Just a thought:
One of my part-time jobs is at a grocery store. I enjoy the people I work with, but I hate the working environment. I’m asked to be a psychiatrist for cranky customers half of the time; I only get two 15-minute breaks in an 8-hour shift (no lunch); and I haven’t had a raise in the two years I’ve worked there. Unlike many other retail employees, which make up one of several classes of near-chattel laborers in the United States, I know I have it pretty good. Here in Utah, I can expect above-average wages for retail, as well as below-average living expenses. I’m sitting pretty on top of the underclass dung heap.
Nevertheless, one thing that’s bothered me for some time now is the way that my employers insist on referring to our customers as “guests” and our employees as “team-members.” For my particular position, I can be considered either a “cashier” or a “courtesy clerk,” depending on my daily duties.
“Courtesy clerk.” What exactly is a “courtesy clerk?” Well, a decade ago, I would have been referred to as a “bagger.” That is, my job would have been described according to what it is: I bag groceries.
Somewhere along the line, somebody decided to rename the position. They wanted to engender a more positive atmosphere in the workplace, wherein the lowliest workers (who still have to obey the manager’s every whim) could consider themselves more respected by management (who still have plenty of whims to be obeyed).
Hence came the terms “team-member” and “courtesy clerk.” There was just one hitch: applying new labels to a social category only works if its voluntary or, in the case of compulsory relabeling, if it fits the self-perceptions of members of the category. However much my employer tries, a “courtesy clerk” is still just a “bagger,” because bagging is still what we do. And we’ll all be “employees” forever, because the only “team” we’ll ever be a real member of is a union. Renaming employee-employer relationships is meaningless when the relationship itself hasn’t changed.
This labeling sleight-of-hand has been going on for some time. Some businesses, like the one I work for, call their employees “team-members.” Some call them “associates.” And some bosses just say “hey, guys” when they try to rub elbows with the workers at the water cooler. But they’re not fooling anyone. Past the fake smiles and nervous greetings, we still know today, as we did before all this renaming nonsense began, that they have the power, and we don’t.
So, when it comes down to it, my employer is going to have two kinds of employees-who-bag-groceries: “baggers” who resent that their boss thinks they’re dumb enough to work harder and happier just because he changed what he calls them; and, next generation, “courtesy clerks” who resent that their job is actually bagging groceries, not “courtesy clerking” (whatever that is), and that nothing has changed.
It’s worth noting, however, that this same labeling mania has gone on at the other end of the spectrum. Sociologists have coined terms over the decades that have come into great social meaning, such as “underclass” and “marginalization.” Why are these terms so meaningful, while “courtesy clerk” remains a terse patronization, a platitudinarian brushing-aside of the underappreciated bagger? Because they resonate. We know we’re on the brink of marginalization. We know we’re being stood on by those above. We know we’re just baggers, and that the pretty relabeling is merely a distraction from the change that really needs to occur.
Just a thought.
#1 by brewski on March 9, 2010 - 6:23 pm
I’m trying to figure out what this has to do with “capitalists”. First of all, I’m not sure what a “capitalist” is. There is also a lot of weird labeling by non-capitalists. I am still waiting for the People’s Republic of China to act in favor of the people, and for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to act for the people or be democratic.
So I think mislabeling is a universal truth.
#2 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on March 9, 2010 - 7:22 pm
Brewski–
Clearly, what it has to do with “capitalists” is that every person described in this article who misuses labeling theory principles is a capitalist.
In reading my article, though, I think you misunderstand the difference between “labeling” and “labeling theory.”
In essence, my argument is that certain individuals, in a desire to manipulate the behavior of others, create new labels for those others–in this case, capitalists use labeling theory principles to manipulate the behavior of the workers, by making them feel like they already have the respect that union membership provides, or feel like their position is honored, even when neither is true.
Nevertheless, people reject these new labels because the labels adhere to the condition, rather than the other way around. We may find in another decade, as I predict in my article, that “courtesy clerk” is as undesirable a position as “bagger” is now, because the circumstances on which the label is placed remain the same–and will likely have gotten even worse.
Capitalists (and by that I mean those who believe and operate in the corporate version of the free market with its upward-spiraling consumption, labor output, and stock values), like you, don’t understand labeling theory–that labels may be created as words, but those word combinations will take on new meaning because of the social valuations of the circumstances they label. Propaganda only works so far.
So, in this case, this isn’t just a definitive problem–a problem of “mislabeling.” This is a problem of purposeful mislabeling, with the intent to coerce for self-benefit.
I chose “capitalists” in this instance because they are the group of economic, social, and political prominence in America at present. Labeling theory principles are used by many other groups as well, but typically with more accuracy, or at least less evident inaccuracy–and certainly with no more suspicious motives. Many people promote relabeling in order to more accurately or less offensively portray a social group. The social group oftentimes promotes this relabeling, and others accept it, although other groups (such as anti-PC) defy such relabeling for their own reasons. In the relabeling I’m describing, the relabeled group defies the relabeling because the new label depicts their circumstance less realistically than the old, as well as because of the non-voluntary nature of the new label and the obvious motives of the label’s source.
