Addison:
Well, all right. So let's talk about money because we mostly talk about money. Right? So what
are you
interested in? Let's talk about cryptos first because I know that you have opinions on cryptos
as a speculation.
Do you think it's wealth preservation? What should people do with their own money right
now?
Charles:
Well that is a good question. And just a bit of history, readers, again, relying on readers, told me
about Bitcoin in
2009. I mean, within months of its founding. Like, "Hey, do you know about Bitcoin?" So I poked
around. I didn't buy
any until I needed to use it to pay translators in South America. And then it turned out to be, I
thought in 2016,
it's like, hey, this actually works.
Addison:
It's really funny about what you just said. I just got offered a bunch of Bitcoin for a piece
of land in
South America. And I was like, "Wait a minute. I think the land is more valuable."
Charles:
Let's talk about that. I guess if you're going to talk about a Maslow type hierarchy of needs, having
a place to live
and having a community that you feel comfortable in that you can support, that you can contribute
to, these are the
top for me. How much financial wealth you have is not the core, not the top. It's top in our
society, at least in
this particular point in time. But I don't think that's really the top need or the top value. So
whether you're
holding Fiat, gold, crypto, whatever, I think it's all a means to an end, which is a place that you
can live in,
that you can have some land around you, that you have a community that you like, and that likes you.
Addison:
You've been successful at doing that in Hawaii. Right?
Charles:
Yeah. Yeah. And I think that's fair.
Addison:
Yeah. Go ahead.
Charles:
No, I think that's a fair characterization. I mean, I attempted to do it in California, too, when
I
lived there for
decades. I think it's problematic in a lot of ways when you're in a very dense, urban core. And
so
then you have to
start looking at these things like dependency change. How dependent are you on global supply
chains?
And so I think that's going to be an issue going forward. And so you want to reduce your
dependency
if at all
possible, which would mean living in a local that actually produces something that people need
to
live. Whereas if
the area you live in produces nothing, well then you're dependent on stuff being trucked in or
piped
in from
hundreds or thousands of kilometers away. So I think that's part of it, too.
Addison:
I got to stop you right there. You live in Hawaii, man. Come on.
Charles:
Right.
Addison:
You got pineapples.
Charles:
Well, again, there's a bit of history here. It's always useful to really dig into where you live,
you
have to look at
the whole region. Chesapeake, Maryland, I mean, and then go back and say how much food was grown
here before? How
were the fisheries? And then you turn out and at some point in history, you go, "Wow, we were
pretty
self-
sufficient."
The same thing in Hawaii. Even though my mother-in-law lives with us, she's 91. In her era and
even
when I was a kid,
Hawaii grew most of its own food. Very little was imported stuff, maybe rice, that kind of
stuff. So
it's like we've
lost all that. And so the other thing about Hawaii is energy.
Addison:
And we don't grow our own food. We have some tomatoes and some thyme, I think, but that's all
we have. We
don't grow our own food. I can walk to Whole Foods from here.
Charles:
Yeah. Again, we're talking about crypto and my thing with crypto is I'm a fan of crypto in these
abstract ways, which
is like this, the more kinds of money that are available and priced transparently.
Money that is available and priced transparently, then the better the economy is going to be
because
people get to
choose what currency works for them.
So that means I'm sort of anti-Fiat to begin with because the whole idea with Fiat is you are
required by law to use
this currency. And so, if we devalue it, then you just have to eat it, sorry about that.
And so, that's a positive of cryptocurrency. I would say I'm not sure about Blockchain, frankly.
Everybody's so sure
that's the way to go. I'm not. I think there could be other software bases for an alternative
private sector,
self-organizing currency.
So what I'd like to see, as I've argued in my books, is a currency that's not issued to minors or
by
central banks,
but a currency that's issued to people who are doing some useful work in their community, i.e. a
community-based,
labor-backed currency.
Addison:
All right.
Charles:
Because that's where I think we need to look at it.
Addison:
Exactly, not on a theoretical level. Let's say you used blockchain to make that happen. It
sounds like an
interesting idea, but in the community that I live in, it's difficult to convince people to take
anything but
paper dollars that we all depend on.
Charles:
Right. In a functioning state, that's using some Fiat that's working fine. There is no motivation or
incentive for my
idea. It's an idea that would come into play in places like Venezuela, where the Fiat currencies
have been
destroyed. It would have a useful role there.
