<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Capital, Capitalists and Capitalism (Part I)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-hendrickson/capital-capitalists-and-capitalism-part-i/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-hendrickson/capital-capitalists-and-capitalism-part-i/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=capital-capitalists-and-capitalism-part-i</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 01:41:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-hendrickson/capital-capitalists-and-capitalism-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-5290491</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Oct 2013 03:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=199358#comment-5290491</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Virtually everyone has drifted to the left, both &quot;conservatives&quot; and &quot;liberals.&quot;


Generally speaking you won&#039;t find a liberal on the right any longer. It&#039;s often a cover label. True conservatives are of course on the right still. Not everyone lives up to their creeds.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Virtually everyone has drifted to the left, both &#8220;conservatives&#8221; and &#8220;liberals.&#8221;</p>
<p>Generally speaking you won&#8217;t find a liberal on the right any longer. It&#8217;s often a cover label. True conservatives are of course on the right still. Not everyone lives up to their creeds.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stop lying to the blind</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-hendrickson/capital-capitalists-and-capitalism-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-5257686</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Stop lying to the blind]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Aug 2013 18:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=199358#comment-5257686</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I stopped reading this nonsense when i saw &#039;libertarians and conservatives on one side and liberals and other statists on the other&#039; suggesting liberals are now statists, conservatives and (neo)libertarians are now antistatists. Haha. Who reads this propaganda? What happened to fact? Libertarians today (rothbardians, hayekeans) are minarchists, not antistatists. Rothbard says &#039;we cannot call ourselves anarchists.&#039; Hayek and Mises were both statists. Traditional libertarian socialists, yes, they were more or less anarchists. As for having conservatives on the opposite side to statists? Come on. FFS. Next you&#039;ll be saying communism was statist. Lol. This is either deliberate propaganda or just naïve idiocy.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I stopped reading this nonsense when i saw &#8216;libertarians and conservatives on one side and liberals and other statists on the other&#8217; suggesting liberals are now statists, conservatives and (neo)libertarians are now antistatists. Haha. Who reads this propaganda? What happened to fact? Libertarians today (rothbardians, hayekeans) are minarchists, not antistatists. Rothbard says &#8216;we cannot call ourselves anarchists.&#8217; Hayek and Mises were both statists. Traditional libertarian socialists, yes, they were more or less anarchists. As for having conservatives on the opposite side to statists? Come on. FFS. Next you&#8217;ll be saying communism was statist. Lol. This is either deliberate propaganda or just naïve idiocy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-hendrickson/capital-capitalists-and-capitalism-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-5257342</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Aug 2013 04:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=199358#comment-5257342</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Actually, I am not arguing, OFM. I mean, I am not trying to impose my PoV on you. But I must admit that the use of the term &quot;communism&quot; as an equivalent to the four-letter word set is totally vexing.&quot;

Communism is a complex ideology that comes in part from benign or even compassionate motives in some cases.

However, in the end it has basically been used in evil and or delusional ways. And by the time you perform a detailed analysis of communism, you see that the theories are fundamentally destroyed when you rectify the fallacies.

I think what happened in terms of the discourse is that people get frustrated with their inability to take the conversation towards those root fallacies and will declare it to be evil beforehand so as not to miss the opportunity. This some times baits the supporter of communism to call the bluff. If the anti-communist interlocutor knows what he&#039;s talking about he can show that tyranny is an absolute requirement for communism and it also depends on theories of productivity that are easy to disprove.

If you want to defend some historical communist or socialist movements, you have to acknowledge the fundamental flaws and clearly articulate what you&#039;re defending. You might discover that at that point you&#039;re not really defending communism.

&quot;This is how BHO &amp; Co. showered you with words and stole your country from you.&quot;



He stole the country by promising &quot;free lunch&quot; to people who&#039;ve been indoctrinated to think that if not for greedy &quot;rich capitalists&quot; then the government could make everyone else&#039;s life better.


Virtually all of those false ideas came from socialist and communist propaganda.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Actually, I am not arguing, OFM. I mean, I am not trying to impose my PoV on you. But I must admit that the use of the term &#8220;communism&#8221; as an equivalent to the four-letter word set is totally vexing.&#8221;</p>
<p>Communism is a complex ideology that comes in part from benign or even compassionate motives in some cases.</p>
<p>However, in the end it has basically been used in evil and or delusional ways. And by the time you perform a detailed analysis of communism, you see that the theories are fundamentally destroyed when you rectify the fallacies.</p>
<p>I think what happened in terms of the discourse is that people get frustrated with their inability to take the conversation towards those root fallacies and will declare it to be evil beforehand so as not to miss the opportunity. This some times baits the supporter of communism to call the bluff. If the anti-communist interlocutor knows what he&#8217;s talking about he can show that tyranny is an absolute requirement for communism and it also depends on theories of productivity that are easy to disprove.</p>
<p>If you want to defend some historical communist or socialist movements, you have to acknowledge the fundamental flaws and clearly articulate what you&#8217;re defending. You might discover that at that point you&#8217;re not really defending communism.</p>
<p>&#8220;This is how BHO &amp; Co. showered you with words and stole your country from you.&#8221;</p>
<p>He stole the country by promising &#8220;free lunch&#8221; to people who&#8217;ve been indoctrinated to think that if not for greedy &#8220;rich capitalists&#8221; then the government could make everyone else&#8217;s life better.</p>
<p>Virtually all of those false ideas came from socialist and communist propaganda.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-hendrickson/capital-capitalists-and-capitalism-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-5256610</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Aug 2013 00:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=199358#comment-5256610</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Can&#039;t the tension simply be between private interest and something we haven&#039;t really discussed--the &quot;pubic good&quot; (or what used to be known as the &quot;commons?&quot;) This is an everyday social tension.&quot;

Sure, but that tension doesn&#039;t bother me. It&#039;s not a denial of that tension to point out that most of the political tension is either fundamentally caused by socialist delusions, or distorted by them.

&quot;Just because there is a &quot;collective&quot; element to it, and because government (local, state and national) is generally the avenue we collectively appeal to redress grievances, this doesn&#039;t rise to the level of socialism.&quot;

Collective action is not necessarily collectivism. 

