In the same category

Doug Casey on "Occupy Wall Street"

IMG Auteur
Published : November 11th, 2011
2572 words - Reading time : 6 - 10 minutes
( 2 votes, 5/5 ) , 3 commentaries
Print article
  Article Comments Comment this article Rating All Articles  
0
Send
3
comment
Our Newsletter...
Category : Editorials

 

 

 

 

L: I'm sitting in Doug Casey's living room, in Cafayate, Argentina, far, far from Wall Street, which is being "occupied" by protesters with a very clear message. Doug, as a prime cut of meat on the "eat the rich" menu, would you like to respond?

Doug: I assume you're being sarcastic about the clear message, but one can never tell in today's world. Otherwise, I would have thought Paul Krugman was joking when he said that a pretend alien invasion would be good for the economy. We increasingly live in an Alice in Wonderland world.

L: Truth is often stranger than fiction. We'd have been laughed at if we'd predicted that people in Spain would shine lights on solar cells at night, because the subsidies make it profitable to do so.

Doug: Indeed. But back to Wall Street. I have very mixed feelings about the occupation movement, because these people are 100% correct to be angry about these banks – from Goldman Sachs on down – that received scores of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money after doing the opposite of what banks are supposed to do (losing money instead of keeping it safe), and then paying themselves bonuses for doing such a good job.

L: It's actually the largest bank heist in history.

Doug: You could say that. Was it Al Capone who said that one accountant with a pen can steal more than 100 thugs with guns? A central banker like Bernanke can facilitate the looting of an entire country, though. You might also say it's the Chinese whose money they stole, because the Chinese will never be able to redeem their long-term Treasuries for anything like the value they put into them. You could also say it's the next generation's money, because they're going to have to pay for it all. No wonder so many young people are outraged – they have a right to be.

L: But…?

Doug: But on the other hand, a lot of these Occupy Wall Street (OWS) people seem to be of the same sort who would have been loosely wrapped hippies back in the '60s. I was also sympathetic with the hippies in many regards, by the way, because I agreed with their anti-war and anti-drug-law stances. It's hard, however, to see these people as allies when one of their most popular slogans equates me to a beef cow. They seem to have a strong collectivist/socialist animus. They seem to hate the 1% just because they have money. They don't have the sense to make distinctions as to how different people might have gotten that money.

I am, clearly, one of the 1%. So are you. In fact, almost everyone who has worked hard, saved money, and not invested it unwisely is at least in the top 10%. What the OWS people are angry about – or should be angry about – are the people who made their money through government contacts, or connections. They didn't produce anything; they're really just sophisticated thieves. I have only contempt for those who feed at the public trough.

But here we are in one of the nicest places in the world, where I'm living high off the hog, smoking an expensive Cuban cigar – that's probably a waterboarding offense in the US these days – so I guess that puts me on the menu.

However, I haven't yet been to one of these protests to speak with any of these people, so maybe I shouldn't presume too much about what they think. It's likely their level of discourse would be no more cogent than what you read in the New York Times, perhaps even less cogent than USA Today. But I don't like to be around angry people – although, to be honest, I'm angry myself because I hate to see what's left of America, and Western civilization itself, on the skids…

L: I haven't talked to any of the OWS people either, but, not wanting to rely solely on hearsay, I sent someone to the epicenter in Manhattan. We asked people there: "What does Occupy Wall Street mean to you?" I published the results in the current edition of the International Speculator. Here are some of the more comprehensible quotations:

"The 99% are getting more distribution. Corruption in government. Peaceful overthrow."

"There are people who have a lot of money and then people with nothing. I'm a student, and I don't want my future to be the way it is now. Make the country equal again."

"If something is not right, do something about it! Inspire unity. Everyone knows something is wrong."

"Mad at bailouts. Very little difference between political parties. [Everyone] knows Democrat = Republican! Lockheed Martin makes money from taxpayer-funded wars. Gold standard! Bitcoins! Disenfranchise the 1% plutocracy. Root out corruption."

"I don't have my clear answer for this."

