An Open Letter to Larry Fink and Blackrock

Dear Larry Fink and employees,

In his book, Conspiracy Theories, Objectivism, and the Real Conspiracy, Robert X George writes:

“In my view, today’s pragmatist business leaders are members of a true conspiracy. Starting with anti-capitalist Marxist critical theory, they promote the “class struggle” and an anti-capitalist critique. They do not represent something small and meaningless... You can call theirs a cabal or a conspiracy but, it goes without saying, that the WEF (World Economic Forum) , BlackRock, the Business Roundtable and other groups are a huge threat to individual rights and freedom around the world. This is a demonstrable fact, an inductive generalization. If they gain power, they will certainly destroy the constitution and the individual rights of many people and replace them with collective enclaves operating according to the principles of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governmental) and DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion). They will not go away with a mere coming election. 

“To claim that these individuals and organizations are not a conspiracy of bad actors is technically untrue. There is objective knowledge that they are working toward the same goals, and they all want to destroy capitalism by means of altruistic appeals to human sacrifice. They are certainly a group of incompetents pretending to be technocrats. But to say that all of the many critics of these groups are conspiracy theorists ignores, very shortsightedly, the true threat these people pose to our country. They are analogous to the early communists who declared that they wanted to take over the factories and machines so they could create economic abundance (that never happened). These communists destroyed their own economies as will the conspirators surrounding today’s pragmatist CEOs.

“These leftists are the heads of the largest corporations in the world, and they are trying to create the next worldwide socialist state. They are not capitalists by any means, but they do believe that their ends justify their means.” 

“In her books, Ayn Rand identified two types of business leaders, the Reardens and Galts (capitalists on strike) versus the statists and political manipulators (who used their riches to obtain government power, regulations, and re-distribution of income). Shouldn’t we assume that Rand was presenting two opposed real conspiracies? If so, isn’t a description of George Soros and his fellow conspirators, as they are known in the media today, far worse than the treacherous Mouches and Boyles in Atlas Shrugged? If not, they are certainly very similar.

“In our society, Rand’s “good guys,” the Reardens and Galts, have nothing in common with the BlackRock/WEF/Soros/G20 crowd, to name a few. These organizations are made up of pragmatists seeking to use political force to create monopolies and enrich themselves – many of them call themselves effective altruists who favor “democracy.” Others are using altruistic/social justice swindles such as ESG and DEI to fool people into accepting their pragmatist goals. But these people are not “small potatoes.” To say they do not represent a real conspiracy is ludicrous.” 

(ESG = Environmental, Social, and Governance (meaning fascism). DEI = Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (all based upon social justice swindles that try to reverse the goals of society and turn them into the advancement of the goals of Marxist critical theory and critical race theory.)

In my book, Effective Altruism, I wrote:

“Name: Larry Fink 

“Field/Company: Finance/BlackRock

“Description: This company is steeped in corporate altruism. It claims to support “stakeholders” which is a general term for socialism’s “downtrodden” or poor. The company uses moral force and threats of exclusion for any company that does not openly succumb to the company’s ESG policies (See below).

Here I insert the very words of Larry Fink as he discusses what they intend to do to companies that make up their portfolio:

"You have to force behaviors. If you don't force behaviors, whether it's gender or race or just any way you want to say the composition of your team, you're going to be impacted. That not just recruiting, it's development," Fink said. "We're gonna have to force change."

Mr. Fink here is declaring that he is the moral authority who will force companies to adopt DEI policies and programs. This means he assumes that no one should question the moral supremacy of DEI which cannot possibly be true. Here is a businessperson who thinks he has the right to determine what companies will do regardless of the rightfulness of DEI. To hear Fink say it, companies must implement DEI without question.

The question must be asked: How can one businessperson assume the right to dictate to other business people how they should run their businesses? How can such an independent businessperson assume that certain principles are his to enforce upon his clients?

To continue the quote from Effective Altruism:

“According to a Judiciary Committee letter to BlackRock (July 6, 2023), “BlackRock is the world’s largest asset manager, with over $9 trillion of assets under management as of March 31, 2023. As of the end of 2021, BlackRock owns 7.7% of the shares and casts 9.8% of the votes of the entire Standard and Poor’s (S&P) 500. Together with State Street Corporation and The Vanguard Group, Inc., BlackRock is one of the so-called “Big Three” asset managers that own a combined 21.9% and vote a combined 24.9% of the shares of the S&P 500.

““BlackRock is a member of both Climate Action 100—and the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative (NZAM). Through Climate Action 100—, BlackRock appears to have reached a collusive agreement with other institutional investors to “work with the companies in which [they] invest to…deliver [] net zero [greenhouse gas (GHG)] emissions by 2050.” Similarly, through NZAM, BlackRock appears to collusively have agreed with other asset managers to “[w]ork in partnership with asset owner clients on decarbonization goals, consistent with an ambition to reach net zero emissions by 2050 or sooner across all assets under management.”

