Archive for April, 2011

Oligarchial Capitalism

Thursday, April 28th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that when government seeks to protect domestic industries with regulation, what government actually achieves, is oligarchal capitalism. Oligarchal capitalism is an example of what I call stupid capitalism, like all stupid capitalism, seeks to channel it‘s greed outside the normal market mechanism. It is where a few families or businesses, use their close connection with government, to protect themselves from competition, through the use of regulation.

Take for example Blockbuster. This company was a great company, they hired many people, they provided a needed service, better than any of their competitors and they earned a ton of money for their shareholders. Everything I like in a firm. But now they are on the ropes. Netflix and other new competitors are driving the movie rental business, Blockbuster’s core business, out of business.

This is resulting in Blockbuster’s demise and is an example of what Joseph Schumpeter called, “creative destruction.” The creation of a new business model destroys old business models. Blockbuster is the modern equivalent of a buggy whip maker. The product has been rendered outmoded by the advance of the Market’s dynamism.

Now consider this; What if the US government passed regulation protecting Blockbuster from competition? Blockbuster’s senior staff would argue that to do so would raise the wages in the country because with limited competition Blockbuster would raise wages for it’s employees. With the institution of regulations, protecting Blockbuster from any meaningful competition from domestic of foreign firms, Blockbuster would have a government granted monopoly and could charge monopoly prices… to increase the wages of it’s employees.

But Market dynamism would suffer. The material welfare of the people would suffer not only in the short term from lack of options in entertainment but in the long term the children will suffer from high unemployment, low wages, and a permanent underclass. Just as is in South America where oligarchal capitalism is rampant.

An example of how insidious oligarchal capitalism can be is when we look at General Electric. They made record profits but paid no income taxes at all. General Electric is in bed with the Obama administration and as such gets it’s back scratched as they scratch Obama’s. Regardless on your, or my, stance on corporate income taxes, this is treating different firms differently because of their politics. This type of government backed capitalism is a quick slide to oligarchal capitalism.

“But how can this be?” Someone might ask. “How can government protecting it’s industry be a bad thing?” To them I would say, Because the number and quality of jobs gets better with creative destruction and gets worse under “Apprehensive assistance,” that simply leads to oligarchal capitalism, it has spillover effects too.

Like making it harder to start any business, even ones that don’t actually compete with entrenched industry. Regulation is a wide brush, that when it is used, always drips where it wasn’t supposed to. That is the ever present danger of using regulation to control an economy. Regulation protecting one firm has a chilling effect on other small firms that only come under the regulation tangentially.

To me however, the most pernicious thing about oligarchal capitalism, is that it undermines the people’s faith in the market system to improve their material wants. It does this by stopping class mobility. The real danger to the Elite from an unfettered market system. Class mobility is the most hated effect of a free fair market system but without it society stagnates.

Some of the ways governments create a system of oligarchal capitalism is by, high fees for licensing, corrupt permitting, bribery by civil servants, allowing organized crime to shake down merchants, corrupt policing, holding the elite to a different standard than the people, as well as the main themes of this blog. Oligarchal capitalism is simply another way the Elite use to distribute the goods of society through political favor instead of ownership merit. All thoughtful lawmakers should beware of this evil that is an omnipresent threat to their economies…

Free Will

Sunday, April 24th, 2011

Happy Easter Everyone!

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that it is the clear desire of God that Mankind have free will. It is obvious that free will is a quality that God has endowed upon Mankind and is supported by not only scripture but nature and the phenomenon of civilization. As something endowed by God it must have a purpose.

Even in the Garden Adam and Eve were given free will to eat or not to eat of the fruit. God must have known they would eat of the fruit, and so it was his will that they eat of it, against his “say so” and of their own free will.

The State of Nature, as stated by philosophers for ages, is nothing but a state of unfettered free will. This absolute state of free will is also called chaos or anarchy. In a total state of free will it has been argued that this is analogous to a state of total warfare man against man.

But it is from this state of anarchy and chaos that emerges the phenomenon of civilization. Even though there is a Law of the universe (Chemistry), that states, “The universe tends towards entropy.” This means things tend to become less uniform over time not more. Civilization flies in the face of this fundamental law… As does Life.

From a state of chaos emerges civilization by a feedback loop that is inherent in free will. If a person seeks his or her own good, and that person has eaten of the tree of knowledge, then they have foresight and foreknowledge of causality. With this foreknowledge and knowledge of causality a rational self maximizer must acknowledge that civilization is preferable to anarchy.

