Quote of the Day:The Virtue of a Free System: The Consumer’s Plebiscite

The test of an economic system lies in the choices it offers, the alternatives that are open to the people living under it. When choices are limited by coercion of one sort or another, the system must fall short of meeting the test in greater or less degree. The virtue of a free system – i.e., competitive capitalism – is that it allows energy to flow uncoerced into a thousand-and-one different forms, expanding goods, services, and jobs in a myriad, unpredictable ways. Every day, under such a system, a consumer’s plebiscite (the phrase is [Ludwig] von Mises‘) is held, the vote being counted in whatever money unit is the handiest. With his votes the consumer directs production, forcing or luring energy, brains and capital to obey his will.

This excerpt is from John Chamberlain's1959 book, The Roots of Capitalism (page 221 of the 1976 Liberty Fund edition) (source Cafe Hayek)

The Socialist Illusions of "Change": Ludwig von Mises on the Ethics of Capitalism

The election byword for any aspiring political candidate has always been about “CHANGE”.

Yet the problem of populist clamor for C-H-A-N-G-E has hardly been about the moral component of the individual, but rather such springs from INCENTIVES. In particular, the incentives generated by institutions/governance or political economic conditions: capitalism versus socialism or the market economy versus the welfare-warfare and bureaucratic state.

The great Austrian Economist Ludwig von Mises debunked the popular narrative of "change" via socialism (from Mises Wire) [bold mine]

In the expositions of Ethical Socialism one constantly finds the assertion that it presupposes the moral purification of men. As long as we do not succeed in elevating the masses morally we shall be unable to transfer the socialist order of society from the sphere of ideas to that of reality. The difficulties in the way of Socialism lie exclusively, or predominantly, in men's moral shortcomings. Some writers doubt whether this obstacle will ever be overcome; others are content to say that the world will not be able to achieve Socialism for the present or in the immediate future.

We have been able to show why the socialist economy is impracticable: not because men are morally too base, but because the problems that a socialist order would have to solve present insuperable intellectual difficulties. The impracticability of Socialism is the result of intellectual, not moral, incapacity. Socialism could not achieve its end, because a socialist economy could not calculate value. Even angels, if they were endowed only with human reason, could not form a socialistic community.

If a socialist community were capable of economic calculation, it could be set up without any change in men's moral character. In a socialist society different ethical standards would prevail from those of a society based on private ownership in the means of production. The temporary sacrifices demanded of the individual by society would be different. Yet it would be no more difficult to enforce the code of socialist morals than it is to enforce the code of capitalist morals, if there were any possibility of making objective computations within the socialist society. If a socialist society could ascertain separately the product of the labour of each single member of the society, his share in the social product could be calculated and his reward fixed proportionately to his productive contribution. Under such circumstances the socialist order would have no cause to fear that a comrade would fail to work with the maximum of energy for lack of any incentive to sweeten the toil of labour. Only because this condition is lacking, Socialism will have to construct for its Utopia a type of human being totally different from the race which now walks the earth, one to whom labour is not toil and pain, but joy and pleasure. Because such a calculus is out of the question, the Utopian socialist is obliged to make demands on men which are diametrically opposed to nature. This inadequacy of the human type which would cause the breakdown of Socialism, may appear to be of a moral order; on closer examination it turns out to be a question of intellect.

The Alleged Defects of Capitalist Ethics

To act reasonably means to sacrifice the less important to the more important. We make temporary sacrifices when we give up small things to obtain bigger things, as when we cease to indulge in alcohol to avoid its physiological after-effects. Men submit to the effort of labor in order that they may not starve.

Moral behavior is the name we give to the temporary sacrifices made in the interests of social co-operation, which is the chief means by which human wants and human life generally may be supplied. All ethics are social ethics. (If it be claimed that rational behavior, directed solely towards one's own good, should be called ethical too, and that we had to deal with individual ethics and with duties to oneself, we could not dispute it; indeed this mode of expression emphasizes perhaps better than ours, that in the last analysis the hygiene of the individual and social ethics are based on the same reasoning.) To behave morally, means to sacrifice the less important to the more important by making social co-operation possible.

The fundamental defect of most of the anti-utilitarian systems of ethics lies in the misconstruction of the meaning of the temporary sacrifices which duty demands. They do not see the purpose of sacrifice and foregoing of pleasure, and they construct the absurd hypothesis that sacrifice and renunciation are morally valuable in themselves. They elevate unselfishness and self-sacrifice and the love of compassion, which lead to them, to absolute moral values. The pain that at first accompanies the sacrifice is defined as moral because it is painful—which is very near asserting that all action painful to the performer is moral.

From the discovery of this confusion we can see why various sentiments and actions which are socially neutral or even harmful come to be called moral. Of course, even reasoning of this sort cannot avoid returning furtively to utilitarian ideas. If we are unwilling to praise the compassion of a doctor who hesitates to undertake a life-saving operation on the ground that he thereby saves the patient pain, and distinguish, therefore, between true and false compassion, we re-introduce the teleological consideration of purpose which we tried to avoid. If we praise unselfish action, then human welfare, as a purpose, cannot be excluded. There thus arises a negative utilitarianism: we are to regard as moral that which benefits, not the person acting, but others. An ethical ideal has been set up which cannot be fitted into the world we live in. Therefore, having condemned the society built up on "self-interest" the moralist proceeds to construct a society in which human beings are to be what his ideal requires. He begins by misunderstanding the world and laws; he then wishes to construct a world corresponding to his false theories, and he calls this the setting up of a moral ideal.

Man is not evil merely because he wants to enjoy pleasure and avoid pain—in other words, to live. Renunciation, abnegation, and self-sacrifice are not good in themselves. To condemn the ethics demanded by social life under Capitalism and to set up in their place standards for moral behavior which—it is thought—might be adopted under Socialism is a purely arbitrary procedure.