““These collusive agreements to “decarboni[ze]” and reduce emissions to net zero by 2050 would require draconian “declines in the use of coal, oil and gas”: as much as 98% for coal, 94% for oil, and 86% for fossil fuels overall. This, in turn, would require radical steps such as halting sales of new internal combustion engine passenger cars by 2035, and phasing out all unabated coal and oil power plants by 2040.” It also would mean “that no new oil and gas fields must be developed,” choking off investment in these industries. Such restrictions limit output and increase prices and deprive businesses of investments and consumers of choices. The potential consequences for American freedom and economic well-being are far-reaching.”

“On the corporate website, “Larry Fink discusses rising rates, banking sector stresses, and a fragmenting global economy – but emphasizes client choice and the importance of hope for investors.” This (like Soros and others) represents altruist claptrap intended to portray the company as a social justice champion. Remember, we have argued that altruism does not work because it requires the self-sacrifice of the productive sectors of the economy for the sake of the nonproductive sectors.

“BlackRock has come up with a social justice management tool in its ESG strategy. The investment firm issues ESG ratings for any business it invests in. For BlackRock, ESG is an empty investment strategy. By focusing investments on companies that subscribe to the ESG strategy, BlackRock thinks [it] can focus dollars on Environmental, Social, and Governance matters. You could call ESG strategy a way of identifying the companies ripe for exploitation. If you are successful and you have a good ESG rating, you are in.

“BlackRock’s stress on the government/business alliance also resurrects leftist politics, pragmatism, and indeterminacy into a system that skims money from corporations. In effect, they are stealing the trappings of capitalism as a way of undermining capitalism for the sake of “the planet”. Again, remember that altruism doesn’t work (it exploits). (parenthesis mine). 

“Let me state clearly that ESG is a destructive philosophy that cannot and does not have the clients and shareholders in mind. To put re-distributionist concepts (such as ESG) at the forefront of corporations will destroy the company bottom lines. (parenthesis mine)

“The reason companies such as BlackRock exert so much pressure on corporations to adopt ESG is the philosophy of altruism. Today, both liberals and conservatives advocate altruism, the sacrifice of the individual to society. Not only are most CEOs thoroughly pragmatic when they seek to avoid being shamed by ESG, they are blind to the fact that if they challenge ESG, they will not only lose profits but also become morally corrupt (in the eyes of ESG advocates). (parenthesis mine)

“Yet, even individuals within these corporations see altruism as a positive benefit for society. They think it is great that their companies are spending huge dollars helping the poor, completely oblivious to the fact that it is the profits they have worked to create that are paying for environmental programs that cost the economy millions of dollars annually. 

“Moral fear moves them to applaud ESG as it helps the government establish central planning and dictatorship. This is the mistake that is causing the decline and destruction of capitalism. Until society returns to individualism, the rights of individuals to the pursuit of happiness, the stormtroopers of altruism, Fink, and his minions, will eventually destroy society. We must challenge altruism for the evil moral system that it is. It not only destroys productive citizens, it also violates the principle that production comes before consumption. It is altruism that leads to genocide and mass murder as history has shown. 

“How do they get away with this? Using the flowery language of love for mankind, of kindness and the beauty of giving, they slide by, pretending to be loving people who care about others, they fool productive people into giving their values to people who do not care about creating their own values. In fact, they don’t realize that it is (shareholder) capitalism, fossil-fuel based machines, and the profit-motive that are beautifying the planet. In particular, it is fossil fuels and the machines they power that are creating abundance and human flourishing on our planet. (parenthesis mine)

“ESG is a fascist device used by companies that don’t want to compete fairly. Their goal is to destroy capitalism under the false notion that diverting profits to charity actually does good for those corporations. Yet, the strategy that lies beneath ESG is the notion that companies that don’t subscribe to …  ESG should be put out of business by the government. It is a good business strategy, thinks Larry Fink, to show people that corporations are not selfish. They are instead eager to show that they hate money unless it is given away. Wait for the law of diminishing returns  as increases in altruistic spending grow beyond the bottom line. (The law of diminishing returns says that, if you keep increasing one factor in the production of goods (such as your workforce) while keeping all other factors the same, you’ll reach a point beyond which additional increases will result in a progressive decline in output. In other words, there’s a point when adding more inputs will begin to hamper the production process. Source: https://www.britannica.com/money/diminishing-returns) 

“BlackRock’s goal is to destroy capitalism and turn society into a re-distribution industry. Anytime you force companies to divert profits to so-called stakeholders rather than shareholders, you will cause shareholders to exit, and, in the long run, BlackRock will destroy itself as each of the companies in which it invests begin to lose profits. Fink’s gambit of ESG will eventually fail. It is fooling no one.”

