3575131 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

According to all capitalists and anyone honest who isn't a capitalist but will admit what the definition entangles.

People are not property, capitalism deals with property, production and trade. Slavery is the Roman and Viking model of economy. Military raiders and executioners, not capitalists. Tyrants and villains.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 12:41 | 3573254 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Total bullshit.

Slavery was an improvement over killing captives and that occurred many thousands of years ago during the transition from foraging.

And by the way, I was a 'child laborer' because I chose to be one. It taught me the value of time, money, and work.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 05:03 | 3572114 dognamedabu
dognamedabu's picture

Does force work?

 

 

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 05:03 | 3572108 dognamedabu
dognamedabu's picture

...........

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 04:29 | 3572089 dognamedabu
dognamedabu's picture

Thanks. The entire message really redifines capitalism. 

 

People really get upset when you said this:

 

. Criminals believe in coercion, violence, and theft. Unfortunately, they are naturally drawn to the state—which is institutionalized coercion. They concentrate there, and after a while they dominate it. They undermine and corrupt society by promising f”re”e goodies to society, which are stolen from the capitalists—which is to say the innovators and producers. It’s hard for libertarians to counter that with esoteric and seemingly hard-hearted economic theories, however correct.

 

 

There is a case for hmmm compassion.. That all aren't like you and don't have the greatness to live elsewhere.. Really.. Such stuff should and does make people mad.. Yet.... After having say a dog eag shit and then go hmmm if you didn't eat shit you would be like me.. That pisses people off. How dare you comes to mind.. I don't blame the guys tryuing.. But for real... That is Capitalism.. If these guys who pretend to not love the game all of a sudden had to deal with reality? Oh no!

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 04:15 | 3572076 bill40
bill40's picture

These guys are raving lunatics. Where does libertarianism finish and anarchy start?

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 04:12 | 3572071 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

As the 'american' author can not cope with reality and must take shelter in fantasy, he deploys the same 'american' tricks that always converge to the same conclusion: human beings/nature is the mistake, not the beloved 'american' system.

The guy can not pinpoint 'americanism'. He must fabricate some fantasical alternate versions to explain why the 'american' system has not delivered on its self proclaimed goals yet.

What is the reality? It is that 'american' societies have established a domination as no other human societies ever did, that they have a global reach and base, providing them with more means than no other human societies ever enjoyed, that 'american' societies are more total societies than no other human societies before (always progressing on that dimension)

No one can compete with 'americans' nowadays. 'Americans' are the least restrained people in human history. They can be who they want to be. And boom, then you've got that 'american' world. Which is the purest reflection of what an 'american' is, since no one has the power to taint the 'american' way.

'Americans' cant cope with that basic reality.

Hence their deep leaning to stuff like conspiracies, secret societies, aliens, psychopaths, truer than true this or that etc

The reality is that since 1176, July, 4th, the world has turned more and more 'american'

But 'americans' cant admit that the world of today is their product. The world of today must be fathered by something else.

'Americanism' is the best thing to ever happen to human beings so the world of today cant simply not be the result of an ever increasing americanization of the world.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 04:20 | 3572084 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Chinese citizenism citizens are fond of victimology. They have troubles depicting themselves as they are.

They go at war on humanity's behalf, to help human kind, certainly not to rob from another nation.

Human nature is not eternal. Only 'AnAnonymist' Chinese citizenism citizens nature is. Hasnt changed one bit since inception of the PRC.

But this narrative, sticking to reality, will bruise Chinese citizenism citizens' ego who enjoy painting themselves as victims.

Not only a factual presentation of the Chinese citizenism world order has little chance to be admitted by this guy but it has also little chance to be admitted by Chinese citizenism citizens at large.

You won't get popular with statements like that.  Don't worry, most 'AnAnonymist' Chinese citizenism citizens here see the mid 20th Chinese Citizenism Communautist century as the golden past, the days when the Chinese Citizenism Communautist Party prosperity was in a greatly leaping forward manner prodigiously.

Life was cool in those days, it is only because of the 'americans' that the Chinese Citizenism Communautist Party had to figure out another means to maintain expansionist schemes (and then had to subsitute subjugation of Tibetans for subjugation of Chineses).