Quote of the Day: The Worst Environmental Calamity Is The Absence of Capitalism

Filth, hunger, short life expectancy, illiteracy, subjugation of women, sanguinary conflicts over scarce resources – these horrors are not the recent consequences of climate change. They are the ages-old consequences of persistent and widespread poverty. This poverty and its accompanying miseries were eliminated only when and only where people embraced the very economic system that so many of today’s environmentalists wish either to abolish outright or to jeopardize with unprecedented government-fashioned fetters: entrepreneurial capitalism.

This excerpt, an expose and rebuff of media's false attribution (cause and effect) of society's ills on the environment, was extracted from Prof Don Boudreaux's post at his blog Cafe Hayek.

Quote of the Day: Capitalism is Love Thy Neighbor

Capitalism is not a “system” like democracy or a composting toilet. It is not something that anyone designed. It is not something that can be consciously improved.

It is the result – or should be – of free markets, including the insights, work, gambles, and luck of millions of people all over the planet.

Improve it?

You might just as well “improve” the price of Walmart shares or of a pound of peaches.

Capitalism is not a system that you can take or leave, or take some parts of and leave the others, thereby making it more suited to your needs.

Capitalism is just what you get when you respect the rules of civilization. Don’t kill. Don’t steal. Don’t bear false witness. The rest probably don’t matter, but we haven’t taken the trouble to think about them very much.

Jesus condensed the rules into two big ones when he gave his Sermon on the Mount: Love God. Love thy neighbor.

The Jewish scholar Hillel the Elder later put it in terms a child could understand: If you wouldn’t want someone to do it to you then don’t do it to someone else.

All the rest is detail. You can’t love thy neighbor and steal his stuff. If you follow that rule, capitalism is what you’ve got. There is no way to improve it.

This is from Agora publishing's Bill Bonner at his web page Bonner & Partners

Quote of the Day: From The Capitalist as the Ultimate Philanthropist

At the end of the day, there are only four things you can do with your money: You can spend it, pay it to the IRS, give it away or reinvest it. Consumption is on the receiving end of productivity—furthering personal instead of public welfare. Government spending is by definition not productive, as you realize every time you step into a DMV. Same goes for charitable giving—no profit means no measure of value or productivity.

And so the most productive thing someone can do with his money—the only thing that will increase living standards—is invest. If the Ford or Clinton foundations really wanted to help society, they’d work on lowering barriers to business formation and cutting the regulatory chains that inhibit productive hiring in the U.S. and globally. But what fun is that? Better to boast about reducing inequality, public welfare be damned.

This quote is from former hedge fund manager and author of "Eat People" Andy Kessler at the Wall Street Journal (a recommended read)

No Middle of the Road between Capitalism and Socialism and between Individualism and Collectivism

In the past I have pointed out why there can be no compromise between capitalism and socialism. This is for the simple reason that every bargain or accommodation for interventionism of various flavors leads to MORE socialism than LESS. Problems that emerges from each intervention would incite for more intervention which eventually leads to total government control. In the political context, "it’s never enough!"

This is specially pronounced during crisis. Austrian economist Robert Higgs calls this the “ratchet effect”. As per FEE.org (bold mine)

The problem in governance that arises when government intervention increases during crises such as wars, natural disasters, or economic depressions.  After the crisis government meets resistance in reversing the intervention, creating a situation where government intervention rarely returns to pre-crisis levels, which lead to a constant ratcheting up effect in growth of government intervention over time.

Expect an explosion of interventions in the coming crisis.

Yet interventionist transitions has almost always been a slippery slope process. Such transition can be seen in two ways. The great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises explained: (bold mine)

There are two methods available for the transformation of capitalism into socialism. One is to expropriate all farms, plants, and shops and to operate them by a bureaucratic apparatus as departments of the government. The whole of society, says Lenin, becomes "one office and one factory, with equal work and equal pay,"  the whole economy will be organized "like the postal sytem."  The second method is the method of the Hindenburg plan, the originally German pattern of the welfare state and of planning. It forces every firm and every individual to comply strictly with the orders issued by the government's central board of production management. Such was the intention of the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 which the resistance of business frustrated and the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional. Such is the idea implied in the endeavors to substitute planning for private enterprise…

The middle-of-the-road policy is not an economic system that can last. It is a method for the realization of socialism by installments.

Yet it is not just in the realm of economics but in metaethics too. The great free market champion Ayn Rand said the same: There is no middle of the road between individualism and collectivism.

From Ms Rand’s Textbook of Americanism (fee.org) [bold mine]

The mark of an honest man, as distinguished from a Collectivist, is that he means what he says and knows what he means.

When we say that we hold individual rights to be inalienable, we must mean just that. Inalienable means that which we may not take away, suspend, infringe, restrict or violate — not ever, not at any time, not for any purpose whatsoever.

You cannot say that "man has inalienable rights except in cold weather and on every second Tuesday," just as you cannot say that "man has inalienable rights except in an emergency," or "man's rights cannot be violated except for a good purpose." 

Either man's rights are inalienable, or they are not. You cannot say a thing such as "semi-inalienable" and consider yourself either honest or sane. When you begin making conditions, reservations and exceptions, you admit that there is something or someone above man's rights who may violate them at his discretion. Who? Why, society — that is, the Collective. For what reason? For the good of the Collective. Who decides when rights should be violated? The Collective. If this is what you believe, move over to the side where you belong and admit that you are a Collectivist. Then take all the consequences which Collectivism implies. There is no middle ground here. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. You are not fooling anyone but yourself. 

Do not hide behind meaningless catch-phrases, such as "the middle of the road." Individualism and Collectivism are not two sides of the same road, with a safe rut for you in the middle. They are two roads going into opposite directions. One leads to freedom, justice and prosperity; the other to slavery, horror and destruction. The choice is yours to make. 