ESG and DEI, imposed upon American companies, will turn the American economy into a fascist state that promises collectivism and sacrifice of the individual until, eventually, it destroys individual rights and freedom. Investors should take note and run as fast as they can from these false promises. I shall be the one to say it: whenever companies are forced to give up profits for the sake of altruistic giving, the end of affluence is over.

Sincerely,

Robert Villegas

If you would like to read Mr. Villegas’ book Effective Altruism – the Same Old Altruism, you can find it here: Effective Altruism - the Same Old Altruism

An Open Letter to the Business Roundtable

Dear CEOs of the Business Roundtable

As I have observed the political events of the last several years, I have noticed that corporations today have strayed from their missions as profit-seeking organizations and have become social service warriors. I have also noticed the Business Roundtable and the adoption of a new form of capitalism called “stakeholder capitalism”. This new form is intended to replace shareholder capitalism with a new approach that places stakeholders above shareholders – a bad idea for many reasons.

As I wrote in my book, How Pragmatism Destroyed a World:

“The Business Roundtable is a group of 181 CEOs from some of the biggest corporations in the U.S. (including Apple, American Airlines, Accenture, AT&T, Bank of America, Boeing, Comcast and J.P. Morgan Chase and Co.)” 

As we think about the ideas that dominate our culture today, we must recognize the essential fact that, in order for ideas to be efficacious, they must relate to reality. They must not be based upon distortions that mangle reality while we are in the process of understanding them. It is a focus on the objective nature of ideas that should be central to our thinking. The central thesis of this letter is that pragmatism, the philosophy of indeterminism, is an impractical distortion of reality. We start by examining the inefficacy of the idea of stakeholder capitalism.

The arguments for a stakeholder capitalism have the effect of collectivizing identity politics and giving the various pressure groups in society a voice in how they want the capitalist system to foster the government’s desire to capture the practice of profit-seeking and turn it from a focus on the satisfaction of shareholders and turn it into a social service slave dedicated to re-distributing profits to identitarian social groups.  

First, we must understand why it is better for a corporation to be shareholder-centric as compared to being stakeholder-centric.

In my book, How Pragmatism Destroyed a World, I wrote:

“What is Wrong with the Corporation?

“Liberty is meaningless if it is only the liberty to agree with those in power.” - Ludwig von Mises

“The modern mind is beset with a number of cognitive errors that bear upon the purpose of this book. They also bear upon a philosophy which essentially prohibits a free flow of ideas and opinions. This is the philosophy of pragmatism. Yet, few people know they are living under the oppressive nature of pragmatism. Instead, they think they are free to do whatever they want to advance new ideas and challenge the status quo. More importantly, they don’t know that their deepest held beliefs are destroying their knowledge of reality and fomenting social failure. 

“…I propose that pragmatism, and its parents in Europe, have negatively impacted man’s mind and have restricted human development. In order to understand this, we must understand pragmatism.

“Pragmatism is considered to be the first “American” philosophy because of its distinctly American features, its appeal to “what works” and blind leaps of action, its focus on results that have “cash value” and its decidedly false practical mindset. Yet, pragmatism is only “American” if you focus on these derivative concepts rather than its foundational beginnings. The foundational source of pragmatism is European philosophy.

““It is sometimes said that the movement variously called pragmatism, instrumentalism, and radical empiricism is an expression of “Americanism.” It is true that most of the leading pragmatists have been Americans, and that pragmatism has had a wider impact in this country than in others. But actually, much more than merely local influence went into the development of pragmatism. Hume’s empirical analysis, Kant’s phenomena (but not his noumena), Hegel’s phenomenology and his soft-pedaling of “spirit,” the social orientation of the Utilitarians, the positivism of Comte, and Bergson’s activism—these and other lines of thought influenced Dewey.”  (Dewey is one of the founders of pragmatism)

“In particular, ‘the social orientation of the Utilitarians” has influenced many of today’s CEOs, college professors and other Americans. Their calculation of corporate “results” means calculating the views and opinions of society (perception is reality). The pragmatic businessperson today walks on both sides of every political fence to avoid displeasing anyone. In fact, being nice and uncontroversial is always counted as the most intelligent way to deal with people among the pragmatists. No businessperson today stands for his right to earn money, express his own opinions and keep the results of his work because that is just too selfish in their view. It ignores the wellbeing of society. 

““In Dewey’s view, intelligence cannot attain to eternal truths, but, rightly understood and rightly applied, it is capable of dealing effectively with pressing social and political problems…Dewey focused on the actual world and on what “interested” thought can do in it.”  

““They (the pragmatists) really mean the fact that there are no ethical absolutes. There is no knowledge for certain in ethics any more than there is knowledge for certain in any other field. You have to try and see, you have to experiment, you have to see what works (with people). You have to give up the idea of unyielding, unswerving loyalty to moral principles.”  (Parentheses mine)

“Men, instead of being proud of accepting and asserting beliefs and “principles” on the ground of loyalty, will be as ashamed of that procedure as they would now be to confess their assent to a scientific theory out of reverence for Newton or Helmholz or whomever, without regard to evidence.

