A first glance, it doesn’t make much sense to put an oilman in charge of a COP conference. Nothing more than setting a wolf to guard sheep, right?
On the other hand, shepherd dogs are nothing but ‘converted’ wolves. Wolves who had somehow figured out that it’s more sustainable to live with the humans than in the wild. Former wolves who had somehow figured out that’s far more sustainable – for them, to protect the sheep than to prey on them.
OK, the agent driving the process had been human. But the facts remain. Dogs have evolved from wolves.
What are we waiting for? If the descendants of the wolves had been able to ‘cross over’, why so many reasonable people continue to believe that the ‘Global Warming’ is a hoax? After all, we’re the ones supposed to be reasonable… And the way I see it, it’s unreasonable to believe that burning fossil fuel accumulated during millions of years can be ‘sustainable’. Forget about ‘peak oil’ and ‘peak gas’ and remember how hot the Earth was when the first drop of fossil fuel had been set aside by Mother Nature.
“Tough times create tough men. Tough men create easy times. Easy times create weak men. Weak men create tough times.“ American proverb “Wealth lasts only for three generations: one to make it, one to keep it, one to squander it“ Chinese proverb “If you raise your children, you get to spoil your grandchildren. If you spoil your children, you get to raise your grandchildren.“ Popular word of mouth
There’s no denying that, on average, each generation fares better than its predecessor.
Then why some people end up worse than their parents? Is it a social thing? Is it in their upbringing? Is it the consequence of bad personal choices?
The easy way out would be to consider that legislation, material status, the culture one was born into and even the upbringing offered by the parents are nothing but circumstances. And, ultimately, it’s the individual who makes the call. And bears the consequences… But the above mentioned individual doesn’t rise from and into a complete void… so I need to go deeper!
An equally true but somewhat more useful observation would be that we’re dealing here with something more important than mere wealth.
‘There’s no such thing! Nothing is more important than Wealth!’
Yeah, right… Individual people keep squandering the personal wealth accumulated by their forefathers, the humankind keeps going forward and you tell me personal wealth is the most important thing here…
But you do make a good point. Your insistence, obsessive even, about wealth being the crux of everything is very relevant. Since I agree with you that wealth is important, indeed, then maybe it’s the ‘insistence’ which is causing the problem…
First of all, allow me to make a simple distinction.
There is wealth – structured opportunity, I’ll discuss this notion in another post, and there is personal wealth. Opportunity which belongs to somebody. When an individual squanders the wealth inherited from their parents – or even that which they had managed to put together themselves, the wealth itself – the accrued opportunity – doesn’t disappear from the face of the earth. It just passes from one hand to another. Most of it, anyway. For the simple reason that most of today’s wealth is expressed in money. Which is fungible.
‘OK. So individual people squandering their inherited wealth do not represent such a big problem. The total wealth already present ‘on the face of the Earth’ remains (more or less) the same, no matter who owns it. And since new wealth is created everyday, the humankind, on aggregate, goes forward.’
That’s how things used to be. That’s how things had evolved for the last ten millennia or so. Ever since our forefathers had invented agriculture. Agriculture and money… Land and money cannot be destroyed. Buildings and almost everything else which carries value can. Be destroyed. Land and money also, actually, but it’s a lot harder to do it.
But there’s a catch here.
For wealth to do its trick – to function as an opportunity, people have to have access to it. That’s why, for example, people do not keep their money under the mattress. When deposited in a bank, money will end up being used. The bank will lend them to somebody who needs it and that somebody will put that money to work, In no matter what shape or form. Kept under a mattress, money becomes mostly useless. At least for the time being… And this is where ‘insistence’ – our obsessive insistence – that money is the only worthwhile goal for any respectable person becomes counterproductive.
‘Are you a communist?!?’
On the contrary, my dear Watson!
