Tuesday, February 2, 2016

GM Mosquitoes?

So the original idea was to end malaria by curing the mosquities, the tiny victims of malaria, which pass it on to humans.  Somehow that morphed into GM mosquitoes as a strategy.
The Aedes aegypti mosquito sub-species that carries both the Zika virus and dengue was the type targeted with genetically modified mosquitoes.
The aim was to release only male Aedes mosquitoes into the wild and they would in turn produce offspring with their virus carrying female counterparts.
This offspring would then die off before breeding age due to the GM coding in their genes.
So Zika harms babies that moms are carrying.  The GM mosquito is designed to harm mosquitoes before they reproduce.  Now that is an odd coincidence.

Do we know enough about GM entomology to deny a link?

People's genetic code changes all life long.  Do we know all the facrtors precipitating change?

How do we get bad ideas to the forefront?  Well, one is bad ideas have less success and cost more than good idea, meaning endless work with no responsibility.  Mal-credit finances this.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Monday, February 1, 2016

This Is Not America

I refuse the cancer-tron scan and so about half my trips involve and unwarranted search, contrary to law, in fact tyranny, but what are you going to do?  (About half the time my tickets are marked "TSA Precheck" meaning sometimes I am not considered a risk, and other times I am?  Or is the whole thing just theatre?)

An informal and unscientific survey suggests the TSA have been told to strike us in the groin during the "pat down search" to dissuade us when we are searched.  New rules are coming out that may eliminate the refusal option, if so, not sure what I will do.

Anyway, every time these "good Germans" give me a going over a song comes into my head...

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Sunday, January 31, 2016

World Can Be A Wicked Place; That's Good to Know

Here is an article that could not have made it into the NYTimes a decade ago, about TYCO moving to Ireland, but now the progressives are on the ropes, so a little honest assessment is indicated. The problem is the honesty is still impacted by bad economics... let me juxtapose sentences in from various paragraphs in the same article:
Johnson Controls said on Monday it was renouncing its United States corporate citizenship by selling itself to Tyco International, based in Ireland...Employees at a Johnson Controls plant in Beijing working on a seat assembly line. The manufacturing giant, currently based in Milwaukee,
Well, I am sure that is not quite how Johnson Controls put it, but the "scandal" certainly is a serial-bailout beneficiary USA company, that has subsequently moved manufacturing to China, is now moving it's "headquarters" to Ireland leaving the Milwaukee office to do what?
a deal struck in large part to reduce its tax bill, which it said should drop by about $150 million annually. ...
Until Washington lawmakers reform the tax code, we will continue to see an exodus of American companies from our shores in search of a lower tax rate...
And pushing for laws to bar companies from these deals seems increasingly quixotic. Every time a new tax law is enacted, the lawyers and accountants find a way around it.
Well, Milwaukee will be the USA design center for products which necessarily coordinate with the USA automaker designs, and tax compliance headquarters for worldwide minimization of tax liability, and coordination center for the bribery of venal politicians (I wax redundant).

So while as good socialists the NYTimes can get some facts straight, they lack the hard core communist's skill at getting all of the facts straight.

It surprises me that anyone would be offended at being called a communist, especially communists, when their claim to fame is to get the story right, the facts straight.  How else could they have won over half the planet?  Of course, the second part, basing policies on facts is another matter entirely, and that is when the bait and switch comes in.  Someone telling the truth is the bait, you own the audience, then you can do what you want.  Capitalists tell the most egregious lies straight to your face, and force a decision: buy the lie and thrive (short term), or reject it and flounder?  Be a shark or a minnow.

Anyway, the first reality is no corporation ever pays any taxes.  All taxes are paid by the end user.  When I buy a Hershey chocolate bar, when I bought it I paid all of Hershey's taxes, whatever they may have been.  The idea that Hershey ever pays any taxes is utterly absurd.  After remitting a tax liability, from funds gained by sales of product, Hershey is profitable.  That Hershey is still in business is because their customers pay their taxes.

Now, Hershey does not care one way or the other regarding tax rates, as the writer notes, any rule will be evaded.  But that misses an important subtlety. Tax regimes exist for a given purpose, and it may not  be a given in capitalism, but it is in democracy, that there must be wealth transfer, and wealth is best mulcted at the point of realization, for the last 40 years only the SME level.