In another system, I may have said “monarchs,” “parliamentarians,” “labor organizers,” “socialists,” or any number of other terms, based on which group was employing this tactic. At present, in our system, the relabeling by capitalists is overt and highly manipulative. Improving the perception of product and labor values (or, in this case, the value of a job) is a huge industry (advertising), and is highly successful. But the workers themselves are more attached to the actual circumstances that the advertising clouds. Which is why many farmers and food service professionals won’t eat their own product.
Why do capitalists misunderstand labeling theory? Because they don’t get that you can’t just change the name of a thing and everything will be ok. Post-Civil War, we couldn’t just stop calling black people “n*****s” and keep them in slavery. The circumstance had to change as well.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#3 by brewski on March 9, 2010 - 11:02 pm
So I think we agree, that the people in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea that the people have figured out that it isn’t democratic and it isn’t the people’s, so just because they named it as such, doesn’t make it so. The ruthless pinko commie dictators don’t understand labeling theory either.
#4 by cav on March 10, 2010 - 4:44 am
Similar things can certainly be said of the ‘peaceful and freedom loving west’. I’m only now beginning to GET ‘exceptionalism’.
#5 by Cliff Lyon on March 10, 2010 - 7:00 am
There is nothing “commie” about North Korea.
#6 by Richard Okelberry on March 10, 2010 - 7:33 am
Dwight,
First, I truly must say that you are a breath of fresh air for the blogging community. All too often many who call themselves bloggers are truly nothing more than drive-by critics throwing out short little comments on various topics or criticisms of the hard work of others. While I often disagree with you, at least you are composing well thought out essays that stand on their own merit and don’t rely almost entirely on the work of others or worse simple reiterations of the talking points being generated by the national mega-blogs. Good job.
That said; I want to purpose a new sentiment to your argument.
Have you ever considered that this re-labeling of a particular job might be a legitimate attempt by management to not only instill pride in the valuable service that you perform for the business but is also an attempt to show legitimate respect for you, your co-workers and the job that you do? Also, I personally do not know how being a member of a Union might garner more respect with management than being a non-union member. In fact I believe the opposite might be true as management may see the gains made by collective bargaining as nothing more than a form of extortion rather than gains earned through individual hard work and dedication. Does it all have to do with the power that Union membership supposedly brings with it? Are we saying that people are only deserving of respect when they are in positions of power?
Ultimately, isn’t respect something that isn’t simply given but must be earned? Perhaps that very notion is what leads to your dissatisfaction on this issue. Simply relabeling something so that it sounds better is not in itself a show of respect for the individual though it certainly could be considered a show of respect for the value of the position to the organization.
Also, your essay seems laced with class-warfare references. At the end of your essay you say, “We know we’re just baggers, and that the pretty relabeling is merely a distraction from the change that really needs to occur.” What specific change do you believe is needed? Should your company do away with baggers completely? Should all employees be elevated to the level of management? Or maybe all management should be replaced with the inefficiency of group decision making as we find in corporations that are heavily burdened by inflexible collective bargaining contracts. Are you seeking true class equality to the point that no one is in charge and everyone is equal, regardless of their job performance or dedication? Can you personally imagine a world where everyone was a bagger without any prospect of personal advancement through hard work and achievement?
Finally, I have to imagine that as an intelligent and unique individual that you do not have plans to stay a bagger for your whole life. I would wager that ultimately you even see the prospects of remaining with your current employer as a lifelong career as somewhat beneath you. I guess it could be said that the various classes in our society are often caused by such aspirations. The belief that we are each better than someone else or have so much more to offer the world is a powerful energy that ultimately helps create the very system that you seem to despise. Do you see yourself for example as someone willing to put in 10 to 20 years with your current employer until you are possibly one day, the very management that you write about in this essay, or would you consider such a career as beneath your potential skill level? Don’t you have so much more to offer the world?
I can’t help wonder if someday you will possibly own your own business or rise to a managerial position and have your genuine attempts to treat your employees with respect met with skepticism. You certainly may be right and the management of your retail outlet may be simply using labeling theory to improve the bottom line. Still you should consider that somewhere in the management of your company, someone feels that the position of courtesy clerk is a valuable asset to the company. Somewhere, someone above you has resisted the pull to follow the Walmart model and remove courtesy clerks all together from their payroll. Just perhaps; your job is more valued by your employer than you might have considered.
Still, I must earnestly say, good job! This is a great, well written essay that touches on a crucial point of contention in society.
#7 by Richard Warnick on March 10, 2010 - 7:53 am
R.O.–
Blog = Web log. You can write long-winded essays if you like, but for me it’s all about the links.
#8 by Cliff Lyon on March 10, 2010 - 8:11 am
RO, If you don’t personally know about something, maybe you should close your pie hole about it instead of bothering us with your ignorance of labor rights.
#9 by Tim Carter on March 10, 2010 - 10:04 am
I’m with you Richard Warnick. I like the links. Not everyone can be an expert on all the topics all the time that come through this (and other) public forums. I like topics with reference links put out for public discussion. Nothing wrong with essays, mostly not my style.