The growing spread of Collectivism throughout the world is not due to any cleverness of the Collectivists, but to the fact that most people who oppose them actually believe in Collectivism themselves. Once a principle is accepted, it is not the man who is half-hearted about it, but the man who is whole-hearted that's going to win; not the man who is least consistent in applying it, but the man who is most consistent. If you enter a race, saying: "I only intend to run the first ten yards," the man who says: "I'll run to the finish line," is going to beat you. When you say: "I only want to violate human rights just a tiny little bit," the Communist or Fascist who says "I'm going to destroy all human rights" will beat you and win. You've opened the way for him.

By permitting themselves this initial dishonesty and evasion, men have now fallen into a Collectivist trap on the question of whether a dictatorship is proper or not. Most people give lip-service to denunciations of dictatorship. But very few take a clear-cut stand and recognize dictatorship for what it is: an absolute evil in any form, by anyone, for anyone, anywhere, at any time and for any purpose whatsoever.

A great many people now enter into an obscene kind of bargaining about differences between "a good dictatorship" and a "bad dictatorship," about motives, causes, or reasons that make dictatorship proper. For the question: "Do you want dictatorship?" the Collectivists have substituted the question: "What kind of dictatorship do you want?" They can afford to let you argue from then on; they have won their point. 

A great many people believe that a dictatorship is terrible if it's "for a bad motive," but quite all right and even desirable if it's "for a good motive." Those leaning toward Communism (they usually consider themselves "humanitarians") claim that concentration camps and torture chambers are evil when used "selfishly," "for the sake of one race," as Hitler did, but quite noble when used "unselfishly," "for the sake of the masses," as Stalin does. Those leaning toward Fascism (they usually consider themselves hard-boiled "realists") claim that whips and slave-drivers are impractical when used "inefficiently," as in Russia, but quite practical when used "efficiently," as in Germany.

(And just as an example of where the wrong principle will lead you in practice, observe that the "humanitarians," who are so concerned with relieving the suffering of the masses, endorse, in Russia, a state of misery for a whole population such as no masses have ever had to endure anywhere in history. And the hard-boiled "realists," who are so boastfully eager to be practical, endorse, in Germany, the spectacle of a devastated country in total ruin, the end result of an "efficient" dictatorship.)

When you argue about what is a "good" or a "bad" dictatorship, you have accepted and endorsed the principle of dictatorship. You have accepted a premise of total evil — of your right to enslave others for the sake of what you think is good. From then on, it's only a question of who will run the Gestapo. You will never be able to reach an agreement with your fellow Collectivists on what is a "good" cause for brutality and what is a "bad" one. Your particular pet definition may not be theirs. You might claim that it is good to slaughter men only for the sake of the poor; somebody else might claim that it is good to slaughter men only for the sake of the rich; you might claim that it is immoral to slaughter anyone except members of a certain class; somebody else might claim that it is immoral to slaughter anyone except members of a certain race. All you will agree on is the slaughter. And that is all you will achieve.

Once you advocate the principle of dictatorship, you invite all men to do the same. If they do not want your particular kind or do not like your particular "good motive," they have no choice but to rush to beat you to it and establish their own kind for their own "good motive," to enslave you before you enslave them. A "good dictatorship" is a contradiction in terms.

The issue is not: for what purpose is it proper to enslave men? The issue is: is it proper to enslave men or not? 

There is an unspeakable moral corruption in saying that a dictatorship can be justified by "a good motive" or "an unselfish motive." All the brutal and criminal tendencies which mankind — through centuries of slow climbing out of savagery — has learned to recognize as evil and impractical, have now taken refuge under a "social" cover. Many men now believe that it is evil to rob, murder, and torture for one's own sake, but virtuous to do so for the sake of others. You may not indulge in brutality for your own gain, they say, but go right ahead if it's for the gain of others. Perhaps the most revolting statement one can ever hear is: "Sure, Stalin has butchered millions, but it's justifiable, since it's for the benefit of the masses." Collectivism is the last stand of savagery in men's minds.

Do not ever consider Collectivists as "sincere but deluded idealists." The proposal to enslave some men for the sake of others is not an ideal; brutality is not "idealistic," no matter what its purpose. Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives.

So Capitalism-Individualism (freedom) are diametric opposites to collectivism-socialism (slavery). This hasn't been a false choice. Real life developments reveal such dynamic at work.

Simon Black of the Sovereign Man tacitly expounds on the consequences of the Middle of the Road policies in the US via his article “America isn’t Communist, It’s only 70% communist” (bold mine)

Within his 1848 Communist Manifesto, Marx outlined a list of ten short-term demands. These, he thought, would be the precursor to the ideal stateless, classless communist society.

Ironically in today’s world, Marx’s demands look pretty much mainstream.

That is because nearly every single item on the list has been implemented to varying degrees in the United States.

Think that couldn’t be possible in the Land of the Free? Just take a look.

Topping Marx’s list is the abolition of private property.

True, private property exists, but only until the state wants to take it. With its powers of eminent domain, the government can and does confiscate people’s property when it wants for public use.

Your property isn’t unconditionally yours. Just think of property taxes, for example.

If it’s actually YOUR private property, then why would you need to pay tax on it? And why do they have the authority to take it from you if you don’t pay?

Likewise, while we haven’t seen the complete abolition of inheritance (another Marx demand), the government can take up to 40% of your estate when you die.

So ultimately your estate is not your own. You don’t get to control what happens to your wealth and possessions when you die. It’s just a matter of proportion.

Marx also demanded the centralization of transportation and communication. Check, and check.

Try broadcasting over the airwaves in the Land of the Free without a license and special permission.

Practically the entire electromagnetic spectrum is tightly controlled by the state, centralized by a handful of government agencies.

Same with the network of roads and highways. Because, after all, without government, who would build the roads…

Another point of Marx is state-guided agricultural production and combination of agriculture and manufacturing.

And the Land of the Free does not disappoint. Though its activities may not be as prominent in the news, the US Department of Agriculture is easily one of the busiest government departments.

With a budget of $146 billion a year, and much more for subsidies, USDA tirelessly works to dictate every major and miniscule activity in the sector.

Next on the list, is equal liability of all to labor. If you have at any point wondered, as I have, why politicians are always pushing jobs for the sake of jobs, rather than value and wealth creation—now you know why.

