British Library
The Interactive Investor
Principles
and Meaning
The
poet, William Blake (1757-1827) depicted Sir Issac Newton in a famous
watercolor, showing him surrounded by the glories of nature, but intently
focusing on reducing the complexity of the universe to mathematics, leaning
forward with his compass.
It
started, as did many things, with the ancient Greeks. In “The Republic (~b.c.
375),” 1 Plato described the rational and intelligible world of
ideal forms. Its modern descendents are objectivity (applicable to both friend
and foe) 2, principle, and the administrative state 3. In
contrast to this world, Plato described the actual world, men shackled to their
circumstances and only able to see the shadows of ideal, projected onto the
walls of their cave, dealing only with appearances in a world of social change.
4
Certainty
From
these beginnings, rose the unique Western concepts of certain knowledge and
principle. The search for certain and verifiable knowledge began with Plato and
continued with the mathematical and scientific writings of Rene Descartes
(locating an object in space with cartesian coordinates) who wrote, “The first
rule was never to accept anything as true unless I recognized it to be
<certainly and> evidently such…” 5 and who then began with the
principle, “I think, therefore I am.” 6
Why
these concepts and principles? In the words of MIT theoretical physicist and
cosmologist Alan Lightman:
“Certainty,
like permanence and immortality, is one of those conditions we long for despite
a great deal of evidence to the contrary. Certainty often confers control. And
we badly want control in this strange cosmos we find ourselves in….Certainty offers us safety, stability, reliability,
predictability, rules for behavior….And then there’s the practical. Certainty,
whether real or imagined, permits us to predict the future, at least in the
physical world. And successful prognostication confers survival advantage….If a preference for certainty has been wired onto our
genes over the millennia as a tool for survival, it follows that uncertainty
should cause stress and discomfort.” 7 (Adam Smith had a very
effective solution to this problem, which we will discuss later. But to proceed
with some contemporary science; we do so also out of a simple curiosity.)
Uncertainty
Contemporary
science grew out of the uncertain cultural milieu of Weimar Germany after W.W.
I. From this uncertainty arose horrible politics. However, the probability
science that also resulted now resides harmoniously with the classical camera
optics of your smartphone.
There
are three major types of physics:
1) The relativity physics of the
very large universe. (Einstein)
2) The classical physics of the
ordinary world. (Newton)
3) The quantum physics of the
very small. (Rutherford, Born)
A
simple experiment 8 will illustrate at the atomic levels, the
universe is at least probable. And in part that probability sums up to the
level of ordinary experience and classical certainty. Uncertainty, however,
will always exist because of the
unknown.
Electrons
have a property called “spin.” After one measurement, the experimental
apparatus records a spin along the z axis of +1. “If the spin is not disturbed
and the apparatus keeps the same orientation, all subsequent observations will
give the same result.” 8a
Now prepare the electron with the previously measured
spin and rotate the experimental apparatus 90 degrees so the up-arrow point along the x axis. Instead of giving an x component of
zero, as it would in the classic state, the apparatus will record either a
series of spins of +1 or -1, which will statistically average to zero. The
unchanging classic state is an average of discretely different quantum
states.
At
the more complex level of human experience, people seek certainty, and
therefore meaning, in principled systems that are beyond doubt: religion,
science, democracy, value investing 9 and so on. Science is one of
these systems. Lightman describes the Central Doctrine of Science. “All
properties and events in the physical universe are governed by laws, and these
laws hold true at every time and place in the universe.” 10 To bring
this to the practical world; the laws of aerodynamics can’t work on some plane
flights but not on others. But complex systems also require stabilizers: the
experimental method, voluntary organizations, procedures to effect political
equality, central banks, financial fundamentals, and so on.
The
Problems of Markets
Problems
occur when matters of principle go wrong or disappear. In “The Communist
Manifesto,” Karl Marx complained about the social solvent of the market system,
“Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all
social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the
bourgeois (commercial) epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed…frozen
relations…are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can
ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned…” 11
To make a long story short, the results of capitalist market modernization upon
the baroque European society of orders were the French and Fascist revolutions.
Except in England.
What
Went Right
One
factor was that the English invented modernization and the industrial
revolution. But there was more. Instead of Descartes’ “I think, therefore I
am.” Physicist Alan Lightman wrote, “I feel, therefore I am.” 12
That was the secret that the English had discovered.
Commenting
upon Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations (1776),” economist Robert Heilbroner wrote, “…the mechanism of competition
would bring about a state of economic provisioning as dependable as provided by
state command, and a great deal more flexible and dynamic.” 13 In a
famous passage, Smith extolled the role of capitalist self-interest. “It is not
for the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our
dinner, but from the regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves,
not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own
necessities but of their advantages.” 14
Such
untrammeled self-interest might be found within capitalism; but Smith was also
a conservative, concerned with the stability of his society. Thus, in “The
Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759),” of which he was equally proud, he sought to
create a workable system of social and moral order. According to Heilbroner, “(This)…is a book about the socialization of
men and women who had emerged from the straitjacket of a traditional, often
dogmatic social order, and must create a workable system of morality and social
order in a new condition of ‘perfect’ liberty.” 15
In
“The Theory” he wrote about the Sympathy Principle. “As we have no immediate experience
of what other men feel, we can form no idea of the manner in which they are
affected, but by conceiving what we ourselves should feel in the like
situation….That this is the source of our fellow-feeling for the misery of
others, that it is by changing places in fancy with the sufferer, that we come
either to conceive or to be affected by what he feels.…When we see a stroke
aimed and just ready to fall upon the leg or arm of another person, we
naturally shrink and draw back our own leg or our own arm; and when it does
fall, we feel it in some measure, and are hurt by it as well as the sufferer.” 16
To
bring this to the contemporary world, there are two ways to look at immigrants.
First as faceless hordes that are storming the borders of the United States.
Second as people, with their own stories, who may have walked a thousand miles
to get to a better life. (The United States, by the way, needs additional
immigration to alleviate its labor shortages.) Washington, D.C. has to reach a negotiated consensus on appropriate
immigration policy. That also applies to realities of climate change, changes in social
structure and appropriate deglobalization – all this for the sake of effective
government whose main task is keep Americans safe now and in the future.
Most
generally, the overarching principle of social trust -like minds- and adaptability
are necessary to maintain nations and other social organizations over the
long-run. To maintain a nation, there has to be a
sense of a common destiny and the ability to negotiate differences.
What
Went Wrong
There
isn’t much social trust in totalitarian societies, which are inevitably born of
chaotic conditions. In the case of Nazi Germany, the chaos was caused by
military defeat, great economic hardship and
inflation. In the case of Revolutionary France, the chaos was caused by free
markets chipping away at the society of orders and the consequent inability of
the central government to effect financial reform. In the possible case of the
U.S., the chaos of existing economic and social polarization was exacerbated by
a chaotic “I am your retribution,” Trump -who among other things- denied the
legitimacy of the 2020 election and mismanaged the COVID crisis, resulting in
the second highest per capita death toll in the world. 16a
In
19th century Europe and particularly Russia, existing social
conditions were called anomie, a lack of standards; and alienation,
a failure to seek true interests. Existing classes having been pulverized by
larger economic forces or by political action, people were simply reduced to,
“the masses,” susceptible to manipulation and exploitation by a self-appointed
elite who claimed to effect the “popular will,” while
subordinating all manifestations of normal society to that illusion.
In
1968, Hannah Arendt wrote “The Origins of Totalitarianism,” a definitive work
on its nature. “The forms of totalitarian organization, as distinguished from
their ideological content and propaganda slogans are completely new. They are
designed to translate the propaganda lies of the movement woven around a
central fiction – (In the Trump case, a stolen 2020 election) – into a
functioning reality, to build up, even under nontotalitarian circumstances, a
society whose members act and react according to the rules of a fictitious
world.” 17 For
totalitarian societies, reality and facts are not even the point as they are in
empirical, democratic societies.
Totalitarian
organizations are built like an onion. At the outer rings, the party membership
is highly ideological. “While the membership does not believe statements made
for public consumption, it believes all the most fervently the standard cliches
of ideological explanation….In contrast to the
movements’ tactical lies which change literally from day to day, the
ideological lies are supposed to be believed like
sacred untouchable truths.” 18 To proceed to the inner rings is to
proceed along, “graduated cynicism.”
“The
(innermost) layer in the organization of totalitarian movements is the intimate
circle around the Leader, which can be a formal institution, like the Bolshevik
Politburo, or a changing clique of men who do not necessarily hold office, like
the entourage of Hitler. To them ideological cliches are mere devices to
organize the masses, and they feel no compunction about changing them according
to the needs of circumstances…” 19
Finally
at the center there is pure will of the chaotic leader and his circle, for
whom, in Arendt’s famous phrases, “everything is permitted…everything is
possible.” 20 (Sound familiar?) Then there is a secret police to
execute his whim and to keep society atomized, “…‘the
best organized and the most efficient’ of all government departments, in the
power apparatus of the totalitarian regime….the secret police agents are the
only openly ruling class in totalitarian countries, and their standards and
scale of values permeate the entire texture of totalitarian society.” 21
These
components (except for the secret police) are already present in the person and
likely government of Donald Trump. It is in the nature of
democratic politics for people to seek compromise, to reflect different
views. Donald Trump doesn’t compromise, and in 2016 simply ran over the
professionals in the Republican party with his ideologically committed base. To
repeat, for totalitarian societies, reality and facts are not even the point
as they are in empirical, democratic societies. The only point is power, to
effect the unstable chaotic will of the leader.
The
Importance of Tradition
Totalitarian
governments are born out of chaos. Commenting upon the looming bloodshed of the
French Revolution, Edmund Burke (1789) wrote about, “…the preference for a
despotic democracy to a government of reciprocal control,” 22 which
we wrote about in the previous essay. “Reciprocal Control” requires bargaining;
bargaining requires social trust; trust requires a commonality. The American
Revolution and Constitution grew out of the Enlightenment,
and was also therefore ideological; but it was successful because it was
built upon the traditions of the past, the “common rights” that the English had
struggled for and evolved.
However,
U.S. experiences in Vietnam and the Mideast show that a wholesale transplant of
alien institutions does not end well for anyone, without a beginning point of
social trust and sympathy (but not capitulation) to the opposing point of view.
Principles
and Meaning
Eduardo
Paolozzi cast in bronze the above statue for the
plaza of the British Library. He was inspired by both Newton and Blake
together, “...embodying the library as a place serving man’s endless search for
truth, both in the sciences and the humanities.”
Meaning
derives from the inheritance or selection of principles. What is now the goal
of Western thought? We think it is an agreement between principles (laws) and
the complex world, where much remains unknown but of which people are now a
part. One political principle might be to try to make things a bit better than
the way they were. The principle of value investing is, "Never pay
retail,” in a world where the appreciation of five stocks comprise
nearly all the year to date return of the S&P 500. We think principles
should be few in number 22a, but surely not
absent, with details primarily left to the concerns of people in their specific
societies.
Agreement,
or harmony with the perceived facts, is probably the meaning of thought in most
societies. But now consider a difference between the British and American
conservatives. The 5/26/23 FT writes, “…(a) flagship conference in London
featuring US speakers…(noted) how radical (ideological) the US Republican party
had become on social issues, and how comparatively moderate Britain’s
Conservatives are. From immigration and racial discrimination to whether to
defend tradition or embrace change…” 23
One could very seriously ask which
political party, Democrat or Republican as presently constituted, is better for
the nation in the long-run. Principles have real
meaning for the future.