Definition of COLLECTIVISM:

1: a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control

2: emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity

There are perhaps some subjective thresholds, but I generally give people the benefit of the doubt. I won&#039;t say it&#039;s collectivism until I can clear show where the rights of the individual have been compromised without any clear reason.

Some clean water laws are rational public policy, collective action, and not collectivism. Collectivism is telling a man he can&#039;t use too much water on his farm because of some nebulous greater good claim. If you don&#039;t have specific groups of individuals whose rights are being weighed, that&#039;s collectivism. That&#039;s my threshold for it.

Or put another way, the rights of the collective are legitimate when you are legitimately bundling the individual rights. If these rights of this supposed class can not be objectively connected with real individuals, then you&#039;ve clearly gone over to the collectivist camp.

In our civilization, it is legitimate to act collectively, but not to create theoretical classes as containers for rights that don&#039;t exist. Only individuals have rights. Individuals can act collectively. Without those individuals, obviously you have a tyrant who is trying to create an elite class of social engineers either because they want the power, or because they&#039;re so delusional that they think their plans are so great that they don&#039;t need the legitimacy of getting consensus from the individuals they claim to represent. That&#039;s why they use concepts of class so that nobody can prove or disprove that they truly represent that class, which should be in the end a bunch of individuals.

&quot;But Adam Smith&#039;s invisible hand becomes even more invisible in an age where multinationals operate and subterfuge is institutionalized on a large scale in our State. It&#039;s something I&#039;m grateful we&#039;re opening our eyes to, but it&#039;s also something that in a sense, that we &quot;asked for,&quot; something that creates a social tension that is not &quot;socialism.&quot;&quot;



I didn&#039;t say that all social tension was socialist. I tried to imply that my concern regarding is the social tension caused by delusional socialist ideas. Even if the root concerns people have are legitimate, if their orientation is to forget about the rights of individuals and to forget that a group does not have legitimacy unless they truly represent the individuals they claim to, and balance their claims against the rights of the people they want to take from, those concerns are either rooted in socialist ideology, or their arguments are distorted by socialist ideology.


I don&#039;t denounce everything about them. They are not my existential enemies. I&#039;m saying that if they want real progress, they need to learn how to understand how our economy, constitution and our governing institutions work.


It&#039;s a huge fallacy that conservatives oppose progress. They oppose delusion. And some times they disagree about specific progressive concepts, like sexual freedom and social mores. They expect progress to come primarily from the private sector, and for the government to ensure law and order according to the constitution. Which already guarantees equality before the law. The socialist delusion comes in when people want end-result equality, regardless of merit. Just because it seems fair or whatever.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Can&#8217;t the tension simply be between private interest and something we haven&#8217;t really discussed&#8211;the &#8220;pubic good&#8221; (or what used to be known as the &#8220;commons?&#8221;) This is an everyday social tension.&#8221;</p>
<p>Sure, but that tension doesn&#8217;t bother me. It&#8217;s not a denial of that tension to point out that most of the political tension is either fundamentally caused by socialist delusions, or distorted by them.</p>
<p>&#8220;Just because there is a &#8220;collective&#8221; element to it, and because government (local, state and national) is generally the avenue we collectively appeal to redress grievances, this doesn&#8217;t rise to the level of socialism.&#8221;</p>
<p>Collective action is not necessarily collectivism. </p>
<p>Definition of COLLECTIVISM:</p>
<p>1: a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control</p>
<p>2: emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity</p>
<p>There are perhaps some subjective thresholds, but I generally give people the benefit of the doubt. I won&#8217;t say it&#8217;s collectivism until I can clear show where the rights of the individual have been compromised without any clear reason.</p>
<p>Some clean water laws are rational public policy, collective action, and not collectivism. Collectivism is telling a man he can&#8217;t use too much water on his farm because of some nebulous greater good claim. If you don&#8217;t have specific groups of individuals whose rights are being weighed, that&#8217;s collectivism. That&#8217;s my threshold for it.</p>
<p>Or put another way, the rights of the collective are legitimate when you are legitimately bundling the individual rights. If these rights of this supposed class can not be objectively connected with real individuals, then you&#8217;ve clearly gone over to the collectivist camp.</p>
<p>In our civilization, it is legitimate to act collectively, but not to create theoretical classes as containers for rights that don&#8217;t exist. Only individuals have rights. Individuals can act collectively. Without those individuals, obviously you have a tyrant who is trying to create an elite class of social engineers either because they want the power, or because they&#8217;re so delusional that they think their plans are so great that they don&#8217;t need the legitimacy of getting consensus from the individuals they claim to represent. That&#8217;s why they use concepts of class so that nobody can prove or disprove that they truly represent that class, which should be in the end a bunch of individuals.</p>
<p>&#8220;But Adam Smith&#8217;s invisible hand becomes even more invisible in an age where multinationals operate and subterfuge is institutionalized on a large scale in our State. It&#8217;s something I&#8217;m grateful we&#8217;re opening our eyes to, but it&#8217;s also something that in a sense, that we &#8220;asked for,&#8221; something that creates a social tension that is not &#8220;socialism.&#8221;&#8221;</p>
<p>I didn&#8217;t say that all social tension was socialist. I tried to imply that my concern regarding is the social tension caused by delusional socialist ideas. Even if the root concerns people have are legitimate, if their orientation is to forget about the rights of individuals and to forget that a group does not have legitimacy unless they truly represent the individuals they claim to, and balance their claims against the rights of the people they want to take from, those concerns are either rooted in socialist ideology, or their arguments are distorted by socialist ideology.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t denounce everything about them. They are not my existential enemies. I&#8217;m saying that if they want real progress, they need to learn how to understand how our economy, constitution and our governing institutions work.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s a huge fallacy that conservatives oppose progress. They oppose delusion. And some times they disagree about specific progressive concepts, like sexual freedom and social mores. They expect progress to come primarily from the private sector, and for the government to ensure law and order according to the constitution. Which already guarantees equality before the law. The socialist delusion comes in when people want end-result equality, regardless of merit. Just because it seems fair or whatever.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: WW4</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-hendrickson/capital-capitalists-and-capitalism-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-5256308</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[WW4]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Aug 2013 15:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=199358#comment-5256308</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;You&#039;re seeing the tensions between socialist fantasies and the need to go out and let people produce things, trade them, and live with a reasonable degree of liberty.&quot;

