Yesterday, TCC’s friend, Jonathan Pearce, wrote an interesting missive over at Samizdata.net. As well as being supportive of the TCC’s work (JP, thanks for the plug), the article provides interesting insights into the materials and debate concerning the causes and political atmospherics of the recent economic bust. I particularly like the lengthy comments section that follows the main article. Indeed, for wholly understandable reasons, this conversation again indicates that Austrianism is gaining what public relations types call ‘traction’ amongst those thinkers truly interested in the genuine causes of things. Excellent.
Why Even the Best Banks are Insolvent and Inherently Dishonest
We are told that Barclays is a good bank and it did well not to take the taxpayers shilling. We are told that it has recovered and is prospering and this indeed is a sign of the economic recovery.
Part of the mission of the Honest Money Movement is to explore and expose these fallacies.
Banks only exist with entrenched legal and accountancy privilege. Privilege for all sectors of the political spectrum is a bad thing. Trade Union privilege to operate a closed shop cuts back on employment and price gouges the customers who buy the goods that the closed shop workers produce. A group of countries who restrict the price of say oil will push up the price of oil and gouge their customers and so on and so forth. All privilege is bad.
Contrast Normal Commercial Activity…
Any business in this country from the plumber to BP will have current creditors, those people it owes money to such as suppliers and current debtors, those people who owe it money for the goods and services sold. It is a legal offense to not pay your assets and your liabilities as and when they fall due. Indeed as a company director you become personally liable should you trade in this position whilst you are insolvent.
…With That of a Bank
A bank has current creditors: on the whole, these are people like you and me who have our salaries or savings paid or deposited into our accounts on our behalf. We do not actually “own our money” that is deposited in the bank. The bank does.
This may come as a surprise to you. However this is a very well established point of law. Since 1811 in Carr v Carr, this has been the case. So you and I are the current creditors to the bank i.e. we are owed money by the bank. In fact your bank statement is just an IOU from the bank acknowledging that it owes you however much it says on the statement on demand.
The assets of the bank are those people to whom the bank has lent its (formerly your) money to i.e. all the borrowers of loans. As has been so clearly displayed during this crisis, they have lent their money out (formerly yours) over 33 times on average to borrowers. I explain the money credit creation multiplier here for a refresher on understanding this process. So when more than 1 of 33 of us wish to withdraw our money that is on demand, the bank can not pay it back as it does not have it.
I enclose a link to the balance sheet of the UK’s largest company, BP here here. Page 106 has the balance sheet.
Non-current assets
£161,854M
Current assets
£66,384M
Total Assets
£228,238M
Current liabilities
£69,793M
Non Current liabilities
£136,129M
Net Assets
£92,109M
This would suggest that BP has current liabilities marginally greater than their current assets. No doubt the timing of the payment to suppliers is carefully balanced off otherwise their auditors could not sign off the accounts if they thought the company could not pay off its assets as and when they fall due.
Contrast this with the Barclays Bank full year 2009 results shown on this spreadsheet.
See tab 4 where we have the consolidated balance sheet. There are just assets and liabilities and there is not a distinction in their accounts between current liabilities i.e. your and my money that has been deposited that is on demand now and a long term liability such as a mortgage to pay off a loan on some property they may occupy etc over a long period of time. There is £322 billion of money on deposit in current creditors that could be withdrawn “on demand” as that is what the bank tells you that you can do with it. Indeed you only deposit it that way because you need to make sure payments happen on demand. They have no requirement to provide you with the ability to make this happen despite the fact that you may have deposited money there!
So unlike BP and any commercial business from the lowest one man band plumber to the mighty BP, who have to account for keeping payments set aside to cover their current liabilities, a bank is not required to. Indeed, it is specifically allowed not to by accounting law and legal privilege under law. If the deposit base of Barclays wanted what it thought was “its” money back i.e. it wanted the £322 billion redeemed into cash or taken out of the bank and moved to another, then as there is no corresponding current asset to pay for this and only assets that have long term payment implications, it would have to suspend redemptions as North Rock did and hope people would wait until it could try to sell some of its long term assets or collect in its loans. In reality, this would be a run on a bank. Barclays by its very nature is inherently insolvent and can only exist by this accounting / legal privilege that does not apply to any other non bank business in the UK!
One of the first things you will ever learn in a law of contract course is that an agreement is reached between parties and a contract established when an offer is accepted with a mirror image of understanding , from the Latin “pacta sunt servanda” or agreements must be kept. So it would strike me that as the vast majority of people think that they deposit their money and it remains their money in a bank and that the law and accounting standards say otherwise, there is a very good argument that there is not a contract in place between any depositor and bank. Certainly as most depositors also want easy access.
