The Anti-Capitalists in the Gulch

Posted by $ MikeMarotta 9 years, 3 months ago to Culture
129 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

The traditional story is that farming is everyone's bread and butter. Bankers and speculators produce nothing, but skim their profits from the suffering of others. The Garden of Eden is populated only by a mythical middle class of retail grocers, doctors, lawyers, and plumbers ("engineers"). No one is poor; and no one is rich.

And no one has friends in city hall or Congress - though the streets are, indeed, cleared of snow; and anyone who destroys a skyscraper eventually meets a Navy SEAL team.

The claim is made that in our glory days, the middle class produced the most wealth, but now in our evil times, the middle class is being crushed between the rich and poor. We like that narrative. We never question it. We never define the terms, never identify the individuals in aggregate.

The fact is that the richest 1% produce about 30% of the "wealth" if we measure that only by income. If we understand "wealth" to be capital, then the picture is much different.

"Eighty-seven percent of upper-income Americans -- those making $75,000 or more annually -- own stocks, as do 83% of postgraduates and 73% of college graduates. Sixty-four percent of Republicans hold stocks, compared with half of Democrats and independents. Men are more likely than women to be stock owners. Those aged 50 to 64 are the most likely of any age group to say they have money invested in the stock market." -- http://www.gallup.com/poll/147206/Sto... (And the poll shows that this is these are lowest numbers in in 15 years.)

Now, we can decry the recession. Indeed, I do. But I also know from US economic history - the stuff of numismatics, which is the touchstone of economics - that the so-called "Great Recession" (1873-1896) was a time of great growth, expanding opportunities, new inventions and new technologies: the 1890 census was completed because of punched card tabulators, i.e., the root and rock of computing machinery.

Everyone loves silver dollars, especially those fat-faced Roman ladies from George Morgan. But the Morgan Dollar was inflation money. And it was, indeed, good for gold - if you wanted... which, apparently no one did, in gross violation of Gresham's Wild Conjecture. (http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20...) The fact is that, like now, the US economy continued to "contract" even as more money was pumped into it. But life got better for everyone. The world of 1896 was 23 years cleaner, safer, better fed, better housed, more educated, and entertained. Just like now.

How was that possible?

The fact is that back then, just like now, the richest 1% were just barely capably of making the smallest incremental improvements in financial management and creative investment. Using their influences with governments, they cut their own taxes, creating foundations that funded huge astronomical instruments, and even rockets for exploring the upper atmosphere... as well as hospitals, universities, and libraries...

They did not have to do that. They could have held it all in cash and swum around in it. Henry Ford wanted to. He was incensed to discover that he could not go to a bank and withdraw "his" money ($3 million at that point) in small bills and coins right from the vault. The bank did not have it. They had stocks, bonds, real estate, insurance policies,... Including stock in his firm and those of his competitors, because the market is inscrutable, even for those who like to think they can control it. They know that. So, they hedge their bets.

The commodities markets are driven by producers. Co-operatives of farmers buy and sell long and short futures contracts on the very products they bring to market. It is how they even things out over the calendar year. Meanwhile, about 90% of other investors buy on enthusiasm and sell into their misery. And they do that voluntarily.

Very few of us billions of others actually do that. We do play sports for fun. So, we know why athletes earn what they do. Most of us would rather be in a room full of spiders than to be on an stage in front of an audience. So, we know why movie stars are millionaires. But very few of us actually buy and sell anything, except our own labor -- and most people want to sell it once for life.

Therefore, they call bankers gangsters, and denounce "crony" capitalists for the friends they themselves do not have - even though city hall and the halls of Congress are wide open to any and all.

If you do not want to go yourself, you could hire someone. In this market, you can find any kind of a lobbyist for about $100 per hour, and a good one for about twice that. You can collect that kind of money from a living room full of football fans. But it is easier to condemn the rich.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I am sorry, but that sounds like the "labor theory of value" a mistaken idea found in both Adam Smith and Karl Marx. The correct understanding came from Menger, Jevons, and Walras. It is elucidated by von Mises in Human Action.

    A thing is valuable to you for its marginal utility to you.

    The labor theory of value is easily contradicted by digging a hole and filling it back up.

    Intellectualism is a kind of labor. Whether it is productive or not depends on much else. Some ideas lie dormant for years. The square root of minus one is an example of that. For millennia, its very existence was considered nonsense. Then it was admitted to be an "imaginary" number. Then, it was needed for describing alternating current and lighting up our cities.

