The ten cannots, 2/10

You cannot help small men by tearing down big men

You cannot help small men by tearing down big men

“Capital flees from hostility to surety. That is what capital has always done, and that is what capital will always do.... Like a battered wife that has finally had enough and chooses to leave her battering spouse, capital is packing its bags and leaving.”
—Dennis Gartman (b. 1950), American investment commentator¹

The cannot “You cannot help small men by tearing down big men” encapsulates a fundamental truth about economic progress and social welfare. Capitalism, emphasising individual achievement and market-driven growth, has proven to be the most effective system for elevating overall living standards. Attempts to impose collective ideology and dismantle successful enterprises can stifle innovation, reduce economic opportunities, and ultimately harm those they aim to protect. We create a dynamic and prosperous society that benefits everyone by fostering an environment where success is rewarded and opportunities abound. The funny thing is that this is not clear to everyone.

“Economic growth is the engine of the escape from poverty and material deprivation.”
—Angus Deaton (b. 1945), Scotland-born American economist and Nobel laureate²

In the realm of macroeconomics and ideological discourse, the cannot “You cannot help small men by tearing down big men” from 1916 still resonates well today. It emphasizes the pitfalls of collective ideology and underscores the merits of capitalism. This assertion is not merely a defence of the affluent but a recognition that economic growth, innovation, and societal well-being are best served by a system that rewards merit and entrepreneurial spirit. Attempting to level the economic playing field by undermining successful individuals or enterprises can have unintended consequences that ultimately harm the very people such measures are intended to help.

“The system of market economy has never been fully and purely tried. But there prevailed in the orbit of Western civilization since the Middle Ages by and large a general tendency toward the abolition of institutions hindering the operation of the market economy. With the successive progress of this tendency, population figures multiplied and the masses' standard of living was raised to an unprecedented and hitherto undreamed of level. The average American worker enjoys amenities for which Croesus, Crassus, the Medici, and Louis XIV would have envied him.”
—Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973), Austrian School economist ³

Capitalism, characterized by private ownership, free markets, and competition, has driven unprecedented economic growth and prosperity. It creates an environment where individuals and businesses can thrive by incentivising innovation and rewarding hard work. The success of “big men”—whether they are industrialists, tech moguls, or entrepreneurs—plays a crucial role in this system. Their ventures often lead to job creation, technological advancements, and increased productivity, which benefit society at large.

“The record of history is absolutely crystal clear. There is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.”
—Milton Friedman (1912-2006), American economist⁴

Collective ideology, which emphasizes equality over individual achievement, often advocates for the redistribution of wealth and resources. While well-intentioned, this approach can stifle innovation and economic dynamism. Historical examples from collectivist economies illustrate the drawbacks of such systems.

“The supermarket proved to be far stronger than the Gulag.”
—Yuval Noah Harari (b. 1976), Israeli historian and author ⁵

The Soviet Union, with its centrally planned economy, is the textbook case for failure, despite Paul Samuelson, the famous writer of (my) economic textbooks, requiring decades of reflection to acknowledge the failure. The state's attempt to eliminate economic disparities by controlling all means of production led to inefficiencies, lack of innovation, and eventual economic stagnation. The suppression of entrepreneurial activity and the lack of incentives for individual achievement resulted in a system that was unable to provide for the needs of its citizens. Instead of lifting the “small men,” the Soviet model hindered overall economic progress, leading to widespread poverty and hardship. Potential “big men” were sent to the Gulag. Today, Russia is a cleptocracy run by thieves. The long-term damage of the Soviet-era Gulag system to the gene pool of modern-day Russia is open to debate and not part of this series.

“I was once on a German talk show, and this woman said to me, Mr. Williams, why do you think there is not so much comedy in Germany? And I said, Did you ever think you killed all the funny people?”
—Robin Williams⁶

When measured against Gold, the RUB lost 97.1% of its value since January 2000. The USD, in contrast, only lost 89.5%:

That said, based on the Safety Index by Numbeo, Russia is a safer place than the US. Russia ranks 51st safest, and the US ranks 89th safest. Tucker Carlson is yet to move there, though.

“Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free.”
—Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008), Russian philosopher, novelist, dramatist and historian⁷

Wealth creation by successful individuals and businesses plays a critical role in poverty alleviation. When “big men” succeed, they do not operate in a vacuum; their success has a ripple effect throughout the economy. For instance, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs created companies that revolutionised the tech industry. Their innovations have directly created millions of jobs and spawned entirely new industries and economic opportunities.

“Have not great merchants, great manufacturers, great inventors, done more for the world than preachers and philanthropists? … Can there be any doubt that cheapening the cost of necessaries and conveniences of life is the most powerful agent of civilization and progress? … Poverty is the cause of most of the crime and misery in the world—cheapening the cost of the necessaries and conveniences of life is lessening poverty, and there is no other way to lessen it, absolutely none.”
—Charles Elliott Perkins (1840-1907), American railroad executive⁸

Moreover, the wealth generated by successful businesses often funds philanthropic endeavours that address social issues. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, funded by the wealth of Microsoft’s success, has significantly contributed to global health and education. These efforts have directly and positively impacted millions of lives worldwide. (The philanthropic endeavours also have their critics. Deep ecologists, for example, do not want the population to grow and prosper.)

A common misconception underlying the push to tear down successful individuals is the belief in zero-sum economics—the idea that one person's gain is another's loss. However, capitalism operates on the principle of wealth creation, not wealth redistribution. The growth of a successful enterprise often results in the expansion of economic opportunities rather than a mere shift of existing resources.

“Globalisation has lifted hundreds of millions of people in emerging markets out of poverty. Yet ruling liberals have often sheltered themselves from the gales of creative destruction. Cushy professions such as law are protected by fatuous regulations. University professors enjoy tenure even as they preach the virtues of the open society.“
—The Economist, A manifesto, Leaders, 15 September 2018.

