Category: Commentary

Steve Young, our global executive director, has an article on American capitalism and collateral damage in our culture war in the current issue of Directors&Boards.

You can read it here.

Back on December 30, 2025, we convened a round table over Zoom to seek thoughts, not resolutions, on the new year we are now in.  The reflections were sober and fundamental, so I wanted to share them with you here.

On a whim, I read the full speech of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney at Davos and found a kindred spirit to so many in the Caux Round Table network, past and present.

I have a copy of his book, Value(s), which I will now pay more attention to.

Here is a lightly edited version of his speech.

Recently, I sent around a thought on the high prices of gold and stocks of companies on the Dow Jones list asking the question of risk – what does a high price of gold tell us about the future – what goes up too fast may come down very fast.

Well, as if on cue, something happened.

Last Friday, the price of gold dropped 11% and the price of silver dropped 31%.

What moved markets, apparently, was President Trump’s pick for the next chair of the Federal Reserve.  The appointee has a reputation for holding firm against inflationary pressures and so giving strength to the value of the dollar.  If this surmise proves prescient, then the value ratio between the dollar and gold will change in favor of the dollar and the price of gold will come down.

That’s decentralized decision-making for you – the strength and sometimes the bane of free markets.

But is not the making of price convey valuable information about what might happen in the future – providing a valuable service to all – kind of a moral force in keeping hubris at a distance?

The price of gold is at $5,306 per ounce for the first time ever.

The spot price for silver reached $109.448 a troy ounce.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average remains over $49,000.

The U.S. dollar lost .6% and so it’s worth in gold is only about 0.000189 of a troy ounce of gold.

So, who is to be trusted in their evaluation of our economic future – those who buy gold or those who invest in equity stock?

And if gold and stocks are up, but the purchasing power of the dollar is down, how does the middle class and the poor benefit?

Who is funding the aggregate demand for goods and services, which in the long run, drives national economic performance?

The Wall Street Journal opined that:

It’s unfashionable in many precincts to admit it, but the market for precious metals still sends useful signals every once in a while.  Gold’s ascent above $5,000 per ounce – or as some might say, the dollar’s drop to less than 1/5,000th of an ounce of gold – is one of those signals and it doesn’t speak well of investor confidence in the world’s political leaders. …

But markets are signaling a case of nerves about recent developments around the world – and perhaps also hedging against the dollar as a safe investment.  Speculators may also be piling into gold, which is reason for non-rich investors to be cautious at such a lofty price.  Gold has fallen before as suddenly as it rose.

We live in uncertain times.  And the regular occurrence of boom/bust cycles in financial markets since the rise of capitalism – the tulip mania – contributes to uncertainty.

President Donald Trump has changed his mind about either invading or buying Greenland and so he has magnanimously changed his mind on imposing new tariffs on some of his NATO “allies.”

A new framework for American access to Greenland was presented to him by NATO’s Secretary General, which apparently meets Trump’s needs.  Trump’s acquiescence in this proposal as a “win” for him fits the personality profile of a “deregulated personality,” as I suggested in another commentary earlier this month.

I received in response to that comment what I think is a better analysis of Trump’s personality orientation from a colleague who has extensively researched the contributions of personality assessment in predicting job performance.  The orientation suggested is that of an egomaniacal narcissist.

Egomaniacal narcissist describes someone who embodies both, taking narcissistic traits to an extreme, out-of-control level, where they manipulate and abuse others relentlessly

“An egomaniacal narcissist is someone with an extreme, pathological self-obsession, combining the grandiosity and lack of empathy of narcissism with the all-consuming self-focus of egomania, leading to inflated self-importance, manipulative behavior, a sense of entitlement and treating others as objects to serve their needs, often beyond what’s seen in typical self-centeredness.  They believe they are superior, exploit people without guilt and are intensely preoccupied with power, success or admiration, often unable to see beyond their own desires.”

Key Characteristics:

• Grandiosity and Entitlement: Exaggerated achievements, fantasies of unlimited success and an unreasonable expectation of special treatment.
• Lack of Empathy: Unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others; seeing people as tools.
• Exploitative Behavior: Uses and abuses others to achieve their own ends, claiming credit for others’ work.
• Need for Admiration: Demands excessive praise and attention, becoming angry when it’s not given.
• Arrogance: Behaves in haughty, conceited ways; looking down on those they deem less important.
• Fragile Self-Esteem (underneath): Despite the outward arrogance, there’s often a fragile self-esteem that reacts poorly to criticism.