I guess it depends on the topic. But I do like certain authors ‘essays’ like Beckys, because they offer personal insight into sometimes personal issues. BTW, is she still hangin’ in there?
#10 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on March 10, 2010 - 2:05 pm
R.O.–
This article intends to point out that nothing material has changed in the
bagger’scourtesy clerk’s circumstance. There is a possibility that, somewhere in the upper echelons of the company I work for, someone wanted dearly to honor the bagger’s hard work–someone who had no power whatsoever to improve our working conditions beyond changing the name. If so, that person has done more harm than good. We now feel not only that we have a crappy job, but that our company is patronizing us, as well.Just as a matter of likelihood, I doubt the above scenario. It’s far more likely that change in position titles is done intentionally with a profit interest in mind than that they expended additional effort and reprinted all of their documents just to honor a position which they can’t pay an extra 25 cents an hour to.
I’ll leave a response to your specific points shortly.
–Dwight
#11 by Richard Warnick on March 10, 2010 - 2:32 pm
Dwight–
I’m guessing management had a brainstorming session on the topic: “What can we do to improve employee morale that won’t cost us any money?”
#12 by Glenden Brown on March 10, 2010 - 2:42 pm
Business schools and business leaders actually talk about job titles and there’s been books and articles written about it. Part of the principle holds that how we name a job should reflect our expectations of the person in the job. Some of this is the natural evolution of the work place – baggers used to be called bag boys and that has evolved to courtesy clerk. But, there are also employees for whom the question of a job title is hugely important. Some employees will work for decades at the same pay if they periodically get titles that sound more important – from Warehouseman to Sr. Warehouseman, or Warehouseman Grade 1 to Grade 2 and so on.
There’s a second level here – a “courtesy clerk” is a nice ambiguous title. The clerk is there as a courtesy to the customer – to bag their groceries and maybe even carry them to their car. The title also tells the worker that he or she should be courteous. The job title is intended to capture the job description. It also has the advantage of expanding your job – if you are a bagger and I ask you to mop the floor, or help the little old lady do her shopping, well that’s not your job. If you are a courtesy clerk, well then, those things are your job.
That’s the official b-school line (and as an MBA I’m empowered to deliver such information).
#13 by Richard Warnick on March 10, 2010 - 2:58 pm
So I guess I was wrong, management got together and discussed: “How can we get more work out of these people without paying them any better?”
#14 by Glenden Brown on March 10, 2010 - 3:15 pm
No, you were pretty much right.
#15 by cav on March 10, 2010 - 8:16 pm
Even courtesy clerks need to act responsibly -for the sake of supporting their own needs, those of their direct supervisor, and also the needs of the CEO, all middle layers, as well as the stock / share holder.
#16 by cav on March 10, 2010 - 8:19 pm
In casinos, the nickle slots support all the opulence you see, plus the overhead. All the rest is cream.
I suspect most corporations reflect some of this paradigm.
#17 by Richard Okelberry on March 10, 2010 - 9:53 pm
You are most likely right. I was simply trying to look at the glass half full. While corporations have rapidly learned that their employees are a valued resource, in the case of “courtesy clerks” it is likely as much of a change in job intention as it is in name. While what you do is bagging groceries, the reason for your position being available in this era of streamlining is likely more of a marketing tool than anything.
I don’t mean this as a slight, but let’s be honest… your job has become almost as out dated as full service attendants at gasoline stations. (Unless you live in Oregon where I believe it is still against the law to pump your own gas.) The reality is; if your job were “necessary” Wal-Mart would have teams of baggers. Anyone who has been to a Wal-Mart knows that it is quite simple for the cashier to simply place the items into a bag on the turnstile and allow the customer to put them back in the cart and take them to their own car.
Your job is essentially a “courtesy” offered by a store that is trying to compete with a super market Goliath. Ultimately this is nothing more than part of their marketing nitch and business model. Because profit margins in the supermarket industry are so slim, any company that does not have warehousing and distribution facilities that rival the military, simply cannot compete with the prices of those that do, namely Wal-Mart (and a few others). As such the only model that allows such stores to survive is one that offers higher quality products and services.
Here’s a perfect example:
Up here in Cache Valley a new Wal-Mart was built catty-corner from an existing Macy’s. Many predicted that once the Wal-Mart opened its doors, business as Macy’s would quickly dry up and eventually force them to close. Still, today Macy’s has a thriving business and the only time their lot is not packed with cars is on Sunday, when they are closed. The reason for this includes the fact that they have a greater variety of fresh fruits, far superior meats and a staff that is not just courteous but something out of the Stepford Wives. While it is nearly impossible to even find an associate in Wal-Mart when you have difficulty finding an item, they are EVERYWHERE in Macy’s. Also, when you do ask an associate at Macy’s for help they practically take you by the hand with an earnest smile and walk you to the item. I also must say that the free cookies at the bakery for the kids is an awesome idea.
