Channeling Marx

In the Christian Science Monitor:

Interviewer: "Mr. Marx, not that long ago, lovers of capitalism pronounced your ideas dead. Now, according to at least one source, we are all socialists. What changed?"

Marx: "It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put on its trial, each time more threateningly, the existence of the entire bourgeois society."

Interviewer: "Nowadays we call these 'crises' recessions. You predicted that over time, capitalism would become dominated by larger and larger firms."

Marx: "[T]he concentration of capital and land in a few hands."

Interviewer: "And how does this concentration bring on socialism?"

Marx: "By paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented."

Interviewer: "So the bigger firms become, the harder they fall. In the US economy, some firms have become 'too big too fail,' and the government has moved in. As this plays out, what will happen to capitalism?"

Marx: "Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable."

The author, Paul McDonnold, then goes on to note that capitalist "hero" Adam Smith's writings on the economy of his day favored competition between decentralized businesses. The economy of Smith's day, it is worth noting, included both regulations and protectionist measures, many of which Smith supported. McDonnold's plea to conservatives to revise their stance on deregulation ends with the following:

Marx and Smith each saw a piece of the truth – two different sides of the coin of capitalism. Capitalism itself is not fatally flawed. But a hyperconservative approach to it is. Regulations that promote decentralized competition on a human scale are regulations that conserve Smith's side of capitalism. These regulations should not be the enemy of conservatives; they should be our aim.

Many conservatives will want to stick to the dogmatic ideological line of deregulation. But the capitalism produced by blind support of deregulation is one of bureaucratic corporations, greed-fueled booms, and fear-riddled busts. If conservatives do not embrace regulations that preserve Smith's capitalism, we might just wake up one day to see it gone and socialism in its place, just as Marx predicted.

This is why I like to joke and call myself a regu-libertarian. I have no fundamental problems with laws and regulations that protect the people from the corporation. I also favor regulation (and even tolls) that hold corporations liable for externalities. The modern corporation, while at best neutral, is all too often a profiteering and psycopathic scourge on society. I am all for maximum freedom and liberties to individuals, not to fictional, government-privelaged entities.

Economics, Politics, and the revenge of B.A. Baracus and Run DMC

Fresh off Peter Schiff's appearance on the Daily Show and WSJ reporting his potential Senate run, it seems that other politicians are slowly coming around to warning about our country's economic woes in similar fashon. Consider Mark Kirk of Illinois in a Fox News interview, fresh off a trip with leaders in China:

KIRK: There was an honesty moment when Secretary Geithner was in Beijing University giving a speech. He said, Your investments in a trillion dollars worth of U.S. debt are secure, and the audience laughed at him. It's very un-Chinese to do, to embarrass a speaker in public, but I think it reflected a growing concern in Beijing.

VAN SUSTEREN: And I guess we should point out the reason why they're concerned, the Chinese, why they care so much, is because they hold all -- a significant portion of our debt.

KIRK: Right. China has leant about $300 billion to the U.S. for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- they're very worried about that -- another $700 billion in Treasury bills. And they're particularly worried about the Fed's new policy of buying Treasury debt because they're worried that one part of the federal government is buying another part of the federal government's debt. Sounds like printing money, and that means that if you hold dollar-denominated debt, all those investments will be worth less because you'll be repaid in printed dollars.

The most revealing statement by Kirk, however, is this:

Well, they already are beginning to hedge. I think they expect quite a bit of inflation in the United States next year. So they made a major investment. They funded a second strategic petroleum reserve, and they plan to buy $80 billion worth of gold. That's two Fort Knoxes. Both of those investments only make sense if you expect significant dollar inflation.

Two Fort Knoxes worth of gold. Either China is crazy, or crazy smart. By my calculation, $80 billion dollars of gold (at today's spot price) equals 83.6 million troy ounces of gold. That equals over 2,600 tonnes, which is more than a full year's worth of global gold production. If they follow through with such a purchase, it will have an incredible impact on global supply and demand. I wish I could time travel back to middle school and make the investment argument to my parents when pleading(with no success) for a spectacular gold rope chain back in the day. Any bets on how long before Chinese President Hu Jintao is rocking a dookie rope?