I commissioned a survey for the Cobden Centre in Oct 2009 with ICM over 2,000 people. 74% of people think that they are the legal owner of the money in their current account rather than the bank. Paradoxically 61% know that their money is lent out even though 67% want convenient (now) on demand access. The full results of this survey will be published shortly in another paper.
Now we can understand how the banks have the biggest salaries, the biggest bonuses , the biggest offices, the most plush terms and conditions of employment and so on and so forth. If you do not have to provide for your creditors then you can use their money to do what you like with and this is what happens!
Just to give you an idea what this would mean for me in my company Seafood Holdings Ltd if I was allowed to do what the banks are allowed to do. As of December 2009, I had trade current creditors of £8.276m against trade debtors of £12.275m. If I was a bank, I could pick up the full £8.276m and pay a dividend or bonus and still be lawful. I could build a megalomaniac size corporate head office and stick a gold plated statue with me dressed in a Roman Caesar like uniform to please my demented ego! I could behave like the worst most vulgar of City bankers.
We must always remember their key service other than the safe keeping of our money is to act as an intermediary between saver and borrower. This is “Captain Mannering” style boring banking. Like and estate agent who mediates between buyer and seller of houses, he has a High Street presence like most providing a consumer service. Places like the City of London / Canary Wharf and Wall Street etc can only exist as they do today on this legal privilege and on the welfare state of credit whereby we allow them to exist at the tax payers’ expense.
Last week, Jamie Whyte, James Tyler, Tom Clougherty and I attended a dinner with numerous others at which the former Prime Minister of Georgia, Vladimer ‘Lado’ Gurgenidze spoke. Hosted by good our friends at the Adam Smith Institute, the evening was a showcase of sound reform and what can be achieved by politicians who have a clear vision and will to set people free. Don’t take my word for it. Get a flavour from the man himself, here.
It is with great sadness that I have learned in the last 24 hours that an old friend, Walter Allan, died last Friday. A Scottish graduate in economics, Walter not only went on to work with the publishing house MacMillan as a commissioning edtior but in the early 1990s he served as the Editorial Director of the Institute of Economic Affairs.
In recent years I understand that he divided his time between his wife Eunice in Manchester, teaching commitments at the Cass Business School in London, and the writing of numerous economics and business studies textbooks.
A driven and natural teacher, writer and raconteur, “Wal” as he was known to his friends, was also one of the funniest people you could ever have the pleasure of working with. Mindful of his larger than life character, his outrageous humour and his sheer sense of life, I and many other free marketeers will miss him greatly. Walter Allan, rest in peace.
Some of my City friends who work in banking have had a look at the 2009 Barclays balance sheet and made comment on how the profits are made up.
They report to me that the one off profit from the disposal of BGI to Blackrock was £6.3bn. Add that to the trading profit of £7bn and you get 130% of the total profit of this “bank.”
Accounting like this is like Manchester United selling top player Ronaldo in the last financial year for £80 million when the average sale of a player in the football world produces only £1 – £5 million and kidding themselves that this is a result of them trading profitably in a sustainable way. It seems unlikely that shareholders in this football club will be relying on a spectacular cash event occurring each year as a regular occurrence. Therefore, many analysts are inclined to deduct from the profits such one off events to get a better view of predictable stable cashflow. (see tab 18 of the spreadsheet previously mentioned in yesterdays article and downloaded from here, http://group.barclays.com/Investor-Relations/Financial-results-and-publications/Results-announcements ).
Further, I’m told that a brief review of the numbers indicates that £7bn of the £10.2bn profits are expressed as “trading income” (last year £1.3bn).
I would pose three questions:
a) What if the markets had gone the other way? Would we be told these are not real cash losses?
b) How many politicians that want Glass Steagall separation of retail banking from casino banking will criticise them?
The political class want both the cake and to eat it, or they are just ignorant.
They no doubt are content that 74% of the TOTAL ASSETS of Barclays sit in Barclays Capital – the investment banking or casino arm..
c) Let’s have a look at bonuses – having slashed cost income ratios from 76% q4 08 to 55% q1 09, ratio is now back up at 64% q4 09. Is this what the political class meant when they wanted to see a more equitable salary to profit ratio?