Well, Hershey may not care about the taxes, but they do care that better chocolate is so expensive that it does not compete with Hershey, and Hershey cannot afford to pay any taxes when is competitors like Nestle pay no taxes.  The rules are written, and paid for, so that they do not.  Now, ostensibly a micro chocolate company may use the same written, engineered loopholes, but it is not economically viable to do so at such a small scale.  When you have a million in sales, you cannot afford the $500,000 in accounting fees to gain the benefits.  When you have a billion in sales, well, you can.

Here is a complicated example of a tax rule for everyone, that can only serve the 1%.  Expensive wine comes in from Europe at 8% duty, all big and small  must pay.  99% of the 8% paid in duty may be recovered (duty drawback) if it is re-exported.  OK.  But wait, wait.  In wine, it does not have to be the same wine exported.  Yes, you can take the worst red wine vinted (so to speak) in USA, Gallo's rejects, and export that to say China, pennies a litre, and regain 99% of the duty paid on fine wine imported from Europe to USA.  Now this provision is available to one and all.  But a small wine importer is not in a position to maintain a Hong Kong sales office for East Asia as Gallo does. A small importer is considering 99% return of 8% duty on $500,000 of imports is $40,000 or so, well worth pursuing.  But to earn it, he must export as many litres of USA made wine (note the rule, litres, not price).  Well, a small importer may be able to maintain a Hong Kong sales office to move say 50,000 litres of American schlock into China, but surely at a cost of around $40,000, making the whole exercise a wash, at best.  At the same time, the big boys can rock the loophole -

1. Gallo does not have to figure in the cost of its mistakes onto its saleable product, something smaller wineries overseas must include in their prices, of course ultimately paid by the usa consumer.  (USA wineries tell of Chinese buyers who show up waving cash and offering $2 a bottle, smart vinters give it to them, good and hard.  This stuff in "made in USA" bottles is the reason USA wines have such a horrible reputation in Asia, a direct result of USA duty rules.)

2.  In USA, wine is considered hazmat, so it may not be dumped in a field or down a drain.  Cheaper to fill a flexitank and sell it to the Chinese, even for pennies a litre, especially when there is a tax rebate on  the import side of the company.  Chinese rascals can then refill empty Lafite Rothschild bottles retrieved from fine restaurant dumpsters with Cal-plonk and get into the system at $12,000 a bottle, to be praised for its nose.

3.  Next there are layers upon layers of other subsidies and benefits in other areas which again, inure to the largest.  (Not to mention big gets "free" credit.)

In all cases all taxes are paid by the consumer.  The Hershey product has little in the way of taxes, and the reason that delicious, healthy chocolate is $60 an ounce is it gets no tax breaks, nor subsidies, they actually produce something that is a net benefit to society, as opposed to some 85% of the corn sold in USA, which is sold at a net deficit.  The Iowa caucus is all about first telling the Iowa farmer the subsidies will remain, he need never worry about working for a living.  Get big or get out!  Food as a weapon!  The welfare checks will continue.  Any politician who says otherwise will not advance beyond Iowa.

The power to tax is the power to destroy.  Tax codes a putatively fair, they apply to all biz, but in reality  The point of taxing business is to allow big business tax break while laying on the burden of taxes specifically on the self-supporting natural economy and its customers.

Now often these taxes are too much if they are too high for natural economy customers to countenance when naturally added to the cost of doing business.  When you add the unnaturally high costs of ingredients when bad ingredients chase out the good, plus the absurd tax rates, there is a point where the price is too high to sustain a viable small business.  Get big or get out, the policy of the USA government; cheat on taxes, a full employment guarantor for the tax collector; or lesson the quality with bad ingredients, a morale killer for the passionate entrepreneur.  Capitalism offers no alternative.  Democracy demands no less scorched earth. The entrepreneur goes out of business, and as the end user (since he has no customer upon which to pass the costs) he is stuck with the tax bill, true to form, the end-user pays all taxes.  A seized passport over unpaid taxes will now serve as fair warning to anyone who will consider self-employment.

A capitalist lie is capitalism is the apotheosis of all economic experience.  Given that lie as dogma, there is no countenancing there could be better. On the other hand, communism has as an article of faith the Christo-Islamic ideal of eventual anarchy, free markets, of which communism is merely a step-on the road to general peace and justice.