One of the interesting things about this is that there's a clear streak of very strong anti-government sentiment from people who usually can't get enough government. Granted, they don't necessary call for less government, but they do seem to want to throw the bums out. All of them. Except maybe Ron Paul.

Doug: That is interesting, and I think it's also interesting to compare the movement to the Tea Party. Both groups feel powerless, disenfranchised, and betrayed. Both groups are under severe economic pressure – which, I promise, is going to get much worse.

L: I hadn't thought of that, but in spite of the ideological differences, I can see a similarity in that both are angry with the status quo but not clear on what they propose to improve on it.

Doug: Exactly. It's a very inchoate kind of anger. Most of the people involved, in both groups, seem to have zero understanding of real economics and don't understand the way the world works. They just correctly perceive that they're getting screwed. But I see little or no cultural or sociological overlap between the groups.

L: Well, I haven't been to a Tea Party event, nor have I sent an investigator to one, so I'm not in a position to compare them, but it is interesting to me how diverse the OWS people are. There were people there in favor of Ron Paul, as well as for typical New-England Democrats. One fellow even mentioned the gold standard. On the other hand, one photo I didn't publish – because the guy's face is clearly identifiable – is of a young man sitting on a cinder block, smoking marijuana… so the neo-hippie component does seem to be part of the mix.

Doug: In the photos I've seen, a good number of these protesters have taken to wearing Guy Fawkes masks, which I find encouraging. And here we are on the fifth of November: "Remember, remember, the fifth of November, the gunpowder, treason and plot. I know of no reason it should ever be forgot." My avatar on Facebook, Skype, and other such venues is always a Guy Fawkes mask. I'd love to see everyone use one. That's how things ended in the movie V for Vendetta.

L: But that's just the thing: To you and me, a Guy Fawkes mask is a symbol for anarchy as a better organizing system for society than government – any government. But for many, the mask is just a symbol for resistance to tyranny. To some, it may not represent much at all, besides appropriate attire to wear during a riot.

Doug: Yes, and regrettably, in real life Guy Fawkes was something of a Catholic fanatic who apparently just wanted to replace a Protestant-dominated government with a Catholic-dominated government. That's hardly a solution. It overlooks the real problem, which is government itself, sticking its nose into every aspect of human existence.

L: So, here we have a movement, composed of very different people from different walks of life, that has gone viral, spreading all across the US, even to smaller towns. It has spread overseas as well and has turned violent in some cases, with mass arrests in Oakland being a recent example. This could get pretty ugly. This is how revolutions start – we've seen this sort of pattern in the Arab Spring, as well as in the fall of Eastern European dictators, and more. But starting a revolution with no clearer goal than "eat the rich" is… a dangerous thing to do.

Doug: It may sound rather extreme –

L: Not that that has ever stopped you…

Doug: [Chuckles] – but I don't think it's out of the question that there could be a second American revolution ahead.

L: A third – the war between the states being a failed attempt at a second one.

Doug: Right. Formal or informal, there could easily be a secession movement as things come further and further unraveled. And yes, it could turn into a shooting war. These things happen. A lot of Americans are getting to the point where they feel they have little to lose. And things are just starting to get bad; the Greater Depression is still very young.

You know, the Obama administration is making noises about a rising threat in Iran. They might just be tempted to attack them, either as a great distraction from troubles at home or in the hope it might unite America – which, incidentally, I think would be a bad thing at this point. It would be like uniting lemmings as they plunge over a cliff together. Being united amounts to groupthink; it caters to the lowest common denominator. Uniting around a political leader is a symptom of moral bankruptcy. What made America great was individuals thinking and acting as individuals.

L: On the plus side, there was also an anti-war streak in the people we surveyed occupying Wall Street.

Doug: That's true in the Tea Party too, although to a lesser degree. But on the minus side, we have large numbers of people in uniform in the US – lots of police and soldiers – who have been trained to obey orders without hesitation. Just like everywhere else in the world, men in uniform are extremely dangerous. They're loyal above all to their peers in uniform, secondarily to the government that pays them, and last to the people their supposed to "protect and serve." If Americans in uniform are ordered to beat and imprison American citizens petitioning their government for redress of grievances, they will obey. It could get very, very ugly.