Let us also consider the consequences of mark to market accounting FOR P&L PROFITS. The wisdom of MTM for balance sheet and transparency is not in dispute, but in a government bailout environment, the profit and loss accounts of banks is boosted artificially by the very bailout itself. The effect of interest rates being forced down from 5% to 0.5% artificially boosts the mark to market value of any unhedged long term assets on trading book. I urge you to think about what imputed capital value you have on an income stream today with interest rates at 0.5% as against an interest rate of say 5%, they work in inverse proportion i.e. the lower the rate the higher the capital value. A property generating rent of £1,000 per week, should be multiplied by 200 times to get its capital value or the value of its income stream. A little bit Alice in Wonderland I am sure you will agree.
Bonuses should not be paid on these numbers because the “profits” are unrealised, and will turn to huge losses if interest rates go up as they are still unhedged, remember! The bankers are making sure they can take a bonus on 30 years implied profits today in this low welfare state of credit environment with you and me, aka the taxpayer paying for it.
Let me explain in another way. MTM accounting takes a payment due in the future, say £100 after 1 year, and “discounts this by the interest rate to value the payment today taking into account the delay and the cost of money. So if rates are 5% in this simple example then the MTM value today is a shade over £95, since £95 invested at 5% for 1 year will produce about £100. If the interest rate is 0%, then the MTM value is £100. Therefore, the reduction in interest rates increases the MTM value of payments due in the future..
I question the long term value to profits of:
1) buying alphabet soup bombed out CLOs CDOs, CDO squared structures and funding them at 0.5% courtesy of the taxpayer via the Band of England Discount Window.
The Discount Window remember is being used as the lender of last resort in the banking system and has been very active since the October 2008 crash with us the taxpayer subsidizing all of this!
2) Present valuing (ie booking to p&l as if realised, earned income today) under synthetic (credit default swap) structures of say 30 year loan margins as day 1 profits.
For a more detailed explanation see Gordon Kerr’s presentation March 2nd at the European Parliament reported on this site as “Iceland and the Western Banking System”
Allister Heath (City AM) further notes that the accounts declare that cost of capital is 12% but return on capital employed is 8% – “shocking – makes no sense” is the comment.
Surely is not Barclays Bank effectively operating as a hedge fund with a modest high street retail bank attached?
I have only the following comment to make on this. If Barclays wants to list in the Caymans and invite me to invest in its shares, that is capitalism operating perfectly in a free market.
Where the Cobden Centre takes issue with this is the operation of the free market being distorted by taxpayer intervention. It is surely unacceptable for the taxpayer to be asked to:
a) underwrite the solvency of this hedge fund,
b) fund it through the Bank of England’s discount window, and
c) pay its employees bonuses based on asset valuations that not even a hedge fund at the racier end would attempt to classify as profits.
Any hedge fund with a cost of capital of 12% and a return on capital of 8% would be asking its “partners” (ie employees) to inject more money to evidence commitment or ’skin in the game’…as the hedgies in Mayfair term it.
So much for the new found stability of our banking system. Our money system continues to get more dishonest every day.
My wife, Helen, is director of Nurses for Reform which is a campaign organisation that she set up back in 2006 to oppose the politicisation of healthcare.
This morning she phoned to tell me that her latest missive had appeared in the hard and on-line editions of the Daily Telegraph.
With a PhD on health economics she is not only a staunch supporter of consumer power but she is also an ardent debunker of sectional vested interest.
As previously mentioned on this blog, TCC’s Chairman Toby Baxendale and I traveled to Jeykell Island in the US the weekend before last to attend a major conference hosted by the good people of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Headed ‘The Birth and Death of the Fed’ not only was the event very impressive in its own right – very well organised with several hundred people in attendance – but there were lots of excellent speakers exploring money and banking from an Austrian school perspective. You can listen to the main highlights here through these links:
Robert P. Murphy – Only the Austrians can Can Explain Depressions
For me, it was not only a delight to listen to and meet Lew Rockwell but it was also a particular pleasure to meet and talk with Congressman Ron Paul. A most intelligent and moral person, I found him to be every bit the gentleman I had expected.
This post is excerpted from Mises’ “The Causes of the Economic Crisis and Other Essays Before and After the Great Depression” which is available to buy here and download here. Both Andreas Acavalos and Toby Baxendale supported the production of this book.
Emphasis mine.