Between minimum wage laws and the constant stream of legislation that promises jobs for all, it is clear that politicians have wholly internalized this Marxian ideal.

Now, you might think that this is just a fluke, just a coincidence that some US policies resemble what’s on Marx’s list of demands.

But then you see these demands, which have not only been fully implemented in the US already, but are thoroughly entrenched in the national psyche:

First, there’s free education for all children, to enable the uniformity of thought. Check.

Then there’s a heavy progressive income tax. Yep, I’m pretty sure you’re familiar with this one, which has actually become so mainstream, that to have any system other than this would be considered revolutionary. Check.

Third, is the confiscation of the property of emigrants (expatriates) and rebels.

Between the IRS bullying of political opposition groups and the imposition of exit taxes for those that renounce their citizenship, the United States is firmly set up to discourage dissent and escape. Check.

And last but not least, the centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank. Check.

Remember, Karl Marx thought central banking was a great idea—the same guy who thought that individual success and private property were evil.

Think about that the next time the Federal Reserve comes up with a plan to help businesses and fix the economy.

So now you know, America isn’t communist. It’s only about 70% communist. No reason to worry.

Slippery slope indeed.

The Pope and Populist Politics

Pope Francis plays populist politics by supposedly taking on an economic stand.

Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world,” Francis wrote in the papal statement. “This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacra­lized workings of the prevailing economic system.

Harvard’s Greg Mankiw’s reaction (hat tip Mark Perry)

First, throughout history, free-market capitalism has been a great driver of economic growth, and as my colleague Ben Friedman has written, economic growth has been a great driver of a more moral society.

Second, "trickle-down" is not a theory but a pejorative used by those on the left to describe a viewpoint they oppose.  It is equivalent to those on the right referring to the "soak-the-rich" theories of the left.  It is sad to see the pope using a pejorative, rather than encouraging an open-minded discussion of opposing perspectives.

Third, as far as I know, the pope did not address the tax-exempt status of the church.  I would be eager to hear his views on that issue. Maybe he thinks the tax benefits the church receives do some good when they trickle down.

Wall Street’s Mary O’Grady on Venezuela as example of the Pope’s model.

Heavy state intervention was supposed to produce justice for the poor in the breadbasket of South America. We all know how that turned out.

No Christian can doubt the love expressed in the pope's message, which aims to shepherd the flock away from materialism. But the charge that grinding poverty in the world is the outgrowth of "the absolute autonomy of the marketplace" ignores reality. To be sure, even prosperous economies regulate markets. But those that have a lighter touch do better. Human history clearly demonstrates that when men and women, employing their free will and God-given talents, are able to innovate, produce, accumulate capital and trade even the weakest and most vulnerable are better off.

Instead the pope trusts the state, "charged with vigilance for the common good." Why is it then that the world's most desperate poor are concentrated in places where the state has gained an outsize role in the economy specifically on just such grounds?

…

Venezuelans need a moral authority that defends their rights to run a business, make a living, own property and preserve the purchasing power of what they earn. In short, they need a champion for a rule of law that will limit the power of the state over their person. Mother Church ought to be that voice. In siding with Mr. Maduro, however inadvertently, she harms her cause in the region.

New York Stern Professor Mario Rizzo on the Pope’s omission of the scientific dimensions of social policies.

If we move beyond Jesus’ exhortations to individuals about their moral behavior to papal exhortations about government policies to achieve the goal of eliminating or reducing avoidable human suffering, a scientific dimension is added. Policies have consequences, often unintended. The social interaction of people is more than the acts of people taken individually.  There are complexities in these cases subject to scientific analysis.

The ultimate normative goals of action can be based on a religious insight or commitment. (I prefer to say on ethics.) But the means chosen to attain those goals are in large part a scientific question. Thus the proximate goals of action are largely in the domain of science. (An exception is where the means are considered intrinsically evil.)

The point is that policies are means to ends. They are not decrees about how the world should be. They can succeed or fail to achieve the desired moral ends. They can have consequences more undesirable than the problems they purport to solve. It is hard to see what the Church can authoritatively add to these discussions.  Issues like income redistribution, globalization and financial speculation, however, are either above or below the papal pay grade. As Jeremy Bentham said about the state, the job is basically to “be quiet.”

Obviously, for a Church wanting to be relevant in its growth areas in poor, less developed countries, this might not be enough. And yet there is more it can say about the state’s use of coercion, of its violation of the basic principles of just conduct in the creation of crony “capitalist” economies, of its secrecy and lack of accountability, of the use of torture, of trafficking in slaves, and war. The Church has to its credit tackled many of these. It will be seen, I suggest, that in most of these areas governments or others are violating the fundamental principles of individual just conduct: lying, cheating, stealing, physically harming innocent individuals, failing to aid others in distress (as opposed to failing to coerce people to aid others in distress), and even the use of force where turning the other cheek would be appropriate.

But where social policy is concerned, fundamentally scientific issues are crucially involved and the Church has no greater teaching authority than the rest of us. To confuse matters by combining superficial scientific analysis with strictly moral teaching does neither the Church nor the world much good.

Uttering feel good noble sounding populist political rhetoric with hardly a good understanding of the real social consequences from proposed repressive policies will do little to help society. For me, the Pope's major gaffe has been the failure to understand that the state is run by human beings who shares the same vulnerabilities as the rest.

As the great dean of the Austrian school of economics Murray Rothbard admonished:

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a "dismal science." But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

Markets In Everything: Invest in your Star Athlete

How about investing in a financial security linked to the income stream of financial performance of your favorite professional athlete? 

From Deal Book New York Times: 

First, there was old-fashioned gambling on football. Then came the fantasy leagues. And now, thanks to Wall Street, fans can buy a stake in their favorite player.

On Thursday, a start-up company announced a new trading exchange for investors to buy and sell interests in professional athletes. Backed by executives from Silicon Valley, Wall Street and the sports world, the company plans to create stocks tied to an athlete’s financial performance.

