The Anti-Capitalists in the Gulch
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.
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.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 5.
The movie "The Big Short" shows how widespread the financial corruption was (and still is). The financial disaster of 2008 and beyond originated with irrational government policies, but it was implemented in all its glory through massive fraud perpetrated by thousands of willing participants in the private sector.
Bill Gates?
George Soros?
Warren Buffet?
Mark Cuban?
John Allison?
Fred Smith?
Ed Snider?
(Oh, ... how about Peter O'Malley? It was Peter O'Malley who told Ed Snider about Atlas Shrugged.)
But, you know, it could be a symptom of bread-and-circuses that our greatest capitalist heroes make their money in sports. Or it could be something else: the simple maturity of our culture from primary production to entertainment.
It is a fallacy of collectivism that only factory work and farming are considered "moral," while art and entertainment are decried as "decadent."
Government consists mostly of legalized theft. For reasons having to do with the public good problem of economics, most lobbyists (and bribes) are going to be paid by people who want this theft redirected to benefit themselves, not abolished or even reduced; and those actions are rights violations even when they don't increase the total amount of theft (and they usually do).
Furthermore, bankers in particular steal in many ways, and would steal even if the government allowed more people to enter that industry and compete with them. 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. But so far the courts let banksters get away with that.
No. Mike, you're full of BS.
No one can be trusted to create the only legal tender of the US (and the world's primary currency) from nothing and to charge interest and fees on that free "money" without limits. Not government and not a cartel of businessmen. Such concentrated power gives the cartel the ability to destroy nations and productive enterprises if they do not do as they are "advised." The "anomaly" that you observe is a direct result of legislation created by the banking cartel to remove the regulations that previously prevented the "anomaly" from occurring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm–L...
It took me a while, working with my son, but I did manage to get there. He showed me his example, so I had to return mine. We fed off each other and learned from one another.
It's self evident that they at least recently have caused our biggest problems along with the creatures in government.
We forget, in the face of it all, that these functions done well, are necessary in a successful capitalistic system.
Go read the book before you offer responses that do not address the issue.
You do respond with relish.
Mike, you are illustrating how you perceive that the world works. Come right down to it, you are a pragmatist.
FF, you are an objectivist moralist. You were born too soon (or too late) for this world. Like in Atlas, I love to adhere to your principles, but at the same time must deal with the real world, which is Mike's world.
Can I survive in Mike's world while using FF's morality? I try, but I fall off the wagon now and then. I'm glad I'm retired.
So..Here are my questions for each of you:
Mike, you obviously are a Rand fan. How do you reconcile yourself with Objectivism?
FF: Can you strictly adhere to the basic principles of Objectivism and still prosper in the world as it is today?
Gulch People really want to know.
“At the time we started Genentech, there was no such thing as genetic engineering. The risks were enormous.”
A quarter million invested in Genentech in 1976 became $47billion when sold to La Roche in 2009. Five million invested in Intel became $90 million. $1.4 million invested in Tandem Computers in 1974 became $3 billion when Compaq bought the company in 1997.
I was told by a guy at Salomon Brothers, "We’ve heard the pitch, but you did not go to Harvard Business School.” -- Don Valentine, founder of Sequoia Capital, investors in Apple, Cisco, Oracle, Electronic Arts and LSI Logic.
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20...
"Bob Swanson was 29 when he provided the money for Prof. Herbert Boyer to start Genentech. Like all overnight successes, the real story is more complicated, with deep roots. Bright, accomplished, and motivated, Swanson had obvious potential – and a string of failures to show for it. "
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20...
"Our last contacts were a trio from the Austin Technology Incubutor: Mike A. Sandoval of the IC2 Institute, Dr. Lydia V. McClure, an Accenture Venture Partner with Texas Venture Labs at the McCombs School of Business, and Michael R. Pierce also an Accenture Venture Partner. Earlier this year, the ATI announced the launch of two companies, Savara Pharmaceuticals, and Terapio, which markets the RPLI76 protein as a countermeasure to radiation exposure and chemical threats. About 30 companies are now in the incubator, including Alafair Bioscience, Integrated Medical Systems, Inc., Admittance Technologies, and Xeris which makes ultra-low volume biopharmaceuticals in auto-injection pens."
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20...
It is not all one-way streets:
Dr. Thomas Kodadek closed by summarizing his experiences. “Work on important projects, not widgets. Incubate for as long as possible in the university before taking your work to the market. Angel investors are better than venture capitalists. Focus early on the people you bring in to start the organization.”
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20...
There's a lot of money out there. And, as right above, many paths to success. That is why the Austrians continue to argue "what is entrepreneurship?" No formula exists.
The International Banking Conspiracy is just another boys' club. Adam Smith said that rarely does a group of tradesmen gather for dinner than the conversation turns to methods of restricting the markets for their own benefit. Once you get rid of the "banksters" on whom will you turn next?
I admit that some of them are very clever, but clever thieves are still just thieves.
When the Revolution was over and the Federal government was formed - in part to buy up that paper - the final tally was that about half of the former colonies had managed their finances well; the others did not.
The Man Who Found the Money: John Stewart Kennedy and the financing of the western railroads by Saul Engelbourg and Leonard Bushkoff (Michigan State University Press, 1996) tells of cyclic issuing of stocks and bonds, bankruptcies, reorganizations, state-ordered or court-ordered receiverships, all for the creation of the greatest railroad network in the world. They did not do it with gold bars and silver coins. Entrepreneurship is risk, by definition. And the laws had to be invented because no precedents existed. Most of our law about intellectual property still rests on medieval concepts about farming. Industrialization was a social revolution.
... (promoting products to customers that you are shorting and all the while pretending you are protecting the widows and orphans) ...
I have no idea what you are attempting to say there. Do you refer to the shorting of products, or to the shorting of customers?
Shorting your own products is perfectly acceptable. Farmers do it all the time when they put and call long and short on their own inventories. That is how the futures markets work. It is what they were made for. Otherwise you have everything worth nothing at harvest and unavailable at any price ten months later. I agree that shorting the customers is bad: it is wrong to not deliver what you promise.
The votes given to the comment (at 6 now) show that it is easy to feel consonant with the sentiment: government intervention in the economy is bad. Your heart is in the right place, I will grant that. But the actual application of those feelings has played out quite differently in history. it is freezing outside right now. My home is at 70F and I am about to make a cup of coffee. All the gold in Tenochtitlan, all the silver in Cuzco could not have achieved that. It was done with paper promises, legally valid in government courts.
I know of an anarchist - Bob Black - not liked as a person, but admittedly insightful about some things, who pointed out in a book he published that socialists and capitalists both want you to work for them. It does not matter much who owns the factory if it is not you. Or so he claims. Clearly, some bosses are more humane than others. You are better off at General Motors than at Volga Motors.
The best world would be one wherein we all own our factories - 3D printing, home genetics, information work, all of that, as well as the traditional carpenters, plumbers, etc., who always were self-employed, not wage-workers.
Load more comments...