This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Doug Casey: The Virtues of Capitalism
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 -
The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism
So their socialism doesn't really exist? It's only a legend? Here's a myth I find entertaining:
The Myth of Canadian Sovereignty
“And we cannot be effective at major economic matters any longer unless we work with our economic partners around the world and work with them closely and intimately. That is essential. I know some people don’t like it. It is a loss of National Sovereignty but it is a simple reality. It is a simple reality.”
- PM Stephen Harper
And you gave that Paul Demarais sell out a majority? Even Americans wouldn't elect someone who said something so treasonous; they'd tar and feather him and ride him out of the country on a rail!
Hey, guess where Norway got the idea for their SOE? You know, the one that has made them as wealthy as they are today? Remember the national energy plan you let slip through your fingers: OOPS!
And it makes me want to puke.
Actually all nationalism does.
Alberta oil is just oil up in north of the world. Free for all? Without rule of law, maybe.. but I'm of the view all resources are all peoples across the world. I have right to a river in India as the Indian has right to mine.
What this guy is scared of is some guy coming in and taking it all. And OK I hear his fear.. But his solution is WE NEED MORE GOVERNMENT.. Like fuuuck.. Really that is your bright idea?!?
My idea is to hit reset. Really. No own owns shit. The Big Reset. Seems miles better than having some asshole from God knows where run the admin about the whole line.
ah ah ahhhh
remember: capitalism. You in for Big debt. So all that oil, all your natural resources have been legally sold on the free market; all is privately owned a priori, but not by you. You and your grandchildren are already slaves and you don't even know it yet.
Big reset? Why, you looking to redistribute private property legally sold? Man, you do like to flip and flop. There's a pejorative for that where you keep coming from you know: commie.
My big idea for you is big gov't ? Oh no, for you it's all way too late. OH WELL.
Now that is just a bit sad isn't it.
Capitalism does not require debt, debt does not require capitalism. In capitalism IF debt is used it is a consenting contract. It has conditions and one of those conditions is default or discount of the amount to pay.
Er, could you please enlighten me as to what bearing this has on the content of my comment?
You wrote : capitalism. You in for Big debt. and I replied to that.
And is the fulfillment of contractual obligations in any way crucial for capitalism to function?
See below -
Ok Chief.. I've spent the latter part of 4 years 18 hours a day trying to 'get' our banking system.. Seems you are late to the party.. Before you go shooting your mouth off you should know we probably agree on almost all points except for your insistences it is free market fault. This is such a dangerous view. I get why you have the view.. As in someone harms me I'm going going to want the authorities to help me.
But I'm afraid you haven't went deep enough. You want socialist to help.. And ok I get it.. The NDP sound great and the CPP sound awful.. OK I get it.. But yo get past.. Get past.. It isn't about right or wrong anymore.. It is about survival.
I think people here have went past that idea.. To have gov help.. In fact we mostly hate 'em. Since they have laws and such that can ruin a person for ever. No matter how you vote they will always do something you do not agree with.. Right? So why trust them with ruling the economy? Are you THAT dumb and can't decicide how best to spend YOUR dollar? I mean that. You are saying we are that dumb and need gov to do that for us.. With a gun.. Robbing us of choice.. That is wrong no which way it is viewed.. So either give me the best of the best example or please go fuck yourself if you think I would submit to someone like you.
This 2009 entertaining documentary film explores the history of banking, the selling out of the prosperity of Canada, the clearance sale of Canadian businesses and the political liquidation of public infrastructures to the multi-national corporate oligarchy. How has this led to the biggest economic crash / recession / depression in Canadian history? Could it have something to do with our politicians listening to international bankers and corporations instead of the people Canada? How does the Canadian banking system really work? How does the central Bank of Canada compare with the American Federal Reserve?
This movie presents these issues that affect every Canadian from the perspective of and delivered by concerned youth in a astute and colourful manner. This is a serious journalism piece that asks the tough questions directly to such politicians as Former Prime Minister of Canada Paul Martin, Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, Ontario Gas Man Dan McTeague, NDP Leader Jack Layton, Mayor of Oshawa John Gray, Former Prime Minister of Canada John Turner and many more!
