Creative Capitalism - A Conversation

[George Fergusson]

I ran across this site this morning and found it interesting. I still don't have an opinion about it but I wanted to pass it on here and see if it sparks some discussion. The timing is right, and the subject matter compelling. I'll continue reading it for a while. In the meantime:

http://creativecapitalism.typepad.com/

The site is to be used to produce a book:

The book takes as its starting point a speech Bill Gates delivered this January at the World Economic Forum in Davos. In it, he said that many of the world's problems are too big for philanthropy--even on the scale of the Gates Foundation. And he said that the free-market capitalist system itself would have to solve them.

This is the public blog of a private website where a group of invited economists have spent the past couple of weeks criticizing and debating those claims. Over the next couple of months we'll be posting much of that material here, in the hopes of eliciting public commentary. Some of the public commentary -- the comments posted on this blog -- will also be used in the book.

[dragonfly]

I am nowhere near being an economist of any sort, but my first thought on reading your opening post is that creativity and capitalism go hand in hand and cannot be separated. Creating industry and products that bring working people together to produce should, by its very nature, create good will and a spirit of generosity. But then maybe it's my lack of expertise and interest in monetary gain that predisposes me to see it that way.

Sorry I can't be much of a participant in your thread, but I'll be interested to follow it.

[George Fergusson]

Heh... well so far dragonfly, you're the only responder and I appreciate it :)

I've got nothing vested in this thread. As I said, I ran across the site, read a bit, and found it thought-provoking. The whole thing derives from Bill Gates' concept of "Creative Capitalism" which he outlined in a relatively easy to read speach:

http://www.creativecapitalismblog.com/creative_capitalism/2008/06/bill-gates-crea.html

He then sat down with Warren Buffet and fleshed it out some:

http://www.creativecapitalismblog.com/creative_capitalism/2008/06/bill-gates-and.html

Bill Gates' basic premise:

In a system of pure capitalism, as people’s wealth rises, the financial incentive to serve them rises. As their wealth falls, the financial incentive to serve them falls – until it becomes zero. We have to find a way to make the aspects of capitalism that serve wealthier people serve poorer people as well.

I've only read the 2 links above, and a couple of other papers. A lot of interesting people have gotten involved.

[NeilV]

I think Bill Gates' basic premise is attacking one basic difficulty with capitalism/market theory. Economic theory supposes that supply and demand provide the best market allocation of goods and service. The 2,000 pound gorilla sitting in the room is that demand is highly linked to available money and therefore only indirectly connected to _need_. To give a concrete example, people in third world countries who live in poverty have a great need for food, but they may starve to death if they lack the money to create demand for food.

From the little I read on the link, I think his "creative capitalism" refers to ways to substitute "need" for "demand."

If he can figure out how to do that without undermining all concepts of economic efficiency, then he will win the Nobel Prize 10 times over. History in this country has shown that handing out money does not do the trick. Instead, the "War on Poverty" just reaffirmed the notion that if you subsidize something you just get more of it (and if you pay people not to work you just get more people who don't work and live off of subsidies).

Ultimately, what the world needs is more stable and non-corrupt governments that provide reasonable regulation but allow people to do their own thing to make a living. I don't know how to make that happen, even with Bill Gates' level of wealth. Heck, at this point, we can't do that in the good ole US of A.

I guess I will read some more to see what his specific suggestions are.

[George Fergusson]

To give a concrete example, people in third world countries who live in poverty have a great need for food, but they may starve to death if they lack the money to create demand for food.

Ironically, in many cases this very situation has been caused by interference in local markets by the WTO and the IMF who in many cases literally put local farmers out of business. We discussed this in the World Food Crisis thread.

From the little I read on the link, I think his "creative capitalism" refers to ways to substitute "need" for "demand."

And promoting corporate philanthropy. That seemed to be a big part of it. And some of it is just approach to problems, and I expect part of it should be "do no harm" though I haven't come across that aspect yet :)

If he can figure out how to do that without undermining all concepts of economic efficiency, then he will win the Nobel Prize 10 times over. History in this country has shown that handing out money does not do the trick.

Agreed. What some poor people need most is some arable land and the opportunity to grow their own food and live their lives unmolested. It's unreasonable to expect that everyone needs or even wants the same things out of life.

Ultimately, what the world needs is more stable and non-corrupt governments that provide reasonable regulation but allow people to do their own thing to make a living. I don't know how to make that happen, even with Bill Gates' level of wealth. Heck, at this point, we can't do that in the good ole US of A.