In fact, Marx had been just as infatuated with money as Milton Friedman was going to be a century later. With more or less similar results… Friedman taught us that greed is good. Profit uber alles. That getting money trumps everything else. That getting money is not only good for the individual itself but also commendable. That everybody should make it their goal to become rich! Marx, on the other hand – please remember that the ‘other’ hand is nothing but similar to its twin – advocated for all wealth to be stripped from its rightful owners. See what I mean? Both Marx and Friedman had been thinking only about ownership. Who owns that wealth!
On average, we deal with the same situation. According to Friedman – pushing his advice to the very limit, there’s no problem if someone owns all the money in the world. If it so happened, so be it. According to Marx, nobody should own anything. On average, the wealth corresponding to each living human in both situations would be the same.
We already know the consequences of Marx’s teachings. When all the wealth present in one country is managed by a very small number of people, the whole situation goes south. Fast. Very fast! We also know what happens when the market is cornered. Becomes suffocated by a monopoly. The whole situation goes south. That’s why we cherish the freedom of the market!
Doesn’t make much sense? To insist that the market must be free and simultaneously maintain that ‘greed is good’?
Yep! My point exactly…
The vaunted human capacity for reason may have more to do with winning arguments than with thinking straight. Illustration by Gérard DuBois Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds New discoveries about the human mind show the limitations of reason. By Elizabeth Kolbert February 19, 2017 https://www.newyorker.com/contributors/elizabeth-kolbert
Equality has become ‘the’ thing. But things are not that simple. Not simple enough to be explained/solved in such a trivial manner. Equality is a theoretical concept. It doesn’t exist, as such, in nature. Nor in practice. Two ‘objects’/issues/items are declared, by us, to be equal if the differences between them are smaller than a threshold. Instated, again, by us. Mathematics – a theoretical field by excellence, being the only domain where the difference between two equal ‘objects’ is exactly zero. On the other hand, societies where people consider themselves to be equal fare better than those where the differences between people are ‘manifest’. Hence ‘equality’ must be important, right? ‘Societies where people consider themselves to be equal’… The key word here is “consider”, not “equal “. In this situation, equality is not only a concept but also a value.
The fact that a functional majority of the people living in those societies consider themselves to be equal creates a certain ‘environment’. A situation where those people actually complement each-other. A society which works as an organism. Not as a shoal of fish nor as a simple herd. A society which works a community.
A single parent can raise children. But two parents do it a lot easier. And, in most cases, better. A single parent can adopt children. But no single parent, man or woman, is able to give birth to a child without being helped by a member of the ‘opposite sex’. Societies where people consider men and women to be equal fare a lot better than those entertaining other beliefs. Which doesn’t negate the fact that men and women complement each-other. In a lot more situations than those in which they merely reproduce themselves. Economies where the market is free fare a lot better than those where the economic decisions are made in a centralized manner. The communist camp – where the economies were run by the party, had crumbled under their own weight. Which strongly suggests that no matter how skilled it may be, a central planner will never be able to balance such a complicated process as a whole society/economy. Monopolistic situations, where decision making became too concentrated, invariably ended up in a pile of mess. Another proof that no decision maker, no matter how skilled/well intended, was ever capable of managing, by itself, a really complicated situation. What is the real difference between a free market and one where decision making is concentrated in an unsustainably small number of hands? Or heads? Economic agents are equal? Suppliers are equal among themselves, buyers are equal among themselves and suppliers are equal with buyers? Or suppliers complement each-other in adequately supplying the market while buyers and suppliers complement each-other in maintaining the market afloat? Which brings us back to where we have started. Where people who complement each-other have reached the conclusion they’d better consider their complements as equals. And treat each-other as such.
The way I see it, capitalism is an environment. A ‘place’. A ‘way’ for people to do ‘economy’. What people do in that place depends on the place itself but also on how they choose to do things. This being the reason for which the American capitalism is different from the European one. And both completely different from the Chinese version. In this sense, capitalism doesn’t actually work. Not by itself! If those dwelling in this ‘place’ act freely – as in ‘free market’ – then the whole ‘thing’ remains ‘sustainable’. Not ‘good for everybody’, not always ‘nice’ but nevertheless ‘fair’. As in ‘you have a fair chance of reaching the other end’. Not to get necessarily rich but to make the ends meet!
