Caux Round Table for Moral Capitalism
We make the case for Moral Capitalism.
In this issue, we have three complementary essays – two by me and one from Michael Hartoonian – that focus on the nature of institutional capital and the proper roles and responsibilities of government.
I would be most interested in your thoughts and feedback.
For decades, Mr. Mai has pursued the idea of “wisdom” (minh triết) as a foundational path toward societal renewal and the reconstruction of Vietnam’s political culture. His writings and lectures weave together the philosophical depth of Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism, the spirit of Western liberal thought, and the insights drawn from real political experience. With a gentle demeanor yet incisive reasoning, he is respected across the Vietnamese intellectual community—both at home and abroad—as a symbol of democratic dialogue and cultural enlightenment.
Now in his nineties, Nguyen Khac Mai continues to write, lecture, and participate in public discussion, contributing tirelessly to the search for a humane, wise, and sustainable model of development for Vietnam.
Nguyen Khac Mai – President, Institute for Vietnamese Wisdom Studies
I draw on the Buddhist concept of karma to reflect on the political path of To Lam. Everything he has done—through body, speech, and mind—during his years as Minister of Public Security and now as the country’s top leader, remains vivid in the memory of the public. These are his past karmas: actions that, in the eyes of many, continue certain “old corruptions” that Ho Chi Minh once warned about, yet also contain elements that disrupt stagnation and generate momentum for reform. Whether these past karmas are virtuous or harmful will be judged by society and by history.
But the transformation of karma is not a solitary journey. One who wishes to transform must repent, must cultivate new and better karmas, and must accept supporting conditions—that is, criticism, oversight, and assistance from society. Without this, goodwill can easily turn into illusion.
To Lam’s post-karma began when he assumed the position of General Secretary, preparing for the 14th Party Congress and shaping the decisions that followed. His proposed vision—the “Rising Era”—aims for a more civilized, humane, service-oriented, and developmental Party and State. He set forth five strategic pillars:
These ideas, at the conceptual level, are modern and progressive. Yet the gap between vision and implementation is always perilous: if carried out under concentrated power, opaque processes, or insufficient consultation, the post-karma may quickly distort.
For post-karma to become good karma, we must confront the missteps that have emerged during To Lam’s initial period in office.
The accelerated appointment of officials from a single province (Hung Yen) and from the security sector to many key positions has raised concerns about regional imbalance and a closing of political space. A sustainable political system requires diversity of origin and professional background; excessive concentration risks creating the image of a closed circle of power.
Proposals to name streets after family members, or to pursue sector-branded megaprojects—such as a Public Security theater, stadium, or even airport—evoke a tendency toward personalization and “sectoral branding” of state authority. In a period that demands austerity, prioritization, and public benefit, such symbols can misallocate resources and alienate public sentiment.
Gigantic initiatives—the North–South high-speed railway, the nuclear program in Binh Thuan, or the merger of provinces—cannot be approached with haste or unilateral decision-making. These trillion-dollar, multi-generational projects require independent research, broad consultation, and rigorous socio-environmental impact assessments. A country cannot “run while lining up” on matters of its future.
These deviations are not cosmetic; they reveal a paradox: although renewal is proclaimed, the methods of implementation risk replicating old power patterns. Without timely correction, the post-karma cannot achieve long-term legitimacy.
Vietnam must not miss a historical window of opportunity. Society must act as a constructive partner setting realistic guardrails.
Civil society is not an adversary of the Party but a vital mechanism of oversight and policy improvement. Vietnam must legally recognize civil society organizations and empower the press—within lawful frameworks—to monitor public affairs.
This is a rare “window of opportunity.” Citizens must raise awareness: expressing opinions, monitoring major projects, demanding transparency. Consensus does not mean passive silence; it means active participation.
All megaprojects should be reviewed by independent scientific councils that publish environmental, social, and fiscal impact assessments. This prevents voluntarism and ensures the sustainability of national decisions.
Vietnam needs programs on public-service ethics, transparent appointment processes, assets disclosure, and mechanisms for conflict-of-interest management. A new political culture is essential to prevent distortion of reforms.
