James Altucher is a financial journalist for The Wall Street Journal and founder of Stockpickr.com. His articles cover every angle of the market; he also stars in feature videos with other financial luminaries. He is the author of Trade Like a Hedge Fund, Trade Like Warren Buffett, SuperCa$h, and The Forever Portfolio.

He has taken a controversial path lately with numerous articles in the New York Post and Huffington Post. Some articles include: "Global Warming Is a Myth," "Should Insider Trading Be Made Legal?" "School of Hard Cash," "The Internet Is Dead (as an Investment)," and "5 Myths the Recession Taught Us."

Rumors of a new addition to the James Altucher library have entered the blogosphere, so I met with James to discuss a possible new book and the response from his recent aggressive views on finance and the stock market.

The timing couldn't have been worse. Just as a U.S. envoy arrived in North Korea to meet with the reclusive regime's officials, protests and violence are reported to have erupted. The country is reacting to a new currency issue that is being used to seize most of the citizens' money and savings.

On November 30, 2009, the regime announced that it would issue new currency and cap the amount that could be exchanged at the equivalent of $40. This effectively rendered the money held privately worthless.

The newspapers are looking ahead to this Tuesday's G-20 summit in London. Since the leaders who show up there represent countries that control 80% of the world's economy, it could be an important meeting. If you live in the U.K. or U.S., your leaders will be attacked by those in other countries who believe that they should not be asked to bail out the errors of Anglo-American capitalism. Beyond that, little of substance is likely to be accomplished.

However, in an alternative universe, the G-20 meeting might actually accomplish something. Specifically, it could get agreement on six principles on which to rebuild American capitalism. Here's what I think those would be:

• Grow through technology-based innovation. The United States used to be admired around the world for its ability to create new industries. In the 1990s, an Asian government wanted to emulate our success and asked me to discuss how the United States turns innovation into economic growth. Unfortunately, since 2000 our ability to take brilliant ideas from our top universities and turn them into venture-backed companies that sell their shares to the public to fuel the creation of new industries has largely been broken. If there is to be growth, it should come from reviving this process.

Our pal Zac Bissonnette wrote about a quote that is making the rounds on Wall Street. It claims to be a passage from Karl Marx that predicts our current economic predicament:

Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalised, and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism. (Das Kapital, 1867)

As a number of people pointed out, the quote is a hoax. You can easily search through all of Marx's writings at marxists.org and you'll quickly find that there is no such passage. But the quote raises some interesting questions: Why is this faux quote making the rounds, and why do people find it so interesting?

One reason might be the increasing fear that people are feeling about the stock markets and even capitalism itself. We've been living in a strongly pro-capitalist environment for decades now -- at least since Reagan was elected, and certainly since the fall of the Soviet Union -- and there has been very little by way of a legitimate leftist resistance to the organization of just about everything on a capitalist basis.

Update: Many readers and other people who have seen this quote making the rounds on Wall Street believe it is a hoax.

Hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson sends out wonderful e-mails about every day. I just got a new one today, and he included this incredible quote from Karl Marx:

"Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalised, and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism. (Das Kapital, 1867)

What does it all mean? I'm not really sure. But Karl Marx's theory that capitalism would inevitably lead to communism has mostly been dismissed -- proven wrong by the survival of capitalism and the fall of communism.

And while it is true that there was a fat lady singing at Obama's inauguration (she was great by the way -- just sayin'), Karl Marx may still have the last word yet.

Of course some Republicans will point to Obama as a step toward socialism. So does that mean Marx was right?

Financial Times columnist Martin Wolf inquires, do Americans understand their financial and economic system?

Anger at Wall Street's - - and regulators' - - lapses is justified, but at the end of the day to oppose the rescue package is at once self-defeating, contradictory, self-punitive, and borders on nihilism, Wolf states. Take your pick regarding which is the most damaging.

Congressional representatives, particularly conservative Republicans, but also others, opposed the flawed rescue plan as a bailout for the rich, and as a statement against 'socialism.' Socialism? Yes, the plan is flawed, Wolf states, but the ruin that will result from rejecting the plan will destroy the legitimacy not of socialism, but of the market economy. Exactly what are the packages' opponents fighting?

The Congressmen/women also say that they are 'taking a stand for Main Street and against Wall Street.' A contradiction, Wolf writes. Wolf: Wall Street and Main Street are streets that meet. That is what streets do.

Then there is the future. What is the opponents' alternative? The loudest voice here appears to be 'let the market sort things out by itself,' under the assumption that the damage, costs, and negative consequences really won't be that bad. Wolf: This is not prudent, if the early 20th century's experiences are a guide.