““If one stops to consider the matter, is there not something strange in the fact that men should consider loyalty to “laws,” principles, standards, ideals to be an inherent virtue, accounted unto them for righteousness? It is as if they were making up for some secret sense of weakness by rigidity and intensity of insistent attachment. A moral law, like a law in physics, is not something to swear by and stick to at all hazards; it is a formula of the way to respond when specified conditions present themselves. Its soundness and pertinence are tested by what happens when it is acted upon. Its claim or authority rests finally upon the imperativeness of the situation that has to be dealt with, not upon its own intrinsic nature—as any tool achieves dignity in the measure of needs served by it. The idea that adherence to standards external to experienced objects is the only alternative to confusion and lawlessness was once held in science. But knowledge became steadily progressive when it was abandoned, and clews and tests found within concrete acts and objects were employed. The test of consequences is more exacting than that afforded by fixed general rules. In addition, it secures constant development, for when new acts are tried new results are experienced, while the lauded immutability of eternal ideals and norms is in itself a denial of the possibility of development and improvement.” 

““When pragmatists do advocate political views of their own, because they have no principles, you cannot get anything too coherent out of them, but the typical pragmatist on the street would be an advocate of a mixed economy. That’s the type of system that would fit best with pragmatism politically. Since they have no basic principles in politics, as in any place else, there is no absolute right or wrong political system, they would par excellence be the type that prides itself on being called moderate as opposed to the extremists, you see, who attach themselves rigidly to fixed absolutes, they say all men have absolute rights, or whatever the system happens to be. Particularly today pragmatists would be advocates of the mixed economy because in politics as in ethics, they are parasitic, they feed off the prevailing value code, they adopt and absorb as they are being brought up the values that are presently extant in the culture and since the prevailing values in America today are a mixture of pro-freedom and pro-collectivism, this is what is present in the mind of the typical pragmatist when he consults his unquestioned values in any given moment, he finds a whole mélange mixed of part pro-freedom and part pro-collectivist values, and therefore, he will oppose absolute individual rights or absolute totalitarianism. There is, I may say a pronounced slant to the left in pragmatists as the country moves further to the left in general, the pragmatists are carried along. The ones I know, I may say, normally call themselves advocates of democracy but they are extraordinarily vague as to what they mean by democracy. I’ve heard democracy by pragmatists characterized as a system which fosters (mind you, this is a political definition), a system which fosters growth and creativity, shared experience, equality of opportunity. Now, you go and figure what political system would implement that. The one thing you can know for sure is that there will be a pronounced collectivist bias and that will be dictated by their epistemology. If adherence to society is the standard of the truth then society and its welfare will also be the standard of the good; implicitly it has a strong anti-capitalist streak, a kind of woozy socialism which is characteristic of most pragmatists, but it is woozy; one commentator that I’ve read on pragmatism and is sympathetic said that they are vague on principle because they don’t want to commit themselves to some absolute; there is just a very generalized sketch and in particular cases, we try to see whether it works or not. In other words, in politics it has no more specific principles than it does in ethics.”  (Consider what this means in education)

“Pragmatism holds that reality is made by the collective, which, to the pragmatist, makes the views and ideas of people to be very important. To see this more clearly, let’s look at the Business Roundtable. The Business Roundtable is a group of 181 CEOs from some of the biggest corporations in the U.S. (including Apple, American Airlines, Accenture, AT&T, Bank of America, Boeing, Comcast and J.P. Morgan Chase and Co.) Recently, the CEOs of the Business Roundtable decided to change the definition of the “corporation”; a grand gesture whose intent is to change the nature of capitalism itself in the minds of customers, employees and shareholders. Their views are considered important because how they think determines their views of the corporations.

“Pragmatists consider themselves to be problem-solvers; but they never solve problems with a sweeping review and sweeping recommendations. They only wait until a problem threatens and rather than changing a whole system, such as capitalism, they merely try to stamp out that singular isolated problem that has arisen. They deal with it then move on to the next problem. This is in keeping with avoiding extremes of the left and right as we saw above. Today, and for many decades, the “problem” for the Business Roundtable is public opinion and the overall moral premise that capitalism is evil. As is fitting with their general approach, …, pragmatists will only change the definition of the corporation and declare that the problem of public opinion is now solved (although they are really looking and seeing).