After considering a number of possibilities for its inaugural initial public offering, the company found a charismatic candidate in Arian Foster, the Pro Bowl running back of the Houston Texans. Investors in the deal will receive stock linked to Mr. Foster’s future earnings, which includes the value of his playing contracts, corporate endorsements and appearance fees.

The company, Fantex Holdings, has grand ambitions beyond a Foster I.P.O. — it hopes to sign up more football players and other athletes, as well as celebrities like pop singers and Hollywood actors.

This is demonstrative of the market’s innovative process at work. Entrepreneurs think up ways and means to profit from what they see as economic opportunities by taking risks through the introduction of new instruments, products or services.

Innovation is a common feature of capitalist societies. As Austrian economist Robert Higgs pointed out

In his justly famous 1942 book Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Joseph A. Schumpeter described the dynamics of a market economy as a process of “creative destruction.” In his view, innovation—“the new consumers’ goods, the new methods of production or transportation, the new markets, the new forms of industrial organization that capitalist enterprise creates”—drives this process. Its most important result is that for the first time in history, the mass of the population in developed countries enjoys a standard of living that even the aristocrats of past ages could scarcely have imagined, much less have actually had.

In the above case, stocks linked to celebrities seem like a new form of entertainment.

The Virtue of Failure: Billionaire Sara Blakely’s Success Recipe

In the realm of capitalism, failures serve as stepping stones to success as I pointed out here here and here

Take for example, billionaire Sara Blakely, founder and owner of garment company Spanx, who in a CNBC interview said that a key ingredient to her career success emerged from her string of initial misfortunes.

CNBC’s Robert Frank reports

"What have you failed at this week?" Blakely recalled in an interview on CNBC's "Squawk Box" n Wednesday. "My dad growing up encouraged me and my brother to fail. The gift he was giving me is that failure is (when you are) not trying versus the outcome. It's really allowed me to be much freer in trying things and spreading my wings in life."

Blakely's embrace of failure has helped make her the youngest self-made female billionaire in America. The 41-year-old Florida native was selling fax machines door-to-door before she came up with the idea for Spanx, the body-shaping undergarments that have become a global sensation.

Her string of early career failures eventually led Blakely to the Spanx idea. She said wanted to be a lawyer but "basically bombed the LSAT twice," she said. "I ended up at Disney World trying out to be Goofy. They wanted me to be 5' 8", but I was 5' 6". They wanted me to be a chipmunk."

Ms. Blakely's determination in the face of the lack of knowledge and experience...

Like many entrepreneurs, Blakely said that not knowing industry practices—and the things that supposedly can't be done—is critical in starting a business.

"The fact that I had never taken a business class, had no training, didn't know how retail worked," she said. "I wasn't as intimidated as I should have been."

And a memorable gaffe...

Her rise was filled with little failures—some of them humorous. When she went to London in an early sales trip to promote the product, she was interviewed by the BBC. She described the benefits of Spanx by saying, "It's all about the fanny. It smooths your fanny, lifts and separates your fanny."

Suddenly, the interviewer lost all color in his face.

"I had no idea," Blakely said, "but fanny apparently means vagina in England."

The tolerance of or the virtue of failure is founded on learning and building from them

As American industrialist and founder of the Ford Company Henry Ford wrote as one of his Principles of Business

An absence of fear of the future or of veneration for the past. One who fears the future, who fears failure, limits his activities. Failure is only the opportunity more intelligently to begin again. There is no disgrace in honest failure; there is disgrace in fearing to fail. What is past is useful only as it suggests ways and means for progress.

On the other hand, in the world of politics, failure has frequently been used as an excuse for political agents to grab control of society.

Rock Star Bono Embraces Capitalism

Rock star and U2’s lead singer, Paul David Hewson popularly known as Bono, who formerly advocated alleviating poverty through government foreign aid. appears to have tergiversated to capitalism.

Mr. Hewson or Bono is more than a celebrity fighting for a social cause, he is both an entrepreneur and a devout Christian.

Watch Bono preach capitalism in a speech at Georgetown University

“Commerce is real. Foreign aid is just a stopgap. Commerce and entrepreneurial capitalism take more people out of poverty than foreign aid, of course we know that. We need Africa to become an economic powerhouse.” (hat tip Mark Perry)

Nice to see celebrities recognize reality. 

Quote of the Day: Why Capitalism is Awesome

But the true genius of the market economy isn’t that it produces prominent, highly publicized goods to inspire retail queues, or the medical breakthroughs that make the nightly news. No, the genius of capitalism is found in the tiny things — the things that nobody notices.

A market economy is characterized by an infinite succession of imperceptible, iterative changes and adjustments. Free market economists have long talked about the unplanned and uncoordinated nature of capitalist innovation. They’ve neglected to emphasize just how invisible it is. One exception is the great Adam Smith…

The brilliance of the market economy is found in small innovations made to polish and enhance existing products and services. Invention is a wonderful thing. But we should not pretend that it is invention that has made us rich.

We have higher living standards than our ancestors because of the little things. We ought to be more aware of the continuous, slow, and imperceptible creative destruction of the market economy, the refiners who are always imperceptibly bettering our frozen pizzas, our bookshelves, our pencils, and our crayons.

This is from a wonderful essay by Chris Berg at the Cato Institute. (hat tip: AEI’s Professor Mark Perry)

Video: Gary North on the World's Transition to the Modern Economy

Via BBC's Hans Rosling, I have previously posted a video showing the modern economy's dramatic growth transformation which begun during the 18th century, from the agricultural age to the industrial era to today's post industrial information/digital epoch.

In the following video, Austrian economist Gary North expounds on Deidre McCloskey's theme that "ideas" or "rhetoric" or the "Bourgeois Dignity or Virtue" as the major force behind such monumental progress. 

As per Mr. North, Ms. McCloskey's theme signifies as, 

a change of attitude regarding entrepreneurship, and a change in attitude regarding innovation and personal wealth derived from innovation and entrepreneurship...