That strikes me as doctrinaire. Can&#039;t the tension simply be between private interest and something we haven&#039;t really discussed--the &quot;pubic good&quot; (or what used to be known as the &quot;commons?&quot;) This is an everyday social tension. Just because there is a &quot;collective&quot; element to it, and because government (local, state and national) is generally the avenue we collectively appeal to redress grievances, this doesn&#039;t rise to the level of socialism.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;You&#8217;re seeing the tensions between socialist fantasies and the need to go out and let people produce things, trade them, and live with a reasonable degree of liberty.&#8221;</p>
<p>That strikes me as doctrinaire. Can&#8217;t the tension simply be between private interest and something we haven&#8217;t really discussed&#8211;the &#8220;pubic good&#8221; (or what used to be known as the &#8220;commons?&#8221;) This is an everyday social tension. Just because there is a &#8220;collective&#8221; element to it, and because government (local, state and national) is generally the avenue we collectively appeal to redress grievances, this doesn&#8217;t rise to the level of socialism.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ReyR</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-hendrickson/capital-capitalists-and-capitalism-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-5330478</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ReyR]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2013 08:38:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=199358#comment-5330478</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[OFM: I am beginning to enjoy this exchange, you sound  like a sober thinker, and give me a hope that I can make myself understood.
“If you want to be honest, tell me it was worth killing and starving x number of people in order to be a player on the world stage as a nation.”
Frankly, I can&#039;t see it your way, because Russians don&#039;t hold monopoly on “killing and starving” if we compare modern Russian history with, say, the United States. Surely political oppression and atrocities are there, but we can find all that and more in modern American and British history. Like the Oklahoma famine that was blamed on the Dust Bowl and &quot;poor farming practices&quot;. But to explain why hell broke loose in Oklahoma, I rely on credible evidence from my former work-mates, US nationals who were there when it all happened on Route 66, and later in California. It was hell, they told me. It&#039;s all history, and well documented. We can also read John Steinbeck&#039;s novel (hardly a popular author now, and mostly for political reasons). Then again, Caldwell&#039;s Tobacco Road has little to do with human rights and liberties. You see, I have read some pretty unpopular American writers, some of them out of print now.))) But of course Steinbeck was branded as a commie, his book banned and burned. Americans don&#039;t seem to befriend the truth so much as they claim. So are we even surprised that your average community college graduate has never heard of Okies starved to death, or even about the Irish potato famine, but he does know about the Russian communist cannibals. 
Sure I could share some experiences just to illustrate that the West tends to exaggerate the atrocities of the Soviet era in Russia. Moreover, having lived about 20 years in South Russia, I have enough evidence to prove my point, but I fear that all this is usually wasted on a Western reader.
In a nutshell, my impression is that Russian history is grossly and deliberately misrepresented in the West, caused by a blend of western interests and the bitterness of two waves of Russian emigration. This alone is enough for an independent paper, so I leave it be. As to how Russian history is misrepresented, I know stories enough to fill a book even from my personal experiences, but let&#039;s walk some common ground. One example: it&#039;s a fact that the Russians were the first to put the sputnik on the earth&#039;s orbit, and Gagarin was the first man in space. But if we looked up &quot;Space Exploration&quot; in an English-language encyclopedia, we used to find mostly description of American achievements, with both Gagarin and the sputnik drowned in a sea of words. Yes, they were there somewhere, but the authors made it sure that the unprepared reader would never find them. This at least was the case before web-based encyclopedias became editable, and now our guys ensure that Gagarin and the sputnik are where they belong by right: in paragraph one. But I remember my amazement at the MS Encarta some years ago where I COULD NOT find Gagarin. This is but one example. But when I search my memory for any example of successful Russian propaganda in 54 year of my life, the list is pretty short. Russians have always failed in all brainwashing efforts pathetically, unlike the Chinese (who invented the word). Not that I&#039;m much ashamed though.
A serious flaw in the Russian national character as I see it is that politically we are unsophisticated; to put it bluntly, our average Russian is a poor liar. On the other hand, English speakers rise to unprecedented heights in the art of storytelling. This, btw, explains Hollywood and the indisputably best fiction writers in human history. The two sides of the same coin: bullshit and art – they are both storytelling. Our disability here is tragic. Just look at Germany: who committed more atrocities, us or them? Now, who is the devil? That&#039;s how I see Russia&#039;s bad international image mainly as a case of extremely incompetent PR management. Not entirely (blameless empires don&#039;t exist), but predominantly.
I am Russian-born but cosmopolitan, and the Soviet system punished people like me. At 25, I saw the West as superior in every way. The system denied us the right to walk around and make our own conclusions, and that was one of its really disingenuous features. In fact, one of the errors that triggered its self-destruction. Then the system expired, but we survived, and had decades to travel, observe, and ponder. Now I know for a fact that although life in the USSR did have its dark sides, they were outbalanced by the bright sides. Not because then I was younger and now entertain some emotional memories, but because of objective facts. Even as an off-margin individualist by nature and thus opposed to the socialist mob mindset, I have to admit now that the Soviet system worked well. But I would need a long discourse to present at least some of the evidence convincingly, the format of our dialog makes it impossible.
Now about failing systems: all systems age, complete the cycle, and collapse. No system has existed forever, nor can it. Arrival of ever more complex technologies only accelerates the cycle. It took centuries for the Roman Empire to collapse. The British Empire&#039;s cycle was much shorter, and we Russians managed to run the course in some 80 years. The American Empire rose after WWII, and you are bound to collapse before 2020 – an even shorter span.
As to current events, it&#039;s just the matter of the cycle phase. Our cycle goes before the US by some decades. We had a wave of repressions in 1930s, you all are going through a similar phase now. In 1980, SWAT teams made less than 3,000 calls; in 2012, they answered more than 80,000 calls, and on every average day, more than 100 American households are visited by a SWAT team. The US has the largest prison population in history right now. Sounds pretty much like Stalin&#039;s purges to me.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OFM: I am beginning to enjoy this exchange, you sound  like a sober thinker, and give me a hope that I can make myself understood.<br />
“If you want to be honest, tell me it was worth killing and starving x number of people in order to be a player on the world stage as a nation.”<br />
Frankly, I can&#8217;t see it your way, because Russians don&#8217;t hold monopoly on “killing and starving” if we compare modern Russian history with, say, the United States. Surely political oppression and atrocities are there, but we can find all that and more in modern American and British history. Like the Oklahoma famine that was blamed on the Dust Bowl and &#8220;poor farming practices&#8221;. But to explain why hell broke loose in Oklahoma, I rely on credible evidence from my former work-mates, US nationals who were there when it all happened on Route 66, and later in California. It was hell, they told me. It&#8217;s all history, and well documented. We can also read John Steinbeck&#8217;s novel (hardly a popular author now, and mostly for political reasons). Then again, Caldwell&#8217;s Tobacco Road has little to do with human rights and liberties. You see, I have read some pretty unpopular American writers, some of them out of print now.))) But of course Steinbeck was branded as a commie, his book banned and burned. Americans don&#8217;t seem to befriend the truth so much as they claim. So are we even surprised that your average community college graduate has never heard of Okies starved to death, or even about the Irish potato famine, but he does know about the Russian communist cannibals.<br />
Sure I could share some experiences just to illustrate that the West tends to exaggerate the atrocities of the Soviet era in Russia. Moreover, having lived about 20 years in South Russia, I have enough evidence to prove my point, but I fear that all this is usually wasted on a Western reader.<br />
In a nutshell, my impression is that Russian history is grossly and deliberately misrepresented in the West, caused by a blend of western interests and the bitterness of two waves of Russian emigration. This alone is enough for an independent paper, so I leave it be. As to how Russian history is misrepresented, I know stories enough to fill a book even from my personal experiences, but let&#8217;s walk some common ground. One example: it&#8217;s a fact that the Russians were the first to put the sputnik on the earth&#8217;s orbit, and Gagarin was the first man in space. But if we looked up &#8220;Space Exploration&#8221; in an English-language encyclopedia, we used to find mostly description of American achievements, with both Gagarin and the sputnik drowned in a sea of words. Yes, they were there somewhere, but the authors made it sure that the unprepared reader would never find them. This at least was the case before web-based encyclopedias became editable, and now our guys ensure that Gagarin and the sputnik are where they belong by right: in paragraph one. But I remember my amazement at the MS Encarta some years ago where I COULD NOT find Gagarin. This is but one example. But when I search my memory for any example of successful Russian propaganda in 54 year of my life, the list is pretty short. Russians have always failed in all brainwashing efforts pathetically, unlike the Chinese (who invented the word). Not that I&#8217;m much ashamed though.<br />
A serious flaw in the Russian national character as I see it is that politically we are unsophisticated; to put it bluntly, our average Russian is a poor liar. On the other hand, English speakers rise to unprecedented heights in the art of storytelling. This, btw, explains Hollywood and the indisputably best fiction writers in human history. The two sides of the same coin: bullshit and art – they are both storytelling. Our disability here is tragic. Just look at Germany: who committed more atrocities, us or them? Now, who is the devil? That&#8217;s how I see Russia&#8217;s bad international image mainly as a case of extremely incompetent PR management. Not entirely (blameless empires don&#8217;t exist), but predominantly.<br />
I am Russian-born but cosmopolitan, and the Soviet system punished people like me. At 25, I saw the West as superior in every way. The system denied us the right to walk around and make our own conclusions, and that was one of its really disingenuous features. In fact, one of the errors that triggered its self-destruction. Then the system expired, but we survived, and had decades to travel, observe, and ponder. Now I know for a fact that although life in the USSR did have its dark sides, they were outbalanced by the bright sides. Not because then I was younger and now entertain some emotional memories, but because of objective facts. Even as an off-margin individualist by nature and thus opposed to the socialist mob mindset, I have to admit now that the Soviet system worked well. But I would need a long discourse to present at least some of the evidence convincingly, the format of our dialog makes it impossible.<br />
Now about failing systems: all systems age, complete the cycle, and collapse. No system has existed forever, nor can it. Arrival of ever more complex technologies only accelerates the cycle. It took centuries for the Roman Empire to collapse. The British Empire&#8217;s cycle was much shorter, and we Russians managed to run the course in some 80 years. The American Empire rose after WWII, and you are bound to collapse before 2020 – an even shorter span.<br />
As to current events, it&#8217;s just the matter of the cycle phase. Our cycle goes before the US by some decades. We had a wave of repressions in 1930s, you all are going through a similar phase now. In 1980, SWAT teams made less than 3,000 calls; in 2012, they answered more than 80,000 calls, and on every average day, more than 100 American households are visited by a SWAT team. The US has the largest prison population in history right now. Sounds pretty much like Stalin&#8217;s purges to me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NAHALKIDES</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-hendrickson/capital-capitalists-and-capitalism-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-5255405</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[NAHALKIDES]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2013 01:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=199358#comment-5255405</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Communism only &quot;worked&quot; to the extent the primitive tribes you mentioned lived in miserable poverty.  Communism&#039;s failure become more obvious on a large scale, but it does fail on a small scale also - it must, because producers are not free to act on their own judgment.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Communism only &#8220;worked&#8221; to the extent the primitive tribes you mentioned lived in miserable poverty.  Communism&#8217;s failure become more obvious on a large scale, but it does fail on a small scale also &#8211; it must, because producers are not free to act on their own judgment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-hendrickson/capital-capitalists-and-capitalism-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-5255391</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2013 00:54:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=199358#comment-5255391</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;As far as I understand, there is no such thing as a fair judicial system, or at least I have yet to see one.&quot;