New York Times Chief Financial Correspondent and Columnist Floyd Norris, appearing on the "Charlie Rose" talk show Monday night on PBS, offered an insight that sort of summed up the financial crisis, the need for a rescue bill, and the reason a considerable portion of the American public doesn't like the rescue package.

Floyd Norris said: "At times it does appear that Wall Street is saying 'Bail us out or the U.S. economy is ruined.' And, if you're a citizen of the U.S., it's perfectly normal to be upset and angered by that. The problem is, what Wall Street is saying is true."

No time for perfection

The rescue bill, even the expected, revised rescue bill by Congress, will not be perfect. And yes, it will help some on Wall Street, including (unfairly) those who 'gamed' the system, or whose business mistakes, dubious securitization frameworks, or just plain greed helped create the crisis in the first place. But the nation does not have the luxury of taking six months to compose and pass a 'perfect' bill. The nation needs a rescue package, imperfect though it may be, to stabilize the financial system. And it needs it now.

Should you, the typical investor be upset about that? Sure, it's o.k. and it's a natural response to be upset, but don't let that emotion lead you to believe the nation or the financial system would be better off without a rescue bill; it won't be. And it's not possible to prevent Wall Street institutions from being involved in the solution -- at this time-pressured, critical juncture, they have to be. As The Times' Floyd Norris noted, Wall Street knows it, we know it, everyone knows it. So accept it, and move forward with the necessary work of getting a rescue plan in place.

Metaphors sometimes oversimplify, but think of the U.S. Congress' 2008 bailout bill (pdf) as a long-overdue oil change for the U.S. economy.

Still, as any driver knows, an oil change is not enough to keep a car running well. You need to have it tuned, and keep all of its engine, transmission and related systems maintained for the car to perform safely. So next up for the U.S. economy: a tuneup.

But regarding the rescue, if it goes reasonably according to plan, the U.S. Treasury, and the companion agencies the rescue creates, will slowly remove distressed / bad assets from the financial system, and in the process both stabilize the credit markets, and equally important, restore confidence in the financial system.

Of course, there's no guarantee the rescue will work as intended, but there was near unanimous agreement in economic and investment circles about what would happen without it: a freezing-up of the credit markets, contagion in stock and bond markets, panic, and a substantial reduction in the ability of companies small and large to function. In short, the worst financial panic since the stock market crash of 1929 that led to the Great Depression.

Could the U.S. economy tolerate, and, equally significant, will the American people push the nation's chief executive, the president, in the direction of more government intervention?

The view from here is: probably not. Everything in the American ethos and culture speaks against it.

Unlike in France, where the French Government is simply, "France," Americans, for the most part, view their government -- save defense spending -- usually as part of the problem, not the solution. 'Government is best which governs least' is a longstanding Americanism. And most investors/readers know about candidates who say they want to "get the Washington bureaucrats off the backs of the American people" and "clean up the mess in Washington!"

Americans are anti-central government, and they are anti-state (they generally dislike the limited federal government that exists). In the United States, it is always private first, public second.

Like never before, the rapidly growing global economy is raising the standard of living dramatically for hundreds of millions of "newly minted capitalists" in China, Russia, India, Eastern Europe, Brazil and elsewhere. They are buying bikes and cars, cell phones and flat-screen televisions, the latest fashions and the latest music. They are also changing their diets and eating much more.

No longer satisfied with your standard fare of starchy rice, potatoes and beans, they have increased their consumption of fish, poultry, beef, and a wider variety of fruits and vegetables, and even alcoholic beverages. Of course they continue to adopt the dubious growth of western fast food restaurants too.

In my pursuit of 2008 value stocks that offer growth opportunities and safety too, I looked for companies that would benefit from these trends. As consumption increases in some of these expanding economies, the following companies have greatly benefited, and they seem postured to continue their growth in the coming years.

Six years ago, Osama Bin Laden killed thousands in the heart of the world's financial capital, hoping to bring capitalism to its knees. He failed miserably.

Not only did the world's financial markets rebound, they rebounded spectacularly. The Dow Jones Industrial Average now is above 13,000, about 40% higher than where it was on September 9, 2001. The tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite Index last traded at more than 2581, more than 50% higher than where it was six years ago. That's the power of American capitalism. In fact, my colleague Zac Bissonnette points out that international crises make good buying opportunities for investors.

9-11 couldn't kill The American Dream. Millions of people come to the United States every year in the hopes of bettering their lives in a country where people who take prudent risks can reap rewards. People figure that with a little hard work and luck they might become the next Bill Gates or Warren Buffett. It's that faith in the future that draws people to the stock market. People say they invest in the stock market to prepare for retirement, but really they are hoping that they can strike it rich, even if it's on a small scale.