It was a discussion on confiscatory governments that got me interested in this in the first place.

I guess I will read some more to see what his specific suggestions are.

Me too. There's some interesting stuff there. Certainly, not all the contributors to the initiative are supportive of Creative Capitalism.

[dragonfly]

Heh... well so far dragonfly, you're the only responder and I appreciate it :)



Thanks for saying that:)



We have to find a way to make the aspects of capitalism that serve wealthier people serve poorer people as well.



I guess I don't know what he must really mean, because it seems to me that this is already true. I wonder if he is thinking that all people are equally motivated and equally creative. That's certainly not the case. What I see as the problem is that many people want what he has, but very few are willing to do what it takes to get there.

[dragonfly]

Wow, George, I guess I should have read the entire link (the last one) you posted before I said anything at all. It sounds to me like a bunch of "feel-good" talk between two business tycoons trying to justify giving shareholders' money to charitable causes. It sounds to me like a corporation trying to play Big Government because they think they can do a better job- and maybe they can- but it's still about guilty consciences and not about creativity. I guess you can see why I am a servant of humanity and not a big business player.;)

[dragonfly]

To give a concrete example, people in third world countries who live in poverty have a great need for food, but they may starve to death if they lack the money to create demand for food.



Okay, at the risk of being flamed, I will pose a question to you. How have humans survived for 100,000 years? What I see as the problem is that the world is no longer a vast collection of small bands of humans hunting and gathering, but there are still cultures that survive in that manner, and then there are people like Bill Gates. It's the huge gap between cultures that makes people like Gates and Buffet feel bad, but Gates and those in similar circumstances are the exception, not the rule. On a human scale, they are worth no more than an Australian aboriginal, they just have lots of dollar signs attached to them.

Did I miss your point entirely?
Oh, and I'm sorry if I sound simplistic, but I see things at the root instead of the treetops oftentimes.;)

[John F]

Economic theory supposes that supply and demand provide the best market allocation of goods and service. The 2,000 pound gorilla sitting in the room is that demand is highly linked to available money and therefore only indirectly connected to _need_.

I have not yet had time to read through the links that George has provided so I cannot make a comment on what Bill, the book project, et al. are proposing.

Ndvan, you are again guilty of not understanding money. Demand is not linked to available money. People are not starving because they have no money, they are starvng because they have no production. Production needs capital; money is not capital (directly).

Money improves the effeciency of economies but there has to be an economy to begin with. When there is, an economy will make its own money to improve the process of trade.

The economic woes of the world are pretty much the result of tyranny in one form or another.

Let's see if I can explain it better with an example.

3 people wake up one morning on a deserted island. Lucky for them, they wake up next to a freshwater spring so they don't worry about water. But they are hungry, oh, and naked (so they have nothing yet that could be considered capital). Right away they struggle with catching fish (the only choice of food). They spend their time hand catching fish in the surf.

Ok, they have an economy. Not a very good one and obviously they are going to choose to spend their production on catching fish. Their economy could get stuck here, particularly if all of their production just meets their needs for survival. But:

They gain knowledge and eventually learn well enough how to catch fish that they have excess time that could be used to imrove production. Do they? They decide. They may decide to lay low on the beach. Life is good. One of the guys found some hemp plants and hey? we aren't hungry. Or:

One of the guys figures out that hemp makes good rope and after catching the daily meal he spends his time tieing a net. The net is a capital good. It came into existence because the economy had excess production capability (remember, no money yet) and this guy decided to spend his excess production capability improving the economic process. His capital good improves the fishing production to the point that the group barely needs the action of one of them to supply all the fish their small society needs. They could now sit loose on the beach and discover other uses for hemp. Or:

One of the guys really hates sitting in the rain. He decides he is going to spend his time building a roof so that when he is kicking back he can do so without rain beating on his brow. ... (again, excess production capability)

Another of the guys finds clams and now there is a food choice...

Eventually, opportunity to trade.

Eventually money to improve the process of indirect trade and to store a persons excess production for future trades.

I don't know, does this example make any sense? If I really spent some time developing the example would it help to understanding money? I gloss over some big economic ideas here. I could have pointed out specialization, economies of scale, capital improvement. I didn't want to fixate on money but I could have shown how money is the capital good for the trade process and is to trade what a net is to fishing.

Production production production, not money.