L: If there's an insurrection with no goal other than to overthrow those in charge now, it seems like an invitation to "the man on the white horse" to come in and lead everyone boldly into a new slavery. This bubbling cauldron of anger is like a lit stick of dynamite. Who knows who's going to pick it up and where they're going to throw it?

Doug: It has to end badly. Every revolution I'm aware of, including the American revolution, leads to a period of things getting worse before they get better – if they get better. The French revolution is a classic case, in which it was good they got rid of Louis XVI, but then they got Robespierre, and then they got Napoleon, who was even worse. This is the standard pattern; revolutions unleash the most violent and fanatical people to rise to the top. So, if the trend continues, I don't expect it to have a happy ending.

L: And do you expect it to continue?

Doug: Unfortunately, yes. The economy is going to continue getting worse. People are going to become much more unhappy, and they are going to feel like they have much less to lose. Trends in motion tend to stay in motion until they reach a genuine crisis.

L: Whether OWS is the beginning of the violent end to this saga, or whether this calms down and its something else in the future, is there no way out for the US?

Doug: No. Partially because it's really no longer the US. The country has already changed in character from being a unique beacon of individual liberty to just another of 200 degraded nation-states. It's hopeless to wish for an easy out, not just for the US, but for America, the West, and the current economic order in general. Even though I'm an unabashed optimist about the long-term future, I just don't see how things can avoid getting much, much worse over the next decade or so. This is barely a beginning – we're just at the leading edge of the storm, as we exit the eye of the global crisis hurricane.

Here's a thought. With very few exceptions – like Lyndon Johnson – most incumbent US presidents run for a second term. But as unpopular as he has become, some recent recovery in the polls notwithstanding, it may be that the Democrats will ask Obama not to run. I suspect they might pick some left-wing general instead, because people would have confidence that a general would know what to do about an increasingly dangerous world. And with the Republicans seemingly determined to nominate a hack who's devoid of any philosophical core – well, there are Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, but they're getting a total media blackout – such a Democrat might just win… and that would be very bad. Then we'd really be in for it – a warmongering socialist who might try to turn the country into an Army boot camp. At that point I'll be really glad I have a crib outside the US.

L: Mr. Cheerful again, Doug.

Doug: You know I call 'em like I see 'em. I don't make the rules, except in my personal life.

L: Right. Investment implications?

Doug: Nothing new. We've been saying for some time to rig for stormy weather; buy gold, buy silver. They are not at giveaway levels, but they're going a lot higher. With the Fed creating trillions of new dollars – which they have to do to finance these trillion-dollar and rising deficits – there will be new bubbles. The most obvious one is going to be the bubble in gold stocks we haven't seen yet this cycle. Gold stocks are actually quite cheap now, relative to gold. I'm more enthusiastic about the potential for gold stocks to go into a huge bubble than I ever have been.

L: That's a change in tune.

Doug: It is. These stocks didn't look cheap a year ago, when the market was more driven by greed. Now, in a fear-driven market, there are actually some good bargains out there – you cover many of them in the International Speculator.

L: Thanks for the shameless plug. But then, I don't think I've ever seen you ashamed of anything.

Doug: Shame is not an emotion I have a lot of experience with, it's true. That's because I avoid doing things that would make me feel shame.

L: Anything else?

Doug: I like quality energy plays on the dips and productive agricultural land a lot. Great new technological innovations, especially those that save people money, should also do well in the deepening crisis.

L: Okay, Doug. Thanks for another thought-provoking conversation.

Doug: My pleasure, as always.


[There are ways to invest in gold without paying current prices for the metal itself. Learn how big investment funds are accomplishing this today… and how you can do it, too, to maximize your profit potential.]