Power to the Parents

Marybeth Hicks, columnist for several papers and sites and author of the book Bringing Up Geeks (reviewed here), uses her most recent column in the Washington Times to make a few points on virtues:

Since the government spending train to multigenerational public debt left the station, we began to realize that the future direction of our nation is something we simply can't control. At the rate our federal government is spending and growing, the Republic that Ben Franklin dared us to maintain could be a distant memory by the time our 11-year-old is eligible to vote. Already, Franklin and the other Founders probably wouldn't recognize their grand experiment anyway.

Unfortunately, unlike my husband, muttering and fuming don't make me feel better. So Im focusing on something I can control: the caliber of the citizens being raised in our household.

If you think about it, much of the power among "we the people" rests with "we the parents."

Politics aside, Hicks is making a common sense point that has been lost in our society. There is nothing inherently wrong with most nannies, day care, and even schools, they each serve valid purposes, but the outsourcing of parental duties is not one of them. Proverbs 22:6 famously instructs parents to "Train children in the right way, and when old, they will not stray." Only parents can guide children to resist the urges of peer pressure, the media's "culture of cool," and educational group think by equipping their children with the knowledge of right and wrong, the understanding of virtues, and a disciplined self-determination that will serve them well throughout life.

As a parent, I'm convinced that my best, most vital contribution to this nation will be the four people who learn in my home that their American citizenship is both a blessing and a responsibility; its not meant to be a free ride, but rather the freedom to make the most of themselves.

There may not be much I can do about the ill-conceived government programs that will most assuredly burden our children with an incomprehensible pile of debt, so instead I'm focusing on infusing our nation with civic virtue, delivered in measured doses around the kitchen table. If we don't like the direction our nation is taking, its not enough to just shake our heads and express frustration; we have to train up the folks who one day will lead it.

"We the parents" are a powerful presence, indeed. By teaching our children to have self-discipline, forbearance, humility and honor, to live with moderation and civility and magnanimity, and to value their independence and liberty, we can offer the one and only long-term solution that will reinvigorate the vision of America as it once was: virtuous American citizens.

If our country is to survive and in any way reflect the principles it was founded upon, the coming generations will truly have to do the heavy lifting, both financially and in terms of leadership. And no one can prepare our youth to do so except their parents.

Environmentalism, Nature, and Virtue

A post on the ABC show Earth 2100 by Front Porch Republic:

This is the conceit of “environmentalism,” its fundamental flaw - and why it is today so popular. What it offers the world is a techno-perfected future in which we have overcome natural limits - including, it seems, the second law of thermodynamics and attendant entropy - by retaining a world of permanent increase and consumption (the “developing” world, it is assumed, will develop to first world standards using the magic of technology, somehow avoiding the predictable result of a world stripped bare), supporting “lifestyles” of autonomy and cosmopolitanism, all the while ceasing in any significant way the consumption of the planet’s bounty and the damage to ecosystems. We have gone from a totalitarian relationship with nature - in which our demand is met by force - to a fantastical science-fiction relationship, in which we can have everything for nothing.

What is studiously avoided is consideration of what kind of civilization we would have to build if exercise of self-control, restraint of appetite, and commitment to the health of places was to replace our current ethic of consumption, indolency, itinerancy, autonomy and mobility. While the former was in many ways the logical conclusion of the “warnings” that the program was promoting, the idea that we should actually alter our basic set of operating assumptions was clearly off the table. Ironically, the commercial “interruptions” underscored that ABC’s more fundamental commitment was to continue things as they are.

Further, what is striking in these sorts of programs - and the general ethic of “environmentalism” - is studied avoidance of the word nature itself.

Nature, of course, is the “normative” term of Aristotelianism and Thomism: it is a standard and represents a limitation. Humans are creatures of and in nature. We are subject to its laws and to its strictures. Nature is not separate from us; we are natural creatures (special ones - political animals - but animals nonetheless). To employ the word “nature” would mean a fundamental reconceptualization of the relationship of humans to the world with which we live. Rather than either extending human mastery over our “environment” or attempting to stamp out the contagion of humanity, to re-claim the language of nature would require us to change our fundamental conception of a proper way of living well. Living as conscious natural creatures in nature requires the careful negotiation between use and respect, alteration and recognition of limits to manipulation, and thus calls for the virtues of prudence and self-governance. Neither of these virtues are particularly valued in the “environmental” movement, whether that advanced by corporate America in the effort to continue our growth economy of itinerant vandals or the fantasy-based, “have it all” wishful thinking of our techno-environmentalists. Until we reacquaint ourselves with the language, and more importantly, the reality of nature, we will continue in our current condition of human-environmental dualism, or delusion.