“In other words, if the corporation was once meant to pursue shareholder value, holding this idea must be, according to pragmatists, a denial of the possibility of development and improvement. This old view of the corporation is the present problem with which they must deal. Yet, we must ask, how can holding to a specific definition be wrong if there is no reason to change it? Men are still doing business the way they always used to do. Their minds are still pursuing values in the way they always used to pursue; and the pricing mechanism still functions under the rules of supply and demand. So why change the definition of the corporation? To answer this question, remember the quote above: “You have to try and see, you have to experiment, you have to see what works. You have to give up the idea of unyielding, unswerving loyalty to moral principles.” So, here you have it, pragmatism in action. Oh, but there is so much more.

“If your previous concept of a corporation is no longer useful, if it is under attack, then the members of this organization solve the problem of today by putting a band aid on it. For them, the problem is threats from the government (antitrust, regulations, bad publicity, etc.) and a public opinion that views corporations as greedy and selfish. In fact, these illustrious CEOs make their million + salaries because they are trained on how to solve problems like bad public opinion. They take a bold new leap by changing the definition of the corporation and including altruism (a very old concept) within that definition. They make altruism the new social reality. But wait, that’s not new …as the country moves further to the left in general, the pragmatists are carried along.”

“In fact, many of the ideas coming out of the universities today involve a strong hatred of self-interest, capitalism and profits. Advocates of altruism (socialists, communists, fascists and pragmatists) excoriate CEOs for being selfish and predatory. The result is that CEOs who feel guilty for being “capitalists” often promise to give away their profits. (Therefore, the idea that stakeholder value should replace shareholder value.) (Parenthesis mine)

“Indeed, the idea that the end (solving a problem) justifies the means (indoctrinating the shareholders) requires setting all opposition aside and forcing it to accept new altruistic trends and floating abstractions. This practice is a typical pragmatist tactic that has been used often by the left to politically disenfranchise free market advocates. No opposing argument stands a chance against the steamrolling of opinion as it is practiced by leftists in organizations such as the Business Roundtable. It is convenient for them that they routinely use altruism and the appeal to “doing good” in order to motivate society. The entire nation must now christen the new definition of the corporation and fall in line with the massive government-inspired giveaway of the profits of the corporation. Everything will be just fine if we all change our models of thinking. 

“If you doubt that Business Roundtable membership is made up of dupes for the politicians, consider these words: “those at the very top, the richest individuals and the richest corporations are going to pay more” (Warren), “we’re going to stand up to the greed and corruption and price fixing of the pharmaceutical industries” (Sanders), “hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15s, your AK-47s” (O’Rourke), “I have proposed…that we, by 2028, cut all carbon emissions from new buildings, by 2030, carbon emissions from cars, and by 2035, all carbon emissions from the manufacture of electricity” (Warren), “as long as Washington is paying more attention to money than it is to our future, we can’t make the changes we need to make. We have to attack the corruption head on” (Warren). Don’t be surprised that most CEOs in this country agree with all of these statements. Don’t be surprised that our government gets bigger and more oppressive every day. The pragmatists in the business world went to school with the pragmatists in government.

“In the real world, a corporation is made up of departments, business units and managers that work cooperatively to achieve shareholder value. If any action within the corporation detracts from that goal, it is seen as counterproductive and harmful to shareholder value. Shareholders, seeing inefficiencies, would perceive the loss of value and take their investments elsewhere. This is called the movement of capital to better uses, a free market principle at the heart of capitalism. This hasn’t changed. But the CEOs of the Business Roundtable want to change it – and for that they must rope the shareholders into christening the new definition of the corporation.

“Many CEOs, educated as altruists since kindergarten, see the corporations’ need for profits as selfish and they spend lots of money to produce well-polished press releases, prospectuses and earnings statements to convince shareholders that altruism and social responsibility are the best ways to earn profits. Like Leninists in the past, their rationalizations are intended to indoctrinate all parties that goodwill comes to the corporation through government contracts, subsidies and government grants, not to mention beneficial legislation that improves market share. By fostering the social goals of the government, the corporation declares itself a good community partner that puts people first not profits. How Dewey of them.

“The CEOs of the Business Roundtable would likely respond to shareholder opposition by declaring that they should not be expected to buck the trend of the entire world toward corporate benevolence. Why should they have to take a stand against the trend of ever-growing government? One should not have to oppose a government that acts on behalf of all citizens by taking care of them, protecting their environment, making sure they have health care, childcare, free college and free everything. Why shouldn’t citizens want to give up their guns now so that government can be their caretaker? All they are trying to do in the Business Roundtable is make sure they do their part. What is so bad about that? What kind of monster would oppose such benevolence?

…

“In a capitalist system, corporate strategies must work together without internal conflict. They must serve the interests of the shareholders who seek real bottom-line results. If a corporation declares that it will not seek profits alone, but also other goals not directly related to profits, the shareholders will take notice. This is because capitalism, real capitalism, depends upon knowledge (to make good business decisions) and justice to enable the best products and services to be created. 