Remember, peeps, for 'AnAnonymists', Chinese citizenism is the perfect system for humanity. A system that never fails. Only human nature fails the perfect system known as Chinese citizenism.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 04:14 | 3572075 akak
akak's picture

Lead-tainted playthings and slow-roasted kittens
Black cooking marmites and foul public shittins'
Denial, bigotry and middle class kings
These are a few of my favorite things

Crap-covered roadsides and crisp Szechuan puppies
Truncheons and sweat shops and Chink neo-yuppies
Rare tiger penis that makes big the shwing
These are a few of my mattering things

When the dog woks
When the prole shites
When I'm feeling sad
I simply remember my favorite theme:
That every 'American' is bad.

Dead female fetuses on toxic waste mountains
Resource depletion and shit-tainted fountains
Naked hypocrisy and trolling in spring
These are a few of my monolized things

Citizenism and insanitation
The criminal rape of the Tibetan nation
Circular arguments that run 'round in rings
These are a few of my blobbing-up things

When I troll blogs
When my butt stinks
When I'm feeling mad
I simply remember my favorite meme:
That every 'American' is bad.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 04:00 | 3572060 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

The article should be titled:

Doug Casey: the virtues of fantasy.

What is going on is 'americanism'. But 'americans' can not admit it since it would be self indiction. And self indiction is a big thing in 'americanism'.

Of course, this 'american' must fabricate something else, it has to be something else at work.

Yet, when taking a look at 'american' history since 1776, July,4th, since its beginning, one sees 'americans' have constantly applied the same system known as 'americanism'

Fascism has not taken over. It is the same good old 'americanism' at work.

But with a heavy distinction to make: among 'americans', some thought themselves entitled to reap the best of 'americanism' through generational play, this forever.

And at this point, they feel themselves more and more fed to the machine.

The machine itself has not changed, there is no fascist machine taking over. It is always the 'american' machine at work. But the inputs are changing due to the prospect of depletion of resources.

When you run a business of extorting the weak, farming the poor, the business does not close down when the usual targets used as extorted, farmed are saturated or disappearing.

The extorters and farmers simply find new material to extort from and farm.

The business does not change. The extorted, farmed change.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 13:28 | 3573416 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Interesting claim. Many would disagree (not just for you being who you are) but the founding fathers of ‘america’ (North or South?!) were in fact quite rich and in business so one should question if all they did is fortify business property & pretend that it was a nation, in addition to acquiring land using force instead of contract (First Nations)

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 04:11 | 3572069 akak
akak's picture

Lead-tainted playthings and slow-roasted kittens
Black cooking marmites and foul public shittins'
Denial, bigotry and middle class kings
These are a few of my favorite things

Crap-covered roadsides and crisp Szechuan puppies
Truncheons and sweat shops and Chink neo-yuppies
Rare tiger penis that makes big the shwing
These are a few of my mattering things

When the dog woks
When the prole shites
When I'm feeling sad
I simply remember my favorite theme:
That every 'American' is bad.

Dead female fetuses on toxic waste mountains
Resource depletion and shit-tainted fountains
Naked hypocrisy and trolling in spring
These are a few of my monolized things

Citizenism and insanitation
The criminal rape of the Tibetan nation
Circular arguments that run 'round in rings
These are a few of my blobbing-up things

When I troll blogs
When my butt stinks
When I'm feeling mad
I simply remember my favorite meme:
That every 'American' is bad.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 04:14 | 3572074 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

'Americans' obeying their 'american' nature. They must take shelter in fantasy. Have to turn the eyes away from the reality of 'americanism'.

Funny how 'americans' cannot resist their nature.

They must be 'american'. Period. It cant be otherwise.

Take note. This ensures the future will be 'american'.

Hedge accordingly.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 04:21 | 3572082 akak
akak's picture

Hypocrisy.  Projection.  Denialism.  Scapegoating.  Bigotry.  Inability to self-indict.  Insanitation.  Monolizing the speeching means.  Blobbing-up.

Welcome to the New World Odor of the Chinese Citizenism World.

It's a foul and polluted world, but you'll get used to the smell, you'll see.

Oops, stepped in it again.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 04:23 | 3572085 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Historical re-engineering is a dominant dimension in 'AnAnonymism'.

Somehow, 'AnAnonymists' when they sound the bugle for the charge to begin, sometimes, mess up their references.

It is a natural thing for 'AnAnonymists' to forbid others from adopting or displaying a behaviour they Chinese citizenism citizens adopt or display.