The alternative to capitalism… if you take your ideological blinders off, you notice that there’s none! Socialist/communist countries are/were also capitalist. The difference being that their economies are/were centrally planned. Their markets are/were anything but free! This being the reason for which communism had crumbled under its own weight. And for which in all places where the market is not free enough the ‘thing’ is not sustainable!
Any way you look at what’s currently happening, it doesn’t make any sense.
Forget about ‘we’re throwing away 30% of the food we produce while a third of us die of hunger’. That’s ‘peanuts’. Not for those whose children go to bed hungry but…
People living on the northern side of the Mediterranean Sea had accomplished something marginally short of miraculous. They had come up with an ideology which convinced them to respect each-other. Christianity. They had been able to develop the best mechanism for allotting resources. The ‘free market’. And the best mechanism for reaching decisions for the entire community. Currently called ‘democracy’.
In their attempt to understand, they have devised an extremely original manner of looking at things. ‘Science’. Based on what they had learned through ‘science’, they had developed ‘technology’.
Working as a team – they used to respect each-other, as children of the same god – and making ‘good’ use of their technology, they had been able to conquer the rest of the planet.
At some point, Europe used to export almost everything – including coal, and import inconsequential things. Silk, spices, tea, sugar, cotton and tobacco. At that moment, England was considered the factory of the world. It used to manufacture and export the most technologically advanced ‘wares’. Fabric, ‘china’, steel products, machinery, chemicals… And coal! Which was warehoused around the globe and used, eventually, by the English steamships plying the seas for commerce. And for war…
Look at us now! We depend on our former colonies for much of our energy. Oil, that is. We depend on the rest of the world for much of the fancy foods we currently eat. Brazilian beef, tropical fruit, fancy sea-food… And we depend on China for cheap manufactured goods. From clothes to cameras to cranes. ‘White goods’, electronics – computers included, and almost everything else which is sold at decent prices.
Not to mention the fact that Europe had been the flashing point for three World Wars. I, II and the Cold one. Not to mention the fact that as I write the biggest country in Europe – Putin’s Russia, is trying to annex some 15 % percent of one of its neighbors. Ukraine, also an European country.
If any of this does a modicum of sense to any of you… please let me know!
I, for one, am at a loss. I understand what happened – stay tuned, but I have no idea when we’ll figure out we’re on the wrong track. Going in the wrong direction.
I have no way of knowing what the creator of the meme actually wanted to convey through it. All I know is what I make of it.
The ‘Austrian’ will eventually fall. Not only that nobody can stay in the saddle for ever but the guy uses only one hand to steer his bike. And the fact that he doesn’t use a helmet is the second proof that he doesn’t care much for safety. For his safety… At his age, he should have known better!
Hard to argue with Mises – the quintessential Austrian economist, if I remember right. Specially since I grew up under a communist regime. Where laissez faire was absent and where the government was inept and immoral. Which regime, like all other authoritarian/totalitarian regimes in history, had crumpled under it’s own weight.
But wait! Countries which use laissez faire had long ago invented the necessary mitigation mechanisms. The unlucky entrepreneurs can declare bankruptcy and start all over. The fraudulent entrepreneurs – well, many of them, go to prison. While the inept and immoral governments get booted. Democratically!
My point being that laissez faire works better if there’s a safety net in place. And that people should trust their government. But also keep it on a very short leash!
What I think of you and what you are in reality are two different things. But this is another kettle of fish.
A ‘different’ kettle of fish, you mean.
