Michael takes the podcast back to 1959 with an interview between Mike Wallace and Ayn Rand. Wallace and Rand focus on her ‘revolutionary’ view on the world. Rand capsulizes her views as a philosophy based on objective reality. She expands on a new code of morality centered around mans life as a standard of value. This means that a mans highest moral purpose is the achievement of his own happiness and each man must follow his own rational self interest.
Atlas Shrugged demonstrates Ayn Rand’s philosophy in human terms. Rand and Wallace briefly touch on many subjects such as; self sacrifice, love, altruism, the democratic system, and welfare.
Michael wraps up the podcast by summarizing the interview and comparing it to life in 2016. He talks about the importance of leaving his own impact on the world and how necessary logic and reasoning is to being successful.
In this episode of Trend Following Radio:
Free and unregulated economies
Capitalism with government help
Depressions due to government interference
Strategic decision making
“Man is entitled to his own happiness but he must achieve it himself. He cannot demand that others give up their lives to make him happy.” – Ayn Rand
“I have no faith at all, I only have convictions.” – Ayn Rand
Today, Michael Covel interviews Mike Lofgren. Mike’s new book is titled, “The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government.” We are in a world where everyone thinks their vote matters and that the next President will fix all of America’s problems.
Michael starts the podcast off reading an excerpt from Lofgren’s new book. The two dig into expectations that people had for George W. Bush. As he failed, the people then voted in Barack Obama. Obama failed to meet people’s expectations as well. Lofgren explains what he describes as a “deep state” phenomenon.
Next, Covel and Lofgren dig into: “Does our vote really matter?” Lofgren says that whoever is elected President matters on the margin. The general vector of who gets what, what the general distribution of income is, and what our general foreign policy is, is going to be pretty much the same no matter who is elected. However, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are so far out of the box that they may change those norms because of how out of distribution the system has become. The public knows something is wrong. Trump and Sanders have, at the very least, shaken up the political structure regardless of if they win the election or not.
Lofgren goes into economics and military next. He doesn’t look at economics and military as separate entities. He sees all arms of government as intricately intertwined. When you see a change in the economics of the country, you can see just as large of a shift in the military and vice versa. Michael and Lofgren also discuss Dick Fuld and the Lehman Brother collapse.
Michael moves on to ask, “Why aren’t their more whistle blowers coming out of the government?” Lofgren says that it is largely because people don’t want to go to prison. More people are being charged with espionage in America than within any other government. Michael and Lofgren continue to dig into depth about politics, corruption, and Wall Street for the rest of the podcast. Michael ends asking Lofgren, “Is there really anything on the horizon where this deep state entrenchment goes away?”
In this episode of Trend Following Radio:
The deep state phenomenon
Military industrial complex
Negative interest rates
Capitalism in communist countries
Does your vote matter?
“If we were ever able to get the money out of politics, that would be the precursor, that’s the precondition for any other reform.” – Mike Lofgren
People that came from *other* countries founded America. Many, many of them in 1700s, 1800s and early 1900s brought with them something very special–the desire to move beyond the stale and dysfunctional economies and governments of their home countries. Coming to America was the smack you in the face adrenaline rush opportunity to kick royal ass. When you know how bad it is in your home country, and you come to a blank slate new place like America, one that is saying loud and clear “capitalism or bust”, you go for it and hard. Now, American capitalism or bust is gone for the vast many and I think I know why: perspective. Americans no longer have perspective. A big reason: It is relatively isolated geographically. Travel to the far corners of the globe from America is not quick and that original America is number one belief horse blinders out the competition. Not so smart in 2014. If you don’t know how much ass your neighbors in Asia, India, etc. are kicking (and watching TV shows doesn’t give the true feel), then how can Americans truly be expected to have the eye of the tiger? So instead of feeling pressure, Americans feel fear. And fear doesn’t motivate. Fear drives people to politicians promising milk and cookies. I don’t expect this perspective to change for the majority, but you can change this perspective for yourself by traveling, innovating, creating and trading. You only have one life and the thought of looking back at age 85 to remember the fond days of office cube existence working diligently for the man…isn’t that depressing?