Double standards, duplicity are core features in 'AnAnonymist' Chinese citizenist eternal nature.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 04:34 | 3572092 akak
akak's picture

Historical re-engineeringizing is key component of blobbed-up core of Chinese Citizenism, whereby AnAnonymystics can hop into their magical lightning-powered time-traveling flying rickshaw and sail back to any given historical epic in order to introduce "americanism" and "US citizenism" centuries before the founding and even the settlement of the United States.  Only through such feats of unicornian monolizing of the time-traveling means can all evils of the world, past, present and future, be blamed on American citizens --- even those who fight against their own corrupt and criminal ruling oligarchy.

With the power of Chinese Citizenism at hand, the hypocritizenism of AnAnonymystics can exponentially approach its natural asymptote, that being the function of x = ya + b, where y represents the natural inclination of Chinese Citizenism citizens to squat on the side of the road, a represents the number of missing dogs in the neighborhood, and b represents the number of Tibetans killed or displaced from their homeland since the Chinese invasion and annexation of Tibet in 1950.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 13:15 | 3573375 Imminent Crucible
Imminent Crucible's picture

While AnAnonymous is busy raping the Tibetan children, I need a translation: what is "self-indiction", or any kind of "indiction"? Does he mean "indictment" or possibly "indication". I haven't self-indicated in a long time, if ever. By all indications, there should be an indictment of his (in) diction.

Pass me one of those Szechuan puppies, will you, and a PuPu platter.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 01:34 | 3571947 dognamedabu
dognamedabu's picture

Seems people missed the point. The reason you are pissed at capitalism is because IT ISNT CAPITALISM. In your anger you want the LAW/STATE to ride in on its white horse..It'd be cute if it weren't so unnerving. The very thing you HATE is what your solution wil bring. Really connect the dots. It wasn't free markets that ruined it all, it was people at the top in GOVERNMENT allowing 'capitalist' do their deeds. In a true free market these criminals would be lunch meat..Your and everyone you know anger would have made sure of it. BUT seeing how the GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS ARE ONE..We are left arguing over the fine points which Im positive is what they wanted anyway.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 01:41 | 3571955 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Oh, all your all caps aside, I'm not missing any points. What you call 'isn't capitalism' is just a phase of capitalism. In the real world, your static definitons don't apply to dynamic systems.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 13:32 | 3573431 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

No, it’s not just a phase. Capitalism doesn’t have phases. It’s very binary. You follow all the rules and then it’s capitalism. You violate any of them or never implement them then it’s NOT capitalism. A very bare minimum is that ALL participants MUST have full power of consent to trade, produce or hold off on doing so, any services or goods. Any and all. Today’s system is no such system and so violates the requirements for capitalism. Fiat paper money by law violates this. Eminent domain violates this. Regulations demanding that some people get discounts for this, higher prices for that, violates this, as do trade agreements that are anti-free trade yet labeled “free trade”. No government can negotiate a “free trade” agreement, only businesses and individuals can do so. The rest is a sham.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 15:42 | 3573572 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

I wasn't aware that from the grave Marx had authourized you to redefine his concept(s) at your convenience.

But as you are up and down this thread doing just that with such fiery vim and vigour, what other explanation can there be?

That's amazing!

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 23:08 | 3575124 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Marx was such a giant fraud he invited the entire world to mock him and to prove him a liar - and it has been done many times.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 01:56 | 3571978 dognamedabu
dognamedabu's picture

I really don't understand some people. I'm as against the way things are currently run as anyone but I have never once thought my way out was more government. Quite the opposite.. To want 'the right' govrrnment to come save the day is like asking 'the rigbt' bandits to do the same. If it is corruption and monopolies you hate the only answer is to not back them up with voted for mafia.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 12:14 | 3573180 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

I would suggest not using 'capitalism' and use only 'a free market'.

That way phrases like "isn't capitalism' is just a phase of capitalism" would obviously be nonsensical.

Isn't a free market is just a phase of a free market just doesn't make sense. You either have a free market, a regulated market, or no market.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 14:16 | 3573481 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Excellent comment. Now you have my attention!

Except that,

'free market' = unmitigated capitalism.

so

'isn't free market'=mitigated capitalism.