Addison:
Sorry. I mean, from my experience just from reading, because I haven't been to Venezuela, but
aren't they
doing that already? Aren't they already converting whatever currency they have into Bitcoin or
Ethereum. It
sounds like they are.
Charles:
Right. That is the de facto currency, as far as I understand it, and I do have a few contacts there.
But I guess what
the difference in my idea is that you would be issued this currency for doing useful work, as
opposed to you having
to go earn some other kind of currency and then buy Ethereum or Bitcoin.
Addison:
Interesting.
Charles:
Because if you can't find any way to make money, then you can't get any Ethereum or Bitcoin or gold
or silver because
you don't have an income. So that's where I think we need a third kind of economy.
Addison:
What would that look like?
Charles:
Well, I think it would be something along the lines of, what I'm proposing is like a community, a
global community
that's almost like Linux. In other words, it's open source. It's self organizing. Like if you
want
to start a
community group, then you've got to follow these rules. Just like you've got to follow the rules
if
you're going to
contribute to Linux or anything else.
And if you follow the rules and you meet the guidelines, then this entity will issue currency
when
the work has been
done, and it's been validated or verified that you actually did work that met the requirements.
For instance, you maintained a bikeway or you dug a new well or whatever was actually qualified
as
useful work in the
community. Then you'd get paid this currency and then you could use it in the local marketplace.
And, of course, you and I both know getting some kind of currency for which there's no market,
it's
worthless, so
you've got to have a market. And so that means that there has to be a scale that other people
are
producing goods
and services that they're willing to take your currency.
And so, you can't just issue the currency. You have to actually create the marketplace for goods
and
services in that
currency. And as you know, one of the big problems of the early United States in the 1810s and
1820s
was there was a
lack of money. There just wasn't enough currency and there wasn't enough credit.
So there were a lot of flaky banks that would pop up and issue credit and a lot of them failed,
but
that was to meet
a real need. And I think in a lot of places in the impoverished part of the world, the problem;
is
that paying jobs
are scarce, ways to get currency are scarce and credit is scarce. And so that's kind of my idea
is,
well, we could
just set up a third kind of economy that's sort.
Addison:
But isn't that just going to be a problem forever?
Charles:
Well, as I say in my book,
Addison:
All right, let's talk about your book for a second.
Charles:
Okay.
Addison:
I think we should introduce it properly. You call it, do I have this correct? Global Crisis
National
Renewal.
Charles:
Yeah. Well it's backwards, but anyways, here it is.
Addison:
Oh, there you got it.
Charles:
Yeah, Global Crisis National Renewal.
Addison:
I don't understand why it is revolutionary?
Charles:
Parenthesis?
Addison:
Yeah. Why is that? Because I think it's accurate.
Charles:
Well, I didn't want to throw people off by thinking that I was calling for a Marxist-Leninist thing.
Addison:
No.
Charles:
And so, I kind of wanted to put it in parenthesis.
Addison:
It’s way on the opposite side of that.
Charles:
Yeah. And also, I mean, hey, I'm a self-published author. I have to get some attention. I mean, how
is my book going
to stand out amongst the 50,000 other books that got issued this year or a hundred thousand, or
whatever it is? And
so, it's like, "Okay, that's a little question of curiosity: why did this guy put this in
parentheses?"
Addison:
All right. Explain to me the grand strategy for the United States. And I like this idea
because a couple of
the themes that we've been working on are that we'd be heading toward a civil war or
something, or we're going
to fight with China or something. I don't think any of that is going to happen.
What we need to do is figure out how to work together. And I feel like your book is at
least providing ideas
on the way that we can work together. And it's not just internally in the US, but we also
have to figure out how
to work with the Chinese, the Vietnamese, the Russians, whatever bullshit they're pulling up
on Ukraine right
now. I feel like you at least have a logical answer to that.
Charles:
Well, I think you've summarized the whole point of my book, which is that everybody seems to find
a
lot of reasons to
disagree and not work with anybody. Right?
And to find the reasons why we are at loggerhead, but as you say, the real goal is to find common
ground. It doesn't
mean we're going to always agree on everything. We've just got to find some common ground,
because
that's how you
advance, whether it's here in the US or internationally. So you're right.
Well, the use of the word grand strategy, I had some friends say, "Don't use that. It sounds
boring."