On covering government deficits by creating new money (pp 2-3):
If the practice persists of covering government deficits with the issue of notes, then the day will come without fail, sooner or later, when the monetary systems of those nations pursuing this course will break down completely. The purchasing power of the monetary unit will decline more and more, until finally it disappears completely. To be sure, one could conceive of the possibility that the process of monetary depreciation could go on forever. The purchasing power of the monetary unit could become increasingly smaller without ever disappearing entirely. Prices would then rise more and more. It would still continue to be possible to exchange notes for commodities. Finally, the situation would reach such a state that people would be operating with billions and trillions and then even higher sums for small transactions. The monetary system would still continue to function. However, this prospect scarcely resembles reality.
On credit expansion by banks, its effects on the economy and the ensuing crisis (pp 113-115):
The crisis breaks out only when the banks alter their conduct to the extent that they discontinue issuing any more new fiduciary media and stop undercutting the “natural interest rate.” They may even take steps to restrict circulation credit. When they actually do this, and why, is still to be examined. First of all, however, we must ask ourselves whether it is possible for the banks to stay on the course upon which they have embarked, permitting new quantities of fiduciary media to flow into circulation continuously and proceeding always to make loans below the rate of interest which would prevail on the market in the absence of their interference with newly created fiduciary media.
If the banks could proceed in this manner, with businesses improving continually, could they then provide for lasting good times? Would they then be able to make the boom eternal?
They cannot do this. The reason they cannot is that inflationism carried on ad infinitum is not a workable policy. If the issue of fiduciary media is expanded continuously, prices rise ever higher and at the same time the positive price premium also rises. (We shall disregard the fact that consideration for (1) the continually declining monetary reserves relative to fiduciary media and (2) the banks’ operating costs must sooner or later compel them to discontinue the further expansion of circulation credit.) It is precisely because, and only because, no end to the prolonged “flood” of expanding fiduciary media is foreseen, that it leads to still sharper price increases and, finally, to a panic in which prices and the loan rate move erratically upward.
Suppose the banks still did not want to give up the race? Suppose, in order to depress the loan rate, they wanted to satisfy the continuously expanding desire for credit by issuing still more circulation credit? Then they would only hasten the end, the collapse of the entire system of fiduciary media. The inflation can continue only so long as the conviction persists that it will one day cease. Once people are persuaded that the inflation will not stop, they turn from the use of this money. They flee then to “real values,” foreign money, the precious metals, and barter.
Sooner or later, the crisis must inevitably break out as the result of a change in the conduct of the banks. The later the crack-up comes, the longer the period in which the calculation of the entrepreneurs is misguided by the issue of additional fiduciary media. The greater this additional quantity of fiduciary money, the more factors of production have been firmly committed in the form of investments which appeared profitable only because of the artificially reduced interest rate and which prove to be unprofitable now that the interest rate has again been raised.
Great losses are sustained as a result of misdirected capital investments. Many new structures remain unfinished. Others, already completed, close down operations. Still others are carried on because, after writing off losses which represent a waste of capital, operation of the existing structure pays at least something.
The crisis, with its unique characteristics, is followed by stagnation. The misguided enterprises and businesses of the boom period are already liquidated. Bankruptcy and adjustment have cleared up the situation. The banks have become cautious. They fight shy of expanding circulation credit. They are not inclined to give an ear to credit applications from schemers and promoters. Not only is the artificial stimulus to business, through the expansion of circulation credit, lacking, but even businesses which would be feasible, considering the capital goods available, are not attempted because the general feeling of discouragement makes every innovation appear doubtful. Prevailing “money interest rates” fall below the “natural interest rates.”
When the crisis breaks out, loan rates bound sharply upward because threatened enterprises offer extremely high interest rates for the funds to acquire the resources, with the help of which they hope to save themselves. Later, as the panic subsides, a situation develops, as a result of the restriction of circulation credit and attempts to dispose of large inventories, causing prices [and the “money interest rate”] to fall steadily and leading to the appearance of a negative price premium. This reduced rate of loan interest is adhered to for some time, even after the decline in prices comes to a standstill, when a negative price premium no longer corresponds to conditions. Thus, it comes about that the “money interest rate” is lower than the “natural rate.” Yet, because the unfortunate experiences of the recent crisis have made everyone uneasy, the incentive to business activity is not as strong as circumstances would otherwise warrant. Quite a time passes before capital funds, increased once again by savings accumulated in the meantime, exert sufficient pressure on the loan interest rate for an expansion of entrepreneurial activity to resume. With this development, the low point is passed and the new boom begins.
The current debate about bankers’ bonuses is often seen as one of fairness pitted against the greed of those nasty capitalists,.