    Since the mythic age of Greece, a "chimera" has been an impossible animal. Within a century, we may well see lions and horses with wings. Today, here and now, the word "chimera" is a concept in genetic engineering. The fact that a marrow transplant can change your blood type is "chimeric."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Sorry, crane you are responding to someone else, not me, so again your argument does not address the issue that I have stated.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by cranedragon 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thank you, Mike. But the argument presented by freedomforall was directed to a specific banking practice, and termed the issuance of balloon loans without a guarantee of infinite renewability as "fraud". There are a lot of "bankers" -- including the fictional Midas Mulligan -- and few of them can create booms and busts, yet all were painted with the same broad brush. That is a micro, not a macro, argument, to my view.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by cranedragon 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    FFA, your original statement was: "One way is that they make loans designed to force borrowers to eventually default. It happened to a friend of mine -- he had never missed a house payment, but when the value of his house fell in a recession, the bank decided they wouldn't let him refi when the balloon payment came due. In the long term it is perfectly predictable that this sort of thing will happen -- business cycles exist; therefore writing that type of loan without agreeing to refinance it indefinitely is fraud."

    By pivoting your argument to fractional reserve lending, you are changing the argument from one directed to the identifiable practice of loans with ballon payments to one that indicts the entire banking system, from largest to smallest. Although MikeMarotta characterizes the thrust of your argument as macro economic, the text of your argument is wholly micro -- that the terms of the bank loans are fraudulent, and that those terms are fraudulent whether the loan is from Wells Fargo or the Frontier Bank of Texas. Those are two different arguments, and they still do not explain why, even in a system of fractional reserve lending, a loan practice is "fraudulent" when it refuses to renew loans indefinitely, even when the value of the asset securing the loan has declined in value. "Fraud" is a clear concept: it is a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain. Was your friend prevented from reading the loan documents that stated that there was a balloon payment? Did the bank guarantee that the value of his collateral could only go up, not down? If so, then he was defrauded. If he merely thought that he had a good deal on the interest rate [or that he could flip the house before the balloon payment came due] he was not defrauded, he was foolish.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thanks for the mention; it sent me to Wikipedia. When our daughter was young, I used to read myths for bedtime stories, including The Gilgamesh. We never got farther than the death of Enkidu. z z z z z .... I knew about the flood second-hand, just never read it for myself.

    The flood myth is common, but no one seems to find this one to be a much better world after all. We still have no shortage of sin and injustice and dishonoring of the gods to go around. Plato's version from Hesiod is that we devolved from the Golden Age to the Iron Age. Perhaps the Objectivist version of Hesiod is that 19th century capitalism was "the Age of Heroes."

    Compared to what went before, it certainly was astounding. That granted, though, if we brought forward from then to now any great thinker or achiever, they would be pleasingly amazed, not dismayed. It would, indeed, be like Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward. We still have problems, but among them is that fact that Americans spend more on healthcare than Europeans and do not have much more to show for it. We have one case of Ebola and everyone goes nuts. In the year 1918, over 100,000 Americans died of influenza. That was normal.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Labor in and of itself is valuable. Intellectualism without labor is idle fantasy - literally. "If wishes were fishes..." Can labor productivity be multiplied by the combination of mind and might? Absolutely. But I don't discount any labor output.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It's a line I throw in on everything for all the readers since many are still convinced Republicans are not part of the left and many of us suffered thorugh years of Republicans right wing mouths and left wing voting habits.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Eden Myth, a Serpent, and Salvation in their model"
    It's especially bad if the salvation comes in the form of destruction of everything to eliminate decadence, leaving only the righteous Utnapishtims remaining to create a better world.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "when someone collects more money than value they are creating"
    My thought is this wouldn't happen in the absence of force. If a pharmacy charges more for a bottle of water than another vendor but I pay it willingly for convenience, they're giving me the same value as I'm giving them. If one of the products they sell is medication that requires a license, prescription, etc, that forbids a willing buyer and willing seller from coming together under threat of force, that's where someone collects more value than they provided. Initiating force is the cause.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Actually, what you are saying is not that labor gives value, but that intelligence gives value. The intellectual fraudster, Murrary N. Rothbard, wrote a book whose title delivered more than the contents: Power and Market. Just knowing the concepts tells you more than he actually delivered. But it is relevant here to your comment. When the government does things for and through power, it is not acting in the market. So, the outcome must by metaphysical necessity be inefficient.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Have you read The True Believer by Eric Hoffer? A mass movement can succeed without God, but no mass movement can succeed without a Devil. We once had a near-perfect near-laissez faire Garden of Eden. But evil Progressives beguiled the people and with the Income Tax and Direct Election of Senators, they stole it from us. But if we all work together by going on strike, we can build a Great New Future for our children. It is not just libertarians who fit that model. The Communism, and Fascism, of the 1930s, today's Green Energy Global Warmers, they all have an Eden Myth, a Serpent, and Salvation in their model. Many people here, too, make Objectivism that kind of Eden Myth.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Mark Cuban owns the Dallas Mavericks. He is a Rand fan.
    Fred Smith owns FedEx. He is a Rand fan.
    Ed Snider owns the Philadelphia Flyers, Spectacor Sports Network, and other businesses. He funded a lot of Ayn Rand archiving and publicity of Ayn Rand in the 1990s. He discovered Atlas Shrugged via Peter O'Malley who in addition to a hockey team, owns the LA Dodgers which he inherited from his father Walter O'Malley who owned the Brooklyn Dodgers.
    See his speech at the 50th Anniversary of Atlas Shrugged here:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jb88q...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Timelord 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I decided years ago that I wouldn't vote against a candidate. If I can't pull the lever for someone I want to win then I'll skip voting for that office. If he gets on the ballot in CT I'll vote for Gary Johnson. If he doesn't I won't cast a vote for President.

