George Soros

George Soros at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2010

Since Glenn Beck has brought up George Soros as being a puppet master, and has encouraged his audience to dig for themselves into who this man is so, I decided to actually read something written by George Soros.

Now, admittedly, I do not know much about this man. I've seen him on various news sources and, I am none too impressed with his ideas. The very mention of the man leaves me feeling quite chilly and almost uncomfortable. He is a representation of the far left, a person who is filled with anti-American sentiment.

After watching Glenn's special, I had decided to do a little internet search and read something this man has written concerning his particular views. I found an article almost immediately:


"The Capitalist Threat" by George Soros Atlantic Monthly, Volume 279, No. 2, February 1997

"  People must be free to think and act, subject only to limits imposed by the common interests."

There have been a number of times, where I will find myself reading something that seems very fascinating. I can tell a lot of thought and effort went into writing the piece. Then, it happens. The writer shifts and says something that is either a flat-out lie, or something that the writer actually believes but is amazingly ignorant. Let me explain.

In this article, Soros defines "open-societies" which he correctly identifies as those societies that support Laissez-faire ideologies concerning economic policies. He also correctly explains "closed societies" as those that promote communism and fascism. Almost immediately, and again correctly, he dismisses these extremities as being logical or plausible ideologies.

Here's where he takes his turn, where he is either lying or, he's just plain ignorant--

Soros then begins to explain that Laissez-faire economics have now become the real threat. He writes with the premise that those who support Laissex faire, believe it to be perfect knowledge, or having ultimate truth. He states that those of us who support Laissex-faire do so because, it will ultimately bring about this equilibrium and provide equality for everyone.

SCREEEEEETCH! What?!?!?!

 That was my reaction. Who or what source has told him that people who support free markets do so because, it will bring about balance and equality? The very reason for supporting an "open-society" as Soros refers to it, is because we recognize that inequalities will ALWAYS exist, no matter what. Nothing is ever going to bring about equality on an economic scale. It is why it's better having the individual make their own choices as opposed to being able to blame the government for inequities, that makes the ideology superior.

I want to emphasize, however, that I am not putting laissez-faire capitalism in the same category as Nazism or communism. Totalitarian ideologies deliberately seek to destroy the open society; laissez-faire policies may endanger it, but only inadvertently. Friedrich Hayek, one of the apostles of laissez-faire, was also a passionate proponent of the open society. Nevertheless, because communism and even socialism have been thoroughly discredited, I consider the threat from the laissez-faire side more potent today than the threat from totalitarian ideologies. We are enjoying a truly global market economy in which goods, services, capital, and even people move around quite freely, but we fail to recognize the need to sustain the values and institutions of an open society. 

Okay, well, there is a point I'm sure to be made that laissez-faire does have it's problems. I would not dispute that. In the sense that, yes, there are people that will suffer. There are people that will be poor. As the Bible says, the poor will always be amongst us but, those of us who believe in open societies, do not propose that everything will be perfect. Quite the contrary and, that is why I am terribly surprised at Soros' inferences here. Certainly he knows this...or, does he?

Finally, he continues with the article saying that open societies are based upon the principles of Darwinism. To some extent, he is correct in his assertions and comparisons here. The belief that people should have a great self interest and promote oneself is part of a successful blueprint to obtaining financial freedom in an open society.

Yes, indeed, Darwinism has been proven to be wrong in some regards, as Soros again correctly points out but, not all of Darwinism can be dismissed and we know this. Adaptations on various scales most definitely occur.

He then makes complaints about those who benefit by means of inheritances or, those that benefit by not doing right but, evil. So, let's talk about this for a moment:

Inheriting money is not an evil concept. There is nothing wrong from benefiting from the generation before you and, there is certainly nothing wrong with working hard so that the next generation can live comfortably. Let's face it, it's not just money that people are passing on; it's also a mind-set that comes with wealth. Just as a poverty mind-set is passed on to the next generation by less affluent families.

The simple psychology one learns given their environment while growing up and, later who they surround themselves with, helps determine the level of success one can achieve but, only in open societies can one have the option of changing their environment, making it more affluent, thereby improving themselves and their affluence, creating more wealth. In a closed society, this shift almost becomes impossible, keeping people "stuck" in a specific class of society.

Money and wealth do not know evil or good. Money is a neutral object and concept. Attracting money is not a matter of being good or evil but, a matter of whether you have limited yourself or not. However, if you are someone that has inherited money and make no attempt to understand money or, have a certain mind-set, you will loose all your money.

The same example can be found if you give a poor-mindset person a million dollars and visit them in a year, only to find they have completely blown all their money and, are in more debt then their previous state. Or, if you take all the money away from someone who has a wealth mindset, they will usually have all their money back in a year. These stories are tried and true and only prove that wealth is a mindset.

Society cannot fix an individual's mind-set. That has to come from within. As I have already argued, it is more plausible for person to switch their mindset when their economic environment pushes people to succeed, rather than just accepting their course and living comfortably off the government dole.

Those that benefit by doing evil or illicit things, usually will find some ironic justice in the end. Of course, a person's values dictate what they will or will not do. People who are void of morality and obtain wealth through these means will ultimately destroy themselves. Does this always happen? Honestly, I cannot say for sure. Probably not. I do NOT know every wealthy person who has brought about wealth by illicit means. It IS my faith that leads me to believe this.

It is my personal observation of the wealthy people that I do know, that wealth was obtained by honesty, hard work, and providing a good or service that was needed by others. The only evil rich folks I know about are from the news, people I do not know personally, and Nancy Pelosi...(and look what's happening to her!)

Soros proposes a society that wipes out the values as we know and, proposes an economic policy that is open but, recognizes it's fallibility and, that there is no way of obtaining perfect knowledge. Then, he states:

"  People must be free to think and act, subject only to limits imposed by the common interests."


He further says that it's not enough to be a democrat but, that we must be liberal democrats. It's all about this common good he hopes to achieve but, didn't he say before that he recognizes those ideas do not work?

Soros just talks in circles. He's afraid to make a stand. It is certainly noble to have concern for everyone but, if you recognize the limitations that we have and, that governments have, why would you propose more control from a government? Wouldn't you be more concerned with helping people by providing them an environment that they could thrive in? One that could provide them with the motivation to rise above and promote morality?

It's not that those of us that believe in free societies do not recognize the inequalities; of course we do. It's simply a matter of fostering the most positive environment for growth of companies, as well as individuals. Competition in markets provide for this. It is simple fact and, having knowledge is power. It's nothing to be afraid of.

If Soros wants to help people, he should worry about himself, and remain an example of success, rather than trying to be an architect of fantasy.

My final conclusion-- I think Soros has a big head. It's clear this man has some serious delusions of grandeur. He has it in his mind that he is going to somehow change the world with his "vision of fallibility." The whole article is silly and almost embarrassing. The man doesn't appear to be stupid but, when you have an idea that is based on a premise that isn't even true, how can you follow that with a logical conclusion?