Figures such as To Hien Thanh and Ngo Thi Si, along with the Nho–Buddhist tradition of East Asia, left behind profound lessons in political ethics: appoint the upright, lead through moral example, and persuade before punishing. Einstein reminds us that no problem can be solved with the same mindset that created it, and Engels urges socialists to learn from the advanced nations. These teachings suggest that post-karma must synthesize ancient Vietnamese wisdom with modern scientific governance.
Past karma explains the path to power; post-karma determines whether that power serves the nation. To Lam’s post-karma can become good karma only if grounded in transparency, consultation, integrity, and societal partnership. Without these, goodwill may be swallowed by old patterns of authority.
The nation’s fate is like tangled vines, the ancients said: to untangle it requires wisdom, goodwill, and—above all—the participation of the people. A worthy post-karma is a promise to the nation: a Party and a State that serve, and a society capable of rising with its own strength.
Ну, погоди! — Just wait and see.
In concordance with the World Bank’s “World Development Report 2015: Mind, Society and Behavior” on the foundation for economic wealth creation lying in social and human capitals, the Caux Round Table has been advocating a wholistic approach to enhancement of global standards of living – start with human and social capitals – living out values and ethics, if you will – in order to build financial and economic capitals – property derived from the wise use of life and liberty.
The U.S., in recent decades, may have turned off the road leading to future social and economic happiness by not developing human and social capitals for its citizens and its economy.
Former Senator Ben Sasse made this damning assessment of public education, at least in California, in the Wall Street Journal.
I read these comments with alarm:
The number of freshmen entering the University of California San Diego (USCD) whose math skills fall below a high-school level has increased nearly 30-fold over the past five years, according to a shocking new report from the university’s Senate-Administration Working Group on Admissions. Worse still, one in 12 entering freshmen have math skills below middle-school levels. That means college students might struggle with questions such as this: “7+2=6+__?” Or this: “Sarah had nine pennies and nine dimes. How many coins did she have in all?”
The UCSD revelation likely means the U.S. has millions of recent high school graduates and 20-somethings who are unprepared to navigate modern work and life and lack the logical problem-solving skills with which algebra has traditionally armed adolescents.
But it gets worse: The students admitted to UCSD were, on average, receiving “A” grades in high school math classes that supposedly built multiple years beyond algebraic and arithmetic foundations. This was a fraud. High schools have clearly been inflating grades beyond what many students earned or deserved. How could schools do such a disservice to taxpayers and more important, to these students?
What now is to be done?
This past weekend, Pope Leo XIV visited Lebanon. His remarks, to me, captured the grace of concern for others with which the Prophet Muhammad framed his covenants to respect and protect Christians and Jews. I, myself, perceive a resonance between the Pope’s vision for humanity and of inter-religious dialogue and cooperation and the texts of those historic Islamic covenants, promises given in the name of Allah.
The Caux Round Table, for five years now, has done its best to study carefully, with leadership from our Muslim colleagues, the historicity of the Prophet’s covenants and to then bring the best scholarship on the covenants to wider audiences, especially in Lebanon and in the Vatican.
I quote for you here the relevant thoughts of Pope Leo:
It is in light of this authority that I wish to address to you the words of Jesus that have been chosen as the central theme of my journey: “Blessed are the peacemakers!” (Mt 5:9). …
Your resilience is an essential characteristic of authentic peacemakers, for the work of peace is indeed a continuous starting anew. Moreover, the commitment and love for peace know no fear in the face of apparent defeat, are not daunted by disappointment, but look ahead, welcoming and embracing all situations with hope. It takes tenacity to build peace; it takes perseverance to protect and nurture life. …
May you speak just one language, namely the language of hope that, by always starting afresh, draws everyone together. May the desire to live and grow in unity as a people create a polyphonic voice out of each group. …
This brings us to a second characteristic of peacemakers. Not only do they know how to start over, but they do so first and foremost along the arduous path of reconciliation. Indeed, there are personal and collective wounds that take many years, sometimes entire generations, to heal. If they are not treated, if we do not work, for example, to heal memories, to bring together those who have suffered wrongs and injustice, it is difficult to journey towards peace. We would remain stuck, each imprisoned by our own pain and our own way of thinking. The truth, on the other hand, can only be honored through encountering one another. Each of us sees a part of the truth, knowing one aspect of it, but we cannot negate what only the other knows, what only the other sees. Truth and reconciliation only ever grow together, whether in a family, between different communities and the various people of a country or between nations. …
At the same time, there can be no lasting reconciliation without a common goal or openness towards a future in which good prevails over the evils that have been suffered or inflicted in the past or the present. A culture of reconciliation, therefore, does not arise only from below, from the willingness and courage of a few. It also needs authorities and institutions that recognize the common good as superior to the particular. The common good is more than the sum of many interests, for it draws together everyone’s goals as closely as possible, directing them in such a way that everyone will have more than if they were to move forward by themselves. Indeed, peace is much more than a mere balance – which is always precarious – among those who live separately while under the same roof. Peace is knowing how to live together, in communion, as reconciled people. …
Finally, I would like to outline a third characteristic of those who strive for peace. Even when it requires sacrifice, peacemakers dare to persevere.