And so, but
grand strategy is not just a bill of reforms. It's not like saying, "Well, we need term limits
on
Congress," or
something like that. It's a whole framework of how you're going to organize your society and
your
economy, both
domestically and internationally. That's what a grand strategy is.
Addison:
You just brought up term strategies and term limits, and I have been not in favor of them
for... I think it's
a bad idea. But how do you prevent somebody from becoming a career politician?
Charles:
Yeah, exactly.
Addison:
I’m in favor of term strategies. I never have them, but then we get stuck with people who
make their careers
about telling other people what to do and lecturing.
I love this about Joe Biden. This is my favorite part of Joe Biden, is he just lectures
people, points the
finger and, "I'm right. You have to listen to me." And I'm just like, "Oh my God, this guy
is
amazing." Like,
"Seriously, does anyone believe that?"
Charles:
Yeah. Well, the idea that grand strategy is when it's put out in the United States and generally in
academic journals
or whatever, in the Pentagon, it's all about foreign policy, right? It's always about securing
borders.
Addison:
Yeah, but why? Why is it about foreign policy when we have unemployment that's going through
the roof and
violence that's increasing? Why is that? Why is it about foreign policy?
Charles:
Exactly. You nailed it. That is my whole point in the first paragraphs of the book. I'm actually
saying that if we
have grand strategies about security, we have to focus on our domestic problem. Because if the
domestic society
unravels, you're not going to have any global power.
Addison:
Why not?
Charles:
So you got to, it's actually two things.
Addison:
Why would you be entitled to have an opinion at that point? You can't handle your own
society, why would
you?
Charles:
That's right. And where, if your own economy falls apart.
Addison:
Why are we pointing our fingers at other people?
Charles:
Right. And if our economy can't support our giant military, then you're not going to have it.
It's
kind of like the
Roman era or in Zhou Dynasty in China; if your society and economy unravels, then you lose the
ability to project
power because you simply don't have the wherewithal anymore. So that's part one of my book.
Part two is to say, "Okay, what are the fundamental sources of our global crisis?" And I identify
three. One is
scarcity in essentials is going to be an issue going forward. We've used up all the cheap, easy
stuff, and nobody
wants to deal with that fact but it seems to be pretty common sense and obvious. So everything
that
we want, like
copper and oil and everything, it's going to be more expensive and harder to get.
So that's going to be an issue. So, and that's a point of competition, right, like, "Well, if
somebody else gets all
the oil and gas, then what are we going to get?" So that's an issue that we have to work
together
on.
Number two, is this inequality that you mentioned. Now you mentioned it in terms of an elected
official, but it's
like the power asymmetry is so gigantic, and we call it wealth and income inequality, but it's
actually a
concentration of power. So if a handful of people control all the power, or most of it and most
of
the wealth, then
you're not going to have a society that's very adaptive because they're going to run the system
to
benefit
themselves.
And I think that pretty much describes the United States and other countries that are like
autocracies or whatever,
whatever the label is, that's the problem; is extreme inequality of power and wealth. It skews
the
system and makes
and destabilizes it. And then, the third issue...
Addison:
But before you get to the third one, do you think the balance of power has gotten extreme
recently as opposed
to historically?
Charles:
Well, that's a great question. And a lot of people are referring to this as the new gilded age,
in
other words, as
sort of a similar to the 1890s where wealth and income inequality became very extreme, because a
few
people were
able to benefit from having access to credit and industrializing the US. So I think
statistically,
you can make that
case. For instance, I saw something that I just keep referring to because it's so amazing, that
the
top 10% of
households in the US receive 97% of all income from capital. And that includes, of course,
interest,
dividends, rent
from apartment buildings or so on, private-owned businesses profits.
So that means 90% of America gets essentially nothing from capital. They don't own enough
productive
capital to be
consequential. I think that's a big difference from, say, even 20 years ago, but certainly 40
years
ago.
And we talk about the decay of the middle class. Well, to me, it's just like you talk about labor
and
capital. Those
are some of the core issues. If capital has been concentrated in the hands of the few and most
people don't own
enough capital to be consequential, that's going to weaken your economy.
And then, labor's been sort of stripped. I mean, that's the fact. The percentage of the GDP that
goes
to labor has
fallen from 55% to 45%, and the Rand Corporation did and they said, "Well, that turns out to be
$50
trillion over
the last 45 years." Well, $50 trillion, I mean, $10 trillion here, $10 trillion there, pretty
soon
you're talking
about real money.