A friend recently invited me to a private screening of Michael Moore’s new film Capitalism: A Love Story. The September 16th invite not surprisingly leaned a certain direction:
“[Michael] Moore takes us into the homes of ordinary people whose lives have been turned upside down; and he goes looking for explanations in Washington, DC and elsewhere. What he finds are the all-too-familiar symptoms of a love affair gone astray: lies, abuse, betrayal and 14,000 jobs being lost every day. Capitalism: A Love Story…is Michael Moore’s ultimate quest to answer the question he’s posed throughout his illustrious filmmaking career: Who are we and why do we behave the way that we do?”
Considering Moore was going to be there for a Q&A after (moderated by Arianna Huffington), I quickly signed on. Now before painting a picture of Moore’s new film let me be honest: my belief set is essentially libertarian (‘Government out of my bedroom and my pocketbook’). Not only do government solutions not excite me, they scare the living blank out of me. Remember when George Bush declared, “I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system…to make sure the economy doesn’t collapse”? He might as well of said, “Hide your money, kids – ’cause I’m coming to take it!”
Oh sure, in theory I would like to see everyone with their own homestead, money in their pocket for regular shopping frenzies and no health worries despite eating at Burger King 24/7, but arriving at those goals is not exactly doable unless government robs Peter to pay Paul and or starts up the printing press (see my film).
And that view of course puts me in opposition to Moore since he has no problem with government as his and our father figure. That is his utopia. He truly believes warehouses of Washington, DC-based federal workers remotely running our lives is the optimal plan. He is an unapologetic socialist who really doesn’t care why the poor are poor or the rich are rich, he just wants it fixed. So not surprisingly, and with some generalization as I proffer this, Democrats like Moore and Republicans don’t.
However, I was excited to see a ‘mainstream’ film that was backed by big Hollywood bucks conclude capitalism as ‘evil.’ Arguably the most successful documentarian ever, a man who has made untold millions of dollars (Michael Moore net worth was estimated at $50 million in 2014), was going to legitimately make the case that there was an alternative to capitalism. I sat down in a packed Mann’s Bruin Theater in Westwood, CA eager to see how his vision could possibly flesh out.
Moore is a rather simple guy. He is likable. He sees the world as good guys (people with no money) and bad guys (people with money). His Flint, Michigan union worker upbringing is his worldview. If you did not have that upbringing or if your life started less severe than his you are an evil capitalist. If on the other hand you were a laid off factory worker with a sixth grade education you are the true hero. I don’t care one way or the other that he has that view and I am not knocking union workers, but Moore sees the world through a class warfare lens resulting in a certain agenda: force wealth to be spread amongst everyone regardless of effort. Within minutes it was clear where Capitalism: A Love Story was headed. The ‘highlights’ included:
* We listen to heartbreaking stories of foreclosed families across America, but we don’t learn why the foreclosures happened. Did these people treat their homes as piggy banks? Were there refis on top of refis just to keep buying mall trinkets and other goodies with no respect to risk or logic? We don’t find out.
* We meet one family who was just foreclosed on so desperate for money that they were willing to accept $1,000 for cleaning out the house that they were just evicted from. Was it sad? Yes. But, should we end capitalism due to this one family in Peoria, IL?
* We are introduced to a guy whose company is called ‘Condo Vultures’ buying and selling foreclosed properties. Since he acted like a used car salesman, the implication was that he was an evil capitalist. However, Moore doesn’t tell us if his buyers were ‘working class’ people making smart buying decisions after prices had dropped.
* We listen to Catholic priests who denounce capitalism as an evil to be eradicated. What they would put in its place and how would the new system work? The priests don’t tell us.
* We learn that Wal-Mart bought life insurance policies on many workers. We are then told to feel outrage when Wal-Mart receives a large payout from an employee death while the families still struggle with bills. I saw where Moore was heading here, but this was a reason to end capitalism?
* We hear a story from a commercial pilot so low on money that he has to use food stamps. Moore points out that many pilots are making less than Taco Bell managers and then attributes a recent plane crash in Buffalo to underpaid pilots. This one crash is extrapolated out as yet another reason to end capitalism.
I was pleasantly surprised at his attempt at balance in the Michael Moore Capitalism film. For example, he included:
* A carpenter, while ply-wooding up a foreclosed home, says, “If people pay their bills, they don’t get thrown out.”
* A dressing down of Senator Chris Dodd (D) by name. Moore calling out a top Democrat? He sure did. He nailed him.