Egomaniac vs. Narcissist:

• Egomaniac: Focuses heavily on self-promotion, boasts excessively and dominates conversations to prove superiority.
• Narcissist: Centers on self-admiration, needs constant validation and lacks empathy, often defined by the clinical term narcissistic personality disorder when severe.

Is Donald Trump a cudgel capitalist – greed in his heart, cudgel in his hand – eager for your craven submission to his will?

Yesterday seizing oil tankers to cripple the Venezuelan economy so that he can have his way in “running” that parcel of the Western Hemisphere.  Today imposing tariffs on Denmark and other allies in Europe to beggar their citizens and squeeze them hard until they gasp, “Please, please take Greenland, but let us prosper!”

Trump’s model of capitalism is to take what you can, when you can and damn the consequences. This is what I called in my book “brute” capitalism.  Its moral ideal was artistically prescribed by Nietzsche as emerging from the whirlwind of any self-centeredness thrust on by a will to power, responsible to none and dangerous to all.  As Nietzsche proclaimed:

“But nevertheless I walk with my thoughts above their heads; and even should I walk on mine own errors, still would I be above them and their heads.  For men are not equal: so speaketh justice. And what I will, they may not will!”

President Trump put this sentiment rather well in a note he sent yesterday to the prime minister of Norway, writing:

“Considering your country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped eight wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.”

“I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding and now, NATO should do something for the United States.  The world is not secure unless we have complete and total control of Greenland.”

Trump’s message was in response to a text message the Norwegian prime minister had sent on behalf of himself and President of Finland Alexander Stubb less than half an hour before urging Trump to “de-escalate” on “Greenland, Gaza, Ukraine and your tariff announcement.”

Trump is not taking his country and the world into a better future.  Rather, he is turning us back towards the past, to the power-seeking rivalries of governments and corporations during the late 19^th century, the age of social Darwinism domestically and internationally, of cartels, monopolies and the imposition of colonial fiefdoms, taking others into one-sided receiverships.

This was the era of President William McKinley with tariffs; Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller with cartels; Yale Professor William Graham Sumner on survival of the fittest; a colonial war against Spain; exclusion of Chinese immigrants.

This is the same America which novelist Henry James described as having no items of high civilization:

“No sovereign, no court, no personal loyalty, no aristocracy, no church, no clergy, no army, no diplomatic service, no country gentlemen, no palaces, no castles, nor manors, nor old country-houses, nor parsonages, not thatched cottages, nor ivied ruins; no cathedrals, nor abbeys or little Norman churches,; no great universities nor public schools – no Oxford, no Eton, nor Harrow; no literature, no novels, no museums, no pictures, no political society, no sporting class, no Epson nor Ascot!”

Then, European powers were on a course that would end up in World War I in which 15 to 22 million died and after which four empires collapsed.  Japan was arming itself to take predominance in East Asia, which would bring about World War II in Asia.  Not so lovely times in human history, but, frankly, not off the norm for, as once noted by Thomas Hobbes, the state of nature for humans was usually a war of all against all, where lives were “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”.

In the first year of his second term, Trump has followed a neo-mercantilism or national industry policy, where the national government owns shares in companies and invests money where it thinks best to foster some companies, but not others.  Companies with government as an owner are: Intel Corporation (10%), MP Materials (15%), Lithium Americas Corporation (10%), Trilogy Metals Inc. (10%) and U.S. Steel Corporation, where the federal government holds a “golden share,” giving the U.S. veto rights over certain corporate actions as part of the Nippon Steel acquisition deal.

A week ago, President Trump told American credit card companies that they had until January 20 to comply with his demand that they put a cap of 10% on interest to be charged on credit card balances.  It is estimated that reducing interest on credit card balances would save American users of credit cards some $100 billion.  Credit card companies would lose revenue, but still be profitable.

Trump’s imposition of tariffs depresses markets and conflicts with the Caux Round Table Principles for Business:

Principle 5: Support responsible globalization.

A responsible business, as a participant in the global marketplace, supports open and fair multilateral trade.  A responsible business supports reform of domestic rules and regulations where they unreasonably hinder global commerce.

Cudgel capitalism can easily violate American law and public policy, which favor open access to markets and multiparty, free market competition, but not one-sided extortion of unfair returns.