“The Business Roundtable, on the other hand, is not made up of people who seek knowledge and justice. For them knowledge is not possible; their metaphysical principles don’t recognize the existence of a means to knowledge nor even the possibility of it. As for justice, they prefer regulations that stifle their competitors. They don’t want to win customers anymore; they want to capture them by making it impossible for the competition to flourish. This isn’t capitalism but more like mercantilism, captive markets, government protectionism and conquered loot. This is loyalty marketing and the glues that hold it together are collectivism and altruism. Don’t ask these CEOs to function in a free market – how could you? Free markets? That means greed and corruption just like Bernie Sanders said.

“Many shareholders are “old-timers” like me. We think the result of seeking profits is an ever-improving society, a cleaner environment, better paid and happier employees and more efficient social institutions. For centuries, it was thought that the result of capitalism was our wonderful living environments, more leisure, better transportation, better highways, air conditioning and affluence for all citizens. The provision of jobs in a nurturing work environment meant happier, more productive, more intelligent and more dedicated employees; and this meant bigger markets for the products of the corporation. In short, capitalism has created many of the enjoyments of life and it lifts society by its constant development of value for the consumer. Profits are earned by the companies that do a better job of improving the lives of employees who are not downtrodden and poor but educated and affluent. The law of supply and demand and the free flow of capital are the hallmarks of capitalism; but not anymore. The successful company is the one who has a presence in DC, a company that “spreads the wealth” – the shareholders wealth.  

“What happened? Where did capitalism go? Why do CEOs think they need to redefine, not only the definition of the corporation but, as a consequence, the definition of capitalism itself? Where is capitalism failing that we have arrived at this situation? How is it that capitalism is blamed for creating the very poverty that it is lifting from society? There is no proof that capitalism is failing; there is only the pull to the left…” 

What happens when a country begins to operate on the idea that profits are evil and should be given away to the poor? What happens when a company thinks it is doing something good to ostensibly ignore shareholders and put stakeholders front-and-center? The first thing that goes is a respect for the individual whose life is based on self-interest and quality work. These people are deemed to be slaves, and eventually, they leave the company for better companies, or they retire and live off of their saved equity. This leads to a lowering of quality work standards and quality products and services. Food no longer tastes good, products don’t work as well as they once worked, even work itself is no longer valued as more and more employees take more and more vacations days, care less about the customer and begin the process of weeding out of the company the people who work hard and have pride in what they do. This is how and why pragmatism destroys our world.

What we have here, the outcome of pragmatism, is what we call Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, also known as DEI. When companies embrace this concept, they are attempting to appease, not only government, but political progressives, communists, and fascists who run the world. They are changing the role of profit seeking and making it the role of “social justice”. The fact that virtually every company in the Business Roundtable has embraced DEI tells you why our world is going to hell, quality is declining, and shareholders are being cheated of their wealth. The decline of capitalism will also result in the decline of society.

Diversity means that the company holds pride, not in providing great products and services for customers (and giving value to shareholders), but in bragging to government that it holds identity and politics above those values. On this basis, it must drop the pursuit of excellence which means quality takes second place. When it practices “equity” politics it holds that profits need not go to shareholders but instead must be re-distributed to programs that help collectives and the needy. When it pursue inclusion, it seeks to include, as stakeholders, the less productive and more downtrodden individuals. All of these values create general malaise in society and cause various forms of re-distribution that are based on altruistic human sacrifice.

If you would like to read “How Pragmatism Destroyed a World by Robert Villegas, use this link: 

How Pragmatism Destroyed a World

Top Selling Books by Robert Villegas

 Below are links to my top selling books and other consequential publications.