You see, if Macy’s did not do all these things, then customers would have little incentive to pay the much higher prices and would likely go straight across the street. This is the exact business model that was adopted by Whole Foods Market. They provide all organic products in a truly enjoyable environment. Even though their prices are the highest in the industry they are also the fasted growing.
So instead of seeing yourself as just a bagger, you might want to consider what a vital marketing tool you are for your company. While simply being more valuable might not merit that 25 cent raise, after all how much skill is truly involved in bagging and being nice to people, it might help you feel better about your position and help you realize that what you do does not just put money in your pocket but helps to feed the many families who rely on employment at your company.
Of course, if you are still feeling stepped on and feel that the “Courtesy Clerk” label is an unbearable insult, you might want to simply let the management at your store know. They may not have even considered how an individual might take offense to the new designation.
BTW: Sorry about the fact that one of my earlier comment seems ready to spark a side debate about the differences between Blogs and Electronic Discussion Boards. Still, if you would like to see an awesome local example of a great Personal Blogger, you should check out Loralee’s Looney Tunes. While often long winded like myself, Loralee is a great writer from here in Cache Valley whose work even earned her a direct invitation by the White House to hear her views on Health Care Reform. She has a huge following and for good reason.
#18 by cav on March 11, 2010 - 8:07 am
The Courtesy Contingent should be giving serious thought to the impact tax cuts can have on their bottom line now that the jobs issue is settled.
#19 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on March 11, 2010 - 12:14 pm
R.O.–
I really don’t expect you to read all of this (or even much of it). It’s mainly for myself, and for you, if you want to read it. I do ask, however, that you read the last two paragraphs.
In business, never look at it as “the glass is half full”; the proper translation of that sentiment is “the stock is up ten points.” Everything has to fit into that equation (stock valuation) in order for a business to be optimistic.
Last August, I inquired with my boss about the financial state of the company (the one he works for, not just the single store he manages). He informed me that it was doing about as well as in August ‘08–which, in mid-recession terms, is impressive. I inquired again this January, and he told me we had seen a marked improvement in profits over January ‘09. The question is, then, why has the company been on a pay/hiring freeze for the last 6 months (if not more, unofficially)?
Some would say that it’s because the store is trying to play it safe in the recession–cutting back even while it pays higher dividends. This is possible, but I think it’s more likely because the company knows that a recession is a great excuse to reduce employee expectations. In the middle of a recession, everyone’s grateful to just have a job–who cares about raises? I wrote a post touching on this recently, if you want to read it.
Furthermore, the company has just expanded its store ownership by somewhere around 35-50%–in a recession. Whatever you want to say about the company’s strategy, it’s business tactics, the market intuitiveness of its ownership, one thing remains true: their human intuition is severely lacking. When the people upon whose backs such purchases are made go without any improvement in their own standard of living, even while profits for the administering body and owners are increased significantly, that’s what I call patronization. Many of us in the company keep our eyes on the company–we know what’s going on, and where the speech conflicts with the actions.
And now, a dissertation regarding your particular points:
My whole point has been that “legitimate respect” requires more than words. A general makes his boys feel special so that they’ll be more willing cannon fodder. On the other hand, if he really cares about their safety, he trains them properly, provides them with proper equipment, and lays out honestly their role in the war and the reason why the attack is needed. If he wants to pep them after that, then that’s fine and good. But pepping isn’t enough by itself.
I didn’t say “more respect with management.” I simply said “the respect that union membership provides.” In companies, power dynamics are key. It doesn’t matter whether you have respect with management or with a union–as long as the respect you have is given by a group with power, you are respected. Unions, until they become like little (or even huge) companies, themselves, are one of the few ways that employees can garner real market respect. Otherwise, most large employers “respect” is a matter of convenience on the part of the company and obedience on the part of the employee. Such as in my job where the human dignity of the workers is insignificant next to a $1 outrage on the part of a customer.
You just described the principle modus operandi of corporate power dynamics. A large corporation controls such a large social body, and serves an even larger one, such that individuals within it have no real bargaining power. The corporation may therefore extort quite extensively, in much the same way as you accuse unions of. The corporation may also employ the power of social aggregation, with which the individual of which you speak must compete. Since when was a CEO or stockholders “gains earned through individual hard work and dedication?” Theirs are the benefits of social aggregation directed to the individual, not individual productivity, and they relish the fact. It’s the basis of enormous individual wealth and the basis of aristocracy-by-ownership.
Absolutely not. That’s a concept which the capitalists in our system are the most frequent to promote. The practitioners of this system of economy have sold our country’s social soul to obsessive individualism–to the idea that, regardless of the impact of socially-constructed circumstances, the individual may and must be personally responsible, and that any failure in his life is a failure on his part. Respect, most deserved by the respectable, may be purchased by the disrespectful and unrespectable. So I’m not saying that people are only deserving of respect when they are in positions of the power; on the contrary, they are, and I’m abhorrent of their attempt to force ignorance of the dynamics which they insist on maintaining and by which they thrive.