Have it your way. But you have to take into consideration that the kettle itself remains the same. Only the fish inside are different, one catch at a time. Even when the fish belong to the same species, are of the same size and you take the pain to add the same number of fish to the kettle. Let’s go back to Solomon splitting babies. The ‘official’ story, the one presently belonging to the “Hebrew lore” and “recorded at 1 Kings 3:16-18“, had been redacted. From what had actually happened:
As we all know, Solomon had many wives. An a few concubines. 700 and 300, respectively. In these circumstances, he rarely had a full night’s sleep. No wonder that whenever he had to make a judgment, specially early in the morning, he used to send for his trusted personal advisor. When the two women, both pretending to be the mother of the disputed child, had come to seek justice before king Solomon, he was rather sleepy. But the faithful – and very discreet, ‘coach’ was there. As always. The first woman was asked to tell her side of the story. Solomon, at some point, waived his hand. ‘Enough, you seem convincing enough. Take your baby and scram’. ‘But sir, shouldn’t you also listen what the other woman has to say? Before deciding the fate of the poor baby?’ whispered the adviser in Solomon’s ear? ‘Wait. Come back, both of you! Now, the other one, what’s your story?’ ‘….’ ‘You’re also very convincing… you have the child…’ ‘But sir, they cannot both be right! At the same time… There’s only one child…’ Solomon, suddenly awaken, turns back to face the counselor: ‘You are absolutely right too!’ And only then, after realizing that sometimes – when there’s only one child to be had, for example – two people cannot entertain two different opinions and be right at the same time, Solomon did put his mind to work. In earnest. And came up with his famous solution. “Split the child!”
Same thing here. Both J.P. Morgan and Friedrich Nietzsche had been partially right. There is a difference between ‘real’ – a.k.a. ‘golden’, and fiat money but the difference is made by us!
See, no need to split the child. Not this time, anyway. But we have to keep in mind that, no matter what any of us thinks, for money to retain their value – no matter whether those money are ‘real’ or ‘fiat’, we need to be able to make good use of those money.
A heap of gold and a suitcase of dollars are equally useless if there’s nothing to be bought!
Basically, Adam Smith and Ayn Rand had the same thing in their minds.
How society works and how individuals meet their needs in a social context.
And both of them had reached the same solution. That capitalism was good.
Unfortunately – for Ayn Rand’s fans, any similitude between them stops here.
Adam Smith had described a reality. Something which had evolved, naturally, in the cultural milieu to which he had happened to belong.
Ayn Rand was trying to push a social model.
The fact that what Rand was trying to push was very close to what Smith had described is, indeed, important. But the difference between something which had evolved naturally and the very same something which had been imposed, by force, is also important.
Let me give you an example.
Christianity. Much of what we have today – from ‘human rights’ to the very concept of ‘science’, has it’s roots down in the principles exposed in the Bible. South America is, now, a Christian territory. Populated by people who had immigrated as Christians and by people – just as Christian as the first category, who had been born to parents having other beliefs. Parents who had been forcefully ‘conversed’ to Christianity.
It’s easy to notice that people in South America don’t fare as well as those in Europe, North America or Australia. Why? They are Christians, South America uses the same capitalism and the same democracy as the rest of the ‘civilized’ world… why are the results so different?
Don’t bring ethnicity into discussion! The explanation is simple and has nothing to do with ethnicity.
While in Europe, North America and Australia Christianity and capitalism had evolved naturally – in the sense that they had occurred in Europe and had been translated by the European immigrants to North America and Australia, in South America – and in other places, Christianity and capitalism had been forcefully imposed by the immigrants upon the much larger local populations.
Just as Communism had been forcefully imposed by the Lenin led Bolsheviks upon the Russian People.
Forget about the fact that communism had failed, no matter how hard some people have tried to make it work, while capitalism works for real – when used properly. My point is that whenever somebody tries to force something upon somebody else, the results will never rise to the expected level. No matter how good that ‘something’ might be.