n  Robert Villegas

1.    How to Write a Sponsorship Proposal

https://amzn.to/3Y56IZV

2.       Individualism

https://amzn.to/3NbstRx

3.       Finding Sponsors: For Sport and Entertainment

https://amzn.to/3BIhxIo

4.       The History of Altruism

https://amzn.to/4dyI0pj

5.       Crushing the Alinsky Radicals

https://amzn.to/3YaVOSj

6.       Unkilling Jesus

https://amzn.to/3TVc4Eu

7.       SWOT Analysis Supercharged

https://amzn.to/3Nem08v

8.       Sport and Entertainment Sponsorship: A Corporate Handbook

https://amzn.to/3Nj1tPX

9.       Finding Sponsors 2: For Sport and Entertainment

https://amzn.to/4eyVoeg

10.   Christianity on the Arch of Titus

https://amzn.to/3XXCgiZ

11.   Submitting Your Sponsorship Proposal Online: 53 Companies that Accept Sponsorship Proposals Online - with Links

https://amzn.to/3Yiw1aW

12.   The Boy Who Stood Alone

https://amzn.to/4eAYr5G

13.   Nihilism: and its Role in the World

https://amzn.to/4eHk6sW

Other Important Books

The REAL Purpose Driven Life

https://amzn.to/48d75F1

Alcoholism and Addiction - A Secular Ten-Step Program

https://amzn.to/3AdJW8V

Left versus Right – A False Choice

https://amzn.to/3U8QX1I

EGOnomics – Finding your Full Ego

https://amzn.to/3BLCouJ

How Pragmatism Destroyed a World

https://amzn.to/489le6r

Pragmatism on Display

https://amzn.to/3UbPZSc

Understanding the Modern Mind

https://amzn.to/4h8vCze

Ayn Rand’s Moral Code

https://amzn.to/4dPrXn1

The New Totalitarianism

https://amzn.to/3BGAbR1

The Logical Fallacy of Altruism

https://amzn.to/404aR1H

Man in Denial

https://amzn.to/48rmSR3

The Scourge of Racism and the Cure

https://amzn.to/3YtT9U9

Aphrodite

https://amzn.to/4eYBBFa

2085 (A Dystopian Novel)

https://amzn.to/3YuECX9

The Odyssey of Amerigo the Founder (A Novel)

https://amzn.to/4eNnK4y

 What Harvard and Princeton Don't Want You to Know

https://amzn.to/4evb5Ta

How to be a Great Employee and a Greater Manager

https://amzn.to/4fkESPm

Contact the Author

Robertv1989@outlook.com

 

Press Release - Villegas adds to his writing on alcoholism with a theater play

January, 2024, Indianapolis – Robert Villegas has written a play named El Borracho – A Stage Play. This stage play is about the struggle of the main character, Ricard, who has recently been arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol. The play chronicles his personal struggle to deal with how he became an alcoholic and how to repair his life. It focuses on his values, how to identify their role in his life, and how he can shed alcohol as a value. As he begins to understand what is important, he begins the trek from his distorted value structure to life as the standard.

Mr. Villegas says of this stage play: Alcoholism and addiction are difficult matters to deal with. I have tried, in this play, to bring a dramatic touch to the issue to help people better understand how important values are to dealing the topics.”

Robert Villegas is an American writer. He is an independent philosopher with a strong focus on the practical consequences of ideas. He considers the philosophy of ideas to be a central factor in creating a better society and he offers both a critical discussion of modern philosophy as well as practical solutions and fundamental principles to solve the many problems associated with pragmatism and indeterminacy. His work stands on its own.

The book is available in Kindle format, softcover, and hardcover. Presently, you can find this book on Amazon https://amzn.to/48NBw4t. You can also request the book at local book sellers and other online sources. Also available on Amazon and other book sellers are Mr. Villegas’ book “Alcoholism and Addiction - A Ten Step Program” (https://amzn.to/3HkckWU) and other books. You can contact Mr. Villegas at robertv1989@outlook.com for questions and permissions. Presently, he is seeking to offer movie and/or television rights.

Press Release: 2085 – A City on a River by Robert Villegas

December 2023, Indiana – A new novel written by Robert Villegas is a new narrative in the literature of dystopian societies.

The book begins:

“We live in a city on a river. Our city is called New America, and our river is the river Styx. We don’t know how the river got this name, but it is a very wide body of water and, they say, on the other side of the river are some very bad people. We have been at war with them all our lives and almost all the news we receive is about the war and how our Supreme Leader is winning it. We give the bodies of our young to fight this war and some never return. They are lost in the greyness on the other side of the river. We never think about losing them because they don’t know their parents, and their parents don’t know them.”

Villegas says about his book: “Orwell was a socialist. I am an objectivist” which establishes the idea that objectivism is much more the superior philosophy to answer the socialists.

Robert Villegas is an American writer. He is an independent philosopher with a strong focus on the practical consequences of ideas. He considers the philosophy of ideas to be a central factor in creating a better society and he offers both a critical discussion of modern philosophy as well as practical solutions and fundamental principles to solve the many problems associated with pragmatism and indeterminacy. His work stands on its own.

The book is available in Kindle format, softcover, and hardcover. Presently, you can find his book on Amazon at https://amzn.to/3RVh63a. You can also request the book at local book sellers and other online sources. You can contact Mr. Villegas at robertv1989@outlook.com for questions and permissions. Presently, he is seeking to offer movie and/or television rights.

Show Segment Creation Service for Video Bloggers and Teachers

I am offering a new service for bloggers, television shows and radio to help them fill their schedules with great content. I provide show segments with complete text, images, talking points, and on-screen bullet points.

Outline of a Show Segment:

Theory: Say’s Law

Definition

“Say’s Law of Markets states that the supply of a good or service creates demand for that good or service. Jean Baptiste Say, a classical French economist, studied the nature of markets in his 1803 book “Treatise on Political Economy” and put forth the view that supply creates its own demand and that economic agents must first engage in production before they can demand goods and services in the market.”[1]

Say’s Law was propagated by classical economist Jean-Baptiste Say who lived between 5 January 1767 – 15 November 1832.