It depends on how you define fairness and what you expect. There is no such thing as &quot;social justice.&quot; You have justice or anarchy. But there is no perfect justice either, so striving to be fair according to the constitution that is applied equally to each citizen is all we can expect.

 

&quot;No system is perfect, and fail it shall. Just give it some time.&quot;

A system doesn&#039;t fail merely because it&#039;s not perfect, unless you define failure as lack of perfection.

&quot;And arguably, even Russian socialism worked quite well at first, let&#039;s say, until around mid-1960s.&quot;

You can only argue that it worked in terms of industrializing a nation. If we don&#039;t care about individuals who are persecuted and even killed, that&#039;s fine. But we reject this kind of collectivism as cruel and totally unjust. That&#039;s why all of the propaganda was needed to convince Americans they were being cheated. The fact is most of the people the Soviets were trying to influence, maybe even all of them, would have been much worse off under communism and probably most of them dead or in jail.

So my primary fundamental complete is the with lies. If you want to be honest, tell me it was worth killing and starving x number of people in order to be a player on the world stage as a nation. At least that&#039;s honest and you can refer to Soviet Communism as successful in that context.

Let me ask this question: What if the Russians overthrew the Czar and instituted a constitution that emulated the United State&#039;s constitution and government? I&#039;m not asking if they would have had immediate popular support. I&#039;m asking where you think Russia would be today, or would have been by the time Germany was experimenting with socialism?

Russian people are not the problem. Russia has plenty of resources. You&#039;d probably be a superpower, and we in the rest of the world would have a lot fewer lies to contend with today that in reality originated in Soviet Russia.

&quot;On the other hand, I believe that modern American tragedy is that you have had generation after generation of those who have done nothing to win their freedom.&quot;

That&#039;s really just another perspective that is consistent with our complaints. The very least we need to do is to educate our children about the price of freedom and how to react when it is threatened, from anywhere.

&quot;I also recall Aldous Huxley&#039;s narrative of three generations it takes to complete the capitalist cycle: one to amass the capital by hook or by crook, one to laundry it, and one to deny the first two and to squander the money. It looks to me that right now most of US-born wasp Americans belong to the fourth generation, if not sixth.&quot;

It&#039;s more parable than paradigm, but I take your point. And I&#039;m not so sure it&#039;s the WASPs that are the problem. Maybe many pseudo WASPs are rolling over, but there are socialist dupes from all walks of life. It&#039;s much easier to fall for the lies if you have any reason to feel envy and or fall for the class victim narratives.

&quot;The processes of your current historical phase as seen from my remote crow&#039;s nest reminds me very much of what I observed in Russia during the late 1980s. Similarity is uncanny. This includes what you described as “More energy is spent fighting it rather than learning how to manage it”. But the whole point is that the system has entered the pre-collapse stage and become unmanageable now.&quot;

It is unmanageable because of the lies and tensions those lies add to existing challenges of real life. That&#039;s my entire point.

There are so many overlooked opportunities to leverage capital and make the pie bigger and more nutritious than ever. People each have finite resources, and when they are distracted by fighting the very system that they should be harnessing, obviously the pie will not be as big as it could be. People are hurting themselves and blaming phantoms of the class warfare fantasies.

The only thing that makes capitalism fail is lack of capital. Which is not the problem. The problem is lack of productive participation. That&#039;s not a failure of capitalism. That&#039;s a failure of society, and in this case that society is merely blaming &quot;capitalism&quot; without even understanding what they&#039;re saying.

&quot;This is also why I said above that America is lost in words.&quot;


America is lost in competing definitions of words. Some times the lost can find there way.




&quot;I remember vividly our nationwide debates just as we were balancing on the verge of the precipice. Except that at the time we didn&#039;t know it. And now I get the feeling that I&#039;m watching a replay, but this time it&#039;s a different country.&quot;



Right. You&#039;re seeing the tensions between socialist fantasies and the need to go out and let people produce things, trade them, and live with a reasonable degree of liberty.