ORDER DVD
http://www.ohcanadamovie.com/index.html
MONEY
1. Amount of money in circulation
2. 91% Federal Debt is interest
3. How money is created
4. Legislation
5. How much we spend on debt
6. Every country is in debt
7. German company printing bank notes
8. Pension companies losing money
TRANSPARENCY
1. Power Corp
2. Bilderberg
3. Michael Ignatieff
Nice article. Good reading.
Capitalism, fascism, war. Capitalism, fascism, bigger war. Capitalism, facism, end of all, no more war.
How about TechnoCapitalism which is where open source software replaces governments with individual input, along with the morality of the individual, into governance of nations.
Until that open-source includes all military infrastructure it has not a hope of existing, merely allowed to live in a cage and crushed if it opposes the elite rulers. It must have a physical location, servers upon which code resides, factories from which computers are made, and that’s the core vulnerability to the war-machine.
Techno capitalism: Bitcoin replaces the govt-proclaimed currency! But the govt, the banks, and the established payment processors are trying to stop bitcoin, because they see that writing on the wall
Marx never saw that coming! Anyway I certainly don't recall reading anything of his predicting the game changing technology that allows everyone instant communication across the entire globe, let alone 3d printers for the masses
Micro Manufacturing here we come.
Now, about that 'open source' part....
Also, I don't mean to niggle, but TechnoCapitalism might be a bit of misnomer, seeing as the means of production in your laudable vision is owned by and large by the labourers, as well as political power. And this is precisely the same as Marx's endgame (Communism was only a step-a 'necessary evil ' to paraphrase. But hey! I'd be more than willing to skip the ugly bits if everybody else is; though I'm certainly not holding my breath. )
TechnoSocialism might be a better description, but I would understand any conditioned aversion to such a label.
"A rose by any other name..." though, hunh?
NOPE - let's clarify all these silly details.
#1 information is not property
#2 property is not labour
#3 labour is owned by the hand that wields it in that moment
#4 individual ownership of means of production is capitalism, very much NOT socialism and NOT communism
#5 Marx was the biggest fraud, unable to attack any fact, merely posing strawman after strawman and failing to defeat even those. He also lived off the CAPITALIST profits of Engels. Marx actually was pro-capitalist but lied a lot.
Nothing to do with your blatant misrepresentations MDBog, but I do see a rather obvious 'order of operations' error I have made regarding Marx.
Oops. That's what I get for niggling, darn it.
NO misrepresentation. It is what it is - and Marx is the biggest Fraud of his generation.
What a load of crap. Pure capitalism, unfettered, unregulated, is the method, when done successfully, to achieve fascism. Winner take all. Along the way, if you are a good capitalist, you destroy competition by any means, the means being most advantageous to you. Monopoly is the goal. Monopoly of everything. The customer ultimately having no choice. Choice is not cost effective to you. Monopoly renders cost effective moot. A completely successful capitalist, owns the police, courts, military and is the de facto legislative body. The customers pay for it all. Of course this can be hard to define. Fascism, communism, democracy. In adulterated forms, they can be very similar in practice and result. I tend to exclude communism from true existence, due to it requiring constant force to subdue human nature and it being as likely to exist unadulterated, as unicorns. Fascism has and does exist. But again requires force to subdue some of the better human natures. Democracy, unadulterated, would be the most sustainable and generally rewarding system. It is born somewhat unadulterated, now and then, mostly way back then. But quickly devolves. Why? Because the longer democracy functions reasonably well, the more we forget how difficult it is to maintain. We get lazy and forgetful while enjoying the rewards of a well run democracy. We stop working at it. We expect it to give to us, without giving back the work it requires. So we let others work to run it. They have different goals. Lazy people, get fascism. The fascists work hard to be fascists. But eventually, even they get lazy. And succession of fascism is difficult and messy. Often bloody. It becomes suicidal. In the meantime, the masses have been thinking real hard about democracy and are ready to put some work into it again. The cycle repeats. But the playing field has boundaries we are at. The only long term survivable ism is democracy with the full attention, required effort and grasp of hard reality practiced by all. I am betting on our suicide by wishful thinking and laziness within a cycle or two. I almost hope it happens, and ends my lifetime as well, a definitive, witnessed by me, I told you so. The lazy, the stupid, the greedy, all the fucks get dead, as they deserve.