Tell me, Richard: who started the class war? As our system becomes more exposed by new perspectives, the lauded “individidual” is starting to realize that it’s not “individuals” who are sacrosanct in the free market–but certain individuals. A social change is necessary at this point, in order to truly value individuality, within its stronger (and more accurate) social context. The “class warfare” originates in two things: first, in the fact that class can be created by unnatural (or, simply, undesirable) consolidation of resources under a single (or relatively few) power, and then perpetuate itself despite the worthiness of others who haven’t equal opportunity to earn respect; and second, in the attempt by the upper-class to perpetuate itself against the benefit of society and to employ its power against the will of the powerless, regardless of new social knowledge–in short, in the upper class’s tendency to manipulate perspective and circumstance to perpetuate itself, largely by creating the perception that class warfare was started by the victims of class dynamics (the working poor), not the class aggressors (the aristocratic affluent).
Wow, that’s a pretty good list of straw-men. Of course I don’t believe any of the above should be done. But you have to recognize a few things that your list reveals. First, you imply that job performance and dedication are key to being “in charge.” In reality, there’s a barrier that exists between the baggers and the managers, through which no job performance can break. I could become a manager through other means, but not through the opportunities to excel that are provided. Second, I want to counter your final question with another: Can you personally imagine a world where everyone was a bagger but knew that hard work would be rewarded, and that hard work carried the full potential of inter-class achievement? That’s not a reality that the upper class wants to exist.
As for what I think should happen: I believe that management is a role that some people take for the purpose of efficiency, and that laborer is a role that others take for the purpose of productivity. Customer is another role in the mix. Each of these roles can’t exist purposefully without the others–except for laborer. Even in vast inefficiency, laborers are the base. Without supply, demand can’t exist, but when those who demand become laborers in order to provide their own supply. As valuable as management is, it’s purposeless without labor.
What I want is a reevaluation of the system. John Kenneth Galbraith intimated (and I agree) that those who have the most repetitive jobs with the least chance for advancement should be paid the least, for they have no social rewards for their labor but their paycheck. They have no power, and in a system where money is earned and respect is purchased, they have no respect, either.
Your questions in this section of your response are rhetorical; I’m not meant to answer questions that are clearly geared towards the verification of your position, but to be silent in the face of their self-evidentialism. I’m not so inclined. Rather, I believe in the guarantee that productivity will be an option, with the guarantee that fair renumeration and a fair standard of living will result. I don’t believe that janitors are equal with doctors; but I do recognize that they aren’t dirt–that, without them, doctors would be helpless in the face of a country riddled with the diseases of poor sanitation.
As for a specific change: I believe that when a company pays its CEO $600,000 plus more than double that in bonuses, there must have been some pretty sweet dividends for the average shareholder, and that money of that kind can be spread more evenly. We–the baggers, cashiers, stockers, butchers, and bakers–are the ones producing that income. Are we rewarded for the labor we do to match the demand produced by a successful advertising campaign? No. For us, job security–a shiftless status quo–is what we lose if we don’t perform well. For others, the status quo is and must remain obsessive growth. Where is our duly-earned piece of the pie, Richard? Am I engaging in class warfare or demanding impractical class equality by requesting that I earn accordingly as I labor? Why is it that the supposed violators of the inegalitarian system in which we live are always the worst off? You know as well as I that this system doesn’t reward hard work nearly so much as windfalls and class nepotism. Accusing the poor of class warfare is like accusing Israel under the Roman Empire of being uppity.
It’s a good thing you guessed, and it’s a good thing you equivocated, because that statement is true only to a point. I don’t believe that baggers should be paid as well as doctors. I do have a novel approach, though: why not have baggers, janitors, etc. pay for their schooling with such jobs. Let all students in college work 15 hours a week in order to pay for their tuition and housing until they graduate. The need for those workers will be met, while allowing people to seek a better career. For those who don’t wish to go the college route, other options can be made available. Regardless, advancement must be a possibility in any job.
Because of the reality that bagging is (and should remain) primarily a job for teenagers and the disabled, you could consider that a “class” in our society. It just isn’t right to say that “various classes” were created by people’s desire to excel beyond them. “Various classes” emerge in their variety, exceptionalism, and extremism because of far more than people’s motivation. There are many with the desire to excel, but not the opportunity. Besides, the real issue here, to me, is that even baggers deserve a raise once in a while. Even baggers deserve to be more than a machine working for a machine (”and when a cog’s not properly greased, get that machine in line again, or else!”). We’re working with humans, for humans. No person should be a means to a financial end, for human beings are an end unto themselves, and they will satisfy those other, lesser, but necessary ends if treated as such. It’s the desire to squeeze blood from a stone that makes those necessary, lesser ends a tool for the exploitation of the greater ends (humans).
How about the desire to be your best–not to be better than others, but to beat your fiercest competitor–yourself. Isn’t that a “powerful energy,” and a more worthy goal? It doesn’t submit itself to measurements–”I’m good enough because I’m better than others”–and only to abuse when acquisition is the measure of self-woth–”I’m good enough because I have a lot.” This desire allows you to rest when you need, but not to be satisfied because you’ve achieved enough. It’s a burning yearning to be more than you are, a goal which may never fully be realized, but which is rewarding, nonetheless, and constantly.