To me, bankers are lawfully working within the system – one that is rotten to the core. The banking system is the greatest of all examples of State corporate capitalism. We have a central bank that is State owned, we have a legal tender law that prevents competition in the provision of the production of money, and we have private sectors banks which are licensed by the State to be its agent when it wants to monetise its very own debts and create inflation at the expense of its citizens: people who have been prudent and thrifty as well as those on fixed income.
The State has one important central intention: to hide its prolific over spending. We have private sector banks that have legal privilege granted to them so they can use their depositors’ money to lend out many times over to entrepreneurs. They are the only type of business in the whole country permitted do this. All other commercial enterprises at all points in time need to keep their current creditors whole, otherwise they are insolvent. There is no requirement at all in this country for any bank to keep even one penny in reserves against their depositors’ funds. In fact, it has been a stated fact of law since 1811 in Carr V Carr that “his” deposited funds are not his, but are in fact the banks’.
This fractional reserve banking system we have can only work with a lender of last resort i.e. the State owned central bank with legal tender laws. This means that in partnership with the State, the State can monetise its debts (at the expense of you and me) and the banks can keep as little reserves as they can get away with to make a return on capital that you and I in the real capitalist private sector could never do. This encourages risk. Indeed with the banks now able to borrow at the taxpayers’ expense via the discount window (heavily subsidised short term central bank funding) and know there is a guarantee of a bail out should their gambles go wrong makes the state and the bankers two equal partners in a very unjust process.
The resulting situation is what I call ‘corporate capitalism’ (thoroughly amoral) as opposed to ‘capitalism’, which is totally moral. This needs some explaining, as I suspect worthy people are shooting arrows at the wrong target.
We know that the free market capitalist system is without doubt the most efficient creator and allocator of resources. Adam Smith taught us that “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest” in his Wealth of Nations. Self interest or the profit motive drives man to create and to provide all the multiplicity of goods and services we have enjoyed and will enjoy.
Mises in his famous book Socialism, http://mises.org/books/socialism.pdf showed us that if Society was run by planners, the price system which allows resources to flow to their most desired uses would not function. Indeed it would impoverish anyone nation that tried it. If, say. the planner could not correctly witness all the competing bids and resource allocations for metals that were capable of being used in the construction of railroad tracks (that involves many companies competing for scarce resources) he would never know which metal would be the most cost effective to build his railroad. No one planner would be able to economically calculate, or indeed, no army of planners would be able to calculate and allocate all the resources of Society in the socialist economy better than the many millions of participants in the economy allocating resources via the price mechanism. The experiment in the Soviet bloc with socialism impoverished at least three generations and lead to wide scale death and a general shortage of life, and misery.
Hayek, in his very famous essay “The Use of Knowledge in Society” http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html added to the critique of Mises by pointing out that absenting the price system would mean that the central planning officials would need to absorb the entire knowledge of all the people in society to effectively plan their needs. This was absurd and impossible.
All State planned schemes, from the provision of money to the provision of health and education – even in our cosy mixed economy – could be done better by an unhampered market. We are thus weary of all bloated government departments and officials who say they can do something better for us – they can’t.
The efficiency case for an unhampered market, or free market capitalism is clear and unchallengeable. The subjective actions of freely consenting adults in a capitalist system produce the most amount of goods in the most efficient way. But is there an objectively moral case for the capitalist system? I attempt to answer it in the remaining part of this Insight article.
First Principles: Secular Argument
I Argue
One thing that distinguishes human beings from all other life forms is our ability to communicate with each other via talking. Only human beings can make a proposition. The question of what is just or unjust only arises because I can debate or argue this point with another person. To be able to argue my position I must be in control of my physical and mental self. I must own myself in order to be to be a human being. I have the total right to use all my physical and mental faculties to participate in life, otherwise I cannot even exist as a human being expressing an opinion. I do not know many people who would argue with this. If I did not own my own faculties I could not participate in life except under the command of who owned me. This also implies that just so much as I own myself, I do not own anyone else. It also follows that if I do something that violates another human being without their consent I violate their right to express their very humanness.
Thus, I deduce that by my very being , I own myself , I own my own property as me, I have a right not to be interfered with so long as I do not interfere with anyone else. It clearly follows that if I were to interfere with someone else’s property, they would not own it. This would deprive them of their own humanity, I suggest. This is a deduction from the axiom that to exist I need to argue. I come to this conclusion via the Haberrmasian axiom of interpersonal argument that has been so cleverly adapted by Hans Herman Hoppe in his book The Economics and Ethics of Private Property: full text, http://mises.org/books/economicsethics.pdf .
To argue against this you explicitly acknowledge control of your faculties, at the very least. Following Kant’s Golden Rule that a norm should be universal in its applicability should it be objectively valid, this proposition surely fulfils this requirement to be a totally objective axiomatic principle.
All ethical propositions, such as socialism, that say that you owe a duty to the State to provide for others, are violations of the very distinguishing thing that makes you a human being and not a rock or a colony of ants. To advocate any form or socialism, be it of the democratic variety, the communist variety, or indeed the mixed economy is to violate your very essence of being a human.
John Locke in his “Two Treatises of Government” spells out that property or, if you like all resources exist prior to any government. Man mixes his labour with what he finds and it is by right his. Government cannot ‘dispose of the estates of the subjects arbitrarily’. Locke left us with a conundrum called “Locke’s proviso.” This is where if a man mixes his labour to own something that was not owned before; he must always leave a “sufficient” amount for other human beings.
Jesus Huerta de Soto, one of the greatest living polymath Austrian School teachers in his essay “The Ethics of Capitalism” http://www.acton.org/files/mm-v2n2-desoto.pdf , shows us how possibly the other living giant of the Austrian School, Israel Kirzner in “Discovery, Capitalism, and Distributive Justice” has solved this proviso of Locke. And allows us to build the objective moral ethic of capitalism.
Socialist, social democrats and a large body of modern day liberals and conservatives have a distributive conception of justice that is about a top down approach of redistribution of scarce resources from those who do have to those who that have less, or nothing , or whose lobby groups has succeeded in extracting something from those that have. Kirzner shows us how as all human being are creative actor: they are always engaging in entrepreneurial activity to generate new goods and services. All human beings are alert to opportunity, some to a greater degree than others. The fruits of this alertness arises via their actions. This is universally so. To not act would not create these things. So he proposes an axiom that all human beings have a natural right to the fruits of their own entrepreneurial creativity. As these things are created out of nothing, it implies that the acting person has an undoubted right to the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of the fruits of his or her labour. If it did not exist before, it cannot be a negative to anyone else. So Locke’s proviso is overcome by the understanding of society as dynamic and spontaneous constantly evolving process with alert actors constantly creating new goods and services that they must have an unquestionable right to own.
De Soto coins the term ‘Dynamic Efficiency’ to describe this process. He also points out that the free market capitalist system – that we know is the most efficient system – is also the most just and in fact, these two concepts are indeed two sides of the same one coin. Any form of intervention is immoral as it impedes the creative capacity of individuals to express their creativity and create all the wide range of goods and services we have. It should be pointed out that top down provision of health, education, transport, industry etc is inefficient and hence unjust as it suppresses the creative activity of human beings. Absent the profit motive and you will get sub optimal results.
Writing about the morality of capitalism in glowing positive terms as I have done above and setting it in the backdrop of universally applicable objective axioms is not as unfashionable as talking to any thinking person about God, but only just! Such is the secular society we live in; you are considered to be an ill informed mystic should you engage in “god bothering.” The See of Peter would naturally see this differently and I am very grateful for De Soto to direct me to the pro capitalist teachings of the Catholic Church.
Are the above self evident axioms that are universally applicable in all times and in all places to everybody there because we are human or are they there because they are God endowed?
I can ague both, but I favour self evident God endowed over self evident secular, although the latter can stand on its own legs. Why?
I wrote this article about the proof God three years ago: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/baxendale2.html . In short, I take the Aristotelian inspired position that as I exist I know that other physical things exist. I know that each and every one of these physical things must have been caused by another physical thing. I know that nothing is infinite. If it was, I would not exist as for it to be infinite, it would occupy all time and space and I would not exist. As I exist, I know this cannot be the case. I know there is a beginning to the universe and that there are physical boundaries to the universe, therefore I know there cannot be an infinite series of physical causes and effects as there would be no boundary and no beginning. Therefore what caused the first physical thing must indeed be immaterial if it cannot be a physical cause. This immaterial thing is what I label as ‘God’. So I conclude God does exist and the only act I can attribute to God by a priori reasoning is that God created everything. As I like to exist I am very grateful for this and can only conclude that God has good intentions. If I do not like to exist, I can choose not to and commit suicide. God is therefore good for me and objectively good for all human beings. As God has created everything, he has endowed us with the ability to reason and engage in the formation of reasoned propositions, the latter which is undoubtedly a unique attribute to mankind the former quite possible unique to mankind, sets the foundation for the derivation of the rights of man and the very ethics of capitalism.