In remarks to a gathering of religious leaders of many faiths, Pope Leo said:
In his Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia in Medio Oriente, signed here in Beirut in 2012, Pope Benedict XVI emphasized that “[t]he Church’s universal nature and vocation require that she engage in dialogue with the members of other religions. In the Middle East, this dialogue is based on the spiritual and historical bonds uniting Christians to Jews and Muslims. It is a dialogue which is not primarily dictated by pragmatic, political or social considerations, but by underlying theological concerns which have to do with faith” (n. 19). Dear friends, your presence here today, in this remarkable place where minarets and church bell towers stand side by side, yet both reach skyward, testifies to the enduring faith of this land and the steadfast devotion of its people to the one God. Here in this beloved land, may every bell toll, every adhān, every call to prayer blend into a single, soaring hymn – not only to glorify the merciful Creator of heaven and earth, but also to lift a heartfelt prayer for the divine gift of peace. …
Yet, in the midst of these struggles, a sense of hopefulness and encouragement can be found when we focus on what unites us: our common humanity and our belief in a God of love and mercy. In an age when coexistence can seem like a distant dream, the people of Lebanon, while embracing different religions, stand as a powerful reminder that fear, distrust and prejudice do not have the final word and that unity, reconciliation and peace are possible. It is a mission that remains unchanged throughout the history of this beloved land: to bear witness to the enduring truth that Christians, Muslims, Druze and countless others can live together and build a country united by respect and dialogue.
May we all be peacemakers.
Here is another thought experiment about what we can expect from our times as stimulated by Hexagram 53 in the Yijing (Book of Changes).
I am very pleased to announce that Todd Lefko of St. Paul, Minnesota, has joined our board of directors.
Todd brings practical, organizing experience from politics, business acumen from managing a small trading company, insight into Russian culture and politics and a commitment to internationalism.
He has already taken a lead in application of the Caux Round Table Principles for Government and Civil Society to an effort to revitalize not only the economy, but the prowess of civil society to create and sustain social and human capitals in St Paul.
Todd is president of the International Business Development Company, an import-export firm dealing with water purification equipment, art, linen, kilns and new technologies.
He has worked in Russia for over 35 years.
He was the weekly columnist for Rossiske Vesti, the political newspaper of the Russian presidential administration for 18 years and has written over 700 articles in Rossiske Vesti and other newspapers and magazines.
Todd is on the editorial board of the Russian Historical Reporter and has been the English editor for four Russian books.
Todd is chair of East-West Connections, an international non-profit focused on citizen diplomacy.
He has taught over 4400 students at the University of Minnesota and other Minnesota colleges.
He has lectured at universities in Russia, Germany, China, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan.
Todd is a fellow of the Caux Round Table.
He was a member of the technical advisory committee for the Almaty Management University in Almaty, Kazakhstan.
Todd holds a B.A. in history, an M.A. in public administration and the coursework for a Ph.D. in urban history from the University of Minnesota.
He has also studied public policy as a Bush Fellow at Harvard University and urban planning at the University of Manchester, England.