 

 

<< Previous article
Rate : Average note :5 (2 votes)
>> Next article
Mr. Casey is the author of four books, the best known of which is Crisis Investing, which was #1 on the New York Times Bestseller list for 29 weeks. He has travelled to over 140 countries, many of them several times, and he analyzes what he finds - in real estate, world stock markets, commodities and mining - in his monthly newsletter, The International Speculator, which he has written for 18 years
Comments closed
  All Favorites Best Rated  
Great interview and article. I have to say this, though: The ideological roots of the neocon movement lie in Trotskyism. The hysteria about a democratic president being the socialist who is going to destroy America is nothing less than ludicrous. Dubya started all of this (well, it began much earlier, but he lay the ground for what is going on today at a frenzied pace). How do so many conservatives overlook this? Did all of you sleep through the 8 years of the Bush era and the intentional crushing of the constitution, the stacking of the courts and the federal bureaucracies with corrupt functionaries? America will never get well until conservatives can look at their own and acknowledge what they see. I am no fan of Obama or of the democratic party, but republicans have had a leading role in bringing down democracy. Too many have cheered them from the sidelines. Let's tell the truth about them, starting with this article:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy23.html

Springtime for Trotsky

by Daniel McCarthy

In most circles the word "fascist" is a generic pejorative, an epithet that conveys a moral judgment rather than a description. We Americans have perhaps become so accustomed to this use of the word that we don't even think about it. We should, because "fascist" in this sense was specifically coined by the Communist revolutionary Leon Trotsky to identify all of his rivals, even Stalin, with Hitler and Mussolini — and with "the right." Its use reveals the undying influence of Trotsky.

By calling Stalin a fascist, Trotsky and his followers could claim that "real" socialism is not a murderous ideology. They could further claim that all true threats to human dignity and freedom really come from the right. Although Trotsky himself had a rather fateful encounter with an icepick in 1940, Trotkyists today continue his fight on behalf of international social democracy. These days however, Trotskyists prefer to call themselves "neoconservatives."

Over the past two months the word "Islamofascism" has gained currency. The term has appeared in National Review Online, The Weekly Standard, and at Andrew Sullivan's website, among other places. To a vigilant eye the word "Islamofascism" looks suspiciously like a classic Trotskyist coinage. You don't have to be a fan of either fascism or Islamic terrorism to wonder if there's more than meets the eye to this word.

"Islamofascist" was coined or at least popularized by Stephen Schwartz in his recent Spectator article "Ground Zero and the Saudi Connection." Note that within the article Schwartz singles out Stalin and Bolshevism for criticism, rather than Communism in general.

Schwartz, who now writes from National Review Online, is a hardly abashed Trotskyist. Here's how a one-time fellow traveler of Schwartz's describes him:

Schwartz's parents had been members of the pro-Moscow Communist Party U.S.A. In reaction against the Stalinist milieu he'd grown up in, he'd become a Trotskyist in his teens and eventually gravitated towards the left communism of the FOR [Fomento Obrero Revolucionario]. Schwartz and I agreed that all forms of Leninism were counter-revolutionary. This didn't stop Schwartz from intensely identifying with Leon Trotsky and blaming anything that peeved him, from bad weather to poor table service, on the machinations of "Stalinists".

By attaching himself to the FOR, Schwartz could gain notice among Trotskyists as the author of the most extreme left English language publication close to the Trotskyist spectrum, and guarantee himself a place in the future as a wax mannequin in the ludicrous icepickhead pantheon that was so dear to his heart.

And here is Schwartz in his own words, referring to information he gleaned from researching the Venona transcripts:

Dismissing questions about the guilt of Alger Hiss, Lauchlin Currie, and Harry Dexter White, Schwartz writes: "I am much less interested in the fates of these three bourgeois careerists than I am in those of such dissident revolutionists as Ignacy Porecki-Reiss, Andreu Nin and Leon Trotsky." "I have never understood the moral compass of certain U.S. intellectuals who consider the sufferings of White and Hiss, or of the heirs of Currie, to be more compellingly tragic than the assassination of Reiss, the death by torture of Nin or the smashing of Trotsky's brain by an ice ax" by Soviet agents, writes Schwartz.