For instance, the rise of e-commerce giants like Amazon has transformed global retail. While some traditional businesses have struggled to adapt, the overall impact has been a net gain regarding job creation, consumer choice, and market efficiency. The digital economy has enabled small businesses to reach global markets, something unimaginable in the pre-internet era. We risk undermining these broader benefits by focusing on tearing down successful companies. Although there is creative destruction in capitalism, Walmart is still around, i.e., there is adaption too.

The ten cannots are from 1916. Today, we would rephrase this particular cannot as follows: You cannot help small people by tearing down great people. (The word “man” needs to be replaced with the word “people” so as not to offend the thin-skinned diversity-hire-for-president virtue signalers.) The rephrased “cannot” now applies to all people in society, including women. (It even includes the binary, antisemite, and narcissist schizophrenics, i.e., the queers-for-palastine-from-the-river-to-the-sea-lets-glue-ourselves-to-the-tarmac crowd. They are people too, even if they do not always behave as such.)

“Today in Kabul a female cat has more freedom than a woman. A cat may go sit
on her front stoop and feel the sun on her face. She may chase a squirrel into the
park. A squirrel has more rights than a girl in Afghanistan because the parks have been closed to women and girls.”
—Meryl Streep, UN, 23 September 2024

Speaking of women: In Denmark, women and squirrels have access to parks. It is no coincidence, then, that Denmark and Afghanistan are at opposite ends of both the Women Peace and Security Index (WPS) as well as overall happiness:

“Anybody who gives you a belief system is your enemy, because the belief system becomes the barrier for your eyes, you cannot see the truth.”
—Bhagwan Rajneesh (1931-90), Indian spiritual teacher and Rolls-Royce fan⁹

Men, one could argue, have been holding back women for a couple of thousand years. Throughout history, religious doctrines have often been employed to justify the subjugation of women, positioning them as inferior to men and relegating them to domestic roles. Many major religions, including Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism, have historically prescribed distinct and often restrictive roles for women. These roles have typically limited women's participation in public life, including politics, education, and economic activities. For instance, the Judeo-Christian tradition has often cited scriptures that advocate for female submission and male authority. Similarly, interpretations of Islamic texts have been used in various cultures to enforce practices like veiling and gender segregation. The perpetuation of these religiously sanctioned gender roles has served to maintain male dominance and control over women, effectively holding back women's progress and autonomy for millennia. Today, the degree of freedom for women varies greatly. Below is a map of the Women Peace and Security Index.

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”
—Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), Italian polymath and science revolutionist¹⁰

For women to become free, religion had to be cut back. The correlation between women's liberation and secularisation is evident in many modern societies. (The chart below doesn’t change much if we replace the Women’s Peace and Security Index with the Human Development Index.)

“You can't teach an old dogma new tricks.”
—Dorothy Parker (1893-1967), American satirist and writer¹¹

Secular states, which separate religious institutions from government, tend to exhibit higher levels of gender equality. In these societies, legal frameworks and public policies are based on human rights principles rather than religious doctrines, providing a foundation for women's rights and freedoms. For instance, countries like Sweden, Denmark, and Switzerland, which have a high degree of secularism, also rank among the highest regarding gender equality. These nations have implemented policies that ensure equal access to education, reproductive rights, and protection against gender-based violence. The decline of religious influence in public policy and societal norms in such countries has been a critical factor in enabling 50% of the population, women, to achieve greater equality and freedom. Conversely, in countries where religion heavily influences law and culture, women often face significant restrictions and discrimination, highlighting the liberating impact of secularisation on women's lives.

In 2022, I wrote in relation to the US Supreme Court showing its barbarian side, i.e., overruling Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that had established a constitutional right to abortion:

“If you believe in equal rights, then what do “women’s rights,” “gay rights,” etc., mean? Either they are redundant or they are violations of the principle of equal rights for all.”
—Thomas Sowell¹²

In summary, the second cannot from the ten cannots held up pretty well since 1916. Constraining the freedom of “big people” does not strengthen “small people.” The constraint of any of the Five Bs (bodies, brains, bucks, businesses, and blueprints) can be perceived as a form of socioeconomic self-mutilation.

Trivia:

Student (female): “I want to be arrested by a female police officer.”
Police officer (male): “What makes you think I don’t identify as a woman?”

1. Dennis Gartman, The Gartman Letter, 29 May 2009.

2. Angus Deaton, The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality, 2013.

3. Ludwig von Mises, Human Action—A Treatise on Economics, 4th edition (San Francisco: Fox & Wilkes, 1996). First published 1949 by Yale University.

4. Interview with Phil Donahue in 1979.

5. Harari, Yuval Noah (2018) "21 Lessons for the 21st Century," London: Jonathan Cape, p. 10.

6. Robin Williams, Weapons of Self Destruction, 2009.

7. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, quoted in “Remarks On Anarchism: Volume Two” by Jack R Ernest (2021).

8. Industry Comes of Age: Business, Labor, and Public Policy, 1860-1897, by Edward Chase Kirkland, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961.

9. Bhagwan Rajneesh, God is Dead, Now Zen is the Only Living Truth, lecture, Osho International, 1989.

10. Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, 1615.

11. Attributed to Parker after her death, by Robert E. Drennan The Algonquin Wits (1968), p. 124. However, the same quip appears anonymously fifteen years earlier, in the trade journal Sales Management (Chicago: Dartnell Corp., 1918-75), vol. 70 (Survey of Buying Power, 1953), p. 80: "Marxism never changes. You can’t teach an old dogma new tricks." From Wikiquote, 9 March 2018.

12. Thomas Sowell, Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality? 1984.