When in history has the hegemon not been a boor?  There is always the simple way to play in such an awful regime.  Small repetitive deals.  You can manage all risks by making all of your payments, even in advance, and in such regular small amounts that you have early warning that you are off track and you can shut down if need be, pay off minimal amounts, lick you wounds, and do it again, ever better at the task.

What is the alternative?  Invest in negative interest rate bonds?  Property? Bet the paycheck is not taxed more?  Figure your pension will save you?

Employees are saps, according to Harry Reid.  Ignore the interviewer, just listen carefully to Harry Reid, his argument is taxes are voluntary because you can choose to be self-employed and pay no taxes:

The idiot is the interviewer who cannot hear what Reid is plainly stating.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

Cool Head: Marc Faber Takes a Temperate Tone

As a Swiss, he is a bit of an anarchist, and here is some temperate perspective from Marc Faber:
I’ve lived in Asia since 1973. We had the ’73/’74 recession, the Hong Kong Stock Market went down 90%. We had in ’81/’82 a recession and markets sold off, property markets sold off. Then in the crash in ’87 the Hong Kong Share Market was closed for four days after it had declined by 50% in one day. Then we had the peak in Japan in 1990 from where the market went down 70% and so forth and so on. Then we had the Asian crisis and we had a bear market in 2003 and again the bear market in 2009 but Asia continued to grow.
I think the growth will now slow down, but Asia’s a big region, as is China. So you can have, like in the US, maybe one state is contracting like in the mid-’90s we had a property crash in California but the other states were still expanding. We can have some sectors in China, like steel and copper and heavy industries that are all contracting. On the other hand, there may be other sectors that are still expanding.
As you read the article, note how often this titan of prognostication says "I don't know..." and where he is sure it is "gold will fall, just not as fast..."

I'd love to co-write with someone a graph showing the productive capacity of USA over time, such as I roughed out here, but make it accurate and show how much the claims of defense, subsidies, welfare, education,  interest on the debt, etc there are on the productive capacity, AFTER the ownership claims of the capitalists upon that productive capacity.  I think it would be mind boggling, and graphically demonstrate something never before seen.  It is what Faber has in his mind as he keeps saying "who knows..."

But as I have said, all these people, even the good guy/anarchist commentators, are looking to park their  survivorship bias gains.

The only place to safely keep your assets for the next forty years at least is on loan to customers in the form of accounts receivable.  But this presumes first you have started a business.  In the import and export classes I teach (see links upper right on this page), a common element is the means of production already exist, just add customer.  I have sessions starting this week, email me if you want in.  I bill my students, instead of using bank credit, now.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Monday, January 25, 2016

USA has the Best Food in the World, and the Worst.

And Russia just announced it plans to usurp USA in the "best" category, leaving the worst for USA to produce and sell.  Here again, the breathtakingly stupid "sanctions" on Russia for defending itself against USA-led NATO destabilzation in the Ukraine have had unintended consequences.  Since Russia may not import as much, it is finding as prices rise on cheap, subsidized imports, it can perform "import substitution" with locally produced food that is better and cheaper than the imported stuff.

Clearly picking on GMO is to exclude the cheap stuff, linked above:
According to official statistics the share of GMO in the Russian food industry has declined from 12 percent to just 0.01 percent over the past 10 years, and currently there are just 57 registered food products containing GMO in the country. The law ordering obligatory state registration of GMO products that might contact with the environment will come into force in mid-2017.
Aside from being harmful as designed, GMO is prima facie dumping since it is sold for far less than the costs of massive subsidies and tax breaks necessary to maintain it.  Normally the smart tactic is to let a coountry run itself into poverty dumping goods into your market, but in this case, GMO is not "good."

I was presenting at a conference when the expert following me disagreed with me sharply on one point: USA has a worldwide reputation for food wholesomeness and safety.  She noted the European protests, street fighting, over the TPP and food trade rule changes coming up, not to mention China regularly burns entire shipments of USA commodity foods for its variance from order, etc.

Yes, but...  my topic is small specialty food, and hers was Big Ag. USA can produce the best, and the worst.  There is much to fear from subsidized GMO: suppressed research, obesity and diabetes links, hypertension links, and just the crazy situation in which so much production is centered in so few hands.  Capitalism is collectivization with a dollar sign.

the pendulum is swinging back. Good food is hard work, and the division of labor suggests we need producers and marketers.  For my part I will train a cohort of sellers of food world wide with a with to step by step find customers which will warrant expanded production, and then lower prices.  For those who are uninitiated in free markets, lowering prices is always good, since costs drop faster than prices, so profits widen as you drop your prices to customers more slowly than your costs drop.