Utter nonsense and tripe.
Nothing about capitalism requires corporations and nothing about capitalism requires merging corporations with government, or even to have a government.
Fascism is precisely ONE definition only: the merger of corporation and government. Period.
No, all those events are inevitable results of capitalism, by its definition. The definition derived from the one who first defined it, rather than some wishful thinker.
What you are advocating is that a small group decide the conscience of the whole. That is violent. You state monopolies will happen without the state, I say monopolies only can happen because of the state.
You can say it all you like, but the historical record of unmitigated capitalism concentrating wealth/power says otherwise.
And before you start any 'chicken and egg' spiel regarding who bought out who first, the capitalist or the state, allow me to preempt it by pointing out that there is no contradiction in the fact that states can and do operate monopolies. But that doesn't in any way mean that the progression of capitalism is any different from how Marx layed it out; he described its mechanics accurately and precisely.
Also, my understanding of 'democracy' must be a little hazy, what is this 'teeny tiny group' deciding for the larger group aspect you refer to?
In any case the real problem, and I think our friend fully understands this, is unmigitated anything will inevitably become some sort of self destructive abomination.
IE Democracy, which by design protects the state from the individual, requires something like a constitution to protect the individual from the state.
Checks and balances cut both ways Britchez!
The historical record of what?
This is history... The Monarchy in England and throuout Europe knew that ruling through force was not going to cut it anymore so what they did was intergrate themselves with FIRST the money.. It isn't no accident the queen is all over the commonwealths money. What they did friend is give an ILLUSION of democracy. So when things get rough, you think exactly like you do, the state will protect..None the wiser understanding the violent state is who is making things rough. They gave us a vote..And billions think that little ballot gives way to such power. That was and is the most impressive illusion ever created. Im asking you to not dislike the idea that a billion people can decide what product they like rather to dislike what a few thousand decide what ideology you will accept.
Oh pish posh. Voting has changed lots of things, all over the world. Sometimes even for the better.
All you're suggesting by giving up the idea (right? privilege?) of civil participation in electing governments is to hand over power to the current crop of international plutocrats outright: might would make right wholly unchecked. IE Much, much more of the same, only moreso. In fact I've got money on my flank that says they're slavering at every word you write about it. They're praying to mammon you get what you want so that they can dust their hands together and say,
"Well, that's that then. No more silly 'mandates from the masses' to deal with. Send in the mercenaries."
Then I can guarantee you it will be a lot less than a 'few thousand' that will decide your broke ass fate. Too bad you weren't smart enough to vote for Ralph Nader while you still had the chance.
Heh, your idea to deal with too few choices is to eliminate all choices.
Good Luck with that.
Oh pish posh
Seriously.. You hate the ruling elite... And don't know what they are up to? AND advocate MORE of them?!?
Well I've always voted left and capitalism seems right...
Yeah.. I'm not your enemy..
It just takes a bit. Pause. Not to say you support Bill O'teily but to say ok I'm willing to get that my leaders are not just capitalist but communist. In that they want you to control me... To have me get offed.. That may seem to you like good idea but lets look at big picture.
"Yeah.. I'm not your enemy.. "
Thanks for that. Being honest, I'm not sure about you yet.
And please indicate where I, in any way, shape, or form advocate 'moar ruling 'lites'.
I'm simply demanding that my servants do the job I'm paying them to do; or they can go find work somewhere else.
You're advocating an unrealistic fairytale that, the paradoxes of it aside, will result in moar of the corruption and graft that exists now, but with even less recourse to justice, which is saying something. Hell, your dreamland removes every last single barrier to 'might makes right'. What's funny is that you somehow think that will level the playing field. It won't. Not without a total redistribution of all wealth anyway, and we've been over what that would make you. Even then, due to the inherent dark side of human nature you understand so little about, it wouldn't be long before unchecked might makes right reared its revolting head again.