It is when the feed back from action to consequences is broken does free will becomes problematic. Just as when government regulation seeks to eliminate the feed backs for prices through price controls and rent controls is the market distorted, when government mitigates, or especially when government eliminates, the negative consequences for negative behaviors does rational self maximization run afoul.

To say, for example, the “haves” should “help” the “havenots” is sophistry, because it is the job of the “havenots” to start businesses or get jobs and become the “haves,” In a free capitalist society. To make the “haves” support the “havenots” takes away both or their free wills. The “haves” free will is violated by taking their property and the “havenots” free will is violated by indefinitely prolonging their state of poverty through dependency.

In a total state of nature, before civilization emerges, individuals have as a primary example that the most corrupt get the best results. To lie when lying is acceptable is in one’s best interest. In a total state of nature the man or woman who is willing to be the most despicable gets a decided advantage. It is when self interested people realize this principle and band together freely, to suppress these qualities in all, that creates the conditions for civilization to emerge.

In a state of civilization however, when a legal system, ethos, moral norm, etc… is set up, or more likely evolves into such a system, one where the despicable have the upper hand, then chaos emerges from civilization. Societies that allow civil servants to take bribes or allow powerful politicians to lie under oath motivate people, freely, to become less civilized and left unchecked by self interested individuals, can lead to the emergence of anarchy from civilization.

Adam Smith said that people prefer to command another to do something rather than persuade a free man to acquiesce of his free will. This is more a problem of the Elite than of the people. It is a driving motivator to become one of the Elite. That is, to control people by coercion, instead of freely persuading them.

Anarchy however can be looked at like the melting of a metal. That is always the first step to forming something totally different from the metal. If a faction wanted to eliminate free will the furnace of chaos would be the first step to truly reorganize and fundamentally change our civilization. Too bad free will is a dog hair in the Elite’s mashed potatoes. But to the rest of use it is a gift from God to be cherished, protected and used for the betterment of all Mankind.

Democracy, Tyranny and the Market Sytem

Thursday, April 21st, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that there are ways to make things that work well and ways to make things that work poorly. When a means is chosen that has a historical track record, of making things that work well, things have a much better likelihood of working well then if a means that has only resulted in poorly working things, is chosen.

Making a board from a trunk is an example. If we use a means that has proven itself to work we will get better results than if we use a means that has not worked in the past. If I use a sawmill, rip saw or hewing axe the results will be much more satisfactory than if I use a die grinder. No matter how much I like using a die grinder it will never produce boards as efficiently or as uniformly as the means that have worked in the past.

No matter how much I might like the idea of using a die grinder, to hew boards from oak stems, it will be frustrating and a waste of time. Even if I reasoned that it would work better because the work of grinding is less degrading than sawing. If my personal bias or bigotry is such that I eschew the use of all saws and axes on moral and ethical grounds it still doesn’t negate the fact that a saw or axe works better for fabricating boards from logs.

Everything is this way. From shoveling coal to operating a remote controlled armature doing laparoscopic surgery there are ways that work, have proven themselves to work and will always work and there are ways that have not worked in the past, have proven themselves not to work and never will work no matter how many times they are tried. No matter how much we might want a means to work, if it doesn’t it doesn’t, and will never.

This is as true in the affairs of humanity as it is milling or shoveling. History shows us that before a democratically elected government becomes feasible the people musty have been inculcated in a market economy. That is the means that has worked in the past works now and will always work, but history also teaches us that alternate means to the market system haven’t worked, have proven themselves not to work and will never work.

In fact they have failed catastrophically. Every time an alternate to the market system has been tried it has killed directly and indirectly huge swaths of people. Usually with the intent to turn people from God through famine, instilling worship of the beloved leader with propaganda, mismanagement of the economy because there is no way a political entity can manage an economy and outright slaying their political enemies in the most gruesome manner possible to scare the masses into submission.

The market system works because it is as close to an organic system as humans can create. The market system is organic in many ways, it is basically an emergent phenomenon just as is life, the market system is dynamic just as is an ecosystem, the market system is growth oriented and most of all the market system is civilizing.

If we want a democratic republic, form of government, instead of tyranny, then the means that will work is introducing a market system into that civilization. Once a generation or two has passed functioning in a market system then democratic reform must take place. The rising wealth in a society, that engages in a market system, gives people more connection to the society. More connection to the society makes people more civilized because that connection is in fact a stake in the outcome of the society. So people want a say in what they see as their personal interests… civic affairs.