Say's Law can be summarized through the following quote:

·        "Aggregate supply creates its own aggregate demand",

·        "Supply creates its own demand",

·        "Supply constitutes its own demand",

·        "Inherent in supply is the wherewithal for its own consumption". (Direct translation from French Traité d'économie politique.)[2]

In short, production comes before consumption. You cannot re-distribute money from one individual to another and think you are improving the economy. The economic “benefit” from spending that money is a wash – what it takes from the productive, it gives to the non-productive which means that it is a zero-sum policy. Another way of looking at re-distribution of income is to say that consumption is not the way to stimulate production. Re-distribution of income only makes one person poorer and another person richer – this does not improve the economy. All it does is give the government the opportunity to decide who gets rich and who gets poor. It is a wash; it adds no new money to the economy.

Investopedia tells us about the implications of Say’s Law:

“Implications of Say's Law of Markets

1. The greater the number of producers and a variety of products in an economy, the more prosperous it will be. Conversely, those members of a society who consume and do not produce will be a drag on the economy.
2. The success of one producer or industry will benefit other producers and industries whose output they subsequently purchase, and businesses will be more successful when they locate near or trade with other successful businesses. This also means that government policy that encourages production, investment, and prosperity in neighboring countries will redound to the benefit of the domestic economy as well. 
3. The importation of goods, even at a trade deficit, is beneficial to the domestic economy.
4. The encouragement of consumption is not beneficial, but harmful, to the economy. The production and accumulation of goods over time constitutes prosperity; consuming without producing eats away the wealth and prosperity of an economy. Good economic policy should consist of encouraging industry and productive activity in general, while leaving the specific direction of which goods to produce and how up to investors, entrepreneurs, and workers in accord with market incentives.”[3] 

Conclusion

Say’s Law is a brilliant statement of how government destroys prosperity through a policy of re-distribution. It declares that reason holds that you cannot improve an economy by the practice of printing money and giving it away to others who would not use it wisely. History tells us that the wiser man takes his production and more frugally spend it as opposed to the person who does not produce this own product.

Potential other Show Segments Could Include

Our focus on free markets could lead to other shows (or teacher segments) on the following topics:

Free Market Segments

·        Broken Window Fallacy

·        What is Re-distribution?

·        What is Fiat Money?

·        What is Capitalism?

·        How do Free Markets Work?

·        What is the Role of Production in Society?

·        What is Monetary Policy?

·        What is the Difference between Capitalism and Socialism?

·        What is the difference between Keynesian monetary policy and capitalist monetary policy

·        The benefits of capitalism

·        Knowledge Systems on the fly

If you would like to subscribe for this service, please contact me at indyboyaz@proton.me to discuss. You can also purchase my book on capitalism at https://amzn.to/3tRloMb

Robert Villegas

---

[1] https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/economics/says-law-of-markets/

[2] https://www.liquisearch.com/jean-baptiste_say/says_law

[3] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/says-law.asp

New Book Offers New Perspective on Altruism

Greenwood, IN – A new book, written by Robert Villegas, represents a new challenge to man’s understanding of one of history’s iconic moral institutions: altruism. The History of Altruism was written as a self-enlightenment project on the author’s part as he struggled to understand the conflict between those who preach and practice altruism and those who consider it a moral pariah responsible for mayhem and bloodshed. The following is a quote from the book’s Introduction:

“Many people don’t realize that their most deadly enemy has seldom been seen and cannot be imagined. In my view that enemy is altruism and what is not imagined about it is that it is evil. If this is true, they are not aware of the principles that are destroying them. They are practicing a morality that brings only deadly results while they continue to expect things to get better; and even worse, they consider themselves to be moral while they are acting as their own destroyers.”

This book seeks to provide new interpretations of altruism that set the record straight on the one aspect of altruism that is seldom considered and that is the loss of value imposed upon the “giver”. This loss has been experienced in a number of ways, not the least of which include the loss of life and the decline into poverty for many people. Mr. Villegas shows the many forms of altruism that have existed throughout history and how those forms led inexorably to the disasters of the last century and the coming decline of our present century. There is a way out and that way is described in this book.

Order Here: http://amzn.to/1SLchAw

Robert Villegas, is an Indiana Author specializing in fiction, romance, theater and philosophy. He was born in South Texas (Weslaco) but raised in Indiana. He is Hispanic-American but American in every sense of the word. He has spent a lifetime in the business world as a UPS executive and also worked in locations all over the United States and Europe. He is an Army veteran who served in Korea as a telecommunications specialist serving in the 7th Infantry Division in Camp Casey, Korea. He was educated in Indiana and earned a Degree through the University of the State of NY (Albany) via an external degree program. He is divorced with three grown children and three grandchildren.

Contact Information

Robert Villegas

www.robertvillegas.com