I do despise this system. I despise the idea that individual freedom, without regard for social context, can result in social institutions of effective slavery. I despise that you, if you have the power, may exercise your individual freedom to the detriment of mine. Government shouldn’t take over this system to fix it; but it must keep those who benefit most from it from doing to us the very things we fear from a totalitarian government. Have you ever been strangled by your economic environment, Richard? If not, realize that others have, and without need to be. If you have, then remember it, and remember it well. There are lessons there, especially when you realize that some people are persistently and permanently strangled by their environment, even if its because they have been condemned to ignorance regarding the way to escape.
Finally, what of the desire to benefit society? To see the best in all people empowered and realized? What keeps me going to work most is the people who work there. I’ve stayed with bad jobs before–a poor financial decision, but a good human one–because I could have a positive impact on the people there. Because there were illegal or semi-legal immigrants there who needed a connection with the society that enveloped them, and I could be that connection. I learned a lot from working with such people and observing the circumstances of their lives, and I learned a lot from watching my father and mother go deeper and deeper into debt for the sake of their children, even while working harder than almost anyone I’ve ever seen (for years, my father sought a PhD, but had to put it on hold over and over again because of money woes. He encouraged my mother to go to college even though she doubted she was smart enough to graduate, and she graduated Magna cum Laude. He purchased a computer and a full encyclopedia set despite our lack of funds for such things, and encouraged us to learn. He spent every day of my youth working to keep our house and cars in order, at various jobs, working on a textbook he was writing for the college classes he taught, and working on a website he manages). My father and mother exemplified the spirit of self-improvement, hard work, and care of family, yet I grew up in relative poverty. This system which you laud only rewards certain types of these valuable traits, and its not you and I nor virtue which determines which types those are. It’s the wealthy, and the consumers who they hold in the palm of their hands, and they laud only those traits which service their needs and the perpetuation of their precious class system. A few slip through the cracks, to be sure–but we shouldn’t have to rely on cracks alone to assert our excellence.
At that time, if that time arrives, I expect that I will live in shame if I own a company or operate on a principle which requires me to behave in the ways this economic model considers to be “competitive.” I believe that any finances are partially the business of the employees. They are a part of the productive process without which my role’s powers would be inert, and as such, they deserve to be a part of the spending process. This doesn’t mean everything would be done democratically, by vote. But the employees would be a part of the decision-making process, at the discussion level, and they would be able to view the outlays of the company in specific, including my salary/profit as owner.
Indeed. Another financial decision. We have a lot of customers who require assistance to their cars, and a lot of others who expect it. Many customers have openly stated that the fact that we offer store-to-car assistance is a unique draw to shop at our store. It’s a commercial benefit. I see no reason to assume that we’ll be kept because we’re valued as human beings when our position no longer brings in more money than it costs to keep it. Just consider it an advertising cost.
On a side note:
Some people would think it inconsistent that I believe that huge corporations can’t care about their employees but huge governments can care about their citizens. I don’t believe it is, because the two exist for different reasons, and maintain social bodies for different purposes. A government approaches its citizenry with a desire to assist, secure, and maintain the body. A corporation assists, secures, and maintains the employees with a desire to reap a greater reward. If it costs a government too much, it can reevaluate, but it can never discard the populace. If it costs a business too much, say goodbye to your job. They simply are different beasts, and the basic operations of corporations (massive ones, in particular) require them to be the most vile beasts; the only time they’re not is when its convenient.
Oh, I’ve recognized that that’s what I am, as I’ve stated above. But I’m sorry, I don’t value that, because I’m also a human being. How can I value the needs of the company I work for if they don’t value my needs, even while they benefit so much from the advertising I provide? Basic principle in employment: never employ anyone for more money than they can provide. You have to squeeze more out of them than they squeeze out of you. I know what I am to them. Their smiles and their compliments of my work won’t save my job if it means the stockholders lose too much. I’m a person when it’s convenient; a liability when it’s not.
As for the raise, a business doesn’t (or shouldn’t) exist solely for itself. We people who work for it need as equally as it does, if not more. I need more hours, I need a raise–and, I believe, I deserve one. You try bagging and being nice to people for 2 years straight even while many of them take your kindness for granted, others demand it like you owe them something, and your company denies you the chance to get insurance even while they demand full-time hours from you (where I work, you have to have full-time status, not just work full-time, in order to get insurance. I worked full-time for 5 months straight without getting the status). Simply put: I object to being a tool for the enrichment of someone who does less work than I do. I refuse to value having my labor abused simply because my coworkers are other poor people who rely on being abused for paying their rent as well. I’m arguing for the improvement of all workers, not just myself, and it’s this system which created the dependence of “the many families. . .at [my] company.” They can be dependent without their dependency being exploited.
If we were all in the same boat, I could be patient. If the CEO and shareholders held off on dividends, I could understand. But when they tell us explicitly that, due to the recession, they can’t give anyone a raise (which are supposedly mandatory after certain employment periods, but rarely actually are) and then they go out and purchase a bunch of stores, I rightly feel manipulated.