There are many stories of heroism from 9-11. Mine isn't one of them. I spent the better part of the day in the New York City bureau of Bloomberg News, which thankfully was far away from the carnage of Ground Zero, trying to figure out how I was going to get out of Manhattan. Somehow, I got on to what I think was one of the first NJ Transit trains that left the city that day much to the relief of my family.

For New Yorkers such as my colleague Valerie Russo, who was a school teacher at the time, the day was even more harrowing. Georges Yared was in London at the time and has an interesting perspective as does Michael Fowlkes, who was working as a stock trader. It is a day that the American people will never and should never forget.

Carnegie Mellon University Professor Allan Meltzer has an interesting editorial in this weekend's Wall Street Journal (subscription required). As Congress considers ramping up hedge fund regulation, Meltzer isn't buying it: "... whatever the perceived problem, more regulation is not the answer. It is far better to change some incentives for excessive risk-taking. The old saying is true: Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin. The answer to excessive risk-taking is 'let 'em fail.'"

He makes a compelling case against bailouts of collapsing hedge funds, arguing that these can serve to increase excessive risk-taking.

The recent explosive growth in hedge funds and private equity will lead to some inevitable blow-ups in the years to come, probably starting soon. Just recently, a pair of Bear Stearns (NYSE: BSC) funds collapsed. As the panic sets in, investors and regulators would do well to keep a copy of Meltzer's column close by. Only through painful failure will investors learn the pitfalls of excessive risk.

See also:
Jon Ogg: Bear Stearns' subprime fund implosion -- media hype, or serious meat?
Kevin Kelly: Less talking, more hedging please
Tom Taulli: No June gloom for hedge funds
Zac Bissonnette: Is Bear Stearns in play?

I've noticed that there hasn't been a whole lot of ballyhoo about the communist party setting up its tent in the Chinese branch of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE:WMT). I'm thinking that possibly most of you are seeing this turn of events in the same way that I am. Personally I think this is more of a dilution of the classic "red" communism than the rise of collectivism into an American corporation. Even the communist party dialog in this scenario gives hints that capitalism is once again prevailing. Did you doubt that it would?

Jonathan Dong, a Wal-Mart China spokesperson is quoted as saying, "Quite a few of our associates (employees) are party members already, so they have a right to establish branch organizations."

Did you catch that? Here it is in American line item style: "associates ... have a right." Since when did a communist have a right to anything in their party line thinking? Communists have privileges and responsibilities to serve the party's declared objectives. Historically they have no rights... at least not until Wal-Mart and Best Buy (NYSE:BBY) got there.

My apologies to the socialists out there but I'm declaring this one a victory for our side. China is in the hands of supply side, trickle down economics now. The government is instructing the workers to be good, work hard and build their companies. Hmmm, that sounds kind of American to me. Can the time be far off when the Chinese government realizes that they can create greater wealth and power by opening their business structure to increased investment by their public? Does the Chinese government realize that they have finally and completely opened their doors to free enterprise?

This is a situation that we're going to be watching very closely. It was capitalism that finally crushed the USSR and freed the Soviet population. It was capitalism that brought down the Berlin Wall and reunited Germany. It is capitalism that has kept Cuba and the Korean communists at bay. It is capitalism that has kept the Chinese fed.

Let's face it folks, socialist collectivism is gasping for its last breath ... and it's about time.

Today I stretch our business blog in memorium of the day.

On this anniversary of a great national tragedy that occurred on September 11, 2001 we would be remiss not to take a moment of silence to remember those who lost their lives in and around the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and Flight 93. We also should extend that moment of silence to our fallen and wounded veterans that have sacrificed their lives in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere since that day. Furthermore we should salute our troops that remain far from home to this day in service of their country, risking lives on our behalf in a war that is far from over and presents many continued difficulties ahead. Yet it is useful to think about what changes the event has wrought on our economy.

Since 2001, when we were all horrified by this barbaric act of terrorism against an unaware civilian population, we have tried to go about our business. Our nation has had to adjust to the realization that we are a constant target and yet continue to actively pursue the values and goals that celebrate the freedoms that make the United States unique in the world and unique in history.

For the most part we have conducted our business as usual without allowing the dictates of others to affect our thinking. That said, we remain more vigilant and have to keep our guard up at all times. The travel industry is not the same and has still not fully recovered. Our transportation and delivery systems have been forever altered. The cost of doing business has increased in many sectors of the economy. The security industry and military industrial complex has seen a tremendous influx of capital and specialized technologies are receiving increased levels of research and development capital as well.