Are you familiar with ‘you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink’? Leading it to water is enough. Whenever somebody becomes ‘enthusiastic’ enough to try to force a horse to drink, the results …. no matter how skillful the ‘enthusiast’ might be…
And there’s another ‘small’ thing which makes a hell of a difference. Adam Smith’s main point was that the whole society benefits from the functioning of the free market. Where each ‘agent’ competes with the others towards meeting his own goal. Which competition – as long as it remains free, results in everybody – well, almost, having a better life. Ayn Rand’s point being that the free market is there only for the benefit of the ‘strongest’. Which is in line with Lenin’s view on the matter… ‘The Bolsheviks merit to lead the revolution because they are the strongest…’
One-Time
Monthly
Yearly
Make a one-time donation
Make a monthly donation
Make a yearly donation
Choose an amount
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
Or enter a custom amount
$
As much as I love writing, I do have to eat. And to provide for my family. Earning money takes time. If you’d like me to write more, and on a more regular basis, hit the button. Your contribution will be appreciated! Another very efficient way to help would be to share my posts.
As much as I love writing, I do have to eat. And to provide for my family. Earning money takes time. If you’d like me to write more, and on a more regular basis, hit the button. Your contribution will be appreciated!
As much as I love writing, I do have to eat. And to provide for my family. Earning money takes time. If you’d like me to write more, and on a more regular basis, hit the button. Your contribution will be appreciated!
The difference between us and the rest is that we can choose. People – humans, that is, are capable of deciding things while the rest of the animals use simpler mechanisms of determining the way forward.
The ability to decide has consequences. The most important being ‘responsibility’. The most common being ‘blame’.
When confronted with ‘uncomfortable’ consequences of the decision making process, people get to choose between blame and responsibility. Between apportioning blame – and feeling better, and determining responsibility.
I’ve long ago given up ‘blame’. Because blame is driven by emotion. Hence blinds the blamers. Prevents them from checking all the angles. Prevents them from getting as close to the reality as possible.
Let’s go back to the current pandemic. A large number of people have not yet been immunized against Covid -19, despite the vaccine being widely available. In certain ‘jurisdictions’…
Because each of the yet unvaccinated has chosen to pass the opportunity? Or because so much ‘dubious’ information has been floated around that it has almost drowned the sensible voices?
Should we blame the as yet unconvinced or should we ask ourselves what’s going on in the heads of the ‘gaslighters’?
Facts are clear.
WSJ is a highly reputable source, the information is old enough – if ‘fake’ it would have already been ‘debugged’,… Then why isn’t this being hammered down our throats? Constantly?
The vaccine which had been used was Chinese?
Let’s make the same experiment using one of ours! It has been already done? Let’s hear about it!
We are in the middle of a pandemic. Which will continue until we’ll build ‘herd immunity’. Which can be achieved through vaccination or by surviving the disease. Surviving the disease takes longer and costs way more than the vaccine. Lives lost, money spent for health care and money lost because of business interruptions. And if we don’t build herd immunity fast enough, the virus might mutate into a new one. And we’ll be back to the square one.
The only section of the society which has anything to gain from our reticence to get the vaccine is BigPharma. They are the ones who will eventually come up with a vaccine for the new strain of virus. They are the ones providing the treatment given to the infected patients. They are the ones providing the tests.
Want to give the finger to BigPharma?
Go out there and get the jab!
One-Time
Monthly
Yearly
Make a one-time donation
Make a monthly donation
Make a yearly donation
Choose an amount
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
Or enter a custom amount
$
As much as I love writing, I do have to eat. And to provide for my family. Earning money takes time. If you’d like me to write more, and on a more regular basis, hit the button. Your contribution will be appreciated! Another very efficient way to help would be to share my posts.
As much as I love writing, I do have to eat. And to provide for my family. Earning money takes time. If you’d like me to write more, and on a more regular basis, hit the button. Your contribution will be appreciated!
As much as I love writing, I do have to eat. And to provide for my family. Earning money takes time. If you’d like me to write more, and on a more regular basis, hit the button. Your contribution will be appreciated!
nicichiarasa 