He is one of the founders of Global Volunteers and has served as their treasurer and representative at the United Nations.
Todd has also been a member of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council, the Regional Transit Board and the Minnesota Experimental City Authority.
Free markets have a much-overlooked moral function, perhaps their most important moral function – providing retribution for hubris – unwarranted pride, arrogance and blindness.
In Greek mythology, Nemesis stepped in to correct excessive exploitation of one’s dominion, one’s failure to align with Aristotle’s golden mean, one’s going much too far beyond the square footage of good sense and due care and concern for others.
Consider Icarus, who flew too close to the Sun and so lost his ability to fly.
Consider Narcissus, who, because of his vanity, Nemesis led to a pool where he saw his own reflection, fell in love with it, could not turn his eyes away from the floating image and eventually died alongside the water.
Free markets in crypto currency have just acted as Nemesis to investors in Bitcoin. Here is the story from the Wall Street Journal:
The crypto market turmoil only intensified this week, with bitcoin shedding more than 10% and over $10,000 in value. In the 24 hours leading up to Friday morning, more than $2 billion worth of leveraged crypto trades were liquidated, pushing bitcoin below $81,000, according to data from CoinGlass. The largest cryptocurrency is now on track for its worst monthly performance since June 2022, when the collapse of crypto lender Celsius Network plunged the market into what became known as its crypto winter.
Some traders have said the drop in bitcoin may be forcing some other selling in the traditional markets, which swooned this week.
“Every group chat I’m in, everyone wants to know who blew up,” said Nic Carter, founding partner at Castle Island Ventures. “You can’t make sense of it all now. There’s a general malaise with no exact catalyst to say this is why.”
This was supposed to be crypto’s year. There was a perfect storm of a crypto-loving White House, Wall Street adoption and friendly legislation that put a close to more than a decade of antagonistic U.S. regulation and prosecutions.
In a sense, it worked. Divisions between traditional and crypto finance seemed to blur. Portfolio managers are modeling cash flows based on the yields of stablecoins. BlackRock and Fidelity, among many others, hoovered up bitcoins for ETFs. Banks like Bank of New York Mellon and JPMorgan Chase wanted to put funds on the blockchain, while digital token companies like Ripple tried to become banks.
“Gateways are being opened every single day,” said President Trump’s son, Eric Trump, who has co-founded two crypto companies. “This dam is cracking. The two were becoming one and I think it’s very exciting.”…
“When Trump got elected, we were saying ‘gosh, finally we’re going to get all the institutions, ETF approvals, pretty much all the headlines that we dreamed of in crypto,’” said Santiago Roel Santos, a longtime crypto investor and chief executive of Inversion. “The market just has not reacted the way that you would have thought.”
Instead, crypto continues to struggle to break free of its reputation as the deranged, foul-mouthed little sibling of Wall Street, too volatile to trust, too entertaining to look away.
Donald Trump is on YouTube saying, “I only care about one thing… will we be number one in crypto?”
Nemesis came for the Trump family too. According to the November 19 edition of the New York Post:
Trump Media & Technology Group, the crypto and social media company controlled by members of the first family, has seen its stock price plummet to all-time lows – wiping out more than $5 billion in wealth for the Trumps as cryptocurrencies continue their slide.
Shares of Trump Media, which trades under the ticker DJT, have fallen nearly 70% this year – 34.6% of that just the past month, according to Barron’s. …
The family’s holdings, which were worth nearly $6.5 billion at their peak in mid-May 2024, have lost more than $5.3 billion in value since then, according to Barron’s.
The company’s nosedive is tied to a broader meltdown in the crypto market.
Cryptocurrencies have taken a big hit since Trump Media said in August it bought $2 billion worth of Bitcoin.
Bitcoin prices on Tuesday briefly dipped below $90,000 for the first time in months – wiping out the asset’s gains for the year.
Could even the Trumps be narcissists?
If so, Nemesis awaits.
In free markets, the “others” stand in for Nemesis.
As Sartre told us: L’enfer, c’est les autres – “Hell is others.”
Other market players are not docile subordinates waiting for instructions. They have free will and independent power. They decide what’s best for themselves. They need not follow the herd or succumb to trendy delusions about what the future holds. They set prices with their decisions to buy and sell. They can foreswear “irrational exuberance” and cause markets to crash.