The collapse of the Soviet system should have been a great lesson for the world, but apparently not.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;As far as I understand, there is no such thing as a fair judicial system, or at least I have yet to see one.&#8221;</p>
<p>It depends on how you define fairness and what you expect. There is no such thing as &#8220;social justice.&#8221; You have justice or anarchy. But there is no perfect justice either, so striving to be fair according to the constitution that is applied equally to each citizen is all we can expect.</p>
<p>&#8220;No system is perfect, and fail it shall. Just give it some time.&#8221;</p>
<p>A system doesn&#8217;t fail merely because it&#8217;s not perfect, unless you define failure as lack of perfection.</p>
<p>&#8220;And arguably, even Russian socialism worked quite well at first, let&#8217;s say, until around mid-1960s.&#8221;</p>
<p>You can only argue that it worked in terms of industrializing a nation. If we don&#8217;t care about individuals who are persecuted and even killed, that&#8217;s fine. But we reject this kind of collectivism as cruel and totally unjust. That&#8217;s why all of the propaganda was needed to convince Americans they were being cheated. The fact is most of the people the Soviets were trying to influence, maybe even all of them, would have been much worse off under communism and probably most of them dead or in jail.</p>
<p>So my primary fundamental complete is the with lies. If you want to be honest, tell me it was worth killing and starving x number of people in order to be a player on the world stage as a nation. At least that&#8217;s honest and you can refer to Soviet Communism as successful in that context.</p>
<p>Let me ask this question: What if the Russians overthrew the Czar and instituted a constitution that emulated the United State&#8217;s constitution and government? I&#8217;m not asking if they would have had immediate popular support. I&#8217;m asking where you think Russia would be today, or would have been by the time Germany was experimenting with socialism?</p>
<p>Russian people are not the problem. Russia has plenty of resources. You&#8217;d probably be a superpower, and we in the rest of the world would have a lot fewer lies to contend with today that in reality originated in Soviet Russia.</p>
<p>&#8220;On the other hand, I believe that modern American tragedy is that you have had generation after generation of those who have done nothing to win their freedom.&#8221;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s really just another perspective that is consistent with our complaints. The very least we need to do is to educate our children about the price of freedom and how to react when it is threatened, from anywhere.</p>
<p>&#8220;I also recall Aldous Huxley&#8217;s narrative of three generations it takes to complete the capitalist cycle: one to amass the capital by hook or by crook, one to laundry it, and one to deny the first two and to squander the money. It looks to me that right now most of US-born wasp Americans belong to the fourth generation, if not sixth.&#8221;</p>
<p>It&#8217;s more parable than paradigm, but I take your point. And I&#8217;m not so sure it&#8217;s the WASPs that are the problem. Maybe many pseudo WASPs are rolling over, but there are socialist dupes from all walks of life. It&#8217;s much easier to fall for the lies if you have any reason to feel envy and or fall for the class victim narratives.</p>
<p>&#8220;The processes of your current historical phase as seen from my remote crow&#8217;s nest reminds me very much of what I observed in Russia during the late 1980s. Similarity is uncanny. This includes what you described as “More energy is spent fighting it rather than learning how to manage it”. But the whole point is that the system has entered the pre-collapse stage and become unmanageable now.&#8221;</p>
<p>It is unmanageable because of the lies and tensions those lies add to existing challenges of real life. That&#8217;s my entire point.</p>
<p>There are so many overlooked opportunities to leverage capital and make the pie bigger and more nutritious than ever. People each have finite resources, and when they are distracted by fighting the very system that they should be harnessing, obviously the pie will not be as big as it could be. People are hurting themselves and blaming phantoms of the class warfare fantasies.</p>
<p>The only thing that makes capitalism fail is lack of capital. Which is not the problem. The problem is lack of productive participation. That&#8217;s not a failure of capitalism. That&#8217;s a failure of society, and in this case that society is merely blaming &#8220;capitalism&#8221; without even understanding what they&#8217;re saying.</p>
<p>&#8220;This is also why I said above that America is lost in words.&#8221;</p>
<p>America is lost in competing definitions of words. Some times the lost can find there way.</p>
<p>&#8220;I remember vividly our nationwide debates just as we were balancing on the verge of the precipice. Except that at the time we didn&#8217;t know it. And now I get the feeling that I&#8217;m watching a replay, but this time it&#8217;s a different country.&#8221;</p>
<p>Right. You&#8217;re seeing the tensions between socialist fantasies and the need to go out and let people produce things, trade them, and live with a reasonable degree of liberty.</p>
<p>The collapse of the Soviet system should have been a great lesson for the world, but apparently not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mitaky</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-hendrickson/capital-capitalists-and-capitalism-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-5255246</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[mitaky]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 19:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=199358#comment-5255246</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Financial capital (money and credit) under central and fractional reserve banking do not come from wealth. We have a debt-based and not wealth-based money system. This is not recognized by most people, including economists. Nature of capital and capitalism has changed after fractional reserve banking and so-called democracy, where Government gave away the power of creating credit to central banks and private/commercial banks.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Financial capital (money and credit) under central and fractional reserve banking do not come from wealth. We have a debt-based and not wealth-based money system. This is not recognized by most people, including economists. Nature of capital and capitalism has changed after fractional reserve banking and so-called democracy, where Government gave away the power of creating credit to central banks and private/commercial banks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: reader</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-hendrickson/capital-capitalists-and-capitalism-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-5255170</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[reader]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=199358#comment-5255170</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yeah, I see, another Bryzgalov. Afraid, not quite enough for Leo Tolstoy. Good luck living off your farmland, Vasya. Just one advise: reread Ilf and Petrov&#039;s bit about Vasissualy Lokhankin. That&#039;s be like looking in the mirror for you.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, I see, another Bryzgalov. Afraid, not quite enough for Leo Tolstoy. Good luck living off your farmland, Vasya. Just one advise: reread Ilf and Petrov&#8217;s bit about Vasissualy Lokhankin. That&#8217;s be like looking in the mirror for you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ReyR</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-hendrickson/capital-capitalists-and-capitalism-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-5255117</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ReyR]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 15:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=199358#comment-5255117</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[1. Markets fall (like the US market). Businesses go bust and can&#039;t afford buying commodities (like the US market). 
2. You guessed right: I do grow vegetables for my own consumption, I&#039;ve got 4 acres of land and one farmhand for this specific purpose (he is more civil than you).
3. Rudimentary knowledge may differ: economics-wise, you are pre-Ptolemaic, I&#039;m post-Galilean in astronomic views.
4. Seeing how worked up you are, I am much amused, oh profile-free reader. With you, I&#039;m never bored. Be sure to come back, my friend.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>1. Markets fall (like the US market). Businesses go bust and can&#8217;t afford buying commodities (like the US market).<br />