When you see starving people you should wonder what is hampering their production? (either food itself or something tradable for food) In the above example the three people could have starved to death if they didn't even have fish as an option. I think sometimes it is the case that a society can find itself without production options, like Etheopia and the drought that began their crisis. Sending money has only made it profitable to have a starving population. In these cases, we should move the people out (or just let them move themselves out) or move a production opportunity in (labor is always a tradable commodity wherever there are people).

I probably should stop. I feel that I'm only just beginning... :)

[dragonfly]

Yes John, that's a good analogy for someone like me who is not economically astute. My economics is very simple. I decided what I would probably be good at doing for a living, decided how much it would buy me to live in a manner that was comfortable but not extravagant, and made sure my field of choice had a good job market to keep me "in demand". I perform a service for a mutually agreeable fee, and am free to move up the ladder if I so desire. My employer gets a reliable healthy worker who performs her job to the best of her ability and keeps customers happy. That's about the extent of my economic expertise.:)
Thanks for the story.

[NeilV]

John,

You're right. I was using money as shorthand for production and assets that are required to have trade/create demand. When an economy develops to a certain point, it needs to have some type of money to actually grow further, since barter is fairly ineffecient. Once that happens money and production become interchangable. I work at some task, do something productive, trade it for money which I can exhange for somebody else's production, so money=production.

Also, I think you go to extremes by suggesting that giving to people who are starving due to a drought is a bad thing. (How many times did you read Atlas Shrugs, anyway ;) ) Where exactly do you propose we move all of the starving people to? Ironically, there is a growing body of scientific evidence suggesting that the droughts were caused by economic activity in the more economically developed parts of the world. See for example http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2393.


Dragonfly,

These guys are giving away their own money, not their companies' money. And I don't think they have guilty consciences. I just think they are smart people who realize they have way more assets than they can use and want to try to improve the world with their assets. Any if they wanted really, really screwed up kids, they would just give it to their kids.

The other fact of the matter is that these guys, being really smart people, recognize that the current situation is far from perfect, from Wikipedia:

"A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. The bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1% of global wealth."

I don't know whether that has gotten better or worse in the last 8 years. It really may have gotten better, given the economic growth in places like China and India. I suppose people could argue the specific percentages or numbers.

However, the basic fact is that the distribution of wealth (or "production" if that makes John happy ;) is grossly out of whack. There are lots of reasons for that. A person does not need to have a guilty conscience to hope to improve on the situation.

Also, Dragonfly (I'm not trying to "flame" you at all) but your point of view assumes that you are born into a functioning economy where you have the opportunity to work/advance. That is not the case for many people. I think that these guys are trying to figure out ways to use free markets to create situations where the rest of the world has more opportunities.

ndvan

[dragonfly]

These guys are giving away their own money, not their companies' money. And I don't think they have guilty consciences. I just think they are smart people who realize they have way more assets than they can use and want to try to improve the world with their assets. Any if they wanted really, really screwed up kids, they would just give it to their kids.

ndvan

Based on the exerpt below, I thought they were talking about taking corporate funds to pay for it. Sorry if I didn't understand what I was reading.

"Warren: Basically, I don’t feel I’ve got the right to give away shareholders’ money, though I feel our shareholders should have the right to designate their share of profits to their own charitable priorities. I mean I may believe in women’s reproductive rights or something like that and if I want to give all my personal money to that, that’s fine. But I don’t think other shareholders should have to support my preferences. However, I think it would be nice if we had a mechanism, like we once did, whereby the people who favored adoption would be able to devote their proportional share of Berkshire’s charitable funds to that purpose. "

and

"Warren: We did for twenty or twenty-five years, but we had people who weren’t our employees, but who work with us, who were getting so much heat on them that they were losing their source of employment and earnings. I just wasn’t willing to fight them on that. When the government bureaucrats allocate the taxpayers’ money, all the rich guys get mad about it. But when the rich guys are allocating their shareholders’ money, they seem to think that God gave them that right."

If they want to give away their own money, that's great. I still believe it is based in guilt, though. Not guilt as in a religious sense, but in a social conscience sense. And again, more power to them, but I have my doubts that it will work in the way they expect or desire it to.

[dragonfly]

However, the basic fact is that the distribution of wealth (or "production" if that makes John happy ;) is grossly out of whack. There are lots of reasons for that. A person does not need to have a guilty conscience to hope to improve on the situation.



I wasn't aware that wealth was something that should be "distributed".