Addison:
What are you laughing about?
Charles:
Just that the sums are so vast that it's hard to imagine what that means. $50 trillion has basically
been siphoned
off from labor and you go, "Well, why?" And you go, "Well, there's demographics and there's all
kinds of other
reasons." But part of it is that capital got more power than labor. And so, it could do more to
increase its own
gains by influencing the state, which as you say about elected officials, not only are they all
multimillionaires,
but they work hand in glove with people who give them contributions and lobbying. So it's like this
nexus of power,
so the average American household really doesn't have much power.
Addison:
What do you say to the argument that if labor is diminishing like a force in I would say most
states, because
most unions are state based. I mean, there's a couple that are national, but if they're
diminishing as a force,
what do you say about the argument that capitalism, capital, has within its own makeup the
destruction of its
value to you and I?
Charles:
Right. Are you thinking of Thomas Piketty and that kind of argument?
Addison:
We are in control of the structure of our own demise. I'm asking this in a negative way, I
think we could
destroy ourselves, and we don't really want to do that. I think that capital is best served by
the people who
employ it. Elon Musk made that exact statement three weeks ago, or four weeks ago. He said, "
Yeah. We should
just leave the capital in the hands of the people that know how to use it." I think that's
correct. But I also
think that it builds resentment, and it makes people unnervy. Like, I'm trying to put my kids
through college,
why should I listen to Elon Musk?
Charles:
Right. Well, the idea of capital and capitalism is interesting because, just like socialism, those
are words that
generate all these different emotions. so, I'm wary of using those because they mean so many
different things. Like
for instance, where I live, there's a municipal owned water system, that's pretty common. Is that
socialism, because
the local municipality actually owns something essential? But they also live in a market economy.
Addison:
Yeah. I would say no.
Charles:
Yeah. So, there's a lot of room in that thing. But let me try to contextualize my thinking about this
question. I put
in a book, like the history of the golden age of Rome, and I refer to these other societies in the
past, partly
because I know something about them, but also because I want to communicate that we're talking about
human nature
here. We're not talking about just one society and this era, we're talking about the way that humans
have organized
societies for thousands of years. Like trade and capitalism were the Bronze Age, 3000 BC. So, I
think the golden age
of any economy is when people can turn labor into capital, and go, what does that mean?
Addison:
Yeah.
Charles:
It's all like... Yeah. So, what it means is the middle class, in other words what's the
difference
between the middle
class and the working class? The working class doesn't earn enough, or doesn't have the value
system
and the
trajectory to save enough money and then invest it wisely, and then start earning something back
on
that invested
capital. The middle class does that, and that's how the middle class works. It takes its labor,
it
saves some of
that and it invests it, and then it has both capital and labor. So, this is exactly what
happened in
Rome, is that
people could pool a little bit of money and then they could get a ship built, and then they
could
send it to India
and they could trade, and then they bring it back and it created this whole infrastructure, that
we
take for
granted.
Suddenly there's credit, there's insurance, there's taxes being collected on all this nice trade,
there's profits
being distributed to the sailors, the captain, the wholesalers, the guy that ran the warehouse,
and
on and on and
on. But the core of that was not just the investment of capital, it was the labor, the
expertise. In
other words,
the traders had to have trusted people in Egypt, and in the Red Sea, and India. Then there were
warehouses and
people to market all this stuff when it came back, and you needed to ship something to India,
the
value. So, then
you needed to get people making wine to take to India to sell, and so it's like what I call...
It's
a positive
synergy. Then what we have now is what I call a fatal synergy, in other it's the opposite. It's
working as you say,
to destroy itself.
Addison:
So, I know that you've written a book on it and you're trying to understand what the force
is, or just even
the ideology that's at play. I know that you're trying to figure that out, and you've written
the book on it, so
you've done a lot of thinking on that exact idea. We also have this cyclical nature of the
economy and the man,
and how we become strong and then we become weak, and all that stuff. We already know that
story. What have you
discovered in the meantime about why it breaks down? I mean, that's a legitimate question. We
have been
prosperous for 250 years, why not continue to be prosperous?
Charles:
Well, that's a great question, Addison. I'll describe what I consider the useful context. It's not
the only useful
context, but I think it's useful is, okay. What happens when a relative handful of people have a
concentration of
wealth and power? In the United States, those two are equal, because if I give $10,000,000 to
politicians, I'm going
to get their favors. I'm going to get something back.