2. You guessed right: I do grow vegetables for my own consumption, I&#8217;ve got 4 acres of land and one farmhand for this specific purpose (he is more civil than you).<br />
3. Rudimentary knowledge may differ: economics-wise, you are pre-Ptolemaic, I&#8217;m post-Galilean in astronomic views.<br />
4. Seeing how worked up you are, I am much amused, oh profile-free reader. With you, I&#8217;m never bored. Be sure to come back, my friend.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: reader</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-hendrickson/capital-capitalists-and-capitalism-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-5255083</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[reader]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 14:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=199358#comment-5255083</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nuclear family is going strong in Russia? Your an ignorant idiot pretending to know everything - the worst kind, and you definitely don&#039;t represent Russians, many of whom a much smarter than you are, and you know it.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nuclear family is going strong in Russia? Your an ignorant idiot pretending to know everything &#8211; the worst kind, and you definitely don&#8217;t represent Russians, many of whom a much smarter than you are, and you know it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: reader</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-hendrickson/capital-capitalists-and-capitalism-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-5255078</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[reader]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 14:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=199358#comment-5255078</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Stock and commodity market create liquidity, which makes possible for people to trade assets, including your homes. Otherwise, you&#039;d be stuck in your home and grow vegetables for your own consumption. Don&#039;t you think that a person must have at least some rudimentary knowledge about the subject matter before bloviating about it?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stock and commodity market create liquidity, which makes possible for people to trade assets, including your homes. Otherwise, you&#8217;d be stuck in your home and grow vegetables for your own consumption. Don&#8217;t you think that a person must have at least some rudimentary knowledge about the subject matter before bloviating about it?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ReyR</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-hendrickson/capital-capitalists-and-capitalism-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-5255074</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ReyR]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 14:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=199358#comment-5255074</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Risk management, of course, I agree. But having lived most of my life in the Big Brother&#039;s shadow, one learns to appreciate liberties and seek one&#039;s way around a wall rather than climbing over it. Fish grow big in turbulent water, we here have learned it the hard way.))) When there&#039;s too much law and order, I get suspicious and switch into the rear gear, just to be on the safe side. I prefer to deal with an individual officer, not with the office. An officer can become corrupt, but the office is corrupt from inception, it&#039;s part of the system, because any big system gets rotten sooner than later.
As far as I understand, there is no such thing as a fair judicial system, or at least I have yet to see one. This is just another junior scout tale. No system is perfect, and fail it shall. Just give it some time.
Complexity, certainly, is a serious factor, and any system, however perfectly designed, can only evolve so long before it inevitably collapses. And arguably, even Russian socialism worked quite well at first, let&#039;s say, until around mid-1960s. That is until it reached a natural threshold and was hijacked and run aground by parasitic elites and the Peter Principle complicated by other factors. This is god&#039;s own truth, and I base my assertion on sufficient evidence, including first-hand observations and experiences. It&#039;s my nation&#039;s history.
On the other hand, I believe that modern American tragedy is that you have had generation after generation of those who have done nothing to win their freedom. Ben Franklin said, &quot;We&#039;ve given you a Republic, if you can keep it.&quot; Well, I fear that Americans haven&#039;t kept it. I also recall Aldous Huxley&#039;s narrative of three generations it takes to complete the capitalist cycle: one to amass the capital by hook or by crook, one to laundry it, and one to deny the first two and to squander the money. It looks to me that right now most of US-born wasp Americans belong to the fourth generation, if not sixth.
The processes of your current historical phase as seen from my remote crow&#039;s nest reminds me very much of what I observed in Russia during the late 1980s. Similarity is uncanny. This includes what you described as “More energy is spent fighting it rather than learning how to manage it”. But the whole point is that the system has entered the pre-collapse stage and become unmanageable now. This is also why I said above that America is lost in words. I remember vividly our nationwide debates just as we were balancing on the verge of the precipice. Except that at the time we didn&#039;t know it. And now I get the feeling that I&#039;m watching a replay, but this time it&#039;s a different country.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Risk management, of course, I agree. But having lived most of my life in the Big Brother&#8217;s shadow, one learns to appreciate liberties and seek one&#8217;s way around a wall rather than climbing over it. Fish grow big in turbulent water, we here have learned it the hard way.))) When there&#8217;s too much law and order, I get suspicious and switch into the rear gear, just to be on the safe side. I prefer to deal with an individual officer, not with the office. An officer can become corrupt, but the office is corrupt from inception, it&#8217;s part of the system, because any big system gets rotten sooner than later.<br />
As far as I understand, there is no such thing as a fair judicial system, or at least I have yet to see one. This is just another junior scout tale. No system is perfect, and fail it shall. Just give it some time.<br />
Complexity, certainly, is a serious factor, and any system, however perfectly designed, can only evolve so long before it inevitably collapses. And arguably, even Russian socialism worked quite well at first, let&#8217;s say, until around mid-1960s. That is until it reached a natural threshold and was hijacked and run aground by parasitic elites and the Peter Principle complicated by other factors. This is god&#8217;s own truth, and I base my assertion on sufficient evidence, including first-hand observations and experiences. It&#8217;s my nation&#8217;s history.<br />
On the other hand, I believe that modern American tragedy is that you have had generation after generation of those who have done nothing to win their freedom. Ben Franklin said, &#8220;We&#8217;ve given you a Republic, if you can keep it.&#8221; Well, I fear that Americans haven&#8217;t kept it. I also recall Aldous Huxley&#8217;s narrative of three generations it takes to complete the capitalist cycle: one to amass the capital by hook or by crook, one to laundry it, and one to deny the first two and to squander the money. It looks to me that right now most of US-born wasp Americans belong to the fourth generation, if not sixth.<br />
The processes of your current historical phase as seen from my remote crow&#8217;s nest reminds me very much of what I observed in Russia during the late 1980s. Similarity is uncanny. This includes what you described as “More energy is spent fighting it rather than learning how to manage it”. But the whole point is that the system has entered the pre-collapse stage and become unmanageable now. This is also why I said above that America is lost in words. I remember vividly our nationwide debates just as we were balancing on the verge of the precipice. Except that at the time we didn&#8217;t know it. And now I get the feeling that I&#8217;m watching a replay, but this time it&#8217;s a different country.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-hendrickson/capital-capitalists-and-capitalism-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-5255002</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 12:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=199358#comment-5255002</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Your concern is risk management. That is why law and order as well as due process are so crucial to the success of capitalism. I mean success for those willing to learn and work. 


