Fundamental Analysts, Alex Krainer (who grew up in Communist Yugoslavia, has thrived as a hedge-fund manager and financial advisor), Untangling the "socialism" vs. "capitalism" dichotomy Few ideological dichotomies polarize opinions as readily and as completely as that between "socialism" and "capitalism."
The very corrupt Czech Republic might as well be a German state even though many Czechs hate Germans. Czechs also look down their noses at Slovaks of whom they fancy themselves superior. I was just glancing through The Rich and the Super-Rich this morning -- next on my book list -- and he speaks directly to gullible people's need to find identity through their DNA.
I find that sad and pathetic. No, you are not superior because you have a single different pronunciation of a word (Czech / Slovak). No, your blue eyes are not a sign of superiority. No, you are not better than a squirrel because you walk upright. Our species is so stupid!
The problem with most economic mantras is that they fail to evolve when the ground conditions suggest that they should.
If you look at 'progress', it usually involves a new sector being bought up by people who don't necessarily know anything about it. They just know it can make them a lot of money. Those people who are driven by making a lot of money pursue cartel-level profits at the expense of customers.
When this happens many times over over several 'business cycles', what you end up with is every-increasing levels of financial inequality. And sadly, what you actually see is people who have so much money that their drives should no longer be associated with getting richer, but still obsessed like pre-adolescent boys with showing that 'more wealth equals more human value'.
The problem with economic reality is that no-one has the power to make these oligarchs behave and public officials are usually at their beck and call, not representing the majority.
People rarely ask what sorts of people become JD Rockefellers, Bill Gates. They certainly aren't kindly, thoughtful, generous, giving individuals. They are extremely ruthless, self-serving, often spiteful monopolists who then try to claim after behaving like psychopaths for over a generation that by 'giving back' that they can miraculously wipe the slate clean. It's like a mass murderer 'finding god' and miraculously telling all their victims' families that 'they have repented'. Great. What about the dead who will never come back?
The thing with centralised, hierarchical societies (marxist or pseudo-capitalist) is that the characteristics required for 'leadership' are ruthlessness and self-preservation, not visioning nor spreading good will. Once you realise that the most predatory humans seek the most power, you understand that generosity in the presence of predators is a very easy way of being metaphorically 'eaten alive'. So 'leaders' become a pack of alpha-control-freaks for whom power is everything and outputs relatively little.
'Pure capitalism' only works in very small communities for very small businesses. It works in highly diluted sectors where neither customers nor suppliers can wield significant market-controlling power.
It doesn't work when the most cost-effective way of supplying a need is through monopoly (this does occur e.g. building the Hubble Telescope, supplying daily energy needs, certain types of public transport systems, notably air traffic control). At that point, private owners would charge the earth, ripping off customers heartlessly. That's when regulation becomes necessary. Either public ownership or setting limits on supplier power.
What no-one has of course discussed is whether 'GDP growth' secures 'the greatest benefits for the greatest number' in the long-term or not. Gandhi famously said that the world needed '1 million villages', although nowadays India alone would have 1 million villages of 1000 people just to house its own population.
Villages are smaller units of self-governance often capable of self-sufficiency in water management, food production, housebuilding etc. They probably work well in warmer climes where triple glazing isn't really the highest priority for construction.
However, I've yet to come across genuine elections where the choice is between 'happy and healthy self-sufficiency for the rural masses' vs 'imposition of a free market capitalism which has contempt for tradition, sustainable ecologies and human autonomy'.
Western 'economics' is the economics of the acquisitive.
To date, it's not been challenged by 'the economics of the traditional'.
Whether or not it should be, only generations to come will know. It certainly won't be challenged seriously in that manner in my lifetime.
Communism = State Capitalism
The very corrupt Czech Republic might as well be a German state even though many Czechs hate Germans. Czechs also look down their noses at Slovaks of whom they fancy themselves superior. I was just glancing through The Rich and the Super-Rich this morning -- next on my book list -- and he speaks directly to gullible people's need to find identity through their DNA.
I find that sad and pathetic. No, you are not superior because you have a single different pronunciation of a word (Czech / Slovak). No, your blue eyes are not a sign of superiority. No, you are not better than a squirrel because you walk upright. Our species is so stupid!
The problem with most economic mantras is that they fail to evolve when the ground conditions suggest that they should.
If you look at 'progress', it usually involves a new sector being bought up by people who don't necessarily know anything about it. They just know it can make them a lot of money. Those people who are driven by making a lot of money pursue cartel-level profits at the expense of customers.
When this happens many times over over several 'business cycles', what you end up with is every-increasing levels of financial inequality. And sadly, what you actually see is people who have so much money that their drives should no longer be associated with getting richer, but still obsessed like pre-adolescent boys with showing that 'more wealth equals more human value'.
The problem with economic reality is that no-one has the power to make these oligarchs behave and public officials are usually at their beck and call, not representing the majority.
People rarely ask what sorts of people become JD Rockefellers, Bill Gates. They certainly aren't kindly, thoughtful, generous, giving individuals. They are extremely ruthless, self-serving, often spiteful monopolists who then try to claim after behaving like psychopaths for over a generation that by 'giving back' that they can miraculously wipe the slate clean. It's like a mass murderer 'finding god' and miraculously telling all their victims' families that 'they have repented'. Great. What about the dead who will never come back?
The thing with centralised, hierarchical societies (marxist or pseudo-capitalist) is that the characteristics required for 'leadership' are ruthlessness and self-preservation, not visioning nor spreading good will. Once you realise that the most predatory humans seek the most power, you understand that generosity in the presence of predators is a very easy way of being metaphorically 'eaten alive'. So 'leaders' become a pack of alpha-control-freaks for whom power is everything and outputs relatively little.
'Pure capitalism' only works in very small communities for very small businesses. It works in highly diluted sectors where neither customers nor suppliers can wield significant market-controlling power.
It doesn't work when the most cost-effective way of supplying a need is through monopoly (this does occur e.g. building the Hubble Telescope, supplying daily energy needs, certain types of public transport systems, notably air traffic control). At that point, private owners would charge the earth, ripping off customers heartlessly. That's when regulation becomes necessary. Either public ownership or setting limits on supplier power.
What no-one has of course discussed is whether 'GDP growth' secures 'the greatest benefits for the greatest number' in the long-term or not. Gandhi famously said that the world needed '1 million villages', although nowadays India alone would have 1 million villages of 1000 people just to house its own population.
Villages are smaller units of self-governance often capable of self-sufficiency in water management, food production, housebuilding etc. They probably work well in warmer climes where triple glazing isn't really the highest priority for construction.
However, I've yet to come across genuine elections where the choice is between 'happy and healthy self-sufficiency for the rural masses' vs 'imposition of a free market capitalism which has contempt for tradition, sustainable ecologies and human autonomy'.
Western 'economics' is the economics of the acquisitive.
To date, it's not been challenged by 'the economics of the traditional'.
Whether or not it should be, only generations to come will know. It certainly won't be challenged seriously in that manner in my lifetime.