    Of the current candidates who might somehow bribe or extort their way to an endorsement, It's challenging to decide who will destroy the country fastest.

    - Hillary is smart, extremely well connected, knows the game inside and out, is significantly more vicious and dangerous than a Tazmanian devil, lives for power and money, has no fixed principles so she can't be counted on to support or oppose any law or policy, is incapable of telling the truth and is outright evil.

    - Bernie Sanders is a deluded idealist whose ideals are immoral, I don't think he's that well connected in DC, he does know the game but doesn't seem to play it well, doesn't seem to be vicious (but I don't trust that impression), doesn't live for power and money at the level of most politicians, has very definite principles that he'll stick to and roughly 25% of them likely agree with the libertarian position - while the other 50 - 75% are diametrically opposed, always tells what he believes is the truth (deluded, remember?), and is evil on the scale of a minor demon.

    - The Donald Trump confuses me. I don't watch reality TV because it's not reality and I don't like what it actually is, I can't bear to watch any of these not-debates because they reduce me to screaming at the TV in anger and disbelief (both major parties), so that means all I know about him is from the headlines and background noise. I love the chaos and confusion that he sows by saying what he means, even when I disagree with him, which is a lot. I don't get the impression that he's evil like the Clintons, he might not have murdered anyone. I'd almost like to see him win just to watch Progressives' heads explode, except what came next probably wouldn't be worth it. He seems to be a pragmatist so his principles are hard to predict.

    - Ted Cruz occasionally says something I agree with and I appreciate his Trump-lite candor. He actually said, right before the Iowa caucuses, that he doesn't believe in subsidies of any kind for anyone at all. Alright, hoorah! But then god! He's certifiably insane with regard to his mystical beliefs and he insists that everyone should follow his rules. He believes, against overwhelming evidence (maybe not conclusive, who knows) that homosexuality is a choice. Go ahead and debate DNA vs environmental causes vs at least 5 other serious theories with supporting evidence - and have fun at it. But they all agree that it's not a choice and it's extremely likely to be a scientific fact that sexual orientation is imposed on a person before they are born, regardless of the actual cause. But Ted refuses to let scientific proof ruin a perfectly good religious belief no matter how badly it's been disproved. (e.g. there is absolutely Zero archaeological evidence that the Jews were ever enslaved in Egypt or crossed the Red Sea or wandered in the desert.) {Ted must really touch a nerve, look at how I rambled on about him!} By gum, if some dude wrote it in the bible then it must be true! Even the bit about unicorns! Even outside of religion he's said some pretty stupid stuff, unforgivably stupid. He's also a war monger. I submit that he's evil but nowhere near the same category as Hillary.