Under the Sherman Antitrust Act, companies broken up for having too much “cudgel” power over markets were John D. Rockefellers’ Standard Oil, American Tobacco and the Northern Securities company, which owned two railroads and so limited competition in prices between them.  In 1982, the national telephone company, AT&T, was broken up under the Clayton Act.

Secondly, court doctrines that do not enforce contracts obtained through “cudgel” power tactics are:

-Procedural unconscionability, when the party with the cudgel gives the weaker party no meaningful choice, uses hidden or fine-print terms or complex or misleading language and resorts to high pressure or surprise in the negotiations.

-Substantive unconscionability, which happens when the party with the cudgel writes a contract that has overly harsh or one-sided terms, extreme limitation of remedies in case of breach by the more powerful party, excessive fees or penalties to be paid by the weaker party or one-sided arbitration clauses.

-Contracts of adhesion, where a form contract is presented with no chance to bargain over the printed terms may not be enforced by a court if a reasonable consumer would not expect such onerous terms to be included in the deal.  Courts will not enforce contract of adhesion terms that waive statutory rights (e.g., minimum wage, consumer protections), limit liability for intentional misconduct or gross negligence or conflict with consumer-protection statutes.

Thirdly, courts will not enforce contracts agreed to under duress or undue influence.  Duress happens when consent is obtained by wrongful threats.  Undue influence is when the party with the cudgel exploits a position of trust or dominance.  A general rule is: “Every contract, combination… or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states… is illegal.”

Notable cases where courts voided oppressive contracts are:

-Totem Marine Tug & Barge, Inc. v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. Alaska Supreme Court (1978)
Where Alyeska withheld payment it knew Totem desperately needed to avoid bankruptcy, forcing Totem to accept a much smaller settlement.

-Austin Instrument, Inc. v. Loral Corp, New York Court of Appeals (1971)
Where Austin threatened to stop delivering essential parts unless Loral agreed to price increases and awarded additional contracts.  A threat to breach a contract, when no reasonable alternative exists, can constitute duress.

-Odorizzi v. Bloomfield School District, California Court of Appeal (1966)
Where a teacher was pressured into resigning immediately after an arrest, while exhausted and emotionally distressed.  Excessive persuasion exploiting vulnerability invalidates apparent consent.

-Allcard v. Skinner, English Court of Appeal (1887)
Where a woman transferred substantial property to a religious order under spiritual influence.

Even with all his cudgels at the ready, Trump still faces competition.  For example, Canadians can do deals with the Chinese and cut Americans out.

Here are some more short videos on relevant and timely topics.  They include:

–Excerpts from the Way to Wealth

–Pricing in Capitalism

–Human Resources and Capitalism

–The Cuban Economy

–The Irrational Exuberance of the Market

–The Intersection of Technology and Capitalism

All our videos can be found on our YouTube page here.  We recently put them into 9 playlists, which you can find here.

If you aren’t following us on Twitter or haven’t liked us on Facebook, please do so.  We update both platforms frequently.

Last Thursday, I shared with you some thoughts on President Trump’s personality structure as he presents himself.

Conveniently, a few days ago, he gave a long interview to reporters from the New York Times which provides us with direct access to his framing of words and thoughts.  Of note was his insistence that he is free to do anything he wants.

Asked if there were any limits on his global powers, Trump said: “Yeah, there is one thing.  My own morality.  My own mind.  It’s the only thing that can stop me.”

Giving us another insight into what regulates his decision making, when asked why he needed to “own” Greenland, Trump said, “Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success. I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do with [when] you’re talking about a lease or a treaty.  Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document.”

We might now ask how far a person who needs to “own” the world around him to feel secure is likely to be a responsible holder of a public trust with its many fiduciary duties of due care for others and its demand for a loyalty to something higher than oneself.

From the standpoint of believing in the advantages and justifications of principled leadership, President Trump’s recent escapade intruding into the domestic affairs of Venezuela seems misguided.

I have considered that the efforts of the Caux Round Table to promote a moral capitalism and moral government were very much in harmony with the conviction of George Washington that:

“There is no truth more thoroughly established than that there exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity.”

Interest and virtue can coincide, but it is up to us to bring about that coincidence.

I offer, for your consideration, more of my thoughts here.

Sincerely yours,

Stephen B. Young
Global Executive Director
Caux Round Table for Moral Capitalism