This civilization, due to connectedness to society, is lacking in a society that is based on raw political power, like a tribal feudal system. Under this type of system, people are connected to their tribe or faction, than to society, so it makes far more sense for a person to protect the privileges of his or her tribe or class then to have an over arching concept of connectedness to society at large.

So in this context doesn’t it make sense for the US government to be asking more about the economic policies of people it is giving money to, than to dwell on a single issue, democracy? But I have not seen a single report on the economic policies of the Libyan rebels, or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, or the faction(s) that will soon be toppling the governments of Syria and Yemen. This question is more important then the democracy question because it trumps it. Without a market based economy democracy cannot work.

From the Sustainability Desk…

Monday, April 18th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the tern sustainability is bandied about without a care as to whether or not it has any real applicability to the example represented. This is unsustainable and that is unsustainable, no mention why or by what means, it is merely unsustainable. Simply telling us a thing is unsustainable is supposed to send us into an apoplectic quivering mass of jelly ready to cede any liberty to rectify the problem.

The Western way of life, we are told, is unsustainable. We are given vague reason like global warming, population bomb, peak oil, pesticide use, mining, timbering, breathing. The fear monger comes up with scientific sounding explanations why you should lower your standard of living but he should raise his.

Extreme examples like Al Gore, promoting a drastic lowering of the American standard of living yet burns more BTUs of energy in a month than ten households in the US in a year, are common. This level of hypocrisy is always on display whenever the true fear mongers speak. The very things they warn us of they are doing themselves.

But one thing the true fear mongers agree, should not be ratcheted down, is the level of government spending. The term unsustainable is forgotten in this context. We are told that if only taxes went up a tiny little bit the level of spending could be sustained.

I wonder however. If some alien race, landed on Earth and gave the US government a billion dollars an hour, to subsidize the level of spending, would that solve the US national debt? No it would exacerbate the problem. Even if the aliens gave the US government a trillion dollars an hour it would fall short of what was needed.

Because there is no end to the need of government to spend money. Government’s appetite for spending is insatiable. No amount of income could come close to sating this beast. It could swallow the universe and cry for more with true indignation. It is a beast with a mouth but no stomach.

So if government deficit spending cannot possibly be solved by increases in revenue then how do we solve the problem? We slay the beast. We slay it else it will slay us. The amount of money the US government has pledged to spend but is not accounted for in the fourteen trillion dollar debit is closer to seventy five trillion dollars! The amount of money the US government will have to spend due to it’s Medicare/Medicaid commitments will exceed thirty percent of total US GDP in Five years.

This coupled with the social security time bomb that is ticking down. The US social security administration is already spending more than it is taking in. As with any Ponzi scheme this is the beginning of the death spiral. Again in five years the amount of US GDP swallowed by social security will be over twenty percent of total GDP. Thirty plus twenty is fifty percent of the US GDP swallowed by just these two programs! But that is not the peak.

This is the definition of unsustainable. Government spending exceeding fifty percent of GDP for a prolonged period is assured economic collapse. Government spending cannot long surpass a countries surplus GDP. Even the most efficient economies have surplus GDP in the area of fifteen percent. Any level of spending over that gnaws away at economic growth. That saps the prosperity from a country.

If a person is standing on a train bridge over a chasm, you see a train coming, it is not fear mongering to warn him or her. But if a person is standing in a field and there is a possibility that a meteor might hit him, it is fear mongering, to work him or her into a lather over it.

Capitalism or Culture, Who Can Say?

Thursday, April 14th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the difference between capitalism, as expressed in the market system, and culture have a great deal in common, and their respective effects on society are often confused, even by very smart people. Many times economists and philosophers have attributed societal ills to the market system. When it would be more correct to say it is the culture that causes these effects.

They are similar in that they both are basically sets of rules of how to act in such and such a situation. The market system rules economic intercourse and culture rules all personal interactions. They overlap in market transactions and can be confused easily. When people interact in a market situation they have two sets of rules they play by, one are the cultural rules of the society, and two, market rules.

Cultural rules may or may not be conducive to market interactions or they may be, but the effects of culture are independent, (because they predate the market in all but the newest societies), of the market and the effects on society of market actions and market rules. Market rules are similar, they are independent of cultural rules, (because they are almost universal), but if they rub culture wrong market rules are broken by the Elite in that society.