For those interested in learning how to sell food worldwide, I have an online, live course starting Tuesday Eve. If you cannot make the live sessions complete transcripts are sent out.  You will be taken through the steps of targeting a country for export sales, developing your offer, finding the actual decision maker for a sale overseas, and then how to add science to your passion and joy to get valid and reliable results in export sales. As you will see from the class website, the course is an hour a week for four weeks:

Winter Session  2016 
Tuesday 1/26-2/16/2016   Four Sessions
Section One ~ 6 PM to 7 PM Pacific Time
(This would be 7 PM to 8 PM Mountain, 8 PM to 9 PM Central, 9 PM to 10 PM Eastern)

The website above invites you to register, do not register!  Simply email me with the your name billing address and I will bill you later for the course.


If you have any questions, let me know...

 Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Sunday, January 24, 2016

Pope Francis: St Francis or Francis I?

One of the most memorable popes in history was named after Julius Caesar, Pope Julius, the renaissance pope who rebuilt Rome and at one point vowed to throw Michalangelo off the scaffolding if he did not hurry up the Sistine Chapel ceiling.

Pope names are more political than spiritual, and the last pope, now retired Benedict XVI took the name of the famous anti-war WWI Pope Benedict XV.

So when a Jesuit took the name of Francis, all assumed he was naming himself after Francis of Asissi, pacifist, lefty-hero founder of the Franciscans.

Why?  Pope Francis I has given no aid or comfort to liberals and lefties, except some clearly out of context, bad translation quotes.  And it goes without saying the rabid uniform-queen wing of the Catholic Church has no use for him.   Capitalists fear his financial reforms and pronouncements.

King Francis I (of France)

1. Contemporary of Henry VIII, he was in the center of a shifting world order.

2. Allied with Islam to defend his realm, partner with Suleiman the Magnificent.

3. Effected profound bureaucratic reforms.

4. Patron of the Arts.

5. Open to new ideas.

6.  A beloved sister.

7.  What else?

A pope exercises deep power, whether one approves or not.  So will this one, but to understand, perhaps one ought to consider his inspiration.  His work on economics are more King Francis than Saint Francis.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Saturday, January 23, 2016

Italians Ban Shortselling - I Don't Feel So Bad

Christopher Cox was a minion for the hegemon when he banned shortselling of financials in 2008/9.  I've only mentioned I lost out by his action now that the Chinese banned shortselling a few months ago to world-wide opprobrium.

The problem with bitching (only suckers beef) about getting screwed by the government is no one wants to believe it, your listener figures somehow you had it coming, plus shortselling, betting a company goes down in value, sounds vaguely corrupt.  In shortselling you put your own money on the line by buying stock you believe is overvalued (usually for some nefarious activity of the company directors.)  In this way shortsellers are the only regulation stock markets need. And if you as shortseller (regulator) are right, you get paid.  If you are wrong, you lose money.  In a free market, regulators naturally emerge, no one appoints them, they cannot be bribed.  This is just one instance where no hegemon is required out of all instances where the hegemon manifests.  In all instances where the hegemon manifests, there is a better provision of service than the hegemon can offer.  No exceptions.

There is a version of shortselling, in which market actors do not put up money, naked shortselling, which is vaguely illegal, but certainly morally evil.  I am not down with that.