As for addressing my employer: this article was written to analyze a principle of corporate human management, not to simply complain. Psychological applications of labeling theory are the new corporate cattle-prod. I want people to be aware of the coercive techniques being employed by the various controllers in our economy/culture. It’s just one more piece of the corporate machine under which we live.
On a personal note:
Thank you for your compliments and your thoughtful comments. I appreciate the optimism, and I must admit that I believe the vast majority of my managers with whom I have contact actually do respect my position, and would go out of their way to keep me on board in times of financial difficulty. It’s not the small corporations, the small franchises, and so on that bother me; it’s the overall concept of ownership that permeates our society and, inevitably, influences those small businesses. And, most of all, it’s the huge businesses, crafted, conglomerated, and manipulated for the sole purpose of enriching the owners and servicing our system of investments and capitalist entitlements. It’s a perversion, and I want to expose it, so that the good managers and owners can have a competitive shot–so that the consumer can stop ignorantly colluding with abuse.
Thanks for your contribution to my thread. I’ve enjoyed your insights, and hope that more are forthcoming, here and elsewhere.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#20 by Richard Warnick on March 11, 2010 - 1:13 pm
Michael Moore’s movie about capitalism is out on DVD now. Well worth seeing. He points out the truth, which is that capitalism is utterly antithetical to both democracy and Christianity.
#21 by brewski on March 11, 2010 - 1:38 pm
I’m still trying to figure out this word “capitalism”.
Do you mean that you should not be free to sell your labor to the employer of your choice? You should not be able to own a home? That farmers should not own the crops that they grow and sell them for whatever a buyer is willing to pay?
If not, then what did you have in mind to replace it? You would be assigned to a job by the local soviet and your labor is all donated for the collective good? You could not save your own money and keep it to spend the way that you like?
Are we going to expropriate Cliff’s business for the greater good?
Outside of the Soviet/Russian guy who was in my dorms in college, I have never met anyone who really believed in any of that stuff. If you don’t actually believe that you shouldn’t be allowed to sell your own labor, own your own home, sell your own crops….then what are you waffling on about then? All you’re left with is cocktail-party leftism with no alternative to private property.
My take on Michael Moore’s movie is that it was more an indictment of the corruption of the Democratic leaders than anything. It certainly didn’t make Dodd or Rubin look very good. But what they did isn’t “capitalism” that is cronyism. So if you want to re-state that what you mean is that cronyism and political favoritism for personal enrichment is bad, then I am with you. But blanket statements about capitalism with no alternative is a cheap excuse for commentary.
#22 by Richard Warnick on March 11, 2010 - 2:21 pm
I don’t think anybody is saying “replace capitalism with something completely different.” It’s reductio ad absurdum to say we can’t criticize the behavior of corporations, politicians or anything else unless we’re prepared to embrace Karl Marx.
Michael Moore made the point that deregulation of Wall Street and the mortgage industry led to the Great Recession that we’re now at the bottom of. Last night on Rachel Maddow’s show he made the case that neither political party is doing a good job of working on re-regulation, which means another collapse is inevitable.
Either we fix the problem, or capitalism self-destructs along with the financial sector. It’s that simple.
#23 by brewski on March 11, 2010 - 5:02 pm
Richard,
You are wildly changing your story. First you say:
Then you say:
And then hedge both sides by saying:
Your first statement declares unambiguosuly that capitalism, itself, is wrong.
Then your second sentence says “well, nothing is any better”.
An your third sentence is basically saying that you are not criticizing capitalism at all, but you are just criticizing the behavior of some people. That is a pretty big retraction.
Indeed, that bad behavior by some has more to do with government power and corruption (you know, the people you want to give more power to) and nothing to do with capitalism.
I have provided before a monetary history of the last 15 years and explained how it was the FOMC’s poor actions which caused the twin bubbles and the twin crashes, and not deregulation which caused them. If there had been deregulation and there had been no FOMC-caused twin bubbles then, by definition, there couldn’t have been the crashes. So logically pinning it on deregulation does not make sense.
Yes, we can fix the problem, but giving more power to those same people you have identified as behaving badly doesn’t seem to make much sense. I am not worried about capitalism self destructing. I am a lot more worried about our government self destructing. Watching the process of this health insurance non-reform bill being written is like watching a slow mass suicide. You know it isn’t going to end well, but the players can’t seem to stop themselves.
#24 by Richard Warnick on March 11, 2010 - 9:45 pm
brewski–
Did I say capitalism is wrong? I don’t think so. I said it’s utterly antithetical to both democracy and Christianity. Which is true, and you didn’t even try to refute that.
Did I say there’s nothing better? Nope.
Did I say I wasn’t criticizing capitalism? Not hardly. Obviously I was criticizing capitalism.
We need re-regulation of Wall Street. Those regulations must be enforced. We have to have an independent consumer financial protection agency. We must reverse the trend toward more and more income inequality.
I have lived in countries where the population is irrevocably divided into the very rich and the desperately poor. I don’t want my country to end up like that.