* A lengthy dissertation on the evils of Goldman Sachs. He rips Robert Rubin and Hank Paulson big time and I agree with him. In fact, I said to myself, “Moore you should have done your whole film on Goldman Sachs!”
Throughout the various stories and interviews he also weaves a conspiracy (all Moore films do this). The plot goes something like this: America won World War II and quickly dominated due to no competition (Germany and Japan were destroyed). We had great post-war success where everyone lived in union-like equality. Jobs were plentiful and families were happy. However, things start to go bad in the 1970s, and Moore uses a snippet of President Carter preaching about greed. This clip was predictably building to Moore’s big reason for all problems today: the Reagan revolution.
Moore sees Reagan entering the scene as a shill for corporate banking interests. However, everyone is happy as the good times roll all the way through into Clinton times. Moore does take subtle shots at President Clinton, but nails his right hand economic man Larry Summers directly as a primary reason for the banking collapse. So, while Moore sees Japan and Germany today as socialistic winners where corporations benefit workers more than shareholders, he sees America sinking fast.
So is that it? That was the proof that capitalism is an evil to eliminate? Essentially, yes, that’s Moore’s proof. What is his solution? Tugging on your idealistic heartstrings of course! Moore ends his film with recently uncovered video of FDR talking to America on January 11, 1944. Looking into the camera a weary FDR proposed what he called a second Bill of Rights – an economic Bill of Rights for all regardless of station, race, or creed that included:
* The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.
* The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
* The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
* The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.
* The right of every family to a decent home.
* The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
* The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment.
* The right to a good education.
As FDR concluded and the film ended, I was shocked at the reaction. The theater of 400+ stood and cheered wildly at FDR’s 1944 proposal. The questions running through my head were immediate: How does one legislate words like “useful”, “enough”, “recreation”, “adequate”, “decent”, and “good”? Who decides all of this and to what degree? At past points in history to voice an opposition opinion in the middle of such a single-minded herd would have certainly been my physical demise! Interestingly, during the Q&A Huffington and Moore discussed bank failure fears during the fall of 2008. They asked for a show of hands of how many people moved money around or attempted to protect against a bank failure. I had the only hand that went up.
FDR’s plan hauled out by Moore six decades after it was forgotten reminded me of another interchange – this one from the 1970s. Then talk show master, the Oprah of his day, Phil Donahue was interviewing free market economist Milton Friedman and wanted to know if Friedman had ever had a moment of doubt about “capitalism and whether greed’s a good idea to run on?” Friedman was quick in response:
“…is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed? You think Russia doesn’t run on greed? You think China doesn’t run on greed? The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear: that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.”
Donahue (and the video of this on YouTube is classic) then countered saying that capitalism rewards the ability to manipulate the system and not virtue. Friedman was having none of it:
“And what does reward virtue? You think the communist commissar rewards virtue? …Do you think American presidents reward virtue? Do they choose their appointees on the basis of the virtue of the people appointed or on the basis of their political clout? Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest? …Just tell me where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us?”
Friedman’s logic was what I was remembering as a theater full of people cheered wildly for a second Bill of Rights. How did this film crowd actually think FDR’s 1944 vision could be executed? Frankly, it was clear to me at that moment capitalism was on shaky ground. Starting with Bush ‘abandoning’ capitalism to bailouts for everyone to Obama gifting away the future – we seriously might be past the point of no return toward a socialization of America.
Figuring someone else must see the problems with this film, I started poking around the net for other views. One critic declared that the value of Capitalism: A Love Story was not in the moviemaking, but in its message that hits you in the gut and makes you angry. This film did not make me angry, but it did punch me in the gut. The people in that theater with me were not bad people, including Moore. They just seem to all have consumed a lethal dose of Kool-Aid! And at the end of his Q&A Moore pushed the audience to understand that while they don’t have the money, they do have the vote. He implored them to use their vote to take money from one group to give it another group. Did he really say that openly with no ambiguity? Yes, sadly.
Moore’s film ends with recently uncovered video of FDR saying this on January 11, 1944:
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed. Among these are:
• The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
• The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
• The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
• The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
• The right of every family to a decent home;
• The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
• The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
• The right to a good education. All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being. America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.
A roomful of college kids last night stood and cheered wildly at this proposal. My question: How do you legislate words like “enough”, “adequate”, “decent”, and “good”?