Now Comes the Italian Christopher Cox banning shortselling on the world's oldest bank, Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA:
Italian market regulator Consob imposed a ban on short selling of Monte dei Paschi’s stock for the remainder of Monday’s session through Jan. 19, in an attempt to stabilize shares of the world’s oldest bank, which have dropped about 34 percent this year.
“I confirm Monte Paschi’s financial, economic stability,” Chief Executive Officer Fabrizio Viola said in e-mailed statement after markets closed. “The stock decline is not justified by fundamentals or management events,” he said, reiterating that the bank remains focused on its bad-loan disposals.
Monte dei Paschi is the oldest bank in the world, Italy's third biggest bank, and the worst in bad loans to assets in the Eurozone last check. It has been bailed out twice since 2009, meaning it is Zombie, has died twice, and now requires intensive care in the morgue, since it stinks so bad.  Which is too bad, for a Catholic bank nearly 550 years old.  But it is a good opportunity to explain what happened in banking, and the meaning of the word interest.  
The prohibition was against usury, “where more is asked than is given.”  The Latin noun usura means the “use” of anything, in this case the use of borrowed capital; hence, usury was the price paid for the use of money.  The Latin verb intereo means “to be lost”; a substantive form interisse [sic] developed into the modern term “interest.”  Interest was not profit but loss.*
As these things go, once the camel got its nose in the tent, there was no getting the toothpaste back in the tube.  Eventually some whimsical future earnings could be counted a loss, and thus be added to a loan, and over time.  The practice became so widespread the term "interest" shifted from meaning a doubtful loss to what it clearly is, a gain on a loan.

Before this change, and under the original meaning, it was fine to charge for bookkeeping and storage of money (properly defined usually gold or solver or both) for others, since to manage all this was not a charge on lending but a fee for services.
In the mid-15th century, the Franciscan Friars petitioned the Vatican for permission to establish a different kind of loan bank that would offer loans at rates high enough only to cover their costs. These nonprofit banks became known as the "monti di pieta," because they took "pity" on the poor. The first began operating in 1467, in Perugia, offering small loans in exchange for interest rates as low as 5 percent. Customers provided collateral for the loans, usually by leaving jewelry or clothing. These banks now became known as "banchi di pegni" or pawnbrokers.
Banchi di pegni soon began appearing throughout Italy--and later inspired similar banks throughout Europe--and were for the most part set up by Franciscans. The city-state of Siena, however, took a different approach, and instead founded its own Monte di Pieta in 1472. The bank was backed by a 5,000-florin loan from the city, raised through levying taxes. Members of the city's most prominent family were then granted seats on the board. Unlike at other banks, which were usually dominated by a single family, leadership at the Siena bank rotated among the families. In this way, the bank was guided only by the best members of each generation.
"Rates high enough only to cover costs" is what the Savings and Loans (Thrifts) of my youth once esteemed.  Credit Unions were co-ops to this end.  But all that changed in the 1980s to accommodate the opportunity to lend credit at usury and the fast-track channel to the end by buying up S&Ls, and of course, there was a huge S&L crisis in the late 1980s.  Then the "losses" were tens of billions.  (By 2008, tens of trillions, since there were no real consequences for those who benefitted in the 1980s, Bushes, John McCain, etc).  Credit unions are closest to the original, but no longer true to form.  We could use a renaissance in Credit Unions, dealing in bene-credit.

Collectivization that is the inexorable rationale of capitalism, the point of usury (now called interest).  None of these things would be problems in the free market, but inexpensive credit and money transfers are an ancient hallmark of the Islamic hawala system...  it was growing in the west but after 9-11 the hawaladars were crushed by the feds in USA.

The Monte dei Paschi was started by Franciscans, and the first pope named Francis is hammering Vatican finance.  He personally uses the word usury (he knows what it means).  Dealing in usury killed the oldest bank in the world, and a Catholic bank.

Here and now, at least for the next 40 years, anyone starting up a business, or has a viable concern, would do well to create his own bank, de facto, by extending credit (bene-credit) at no interest (no usury) for whatever tenor is standard for the industry.  Refuse to accept certainly credit cards, but also debit cards, and work the old fashioned vendor financing.  Your receivables would be tantamount to laddered bonds.  While you are in control of collection, the fruit is too high and sparse to be mulcted by the hegemon.

The paper I excerpted above is cited below, and I have reservations on the good padre's interpretations and conclusions.  Mine are more radical, and I'll deal with them if and when I get a book on this out.

*  The Church and Usury:  Error, Change or Development?
A Research Paper Submitted
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of Master of Arts in Theology
Father Gary L Coulter
Submitted August 15, 1999

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Copyrights Inhibit Creativity

Music copyright is a funny thing... there are only four notes possible in music, with everything a variation on those 4, so people end up copying each other (or more likely arriving at the same idea) as these two protest songs intro the exact same way, one soul from USA and one rock from Oz...

Listen to the opening in both...

...Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Friday, January 22, 2016

Where to Invest?