Also, Dragonfly (I'm not trying to "flame" you at all) but your point of view assumes that you are born into a functioning economy where you have the opportunity to work/advance. That is not the case for many people. I think that these guys are trying to figure out ways to use free markets to create situations where the rest of the world has more opportunities.


Oh don't worry about flaming me. I don't take many things personally:)
Yes, I realize that opportunity to work and advance is not the case for many people. My question is can well-meaning philanthropists create that in an environment where the population is not culturally geared that way? I'm not sure they can.

[John F]

John,

You're right. I was using money as shorthand for production and assets that are required to have trade/create demand.

Fair enough, except again you make the connection to demand. Demand is not created by production, it is the other way around. Demand exists in human wants and needs. We do not need assets or trade to create demand.

When an economy develops to a certain point, it needs to have some type of money to actually grow further, since barter is fairly ineffecient.

Right, and this happens if that economy has a demand to grow further.

Once that happens money and production become interchangable. I work at some task, do something productive, trade it for money which I can exhange for somebody else's production, so money=production.

I do understand your point but it is dangerous to think this way. Money does not equal production. Some production may not trade for money and some money may not trade for production. They are not intechangable except when glossing over the very mechanisms of economy. Many non-monetary production events occur all the time and to suggest that they aren't production because they do not produce money would be wrong. Like a barn raising or something.

Also, I think you go to extremes by suggesting that giving to people who are starving due to a drought is a bad thing.

I didn't think I said give them nothing. I said it doesn't help to give them money. They need production opportunity; give them that.

Where exactly do you propose we move all of the starving people to?

Someplace where they can be productive. If we remove the barriers to their moving they will move themselves*. Nobody wants to starve.

* assume this is done early enough that they still have the strength to move. Also, we saw this sort of movement here in the U.S.A. during the dust bowl era.

[John F]

However, the basic fact is that the distribution of wealth (or "production" if that makes John happy ;)

Actually, wealth is the correct term here. :)

But thanks for trying to get it all to fit together.

[EDIT: oh yeah, and remember, wealth does not mean money.]

[Galaxy]

When first reading this thread my thought was that Bill Gates (Microsoft), within the capitalistic system, has done more to lift the poor of the world (and everyone else) than all his and Buffet's philanthropy efforts will ever achieve. And, it is obvious that the source of his philanthropy wealth is his (Microsoft's) skill in meeting the needs of the world through a capitalistic system. n p chekkutty (http://www.typepad.com/t/comments?__mode=red&user_id=3049488&id=125815140) on the site that George cited said it well:

Now let us consider Bill’s own role in our times. Living in a very poor part of the world and watching how fast and how effectively the modern technology that he primarily helped unleash, I can say that of all the business people in 20th century perhaps it would be Gates who will stand out in history as the greatest contributor to taking the poor out of their depths. He did it without all these platitudes of altruism, with the simple Smithian self interest as motive. So better think afresh about what capitalism has actually achieved before we declare its days’ are over. http://creativecapitalism.typepad.com/creative_capitalism/2008/08/what-would-adam.html (http://creativecapitalism.typepad.com/creative_capitalism/2008/08/what-would-adam.html)

Now before I get flamed, I believe that Bill and Warren's philanthropy money will be immeasurably better applied to the needs of the poor than it would be if the government confiscated it through the Estate Tax.

But, it would be best invested back in a capitalistic system (perhaps in poor countries) if the goal is to improve the lives of the poor.

[George Fergusson]

Now before I get flamed, I believe that Bill and Warren's philanthropy money will be immeasurably better applied to the needs of the poor than it would be if the government confiscated it through the Estate Tax.

But, it would be best invested back in a capitalistic system (perhaps in poor countries) if the goal is to improve the lives of the poor.

Inclined to agree on both counts.

There is a lot of interesting material on that site.

[Galaxy]

There is a lot of interesting material on that site. I agree. Thanks for providing the link.

But, it should be pointed out that many of the "invited economists" are not economists. While certainly accomplished, people like Robert Reich, Richard Posner, Michael Kinsley, etc. are not economists. Google their names if you wish to find out their backgrounds.

[John Smith]

Well, I wrote you all a long message yesterday, then decided not to post it. Today, wellllllllllllllll?, ……………. JohnF has put in his bit, so I have accepted that as my queue to re-enter the fray.

When we start from the periphery we have to keep narrowing the conversation down to just who in particular is in charge, who is to blame, what in particular went wrong. But when we start at the center of the problem, like JohnF did with his good analogy of the island trio, the conversation expands in 360 directions and ends in chaos, or at least back to the questioner.