Addison:
Yeah.
Charles:
They're not collecting the $10,000,000 from average people, it's older wealthy people like me. So,
then you get this
circle of the state and capital working together. So, it's not just capitalism, it's state
capitalism, because the
government is powerful, so you get that concentration. Well, what are they going to do with their
wealth? Well,
they're going to protect their wealth, that's what we would do. Then we're going to try to expand
it, and use the
power of the state. So, I look at this as a system.
Addison:
So, there's a phrase that people have been throwing around, probably since the seventies, but
I think it's
getting thrown around again called shareholder capitalism. Isn't that just a euphemism for using
the state to
propagate, literally just what you were saying, propagate your own wealth?
Charles:
Well, to the degree that most of the shareholder wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few,
yeah. So, here's one
idea I want to share with you and get your feedback on. I look at the state and the market as
problem solving
systems, that's where they arose. They arose to solve problems, to increase human security and
stability. So,
they're adaptive, and if you want to say, what's the brilliance of the market? It's that it's
endlessly evolving and
adaptive. Then what happens when the state gets involved is, it actually resists adaptation and
evolution, because
that's going to hurt the status quo. Let me give you an example.
For instance, if somebody got an accredited university that was totally online and it cost $2,000
a
year, then you
could get a four year degree for $8,000. They only chose the finest professors, and they had
workshops online and
all this good stuff. Well, what would that do to the existing structure? This was scale and
varying.
Well, you're
going to end up having this huge infrastructure of higher education destroyed, because people
just
are going to go,
"Hey, you know what? I'm not going to borrow $108,000. I can scrape up the $8,000 cash." Well,
so
then people are
going to resist this advance, this evolution of education, because it's going to hurt a bunch of
powerful entities
in the status quo. I think that's the core issue of why we're failing, Addison, is that we've
stopped evolving and
adapting because any kind of evolution or adaptation hurts somebody powerful. So, they're going
to
resist that, and
so they're actually, without understanding it themselves, they're bringing the whole system to
its
knees, because
we're not able to change.
Addison:
What would that mean though, if you and I were going to solve the problems of the world,
which we try to do
whenever we can, what would that mean? I mean, personally, I don't think the government is ever
going to help
me, and it's never going to help other people. It's only going to get in the way. So, what does
it mean? If we
are looking at the academic or the theoretical solution, what is the thing that we should be
doing in order to
make a better society? I would tackle that question, is it a national question or is it an
international
question, is it a global question? You and I have traveled a lot, both of us, and we've lived in
different
locations. Can it be solved on a local level or a state level or a national level? This is an
honest question
for me, because I am like... We're fucked in a way, and I don't really know how politics or
corporations are
going to solve it, other than coming up with products that people buy that solve their
individual
issues.
Charles:
Yeah.
Addison:
That's probably the biggest question you've ever gotten.
Charles:
Yeah. Well, it's a great question, and I love the big ones because that's where we're at at this
point in history. I
think the answer is that we can't control what happens in France or Thailand or Japan, but we can
influence what
happens in the US. So, in systems theory, there's this idea that is called... It's like an island of
coherence. Even
a small island of coherence.
Addison:
Just explain that phrase because that sounds really good.
Charles:
Okay. So, in a chaotic system, or quasi chaotic, then if there's a little island of coherence,
meaning there's a
system that's coherent to itself, and able to sustain itself in this sea of disorder, it's going
to
have outsized
influence on the sea of disorder. So, if the United States becomes an island of coherence, it's
going to start
influencing every other country, because we're doing better. So, my idea is, look. We've got to
stop
this idea that
waste is growth. It's not just growth, it's waste is growth. Like we have planned obsolescence,
we're supposed to
throw everything out. Things are made poorly so we have to throw them out. This is like infinite
growth on a finite
planet. I think we're going to have to be a lot smarter about growth.
Other smart people have said, humans tend to just waste everything when it's free and easy, the
low
hanging fruit.
So, what we could do is start focusing and making incentives for efficiency. In other words, if
you
could make way
more profit making a product that lasted 40 years, like we used to do, and you would not be
allowed
to make a profit
off of selling something that was going to fall apart in two years, then that would be an
incentive
that would
create a focus on efficiency. We want to use less, we want to consume less resources, but get
more
for that
investment. That's where we need to change our incentive structure, and that would require a
national change of
value.