Mish asks where to invest, but he himself is not so sure... 
Target2 is a measure of capital flight between eurozone countries. For example: A depositor in a Greek, Spanish, or Italian bank does not trust their bank so the depositor opens up a new account and transfers the balance to a bank in Germany, the Netherlands, or Luxembourg instead.
The recipient banks then park the money at the ECB at negative interest rates instead of  buying Greek, Spanish, or Italian bonds. 
Money parked at the ECB at a negative rate of 0.3% hit a new high at the beginning of 2016.
Better to lose a bit of your credit-tally totals than lose it all...  such is capitalism.
In December, only bondholders were at risk. Starting 2016, depositors are at risk, but allegedly only on amounts that exceed €100,000.
Don't kid yourself into believing smaller deposits are safe. There are other problems, like capital controls. Greece and Cyprus both have them.
Capital Controls in Greece
In 2015, the ECB imposed Capital Controls on Bank Accounts limiting withdrawals to €1,800 a month.
On October 19, 2015, Bloomberg proclaimed A Quick End to Greek Capital Controls? Economists Don't Think So.
Even if your money is not stolen, you may not have access to it for quite some time. 
No access for a time is tantamount to stealing, at least for that duration, for what about opportunity costs?

I ask "Why Take Chances?"
Renzi wants to create a "bad bank". Under new rules, effective 2016, bondholders and depositors are liable for any losses transferred to the "bad bank".
Why is the ECB reluctant to approve a bad bank for Italy? Could it be the losses will be massive? 

OK, so after this flood, we separated the waterlogged from the dry.  But we do not remove the dry from the flood zone?  Making this "good bank" just buys time to form a bigger bubble.
Don't be seen Standing in Line hoping for your money when withdrawals are 'limited' via capital controls or outright confiscated by bail-ins.
Avoid the rush. Get out now.
Where? Think carefully.
The only place is to "hide (invest) is  self employment, where every actor creates his own benecredit.  
 Order wheat flour.  Get 30 days to pay.  Sell bread, give thirty days to pay.  Workers get paid end of month.  There is all the credit, at zero interest, an economy needs. It is what this economy is missing.  We had it.  We lost it.  Can we get it back?  Only if all those now reading Mish, Stockman, Grant, etc would go start businesses to fill in the vacuum created by the big box failures...

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Thursday, January 21, 2016

Mark Cuban On Government

As I explained here, rarely does a winner of Shark Tank actually get any funding, any more do any of Trump's apprentices go on to bigger and better than their Apprentice stint.  The Shark Tank is entertainment.

I have never watched more than two minutes of the show, since the premise is absurd.  But what I do appreciate is a recent exchange by "sharks" as recounted by Thos. DiLorenzo at LewRockwell.com
"I like the idea of kicking the government in the ass." So said billionaire businessman Mark Cuban tonight on the television show “Shark Tank” on CNBC.   The show features wealthy venture capitalists like Cuban who listen to pitches from entrepreneurs and then invest (or not) their own money in the ventures.  The business in question involved an app that could help citizens contest traffic tickets.
One of the other “sharks,” Kevin O’Leary, explained that he is in the extremely heavily-regulated mutual fund business and that the government “allows me to make money” despite all the regulation.  He dropped out, he explained, because of his fear that the government would no longer allow him to make money in his mutual fund business if he was invested in a business that deprived government of revenue.  This was a good example of how there can never be real free speech in a heavily-regulated society.  Criticizing government as a business person can bankrupt you or send you to prison. “See you at the IRS audit,” O’Leary said to Cuban after Cuban closed the deal ($700,000 for 7% of the business).
Just so.  A mutual fund is deep into the fraud that is Wall Street, and it is legal by patterns and practices generally allowed by the hegemon, called in USA capitalism.  It ain't the cards you are dealt, it's how you play them, and there is no judging a man on how he plays his hand.  What is annoying is when a man tries to claim the way he played his hand is somehow noble, or smart, or altruistic, etc.  At that point he expects his listeners to buy into a fasle narrative.

O'Leary knows the game is rigged, he makes money off it, and the hegemon can wipe him out in a New York minute.  And he says so.  No judging him for what he does.

Now, I bet O'Leary would the first to say let's withdraw the power from the hegemon so there is no such entity that has such power over us.  Let the free market be our guard rails. O'Leary is no doubt another natural anarchist.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.