The argument is people’s attitude for the first time radically changed on the question of the legitimacy of personal wealth through entrepreneurial activities 

Mr. North adds two additional factors to the ideas or virtues of the pursuit of self-interests: one is ethics (view of right and wrong), which may have played a significant shift in the public's opinion, where acquisition of personal wealth became legitimate. Second is a shift of the view of the future (based on religious influences or what Mr. North calls as the "post millennialist eschatology"). 

In short, people's values and beliefs evolved overtime to reflect on the marginal changes on the course of actions undertaken which compounded to manifest on such progress.

Warren Buffett: Bet on Natural Juices of Capitalism

For all the repeated calls of taxing the rich and the need for interventions, former value investor and now political entrepreneur (crony) does a U-turn and unexpectedly praises capitalism

From Bloomberg, 

Warren Buffett, the billionaire chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK/A), said investors should bet on the “natural juices” of capitalism in the U.S. even as lawmakers struggle to narrow the budget deficit.

People tend to “focus too much on what the government’s done, and to give them either credit or blame,” Buffett said in an interview conducted by the chief executive officer of Business Wire, the Berkshire subsidiary that distributes press releases. “The real credit belongs to our system.”

Buffett, 82, has used annual letters to shareholders and public appearances to highlight the prospects for the world’s largest economy, where most of Berkshire’s operations are based. He’s also called for an increase in taxes on the wealthiest individuals to help reduce budget deficits and forestall cuts, an approach that Republicans say would hurt growth.

The U.S. economy “is coming back because of the natural juices of capitalism and not because of government,” Buffett told Business Wire’s Cathy Baron Tamraz in a video interview posted online today. “We have a wonderful system that eventually is self-cleansing and always moves forward.”

Perhaps Mr. Buffett could just be rationalizing his actions due to the recent bullish bets he made, part of such acquisitions involved 28 newspapers for $344 million. Yet this should be an example of how people use "capitalism" when it is convenient for them.

Or perhaps he may just have read the book package sent by Austrian school of economics in fulfillment of his father’s request.

Quote of the Day: Hayek’s Road to Serfdom is about Resisting Change

Hayek never argued that the slightest deviation from laissez-faire capitalism launches a society on an unstoppable march toward tyranny. Instead, he reasoned that tyranny is the inevitable result of government policies aimed at preventing market competition from ever threatening anyone’s economic prospects. As long as voters demand that government protect them from all downsides of economic change, governments can oblige them only by shutting down, one after another, all avenues for economic change. Competition; entrepreneurship; innovation; consumer sovereignty; workers’ freedom to change or to quit their jobs; even changes in demographics. Government must obliterate these and all other sources of change if no one is to be exposed to the risk of losing a job or of having her wages or benefits cut.

Obviously, in reality governments cannot produce such a petrified paradise. But in the course of trying they will create hell on earth unless people come to accept the fact that widespread material prosperity is impossible without genuine change – and that change is impossible without some people suffering economic disappointment.

That’s from Professor Don Boudreaux at the Café Hayek.

This reminds me of former astronaut and engineer Frank Borman’s popular quote

capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell

The Emergence of Capitalist Cuba?

I previously pointed out that the post-Fidel Castro Cuba has broken the proverbial ice of electing to take the road of economic liberalization.

Eric Margolis at the lewrockwell.com examines and predicts Cuba’s future…

Thanks to Raul’s recent reforms, small private enterprise is bubbling up everywhere. Aid and oil from Venezuela has kept the island afloat. People are more outspoken, a little less wary of the secret police and informers. One feels growing energy pulsating into Havana’s delightful old city. With its beautiful buildings, friendly, attractive people, and little music bars with their electrifying salsa bands, Havana is poised to resume its role of 50 years ago as the most fun – and perhaps wickedest city – in the world. All it needs are more hotels, better food, and waves of young Yankee partyers. Already, some 100,000-200,000 Americans sneak into forbidden Cuba each year.

America’s Great Satan, Fidel Castro, is sidelined by age and illness, but Cubans still love their national papa figure. Brother Raul, now pushing 81, has gained respect for his leadership. But once the Castro era is over, what will happen?

Either a power grab by the military and old guard, or the half million Miami-based Cubans will return and rebuild Cuba. A tsunami of US money will swamp Cuba, washing it into the modern world but erasing much of its austere charm and sense of community. Many friends of Cuba do not look forward to this change, though Cubans desperately need relief from their threadbare existence.

More evidence of Cuba’s reforms from Kansas City.com (bold emphasis added)

Across Cuba, there are entrepreneurs like Suarez and Hidalgo, striking out on their own as locksmiths, plumbers, electricians and the like. They've always existed, but operated on a smaller scale, illegally, in the informal economy.

"I can make more money," Suarez said, comparing his take with the official government monthly salary of $20.

In the past 24 months, Cuba's communist government has announced a series of economic openings intended to ease its announced plan to trim the country's bloated government payroll by 1 million jobs and to buy time as the country transitions away from the reign of the two Castro brothers who've ruled since 1959 but now are in their 80s.

The reforms include expanded self-employment, a liberalization of rules for family-run restaurants, more flexibility for Cuban farmers to sell their products, and even creation of fledgling real estate markets in big cities such as Havana and Santiago.

Most of the 181 newly allowed self-employment categories involve menial labor, and services such as beauty salons, barber shops and plumbers. The government says it has granted 371,000 licenses.

The reforms, however, remain far from free-market capitalism. Not included among the openings are medicine, scientific research and a range of technical jobs that the government has kept under its control. There are no wholesale businesses to provide goods and services to entrepreneurs.

What Cuba’s gradualist reforms has done so far has been to legitimize parts of her huge informal economy.

And the direction of Cuba’s reform will likely deepen and accelerate overtime as political leaders realize that their survival will depend on a wealthier citizenry from economic freedom.