I see no issue with a mixed economy employing a transparent, highly profitable SOE to keep the country's balance sheets in the blaque, and so itsx sovereignty intact, while providing services that decency and reality require.
Who paid for the lion's share of developing the process to separate the Canadian oil from the sands? Who owns Norway's oil anyway? Or Canada's? Norwegians, Canadians, or Global Graspn'Grab Inc.?
Serious question.
Yes I am.. Many of us live in a virtual 'world' as our conversation here is not enshined in law. I am very happy with that and am unwilling to have a small group decide whether our debate is legal or even relevent. I get shut out I will find the next strong platform as you and me are trying right now.
Or if I hear you correctly is that if 1000 people give you thumbs up and only 900 give me thumbs up somehow your view of the world is correct and justified and now you can use force to assimilate others to your point of view?
Uh ok. That's super. Seeing as you're Canuckian I'll amend my previous comment:
Too bad you didn't vote for Jack Layton when you had the chance, you utterly duped debt slave you.
Man is dead... What ever will I do?
According to you: worship the principles of private property as 'sacrosanct' while simultaneously dreaming of, perhaps even facilitating, The Big Reset so you can swoop in with your carpet bag and redistribute what was formerly others' private wealth to yourself, or something.
Not sure how you can in good conscience rationalize such a self serving paradox, but hey, lots of ZH'ers are with you on it!
To simplify... Imagine if here at zerohedge the mods(like they even exist) decided who had the best to say and so in their wisdom decide to allow certain members to speak and quiet others. They don't.. Ever idea imaginable is represented even though most here can raise their hand and call themselves free thinkers. The idea I need a state to tell me where who or what I can do makes me ill. It should make you as well. The freedom of ideas isn't perfect but it is the only alternative to unfree ideas.
Malwartism.
Yeah, looking around it's pretty tough to argue Marx was wrong about that.
Politely said, Casey is kind of an asshole. He's got a little Marie Antoinette-like callous indifference in him with his "wanting to watch the riots on my big screen TV instead of out my window", and if Argentina collapses again I suspect he might suffer a similar fate.
Re "making deals with the generals in Burma", well, that's just bloodthirsty greed. The clown probably did a week in country and decided he'd figured the whole place out. He probably didn't see too many of those who had run afoul of the generals or the Tatmadaw (army) they commanded. He didn't see---or lacks the human decency to care---young girls raped by the army, then mutilated. Or kids used to clear mine fields. Or forced porters. He probably didn't speak with too many folks who were spirited off in the middle of the night and tortured to death because they made an off hand comment in a tea shop. He didn't see kids' brains in the gutter back in 2007 during the Saffron Revolution, kids who had gotten in the way of the Tatmadaw or the thugs they released from jail and let loose on protestors (in exchange for a pardon).
Casey would probably have sold rotisserie gear to Idi Amin when the general felt like having "long pork" for lunch.
Casey's comments re charity in this article are less strident than comments he has made in the past, but he continues to exhibit the silly arrogance of someone who simply cannot admit he won the birth lottery and that a good deal of his "success" was guaranteed at birth. Had he been born a female in rural Bangladesh, all of what has made him "great" might not have had a chance to surface. Stuff of "legend"? Now there's an overused word.
A parlor game I like to play is to consider what George Orwell might have written had he not passed before Ayn Rand published. I suspect he would have done for her what he did for Marx in his other works. Theory and the reality of human nature never quite meet in Paradise.
"A parlor game I like to play is to consider what George Orwell might have written had he not passed before Ayn Rand published. I suspect he would have done for her what he did for Marx in his other works."
I'd only find it interesting if Georgie the plongeur lasted long enough to witness her chain smoking her way to, under a different name, accepting state sponsored health care.
But maybe I'm mistaken; what is it you think he did for Marx exactly?
Plus one for the exercise, btw. I like a good game of 'what if' as much as I enjoy one of Liar's Poker.
I'll reserve judgement on the rest until I see what Casey has to say about your assessment of his travels.
Yours, I have noticed, is a contrary voice. Nice to see that around here.
thanks chindit, I just want the self-purported meritocrats to actually earn it.
I have a similar game: What would America be like today if it were founded in 1789 with the government of 2012?
