In the movie The Avengers there’s a scene in which the Hulk is fighting the trickster god Loki of Norse mythology fame. Loki takes exception to being opposed by a mere mortal: “I am a god, you dull creature, and I will not be bullied by the—,” at which point the Hulk grabs Loki by the leg and begins brutally beating the concrete floor with him, shattering the concrete to perhaps six inches depth. “Puny god,” intones the big green guy sarcastically as he walks away from the stunned and senseless “deity.”
Being cited to what are certainly readers of varying spiritual beliefs, this anecdote frames a key issue of our day—neologized in the title of this post: people like to be their own gods. However, they often use proxies such as unproved or mythical gods, practical or professed scientific atheism (which leave humans as the highest arbiters of morality), or redefined and malleable Jesuses to obscure and ennoble this fact. And such proxies are puny gods.
Some background: from the origin of mankind to the writing of Darwin’s The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, man’s history essentially saw the selection of gods by men according to tribe or nation. If one nation defeated another nation, it was because the winning nation’s gods were stronger than the losing nation’s gods. This is reflected clearly in many ancient texts.
People had various means of influencing their gods. They could worship them, sacrifice to them, use temple prostitutes for them, pray to them, bargain with them, cut or beat themselves for them, and more. But when you boil it all down, the gods were basically the means for people to get what they wanted from a cosmos that seemed to oppose and oppress them at every turn.
The Aztecs often sacrificed hundreds or even thousands of people at a time. But those “sacrifices” were often of enemies they had captured and dispossessed. How convenient to dispose of any future discontent or rebellion.
Worshipers of the Levantine god Moloch often sacrificed their children in the fire to pacify him or obtain his favor. This must have been a good way to get rid of troublesome children or as a check on childhood mischief. “If you don’t behave…”
Seriously, this was clearly a high cost (though children were far less highly regarded then), but it was still used in order to obtain what the sacrificer wanted.
And temple prostitutes? Well, pretty clear who that made happy. Wife to husband: “You’ve been to the temple again?!”
Enter Darwin, whose work obviously (from its title) demonstrated the natural superiority of certain races over others. According to him, this is science (however, it’s not true that his middle name was Fauci). From this “science” came eugenics, which was far more popular and extensive in America than most people know—before Hitler borrowed the concept and put it into widespread use. Again, who did this serve? It advanced the welfare and aims of those who held the view against those who were their enemies or those they wanted to dispossess or destroy.
This is the backdrop (minus Darwin, who arrived much later) for biblical Christianity—which among its innovative offshoots has now become almost rare. Innovative believers are nearly as likely as nonbelievers to serve themselves through “new” interpretation and consequent twisting of biblical imperatives. However, biblical imperatives stress God- and others-orientation and self-abnegation up to and including the point of death.
This is fundamentally different from the normal behavior of people, and it has proved astonishingly conducive to creating peaceful and productive societies—with plenty of big bumps and serious setbacks because converted people are also far from perfect. (This post obviously reveals the author’s biases, but is not intended to be apologetic or proselytizing, merely explanatory.)
This fact is being recognized by such atheists as Richard Dawkins and such agnostics as Derek Thompson, though they have not converted to Christianity. They have simply stepped back and recognized the historically demonstrated societal effects of widespread Christian belief and practice.
What does all this have to do with the price of tea in China? Just this: many on the political right, and even many in the church, have placed their hope in political solutions to our society’s ills. This is traditionally the realm of communists, fascists, progressives, and Muslims, among others, who conflate faith and civil governance. Certainly many who call themselves conservatives are in that camp as well. But enduring change comes about from a change in the hearts of the populace, wherein transcendently defined right actions and others-orientation prevail. Do we have that? Maybe. We can hope, but there’s currently no certainty on that score.
President Trump has proved himself a truly remarkable and estimable person. But though an amazing man, he is merely a man—and a puny god. He cannot declare a golden age and bring it to pass. As the saying goes, “actions are ours; consequences are God’s.” Many of Trump’s actions are well advised and greatly needed. But will they result in the desired goal? We have reason to hope; we have no way to know.
Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Frederick the Great, Peter the Great, and other builders of extraordinary societies were all incredible visionaries and astounding organizers and leaders. Yet much of their greatness went with them when they exited stage left. Will that happen with Trump as well?
Let’s hope for an enduring legacy of peace and prosperity while preparing for other possibilities. As David quotes his father, Don McAlvany, this week, “We hope for the best, we prepare for the worst, and we remain ready for anything.” To see what such preparedness and readiness consist of, don’t miss the publications below.
Key Takeaways:
- Ruling by fiat
- A dangerous precedent
- We’re learning about Triffin’s dilemma
- How to live in a world of rising gold prices
The McAlvany Weekly Commentary: The Trump Sounds & Volatility Shall Follow
After opening comments, David and Kevin focus on President Trump’s executive orders. David had read in their entirety all of them that had been issued by program time. They were “awe-inspiring, ambitious in scope, sure to offend, and FDR and Reagan both came to mind. Massive change, very disruptive to the status quo.” Specifically, David clarifies that, “Volatility is a dream for traders and it’s an absolute nightmare for investors.” He later clarifies that he is looking at near-term market impact from the exec-ords, not necessarily societal or eventual impact. And he expresses concern that so much of what is done politically today is done by executive order—contrary, of course, to the intent of the founders that laws be formed, negotiated, and passed at the legislative branch, enacted by the executive, and if necessary checked or affirmed by the judicial branch in strict accordance with the Constitution or, lacking clear address therein, its properly inflected intent. The hosts note the absence of mention of national debt in Trump’s comments to date, and the probable effects of his policy intentions on inflation and trade. They also discuss the way Trump apparently sees global influence by various world powers.
Credit Bubble Bulletin: For Posterity
This week Doug fills his post with an exceptional bird’s-eye view of Trump’s first week in office. Many pundits have captured elements of the change accurately and expressed them clearly. As usual, Doug offers a compendium of their work with macro analysis of his own—at once broad in coverage and revealing in insight. For such wide-ranging activity as the new president has engaged in, such summary work is invaluable. Notes Doug, “At home and abroad, citizens (voters and otherwise) these days embrace ‘strongman’ leadership. Traditional leaders and parties, unable to allay fears and insecurities, are viewed as ineffective, often incompetent, and worse. Extraordinary powers are surrendered to strongmen prepared to forcefully address grievance and injustice.” As desirable as this decisive, logjam-breaking, grievance-addressing action is, it comes with an immense danger that the nation’s founders were anxious to avoid—the breakdown of checks and balances. Even if this danger doesn’t fully manifest during Trump’s term, it almost certainly will with future presidents who will embrace his precedent and use it for less salutary ends. Doug—and other MFG analysts—are highly mindful of this true and present danger without denigrating its very real causes.
Hard Asset Insights: Expectations for a Messy Stretch
Morgan focuses on Trump’s primary emphases to bring down inflation. At least initially, these emphases seem to be lower interest rates and strong incentives to produce energy in America. These, of course, are powerful levers, but they are not without trade-offs and obstacles—many of them immense and likely to produce unintended consequences. Morgan deals with some of these difficulties and their possible consequences dispassionately and factually. He also acquaints his readers with some key information from a well-informed and influential economist. “Testifying before the U.S. Congress in 1960, economist Robert Triffin famously exposed a fundamental flaw in the international monetary system. In what’s since become known as “Triffin’s dilemma,” Triffin explained that…” Rather than issue a spoiler alert, we’ll just leave this crucial information for those who want to read further—an action we highly recommend!
Golden Rule Radio: Gold Nears Record Highs
Miles’ weekly recap of the metals action has them generally up slightly, but still below recent highs. Rob joins Miles to analyze the situation more extensively, particularly in the case of gold. The hosts then examine the Commitment of Traders report in significant detail and explain what it means. They also explain how MPM uses hedging strategies to allow it to sell product without loss no matter what the selling price is vis-à-vis the price the company bought it at. Without making predictions, the hosts then look at what any downside action in gold might look like. No unmanipulated market moves in only one direction for long, so this is key information. They also look at the possibility of sideways trading for a period of time, possible ratio trading opportunities, and what BRICS and central bank buying might do in regard to possible price changes in gold.