My response (below) addresses some very fundamental issues that describe the setting, but tries to draw your attention to the fact that all the stuff between me (as an individual), and them (as either the masses or the bosses of the masses) is inconsequential in theory, compared to just what is the best thing for me to do now. So Bill and Warren will only be able to resolve it between themselves, and for themselves, despite the fact they have enormous power. They can only try their best to save the world. Their power is not necessarily suited to that endeavor.

It is still difficult to join up the dots between Bill and Warren and JohnF. Where in all of this am I? Will the real world please stand up? But I have to agree that Bill and Warren are pretty frightened………….. to say feeling guilty?……… well, I don’t know either of them that well enough to judge. But the world looks so very different from where rich people stand.

JohnF, you need to skip twenty chapters of the Island Trio saga, and give us the chapter where the trio are ruling their empire of 3,333,333,000 souls but are running out of coconuts. After all nothing that is said has as much impact as WHO is saying it. If each of us could hop into Bill and Warren’s shoes for a moment or two their discourse would become far more meaningful.

Anyway, here it is……………… I promise to answer “only” three questions, JohnF, if you have time to ask a few.
__________________________________________________ __________________________

In my humble opinion, the whole issue is cyclical, or circular, if you prefer. It is not “which system works best” as much as it is “What is the best thing for ME to do right now?” Creative capitalism is simply a catch phrase for trying to keep things from falling apart. It is the word creative that is the key here, and it is true that it is people who are creative, whether they are at the top of the pile or the bottom. Systems are not creative. They are simply tools, like wheelbarrows and airplanes. Mr. Gates is a very creative man. Let’s hope he can produce the baby. And thanks, George, for the link. Indeed each human on the planet can be creative as well, although it takes a lot of hardship to squeeze it out of most of us.

A rain forest is a good place to see the universal forms that determine ‘what will happen next’ on the world scale. There is no right or wrong action, there are only actions that suit individuals and their particular situation/purpose. When an old tree in the forest can no longer support its weight, the next good storm knocks it over. The young trees can then vie for that vacancy in the canopy.

The forest may have some kind of a group soul or consciousness, who can say, but it is quite clear that each tree has its own destiny to create. Collectively they keep the forest going. No one tree rules the forest as we understand it.\

Systems only truss up the trees, so to speak, so they don’t fall over so easily, like some old trees you see in Botanical Gardens with ropes stabilizing them. It matters little whether the ropes were stainless steel or even if hemp ropes or Kevlar was used to truss up the tree. Capitalism? Socialism? It matters little………….. these are only names we apply to systems. At the end of the day they are all the same, they are just systems. When the wire ropes rust through, or the hemp deteriorates, the tree must eventually bite the dust.

So, what is it that is absolute in all systems? It is the people who exercise their power over them. If they do that in concert with others who are like minded and equally powerful, we tend to call them collectives, and contrarily we call them monarchies if one sole person is strong enough to hold sway.

But as Forrest Gump so simply disclosed, it is neither the left nor the right that is running the show, it is “kinda both” he said, “sort of working together at the same time and in the same place.”

World economics is no more complicated than family dynamics, or domestic budgeting, once we see things as a whole. Then you simply divide things into ever diminishing sized parcels. Once you can see your own position in that forest example or on JohnF's Island, once you learn to balance your own personal budget, then you are better prepared to understand and manage the household affairs, the municipal affairs, the state, national and world affairs. The same Universal rules apply in all situations. All secondary rules as constructed by humans are merely stones put in the creek to influence the flow of the water.

So who is running the world? President George Bush walked side by side with President Vladimir Putin into the Olympic Games, and three days later Bush is giving the Russians a blast in a war like manner. As individuals, they have the same objectives, to keep the world in balance, keep the dollars flowing and oil tanks full. But their disparate national interests are at war with each other. So, it remains, that no visible person or collection of persons is completely running the world.

But what management is being done, is done by very rich, very wise and very influential people who mostly remain invisible to the TV cameras (hence they also promote discussions about the systems as that draws our attention away from the individuals who are charged with the responsibility of running the systems). Their direct influence on the World Bank (whether in concert or as individuals, it matters little) is critical to what happens next. And when you are a little tree in the forest, what happens next is far more important than what the technical name is for that particular style of forest. So those powerful people only want solutions that keep the show going but without relinquishing any of their power. Any solution that robs them of their relative position will not be seen as welcome. So they seek new products and new methodologies that will capture the attention of the marketplace, and produce activity and commerce for mankind.