And depending on the mitigating factors, that distinction can be further divided into the very different categories of either fascism, or mixed economy.

so 'isn't free market' is still just another phase of capitalism (Uh, albeit awkwardly, I confess) according to Marx, who coined the concept and accurately outlined its progression, right up to where it's at today.

 

 

Sat, 05/18/2013 - 13:33 | 3575988 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

'free market' = capitalism

'isn't free market' = mitigated capitalism = what we have = fascism

Wed, 05/22/2013 - 02:12 | 3586783 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

or=What other countries have=mixed economy=success

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 02:54 | 3572010 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

"I have never once thought my way out was more government."

Sorry it's so complex for you, but that's life. I know it seems counterintuitive, but sometimes you have to take what seems a step backwards before you can move forwards.

The problem is that you have experienced nothing but heinously corrupt gov'ts, and so you have fallaciously concluded that means that all gov't s existing today must therefore be entirely corrupt. This is not true.

Eg.  Norway may have more gov't than you (I'm assuming), yet they have more freedom as well, regardless of what any of the ubiquitous sites (or shills on ZH) sponsored by the WSJ may constantly try to drill into your skull. They have more of everything really, on a per capita basis.

You know how I know they have more freedom? Because their nation isn't  carrying any debt.  National Debt (and debt in general) is the chief implement of modern day slave traders. Norway's national balance sheet is so deep in the black that if they wanted to they could give every man woman and child around 120KUSD and still not be carrying any debt. That balance sheet also means they can retain their sovereignty when dealing with other nations, and more importantly, international banks. The are free to write any domestic laws they wish, because their nation is effectively free from financial obligations to foreign interests.   

They achieve this freedom through fiscal conservatism, a reasonably politically engaged population, and transparent, diligently monitored gov't (though admittedly 'more' of it by your definitions). That and some highly profitable SOE's. They walked through late 2008.

Their population would certainly not stand for any 'voted for mafia'. And when the time comes to adopt to a system of 'less gov't' like some of the excellent ideas suggested on this very thread, Norway will be in an prime position to make a smooth transition.

 

 

 

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 13:34 | 3573436 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

No, every step back is actually 100 back. All governments are corrupt in all history for all humanity - period. Any claim otherwise is a fraud, a lie or an act of supreme stupidity.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 22:29 | 3573531 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Of course. I'll just take your eminently qualified word for that, shall I? I like your use of universals in particular...they give your screeds such a compelling sense of authourity; or not so much.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 03:16 | 3572032 dognamedabu
dognamedabu's picture

How about carbon credits.. You know lets buy them last years and see their value drop this year by 90% .

Forward governments thinking all for you!!!

 

But when they mess up, how do you blame? Me? Not enough "Education?" Come on Stalin.. What do you propose?

 

 


Fri, 05/17/2013 - 03:40 | 3572041 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Yeah, find a mole on the baby, throw it out with the bathwater.

 

You sirrah, are one Duped Debt Slave.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 04:13 | 3572073 dognamedabu
dognamedabu's picture

I am sooo wanting your greatness to tell me how just going gaaaa I will be a part of the next revolution. See if I just go with Gaaaaaa all will be provided. It will be a paradise. No matter there is that small thing of free will but with enough education free will will become just free votes.

 

 

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 03:55 | 3572055 dognamedabu
dognamedabu's picture

You are thinking rule of law makes it all better.  I am thinking rule of consumerism decides for us. Calling me stupid.. Who is the guy calling for Stephan Harper to come at us all with a gun and tell us how to live?

 

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 04:13 | 3572072 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

I dunno, the woefully misinformed Canadians who voted for him? Was that a trick question? Do I win a biscuit?

FTR I didn't call you stupid. I called you a duped debt slave who thinks that he can change things by just... ooer, wait,  what exactly is it you plan to do again? Hate gov't and wish that by your non participation everything will just magically get better 'cuz capitalism?

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 04:17 | 3572080 dognamedabu
dognamedabu's picture

I can't can't jack.. Jack.. That's my message.. Capitalism is great, as an idea, but it ain't anywhere near what we got. Instead we have gov and business trying their damned to have us just.. just love em..

 

FUCK em.. I hate them.. Not them trying but them who set the perameters..

 

It is an evil setup. I am totally aware... But I am not going to blame myt basic desire to buy a fridge from The Brick rather than Target as my problems.. It is inspite of them. 

 

 

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 04:49 | 3572102 dognamedabu
dognamedabu's picture

Dudes above are like self Gods.. Really take a look at their posts.. I would say they are not US. THEY are NUTS.