Often, that is the very reason some departments of government exist, simply to force rules on market interactions so that they comport better with cultural rules. Regulations that exist merely to protect some self determined cultural norm are examples. Many regulations that aim at enacting some system of fairness in a society as in Welfare State Capitalism are other examples. These things are means that Elite in government use to enforce a cultural morality on society.

Lets examine a few examples of, social scientists that have expressed their thoughts about the effects of capitalism on society, where they were confusing capitalism’s effects with cultural effects. One that springs to mind is the perennial claim that capitalism causes imperialism. This was a common way to decry the market system in the nineteenth century. It appeared at the time to have some truth to it. The European countries were divvying up the globe like a roast turkey.

But the negative effects during the nineteenth century that anti capitalist attributed to capitalism were in fact a throwback to the feudal system capitalism had recently emerged from. The feudal system saw the world as land to be divided by the aristocracy. The bigger the fiefs the more important the lord or baron. Moreover the claims that the capitalists were seeking a dump for their extra capital has proven to be foolishness. The colonies were merely a gift to the egos of the last European aristocrats.

Marcuse claim that capitalism engages in psychological warfare not the least of which is manipulation of the sexual drives. Clearly we can see that this is as much a critique on his times as on capitalism. The sexual revolution was not a capitalist thing it was an anti capitalist thing. It wasn’t women who were busy at work or tending their children who were burning their bras, it was the upper middle class youth who had been inculcated to hate anything Western, capitalism, sexual control and so on.

Even a cursory examination of history shows that capitalism existed a long time before the sexual revolution without creating one before. From this we can lean to culture as the culprit in the sexual revolution. If we also look into the movies and other cultural medium of the day we see that they reflected a sexually promiscuous society. But lastly any sociologist knows that sexual mores are an effect of cultural mores. So we can confidently conclude, that Marcuse was confusing the effect of capitalism with the effect of culture, at least where sexuality is concerned.

Anyone can confuse the effects of similar forces on society. But when the theories of anti capitalists have been proven wrong over and over. Not the least of which because, they have confused the effects of capitalism with culture, then intentionally influencing culture to have negative effects on society, proves they are not people who should ever be let near power. There is no better proof than that.

Saint Augustine said “People get the government they deserve.” That has never been more true, at any time or in any place than in the US today and anyplace that has universal suffrage and people choose their leaders.

Distributive Justice

Sunday, April 10th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that any governmental budget debate can be framed as a debate between whether or not the goods of society should be rightly distributed by either merit or political favor. The definition of merit being the main sticking point. Political favor being self explanatory.

Merit has been defined by Aristotle as a man of virtue, someone who is warlike and ready to defend his city, eschews comfort, is politically engaged and civic minded in his affairs. Distributive justice as Aristotle considered it required that this type of man get the goods of society distributed to him. This is one definition of merit but not the one I am using here.

Another definition of merit is a person or group strong enough to take what they want. As the Gaul King said to the Roman, “By natural law, the law that states the strong should naturally take from the weak.” This definition of merit is absolutely incompatible with the market system, (but compatible with social justice), and is another definition that we will not use.

The definition of merit we will use, is any person who can be considered the rightful producer of that good, whether directly as the person who whittles a tool handle or indirectly by compiling labor time in the form of money to procure the item. This is a form of merit that comports with our definitions of right and wrong and is our working definition of merit.

The distribution of the goods of society by political favor is also called social justice. This social justice is when a person in political power, an Elite, takes the property from one faction of society and redistributes it to another faction of society. This form of distribution of the goods of society, on the face, looks benign or even good.

Attention is always called to the inequalities in society by those people who seek to use social justice. But where the goods of society are distributed by political favor, universally, there is great poverty. Masses of people actually starve, sometimes intentionally to make a political point, sometimes due to the innate inefficiencies of that form of distributional justice. The aggregate lot of those societies that use political favor as the template for distributive justice inevitably goes down.

While those societies that use merit as the template, as much as politically possible, generally have the lot of their people go up. The impoverished in those societies have as their biggest concern, obesity. The gap is large but not nearly as large as in those the seek to redistribute to the poor. That only creates more poor.