For Schwartz, Stalinist assassinations are something of an obsession. He wrote a piece for the Weekly Standard earlier this year hypothesizing that Stalin murdered Frankfurt School theorist Walter Benjamin. From this article and his quote above it's hard not to conclude that Schwartz feels a great deal of continuing sympathy for Trotsky and the Trotskyists, and not just for the grisly ways they met their deaths. Was Trotsky's assassination really "tragic," as Schwartz says?

The Trotskyist pedigree of neoconservatism is no secret; the original neocon, Irving Kristol, acknowledges it with relish: "I regard myself to have been a young Trostkyite and I have not a single bitter memory." Nor is there any doubt about the influence — one might almost say hegemony — of "former Communists" on the post-war conservative movement. Just read the words of one neocon, Seymour Martin Lipset:

From the anti-Stalinists who became conservatives — including James Burnham, Whittaker Chambers, and Irving Kristol — the Right gained a political education and, in some cases, an injection of passion. The ex-radicals brought with them the knowledge that ideological movements must have journals and magazines to articulate their perspectives. In 1955, for example, William F. Buckley, Jr., launched National Review at the urging of Willi Schlamm, a former German Communist. In its early years, National Review was largely written and edited by the Buckley family and a handful of former Communists, Trotskyists, and socialists, such as Burnham and Chambers. It played a major role in creating the Goldwaterite and Reaganite New Right and in stimulating an anti-Soviet foreign policy.

Worthy of note is that while ex-Stalinists tended to denounce their Communist roots vehemently, neoconservatives like Kristol and Schwartz remain at least wistfully fond of Trotsky. It's also worth noting that the neoconservative preoccupation with exporting social democracy abroad through war and mercantilism reflects the original split between Trotsky and Stalin. Trotsky argued that there could not be "socialism in one country" but rather that the revolution had to be truly international. And so the neoconservatives push for "human rights" and social democratic governments to be imposed on Serbia, for example, by force of arms.

And so fifty-six years after the death of Hitler we're still fighting a war against "fascism" in one form or another. We're still fighting to make the world safe for (social) democracy. Somewhere in the bowels of hell Leon Trotsky must be smiling.

Postscript: I'm indebted to Paul Gottfried, whose lectures at the Mises Institute's History of Liberty conference inspired and informed much of this article.

November 6, 2001

Daniel McCarthy [send him mail] is a graduate student in classics at Washington University in St. Louis.
Mr. Casey talks about 'real economics'. I might be wrong; but I haven't seen real economics at work for a long, long time and I'm certainly not buying the argument that it is principally government intervention which has caused the damage to pretty much everything financial over the last few years, although gov't has definitely participated in the Great Unwinding. Mr. Casey is correct in referring to the 'sophisticated thieves' who call themselves businessmen, but incorrect in claiming that many in the 1% got there through hard work and good investments. He gives the impression that thrift and hard work still pay off. Not these days, I'm afraid. Hard work and savvy investing were the keys to reaching the 1% at one time, but, sadly, not anymore. The old tried and true methods of investing in companies which produce something have gone the way of the horse and buggy. What is in its place at this point is the Great Unknown - What does one invest in anymore to guarantee something to fall back upon in the future? Investing today seems to mirror the predatory vicissitudes of the financial thieves themselves. Investing, unfortunately for many of us 'small time investors', has devolved into a crap shoot. Goldman betting against itself and earning money? Give me a break. Too many hard working, savvy investors were simply WIPED OUT by the scams of those calling themselves "Financial Experts" or Financial 'Specialists'. A great and overpowering reticence has descended upon those who once believed in the once solid idea that one invests in equities to protect one's wealth. Mr. Casey seems to be hinting at cleaning house. I heartily agree. Markets in their natural state are risky enough, but when you add larceny, extortion and mendacity to the mix, it makes for a potent explosiveness which will keep potential investors at an increasing distance.
A couple of comments:

1) a warmongering socialist who might try to turn the country into an Army boot camp. Not Army boot camp, sir, you mean - homoerotic Army boot camp. Every night Jay Leno points out that gays in the military is a platform for gay marriage. He is right if and only if the inherently perverse is admissable, which means, Leno's claim itself is evidence that the new military policy is pernicious. Ergo: change the fucking policy in the military back to Don't Ask Don't Tell. Jay Leno is an ass. Why bring it up? Because a state or group of states could secede via a package claim against the Fed, which included the abnegation of gay marriage, for example. One good turn deserves another - who would the Frederick Douglas be then?