    So that's it, four truly horrible choices. Hillary is the worst because she will be able to spread death and destruction from day one. Between Uncle Bernie Greenjeans, The Donald Blowhard Trump and Ted I didn't go to a school on this plane of existence Cruz, we're TOTALLY EFFED!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by pdohara 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It's an interesting response. Did I say anything about voting anyone anywhere? I did not vote for either President Obama or Former President Bush. Still I an not naive enough to believe that all the bad guys in the world happen to work for the government. They do have some advantage in terms of size though.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Patience, my boy. The rise and fall of the Roman Empire didn't happen in a day. There's time, yet, to witness the dissolution of the American experiment.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimjamesjames 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'll not disagree with your examples but, again, the "manipulators" of the medium of exchange, i.e., those in "finance," do so because someone created wealth whether tangible or not. But you make my point: Outside the creation of wealth, there are those who provide a service (brokerage) and, granted, that advances commerce. My point is, there's a difference between those who create and those that manipulate. Now, assuming free minds and free markets, I have no problem with that. Nevertheless, the manipulators do not create original value, only manipulate it.... and take their cut. My issue is that, quite often, these days, we see the manipulators taking a cut that does not add value.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Timelord 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    As I understand financial derivatives and/or credit default swaps, they're simply insurance policies that are so complicated and tangled that they make ordinary humans' heads hurt. I don't consider selling insurance to be manipulation, it's trading risk for money. If you have good actuaries, and a black swan doesn't land in your pond, you profit.

    I'm confused about your positive attitude towards store owners vs your disdain for brokers. The only difference is that a store owner takes on additional risk by assuming ownership of a product that may or may not sell quickly - or at all. He has cost of goods, overhead, carrying costs, lost opportunity costs, but I don't see how he creates any value at all that a broker doesn't create. In fact, using a broker rather than buy/hold/resell should result in lower prices to the buyer because the broker doesn't have overhead/carrying/opportunity costs that have to be marked up and passed on.

    When it comes to stockbrokers, there's no difference between him and a grocer; the fact that it's an intangible good doesn't matter. A corporation generally only benefits from the stock market when it issues new shares. (Let's ignore all the crazy details of issuing equity and how investment banks are involved, it's an unnecessary distraction.)

    ABCWidget issues stock and I buy it from them. They get the capital they need and I get nothing - unless they pay a dividend or the value of the company increases. If I require income I should have bought bonds instead. If I want my capitol back the only way I can get it is to find a buyer for my shares. If I'm lucky they're worth more than I paid. Without the stock broker I'd have no idea who I'd be able to sell 500 shares of ABCWidget to. He is absolutely adding value and I don't begrudge him the commission. Without him my capital is tied up at a time I've decided I have a better use for it.

    It's sad that I can't remember the proper definition of wealth, so I'll ask this: Who creates wealth?
    - You said farmers. They take some kind of stock (plant or animal), grow it larger adding labor and nutrition, and then sell the more valuable end product.

    - How about ABCWidgets? Who is it there that's producing the wealth, the owner, the employees, the investors?

    - How about at Microsoft, where they don't produce things you can actually touch. The take skilled thought and turn it into software that (hopefully) benefits the world. At what point in the process and by whom was the wealth created?

    - Is there wealth created when groundskeepers produce optimal golfing conditions? When an author writes a book? When a mechanic changes your oil and rotates your tires?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Different men.
    Please examine Cruz's resume.
    Not perfect, but a possibility. If he gets in, will he be corrupted like all the rest? Who knows? Michael, I'm not being a Pollyanna and I understand full well Timelord and your attitudes and I'm not really disagreeing with you very much. Everything you say is true, but I'm holding out for a tiny thread that says, "not quite yet."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There are many things I could tell you that might change your mind, but they were told to me in confidence. I'll just stick with not quite yet, but then, as Grandpa Sherman said, "Ve shall see."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Timelord 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It wouldn't require much research; this isn't an academic paper! Use what you know about government, licensing and regulations and then think of a business you could start and grow very large, country wide, with hundreds or thousands of employees and millions or billions in revenues.

    I'm willing to permit you to simply obey all existing laws and comply with licensure and regulation and still retain your Objectivist principles unsullied (even though a hardcore might insist that striking is required). You're not allowed to use the system to manipulate any law or regulation to the detriment of a competitor or potential competitor. And you're not allowed to sue anyone for intellectual infringement, only tangible fraud or theft.

    If it can't be done as a thought experiment then don't bother; I agree that it's not worth a lot of research time, just a fun discussion. Assumption and speculation are allowed and encouraged but it would be nice to state them!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What makes this year any different from the previous 'chances' given to the Republicans and how have they changed other than becoming the right wing of the left?

    How about we make it simple and decide in how many more of these four year fiascos should they be given...one ......more.....chance. I'm thinking the amount it takes to be not voting but being told who the new Fuhrer of the Socialist Party is going to be. Your idea has failed miserably in every one of these charades and done nothing to effect change in the desired direction. But .....while it's still available flushijng your vote to the left is still a somewhat limited but available freedom of choice item.

    It's also your responsbility.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo