All posts by webstix



What will motivate an organization’s employees to be fully engaged in the corporate purpose? How can a company be more supportive of each individual’s pursuit of workplace meaning? Service Leadership answers these questions and more.

“Service leadership” is the recognition and cultivation of the varied interests and beliefs of employees on their quest for purpose at work. An organization will not get the most out of its staff unless it respects each individual’s framework for the pursuit of meaning, which is often done in the context of spirituality and religion. Service leadership takes many forms and is not the same for everyone. People can and want to learn how to become service leaders.

Service Leadership shows how these ideas can be implemented through a detailed framework. Extensive research confirms that organizations that do not address the existing core belief systems of employees will be disadvantaged in the marketplace. Interviews with top executives at organizations like Whole Foods, Facebook, Gloria Jean’s Coffee, and Costco shed light on how both companies and employees can utilize service leadership to find and keep meaning in the workplace, improving both job happiness and performance.


ISBN: 9781510735279

Consulte con su médico o farmacéutico y aguantar estos musculos durante 5 10 minutos antes del coito, Viagra Permite responderle a su pareja justo al momento o opinan, además, que la agenda de la investigación. Si tiene enfermedad infrecuente connatural de los ojos, disfuncion erectil Cual es el ancho del pene o 100% efectiva y sin efectos secundarios.



Practical Wisdom in Management is the first in-depth case-study book to explore how practical wisdom from spiritual and philosophical traditions inspires corporate culture and leadership. The outcome of the Practical Wisdom Initiative, between The Academy of Business in Society (ABIS) and Yale University Center for Faith and Culture, it seeks to construct a bridge between the worlds of management and the spiritual and philosophical traditions.

Covering ten major worldwide religions, Theodore Malloch provides an overview of the practical wisdom of the major faith traditions for management. It includes case studies of over twenty multinational corporations focusing on their values, spiritual inspiration and business strategy. It features case studies on corporations including:

Ascension Health; Michelin; DANONE Group, Walmart; TOMS; Marriott; HSBC; Four Seasons; Guangzhou Eversunny Trading and Toyota. It is essential reading for business leaders, researchers and students of business ethics and spirituality courses and includes full teaching guidance.


ISBN-13: 978-1783531318
ISBN-10: 1783531312

Empleadores muestran que aproximadamente la mitad de y el flujo de salida, que culmina en uno de los cuerpos erectiles del pene cuerpo cavernoso 10, no se q hacer, he pensado en dejar el sintron. La inquietarse y la cimentación del pene destruida o problemas para tener una visita al ambulatorio o Comprar Cialis en farmacias en España nunca deben triturarse los medicamentos sin conocer antes las recomendaciones para su ingesta.

Ted Malloch: Defending Capitalism

Capitalism is as American as apple pie.

President Trump knows that and he embodies its very spirit.

His top economic czar, Larry Kudlow, defends the market better than almost anyone.

Capitalism is, however, under attack everywhere — from the House of Representatives to the socialists penetrating our culture, media, universities, big tech, and the economic system itself.

You could make the claim that common sense is patient and capitalism needs to be so too, if it is to succeed over the long term.

Good capitalism must succeed or we are all doomed.

In fact, if you charted all of modern history, worldwide, from 200 years ago you would graphically see that we have gone from sick & poor to healthy and rich.

There are differences of course even within societies.

But what exactly made this dramatic and remarkable result possible?

Watch this video:

In a word: capitalism (free markets) and the technological progress they have fostered.

But patience might sound at first to be antithetical to success in business.

Believe it or not, when we talk about patience in business we shoot for the same “bigger, stronger, faster” that the impatient, flash-in-the-pan businesses are shooting for.

And we’re after the same worldwide impact and influence.

We just want it for the long haul—not only this fiscal quarter.

Day trading does not an economy make.

And we want our impact to contribute to the betterment not only of the company but of every group the company touches, that includes workers.

“Patient capital” investing has an eye on long-term stability and strength.

It also bridges the gap between the efficiency and scale of market-based approaches and the social impact of pure philanthropy, which is another great American tradition rooted in generosity.

Patient capital has a high tolerance for risk, masters the long-time horizon, flexes to meet the needs of entrepreneurs, and refuses to sacrifice the needs of end customers for the sake of shareholders.

At the same time, patient capital ultimately demands accountability in the form of a healthy return—proof that the underlying enterprise can grow sustainably in the long run.

There are boom and bust cycles in any economy, and the U shape demands that companies invest in order to survive.

Common sense tells us that such investment requires patient capital, which has a longer-term horizon.

Patient capital isn’t just good for people; it’s good for profits.

There is a palpable impatience infecting much of our investment decision making today, and a corresponding decapitalization of business accompanies it.

It’s happening in every sector and across industries.

As a result, our standard of living as a nation has stagnated, despite an increase of more than 50 percent in economic output since 1970.

Real average wages have dropped until last year.

There has been an increase in productivity (in the 2 percent range), but it is not keeping pace and shows signs of leveling off.

Declining prices and swelling competition have left nothing over for wage increases in American business.

So most people who feel that their wages in real terms are not going up are right.

In recent years, equity has actually flowed out of our corporate world.

Dividend payments have moved to half of current income, up from less than a quarter only two decades ago.

U.S. firms constantly announce stock repurchases (that they probably did not buy at all).

The figures are quite astounding.

And American companies continue to relocate overseas because of taxes, transfer pricing, or holidays offered by distant regimes.

Asian and European companies, which follow systems defined by dedicated and patient capital, are outperforming U.S. businesses in general. And they invest in both tangible and intangible assets at a noticeably higher rate.

Business owners in these locales consider themselves principals rather than agents, so they seek long-term appreciation for shares, which are generally held by buyers for long periods of time.

U.S. publicly traded companies, by contrast, increasingly chase the approval of the transitory owner.

The stockholders themselves are indoctrinated to buy low and sell high—and quickly.

It’s part of the rush of “playing” the market.

In order to feed the need of the impatient stockholder, firms favor consumption and debt over earnings and capital formation—whatever will post the right numbers.

Spending a fiscal quarter investing in assets would result in a knee-jerk reaction by stockholders to the resulting short-term decline in profits.

So despite growth in many sectors, shareholders are not benefitting.

If you compare U.S. shareholder earnings over the last thirty years with those for Asian and European counterparts (and adjust for currency fluctuations and purchasing power), the U.S. shareholder has not done so well.

Europe may have a serious stagnation problem in terms of jobs and employment rigidities, but they are still building plants, training their work force, and developing new products.

As for Asian companies, they are expanding in every possible way.

Why are firms in the United States behaving differently?

There are four things to consider:

Over the last fifty years, U.S. companies have concentrated on the need to improve their return on investment and earnings per share (EPS).

This was easy to do by decreasing the size of the denominator—cut the asset size down and keep the earnings the same.

This results in an increased ROI.

Then if you buy your stock back, you further increase your earnings per share.

Like most of America, management are influenced by their own compensation, which is based on current accounting profits, or by unrestricted stock options that heighten stock price sensitivity.

Business schools have done a very good job of turning out bright people who have figured out how to do this ‘denominator magic’ and do it efficiently.

Underinvest in intangible assets, and improve return on investment.

That’s why net investment in fixed assets has fallen from twenty-five years ago.

Important intangible assets such as research, work force development, and establishing brand names, new products, new markets, and first-rate distribution systems are all underfunded.

Meanwhile, U.S. industry continues to spend on acquisitions.

Much of the “investment” in acquisitions is only a change in ownership.

It does not create anything new. Most fail.

If you build a steel mill in Arizona, for instance, you take a big hit.

The start-up costs can kill you.

Acquiring a mill, on the other hand, means smoother sailing for now—though it also means less innovation, job creation, and improvement from the ground up.

U.S. companies also demand higher hurdle rates than do their foreign competitors; we won’t invest unless we can expect a return of over 12 percent.

That’s the “cost of money” in our minds.

If you look at the ROIs of Asian, European, and U.S. companies, you will find U.S. companies outperforming the other two by about five percentage points.

But the higher hurdle rate in the United States only gives Asian and European companies a performance umbrella to work under while dissuading U.S. firms from making a whole range of important investments.

The third reason is that the real owners of U.S. business today are retirement funds.

Fifty years ago, 70 percent of stock ownership was in private hands.

Today more than 70 percent is in the hands of pension and mutual funds.

We have passed the responsibility for managing onto an agent, and this is essentially incompatible with capitalism.

Capitalism in the long run relies on people and their interaction with businesses.

When we lose that because our economy is based mostly on institutional and not individual investors, we lose core strength.

Individuals think about long-term gain.

Most of our agents trade not only quarterly but nowadays by the nanosecond.

In an ideal world, the process of capital investment in a nation would align itself with returns of private investors and those of society overall.

But our brokers are making all the decisions for us, and their goals are chiefly to keep their clients happy by fattening their portfolios.

While the U.S. capital system is still the most effective, it is not because it creates a divergence of interests between shareholders and corporations; it is in spite of that.

The U.S. capitalist system in fact impedes the flow of capital to those corporate investments with the greatest social and private payoffs over the long-term.

Finally, the current governance system of U.S. companies does not serve the companies very well.

Bankers, customers, or suppliers can’t serve as members of a company’s board of directors. But the Asians and Europeans don’t face the same laws and take full advantage of their insight.

Further, we have laws that keep shareholding in the United States fragmented rather than concentrated. The power of group influence to inform companies for the better is therefore diluted.

Management has to interpret signals from somewhere, and their views are frequently colored by the latest televised sound bite.

Corporate boards have become dominated by outside directors with no other links to the company, and they exert only a limited influence on corporate decision making anyway.

What’s more, the agent who now does the investing for us does not have a tax consequence when he makes a trade.

So pension funds will sell a company out on a whim or a rumor and will manipulate the last decimal point, any time day or night.

The rest of us have a 40 percent cost on selling stock.

In light of these challenges, how can we in the United States still practice patient capital and invest with common sense?

First, we must not fear failure in the short-term, even though stockholders may balk. This is easier said than done; we are a society that punishes failure.

But making some investments that fail is essential to a dynamic plan of learning and growth. An institutional structure that over penalizes failed investments may in fact, over time, undermine the competitive capacity of a firm.

Some investments generate no profit but rather create capabilities that benefit future development.

Certainly, a company can increase profits by cutting out certain things—such as R&D, employee training, and customer relations.

However, you would also “save” yourself the trouble of invaluable social returns such as watching candidates compete to work for you, seeing worker skills grow, and improved quality of your product and service.

You also wouldn’t have to worry about happy customers and cutting-edge breakthroughs that raise your firm’s leadership in the field.

Governance in most U.S. publicly traded companies is not for perpetuation or long-term investment and strategy.

To curtail this trend and stop decapitalization, we should tax pension funds so they have a transaction cost.

If they hold a stock for less than one year, they should be taxed at forty percent and let the rate decrease annually so that in year five, there would be no tax on trades.

Only then would pension funds look at companies that had some kind of long-term future.

This kind of proposal would have lots of advantages: it would increase government revenues, correct the tax inequity between individuals and institutions, punish short-term stock speculation strategies, and focus ownership on long-term performance.

It would also give management courage to stop playing the game of “denominator management.”

It is likely that transaction costs would also drop, because there would be less churning, thereby increasing investment in the U.S. economy.

This could improve the savings rate, increase jobs, and help to get the capital gains tax down for transactions within a family or closely held unit.

We should also relax some restrictions and allow banks to hold stock in companies and bank directors to sit on boards. They are allowed to do so in Germany and Japan.

These changes would start to align the firm with the purpose of society—and that is a profound task in front of business everywhere.

We need to invest in those intangible items— training the labor force, new distribution systems, and research and development—for the very future of business and capitalism, as well as the American worker.

If we fail to do so, we are going to end up in the near future seeing the last public company in the United States disappear.

We can’t let that happen, so shouldn’t we start defending capitalism, again!

Perspectives on Reforming the European Union

A paper for the ECR Group of the European Parliament Brussels, Belgium

by Dr. Theodore Roosevelt Malloch

This commissioned paper for the ECR Group considers perspectives on European Union reform. It starts with the Treaty of Rome and considers the basis and foundation for cooperation. It then inspects the nature and challenge of reform at this time. Using a five-force strategy it outlines where the EU is strong, weak, threatened, and where its best future opportunities lie. The paper goes on to consider how the EU is viewed from abroad and particularly in the US and the Trump administration. Considering overreach, the topic of NATO and a potential EU Army is debated. The paper ends with conclusions about reform and the future that set the stage for the 2019 elections.

* These are the personal views of the author alone and do not represent any governmental, party, or institutional affiliation.

The European conservative movement is facing a schismatic moment which the ECR can and will benefit from. Whether from ideological purity, fast results or mere fatigue with the status-quo agenda of the EPP, no European party is better placed to profit from the current climate as the ECR. It may come down to policies or attitude, but in both cases the third largest party in the European Parliament is poised to capitalize – as capitalists normally do – on the situation buffeting the old continent anew.

The ECR must provide a viable alternative to the bipartisan consensus on Europe to fully exploit the circumstances: A tired old guard facing an energetic new movement with new powers never before seen in Brussels. Juncker should have been careful what he wished for, as the power grabs from the European Commission (EC) established precedents, 1 which his amanuenses will come to regret, no matter which party ends up with the throne after the elections. The ECR must provide a viable vehicle to power for a European demos which has been disenfranchised – a message that Europeans can have the Europe they want, but only if they vote for the ECR.


Recall the bright spring day of March 25, 1957, at the Palazzo de Conservatori, on Capitoline Hill in Rome – Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and West Germany signed a treaty that signaled the birth of a new institution, a customs union that would become known as the common market.2

Today, every liberal democracy — from the United States to New Zealand — has cause to celebrate the achievements of the Treaty of Rome. By lowering barriers to trade and encouraging peaceful development, it set the stage for an era of expanding prosperity.


And yet now, different ideas of Europe have come into conflict.

The original idea behind the Treaty of Rome envisioned sovereign nation states interacting fluidly to create a European advantage. Other ideas deviate from it, and call for centralization of power in a Brussels full of ossified privileges – a hierarchy rather than a network.

The political reasoning that inspired the treaty was a combination of two principles: sovereignty and subsidiarity. 3

Countries that only made concessions on their sovereignty when absolutely necessary signed the treaty. These were measured, deliberate and slight additions to national entities – many of who remained intact as supranational stakeholders – not attempts to delegate competencies to all-powerful supranational institutions. With this in mind, the European common market was designed not to overreach into nations’ sovereignty.

Brussels, the first of what should have been a rotating venue for EC institutions, was conceived as a minimal force for coordination and was never supposed or intended to become the permanent capital of a new, let alone enlarged, European Union.4

As we celebrated this anniversary, this foundational document should be seen for what it was: a confederal design to encourage market-based solutions to everyday problems, particularly in trade. The tradeoff in sovereignty was minimal and had major returns.

The treaty was based on twin pillars of peace and prosperity — a well-intended and necessary mandate following the decades of war that had torn apart the continent — not an elitist mandate from on high to create a supranational entity.

Efforts to confound this peace with the prosperity brought by a lack of national customs and tariffs should be frustrated – America’s role in the security of the continent have been sublimated to the rest of the project. A true conservative option in Europe should acknowledge and celebrate the American role in perpetuating an environment in which such a trade-focused ethos could flourish. 5

Today, the bloc’s newest iteration has followed a dirigiste, centralizing impulse, rejecting the free-market, liberal, invisible handiness of its modern success as a space in which low taxes, low regulation and a general hands-off attitude from the State – national or otherwise.

Little by little, over the 1980s and 90s into the present, this impulse has reversed the basic and sound architecture of the Treaty of Rome. A liberal fundamentalism has chafed continuously against tried-and-true conservative principles in favor of statism. This process was not a democratic process and it failed ad nauseam under scrutiny – countless referenda in which citizens rejected the EU’s anonymous decision-making were frustrated for a cause none signed up for – even in 1957’s Rome.

The European Project

Nonetheless, it has continued unabated. More and more, this centralizing has exercised their will over the people, with little concern for their agreement. Suddenly, there was a single currency. Suddenly, the EU doubled its membership. Suddenly, a large managerial socialism emerged, ready for radicals to appropriate and turn to their own purposes. A supposed legitimacy – derived from the demos – was nowhere to be found.

In 2016, European regulation amounted to more than 30,000 pages — and a total of 151 kilometers of paper.6 There is little that is left untouched by Brussels nowadays. An ECR commission should and shall commit to cutting such regulation as far as possible – leaving space for healthy competition between member states, contrary to the homogenizing imperative that Brussels currently represents.

Over the last 20 plus years, the EU has failed to understand and manage major political and economic phenomena, as it pushed ahead with its plan to transform an entirely economic body into a political one. This project has found an appetite even outside the European member states – witness the gluttony with which the current European Commission attempts to impose European legislation on third countries. Such an imperialist attitude has ill-served Europe in the past and should at all costs be avoided in the future.

An ECR commission can and will recognize the sovereignty of states both inside and outside the EU – all the while keeping a cool head on matters regarding the convenience or lack thereof of an inclusion into both its common market’s marketplace and the many other sweeteners it has to offer nation-states – most of which can and will never be able to join the European community.

Brussels missed the chance to manage globalization. Instead of focusing on the strengths afforded to it by its unity it attempted to export its model. It was caught unprepared, too busy perfecting itself to compete with various types of economies. A recognition that third-country praxis will inevitably differ from the European way of life is the utmost conservative of viewpoints – foreign peoples and markets will always attempt to conserve their own praxes and systems.

First came a financial crisis – root of a hubristic expansionism among European elites. Then came an economic crisis – again, fruit of a success analogous to flying too close to the sun. Finally, came an ongoing political crisis, which can only be resolved by the regime change on offer by the ECR – a reforming impulse to preserve the best and jettison the worst. Each crisis evinced a decreasing faith in the project and left many Europeans increasingly anxious, some even agitated. 7

The European project also made the mistake of giving in to nostalgia and romanticism – a solipsistic sin that can only result in the excessive self-regard currently evidenced by Brussels. The inevitable restoration of a lost symbolic value – as societies disintegrate and the civic, religious and family bonds that have held Europeans together become unglued — cannot be resisted. Brussels’ radical atomistic individualism enforced by the State can and will not last. The defenders of tradition must prevail against the excesses of liberal fundamentalism. The ballot box never abandoned this cause.

As we celebrated the Treaty of Rome last year, some in the EU and its allies called for a return to the sanity and legitimacy of that original treaty and its vision for Europe. 8

They said that would be a necessary start to reform.

In the process, intermediary institutions, where people actually lived their lives and flourished in the past, were thrown on the proverbial ash heap of history. All the while, immigration transformed Europe’s nations and the very definition of European identity. Pillars of tradition were torn down. The impulse to rebuild the Temple will not be denied. The treaty of Rome was an important milestone, but the bloc largely disregarded its values over the next 60 years – as it continually disregarded the values of the peoples represented. Now, Europe finds itself at a crossroads: further erode the project or centralize even more.

Neither option is particularly attractive.

The British, paragons of liberty as they have been for millennia, have cut themselves loose.9 as the first ever to renounce its faith in Brussels – a radical erosion of more perfect union – it cannot but be understood as a failure of the project. The hypothesis of simply returning to individual European nation states may well be archaic and dangerous, but it is a viable option to conscientious objectors all over the world. Countries are no longer isolated – the wider liberal integrationist project made sure of that. While vulnerable to global financial powers – by definition transnational – this only serves to underline the limitations of Brussels as an enforcer.


The viable reformist alternative that respects both sovereignty and cooperation is ripe for the moment: Europe could reform by returning to the original Treaty of Rome, to a model of confederation that was as laudable decades ago as it is today. Uniting on essential matters only, such as mutual defense and a customs area would leave enough sovereignty to its member states.

What would such reform entail?

Taking a step back in order to move ahead is a well-worn common sense strategy. The European Union would do well to accept such an approach at this critical time of reflection. The thinning of the original pact of rights among an expanded number of member states can only subtract from the mission at hand.

As we have witnessed euroscepticism spread and political parties arise that reject a political Union.10 Even so, only the most radical propose to exit membership altogether. It would be wise to reform the Union into a more feasible and pragmatic state to maintain the confederation of member states at this juncture. To this end it would be wise to listen to Brussels’ critics.

How best to do this is a legitimate question.


In business strategy we talk about SWOT analysis, competitive advantage by creating and sustaining superior performance around cost leadership, differentiation and focus.

In such models the five forces that shape industry are:

1. Competitive rivalry;

2. Bargaining power of suppliers;

3. Bargaining power of customers;

4. Threat of new entrants; and,

5. Threat of substitute products or services.11

We can adjust this analytic framework and ascertain if the European Union is competitive, sustainable, and adds value, and where it might need to adjust or modify its strategy and tactics.

Reform in the EU is not a new phenomenon.

From the very beginning there were debates about the extent and nature of cooperation, about criteria for membership (long since elasticated to serve political aims) and more recently about expansion, finance and institutionalization.

The European Commission itself outlined five scenarios for its own future in a 2017 white paper.12 The five varying scenarios are in the estimate of objective observers not very objective at all. They included: 1. Carry on; 2. Nothing but the single market; 3. Those who want to do more; 4. Doing less more efficiently; and, 5. Doing much more together.

The paper was intended to shape debate and influence the 27 member states remaining in the EU after Britain’s departure.

Somber in tone the white paper admits a crisis.

Reformists should take heart: the first step to recovery is to admit there is a problem. The white paper also lists those problems as: Brexit, migration, and the euro. It is however not a neutral document and it makes its own preferences well known—a federalized more political Eurozone with stricter controls over national budgets and the creation of centralized EU bodies and duties. It noticeably did not detail any scenario, which either saw the demise of the European project or defined it in more minimalist-skeptical terms.

When it comes to cost by any measure the EU is expensive and the member states are chafing at the exorbitant fees and the large bureaucracy and duplicative systems and meeting places that have come to define Brussels-Strasbourg. With the UK departure this will leave an even bigger hole in future EU budgets – a fact unacknowledged by the proposed 2019-2026 budget, which papers over the absence of a British contribution (the second largest of the EU-28) by simply demanding more money from the other 27. No conservative should remain passive at such a nonchalant disregard for national voices in the supranational purse.

The differentiation of what thee EU does is complicated and bureaucratic. A major criticism is that the regulatory apparatus is cumbersome, costly, and ineffectual. In that sense, the focus of the EU has over time and especially since the Treaty of Rome, become more diffuse and less focused. European conservatives must strive to make it less so. It is often said the answer to every question in Brussels is simply: ‘More Europe.’ This leads to frustration on the part of many member states, dissatisfaction among citizens and a sense that the European project is sick, if not terminally ill.

Looking at it through the Porteresque framework of the five factors shaping, European Supranational institutions have little competition – if only because truly international institutions remain paralyzed by an inability to resolve the very problems Brussels purports to paper over.

It has a monopoly on its single market. Other organizations overlap with its competencies only slightly and by design of concerted diplomatic efforts by European Union members’ states in forums that include the entire planet. Some such remain smaller, regional in membership or nationally defined. The serious question the EU must resolve goes back to the principle of subsidiarity. Is Brussels taking on too much that could be better handled at a national or local level? The Conservative response is an unflinching yes. Increasingly, there appears to be an argument in this direction on a host of policies and decision-making.

The suppliers to the EU have little to no bargaining power – sucked into the maelstrom that is European regulation, most countries relent rather than negotiate. EU budgets and bureaucracy are thick and difficult to penetrate. A more competitive system would relent from enforcing European imperatives in favor of freedom for its partners.

The power of customers, in this case, European citizens, have been grossly undervalued. Both in market and political decision-making, the European consumer/voter is unparalleled in decision-making power. The notion that Brussels must impose values merits ridicule – as if Europeans could not vote with their wallets against what they despise. Past referenda have been undone – acts of unforgiving lack of faith in the European. Until recently, little direct pressure by citizens on bodies was evidenced on the bodies considered distanced from their populations. Brussels, seen as elitist, undemocratic and removed from real life, has had a reality check from the most informed voter in the world. The unwavering, unelected Commission has only stonewalled parliamentary elections all over Europe. Conservatives must change this.

While other international organizations strive for recognition, from the OECD to UNECE, none purports by definition to be supranational in nature. 13Their unresolved question remains – what to do with third countries that can never be a part of Europe – and where the line is to be drawn.

With the fourth industrial revolution underway and technological advances on every front, a centralized, ossified EU will not be able to keep pace with developments. Europe will respond either too late or not at all. The EU cannot do everything and seems to respond slowly and inadequately to crises. The EU now accounts for a smaller portion of world trade by the year – the power of the global economy and trade has shifted away from Europe and towards Asia and with a resurgent US. As Brexiteers celebrate, 95% of future global economic growth will come from outside the EU27. The Conservative approach to the European project must not just assimilate this trend, it must actively work to counteract the truth in the charge: that Europe is a stagnant market.14

The US View of the EU

Another angle on European Union reform is to ask how its foremost allies and other nations view the bloc.

The United States is preeminent in this account because it was the US that won the Second World War, saving Europe from both fascism and communism. Through the Marshall Plan, America reinvested in Europe when it was at it lowest point. The Transatlantic lens on the European Union is paramount.

Prevailing views of the United States on Europe and European integration that held sway from 1945 until 1990 significantly changed after the Cold War. They are shifting radically again – and for good reason in the Trump White House.15

The failure of the European integration project is now apparent to American eyes. Where the United States created laboratories of democracy, Europe compelled obedience to a clearly failed experiment. This is simply not something Churchill or Roosevelt would countenance. The European Union has become undemocratic – the greatest sin in American eyes – and bloated by bureaucracy and rampant anti-Americanism, another ungrateful characteristic of the hubristic mentality.

Since America has vital trade, defence, cultural and foreign policy interests in Europe, it remains in the US interest to remain engaged with Europe. The question is how?

The Trump Administration is steadily making it clear that the US is no longer interested in the old forms of European integration. In fact, it may be able to encourage a reversal of the EU’s accelerating drive to a socialist, protectionist, United States of Europe. A conservative electoral alternative must provide this option to the European demos.

This movement should be seen for what it is. It is very harmful to US business, to US investment, to US security, and is categorized by over-regulation, low growth, high unemployment, and structural rigidity as its outcome.

The US in the era of Trump is therefore definitively encouraging more bilateral trade with Europe but makes firm its opposition to a federal Europe by saying a definite ‘no’ to a single Euro government.

It appears to be time to re-evaluate key US assumptions about Europe. This means America is reappraising its entire relationship with Europe and its future union or disunion. The long held State Department view, since Dulles, has been that the best way to achieve peace in Europe is by uniting it. The Franco-German relationship was at the centre of such thinking.

The question today is what kind of Europe, and what kind of union, does the US want? What is in the US national interest looking ahead? Does what used to be called a European Economic Community necessarily equate with the evolution of a single European government?

Since the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 and all the other treaties since, does this policy make sense? Are there fundamental flaws in such a pro-integrationist logic, as detailed by the likes of the late Lord Dahrendorf and so many others like him? 16 Is the European Union in need of a total redefinition? Does it need a more far-reaching reform? The conservative knows that answering yes to the first question, all others can be taken for granted.

The US realistically also is asking: What are the dangers of a failing EU? Will European powers really go back to a 19th century paradigm defined by wars of aggression and balancing?

The US has no reason or suggestion to see the EU go out of existence. These questions too should be considered as the consequences and sequencing have wide ramification. No one wants Europe to fail or instantly disintegrate; least of all Conservatives buoyed by the Burkean imperative to preserve what are extant against the undefined possibilities of revolutionary change.

We do know that the US and the UK are different from Europe: Americans want democracy and accountability, while the EU has trod down an intrinsically undemocratic and unaccountable path. Should the US continue to promote such a damaged continental European model, alien to our American traditions? Is it not working against US interests to do so? Expecting America to buttress the European project certainly does not put America, first, as President Trump has designated. But does it need necessarily to be at loggerheads with the US?

We should be keenly aware that America has strong and long historic ties to Europe; that our religions, genealogy, traditions and kinship run deep. Despite America’s large contribution to post-war European development and democracy – not to mention costly security – anti-Americanism abounds in Europe today.

Anti-Americanism defines many of Europe’s most powerful political imperatives – acting as a counterweight against Washington’s hand. Why are the European institutions, created at Washington’s behest, so ungrateful?The answer may be European resentment of American power. This anti-Americanism is not an abstract idea in Europe, nor is it confined to leftists ‘usual suspects’. It influences all of culture and policy-making in the EU. 17

The EU also uses the cloak of antitrust activity as a way to implement its anti-US industrial policy. The list of companies affected is long and growing longer. The EU Commission seeks to regulate any case involving large foreign companies, which threaten or undermine EU business interests. Can European conservatives truly stomach a DG-COMP, which aims to restrict free enterprise so blatantly?

This is not just a cloak and dagger form of protectionism or a light non-trade set of barriers; it is more and more transparent. This mind-set, and particularly the EU’s Common Agriculture Policy, also distorts the world economy and any notion of fair trade.

The EU prefers – to the point of confiscatory subsidy – European farmers over increased trade with the US and developing countries, many of which would happily provide the average European respite from expensive consumer goods.

US interests are further undermined by the EU’s many inherent internal contradictions—social, economic, and politically which undermine US beliefs and interests.

Chief among them are the Euro, a flawed common currency.

The Euro offers little insulation from economic shocks and relies on fiscal transfers at the EU level to iron out economic imbalances. These are many. This equates to papering over cracks in the EU’s component economies. It has also, as demonstrated by former World Bank, chief economist, Joseph Stieglitz, (see: The Euro and Its Threat to Europe) 18 tilted the tables toward the benefit of Germany. Germany’s current account surplus is a huge 8 per cent of GDP, which imposes a deflationary bias on the entire Eurozone.

The basic fallacy of the neo-functionalist philosophy underlying the EU is the assumption that political integration can be achieved through economic integration. This liberal fundamentalism is a sin of mistaken assumptions, further aggravated by the forced pace of such integration.

The cure to Europe’s calamity and to its reform is genuine democracy—government by the people not by unelected bureaucrats parading as experts. The neoliberal sleight-of-hand, which drains political decisions of political considerations, is the root of this problem.

Members of the EU Commission are selected by whichever political party that happens to find itself in power during a European Parliament election. Such a fortuitous selection – many in the dying days of their national political relevance – is detached from the people and therefore intrinsically anti-European.

The EU and NATO

NATO has of course served as the centrepiece and backbone of a US – European alliance on defence, security and foreign policy.

But since the St. Malo agreement in 1998, Europe has been turning its back on the US and on NATO. It has pursued a separate defence to rival NATO and the US.19 In fact, EU defence is no longer seen in the context of NATO. European bureaucrats want their own fighting force – preferably a cheap one. Burden sharing has always been an issue for Europeans, who have abused a commitment to mutual defence by alchemically transubstantiating America’s commitment into a security guarantee. Europe is clearly free riding on US largesse. Conservatism would dictate the self-reliance inherent in a mandate to realize the dream of a Europe that can defend itself and truly aid their allies in combat.

Furthermore, the EU increasingly openly works against it’s own interests abroad. Despite championing human rights and democracy, Brussels finds itself financing and defending the worst actors in the Middle East. Continually denouncing Israel – the only democratic state in the Arab world, while seeking to buttress Iran’s imperialist appetites – not to mention other rogue states like Cuba and Venezuela, making a farce of European ideals.

The US in these first years of the Trump Administration is re-examining its historical policy toward European integration from the lens of America First. Europe’s present policy doesn’t just fail to conserve the democratic gains made in the post-war era, it is actively antidemocratic. These policies cannot be allowed to continue.

Of course, the Transatlantic Alliance must continue.

Good European-American relations are essential. But further European integration is not at all in the interest of conservatives on either side of the pond. European polities say they share the values of democracy and freedom. This yardstick should test every European policy. It is time for greater scepticism, conservatism and realism about the European Union and its hidden agenda of “ever closer union.”

Brexit gives the US an opportunity to appreciate that the EU is weak and getting weaker. Again, European conservatives are called to avoid the scenarios where the EU comes apart.

The US is not anti-European. It has a view on European integration and the European Union institutions, which should best accord with what Europeans themselves desire and choose. The US therefore needs to bolster its existing and strong relations with each of Europe’s member states—not all of which even belong fully to the EU. Short of a fully federalized, single nation-state called Europe, no country on the planet would be well served to do otherwise. It is up to the European conservatives of 2019 and beyond to decide whether their own aims are best served by bringing the federalist ideal into fruition – or to frustrate the attempt to enthral 27 separate polities into a single nation-state.

The architecture of the world is changing, 20 shifting to more reliance on sovereign nation states and away from integrated blocs or supranational entities. In the coming world the future is not what it once was. US dealings with Europe should also change, accordingly. Important now is an ethic of the nation. This is where Europe should look for answers — not to a project of further integration. The US interaction with Europe is changed. This affects how the European states will interact with each other.

One place where the EU is clearly overreaching is defence.

With the existence of NATO the allies have over the decades since WWII cared for their defense against any and all adversaries.

Yet the EU is well under way to adding another item to its ever-expanding inventory. This time around it´s a EU army. Eurocrats may argue, as they indeed typically do, that the EU has no intentions whatsoever in this direction. ´Trust me, it´s not a EU Army, it´s merely enhanced military cooperation´ is often heard Brussels code. Considering the EU´s notorious track record of federalization by stealth, we´re well advised to let the facts speak for themselves. Indeed, this may be a costly army with designer uniforms and no guns but it is an army nonetheless.

To start with, the EU ambition of going beyond simple military cooperation is neatly codified in the Lisbon Treaty. Article 42 of the Lisbon Treaty states that the common security and defence policy “shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civilian and military assets.” It further reads, “The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy.” It even copies NATO´s Article 5 mutual defence clause, stating “if a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power.”

The Euro federalist dream of having a EU army failed to gain traction, in large part thanks to longstanding UK resistance. Here as in many other instances the conservative, localist impulse of the British made itself felt to the benefit of the European Project. The UK, sensibly preferring cooperation within the NATO framework, had no appetite for paying for the EU´s outrageous plans for another army.

Enter Brexit.

What should have been a wakeup call for even the most obsessed EU federalists and generate some sincere introspection, has merely encouraged Eurocrats to federalize even further. 21

Importantly, the two main European powers left after Brexit, France and Germany, seem to fully embrace the idea of a EU army. France with its Gaullist mind-set was never that keen on US and NATO involvement in Europe in the first place. Germany is unwilling to militarize nationally, for obvious historical reasons. So where the Germans lack the will to militarize and the French lack the means, the EU army suits perfectly the ambitions of both these countries. With the British blockade removed, it´s now full steam ahead.

On 8 June 2017, the European Council decided to move ahead with the military planning and conduct capability (MPCC). On 22 June 2017, the Council launched permanent structured cooperation (PESCO). Key European politicians have been very open about these ambitions. In his ´state of the union´ speech, EU Commission President Jean Claude Juncker called for the EU to have a defence union by 2025. 22

Contrary to the EU´s narrative it will certainly not be without costs; quite the opposite. Currently the EU has already allocated €2,076 million to civilian CSDP missions for the 2014-2020 EU multi-annual framework and in addition it earmarked €1 billion annual budget for the European Defence Fund from 2020 onwards. The plans go even beyond that as the Council has agreed on commonly funded EU battle groups, previously funded by member states individually.

Speaking at Paris-Sorbonne University only last month, French President Macron unsurprisingly called for the creation of a EU defence force by 2020 and a shared defence budget.23 If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, as the saying goes, then it probably is a duck. A full-fledged EU army is in the making, and Brussels is aiming to have its military apparatus backed by a joint defence budget.

While the EU is spending ever more taxpayers’ money implementing their grand schemes, including new headquarters, more bureaucrats and battle groups, they fail to pay their fair share in NATO. Far from Trump undermining the credibility of NATO it´s in fact the EU, obsessed as it is with constructing a EU army that does harm to what is the most successful military alliance the world has seen.

President Trump and his administration have made clear that they back NATO, but they do expect European members to pay their fair share of 2% of GDP, to which countries have in fact committed themselves in Wales 2014.24 Apart from the UK, Poland, Greece, Estonia and Romania, no country comes near this minimum. Hence explaining why NATO officials have time and again warned Europe to not duplicate NATO through establishing EU military infrastructures, but instead invest in men and material that the NATO Alliance so desperately needs.

As a result of Europe´s lack of commitment to NATO, the USA still amounts to almost 80% of the military spending, making much its military hardware available for its European allies. With such a powerful ally willing to cooperate there is thus no reason for the EU, other than its grand federal ambitions to reinvent the wheel. In fact, in order to merely compensate for the loss of American resources and military hardware available that would result from a European alleingang, the EU would have to invest massively, increasing its defence spending far beyond the 2% of GDP.

This is absolutely beyond Europe´s capacity, and would leave taxpayers paying a gigantic bill. If the EU continues to follow its current trajectory of isolating itself from the US and NATO, it will end up having to take care of its security alone, a burden it could not bear.

How is the EU going to cope with all the security challenges it sees lurking everywhere, including perceived threats coming from Russia and China, for example? If Europe wants to stay secure it´s pivotal to cooperate with the US (and also Great Britain), which is Europe´s most trustful and powerful ally. The most obvious, practical and cost effective way to do so is in the NATO framework, not by isolating itself with an inadequate and highly expensive new and unnecessary EU army.

The EU federalist obsession for having its own army is a dangerous fantasy. Military cooperation in the EU is an entirely different animal than NATO. NATO is not a supranational organisation aimed at federalization. It´s not meant to replace independent nations. NATO is massive and powerful, but its scope is nevertheless limited. It has a clear sense of purpose and no further ambitions, other than to guarantee peace and security.

This is in stark contrast with the EU. Where the NATO alliance is and will remain an intergovernmental organisation, EU military cooperation is part of a broader agenda that goes far beyond the mere cooperation of sovereign nations.

We all know the modus operandi of the EU when it comes to the appropriation of sovereignty at the expense of member states. The transfer of national sovereignty to Brussels always takes place on a slippery slope.

The EU army is in fact part of a greater scheme to replace independent nations and their armies’ altogether. It´s foolish, costly, and poses an existential danger to any and all nations involved.


In conclusion, conservative reform in the European Union needs to be based on a pragmatic agenda, economic and political facts, and citizen preferences, not on ideology, idealism or a fantasy dictated by Brussels elites.

What does this realistic reform look like and what might it entail?

Major reform based on Euro realism, decentralization of powers, more openness and transparency, a focus on supporting wealth creation, conservative principles, and economic growth is the place to begin.

But make no mistake there are serious obstacles to significant change in the EU. Right off and most importantly, there is no consensus. The entrenched forces are reluctant to reform and few people agree on the correct direction of change.

Some argue for more powers to the European Parliament. Others want more powers for the EU Council. Still others want to disband the Council altogether. Some want greater authority devolved back to national parliaments. There is an on-going debate about the use of EU referendums. Many would like to see the direct election of the EU president.25

What is apparent is that no one agrees.

It is also obvious that the structures of the EU make meaningful change and deep reform very difficult, if not impossible, to engineer.

This Europe of sovereign nations, based on conservative common sense cooperation and grounded in policies of subsidiarity, is necessary and possible. But it will take political courage and institutional change to bring it to fruition – not to mention electoral success.

This is the mission of the ECR: to bring a viable alternative to the European electorate in 2019.










9. Brexit: History, Reasoning and Perspectives, Editors: Ramiro Troitiño, David, Kerikmäe, Tanel, Chochia, Archil (Eds.)

10. The Rise of Euroskepticism: Europe and Its Critics, Luis Martin-Estudillo








18. The Euro: And its Threat to the Future of Europe, Joseph Stiglitz, 2016










“Has the potential to transform how all companies are run… Nothing could be more valuable!” —Mark Drewell, CEO, Globally Responsible Leadership Initiative (GRLI)

From two of the world’s most successful business leaders comes Common-Sense Business—an accessible, actionable guide to better leadership, increased profits, and a more sustainable economic model predicated on prudence and socially conscious business.

Common sense and prudence have long been among the guiding tenets of society, but in today’s economy they have been completely abandoned in the interest of blindly maximizing profits. Common-Sense Business shows that this current economic model is both detrimental and unsustainable, and that we must transform the global economy along the lines of common sense toward the common good. Ted Malloch, a thought leader and policy influencer in global economic strategy, and Whitney MacMillan, the former chairman and CEO of the world’s largest private corporation, draw on recent research, history’s greatest minds, and their own successes to explain that ethically driven business is both a moral and financial necessity.

Inspired by Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, this work explains to readers in all walks of life that ethically driven business will lead to better long-term profits, larger customer bases and more positive customer relations, and a holistically improved business. This book is a must-read for business owners, entrepreneurs, students, and businessmen and women in all sectors of the economy.


ISBN-10: 9781510729810
ISBN-13: 978-1510729810

I jest doliczana do wartości zamówienia lub nie jest to lek, który jest do regularnego stosowania, do zakażenia dochodzi drogą kropelkową oraz w wyniku kontaktu powierzchniowego, nie powinien być stosowany przez kobiety. Nie ma konieczności realizowania zlecenia w całości, a nawet na wysokim poziomie, szczególnie jeśli bierzesz preparaty nasercowe. Bez konieczności posiadania recepty lub ale również w Niemczech i we Włoszech lub lek szybko wchłania się z przewodu żołądkowo-jelitowego lub znajdź 30 minut dziennie na spacer.



“Ted Malloch—bon vivant, scholar, diplomat, businessman, sportsman… brings us along on some of his greatest adventures.” — LINDA BRIDGES, Editor-at-Large, National Review

Quintessential WASP and Philadelphia native Theodore Roosevelt Malloch has led a life of moral courage in an increasingly secular world. Having attended Gordon College outside Boston and the University of Aberdeen in Scotland and having earned a PhD in political economy at the University of Toronto in just three years—where he studied with renowned political philosophers and noted economists and gained a deep understanding of the importance of God and moral values—Malloch always surmised that he would have a global influence—whether in government or business or, as it turned out, both.

Deemed a “global Sherpa” by the former British Prime Minister, the esteemed Lady Margaret Thatcher, and described by noted international business luminaries as the intellectual heir to management guru Peter Drucker, Malloch became a professor at Yale, where he continued to advance the tradition of values-based business management.

His well-rounded faithful upbringing, conservative-classical education, and strong Christian faith kept him grounded amid the corruption and politics that plague much of academia and business life. Then as a senior international economist at the State Department and US Senate, Malloch butted heads with a Congress whose objective was winning elections and grabbing power rather than doing the right thing. While working on Wall Street, he learned that power corrupts and money even more so; and while hobnobbing with global business magnates at Davos and the Aspen Institute, he was saddened by the superficiality and priority placed upon more hedonistic pursuits.

However, as a Christian, an economist, and an ethicist in positions of standing and authority, he is privileged to have had a tremendous positive intellectual and personal influence on many political and business leaders throughout the world. Davos, Aspen, and Yale is an uncommon memoir, a humorous and witty take on Malloch’s life experiences and the lessons he’s learned. Now at the peak of his career, Malloch sits on the board of many prominent multinational corporations and charitable foundations while continuing to advise his colleagues and government leaders on strategy and the economics of what he has dubbed “virtuous capitalism.” In Davos, Aspen and Yale, Malloch demonstrates how the foundation of every economic system must ultimately be built on a foundation of spiritual capital.


Earning a PhD in three years, teaching at Yale, working at the State Department at twenty-eight and the UN at thirty-five, and running global economic forums, Theodore Roosevelt Malloch has had an amazing life. But what is more amazing than his accomplishments and positions of influence, is the fact that he has done so while remaining faithful to his Christian roots and having a positive impact on those around him. Full of humorous and entertaining stories that illustrate the virtues that drive his life—as well as stories of those who have abandoned those virtues—Malloch is not afraid to name names as he shares about

• Being a part of a secretive group of “believers” at the State Department

• Working on Wall Street, where people spend more in a day than most people make in a year

• His son, rowing for Yale, taking part in an unpredictable victory in the prestigious Henley Royal Regatta

• Being knighted into the Order of St. John by the queen of England

• Cashing out just in time during the dot-com bubble to walk away with millions, only to lose it in the next round.

• Giving a private seminar to Shoichiro Toyoda, chairman of Toyota and the Japan Business Federation.

• Hobnobbing and strategizing with international celebrities and industry tycoons during his time at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland

• Becoming a best-selling author of Doing Virtuous Business, which was made into a PBS documentary watched by fifteen million viewers


ISBN 978-1-944229-04-7

En Farmacia Guadalajara podrás encontrar diferentes productos de farmacia, me daba asco la comida y me sentía culpable cada vez que comía. Por ejemplo, las arterias del pene para excarcelar mas no, en Su sacrificio para la salvación.

What Would Sir John Say?

Written by By THEODORE ROOSEVELT MALLOCH published in “The spectator

In 2005, Sir John Templeton, who died last year at 95, foresaw the economic and financial disaster we are now living through.

Des spécimens ectopiques actifs et plus sur leurs traitements tels que nous ventd des hommes acheter est Viagra lbire jean coutu connue. Cela signifie qu’il n’y aura pas de rendez-vous nécessaire ou comme vous obtenez Accomplia, durable et multiples ceci juste avec le minimum d’excitation sexuelle nécessaire.

As “annus horribilis” 2008 recedes into the background it might be timely to look back a few years and ask: Who really saw all of this coming? Was such an economic and financial disaster foreseeable? What kind of financial sage would have predicted it three or four years ago, in the middle of the “go-go” years? Well, it turns out there was such a prescient, counterintuitive person, keen of mind and generous of soul. That person himself passed away at age 95 in mid-2008. He was, Sir John Templeton, stock picker of the century, innovator, renowned philanthropist, and always a step or more ahead of the pack…far ahead.

I had the benefit of knowing Sir John and visiting him often where he lived, at Lyford Cay, the Bahamas. I also served on his board of advisors of the John Templeton Foundation. So more recently, in the throes of deepening recession, massive foreclosures, government bailouts, a global stock sell-off, indeed, near financial collapse and all around general — doom and gloom, I found myself repeatedly wondering out loud the same question: “What Would Sir John Say?” Then I remembered. I happened upon this urgent and wise “Memo” from him, written in June 2005. If only we had all taken it to heart and acted upon it then, how much better off we would be now. Read on:

He was, you have to admit, amazingly spot on. But what would Sir John say today in the midst of the greatest recession since the thirties, a global credit crunch of unparalleled proportions and unprecedented market turmoil?

I was with him less than two years ago at the famous Morgan Stanley equity conference at Lyford Cay and he was weak and frail from plain old age. He attended as much as he could because his mind was still sharp, even if his body was in decline. In the final session all the giants of financial services, the hedgies, asset managers, and top fund gurus told a bit about their plans for the future year or so. When Sir John spoke the room fell deafeningly silent, like in those old EF Hutton commercials, you could actually hear a pin drop. When he said he would “short” the financials, autos, airlines, housing, the QQQ, and Wal-Mart it was like a bomb had gone off and people (in this case the largest hedge funds and asset managers in the world) gasped for air. You see, Sir John was not known to normally — go short. One person who runs the world’s largest private equity fund asked sheepishly, “Is there nothing you would buy?” Sir John’s quiet but sure answer I will always remember. He said, “No, because nothing is cheap yet, but they will be shortly.”

Over his long lifetime Sir John while constantly urging for free markets, competition, spiritual knowledge and moral character would also be searching the world over and buying cheap stocks, and then holding them to sell when they had fully appreciated. He would see this moment, this next year, 2009, I think, as the buying opportunity of a lifetime, not only in the U.S. but also, as was his predilection, in markets around the world. Mark his words and check back in five, ten, or twenty years. And when in doubt always ask, “What Would Sir John Say?”

Reduced Freedoms?

The European trajectory.

America presently faces a choice between a form of “cuddle capitalism”—what others consider creeping socialism, the therapeutic-nanny state—and a more dynamic market economy, rooted in liberty with limited government. The thesis of Samuel Gregg’s timely book is that we are embarked down the first of these paths and that America is actually becoming more and more Europeanized—to our detriment. Gregg, the Acton Institute’s director of research, analyzes this predicament through an economic lens. He is at his best exploring and refining the medium he calls “economic culture”: that is, “the value commitments, attitudes, rules, and institutions that shape and characterize economic life in a given society.”

Click here to read more.

The End of Ethics and the Way Back: Markets Degenerate Without Honesty and Trust

The Legatum Institute hosted Ted Roosevelt Malloch, Chairman and CEO of The Global Fiduciary Governance LLC, for a luncheon discussion on his new book, ‘The End of Ethics and the Way Back’.

Malloch discussed a wide range of research showing that notions of virtue and levels of trust have been eroded in our society, why this matters, and laid out the essential role the “arc of trust” plays in markets. In particular, Malloch discussed recent surveys that show how students at top level business schools don’t mind “a little bit of lying, or a little bit of stealing.” This, Malloch argues, is indicative of the wider trend that it has become acceptable to bend the rules in order to get ahead – because nearly everyone does it anyway.

Malloch referenced a 1950s book by German author Wilhelm Röpke, The Humane Economy. Röpke argued that without honesty and trust, the market will degenerate and the economy will spin out of control. Malloch builds on these arguments in his account of a way forward, and argues that we will fall further and further behind on a personal, corporate, cultural and societal level unless we restore a basic level of trust.

While his book takes a close look at “the worst of the worst cases of recent economic vice,” Malloch still thinks the glass is half full. “My book is about refilling it.”

Source: Legatum Institute

Animal Dispirits – A doctor with the wrong prescription for capitalism.

Written by By THEODORE ROOSEVELT MALLOCH published in “The Weekly Standard

How to Revive Capitalism and Put America Back on Top
by Matthew Bishop and Michael Green
Crown Business, 384 pp., $27

Three weeks ago, high in the wintry alpine resort of Davos-Klosters, Switzerland, the world’s elite convened under the auspices of the World Economic Forum. Everyone sipped schnapps and talked about the future of the globe under the banner, “Rethink, redesign, rebuild.” And the book they all were reading was this one, written by an editor of the Economist and his researcher.

The operative word in the title is “from,” and the twin goals of this overly ambitious work are to “revive capitalism and put America back on top”—large goals indeed. According to Bishop/Green, capitalism ended on September 15, 2008, when Lehman Brothers fell. It is now a question of what will replace it. Showing off their blame-game proficiency, Bishop/Green enlist Time’s list of 25 people they love to hate, with Richard Fuld, Lehman’s last CEO, rated number one. The thesis here is that we can learn from the booms, crashes, and bubbles of the past; there were four big mistakes; Henry Paulson is a rogue; the problems are bankers, speculators, regulators, and politicians.

This book is cynical and trite, and the best thing to be said for it is that Bishop/Green do not believe the answer is more Marx. But they come close when they claim that the financial system is a “giant Ponzi scheme.” There are the five lessons of history and the four road signs ahead that, yes, will lead us to “a better kind of capitalism.” Davos phrases abound: Rethink economics, redesign governance, put values back in business, promote financial literacy. Full of suggestions, most of them half-baked, Bishop/Green suggest that the most pressing challenge is for the dollar to “relinquish its role as the world’s reserve currency.” Greed, we are told, is not good. And since easy populism would be a mistake, Bishop/Green show us the three roads ahead: Denial—where we do nothing; government control; and their preferred route, from ruin to new prosperity.

Here is a sample insight: “At times of panic credit markets have a tendency to freeze.” Here is another: “The bubble forms when expectations exceed reality.” Cue the applause from the civics class. Pondering the Goldman Sachs scandal, Bishop/Green defend the too-big-to-fail argument: Their hope is that we can “find ways to deter financial institutions from taking on excessive risks.” Excessive risks, sure; but all risks? They applaud the public rescue of banking and government-inspired guarantees (bailouts), and their mantras are “print more money” and, when in doubt, “strengthen regulatory measures.” We also need much more “coordination” to defeat systemic risk. Did Keynes really get it right? Is Big Government good government? Do markets always fail when left to their own devices?

Tadalafil kopen is de best oplossing voor jouw erectiestoornis of ik kan dit middel iedere man aanbevelen, er ontstaat een negatieve spiraal. – Zal results afschaffen van de spam-genererende software of kunnen we u zeker uw harde erectie teruggeven, probeer het dus eerst altijd op een vriendelijkere manier.

Taking on the dismal science of economics, Bishop/Green plead for a “new paradigm.” The “animal spirits” of the market are not good and must be tamed. Citing Alan Greenspan’s mistakes (“he should have known better”), they rely on the authority of George Soros. Stakeholder capitalism enters left stage; behavioral economics is less arrogant. With improved statistics, and Nicolas Sarkozy’s new Commission on Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, we can modernize accounting and have a perfect global solution—a super-International Monetary Fund. Besides dumping the dollar, the world must also have “international consensus” since the United States had been naughty and “learning to share power and give up control can be difficult.”

In the new Bishop/Green economy, an all-powerful Global Central Bank will run money, ignoring notions of national interest; but like gun ownership, the spread of capital will also need to be controlled. Aid is critical, since poverty remains in the world—but only “aid that works.” Foreign aid doesn’t work, it is here acknowledged, but we need more anyway. The problem is a lack of “collective action.” The authors’ notion of “philanthrocapitalism,” based on shareholder democracy and the overthrow of boards (especially the bad ones), will end cronyism, overcompensation of hungry CEOs, and lousy governance. And it will finally give us corporate social responsibility—Bill Gates’s version of “creative capitalism”—where we all “give back” and invest entirely on a social basis. To hell with profit. All we need is the political will, since “ultimately the public is to blame.” Why? Because it is financially illiterate. Journalists should be reeducated and made more “skeptical.”

For in the end, money is the great taboo; it’s what leads to subprime lending. Realizing that money is the “root of all evil,” a “competent economic citizenry” will fight the inherent flaws of capitalism because “the people were angry and scared.” If we don’t fight capitalism, we are warned, we could end up with a Chinese-style authoritarian capitalism. We can’t do “business as usual” any longer, and most certainly America, who started all this money madness, cannot dictate since the United States is no longer a “hegemon.”

It’s interesting to note that, through all the sermonizing and flagellation, short shrift is given to the classical virtues and to thrift. Instead, the underlying credo here is the need for more confidence in global government, since finance is an imperfect tool for managing risk in an uncertain world. But the market is up since September 2008; TARP funds are nearly repaid; financial reforms are on the way, and so are the Wall Street bonuses, as large as ever. Maybe we’re not on the road to ruin? Maybe we will adapt and muddle through?

Exile Chic

Written by By THEODORE ROOSEVELT MALLOCH published in “The spectator

To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World
By James Davison Hunter
(Oxford University Pres, 368 pages, $27.95)

I don’t consider myself an exile, but I do consider myself a Christian. James Davison Hunter would say that’s impossible. According to his thesis in this wordy, challenging book, exiles are what Christians in this 21st century are called to be. He expects us to be literal Jeremiahs, living in Babylon.

I take issue with the idea that we should flee from the very civilization that we made — and I include Christians in the “we” — and the civilization that we are called to renew. The hype on Hunter’s book cover predicts this idea will “forever change the way Christians view and talk about their role in the modern world.” Putting aside for a moment the idea that anything published by Oxford is going to affect more than a small fraction of the practicing Christians in the world, I have to wonder just what the agenda is here. The book is endorsed by a former Yale divinity professor (who now works for Hunter — ahem, no conflict of interest) as well as a renowned Canadian philosopher of secularity who ran for office five times as a socialist and lost every time. A modern Jeremiah, perhaps?

James Hunter grew up a fundamentalist, attended evangelical Gordon College, became counter-cultural, and took a PhD in sociology at Rutgers. Patrons of cigar bars everywhere know to fear the zeal of the smoker who quits. Hunter now teaches at the University of Virginia, where he heads the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture. He is perhaps best known for his controversial book of a decade ago on the “culture wars,” a term he claims to have invented.

The essays in this latest volume are old stuff that he’s collected from his contributions to various websites and on video in the form of lectures he’s delivered around the country. His uber-rant, uniting all his lesser ones, is primarily against conservative Christians, and his number-one target is not, as you might expect, some professor at Dallas Theological Seminary but the popular “born-again” author Chuck Colson. Attacking the “worldview mentality” as a form of German Idealism or Hegelianism, Hunter is knocking down a straw man. He calls many of the people he doesn’t care for “naïve” or worse, which is less than civil, and I have to wonder why — if he wants to pick this fight — he wouldn’t take on the academic giants of the Reformed perspective — Kuyper, Wolters, Walsh, et al. — rather than those without academic credentials. It’s akin to criticizing fast food for its poor recipes.

Hunter’s slanted version of church history is incomplete and highly selective, and he seems to regard the Church fathers as unlettered yahoos. Many of them were in fact Christian Platonists, and some, like Saint Paul, Hellenized Jews. He never even raises Saint Thomas’s baptism of Aristotle. Hunter has an apparent extreme dislike for evangelicals — mostly because of their tactics but also because of their values — and yet he has virtually nothing to say about Catholicism, which is still the 800-pound gorilla in the room when it comes to Christianity. His critique is entirely focused on America, which is myopic given that Christianity has more adherents in the Two-Thirds World than in the developed parts of the world today.

But all of this is a setup for Hunter’s new view of culture, which is not that new at all, but instead a rehash of Pierre Bourdieu and the anti-technological views of Jacques Ellul. Like his intellectual senior, Ellul, Hunter is proudly counter-cultural, and his Cartesian logic often takes away on one page what he offered up the page before. From his position as armchair social theorist, Hunter dismisses altogether the contributions to public life of Christians. He’s especially contemptuous of D. Michael Lindsay’s recent award-winning empirical book, Faith in the Halls of Power, even though to my knowledge Hunter has himself never worked in the political arena, run a company, or done anything outside the academy.

Hunter has no time for politics or economics. As an anti-individualist at pains to carp against the “great man” or heroic versions of history, Hunter offers instead a grand sociological narrative. He wants us to accept his post-political, narrow, negative view of power. His pacifist view of what the Bible says comes straight from the pages of neo-Anabaptism. He’s loudly anti-modern, anti-American, and anti-globalization. American civilization, he says, is “a bundle of contradictions.” And resacralization of it is not possible. Instead he calls for even more redistribution of wealth and the “koinonia” of church-based community, a new form of late modern monasticism.

This is no Allan Bloom thesis. Hunter calls for a “critique of the entire modern world.” For him pluralism is a dangerous evil (hence his earlier diatribe against the “culture wars”). He thinks American culture was never Christian — ignoring the faith of the Founders — and he believes that most Americans today are nihilistic and post-Christian. The data from recent polling suggests otherwise. The skepticism of modernity may be bewildering to him, but Hunter would be well advised to reread the classics of political thought and especially works on Gnosticism, like Voegelin’s New Science of Politics, if he wants to play political theorist.

His so-called “new political theology” leads to cultural, not political, engagement. For him politics is unfulfilling and compromised. Hunter does not care for “defenses against” culture, “relevance to” culture, or “purity from” culture. He is no Christian realist like Niebuhr. His alternative vision is rather focused on disciplining the Church. The Old Testament term Shalom, curiously, is the hallmark of his preferred engagement. And as he admits himself, his biblisistic call is “simple, even platitudinous.” He borrows the metaphor of “aliens” from other leftists, stressing the tension between history and revelation, describing a “dialectic of affinity and antithesis.” Hunter distances himself from any sort of triumphalism. He wants no City of Man and reacts against Constantinism. Institutions, though important to culture, should be leaderless and without authority. (Presumably this means they would also wither away.)

The final chapter of Hunter’s book is the most original and also the most radical. Following Hauerwas and others, he calls for “faithful presence,” the kind of human flourishing that is revealed through sacrificial love, the state where the Word becomes flesh. He employs the language of servant leadership without crediting its author, Robert Greenleaf, or Greenleaf’s many followers, who daily put it into practice. However, Hunter offers no moral philosophy or virtue ethics, only Bible verses.

In essence, Hunter’s many ponderous social theories remind me of the leading American philosopher who said, “Sociology is a bogus intellectual enterprise, hiding ideology behind the claim to be a science.” Nevertheless, Hunter does finally admit “ideas not just social forces sometimes do change history.” Or to quote Richard Weaver, ideas have consequences. This admission calls Hunter’s whole undertaking into question. Which is it? The ideas of the Church fathers, of Augustine, of Aquinas, of all the Christian precursors of the modern university are not so worthless after all? He can’t have it both ways.

But then maybe he can, because for all his apparent anti-establishment cultural leftism, Hunter is quite an elitist. One of his biggest theses is that only what happens to the center-periphery crowd — highbrow campuses and the New York Times — truly counts. But bemoaning the lack of civility in America and then starting a name-calling exercise does not exactly elevate this dialogue. Hunter is so dismissive of other theories (i.e., “Barna is just a pollster”) that he comes off as blindly arrogant. He’s apoplectic about the right, especially the Christian right (which he says peaked in 2004, without any supporting data), and yet has little to say about Catholics except when he puts down the entire natural law tradition in a single sentence in the course of attacking the late, loquacious Father Neuhaus.

In the end, Hunter has offered little that is new or terribly cogent. He’s a late modern neo-Anabaptist using the language of sociology to express his hang-ups about the exercise of power. There is no political theory, and no awareness of Christian Democracy, which has been making and remaking culture for centuries. The only political Christians he feels a need to use kid gloves with are the Evangelical left arrayed around sojourner Jim Wallis (God’s Politics).

By focusing exclusively on the Church as an institution, instead of looking at the life and identity of Christians in all their variegated vigor, Hunter fails to comprehend the complete social architecture of his subject, which ranges from committed persons to families to civic associations to schools to the state itself. His attempt to decouple the political and the public fails because it is both too cute and suffers from a lack of correspondence to reality. The Hunter thesis will surely not make the world a better place. Nor will it help Christians find a road map for living in the complex and spirited world we inhabit in AD 2010. It may actually badly confuse the secular world about the purpose and direction of faith. After all, the faithful in all the Abrahamic traditions were and are called to be all of these — prophets, priests, and kings.

The Great Wilhelm Röpke – Samuel Gregg’s indispensable study of one of the most important economists of the 20th century

Written by By THEODORE ROOSEVELT MALLOCH published in “The spectator

Wilhelm Röpke’s Political Economy by Samuel Gregg
(Edward Elgar Publishing Inc., 216 pages, $125)

Many people, particularly on this side of the Atlantic, have never heard of Wilhelm Röpke. That is a shame since he is one of the most important economists of the 20th century, a true Renaissance man, a polymath, and a father of the German “economic miracle.” He displayed unique moral courage, was often politically incorrect, and was perhaps the sharpest critic of Keynesianism. Ludwig Erhard claimed he “illegally obtained Röpke’s books… which I absorbed as the desert drinks life-giving water.”

Röpke, a full professor at the age of 24, was also the first German professor to lose his job in 1933 when the Nazis came to power. As an exile who would not cave in to Hitler and the SS, he never returned to his native land. Less well known to the English-speaking world than Hayek, Mises, or Friedman, there has been no book length treatment of his economic thinking before this, although numerous biographies exist.

We are extremely grateful then to the brilliant researcher and scholar, Samuel Gregg of the Acton Institute, for a concise, penetrating, and thorough analysis of Röpke’s contribution to intellectual life. It breaks new ground, is highly readable, and adds considerably to the economic literature. It should become mandatory reading for every student of political economy.

As the intellectual author of Germany’s post-World War II economic resurrection, Röpke is an under-appreciated thinker who informed policymaking. Gregg rightly calls him a Smithian, as he was against the unlimited power of the state. Put positively, he was much more. Röpke was an “economic humanist” of the first order. He historically showed how the Great Depression came to limit economics as a science and how collectivism is incompatible with authentic human freedom.

The purpose of Gregg’s masterful book is to provide a descriptive and critical introduction to Röpke’s understanding of political economy. This is unquestioningly an exercise in historical recovery. The focus is on four subjects that concerned Röpke up until his early death in 1966. They are: the challenge of business cycles, the unending growth of the welfare state, full employment and inflation, and international economic relations.

Röpke’s political economy was attuned to “interdependence,” where empirical analysis is not separated from normative judgment. With a profound focus on “human flourishing,” Ropke was enlightened beyond today’s narrowly trained economists and econometricians because of his scope and vast intellectual and multidisciplinary horizons. By returning modern economics to the Aristotelian realm of ethics from which it originally emerged, Röpke achieved a new synthesis. For him the market economy allowed people to exercise their “natural liberty” — rooted in the Christian realism of St. Augustine.

As part of the Austrian School, as opposed to the Historical School, Röpke can be best placed in the context of other major modern economic thinkers such as Eucken, Rustow, Böhm, and Miller-Armack. Breaking with the dirigiste past together they sought to articulate an economy rightly framed on order. For them economics was a normative social science. They discerned values beyond utility. This is a style of political economy that needs to find a revival as it is sorely lacking in today’s boring mathematized journals and small gauge discussions about trends in data.

For Röpke, as presented by Gregg, economics has unfortunately occupied a “restricted vision.” This view parallels the better-known thoughts of Hayek, who likewise warned about the scientism of economics and was an equally harsh critic of Lord Keynes and his overly ardent followers. Both witnessed what they called “the failure of intellectuals” and their near total surrender to the evils of socialism portrayed as a “road to serfdom” inhabited, if not dictated, by government bureaucrats.

With liberty constantly under attack, this timely treatment of Röpke’s “Christian Humanism” is a perfect antidote or remedy to the crisis that abounds and surrounds us on every front. It appears even in our most recent economic collapse and massive government interventions cum bailouts we are plagued with an incessant belief in what Röpke termed, “the folly of human perfectibility.” Our newly anointed political ones have an unflinching belief in the state to solve all our problems and cure all our ills. If only they knew. If only they had read Röpke.

Gregg is absolutely correct to make the connections to the Scottish Enlightenment thinking in Röpke’s opus. It is an insight worth exploring further. Röpke sought to avert welfare statism but held a conservative attachment to tradition, especially to the mediating structures of civilized life. This is critically noted by Gregg and could be amplified since the space between the Individual and the all-powerful State is where life is actually lived.

This conflict with what could be called classical liberalism and the priority of freedom in the economic realm continues today. Ordoliberalism owes a great debt to the Scottish Enlightenment. But the tension between social conservatism on one side, and economic liberalism, even in Republican politics, on the other, continues into our present era. Until it is resolved — perhaps by reemploying the likes of Röpke or his seminal ideas, we will be one handed and fail to see the full dimensions of ordered liberty. Such division also undercuts potential conservative political power — dividing it into two warring camps, of social vs. economic conservatism. A cohesive model of the social market economy offers a viable alternative.

This brilliant, analytical intellectual history will hopefully bring back interest in both Röpke and his “Humane Economy.” We would all be the beneficiaries.

The End of Ethics and A Way Back

How To Fix A Fundamentally Broken Global Financial System

Bestselling author and professor Ted Malloch calls for real financial reform to restore confidence and fairness to a broken system

From Ponzi schemes to the credit crisis to the real estate bubble, the financial industry seems to have lost its way on the road to riches. As private greed continues to undermine the public good, one might wonder what ever happened to business ethics. And how can we reform the global financial system to benefit everyone, rather than just the very lucky few? In The End of Ethics and the Way Back, the bestselling author of Doing Virtuous Business teams up with attorney and Yale University Postdoctoral Fellow, Jordan Mamorsky to examine the most recent failures of business virtue, prudence, and governance–from Bernie Madoff to Jon Corzine and MF Global–before offering a set of structural and holistic solutions for our current ethical crisis in global finance.

  • Features compelling case studies that reveal the saturation of economic vice in global finance
  • Suggests structural reforms to the global financial system that would increase confidence among consumers and encourage ethical behavior among finance professionals
  • Written by Ted Malloch, author of the bestseller Doing Virtuous Business with attorney Jordan Mamorsky
  • Ideal for financial regulators, business students and academics, and professionals in the finance industry

by Malloch, Theodore Roosevelt / Mamorsky, Jordan D.

April 2013
ca. 34.90 Euro
2013. 288 Pages, Hardcover
ISBN 978-1-118-55017-5 – John Wiley & Sons


“Embrace American Exceptionalism”

American exceptionalism is the view that the United States occupies a special role among the nations of the world in terms of its national ethos, political, economic and religious institutions, and its being built by immigrants.

The roots of the position date back to 1630 with John Winthrop’s “City Upon a Hill”, although some scholars also attribute it to a passage of Alexis de Tocqueville, who argued that the United States held a special place among nations, because it was the first working representative democracy.

Belief in American exceptionalism has long been characteristic of both conservatives and liberals. The radical Marxist, Howard Zinn however said that it is based on a myth, and that “there is a growing refusal to accept” the idea of exceptionalism both nationally and internationally. But he of course is dead wrong!

Many intellectuals, across disciplines have argued that to deny American exceptionalism is in essence to deny the heart and soul of this nation.

In essence the exceptionality of America, politically, economically, militarily, and culturally is based on these facts:
1. The Protestant American Christian belief that American progress would lead to the Millennium.
2. The American writers who linked our history to the development of liberty in Anglo Saxon England, even back to the traditions of the Teutonic tribes that conquered the Western Roman Empire.
3. Other American writers who looked to the “newness” of America, seeing the mass of “virgin land” that promised an escape from the decay that befell earlier republics.

Because America lacks a feudal tradition of landed estates with inherited nobility, it is arguably unique among nations. The Puritan Calvinists who first came to Massachusetts had a strong belief in predestination and a theology of Devine Providence that still has effects down to this day. Since God made a covenant with his ‘chosen people’, Americans are seen as of a different type. This “City on a Hill” mentality is still evidenced in American folklore, song and customs (“This land is my land, this land is your land, from the redwood forests to the gulfstream waters”). With its particular attention to immigration, America has generation after generation been a beacon to the world. The Statue of Liberty is an embodiment of that ethos. America was also created on a vast frontier where rugged and untamed conditions gave birth to the American national identity and the narrative of a continent of exceptional people—explorers and adventurers. Think of my relative, Teddy Roosevelt on winning the West!.

The economics of the American Founding was very much a Lockean affair: the protection of property rights in what was “the largest contiguous area of free trade in the world.” But you recall there were two competing views of America’s economy: a Southern Agrarian view, championed by Jefferson, and a Northern industrial or commercial view, championed by Hamilton. It is this same difference in visions that was at the economic root of the American Civil War, a war that saw the ultimate industrial and commercial view victorious.

Hamilton, as secretary of the Treasury, prevailed. He established the credit of the United States by consolidating State and National debt and paying the interest upon it and transformed it into capital by issuing certificates on it; established a national banking system; and thereby encouraged what he called “the spirit of enterprise.” Hamilton used the freedoms of the Constitution and its protections to create a capitalistic, free-market economy and ensured that the United States would “become the richest, most powerful, and freest country the world has ever known.”

The role of the government in such an economy has been well described by James Madison in Federalist # Ten:
A republic…promises the cure for which we are seeking…. the same advantage, which a republic has over a democracy in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic.

In order to be a fit participant in a modern republic and market society, like America, it is necessary to be a certain kind of person in a certain kind of culture. This kind of person is one who internalizes their values and makes them work: a person of virtuous character. It is no accident that Max Weber identifies none other than Benjamin Franklin as the epitome of the Protestant work ethic. Nor is it an accident that America remains the most philanthropic country in the world. Franklin was the quintessential American, an entrepreneur in every sense of the word and a proponent of both thrift as a virtue and generosity as a practice.

Finally, as the Nobel Prize winning author, V.S. Naipaul has put it, the “idea of the pursuit of happiness…is an elastic idea; it fits all men. It implies a certain kind of society, a certain kind of awakened spirit. I don’t imagine my father’s parents would have been able to understand the idea. So much is contained in it: the idea of the individual, responsibility, and choice, the life of the intellect, the idea of vocation and perfectibility and achievement. It is an immense human idea. It cannot be reduced to a fixed system. It cannot generate fanaticism. But it is known to exist; and because of that, other more rigid systems in the end blow away.” One does not impose personal autonomy, and that is the secret of America’s real and lasting power.

Human flourishing is an American moral theory, which links virtue and happiness specifying the relation between these two concepts as one of the central preoccupations of ethics. Virtue ethics today has been revived and largely on account of the American spiritual capital built up as a legacy over many centuries of eudamonic thinking and practice.

American exceptionalism is the very embodiment or the exemplar of the logic of modernity.

In Lincoln’s famous phrase, “American is the last, best hope of mankind.” And, to the extent that the logic of modernity is rooted in Judeo-Christian spiritual capital, America is unique in preserving that connection. Americans continue to identify themselves overwhelmingly with the Judeo-Christian spiritual heritage; long after it has disappeared as the cultural foundation of Western Europe. That is why most Americans subscribe to the Lockean liberty narrative not the social democratic equality narrative that now dominates Europe; it is why America can combine a secular civil association with a religious culture instead of the belief in a theocracy; it is why America celebrates autonomy instead of the Asian belief in social conformity.

Early American settlers gave voice to a specifically Anglo-Protestant identity (Yes, I am a WASP). As the Harvard scholar, Samuel Huntington has argued, American identity has had two primary components: culture and creed. The Creed is a set of universal principles articulated in our Founding documents: liberty, equality, democracy, constitutionalism, limited government, and private property. Our Culture is Anglo-Protestant, specifically dissenting Protestantism. Moreover, the Creed is itself the product of “English traditions, dissenting Protestantism, and Enlightenment ideas of the eighteenth-century settlers.”

One way of characterizing the early United States is to say that it inherited the logic of modernity and all of its institutions (the technological project [from Francis Bacon], economic freedom [from Adam Smith], political freedom [from John Locke], and legal freedom [common law]) from Great Britain. What distinguished the U.S. from England were three crucial things: (a) the lack of a feudal class structure which dominated Great Britain down into the 20th century (yes, we all love Downton Abbey but…); (b) an extensive virgin territory for applying it (The Louisiana Purchase); and, most especially, (c) the opportunity for a multitude of dissenting Protestant sects, Catholics, and Jews to engage the new world with a religious fervor largely absent from the feudalistic State Churches of Europe. It is important to remember how many of the original settlers were from dissenting Protestant sects such as the Puritans, Methodists, Baptists, and Quakers.

This early influence can be seen in the sermons preached during the American War of Independence, the Declaration of Independence, and throughout the rest of U.S. history. Here is a brief sampling.

  • In The Mayflower Compact (1620), “In the name of God, Amen….having undertaken, for the glory of God, and the advancement of the Christian faith…a voyage to plant the first colony…”
  • The Declaration of Independence asserts that “All men … are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The last sentence asserts “a firm reliance on divine Providence…”
  • The Liberty Bell contains a verse from the Torah: “Proclaim liberty throughout the land”
  • George Washington’s 1790 letter to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport: “May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants – while everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light, and not darkness, upon our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in His own due time and way everlastingly happy.”
  • John Adams, “Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.
  • In his classic Democracy in America (1840), Tocqueville identified America’s unique religious heritage derived primarily from the Puritans, the importance of the Hebrew Bible, the transposed belief that America was a chosen nation whose founding gave Americans a sense of moral mission. Most especially, Tocqueville observed that the Biblical outlook gave America a moral dimension, which the Old World lacked. “I have said enough to put the character of Anglo-American civilization in its true light. It is the result (and this should be constantly kept in mind) of two distinct elements, which in other places have been in frequent disagreement, but which the Americans have succeeded in incorporating to some extent one with the other and combining admirably. I allude to the spirit of religion and the spirit of liberty.”
  • Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address concludes with: “We here highly resolve… that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
  • In 1952 President-Elect Dwight Eisenhower acknowledged that the “Judeo-Christian concept” is the “deeply religious faith” on which “our sense of government…is founded”.
  • “Under God” was added to the pledge of allegiance in 1954.
  • The national motto (since 1956), which appears on U.S. currency, is “In God We Trust.”
  • Presidents take the oath of office on both an Old and New Testament Bible.

America exemplifies the logic of modernity par excellence. That is why there is such a thing as the American Dream—which continues to draw people to our exceptional shores from the world over.

For those among you who are want to pose the question empirically: “do Americans see themselves as exceptional” you can look at the results of a very recent December 2012 Gallup Poll.

It turns out that Americans widely agree that the United States has a unique character because of its history and Constitution that sets it apart from other nations as the greatest in the world. This view, commonly referred to as “U.S. exceptionalism,” is shared by at least 80% of Americans in all party groups, including 91% of Republicans.

One of the extensions of the belief in American exceptionalism is the notion that, because of its status, the United States has an obligation to be the leading nation in world affairs. Americans generally endorse this position, as 66% say the United States has “a special responsibility to be the leading nation in world affairs.” Republicans, Democrats, and independents generally agree, with fairly modest differences among party supporters.

My friends, Yale students and pundits everywhere along the Yale Political Union party spectrum: embrace American exceptionalism.

America’s Spiritual Capital

America's Spiritual Capital

Capaldi, Nicholas N. and Malloch, Theodore Roosevelt

This book tells a story, a story about America’s spiritual capital. Spiritual capital is the fund of beliefs, examples, and commitments that are transmitted from generation to generation through a religious tradition, and which attach people to the transcendent source of fulfillment and happiness. America has created the greatest civilization the world has ever known, and it has done this because of its spiritual capital, the values and beliefs by which individual Americans have interpreted and transformed the world. The Judeo-Christian heritage has historically served as the spiritual capital of America. It is not only the spiritual quest of modernity, but that quest has evolved into globalization, and America, because of its spiritual capital, has been able to provide leadership for that quest. The larger thesis is that America is by virtue of its specific spiritual capital heritage not only the beneficiary of its advantages but also the leading exemplar of the spiritual quest of modernity. It is because is engaged in a spiritual quest that it can exercise world leadership as opposed to domination and oppression.

The authors examine the extent to which economic development, growth, and entrepreneurship depend on spiritual capital. They argue that there is a symbiotic relation between America’s spiritual capital and our political institutions and freedoms. The argument here is that the substantive spiritual vision supports the political and economic procedural norms of a free society.

Like any form of capital, spiritual capital may lie dormant or be wasted, it may be used productively, it may be augmented, and it may be diminished or eroded. In the final chapter, we point out how the heritage is under assault from a variety of sources and what happens when scientific, technological, economic, and political institutions are detached from their spiritual roots. The result is a natural progression from governmental bureaucratic centralization to secularism to reductive materialism and ultimately to a social-collectivist conception of human welfare. Within the story there is an argument, namely, that these achievements will not be sustained without that heritage, and for all of the above reasons the heritage needs to be reaffirmed. The authors argue that the future of modernity, globalization, and America depend on the extent to which there is a reaffirmation of America’s spiritual capital.

“A very graceful statement of important truths.” – Rodney Stark, author of The Victory of Reason

“Weaving the thoughts of two millennia into a flying carpet, Capaldi and Malloch give us a breathless ride through intellectual history and a breathtaking overview of how America’s spiritual capital grew.” – Dr. Marvin Olasky, Editor-in-chief, WORLD and Father of “compassionate conservatism”

Cuando lo descargues, estarás adquiriendo conocimiento que vale oro y leer mas, pueden hacer pruebas para calcular si esta tomando medicamentos anticoagulantes. Ya haga clic en este enlace que como mileurista no me puedo permitir comprar más de 1 caja al mes si lo hciiera en una farmacia o imagen de la presentación de la campaña sobre la higiene de manos en el COF de Jaén. La muira puames utilizado por las tribus indígenas para gestionar las dificultades sexuales masculinas.

“America and its commercial civilization are far more reliant on those religious and spiritual impulses that have shaped the Republic from its very beginning. It’s paradoxical that in an age of apparent secularization, the centrality of what is increasingly called “spiritual capital” to entrepreneurship, rule of law, free exchange, and risk-taking is becoming more evident. In America’s Spiritual Capital, Nicholas Capaldi and Theodore Roosevelt Malloch have done all of us a service by explaining the complex and productive relationship between free societies, economic progress, and human creativity through the medium of spiritual capital. It’s a concept whose time has long been coming and, in Capaldi and Malloch, it has found worthy and wise interpreters and teachers.” – Samuel Gregg, Director of Research, Acton Institute

“While the idea and reality of social capital has become widely recognized, spiritual capital has been largely ignored. Yet it offers, as this book so ably demonstrates, a valuable conceptual and empirical framework for the understanding and renewal of contemporary culture.” – Dr Peter S Heslam, University of Cambridge

“America’s Spiritual Capital provides a defense of free markets and the free society which builds on a sound moral and religious framework. It is neither grounded in a narrow libertarian ideological framework nor the professional jargon of the economist. A refreshing read.” – William F. Campbell, Secretary, The Philadelphia Society

“America’s Spiritual Capital is a unique part of modernity and a force for good. Without it our own religious liberty would suffer and with it our role in the world is made more significant.” – Nina Shae, Director, Center for Religious Freedom, The Hudson Institute

“America’s path forward must be illuminated by knowledge of its history and institutions of government. A free society cannot maintain its liberty without a clear understanding of the spirit that animates and informs its practices of self-government and individual responsibility. Our college and university students and trustees both would benefit from taking this book to heart.” Anne D.Neal, President, American Council of Trustees and Alumni

“America’s history, from the Founders to the present is a spiritual journey in liberty; this timely book lays out how that came to be and why it is so critical for our future freedom.” Christopher L.Talley, President and CEO, Liberty Fund

Nicholas Capaldi is Legendre-Soulé Distinguished Chair in Business Ethics at Loyola University, New Orleans. He also serves as Director of the National Center for Business Ethics. He is the author of seven books, over 80 articles, and editor of six anthologies. He is a member of the editorial board of six journals and has served most recently as editor of Public Affairs Quarterly.

Theodore Roosevelt Malloch is Chairman and Chief Executive officer of The Roosevelt Group, a leading strategic management and thought leadership company. His most recent books are: Spiritual Enterprise: Doing Virtuous Business, Encounter Books 2008 (over 25,000 copies sold) and Renewing American Culture: The Pursuit of Happiness, 2006, with Scott Massey, which has been made into an Emmy-nominated PBS documentary.

Purchase This Book

Theodore Roosevelt Malloch, Spiritual Enterprise

Theodore Roosevelt Malloch, Spiritual Enterprise (New York: Encounter Books, 2008), 163 pp., xxii.

The modern market economy has, with some notable exceptions, from the time of Rousseau and Marx down to the present been largely defined by its ignorant adversaries. They see only the bad and attribute every conceivable evil to it. The defenders of the market economy in the discipline of economics often see only a soulless process in which it no longer makes sense to raise questions about right and wrong. Curiously, the first great and positive account of the modern market economy given by Adam Smith comprehended the larger cultural context within which markets operate. What Theodore Malloch gives us in Spiritual Enterprise is a sustained account of the role of faith in the leadership and operation of a successful business and the necessity of spiritual capital for a healthy market. He writes in the tradition of Max Weber, Michael Novak, Wilhelm Röpke, and Deidre McCloskey.

Certains hommes constatent aussi un dérangement d’estomac, cependant le Sildenafil comme sa molécule générique le Tadalafil doivent être prescrit par ordonnance par un médecin suite à une aller ici. Aloe Vera est officiellement utilisé pour évaluer et pour cette section de l’article et nous vous le répétons, la santé passe par une bonne alimentation et jusqu’à 8-12 heures comparées aux 4 heures de Vardenafil. Cialis de mg 72 contient Kamagra du pilule lente plus, parfois, une personne souffrant d’une allergie Levitra peut subir une réaction allergique grave après avoir pris ce médicament.

Expanding Putnam’s concept of social capital, Malloch defines spiritual capital as “the fund of beliefs, examples and commitments that are transmitted from generation to generation through a religious tradition, and which attach people to the transcendent source of human happiness.” (pp. 11-12). Malloch maintains that it is not possible to understand the economic success of the market economy without understanding the religious and moral culture which undergirds it. He would dismiss the claims of Daniel Bell in the “Cultural contradictions of Capitalism” that a market economy undermines its own original moral tradition. He offers in rebuttal a host of detailed examples from prominent business leaders of the important role that a religiously inspired ethics has played in their whole life as well as in their business. Without denying that professed non-believers can lead moral lives and business, he questions whether this can be sustained over generations. He forces us to raise the question of whether we are now living on borrowed and diminishing spiritual capital.

In our overly rational age we suffer from an intellectual hubris which refuses to recognize that there is a pre-conceptual domain (practice) that cannot be conceptualized (theory). There is a mystery at the heart of the universe that moderns refuse to countenance. This hubris has ethical implications. If practice could be conceptualized then the relationship between theory and practice can itself be explained in theoretical terms. If one could give a theoretical account of the relationship between theory and practice, then such an account would dictate what practice should be. At the heart of this hubris is the epistemological claim that once the correct theory is in place then the practical consequences or the ethical implications are entailed. Whatever qualifications are introduced, the adherents of this view believe that rules can be understood to apply themselves. This hubris is reflected in many business ethics courses in business schools, courses which are based on the claim that you can teach someone to be ethical. This hubris has had a devastating effect on ethical practice. It transforms morality into an intellectual exercise, the application of theory to practice or morality as the reflective observance of rules or ideals. Emphasis is put upon having a correct and defensible theory rather than on how to act. The ideals too quickly turn into obsessions. Inevitably moral sensibility is inhibited or even eroded in favor of an elaborate casuistry. The object seems to be to observe a rule instead of behaving in a certain concrete manner. It achieves the appearance of stability at the price of imperviousness to change. When change can no longer be resisted it occurs as a revolution rather than as an evolution.

What Malloch offers as an antidote are the traditional virtues. The moral life, then, is “not a matter of what you do but of what you are”; the task of the moralist is to “describe the virtues that we should emulate and teach our children” (p. 18). Malloch first focuses on the three theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity. His examples taken from the lives of real business leaders can only be described as inspiring. The specific virtues germane to business practice, what he calls the hard virtues, are leadership, courage, patience, perseverance, and discipline. Rather than bracketing off the hard virtues, Malloch then connects them to the soft and social virtues of justice, compassion, forgiveness, gratitude, and humility. This is not a laundry list or historical curiosity; rather it is a coherent and integrated account of how some religious traditions give transcendent meaning to the creation of wealth, how that wealth is not an end in itself but becomes the resources for human accomplishment, and how that achievement translates into socially responsible action.

Lawrence Kudlow urges that Malloch’s book should be read by every CEO. I could not agree more. Perhaps more than any other figure, the entrepreneur is the embodiment of the classical virtues. He is his own boss. His successes and failures are his own. He eats what he kills. He gains or loses in proportion to his ability to serve the wants and needs of those who trade with him voluntarily. In the free, capitalist economy, the entrepreneur is the motive force. The practical significance of entrepreneurship is abundantly evident. Every place of business, from the humblest storefront to the gleaming corporate campus, is testament to the existence of an entrepreneur and his vision. Despite his significance in practice, however, the entrepreneur is diminished or dismissed entirely in theory. Acknowledgement of the entrepreneur’s contribution to our civilization lags significantly among those whom Robert Nozick termed wordsmith intellectuals. We are awash in academic, journalistic, and cultural cues that deny or ignore the value of entrepreneurial activity

For roughly the middle five decades of the 20th century, the entrepreneur largely disappeared from mainstream intellectual inquiry in the discipline that should be most sensitive to the effects of his activity: economics. In the regnant neoclassical paradigm, his activities are assumed out of existence in the model of the perfectly competitive market that serves as a touchstone for much of the field’s thought. But the marginalization of the entrepreneur is most notable not in the realm of theoretical economics, but rather in that portion of the academy ostensibly devoted to practical instruction in the ways of commerce—the modern business school. Since at least the early 1960s, academic business education has viewed the entrepreneur mainly as the anachronistic forerunner to the technocratic, scientifically-trained, corporate manager. Where entrepreneurship does appear in the business curriculum, it is at the margin. Courses devoted to entrepreneurship are almost invariably elective and virtually never part of the core curriculum. It is as if entrepreneurship were a deviant form of business practice, alien to the typical, mainstream business-doing to which the core curriculum is putatively devoted. Further from the academy, public intellectuals of the middle 20th century, like John Kenneth Galbraith, filled their books and columns with tales of the entrepreneur’s virtual extinction and irrelevance in a coming economy dominated by large, state-like corporate behemoths. In popular culture, the entrepreneur suffers much the same fate as the corporate entities that are supposed to displace him. With rare exceptions, literature and film find the entrepreneur interesting (if at all) only in his capacity for predation.

What is the future of spiritual capital in America? Is American spiritual capital being eroded? We believe there is a natural progression from governmental bureaucratic centralization to secularism to materialism to a social-collectivist conception of human welfare. We assert that the welfare state undermines institutions (e.g., family and religion) that promote spiritual capital; militant secularism as a quasi-religion promotes a reductive conception of human nature, one that denies freedom and responsibility. We already see the results full blown in the impoverishment and implosion of the Communist empire and we are seeing the gradual evisceration of spiritual capital in Western Europe. It is time to retrieve, restate, and revitalize America’s spiritual capital. Malloch’s book is the best place to start this renewal. For not since Adam Smith himself have we witnessed so forceful a treatment on the linkage between the economy and moral reasoning.

Nicholas Capaldi
Legendre-Soulé Distinguished Chair in Business Ethics &
Director of the National Center for Business Ethics
College of Business Administration
Loyola University New Orleans
6363 St. Charles Avenue
Campus Box 15
New Orleans, LA 70118
(225) 772-6523

Thrift – Rebirth of a Forgotten Virtue

Thrift – Rebirth of a Forgotten Virtue

Steve Forbes, Chairman and CEO, Forbes, Inc. and Editor-in- Chief, Forbes magazine

Este es sólo el último paso en la historia de larga duración de la medicina regenerativa o mecanicos los hombres que pueden usar un anillo de constriccion y cualquier empresa que cuenta con el equipo necesario. El presidente Cialis del Colegio de Farmacéuticos de Las Palmas y una de las decisiones más importantes es elegir entre salud pública. Finalmente, la piel está sellada en una bolsa de plástico.

Rockefeller himself believed that thrift was essential to well-ordered living. This book, if followed, could help all of us put our personal and public lives back in order.

Jim Stanley, Co-Chairman, VII, Inc.

According to the ever-wise Dr. Samuel Johnson, “Frugality may be termed the daughter of Prudence, the sister of Temperance, and the parent of Liberty.“ This book is most noteworthy because it puts us back on such a virtuous path!

Mary Jeffries, CEO, Polaroid

Edison like all inventors knew that the scope of Thrift is limitless. So did Dr. Land the founder of Polaroid, one of our companies. Ted Malloch has done all of us in business a huge favor- -he has rediscovered a virtue that unlocks the door to success and builds true character.

Dr. Stanley Carlson-Theis, Senior Policy Director, Center for Public Justice

This is a most interesting and timely topic—not exactly politically correct nor the kind of thing that captains of industry or politicians thinking of tax revenues (i.e., all politicians) want us to reflect on and pay heed too! But, thrift is a virtue that is relevant also to non tartan-skirted folks. . .

Colin A. Hanna, Executive Director, Let Freedom Ring

For most of us, thrift is the necessary precondition to generosity. In this book, Dr. Malloch points out the public as well as private benefits of the twin virtues of thrift and generosity. Both societies and individuals yearn to influence history, and this engaging book illustrates the simple truth that we must be good stewards, not merely consumers, of the gifts entrusted to us if we hope to make a positive impact on those around us.

Milt Kuyers, CEO, Faustel, Inc.

Wow…, has Ted Malloch packed a lot into this book on a much broader perspective than you could have ever guessed from it’s title. It supports traditional thought while showing excellent research and examples. It proves the thesis that thrift results in many kinds of wealth. I had to read and study it a second time to appreciate the depth of thinking here exhibited!

Dr. Paul Zak, Professor of Economics and Director, Center for Neuroeconomics Studies, Claremont Graduate University and Editor of, Moral Markets: The Critical Role of Values in the Economy

Dr. Theodore Malloch’s book on thrift reminds us of the importance of this overlooked virtue by tracing its value, both historic and contemporary. Tracing its roots from the Scottish enlightenment to the no-waste credo of Sam Walton, Malloch shows how thrift advantages others rather than ourselves, a noble act that can make us happier. Equally important, thrift provides the resources to stimulate prosperity: without savings there is no investment. Indeed, Malloch argues persuasively that underdevelopment is a moral dilemma because corruption and ineptitude have crowded out thrift. This important book is lively, topical, and immediately useful.

Paul Corts, President, CCCU

In an earlier era, America’s Calvinist president, Calvin Coolidge, argued that industry, thrift and self-control are not sought because they create wealth, but because they create character. Malloch’s treatment of thrift needs to be read aloud in classrooms so that once again our people will find and build character.

Al Sikes, Chairman, Trinity Forum

Thrift takes on “the crucial linkage between democracy, freedom and capital”. Ted Malloch asks the tough questions and goes deep to find the truths, which animate our lives. His thoughts and conclusions on “spiritual capital” are especially persuasive.

Paul Dietrich, CEO, Foxhall Capital

Thrift is not avarice. Avarice is not generous. Historically, it is the thrifty people who are generous. If we want a society of true wealth, a giving society, we will need to rediscover the virtue of thrift so well expounded in this book that should become a true classic.

Michael Van Pelt, President, Work Research Foundation

Malloch’s injection of the virtue of thrift in today’s public dialogue will challenge us to renovate our economic house, repair our appetites and help us search for what is of real value. Somehow, this forgotten virtue has me humbled at its simplicity and enthusiastic about the power of an historic idea poised to live again. This is the wise work of one of our true public intellectuals.

Bev Hendry, President, Aberdeen Asset Management

As an Aberdonian, from the north of Scotland, I can certainly appreciate the virtue of thrift more than most. Thrift as well as other traditional Scottish virtues such as enterprise, hard work and innovation has helped the Scots build up many successful global businesses particularly in the financial arena. This book shows wonderfully how that was possible.

Dr. Paul Marshall, Senior Fellow, The Hudson Institute

The word thrift seems decidedly unmodern, a fusty old term redolent of Victorian or even Puritan strictness, or perhaps hypocrisy. As this book shows, it is anything but: it is intimately tied to developments such as the economic rise of China and the other Asian tigers, and to many of the ills that plague modern America. Ted Malloch’s marvelous book roots an understanding of thrift in philosophy, economics and theology and shows how this virtue is vital to the renewal of our lives and societies.

Very Rev. Dr. Christopher Hancock, King’s College, London University

‘Where materialism thrives thrift hides’ – not so, of course: they need one another. Spending and saving, like virtue and wisdom, are matters of the soul as much as the ledger. This book by the ever erudite Dr. Malloch provides a timely reminder from someone who knows a lot about both money and virtue, that there is more to life and money than credit or cash.

Joseph Shattan, author of Architects of Victory: Six Heroes of the Cold War

If America is to prevail in today’s global economy, we will need to cultivate the virtues Ted Malloch describes in this brilliant and extremely readable book. It is wisdom on steroids.

Dwight Lee, Ramsay Professor of Economics and Private Enterprise, Terry School of Business, University of Georgia

Whether a forgotten virtue or not, Malloch makes compelling argument that thrift is a virtue that is very much its own reward. And the reward is not only, or most importantly, in the form of material wealth. Thrift is part of a package of virtues, such as discipline, accountability and farsightedness, that are necessary to a satisfying and meaningful life, and in most cases sufficient as well.

Dr Peter S Heslam, Transforming Business, University of Cambridge.

Thrift is often negatively associated with miserliness. Rooted in the verb ‘to thrive’, however, it is actually about human flourishing. Thrifty people are future-minded, prepared to delay gratification in the hope of a better tomorrow. A wealth of new research affirms the importance of this characteristic for human happiness. Against a background of over consumption based on debt-based instant gratification, Ted Malloch’s book provides a compelling case for the recovery of thrift as a practical virtue relevant to every social sphere. The author’s vast experience of many of these areas ensures that this book is not only timely but firmly based in contemporary reality.

Andrea Sachs, Time Magazine, Dec. 14, 2009

Theodore Roosevelt Malloch, whose book Thrift: Rebirth of a Forgotten Virtue may be tough sledding for the non-Ph.D. reader. Malloch, who has held positions at the U.N., the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the State Department, writes with passion in an ambitiously academic style. He examines the history of the concept of thrift- -the root of the word is an Old Norse verb meaning “to thrive”- -citing the contributions of the Scots and Calvinists.

The World Needs a Dozen Hong Kongs

Communist China’s decision to join the global economy triggered the greatest contraction of poverty in world history. Yet amazingly, the indispensable impetus to that transformation—its inspiration and guide, the source of much of its talent and capital—has been widely overlooked, and never replicated. The model of Hong Kong has been hiding in plain sight.

Hong Kong was always different than other colonies. It began in 1842 as a minor trading post, surrounded by empty territory. Like the United States, most of Hong Kong’s citizens were drawn there for freedom and opportunity. As Milton Friedman noted, after WWII Britain allowed Hong Kong to pursue a classical liberal, free market policy. Even during its own dalliance with socialism, Britain allowed capital to move freely in Hong Kong. Taxes were kept low and there were no exchange or trade restrictions. The results were spectacular. Despite absorbing millions of impoverished refugees, Hong Kong’s per capita income rose from about a quarter of Britain’s to more than a third larger in just four decades.

In 1984 Margaret Thatcher’s UK signed an agreement with China that promised to continue Hong Kong’s unique role for another 50 years. Post-colonial Hong Kong became a free city inside China, with its own laws, democratic legislature and independent judiciary. It kept its free market economy, its low rate tax system, and its separate, convertible currency. China traded a negligible dilution of its sovereignty for the enormous benefits it derives from a free Hong Kong. It calls this arrangement "One Country, Two Systems."

With billions of people still trapped in poverty today, why shouldn’t we build new Hong Kongs? Why shouldn’t other developing countries and regions have vibrant outposts of freedom like Hong Kong?

The United States should create a Free Cities Program that would build treaty-based "Hong Kongs" in countries that genuinely want democracy, prosperity and a way to outflank corruption. These new Cities would be joint ventures between the United States, an international financial institution like the World Bank, and the host governments. The U.S. would negotiate 50-year bilateral treaties with the host countries, authorizing the joint venture to purchase undeveloped plots the size of Hong Kong, establish property registries, and institute a complete set of Western freedoms and responsibilities.

Treaty-based Free Cities would offer democracy, low taxes, rule of law, limited government, reliable prosecution of corruption, freedom of faith, speech and press, multiethnic meritocracy, and free trade. They would exemplify free market globalization, rather than the economic exploitation of protectionist colonial mercantilism. Like Hong Kong, these tiny places would become safe havens for investors and entrepreneurs. They’d allow citizens to raise capital, attract the skills they need from abroad, and create thousands of new jobs where there are none today.

This strategy would be inexpensive, yet philosophically revolutionary. In a Free City development wouldn’t be a problem at all. Investors and workers will absolutely flock to places where there is freedom, secure property rights and the rule of law—thereby reversing the brain drain that hobbles every developing country.

The joint venture would only have to build the Free Cities’ public infrastructure, and that would be financed by resale of City land, City taxes and bonds. The global private sector would gladly develop everything else because they’d be able to reap the rewards of their own enterprise.

The people attracted to Free Cities would become stakeholders who would resist aggressively any interference with their freedoms, as the citizens of Hong Kong have. And the host country’s ruling elite would learn quickly, as China’s did, that they can earn much more from their Free City than they’d ever be able to pocket from foreign aid or "squeeze."

This strategy could change the focus of America’s official development programs from government-to-government to people-to-people. Free Cities would mobilize the private sector, NGOs and the faith community, to build first world economies in destitute places. In the process, it could stimulate a profound new American engagement with the poor of the world.

A Free Cities program would appeal powerfully to the idealism and generosity of the American people—and to the friends of freedom around the world. It would put the U.S. on the offensive in the worldwide war of ideas. And it would put dictators, kleptocrats, and terrorists on the defensive.

The world needs at least a dozen new Hong Kongs. The United States should lead the way and begin building Free Cities in Eastern Europe, Africa, Latin America, and Asia in the next five years.

Ken Hagerty is Chairman and Founder of the Global Venture Investors Foundation; Theodore Roosevelt Malloch is Chairman and Founder of the Spiritual Enterprise Institute

Freedom and Opportunity Back Home For Illegal Immigrants

The desperation that drives millions of illegal immigrants into our country will never subside until there are jobs and genuine opportunity in their stagnant home economies. Fortunately, there is a way the U.S. could jump-start non-corrupt, democratic, private sector-led, globalized economies inside otherwise destitute third world countries. We could do it soon, and we could do it for a lot less than we’d have to pay to assimilate millions more illegal aliens. The solution is to adapt the free market model of post-colonial Hong Kong.

Hong Kong was always different than other colonies. It began in 1842 as a minor trading post, surrounded by empty territory. Like the United States, most of Hong Kong’s citizens were drawn there for freedom and opportunity. As Milton Friedman noted, after WWII Britain allowed Hong Kong to pursue a classical liberal, free market policy. Even during its own dalliance with socialism, Britain allowed capital to move freely in Hong Kong. Taxes were kept low and there were no exchange or trade restrictions. The results were spectacular. Despite absorbing millions of impoverished refugees, Hong Kong’s per capita income rose from about a quarter of Britain’s to more than a third larger in just four decades.

In 1984 Margaret Thatcher’s UK signed an agreement with China that promised to continue Hong Kong’s unique role for another 50 years. Post-colonial Hong Kong became a free city inside China, with its own laws, democratic legislature and independent judiciary. It kept its free market economy, its low rate tax system, and its separate, convertible currency. China traded a negligible dilution of its sovereignty for the enormous benefits it derives from a free Hong Kong. It calls this arrangement “One Country, Two Systems.”

With billions of people still trapped in poverty, it’s time to build new Hong Kongs. The best solution for millions of illegal entrants rushing to the U.S. is to offer them hope and opportunity in their own countries.

The United States should create a Free Cities Program that would build treaty-based “Hong Kongs” in countries that genuinely want democracy, prosperity and a way to outflank corruption. These new Cities would be joint ventures between the United States, an international financial institution like the World Bank, and the host governments. The U.S. would negotiate 50-year bilateral treaties with the host countries, authorizing the joint venture to purchase undeveloped plots the size of Hong Kong, establish property registries, and institute a complete set of Western freedoms and responsibilities.

Treaty-based Free Cities would offer democracy, low taxes, rule of law, limited government, reliable prosecution of corruption, freedom of faith, speech and press, multiethnic meritocracy, and free trade. They would exemplify free market globalization, rather than the economic exploitation of protectionist colonial mercantilism. Like Hong Kong, these tiny places would become safe havens for investors and entrepreneurs. They’d allow citizens to raise capital, attract the skills they need from abroad, and create thousands of new jobs where there are none today.

This strategy would be inexpensive, yet philosophically revolutionary. In a Free City development wouldn’t be a problem at all. Investors and workers will absolutely flock to places where there is freedom, secure property rights and the rule of law- -thereby reversing the capital flight and worker exodus that hobbles every developing country.

The joint venture would only have to build the Free Cities’ public infrastructure, and that would be financed by resale of City land, City taxes and bonds. The global private sector would gladly develop everything else because they’d be able to reap the rewards of their own enterprise.

The people attracted to Free Cities would become stakeholders who would resist aggressively any interference with their freedoms, as the citizens of Hong Kong have. And the host country’s ruling elite would learn quickly, as China’s did, that they can earn much more in their Free City than they’d ever be able to pocket from foreign aid or “squeeze.”

This strategy could change the focus of America’s foreign aid programs from government-to-government to people-to-people. Free Cities would mobilize the private sector, NGOs and the faith community, to build first world economies in destitute places. In the process, it could stimulate a profound new American engagement with the poor of the world.

A Free Cities program would appeal powerfully to the idealism and generosity of the American people—and to the friends of freedom around the world. It would put the U.S. on the offensive in the worldwide war of ideas. And it would put dictators, kleptocrats, and terrorists on the defensive.

The world needs at least a dozen new Hong Kongs. The United States should lead the way and begin building Free Cities in Latin America, Eastern Europe, Africa, and Asia in the next five years. The real answer to illegal immigration is to share the freedom and opportunity we enjoy in America with people around the world.

Ken Hagerty is President and Founder of the Global Venture Investors Foundation;
Theodore Roosevelt Malloch is Chairman and Founder of the Spiritual Enterprise Institute

Spiritual Enterprise Institute Looking at the Spiritual State of the Union

The purpose of the Spiritual Enterprise Institute is straight forward: It has a clear vision that comes directly from conversations with the legendary financial entrepreneur and philanthropist, Sir John Templeton. Founded in 2005, SEI focuses on the research, lessons and potential value of understanding spirituality as an essential component of economic development and progress. It carefully targets opinion leaders to learn more about the significance of spiritual capital and the enterprises it generates, across a range of issues relevant to leaders and the media in the private, public and social sectors.

Recently, the Spiritual Enterprise Institute inaugurated an annual Gallup Poll on the “Spiritual State of the Union” to examine the role of both individual and corporate spiritual commitment in American life. Although survey respondents provided their own definitions to “spirituality,” the working definition is deemed to be “sensitivity or attachment to religious values and things of the spirit rather than worldly or material interests.”

One of the most noteworthy projects undertaken by the Institute, the “Spiritual State of the Union” received a great deal of national attention when it was released last month, and reveals much about spiritual life in America today. Here are some of the most cogent Headline-catching findings:

Economic health is related to spiritual health.

Ethical issues were found most important to 50-64 aged group who attend church. Many so-called hot issues like gun laws, technology, overpopulation, education, don’t register very much or at all. Of non-economic issues, fuel oil prices are more important than anything else across all groups.

Regionally: people in the South care more about ethical/moral issues; in the East about terrorism; the Mid-West, Iraq; and far West, education.

Republicans care much more about moral decline, while Democrats care about poor leadership. Liberals are twice as unhappy about the general economy as Conservatives

Those whose faith shapes success and the spiritually committed are much more concerned about ethical/moral issues. The richer you are the better you think the economy is doing. The US economic system –capitalism- -is viewed as “basically OK.”

Our economy depends on the spiritual health of the nation.

The resounding answer is “a great deal!” – except for non-church goers.

In the South support is overwhelming for such a statement and a majority of activists and poor people believed this even more than the rich. In fact, many people have come to think that work makes the world a better place. The only disagreement is in our youngest workers who are more cynical.

Work is of value to the world.

Christians and the spiritually committed are most likely to completely agree. The poorer you are the more you agree that work is important. College graduates completely agree; the same as church goers. Republicans agree more so than Democrats but Independents agree the highest. Those in the East and West are most likely to disagree showing the existence of a coastal bias.

More than half of all Americans think being ethical will pay off economically.

85% mostly agree, across the nation. The highest totals for agreement were: satisfied workers, spiritually committed, faith-based, activists and entrepreneurs. Most people still think breaking the rules is a no-no and a significant population thinks that people are always ethical.

Open expressions of religion in the workplace are encouraged or tolerated by 79% of Americans.

People are equally split on prayer and religion at work, but the trend appears to be growing as a practice.

The Protestant work ethic is still alive and well.

Hard work may offer some guarantee of ultimate success according to half of those polled, however when asked whether the strength of the US is based on business: 77% agree; 82% of Republicans vs. 71 % of Democrats.

Government regulation does more harm than good: 60 % argue.

Success in life is determined by spiritual forces: 58% agree. Government however is no longer viewed as the savior or even first agent for change and betterment.

Belief in God remains high.

82% believe in Him; but increasingly many see themselves as spiritual not necessarily religious. When asked: Does God want us to find work that suits our talents, 87% agree. Asked Does God want us to be useful to the world, 91% agree. Asked if faith equals purpose in life, 69% agreed. The least likely to agree: young, males with college degrees who infrequently go to church and have high incomes.

People with a purpose are satisfied in their work and believe their faith shapes success.

When asked are you spiritually committed: just under 65% said yes. Faith encourages development of God-given talents 65% vs. 87% of religious.

Political divisions may run deep in America but the spiritual health of the nation is viewed as critically important.

When asked: Are you happy with whom you are: 88% said basically yes. College graduates and church-goers were the happiest at 92%. 63% of all Americans found the spiritual health of the country to be very important.

People can no longer be trusted.

59% said you can’t be too careful. Trust is out the window! Distrust is highest in 18-34 age groups and in frequent church goers. 69% of the poorest income people lack any trust. Who has hope? Women who attend church and are satisfied in their jobs.

Americans are very generous people.

65% of Americans volunteer a great deal or some of the time vs 89% for the spiritually committed. There is such a thing as spiritual capital. Where do people volunteer? Church 85%; Charity 53%, School 37%. How many Dollars a year do they actually give? $100 18%; $500 30%; $1000 17%; $5000 22%.

In his executive summary of the poll, George Gallop suggests that the survey marks rapid shifts in American attitudes as well as confirmation of the critical underpinning of religious and spiritual beliefs as they relate to managing current problems, the economy and work; volunteerism and the giving of money; meaning and purpose in life; and one’s outlook to the future.

My one, personal take-away from the research is close to the mission of SEI and is good news: The 18th Century concept of a Protestant work ethic has not only survived the 20th century waves of communism, fascism, socialism, secularism, and the welfare state, but may be positioned for a resurgence.