This is morality in action – consequences imposed for being out of line.
The formation of monopolies and cartels attempts to drive this free-thinking morality from markets by controlling supply or demand and so setting prices. But such collaborations, in time, also fall prey to Nemesis. Others – innovators, creative destroyers – find workarounds to devalue what is controlled.
Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall. – Proverbs 16:18
As Vietnam awaits the Communist Party’s Central Committee meeting in its 15th Plenum, the country enters a superficially subtle but actually very consequential phase of political readjustment.
NGUYEN PHONG
Far from the dramatic ruptures that have defined leadership transitions in other one-party systems, the leadership shifts in Hanoi today are quieter, more procedural, and often deliberately obscured. Yet these changes—small and cosmetic as they may appear to outsiders—are shaping the emerging architecture of centralized political power in the post–Nguyễn Phú Trọng era. (Nguyen Phu Trong was Party General Secretary from 2011 to 2024)
Over the past decade, Trọng’s sweeping anti-corruption campaign reconfigured the upper tiers of the Vietnamese state more extensively than any political initiative since the economic reforms of the late 1980s. While the campaign succeeded in disciplining the bureaucracy and reaffirming Party primacy, it also produced an unanticipated side effect: unprecedented turnover among top officials, including the removal of: a president, a national assembly chair, and multiple Politburo members. This churning of who has authority has compelled the Party to search for a new internal equilibrium of power centers—one that preserves collective leadership and prevents any one governing entity from amassing unchecked influence.
Today, Vietnam’s political arena is best understood as a system undergoing recalibration. No single source of power—the security services, the military, the Party apparatus, or the government—dominates decisively. Each wields enough influence to constrain the others, creating a form of managed multipolarity within the elite. Consensus is no longer merely a normative ideal; it has become a structural necessity.
Within this dynamic of offsetting checks and balances, Defense Minister Phan Văn Giang has emerged as a surprisingly stabilizing figure. Soft-spoken, technically oriented, and lacking the overt ambition that characterizes several of his contemporaries, Giang represents a return to the military’s traditional ethos: discipline, continuity, and institutional restraint. In an environment unsettled by political purges, the military’s measured posture—and Giang’s embodiment of that restraint—has made him a credible bridge across factions. For those in the Party who seek predictability after years of interpersonal uncertainty, Giang offers the reassuring profile of a team building leader preserving consensus.
Yet alternative political outcomes are possible. Prime Minister Phạm Minh Chính, whose background in the public security apparatus and reputation for tactical maneuvering have long made him a central player among top Vietnamese leaders, stands at a pivotal crossroads. His survival through successive personnel reshuffles—particularly the dramatic purges of 2023–2025—signals the resilience of his networks and the ongoing relevance of his governance priorities. But Chính’s continued influence is far from assured. His trajectory up or down will depend on whether he can sustain support from a coalition that spans technocrats, regional interests, and elements of the security apparatus—groups that do not always share compatible aims.
Economic pressures add another layer of complexity to the leadership choices which now must be made by the Party. Vietnam is navigating one of the most significant strategic openings in its modern history as global firms seek alternatives to China. The country’s appeal—political stability, policy continuity, and a disciplined labor force—has drawn investment from the United States, Japan, South Korea, and Europe. The question now is whether political turbulence at the top will undermine that reputation. Investors, accustomed to Vietnam’s steady hand, are increasingly wary of bureaucratic paralysis triggered by the anti-corruption drive, which has made officials hesitant to approve projects for fear of becoming collateral damage. This “chilling effect” on economic development has become one of the most serious structural challenges facing the country’s leadership.
Institutionally, Vietnam is transitioning toward a more diffused leadership model. The era of a dominant general secretary, embodied by Trọng, is giving way to a structure where authority is more evenly distributed across the Politburo and the Regime’s leading bodies. This shift may not be formally acknowledged, but its logic is embedded in recent developments: the inclusion of the Standing Member of the Secretariat into the category of “core leaders,” the elevation of several Party technocrats, and the deliberate balancing of regional factions and institutional interests. The result is a leadership configuration that relies less on a singular authority and more on negotiated stability.