It is by a variety of means that political distributive justice leads to aggregate poverty. One is the incentive system it sets up in society. The incentive under such a system is to garner political favor instead of producing a service or good. This lowers the GDP of any country as more and more people drop out of being producers to garnering political favor, making the pie grow smaller and smaller…

Another way political distributive justice or social justice insipiently introduces aggregate poverty in a country is the corruption it creates in government and civic affairs. There is no punishment for bribery, racism, personal vendettas or any other form of corruption in the civil service under social justice. The goods of society are distributed by political favor, if you are in government in the civil service, by definition, you have political favor…

There are many other pernicious ways social justice undermines the good ordering of society. It is especially good at creating people unfit to engage in the market system. Buy making people unable to control themselves sufficiently to engage in work, (How many times have you heard someone who can’t hold down a job say, “I won’t tolerate being treated like that…”), it makes people unable to concentrate long enough to be productive, among others, social justice creates an entitlement mindset that lowers aggregate GDP by rendering a large portion of the workforce, unfit for work, subtracting their production from aggregate GDP.

This all leads inexorably to communal poverty. Aggregate, or communal poverty, leads to more anger in the lower classes. This anger can be strung, tuned and played by the anti capitalist, in those countries that use social justice, to smash the market system and it’s evils like, class mobility and ever improving standard of living, for the stupid masses, who are nothing more than lab rats to be experimented with.

So, if we want aggregate poverty, social justice is the means we should employ, but if aggregate prosperity and an ever expanding standard of living is what we seek, it is meritorious distribution we want. The budget should react accordingly…

Libyan Civil War

Thursday, April 7th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that this Libyan intervention has been handled as poorly as it could have been. Without question, I cannot think of a worse way it could have been handled by the International Community, the United States government and the Arab League. There is plenty of blame to go around.

If the Actors I have mentioned wanted Moammar out, the time to have acted was in February, not in March. The high tide of the uprising is the time to act as did Obama in Egypt. Once the tide is lapping at the top of the dam it is easy to push it over but once it has receded it is much harder to fill the void again. If the International community had acted immediately Moammar would be gone.

But they didn’t, they acted exactly as a political body always acts, they dithered. That is why Republican Rome had Consuls, Aristotle claimed the best form of right government (that was practicable) was Monarchy and every country has an executive branch, to act when acting is practical. But the normal actor on the World stage is the US President. This time the president didn’t act. He waited for the committee to decide.

Then when the leviathan began to move, the “no fly zone” mandate, was done under the new doctrine of “Responsibility to act.” I wonder if any honest thinker thinks the “Responsibility to act” doctrine will be fairly meted out? Because only a fool could fall for that tripe. Let us not forget who makes up the vaunted UN, tribal tyrants (like Moammar), political tyrants (like communists), religious tyrants (like Iran), Military Juntas, Monarchs, poltroons terrified of the underclass they have created, cults of personality, and a very, very few liberal, pragmatic capitalist countries. (Less every day).

The Coalition air force immediately started engaging Moammar’s ground forces, like armored units and artillery. To save the embattled rebels, hold up in their last bastion, Benghazi. The Allies stepped in just as the rebels were about to fall. The war would have been over in probably less than 24 hours. But the intervention stopped Moammar and gave the rebels the initiative.

The foretold carnage and reprisals at Benghazi haven’t materialized yet, so the Allies have laid hold to that, as results that justify the action. The International coalition intervened in Libya March 18, 2011. Now it is April and the Civil War drags on. There is a river of blood flowing out of Libya fed by the continued fighting. It is hard to imagine how prolonging a war could possibly lower the casualty rate and especially the civilian casualty rate and actually “protect the innocent.”

But what is never remembered, is that the people who rise up at the beginning are never the ones who are alive at the end, if the fighting is too long. Warfare and fighting inevitably leads to the loss of fighters. They have to be replaced. Where are the replacements coming from in Libya? The people that were the most eager have been decimated. Not a great example for those that would join the fight.

So now in frustration with their too little too late strategy, the Allies have put “boots on the ground” although, they haven’t officially put “boots on the ground.” Al Jazeera reports that the US government has the CIA training Libyan rebels, and other countries are participating. It seems that “no fly” means whatever they tell us it means. No way that could be a bad precedent. What we are seeing, played out in front of our eyes, is the effective actions that a One World Government would practice, as promoted by the Open Society Project.

At the outset it was obvious the International Community had no idea what “Responsibility to act“ meant. Deutsche Welle had three politicians on, all had a different point of view, as to the nature of the operation. One claimed it was the ouster of Moammar, another asserted only to keep Moammar’s aircraft on the ground, another was certain it was to kill Moammar himself. The American press was just as chaotic. Everyone had a different opinion about what the UN had endorsed.