Modern technology makes the entire world more complicated, and therefore more difficult to understand. It only follows that capitalizing activities will also become more complex. That&#039;s again why a fair judicial system is crucial. 


But my main point is that this complexity also leads to higher risk, and highest for those who are not able to keep up with the complexities.


Actually education about capitalism should have given us many of the solutions, but our schools have instead taught hatred of capitalism. More energy is spent fighting it rather than learning how to manage it.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your concern is risk management. That is why law and order as well as due process are so crucial to the success of capitalism. I mean success for those willing to learn and work. </p>
<p>Modern technology makes the entire world more complicated, and therefore more difficult to understand. It only follows that capitalizing activities will also become more complex. That&#8217;s again why a fair judicial system is crucial. </p>
<p>But my main point is that this complexity also leads to higher risk, and highest for those who are not able to keep up with the complexities.</p>
<p>Actually education about capitalism should have given us many of the solutions, but our schools have instead taught hatred of capitalism. More energy is spent fighting it rather than learning how to manage it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ReyR</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-hendrickson/capital-capitalists-and-capitalism-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-5254954</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ReyR]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 09:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=199358#comment-5254954</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Exactly, thank you, OFM. You could not have obliged me in a more satisfactory way, by giving an illustration to my &quot;lost in words&quot;.
On a down market, if the owner treats his property as an asset, he is in for a nasty surprise. I wouldn&#039;t invest in property even here in Russia. In fact, I invest in farmland, which I can walk and work.
Resources can be delusory as I said. E.g. if you and I start a rather unsophisticated mining business, say a coal mine or a marble quarry, the resources item on my balance sheet will come from an expert report, and we all know what an expert report is. But if we register our business as a corporation, we will be tempted to make the resources line as impressive as we possibly can, and we&#039;ll not be the first to cheat. But this lie will sell well to stockholders who see us as another money tree.
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Exactly, thank you, OFM. You could not have obliged me in a more satisfactory way, by giving an illustration to my &#8220;lost in words&#8221;.<br />
On a down market, if the owner treats his property as an asset, he is in for a nasty surprise. I wouldn&#8217;t invest in property even here in Russia. In fact, I invest in farmland, which I can walk and work.<br />
Resources can be delusory as I said. E.g. if you and I start a rather unsophisticated mining business, say a coal mine or a marble quarry, the resources item on my balance sheet will come from an expert report, and we all know what an expert report is. But if we register our business as a corporation, we will be tempted to make the resources line as impressive as we possibly can, and we&#8217;ll not be the first to cheat. But this lie will sell well to stockholders who see us as another money tree.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-hendrickson/capital-capitalists-and-capitalism-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-5254945</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 08:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=199358#comment-5254945</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/resources?s=t



