As I have said, when I want the facts I read Marxists, because their strategy is expressly to argue with the right set of facts, and then proceed to their solution. What worked for so long is to get on a soapbox in the town square, lay out the conditions as they truly are, and while people are all nodding their heads agreement, the Marxists then say "we'll lead you." Problem is the Marxists are no better at running a state than capitalists.
Neocons have adopted this technique, and Charles Krauthammer is the best of breed. He has an excellent command of the facts and polished delivery, but his conclusion is invariably "kill all the Muslims." Theocons cannot get enough of him, and with a name like Krauthammer they can pretend he is not a Jew. (Which brings up another question: if countless Jews changed their name from Schneider to Taylor, why would Congressman Wiener not long ago changed his name to Vienna? He would not have been the first.)
But back to the point: if you want to understand Capitalism, then study Marxist criticism thereof. Just skip the last paragraph where the author calls for revolution or whatever.
So as a start-up, what I often see is the mal-oriented approach of "borrow money, start up." First, savings, not debt, is the best way to start up. Use your own money. If you do not have enoough money to finance what you contemplate, then reduce what you contemplate to match what you can finance. If you want to design airplanes with parachutes, and do not have enough money to start an airplane with parachute business, then just do the airplane parachute business.
Finance is never THE problem in business, The problem to solve is always to create customers. Create customers and the finance problem will solve itself.
Now, in capitalism, which in essence argues that capital formation is a good thing (funny that, when economics is supposed to be value-neutral), the idea is you are granted a pool of capital, you launch the enterprise, and you hire hapless college graduates who you can now exploit, crippled as they are by debt and ignorance.
This capital is created by banks lending credit on fractional reserve at usury. In this way the value of the wage slaves is transferred to the business owner (plantation master) and the bankers.
The bankers figured out how to lend what they do not have and harvest what they have not sown. It works, but it also has no rational limit, and at some point meets an irrational limit, and that is where people lose faith for whatever reason. They don't call it "fiat" money for nothing.
All colleges, textbooks, INC & Forbes and so on all teach the above as the way to go. All government business development programs assume no alternative to this process. And why should it? We live in a capitalist system. The system is exploitative.
Now, that is not to say anyone is stuck. For commodities there are the co-ops which are not exploitative, for example in Seattle we have Puget Consumer Co-op for food, Recreational Equipment Coop for sporting goods, Group Health Co-op for medicine, and so one. Yet, careful, for there are plenty of things called co-op that are quite dreadful. To the degree the State is involved, what is called co-op is dreadful. (For example some "co-operative" housing.)
The free market alternative is peers come together and mix their contributions and share out on some agreed basis. It is as simple as that.
But here is the problem, people compare the two and prefer the former. When Lewis wrote "Liars's Poker" as a cautionary tale and hopefully a corrective, he was appalled at all the letters from Ivy League students who wanted to know how they could get jobs abusing others they way Lewis had. Everyone wants to be a plantation master. Few want to actually work for a living.
So I get impatient when out of ignorance or larceny people want to be capitalists. That is too easy, since essentially you depend on state violence to advance your personal wealth.
I like the more interesting and difficult process, depending on customers. Free markets create community wealth, as they introduce innovation and over time lower the cost to the point everyone has access to the material goods and benefits. And that is what I teach.
Capitalism cannot offer that.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
Neocons have adopted this technique, and Charles Krauthammer is the best of breed. He has an excellent command of the facts and polished delivery, but his conclusion is invariably "kill all the Muslims." Theocons cannot get enough of him, and with a name like Krauthammer they can pretend he is not a Jew. (Which brings up another question: if countless Jews changed their name from Schneider to Taylor, why would Congressman Wiener not long ago changed his name to Vienna? He would not have been the first.)
But back to the point: if you want to understand Capitalism, then study Marxist criticism thereof. Just skip the last paragraph where the author calls for revolution or whatever.
So as a start-up, what I often see is the mal-oriented approach of "borrow money, start up." First, savings, not debt, is the best way to start up. Use your own money. If you do not have enoough money to finance what you contemplate, then reduce what you contemplate to match what you can finance. If you want to design airplanes with parachutes, and do not have enough money to start an airplane with parachute business, then just do the airplane parachute business.
Finance is never THE problem in business, The problem to solve is always to create customers. Create customers and the finance problem will solve itself.
Now, in capitalism, which in essence argues that capital formation is a good thing (funny that, when economics is supposed to be value-neutral), the idea is you are granted a pool of capital, you launch the enterprise, and you hire hapless college graduates who you can now exploit, crippled as they are by debt and ignorance.
This capital is created by banks lending credit on fractional reserve at usury. In this way the value of the wage slaves is transferred to the business owner (plantation master) and the bankers.
The bankers figured out how to lend what they do not have and harvest what they have not sown. It works, but it also has no rational limit, and at some point meets an irrational limit, and that is where people lose faith for whatever reason. They don't call it "fiat" money for nothing.
All colleges, textbooks, INC & Forbes and so on all teach the above as the way to go. All government business development programs assume no alternative to this process. And why should it? We live in a capitalist system. The system is exploitative.
Now, that is not to say anyone is stuck. For commodities there are the co-ops which are not exploitative, for example in Seattle we have Puget Consumer Co-op for food, Recreational Equipment Coop for sporting goods, Group Health Co-op for medicine, and so one. Yet, careful, for there are plenty of things called co-op that are quite dreadful. To the degree the State is involved, what is called co-op is dreadful. (For example some "co-operative" housing.)
The free market alternative is peers come together and mix their contributions and share out on some agreed basis. It is as simple as that.
But here is the problem, people compare the two and prefer the former. When Lewis wrote "Liars's Poker" as a cautionary tale and hopefully a corrective, he was appalled at all the letters from Ivy League students who wanted to know how they could get jobs abusing others they way Lewis had. Everyone wants to be a plantation master. Few want to actually work for a living.
So I get impatient when out of ignorance or larceny people want to be capitalists. That is too easy, since essentially you depend on state violence to advance your personal wealth.
I like the more interesting and difficult process, depending on customers. Free markets create community wealth, as they introduce innovation and over time lower the cost to the point everyone has access to the material goods and benefits. And that is what I teach.
Capitalism cannot offer that.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
0 comments:
Post a Comment