Addison:
So, let's talk about that for just a second. How do you change the incentives? I also ask
this from a
personal level. I want to change incentives in my own business, and it's hard to do. People
don't agree with the
way that they would be incentivized, that's a really polite way of saying it.
Charles:
Yeah. Well, here's another question for you. My thinking is, society and the state have to co-evolve,
and my examples
are the Civil Rights Movement and the environmental movement. There were rivers catching fire in the
sixties, and
everybody tolerated that. Then something changed and it wasn't in the government, it was in society.
People said,
"You know what? I don't think our river should be catching on fire because of the industrial waste
in there." So,
then the government evolved slowly, and then we got an EPA, and then the United States spent a
decade, the whole
seventies, cleaning up its act at tremendous expense, I might say. That was part of why the economy
was stagnant, as
the industry had to spend hundreds of billions of dollars cleaning up this stuff.
Addison:
What I like about what you're saying is that society drives the government, as opposed to
government driving
society, because one of my pet peeves right now is that the government decides what we
should be
doing, and then
they tell us what to do. I don't think that's the way it works at all, because we don't
really
care. When I went
to high school, actually I quit school, so here we go on that story. But I didn't like
people
telling me what to
do, and I feel like that's what the government is doing right now. They're just telling us
what
to do.
This is the exact reason I don't like career politicians, they don't have any real world
experience or
benefit. They don't know what they're talking about when they talk about policy, they just
tell
us what they
think is right. Then we go, "What are you talking about?" You know what? I want to get back
to
your book though.
I want you to talk about your book a little bit, because I think this is cool. So, let me
get
here. Right there.
National Renewal, do you think that's a possible thing?
Charles:
Yeah. I want to pick up right where you left off, Is that my conception of a better arrangement than
the one we have
now. And you go, "Well, is it possible?" And I say, "Yes. It's possible that if society changes and
demands it, it
can happen..."
Addison:
That means like you and me talking to each other, and being like, "Okay. We're going to make
this
better."
Charles:
And somebody else listening to us and going, "You know, those guys, that actually makes sense. Yeah.
I think that's a
good idea." And a lot of what we're talking about is common sense. So my idea is the federal
government does have a
role. It should set the goals for the economy and society.
Addison:
I'm going to push back on that, because I think that the way the federal government is set up
right now is to
perpetuate the career politicians who are in that place. And you know what? I would even include
Ron Paul, whom
I've known for 20 something years, 28 years, something like that. There's people that sit in
offices for a long
time, and don't have to be accountable to the economy, to the people, or to the laws that they
pass. It's
awful.
Charles:
Right. And I think it's, again, that we've allowed money and governance to be connected at the hip.
Right? In other
words, the rich people can influence the politicians. Politicians get the money, they get reelected.
So I think
nothing is going to change until society changes to the point, this is my view, if somebody admits,
or if somebody
gets big bucks from any entity, a corporation, think tank individual, that person loses the
election. In other
words, as soon as somebody collects $10 million, they lose. The people just had it. They're fed up.
They don't care
how much you collect, how much you spend on ads. They discover that if you've collected 10 million
bucks from rich
people, you are voted out. And only then will we get some change. Until then, no. But let's talk
about a theory. One
is I just want the federal government to do one thing, which is to set an incentive or a goal. And
then, all... How
that works...
Addison:
The federal government to do anything?
Charles:
I know. We're talking abstractly, right?
Addison:
Yeah.
Charles:
At this point, it seems hopeless. My idea is that the implementation is decentralized. In other
words, you know that
there's this theory that's going around it, that the real action is all in the mayors, in the
cities, because the
cities are where the rubber hits the road. If you want to solve problems, it's all in the local
government. And I
tend to think that's true. In other words, if you're going to solve global problems like supply
chains, or
inefficiencies, or waste, you're going to have to deal with it locally, because every community is
different. Right?
And so, I think the answer is radical decentralization, not just power.
Addison:
I am so in favor of what you just said. And I was speaking to Mark Moss. I don't know if you
know who he is,
but we just did a little event with him. And he was saying that we're at the point where
decentralization is
going to be the trend. Like right now, we're at peak centralization.
Charles:
Yes.
Addison:
And I've been making this argument too. I've been saying to my wife, my friends, my
colleagues, I'm like, "It
can't last. Nobody is going to put up with this bullshit for that long."