Perhaps like Myanmar, whom has been slated to open a stock exchange by 2015, Cuba may even consider reviving the Havana Stock Exchange which was closed in 1960.

Bottom line is that globalization vastly aided by the internet, or the information age, have begun to pry open formerly closed economies. Forces of decentralization have swiftly been diffusing across the world.

And given the huge potentials of the reformist nations of Cuba and Myanmar, especially coming from a depressed level, investors ought to keep an eye on these prospective frontier markets.

How Capitalism Brought about Modern Marriage

Contractual rights is the foundation of modern (monogamist) marriage which has been traced to the capitalist roots.

The following excerpt from an article by the great Ludwig von Mises seems as a compelling narrative of the evolution of modern marriage (bold emphasis mine)

Where the principle of violence dominates, polygamy is universal. Each man has as many wives as he can defend. Wives are a form of property, of which it is always better to have more than few. A man endeavors to own more wives, just as he endeavors to own more slaves or cows; his moral attitude is the same, in fact, for slaves, cows, and wives. He demands fidelity from his wife; he alone may dispose of her labor and her body, himself remaining free of any ties whatever. Fidelity in the male implies monogamy. A more powerful lord has the right to dispose also of the wives of his subjects. The much discussed jus primae noctis was an echo of these conditions, of which a final development was the intercourse between father-in-law and daughter-in-law in the "joint family" of the Southern Slavs.

Moral reformers did not abolish polygamy; neither did the church at first combat it. For centuries, Christianity raised no objections to the polygamy of the barbarian kings. Charlemagne kept many concubines. By its nature, polygamy was never an institution for the poor man; the wealthy and the aristocratic could alone enjoy it. But with the latter it became increasingly complex according to the extent to which women entered marriage as heiresses and owners, were provided with rich dowries, and were endowed with greater rights in disposing of the dowry.

Thus monogamy has been gradually enforced by the wife who brings her husband wealth and by her relatives — a direct manifestation of the way in which capitalist thought and calculation has penetrated the family. In order to protect legally the property of wives and their children a sharp line is drawn between legitimate and illegitimate connection and succession. The relation of husband and wife is acknowledged as a contract.

As the idea of contract enters the law of marriage, it breaks the rule of the male, and makes the wife a partner with equal rights. From a one-sided relationship resting on force, marriage thus becomes a mutual agreement; the servant becomes the married wife entitled to demand from the man all that he is entitled to ask from her. Step by step she wins the position in the home which she holds today. Nowadays the position of the woman differs from the position of the man only in so far as their peculiar ways of earning a living differ. The remnants of man's privileges have little importance. They are privileges of honor. The wife, for instance, still bears her husband's name.

This evolution of marriage has taken place by way of the law relating to the property of married persons. Woman's position in marriage was improved as the principle of violence was thrust back, and as the idea of contract advanced in other fields of the law of property it necessarily transformed the property relations between the married couple. The wife was freed from the power of her husband for the first time when she gained legal rights over the wealth which she brought into marriage and which she acquired during marriage, and when that which her husband customarily gave her was transformed into allowances enforceable by law.

Thus marriage, as we know it, has come into existence entirely as a result of the contractual idea penetrating into this sphere of life. All our cherished ideals of marriage have grown out of this idea. That marriage unites one man and one woman, that it can be entered into only with the free will of both parties, that it imposes a duty of mutual fidelity, that a man's violations of the marriage vows are to be judged no differently from a woman's, that the rights of husband and wife are essentially the same — these principles develop from the contractual attitude to the problem of marital life.

No people can boast that their ancestors thought of marriage as we think of it today. Science cannot judge whether morals were once more severe than they are now. We can establish only that our views of what marriage should be are different from the views of past generations and that their ideal of marriage seems immoral in our eyes.

When panegyrists of the good old morality execrate the institution of divorce and separation they are probably right in asserting that no such things existed formerly. The right to cast off his wife which man once possessed in no way resembles the modern law of divorce. Nothing illustrates more clearly the great change of attitude than the contrast between these two institutions.

And when the church takes the lead in the struggle against divorce, it is well to remember that the existence of the modern marriage ideal of monogamy — of husband and wife with equal rights — in the defense of which the church wishes to intervene, is the result of capitalist, and not ecclesiastical, development.

Chart of the Day: Capital Accumulation is Key to Economic Prosperity

Professor Steve Landsburg posted on his blog a graph from a textbook of his colleague exhibiting the tight correlations between the increase in capital and economic prosperity.

Professor Landsburg writes,

But the overall picture is clear: More capital per worker means more output per worker, and more output per worker means more income per worker. This relationship — in fact, the nearly linear relationship that you see on the graph — is just what standard economic theory predicts. It’s nice to see that prediction so powerfully confirmed.

Capital here refers to physical capital — the machinery, factory space and office equipment that allows workers to be more productive. A garment worker with a sewing machine produces more blouses per hour than a garment worker with a needle and thread; therefore the garment worker with a sewing machine earns higher wages. (A good rule of thumb is that workers are paid about 2/3 the value of what they produce.) If you want rich garment workers, you need a lot of high-quality sewing machines. If you want rich farm workers, you need a lot of high-quality tractors…

As a caveat, it isn’t just the capital that is important, instead it is the political economic environment which allows the citizenry to accumulate capital that matters most.

Professor Landsburg explains further, (bold emphasis mine)

Do not, however, jump to the conclusion that if, say, Nigerians had access to Japanese levels of capital, then Nigerian wages would rise to Japanese levels. Part of the reason Nigerians have so little capital is that capital is used less efficiently in Nigeria, so people choose to accumulate less of it. To move up this ladder, you need to do more than just accumulate capital — you’ve got to be the sort of country where capital is worth accumulating. What that entails will be a topic for a future post.

As the great Ludwig von Mises wrote in 1955, (bold emphasis mine)

It is the insufficient supply of capital that prevents the rest of the world from adjusting its industries to the most efficient ways of production. Technological "know how" and the "passion for productivity" are useless if the capital required for the acquisition of new equipment and the inauguration of new methods is lacking.

