When one young Chicago trader first heard people were making $50,000 to $100,000 in a day
He told himself he would quit the moment he ever made that kind of money.
Then he had his first five-figure day.
He was back in the pit the next morning.
“After a while, the money becomes just a way of keeping score.”
By the late 1980s, a seat on the exchange could cost more than $300,000, and the trading floors were said to hold more millionaires per square inch than anywhere else on earth.
But the footage shows what that money did to people.
Traders carried live quote machines on dates, practiced screaming so they could be heard above the crowd, wore the same clothes after winning days, and came back even after they had already made enough to leave.
The technology looks ancient now.
The psychology does not.
This rare documentary captures the exact moment trading stops being about money and turns into identity, competition, and addiction to the game.
Bookmark it and watch as a lesson from the past
Especially now that markets are once again rewarding speed, hype, and risk-taking.
People defend capitalism because they confuse it with commerce. They believe “capitalism” is when people start businesses and sell things.
If people understood that the thing they call capitalism and love so much is actually just commerce and that it’s not the same thing as capitalism, they would feel very different.
This is because a local baker selling bread, a mechanic fixing cars, or an artisan selling wares on a digital storefront is a sign of commerce in a market economy, which is simply a mechanism for exchanging goods and services based on supply and demand.
Needless to say, this has existed for thousands of years before capitalism was created.
As economic historian Fernand Braudel pointed out, commerce and capitalism are not only distinct; but historically, they have often operated at cross-purposes.
According to Braudel, ordinary commerce is competitive and transparent, while capitalism is anti-competitive and deliberately opaque, making it a zone of privilege held by a small elite who bend the rules in their favour.
Braudel further argues that commerce, or the market, is horizontal, transparent, and competitive and as old as civilization itself. It involves individuals or small groups trading goods, where barriers to entry are low, no single player dominates, and profit is a reward for fulfilling a specific need.
Capitalism, meanwhile, is a specific institutional arrangement that emerged relatively recently in human history, around the 16th to 17th centuries. It is NOT just people “trading stuff”. It is instead the legal and financial system where the means of production are privately owned, and the primary objective is the continuous, infinite accumulation of capital.
Because of this accumulation-obssessed nature of capitalism, when it scales up, it seeks to eliminate the free play of commerce to protect its investments. True market competition is risky for massive capital as it drives prices down and threatens profit margins.
Braudel contended that capitalism only begins where commerce ends. It is the zone of high finance and state collusion. Because it operates across vast distances such as the 17th-century spice trade, information takes months to travel, which creates a deliberate lack of transparency.
Braudel noted that the great capitalists of the early modern era in Madeira and Venice or the Dutch East India Company, never wanted to compete in a fair, transparent market because competition slices profit margins to the bone. Instead, they secured royal charters, exclusive trading rights, and naval protection. At the same time, the state granted them legal monopolies, effectively outlawing competition.
Therefore, capitalism naturally trends toward creating monopolies and securing state interventions like bailouts, subsidies, and regulatory capture to shield itself from the very market forces it claims to champion. In fact, the most important takeaway from Braudel’s analysis is that capitalism is NOT the natural evolution or the highest form of the free market, it is its dark shadow.
So, when our lizard overlords use “free market” and “capitalism” interchangeably, they’re deliberately hiding this distinction and using the moral legitimacy of the hard-working, transparent business owner to defend the structural privileges of the protected financial elite and its regulatory capture.
If ordinary people could comprehend these distinctions, many self-described “capitalists” would realise they are just pro-commerce, and actually anti-capitalist, because it would be clear that defending “capitalism” means defending the right of a small parasite class to bypass the market entirely.
Football is the beautiful game. But it’s often also the boring game. We propose the following changes, to ensure the World Cup is thrilling https://t.co/m3o6kfDlRi
In 2016, politicians led by Uasin Gishu Governor Jackson Mandago and Kapseret MP Oscar Sudi stormed Moi University to protest the appointment of Prof. Laban Aviro as acting Vice-Chancellor and demanded Kalenjin Chancellor Kosgey who was being grilled by EACC over Corruption.
10 years later, Moi University is crippling with 10 billion debts and faces closure...
This should be used as a case study and example of what mtu wetu nonsense can do to an institution...
In 1960, newly independent African leaders had a choice: capitalism or socialism.
Almost all of them picked socialism.
A Ghanaian economist named George Ayittey spent forty years documenting what happened next.
His findings are in print, and almost nobody outside Africa wants to hear them. 🧵
Check out the latest article in my newsletter: Kenya's Untapped Tourism Wealth: The Jobs We Choose Not to Create https://t.co/tS0AsM5ilD via @LinkedIn