Charles:
Yeah. And then, a lot of what I write in the book is about the way that institutions fail, because
they're bloated,
they're overly complicated, they've lost sight of the mission.
Addison:
They can't succeed. Right? Isn't that what you're saying?
Charles:
Yeah. That's what centralization does, is it basically cripples the institution from actually solving
problems.
Addison:
I feel like I get chastised all the time for saying that. Like, it can't last.
Charles:
No. It can't.
Addison:
Then it feels like if you're right, if we're right, if you and I are right, then they're
like, "Well, yeah.
You would just say, and I told you so." And then I go, "What the fuck?"
Charles:
Yeah, no. That's not the point. The point is like, how do we make this the point.
Addison:
That's the point.
Charles:
Yeah. How do we make it like where it's actually sustainable, or resilient, or like to use Taleb's
Anti Fragility,
it's not just survival, it's actually you're getting better. Right? And I...
Addison Wiggin
Yeah. Or just even go to a high... I can say, you know, this is the way we ought to live
together.
Charles:
Yeah. That's right. So if you can decentralize capital as well, and you go, "Well, that's a
hat-trick." Right?
Addison:
Yeah.
Charles:
Like, how do we do that? But obviously, you take communities that are trying to improve things, like
in small ways,
right? Like just better roadways, better schools, some community gardens, efficiencies in
government. How do you do
that if you don't have any money? Yeah. Well, that's a problem. Right? So you've got decentralized
capital. So
investment is incentivized to invest in something local and specific. Right?
Addison:
Yeah.
Charles:
And there's a lot of that thinking already out there. Right? But we need, I think, the incentives for
financialization and globalization. And so, I think the national government has a role to impose
incentives. Right?
As only...
Addison:
Yeah. I'm going to push back again on you.
Charles:
Okay.
Addison:
Because you live in Hawaii.
Charles:
Yeah.
Addison:
And I live in Baltimore, which is like 30 miles away from DC.
Charles:
Yeah.
Addison:
So screw the national government, that whole idea. It's not a good idea. But I can see your
point. I can see
your point. You're saying that they do play a role, because they can help people understand each
other. I wish
they just understood that though.
Charles:
No, they don't. And the state has to be completely reformed. I mean, the state as a ... you know, we
call the state
the national government. Yeah. It's hopeless in its current configuration, but I think that... you
know, we're
talking about a lot of people saying, "Well, the US has to break up into seven regions, or something
like that." And
that's the solution. Now, that may be the case. That may be the case. If the national government
fails as a problem
solving structure, then devolving to local governments that can solve problems better, that's going
to be a natural
evolution. So it's like the government is going to fail to accept it's problems... But I think I
want to go back to
that thing that society has to demand change. And when the people say they...
Addison:
You want to say something more positive.
Charles:
Well, I also think that's how the Civil Rights movement, and the environmental movement.
Addison:
I know. This whole thing about Black Lives Matter, and the Civil Rights, the anniversaries
that we're going
through has been educational for me, because I'm like, "Yeah, you know what? I'm a white guy.
And I grew up in
New Hampshire, and there weren't a lot of people who were even aware of that kind of thing going
on." But it's
really important to the foundation of the country that we observe the founding words of the
country, that we are
all equal before the law. That's a good thing. And we should all fight for that. And I've been
saying that in
probably an obnoxious level. I don't know how to say it any other way, because I just keep
saying it. But the
Civil Rights movement is a good thing, and it's a true thing, and we should all observe it. And
I get frustrated
when I think that it's probably mainstream media, mostly, that people don't just accept it and
move on.
Charles:
Yeah. And I think just to kind of tie it into…
Addison:
Ignorant way of saying all that I believe, but...
Charles:
No. No. But I think just to tie it back into this discussion, what we need is incentives or ways to
funnel capital
into local communities, that then solve their own problems in what they understand as the most
efficient and best
way to do that. And I think that's where we've fallen. That's the fatal synergy. It's like, to go
back to your
point, when a few powerful people in the federal government try to tell us, 330 million people, this
is the solution
to your problems. There's no way that's going to work, because it's like, "Wait a minute. We have
like 10,000
cities, And a 100,000 communities, and the solutions are not going to be applicable like that."
Addison:
Yeah. I mean, and one step further, we have like my neighbors.