In my observation, self-labeled "environmentalists" tend to be people with enough money to assuage the guilt of their high-consumption lifestyle by buying even more stuff, albeit marginally more efficient, and usually much more expensive, versions of the stuff they already want or have. And in addition to patting themselves on the back for their good deeds, they get the benefit of status that comes with visibly "green" alternatives. What is too often missing is how people across all incomes and cultures can, with a little discipline, live a more simple life, with less stuff, less driving, and less waste all around.

Now We're Talking

On the heels of Rand Paul's announcement that he will be running in 2010 for US Senator of Kentucky, it appears that Peter Schiff may also be running in 2010. From the Humble Libertarian:

I have heard from some very well-connected and credible sources that Peter Schiff, Congressman Ron Paul's economic advisor during his 2007-08 Presidential bid, is going to make a very big announcement *wink* next week on June 9th during his appearance on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

This would be awesome, if only for the comedic value. I would love to hear him debate the establishment candidates. If you don't know about Peter Schiff, please do yourself a favor and watch a few videos.

The infamous Peter Schiff was Right Montage:



Some of his best analogies:



And finally, if you really have some time, his speech at the recent Austrian Economics Conference:

Nature's Harmony

As someone who has been following the Nature's Harmony blog for several months, I was surprised to see the nearby farm featured in a New York Times article:

Nature’s Harmony will never make the Youngs wealthy again, but they seem past caring. “A lot of what I’ve done in my business life, I don’t think it really means anything,” Tim said. “There’s this whole — you’re seeing a lot of it now with all the politics and bailouts — way to make money in the world but not really do anything to contribute. I feel like what we do is important. But it’s not financially rewarding. Who cares? As long as you can make it on your own.” He tugged on his weathered hat and added, “Let me tell you something: we’re going to eat well.”

I love beef. What I don't love, however, is the idea of a shortened life due to heart disease, which is the leading cause of death in the US for both men and women. For this reason, the Hommes household has been experimenting with grass-fed beef in our kitchen (we already made the switch to healthier eggs). It is a little leaner, and a little chewier, but if the research is correct, it would be well worth adapting to eating meat and eggs that come from animals that are fed (gasp!) their natural diet.

Litigation and ROI

I probably should not be, but am nevertheless impressed that the ingenuity of people looking to make money knows no limits, even the courtroom. From the New York Times:

“It’s always a good time to invest in litigation,” Mr. Fields said, though he added that the weak economy helped. “When the recession started to bite, the phones started ringing off the hook. Last year, we looked at 122 cases and we made 17 investments.” A small but growing number of investors are exploring this idea, helping companies avoid some of the risks and costs of litigation in exchange for part of any money paid out when the case is settled or resolved by a court.

And in true free-market fashion, there seems to be some unintended positive benefits to investor self-interest, at least for those on the winning side:

The larger question, though, is whether the mere existence of outside investors makes possible lawsuits that might not be pursued otherwise.

If the claims are valid, then they may benefit from being litigated more effectively because the lawyers have more resources. “Having funding available for cases that are good cases, cases that from a God’s-eye point of view, so to speak, should’ve been brought, is a good thing,” Mr. Sebok said.

Religous Tolerance and Baptist History

Or perhaps a better title would be religious history and and Baptist tolerance.

Anyways, Robert Parham, Executive Director of the Baptist Center for Ethics, recently editorialized on a historic confrontation between founding Baptist Thomas Helwys and King James I:

"For men's religion to God is between God and themselves," wrote Helwys. "The king shall not answer for it."

Having metaphorically poked the king in the chest, Helwys poked the king a second time with his next sentence: "Neither may the king be judge between God and man. Let them be heretics, Turks, Jews, or whatsoever, it appertains not to the earthly power to punish them in the least measure."

Claiming religious liberty for heretics and Jews was surely an insulting statement to King James and his court. Yet what did the king have to fear from Jews and heretics. What power did they yield?

Advocating religious freedom for the Turks was another matter completely. Islam was the faith of a feared empire. Assigning the right of religious liberty to such foes was too much.