re·source  [ree-sawrs, -sohrs, -zawrs, -zohrs, ri-sawrs, -sohrs, -zawrs, -zohrs]  Show IPA
noun
1.
a source of supply, support, or aid, especially one that can be readily drawn upon when needed.
2.
resources, the collective wealth of a country or its means of producing wealth.
3.
Usually, resources. money, or any property that can be converted into money; assets.
4.
Often, resources. an available means afforded by the mind or one&#039;s personal capabilities: to haveresource against loneliness.
5.
an action or measure to which one may have recourse in an emergency; expedient.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/resources?s=t" rel="nofollow">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/resources?s=t</a></p>
<p>re·source  [ree-sawrs, -sohrs, -zawrs, -zohrs, ri-sawrs, -sohrs, -zawrs, -zohrs]  Show IPA<br />
noun<br />
1.<br />
a source of supply, support, or aid, especially one that can be readily drawn upon when needed.<br />
2.<br />
resources, the collective wealth of a country or its means of producing wealth.<br />
3.<br />
Usually, resources. money, or any property that can be converted into money; assets.<br />
4.<br />
Often, resources. an available means afforded by the mind or one&#8217;s personal capabilities: to haveresource against loneliness.<br />
5.<br />
an action or measure to which one may have recourse in an emergency; expedient.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-hendrickson/capital-capitalists-and-capitalism-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-5254944</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 08:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=199358#comment-5254944</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/asset

as·set  [as-et]  Show IPA

noun

1. a useful and desirable thing or quality: Organizational ability is an asset.

2.a single item of ownership having exchange value.

3. assets.

a.items of ownership convertible into cash; total resources of a person or business, as cash, notes and accounts receivable, securities, inventories, goodwill, fixtures, machinery, or real estate(opposed to liabilities ).

b. Accounting. the items detailed on a balance sheet, especially in relation to liabilities and capital.

c. all property available for the payment of debts, especially of a bankrupt or insolvent firm or person.

d. Law. property in the hands of an heir, executor, or administrator, that is sufficient to pay the debts or legacies of a deceased person.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/asset" rel="nofollow">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/asset</a></p>
<p>as·set  [as-et]  Show IPA</p>
<p>noun</p>
<p>1. a useful and desirable thing or quality: Organizational ability is an asset.</p>
<p>2.a single item of ownership having exchange value.</p>
<p>3. assets.</p>
<p>a.items of ownership convertible into cash; total resources of a person or business, as cash, notes and accounts receivable, securities, inventories, goodwill, fixtures, machinery, or real estate(opposed to liabilities ).</p>
<p>b. Accounting. the items detailed on a balance sheet, especially in relation to liabilities and capital.</p>
<p>c. all property available for the payment of debts, especially of a bankrupt or insolvent firm or person.</p>
<p>d. Law. property in the hands of an heir, executor, or administrator, that is sufficient to pay the debts or legacies of a deceased person.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ReyR</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-hendrickson/capital-capitalists-and-capitalism-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-5254942</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ReyR]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 08:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=199358#comment-5254942</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[OFM, by definition an &quot;asset&quot; must earn a profit; otherwise, it is a financial liability. 
Resources may be putative, ghost-like, delusional even. Like Saudi oil deposits or intellectual property or goodwill. Quite often the case with stock markets nowadays.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OFM, by definition an &#8220;asset&#8221; must earn a profit; otherwise, it is a financial liability.<br />
Resources may be putative, ghost-like, delusional even. Like Saudi oil deposits or intellectual property or goodwill. Quite often the case with stock markets nowadays.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ReyR</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-hendrickson/capital-capitalists-and-capitalism-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-5330443</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ReyR]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 08:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=199358#comment-5330443</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Actually, I am not arguing, OFM. I mean, I am not trying to impose my PoV on you. But I must admit that the use of the term &quot;communism&quot; as an equivalent to the four-letter word set is totally vexing. About just as bad as the civilizational slur that begins as soon as someone knows that you are from the alternative universe.))) 
About &quot;lost in words&quot;, yes, I mean it. For centuries, we over here have been busy saving your asses about once every generation. On the other hand, Americans have never had a major war on their turf. Not that it is your fault, of course, just luck. But your relaxed and let go, you all are mostly sure that its&#039; because you&#039;re so cool. This is how BHO &amp; Co. showered you with words and stole your country from you. You are a police state now, not a capitalist state, and unfortunately this renders our discussion irrelevant. We might as well debate the reforms of Qin.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, I am not arguing, OFM. I mean, I am not trying to impose my PoV on you. But I must admit that the use of the term &#8220;communism&#8221; as an equivalent to the four-letter word set is totally vexing. About just as bad as the civilizational slur that begins as soon as someone knows that you are from the alternative universe.)))<br />
About &#8220;lost in words&#8221;, yes, I mean it. For centuries, we over here have been busy saving your asses about once every generation. On the other hand, Americans have never had a major war on their turf. Not that it is your fault, of course, just luck. But your relaxed and let go, you all are mostly sure that its&#8217; because you&#8217;re so cool. This is how BHO &amp; Co. showered you with words and stole your country from you. You are a police state now, not a capitalist state, and unfortunately this renders our discussion irrelevant. We might as well debate the reforms of Qin.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 765/808 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-30 20:46:23 by W3 Total Cache -->