2) The difference between the civil war and any future insurrection from a seccesionist point of view, there is no Frederick Douglas viewpoint or ammunition to bolster up the Federal side. Further, Frederick Douglas has been shown in part to be hyperbole: the end of slavery did not end all problems as he would have it. More importantly (and think bloodless revolutions of the past 15 years), you could have an insurrection or a series of successions without a single shot fired. Get grandmothers out front and ask, if you must, from behind your guns, what right do you propose that we continue as union?

It is tremendously unworthy for America to drop its project because the first African American it elected president is no Jackie Robinson, but a fume sniffing, ill-prepared, ill-equipped, pompous, ignoble, morally destitute pretender. Before cries for seccesion get served up, how about ousting this worthless dung called Obama from the White House?

Military vote in support of this endeavor is welcome. Reconsolidation is needed. This time next year, it could be 200-500 municipalities, ranging in size from Harrisburg to Los Angeles, will have declared bankruptcy. What kind of a nation is that? Which state will be the first to declare they must go on the dole? How will the rest feel footing that bill? It's time for America under new 'live or die' leadership to look after, to steward - the United States.

It's also unworthy to comment on a Casey interview in this unguarded way. Hell, what possible substantial stake could that man have in such colossal change (as I've just harped on), chirping as he is in comfort from his Argentine? Fucking vulture - Sure I'm supposed to concure that 99% can't even strip wood with that shit, sir.

But I'm a man of honor (and also not in anyone's 1%, especially not that of the 99% ranters and fanatics). So to hell with your simplistic containment strategy, its foundation the decree of today's 10 people barking but not biting somehow still on behalf of this United States' 300 million.

I say instead, just say no to Casey's curlded brand of rubbish. It can never be such candy arse conceptual here Casey. You are in fact the 1% and you are in fact not here - some say, then, There is a God! No matter, in times of uncertainty and strife, sir, Every (other) Good Boy knows it's always rather the Crystal Ship being filled - a million girls, a million thrills. As Casey damn well knows, this Occupy Wallstreet either cuts to huge or it's just squattors taking a dump. My seven year old niece said 'I have the fever' - now she goes for reading longer sentences with bigger words. Your 'We Speak for the 99%' Protestors, Casey, can't even identify Obama as de facto author of the current Tax Cut. Fucking morons. In this they work for you. They can't catch a break either. I suppose someone will write of them that they did well to have come as far as they did with so many lusting after their youthful asses.

Today's angry and 'I'll fuck anyone' Johnson advocating for today's self-absorbed Jeremiah - 'Then 'we'd' be just like Casey, eh'? Nothing new about an angry Johnson doesn't make it right (I mean after Osama). Sure, why not call for a picture of Bin Laden's corpse, Casey. Maybe so uninterred, these young people would instead shout out from a personal we are getting the shaft - Obama has got to go!


Latest comment posted for this article
Great interview and article. I have to say this, though: The ideological roots of the neocon movement lie in Trotskyism. The hysteria about a democratic president being the socialist who is going to destroy America is nothing less than ludicrous. Dub  Read more
pcanon - 11/13/2011 at 11:25 AM GMT
Top articles
World PM Newsflow
ALL
GOLD
SILVER
PGM & DIAMONDS
OIL & GAS
OTHER METALS
Take advantage of rising gold stocks
  • Subscribe to our weekly mining market briefing.
  • Receive our research reports on junior mining companies
    with the strongest potential
  • Free service, your email is safe
  • Limited offer, register now !
Go to website.