"Capitalism brings out the best in people." I nominate this for the dumbest, most historically inaccurate statement ever posted on zerohedge. Unworthy of the site.
Dafuq? People innovate, learn & improve themselves as they compete, reduce costs for everything & personally maintain property rights & conditions of usable tools, land, everything, unless stopped by external anti-capitalist forces. Didn’t you ever see any of those comments about not going full retard?
Alright.. Alright.. Im sure it would have sounded better if they said central planning brings out the best in people.
Come on... Come on.. It is the word right? No one can hate self choice and defer judgement to appointed rulers and defend it on the internet..can they? Capitalism.. It means using capital to make more capital.
This all said... I am a capitalist but not from this starting point. The world has ran corrupt and there is no hope for most if not all. This is where I think people are mad. They have no hope to be capitalist, neither do I. It is a pipe dream. Even if we got rid of all government, the rich will inherit the Earth... So to qualify.. I am a capitalist but only if we can start from zero AND without any government help. May the best person win. And by person I mean person..No hiding behind a corporate structure. If we are going to make things right ALL must be treated equally.
How do you propose ensuring that ALL are treated equally without government regulation and enforcement?
It's a puzzlement, not to mention an impossibility if the society has more than one member.
Come on. There is no such thing as "start from zero". What I object to is lazy, agenda-driven rhetoric sorely lacking in intellectual rigor, and this post is full of it. If we encourage that kind of thinking, we guarantee ridicule and loss.
Casey is "Old Gold" ($1900)..."New Gold" adopters will pay sub-$700
Casey: "faith, hope and charity are moral flaws"
Well, there's a new way of looking at things. But I'm not up for buying a lot in a gated community in the poorest province of the most corrupt nation in Latin America, and I don't think I want to live in a faithless, hopeless world empty of charity but full of self-interested people like Doug Casey.
Casey knows how to make money. I want a little more out of life.
only a little?
Well, I didn't want to sound greedy. But since you asked, I'd like a nice little Greek island of my own.
Sigh, I don't blame you... long as it was far enough away from the mainland... those diesel fumes, I tells ya.
The all-knowing Doug Casey has it pretty close.
All economic systems are capitalist, since all utilize "capital," defined as the means of production (machinery, equipment and tools, or the wealth to acquire them). Russia and China both raise capital and use machinery and equipment, so have capitalist economies. The only distinction is who owns and controls the capital, the four elements of control being title, possession, use and disposition.
In a free-enterprise economy, private individuals have all four elements of control of all capital. Free-enterprise market competition encourages innovation & efficiency, and always delivers highest quality and lowest cost.
In a fascist economy, there is a guise of private ownership of capital (legal title), but its possession, use and/or disposition are controlled by the state.
In a socialist capitalist system, the state acquires ownership of key sectors (transportation, communication, utilities) of the economy and with taxes and regulation, leverages control over the rest.
In a communist economy, there is no pretense of private ownership; the state has all four elements control of all capital. Coercive state-controlled monopolistic systems discourage innovation & efficiency and consistently deliver low quality & high price.
However, the free enterprise economic system can only exist in a republic, where the rule of law maintains the integrity of the market (rather than meddling or manipulating). Fascist, socialist and communist economic systems always exist in a political oligarchy, the most common form of government throughout history and today.
To better understand the political spectrum, [from totalitarian (100% gubmint) or "left", to anarchy (0% gubmint) or "right"], political & economic systems and how they interact, watch “Overview of America” on YouTube.
In a fascist economy, at least the instant cases, the state is owned by the fascist oligarchs, the same groups that own and control the means of production. Any control that the non-oligarchs have is illusory and those illusions are part of the methods of control of those non-oligarchs, the proletariat and the middle class.
Adam Smith's definition is probably still the best:
http://santitafarella.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/adam-smith-and-capitalism...
A distinction must be made between free market capitalism and the system under which we now live... monopoly capitalism... and the failure of legislators to break up trusts and monopolies.
The creation of the TBTF banks and their consolidation of smaller banks is the latest most egregious manifestation of the triumph of corporatism.
However, the fact is we don’t have capitalism, and never have.
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!
What?