Helwys wasn't through, however. He set the pattern for all future Baptists. He claimed the Bible was on his side: "This [his argument for religious freedom] is made evident to our lord the king by the scriptures."

If the king claimed the Bible was on his side in the defense of the divine right of kings, then the Baptist layman would thump his Bible, proclaiming that the word of God was on the side of religious liberty.

The situation was anything but a stand off. Helwys went to prison, where he is thought to have died. James I remained the king.

King James I still holds sway over many Baptists through the King James Bible and his attitude of intolerance toward other religions.

Remembered mostly by historians, Helwys does challenge today's Baptists to recover their heritage as courageous advocates for religious liberty for all people of faith, including Muslims.

Principles over fear, from both enemy and authority. I like this Helwys guy.

Only With a 10 Foot Pole

And then, just barely. All I will say is that I like how this post approaches the abortion issue.

You Know You're Crazy When... Part 1: Norman Mailer

I am coming to the conclusion, perhaps obvious to others for quite some time, that if I agree with crazy people, that perhaps I am crazy also. At least a little. I have been called worse things, and maybe crazy is not the best word, but the term certainly comes to mind as I put together a list of those I have find myself agreeing with lately. So I plan to do a little series, and first up (in no particular order) is Norman Mailer.

Yes, he's dead, but many of his ideas are just as timely now as ever. From a 2003 speech:

Real democracy comes out of many subtle individual human battles that are fought over decades and finally over centuries, battles that succeed in building traditions. The only defenses of democracy, finally, are the traditions of democracy. When you start ignoring those values, you are playing with a noble and delicate structure. There's nothing more beautiful than democracy. But you can't play with it. You can't assume we're going to go over to show them what a great system we have. This is monstrous arrogance.

...

Because democracy is noble, it is always endangered. Nobility, indeed, is always in danger. Democracy is perishable. I think the natural government for most people, given the uglier depths of human nature, is fascism. Fascism is more of a natural state than democracy. To assume blithely that we can export democracy into any country we choose can serve paradoxically to encourage more fascism at home and abroad. Democracy is a state of grace that is attained only by those countries who have a host of individuals not only ready to enjoy freedom but to undergo the heavy labor of maintaining it.

....

Democracy, I would repeat, is the noblest form of government we have yet evolved, and we may as well begin to ask ourselves whether we are ready to suffer, even perish for it, rather than readying ourselves to live in the lower regions of a monumental banana republic with a government gung-ho to cater to mega-corporations as they do their best to appropriate our thwarted dreams with their elephantiastical conceits.

From a Time piece:

The world's not what I want it to be. But then no one ever said I had the right to design the world. Besides, that's fascism.

Quotes attributed to him in a recent post at FPR:

“The style of New York life has shifted since the Second World War (along with the rest of American cities) from a scene of local neighborhoods and personalities to a large dull impersonal style of life which deadens us with its architecture, its highways, its abstract welfare, and its bureaucratic reflex to look for government solutions which come into the city from without (and do not work)…Our authority has been handed over to the federal power. We expect our economic solutions, our habitats, yes, even our entertainments, to derive from that remote abstract power, remote as the other end of a television tube. We are like wards in an orphan asylum. The shaping of the style of our lives is removed from us—we pay for huge military adventures and social experiments so separated from our direct control that we do not even know where to begin to look to criticize the lack of our power to criticize….[O]ur condition is spiritless. We wait for abstract impersonal powers to save us, we despise the abstractness of those powers, we loathe ourselves for our own apathy.”

and

“People are healthier if they live out their prejudices rather than suppressing them in uniformity.”

And in an article with his son in American Conservative Magazine:

He foresaw the city, its independence secured, splintering into townships and neighborhoods, with their own school systems, police departments, housing programs, and governing philosophies. In some areas, church attendance might be obligatory, in others free love mandatory. “People in New York would begin to discover neighborhoods of the left, the right, and the spectrum of the center which reflected some of their own passions and desires and programs for local government,” he wrote.

But in his view, Left and Right do not necessarily need to exist in solitary states. Rather, they could dwell together in a radically alternative system to the one we know today—one in which governance belongs to local inhabitants bound by as little federal interference as possible. His claim to be running to the left and right of every man in the race was no gimmick.

More quotes to come. I'm not sure whose next, but I got a decent size list of weirdos to choose from.