So here we are. The rebels have had 2 high tides, the second far lower than the first, the rebels are blaming the Allies for their losses, Moammar is on the move again, there is no end in sight to the even slow the river, the Coalition is still fighting over leadership, simple collateral damage to civilians has led to as many deaths as Moammar would have meted out, and, worst of all, extremist jihadists have moved in to take up the banner, replacements for the democracy fighters who are KIA.

If Moammar is in fact ousted then who will rise to the top? It is my contention that whenever there is heat sufficient to melt then it is always the dross that floats to the top. In the end, the World will have spent billions of dollars, stained it’s hands with the blood of thousands of people (needlessly killed, and set dozens of bad precedents, all to replace dross with dross. This is exactly what we can expect from any more experiments with “responsibility to act.”

As an aside, if the Libyan Rebels want people to flock to their banner, (and they really do want a democratic republic), then the way to do it is to have some Constitution they are fighting for, (there are plenty out there). People will fight for something harder than they will fight against something…

Capitalist Prayer

Sunday, April 3rd, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the Capitalists Prayer sums up my thoughts about the role of the Market System in society. The Capitalist prayer is:

“Lord God… I pray that somehow and in some way, I improve the lot of all of humanity, and that my life be a blessing on mankind forever… Amen”

Prior to the advent of the Market System all of humanity lived under some form of the feudal system. (A large portion on Mankind still does). This is a system of government where your prospects for life is determined by your birth. If you were born to a peasant then you would inevitable be a peasant, if you were born a serf then you would grow up to be a serf, there is no class mobility.

Another attribute of the feudal system is that it stagnates the wealth and growth of a society, unless there is some external source of food, ie, a wealthy capitalist society. This stagnation is because there is no incentive for individuals to innovate. Innovation under the feudal system can lead to the death of the innovator for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which is that the aristocracy are very jealous of their power and position which is backed up by a quick temper and willingness to kill any offender.

So prayers under a feudal system will naturally dwell in pleadings to God for benevolent rulers and favorable harvests because these are the things that have a direct impact on the lives of people under such a system. Improving the lot of others while your personal lot is so bad is unthinkable.

But under a Market System not only is there constant motivation to innovate in every way but there is, inherent in a market based society, class mobility. A person raised in an orphanage can become wealthy enough to save the US stock exchange almost single handedly. A person can go from the lowest rung in society to the highest, in his or her lifetime, as long as they keep the Capitalist Prayer in mind.

Not only for the class mobility that a Market System provides, but as was first proposed by Voltaire, toleration. Toleration of others is a natural effect of a Market System. As I have used the Couch salesman as a example before I will use it here. The couch salesman doesn’t care who buys his couches. He is indiffrent if the buyer is a different race, religion, sexual orientation or sex. His primary consideration, when serving a customer, is whether or not the customer will be able to pay for the sofa. The market system thus teaches the common man toleration.

Voltaire went on to argue that the real question, for or against the Market system, is; equality or abundance? History since his time has proven his hypothesis beyond a doubt. The only way to still hate the Market System is by a blind, ignorant, rage that allows for no argument and will broach no dissention. This bigoted way of looking at the world is counter productive and is the opposite of what the Capitalist Prayer intends and motivates Mankind to do.

The Capitalist Prayer also embodies the dynamism that embodies a true Market System. That dynamism is the Market’s ability to innovate by complex means. The basis of the prayer is a set of instructions to individual actors within a complex system that results in emergent phenomenon, that manifest themselves as a steady improvement in the standard of living, or the material welfare, of Man. This is the mechanism by which the Market System improves the lives of people who participate in it.

The Capitalist prayer shows the underlying nature of Capitalism in many ways. As we have shown here Capitalism and the Market System improves the lot of Man, materially. In his health by producing sufficient food, her welfare is protected under the modern incarnation of welfare state capitalism, his property is protected regardless of his political affiliation, her children have access to a minimum of education (as a necessity element of a modern economy), his old age will not end in a hoodlum killing him and his wife to steal a few dollars and she dies knowing her grand children will live a better life than she was able to.

All these goods are a direct result of the Market System. The best way to create one where you live is to say the Capitalist Prayer every day. It will instill a mode of thinking that will open doors. Walking through them will serve the ends of the Market, to change that which was luxury into necessity and to introduce new luxury to replace the old.