Fiat money creation and control is the favorite methodology of the ruling class, and it works just as well in a CAPITALIST suv and as it does in a communist SUV. The real issue is always, always, I repeat, “Which direction is the power flowing?” They are very sensitive to this and have their very own little amp meters to gauge it by. Anything that sheds light on the con game effect that Credit creation (fractional reserve accounting) morphs into is not welcome to those elite managers. They know exactly how to fix the world’s problems, but that will of necessity include them relinquishing some of their power back to the producers of the wealth. This is why they prefer to find new gimmicks, new toys and new services to stimulate the system, over the simple act of allowing primary producers of real and basic commodities to flourish.

The system can run without the services of a toy maker and a cosmetic surgeon, but not without the services of a farmer, a coal miner, a truck driver and a policeman. So to allow commodity prices to rise is the one solution that always works, but they resist it as long as their gonads allow them to. Obviously if they let the world run out of oil, all h_ll will break loose, and the power they cherish is lost anyway, so they fear the uprising of the population at large more than any one other occurrence, yes, even more than their very own demise, as these folks are most likely dynasty oriented and work to preserve their offspring’s interest as much as their own. After all, who amongst the workers and staff would they consider capable enough to invest with ALL of their power? So those who carry my genes are obviously my pick if I have to nominate a hero.

All systems are designed to work for the group in theory, but the longer they stand (like the tree in the forest) the more they work for those who control them and for the system itself (what did Caiaphaus say? “It is better than one man die than all the people”. ) The masses have the power of numbers, but with careful programming they only act on the instructions of their leader. They buy what is SOLD to them. The masses are asleep (most of the time, Thank God).

So if the said managers think we are about to lose it, they will allow more power to flow to the primary producers of the wealth, not that they have much power to prevent it at the end of the day, anyway. This is labeled “Inflation” and can then be blamed on the ‘workers’ …………..those poor unenlightened souls who control the world. When in fact, inflation (this present wave) was created the moment the World Bank was given the OK to make a few more billion dollars with their beaut little computer to bail out Wall Street after 9/11.

No one cares what inflation happens with toys and cosmetic surgery. Those wealth producers are secondary and have no real power like those on the primary producer/world controller axis. The rising cost of milk is a very damaging thing to the game of acquiring wealth by stealth, or as we know it, by inflation. Running out of milk is even more damaging. So the good guys at the top will act when necessary to promote the flow of wealth back to the primary producers of wealth, even if they are Chinamen, Jews, Arabs, Philistines, Gentiles, beekeepers and gold miners. They would rather concede a little power back to their enemies, rather than lose the whole show.

Time marches forward and we will change our capitalist systems into socialist ones (and vice versa) as required to keep the minds of the masses pacified. It is only a name over the door anyway. In the mean time, what do the little trees in the forest do? The big trees are hogging all the light! And how will the little trees perform when and if they get to be big trees? It all comes back around the circle to me and to you. What are you going to do today with what light you are getting? What am I going to do? Will I buy gold or sell? Will I produce honey or consume some more cosmetic surgery? Will I eat real food or keep getting fatter and fatter on Insulin and Manufactured Corn Syrups? Will I buy a Hummer or a Hyundai? What you do today influences what happens tomorrow……………. Big time, ……………………… and more so for you individually than for the great biomass.

I hope this does not exceed the limits you had in mind, George, when you mentioned hoping to stimulate conversation. If JohnF is reading he can probably set me back on the straight and narrow rather quickly anyway. As Huckleberry Finn said, “If I had more time I could have written you a shorter letter.”

Cheers,

John Smith

PS: When Warren Buffett practically cornered the silver market he was in a very precarious position. His life was probably at risk too, and from a variety of fronts. He became a challenge to the world’s most powerful managers. I suspect he was coerced into coming on line with them in preference to confronting them head on. Rumor has it that his silver hoard was used to set up one of the Silver ETFs, ……………. I seem to remember that it was with Barclays Bank? You would have to be a Jesus, a Mandela or a Gandhi, to feel guilty over a score like that one…………. And still survive it. Now, does he identify with ‘them’ or does he simply feel like a poor battler who made the American Dream a reality?

[George Fergusson]

But, it should be pointed out that many of the "invited economists" are not economists.

And thank goodness for that :)

It should be pointed out that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are not economists either.