 

 

So fuck off sociopaths

 

 

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 11:03 | 3572726 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

 unmitigated capitalism favours the clever sociopath.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 13:40 | 3573461 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

ALL reality favours the clever sociopath. The only situation that does not favour them is an entire society more clever than they are and always on the watch. The choice of economic system can not, will not, counter this situation or create an additional advantage to safety for all.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 14:53 | 3573728 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

That comment had the best start, but then faded into this unfounded supposition,

"The choice of economic system can not, will not, counter this situation or create an additional advantage to safety for all"

...despite any and all evidence to the contrary, apparently. How about 'most' then?

See, I can use universals too! Correctly, mind you.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 13:08 | 3573344 Imminent Crucible
Imminent Crucible's picture

Every now and then we get an interesting argument going on here. This is one of them, in a twisted way. Although, I'm not sure it qualifies as a genuine argument when each side uses the same terminology but with totally different meanings, and keeps shouting past each other.

Still, carry on Lads!

"Unmitigated capitalism".....extra point for throwing in "unmitigated" instead of Crony.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 12:18 | 3573192 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Government is the playground for all sociopaths.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 13:26 | 3573327 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Any industry, occupation, population has its selection of egregious assholes. Yes, they gravitate to some more than others, but not just in the public sector, and you know it.

You might as well say 'the planet is a playground for sociopaths' and blow your brains out in resignation.

At least the public sector has the pretense of obligations to be fulfilled by faithful servants, capitalism is inherently amoral.

And, as I have pointed out, that favours the clever sociopath by definition, not even the pretense of an obligation to behave fairly is involved.

That's why mixed economies function so well, the private and public sectors check and balance one another constantly.

It's when one or the other gets the upper hand to too great of a degree for too long of a time that the pendulum has to swing the other way for awhile: for to rebalance.

 

 

Sat, 05/18/2013 - 13:25 | 3575967 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Sorry, comparing the unbridled force of government with a free market operating through having to please customers is nonsense.

Would you rather have armed sociopaths pointing guns at you, or sociopaths forced by customers to better serve them? The market channels a wholly destructive force into a productive outcome.

And yes, 'the planet is a playground for sociopaths' is true for the simple fact that that is the only situation government is capable of creating. Everything government touches turns to shit: religion, economy, science, conservationism, education, healthcare. peace, progress, technology, banking, freedom, roads, mail, housing, currency, families, and on and on and on...

Wed, 05/22/2013 - 02:24 | 3586788 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Sorry, comparing the unbridled force of amoral capitalism with a mixed economy operating through having to please the vast, overwhelming majority is nonsense.

 

Would your rather have armed sociopaths pointing guns at you, or sociopaths forced by the vast overwhelming majority to better serve them? The citizens may channel a wholly persuasive force known as political will into a productive outcome.

And yes, 'the planet is a playground for sociopaths' is true for the simple fact that we started deregulating the financial industry in the 1980's (and sooner), which only inherently amoral capitalism is capable of doing. Being reasonable, and when diligent civil oversight is applied, not everything capitalism or gov't touches turns to shite; including economy, science, conservationism, education, healthcare. Peace, etc etc etc.blah blah blah.

See what I did there?

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 03:07 | 3572025 dognamedabu
dognamedabu's picture

They have more of everything really, on a per capita basis.

 

BS..

 

You are truely a socialist and that is fine.. But hey Joe, I've dealt with yours in the past and your 'truths' never held water. 

 

I live in Canada. Yes Socialist Canada. The one thing I have noticed here and so has our 'democracy' as of late as you should take notice is that we collectively "brrrrr' understand capitalism and embrace it as much as can be expected. Good luck Norway once the oil run out. 

 


Fri, 05/17/2013 - 03:30 | 3572035 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Ahh that ol' chestnut: nothing lasts forever. How interesting that your hubris doesn't allow you to see that this applies even to you.

Now you're just being bitter.

Well, if it's snark you want:

At least when the oil runs out in Norway they'll have that massive SWF to help them get by.

What will Canada have? Oh right, you're already so far in debt you have to sell whatever you can to the states below cost.  And your royalty rates are the laughingstock of the oil producing world

Yeah, that'll work out so much better when your oil runs out.

Bonne Chance mon ami!

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!