Charles:
Yeah.
Addison:
There's people that live near me that could benefit from that kind of thinking.
Charles:
So I think you and I are just trying to sketch out an alternative view of how we could proceed as a
nation.
Addison:
Yeah.
Charles:
Now, it doesn't mean we're going to, but I want people to have a vision.
Addison:
Yeah. I think it's important though. I do think it's important, because I think there's a lot
of people, even
in our own sphere of readers, and viewers, and that kind of thing, that would be like, " Well,
that didn't work.
I'm going to move to, whatever, Nicaragua."
Charles:
Yeah.
Addison:
Well, you, yourself, moved to Hawaii. I don't know. There's probably issues there too, but
I'm in Baltimore and I'm
like, "Okay. This is where I am. It's my plan."
Charles:
That's right. Well, every community has its own unique history mix of people, capital, specialties.
So that's the
thing I look forward to and excited about. It's, "Hey, look at Pittsburgh as different from Detroit,
which is
different from Baltimore, which is different from where I live." But there are people with solutions
in each local
place. Right? And we can share ideas with other cities. But exactly how it manifests, it should be
up to us. And so,
I think we need to, and this is an old idea, but we have to push power back down to the local
communities. And that
has to include capital. It can't just be the local government. It's got to be...
Addison:
Yeah. It's tough to get that part involved.
Charles:
Yeah. Well, it's... if you can...
Addison:
But you know, I grew up in New Hampshire, and our state logo is still live free or
die.
Charles:
Yeah.
Addison:
And there have been people, I think they'd moved from Massachusetts up to New Hampshire
because they get
better tax rates.
Charles:
Yeah.
Addison:
And they want to change the logo, because they think it's too barbaric. And I live in
Baltimore, so I'm not
even defending it. I'm just saying, "Fuck you. That's a good logo. Live free or die. What else
would you want to
say?"
Charles:
Yeah. Well, and I think there's a movement out there that we need to decomplexify. That's like
reducing the
complexity. And that's going to be tough for the status quo, because a lot of people make their
living adding
useless complexity. That's the truth. And so, it's going to be a painful transition for people that
are being paid
to just kind of increase complexity without actually meeting the mission. And my favorite example is
the building
departments. It takes six months to get a permit, and it used to take a day or two. Well, did we
really benefit a
hundred fold by that increase of complexity? And the answer is no. And I think that's a good
example. So...
Addison:
No. The answer is probably not.
Charles:
Yeah.
Addison:
We got to think about it.
Charles:
Yeah.
Addison:
All right, Charles. It's always fun to talk to you.
Charles:
Well, likewise.
Addison:
We just put, you know, we don't have to put this on the recording, but we just put a scissor
reel together,
and you are part of it. And I'm going to send it to you after this.
Charles:
Yeah. Judson mentioned that.
Addison:
Okay.
Charles:
And I appreciate that. That'll be great.
Addison:
No. That's fun. We're on the same page on a lot of things.
Charles:
Yeah. Well, next time, you'll have to explain, if you don't mind, on air, how you quit high school.
Because I think
that sounds... Really, I'm very curious about that.
Addison:
I have a long story.
Charles:
But the key to... Yeah.
Addison:
It's not one that my wife likes me to tell.
Charles:
Oh. Well, they don't.
Addison:
Because somehow in my life, I became a respectable human being. So when I tell that story,
she doesn't want
it to be recorded.
Charles:
Oh, well, okay. Then we don't have to, for sure.
Addison:
I will tell you though. It's funny. Over time.
Charles:
Okay. Good.
Addison:
Sounds good. All right. Thank you Charles.
Charles:
Okay. Well, great. And so, I know this is behind your paywall, if any of it leaks out to the public,
let me know so I
can promote it.
Addison:
Yeah. We'll do that. I think we're getting in front of the paywall next week. Today's Friday.
Next Thursday,
so a week from now.
Charles:
Well, and I want to thank you very much for wanting to talk about my book. You know, I'm
self-published. I mean, I
sell a few hundred copies, that's it. You know?
Addison:
Yeah. We're going to write about it. We're going to read it. We're going to write about it.
That's going to
help you sell like maybe 10 more copies.
Charles:
I like that way of thinking. All right. Well thanks so much for the invitation. I really appreciate
it, and enjoyed
it.
Addison:
All right. Talk to you soon.
Charles:
Okay. Bye bye.