The approaching 15th Plenum is therefore significant not for any expected dramatic pronouncements, but for the signals it will send about how the Party intends to manage its internal reorganization. Personnel decisions—long the most sensitive component of Vietnam’s political process—will reveal the contours of an emerging settlement: which factions have consolidated ground, which decision-making structures have consolidated confidence, and who will shape the policy agenda presented to the 14th Party Congress. These decisions, though often couched in bureaucratic language, carry consequences far beyond the walls of Ba Đình, home to Vietnam’s leaderships. These decisions will determine not only domestic policies but also Vietnam’s broader geopolitical posture at a time of sharpening competition among great powers.
For international observers, the Party’s key challenge lies in demonstrating that internal turbulence will not compromise its strategic coherence. Vietnam’s foreign policy—anchored in “bamboo diplomacy” and calibrated to balance China and the United States—depends on a leadership that can maintain both internal consensus and external flexibility. A prolonged period of dysfunctional factional rivalry would complicate this balancing act, particularly as external pressures increase with Washington seeking deeper security ties and Beijing asserting its claims more forcefully in the South China Sea.
Strategically, the consequences of this leadership realignment extend beyond individual appointments. They speak to the Party’s long-term capacity to adapt to the demands of a more complex economic and geopolitical environment. Vietnam is entering a developmental stage that requires 1) more agile governance, 2) more transparent policy coordination, and 3) a political elite capable of reconciling domestic discipline with global integration. The quiet negotiations now taking place preceding the 15th Plenum are thus not merely a contest for influence. They are a test of whether the Party can evolve its internal mechanisms without destabilizing the system it has long worked to preserve.
Despite the recent turbulence, Vietnam’s political machinery has shown a remarkable ability to absorb shocks without allowing them to escalate into public crises. The “tempest in a teacup”—a phrase increasingly used by insiders—captures both the intensity of internal contestation and its limited visibility to the public. Whether such managed containment of rivalry and competition can continue will determine the next chapter of Vietnam’s political development.
For now, the Party appears committed to restoring equilibrium through bargaining, adjustment, and selective compromise. If successful, Vietnam may emerge from this transitional period with a more resilient, if more complex, model of collective leadership. If not, the uncertainties that follow could challenge not only domestic governance but Vietnam’s strategic standing at a moment when regional dynamics leave little margin for error.
The work of the Caux Round Table is unique and frankly, often lonely. Our world has changed in recent decades and not for the better, it seems.
A war in Ukraine and an uneasy truce in Gaza with yet no reconciliation between Palestinians and the Jews of Israel. We see, in the rear-view mirror, the past leadership of the United Nations in sustaining world peace, the past enthusiasm for human rights, the past confidence in globalization and its facilitation of harmonization of religions, races, peoples and nation states. The “other” is, more and more, less our neighbor or our friend and so seemingly less entitled to our respect, trust and “love.”
The Hebrew book of Proverbs notes that, “Where there is no vision, the people perish.”
Who, today, is providing vision so that peoples do not perish?
With our unique and inspired idiosyncratic study of the covenants of the Prophet Muhammad – overlooked for 1,300 years – we try our best to step up and serve.
Our forthcoming book on Adam Smith, to mark the 250th anniversary of the publication of his Wealth of Nations, is another unique and inspired contribution to a global ethic of sustainable and trustworthy wealth creation.
We are out in front with our monthly newsletter, Pegasus, on how social and human capitals provide for good politics, just government and material well-being for all.
We are not funded by the high and the mighty, but by special people with vision and commitment to the common good.
I think you are such a person.
We are once again participating in Give to the Max here in Minnesota, which is tomorrow, Thursday, November 20, and ask for your support.
You can either donate through our GTMD page here, by mailing a check to us at 75 West Fifth Street, Suite 219, St. Paul, MN 55102 or by wire transfer (please ask for instructions).
Anything you can give would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for being a part of our network.
We recently posted a couple more short videos on relevant and timely topics. They include:
–Moral Capitalism vs. Democratic Socialism
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.