What made modern capitalism possible and enabled the nations, first of Western Europe and later of central Europe and North America, to eclipse the rest of mankind in productivity was the fact that they created the political, legal, and institutional conditions that made capital accumulation safe. What prevents India, for example, from replacing its host of inefficient cobblers with shoe factories is only the lack of capital. As the Indian government virtually expropriates foreign capitalists and obstructs capital formation by natives, there is no way to remedy this situation. The result is that millions are barefoot in India while the average American buys several pairs of shoes every year.

America's present economic supremacy is due to the plentiful supply of capital. The allegedly "progressive" policies that slow down saving and capital accumulation, or even bring about dissaving and capital decumulation, came later to the United States than to most European countries. While Europe was being impoverished by excessive armaments, colonial adventures, anticapitalistic policies, and finally by wars and revolutions, the United States was committed to a free enterprise policy. At that time Europeans used to stigmatize American economic policies as socially backward. But it was precisely this alleged social backwardness that accounted for an amount of capital accumulation that surpassed by far the amount of capital available in other countries. When later the New Deal began to imitate the anticapitalistic policies of Europe, America had already acquired an advantage that it still retains today.

Wealth does not consist, as Marx said, in a collection of commodities, but in a collection of capital goods. Such a collection is the result of previous saving. The anti-saving doctrines of what is, paradoxically enough, called New Economics, first developed by Messrs. Foster and Catchings and then reshaped by Lord Keynes, are untenable.

If one wants to improve economic conditions, to raise the productivity of labor, wage rates and the peoples' standard of living, one must accumulate more capital goods in order to invest more and more. There is no other way to increase the amount of capital available than to expand saving by doing away with all ideological and institutional factors that hinder saving or even directly make for dissaving and capital decumulation. This is what the "underdeveloped nations" need to learn.

Bottom line, economic prosperity can only be attained through a market economy (economic freedom or laissez faire capitalism). Interventionism or politicization of the allocation of scarce resources can only result to the opposite—capital consumption.

China’s Road to Capitalism Lacks the Knowledge Revolution

A narrative of China’s path to progress according to Nobel laureate Professor Ronald Coase and Professor Ning Wang at the Wall Street Journal,

China's road to capitalism was forged by two movements. One was orchestrated by Beijing; its self-proclaimed goal being to turn China into a "modern, powerful socialist country." The other, more important, one was the gross product of what we like to call "marginal revolutions." It involved a concatenation of grass-roots movements and local initiatives.

While the state-led reform focused on enhancing the incentives of state-owned enterprises, the marginal revolutions brought private entrepreneurship and market forces back to China. Private farming, for example, was secretly engaged in by starving peasants when it was still banned by Beijing. Rural industrialization was spearheaded by township and village enterprises that operated outside state control. Private sectors emerged in cities when self-employment was allowed to cope with rising unemployment. Foreign direct investment and labor markets were first confined to Special Economic Zones.

Well, China’s road to capitalism has been half baked as it requires a very important factor that has been amiss: allowing ideas to have sex as Matt Ridley would call it.

Professors Coase and Wang adds,

In the years to come, China will continue to forge its own path, but it needs to address its lack of a marketplace for ideas if it hopes to continue to prosper. An unrestricted flow of ideas is a precondition for the growth of knowledge, the most critical factor in any innovative and sustainable economy. "Made in China" is now found everywhere in the world. But few Western consumers remember any Chinese brand names. The British Industrial Revolution two centuries ago introduced many new products and created new industries. China's industrial revolution is far less innovative.

The active exchange of thoughts and information also offers an indispensable foundation for social harmony. It is not a panacea; nothing can free us once and for all from ignorance and falsehood. But the free flow of ideas engenders repeated criticism and continuous improvement. It also cultivates respect and tolerance, which are effective antidotes to the bigotry and false doctrines that can threaten the foundation of any society.

When China started reforming itself more than three decades ago, Deng rightly stressed the "emancipation of the mind" as a prerequisite. But that has yet to happen. It's time for China to embrace not just the market, but the marketplace of ideas. This will help not just China reach its full potential, but the world as well.

China’s fundamental problems emanates from the still top-down command and control political system which has been running a head on collision course with the snowballing forces of ‘marginal revolutions’ or grassroots economic movement via entrepreneurs.

A knowledge revolution would be incompatible with the incumbent centralized structure of governance, which has underpinned the continued restrictive policies on “free flow of ideas”.

A communist society depends on the conformity of behavior, ideas and actions with those of the political authorities, mainly enforced through coercion and indoctrination, whereas a knowledge revolution will democratize and produce diversity of ideas, opinions and actions channeled through a market economy.

And a society founded on a knowledge revolution would, thus, undermine the privileges of those currently in power.

Yet having to unleash the forces of capitalism would mean substantial changes to China’s political system.

Yet the jury is out on how China’s politicians will deal with such monumental adjustment process, which I expect to be turbulent, along with the response of the average Chinese. And such transition will be accompanied by a national financial and economic crisis as ramification to the recent marco (top-down) economic policies, the impact of which would also diffuse into politics.

Current events have already been manifesting signs of such tempestuous adjustment process.

Interesting times indeed.

Lenten Thoughts for the Day: My Salute to Holy Week Entrepreneurs

Celebrating the Lenten tradition does not eliminate human needs and wants.

So while some entrepreneurs take these as opportunities to benefit financially, in reality, the main beneficiaries are the consuming public especially when many, if not most, people elect to spend time away from work. Life becomes a lot more convenient for the most of us.

Thus I salute entrepreneurs who elect to tradeoff leisure time to open shop when most businesses are closed. This is an example of ethical self-interest which extrapolates into public good.

In the words of investing guru Doug Casey

It's in your selfish best interest to provide the maximum amount of value to the maximum number of people

And the provision of public service through trade is, in effect, loving and servicing one's neighbors, clues of which can be found in the Bible.

From Galatians 5:13-14

For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”