One thing that can easily be achieved in Congress is to provide every American with access to a public health insurance option, or at the very least provide it to those who are in the individual market. If the Dems can’t do that, then they can’t do anything we want.
#25 by brewski on March 12, 2010 - 10:43 am
Ok, so “capitalism”, whatever you mean by that, is the best system there is?
You were criticizing behavior by some, which is not the same thing as criticizing capitalism.
You have’t told us how reverse the trend of income inequality without making the pie smaller.
Your country will look like that as long as your party continues to let most of the third world move here.
#26 by james farmer on March 12, 2010 - 11:14 am
brew:
Did you forget your meds today?
Regardless, I think it fair to say that pure capitalism is destined to fail, just as is pure socialism. There has to be a mix for a successful, continuing economy. You just don’t like the boundary of that mix as proposed by Obama. Too bad, because a lot of other folks do!
#27 by cav on March 12, 2010 - 12:07 pm
The pie, whatever its size must be made of something other than pure unadulterated shit.
I’m rooting for the dems, if only to add a little flavor to the horrific mix – if not to rewrite the recipe altogether.
#28 by brewski on March 12, 2010 - 12:12 pm
What I don’t like is the intellectual weakness and unexplained and unsubstantiated statements like “capitalism is utterly antithetical to both democracy and Christianity”. Which is then followed up by statements which say that there is no better system, and then that he is criticizing the behavior of some (although then he denied this).
These statements about “capitalism” are only true if you have a deep, dark, sinister, twisted view of capitalism, which is really not capitalism at all but rather is cronyism, fraud, kleptocracies, political favoritism, etc. There is nothing contradictory between capitalism and Christianity and democracy.
#29 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on March 12, 2010 - 2:27 pm
Brewski–
Quite honestly, you tempt me to moderate you. I won’t have trolls. No one but you ever said that “there is no better system” than capitalism, and your continuing insistence that Richard did is hardly constructive to the discussion. You want to whine about a position you created in your head and then attributed to us, go to the 9/12 Project.
Cronyism, fraud, kleptocracies, and political favoritism are part and parcel to capitalism. They are produced likewise by many other systems–by various degrees of socialism, capitalism, democracy, monarchy, etc. It just remains true that capitalism, like many systems, possesses a mechanism for the perpetuation of class regardless of merit.
Capitalism has been a good thing. I’m grateful that we have a capitalist democracy in this country instead of a capitalist monarchy, or a statist monarchy, or any other system of the past (or Russian communism, for that matter). But must I appreciate the benefits of gasoline so much that I never seek a better way? You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t accept that the system is good for most to mean that it’s the best that ever was or could be.
You may not believe that it is, either, but you argue as if you do. Rather than prodding the discussion forward, you want to backtrack and linger on tidbit inconsistencies, post after post after post. Those inconsistencies are superfluous, and disappear in time as the discussion evolves. Try to move forward, not back.
The sad fact of capitalism is that is becomes “deep, dark, sinister, [and] twisted” over time (like all systems, perhaps, and most particularly those for which chaos is a primary operating principle). If we were dealing with a reset of the system between generations (and if generational shifts were that chronologically clean) then capitalism would be the ideal, most honest form of meritocracy. But that isn’t how it works. Resources may still be consolidated such that the uninitiated are forced to remain uninitiated–the class system is created at first meritocratically, then maintained and bolstered plutocratically.
Furthermore, the benefits of capitalism may yet be maintained in other systems; as a matter of fact, other economic/social/political models may include capitalism, or even emphasize it without fully expressing it. How many social democracies of Europe outlaw private ownership? Or free enterprise? Or any of a dozen other sacrosanct principles of capitalism? You’ve created a dichotomy around which your argument revolves (capitalism vs. socialism), but there is so much more beyond.
FYI, my “JAT” posts are just a thought–they’re a beginning, a phrase or idea that I had from which more may be developed. As such, I’m as aware as you are of the imperfection of my wording. I didn’t refine the idea before I put it out there; I thought of it and shared it, with the intent to provoke thought amongst others. Apparently, putting an unrefined argument before you prompted you to cogitate. I’ll consider this post a success, then. Thanks for contributing and sharing your own unrefined thoughts.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#30 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on March 12, 2010 - 2:32 pm
James–
I like to look at it as not a “mix,” nor as a point between two extremes, but as the next stage in a process of growth. I don’t think we’ll ever get to the point where “pure socialism” is possible, nor do I think we could ever stomach “pure capitalism.” Each neglects some of the needs of either the individual or the society. Capitalism is another stop on a long road to who knows where, and I think that once we move past it and towards the next stop, we’ll find that there’s another stop beyond that, on and on into the future.
–Dwight
#31 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2010 - 3:40 pm
brewski–
The apologists for the USSR 40 years ago used to say that it was unfair to blame communism for the Soviet Union’s corruption and economic woes because the system they had wasn’t actually communism — “pure” communism was an ideal not yet reality, they said.
Critics had a deep, dark, sinister, twisted view of communism based on what the government in Moscow was doing. It was so unfair. We ought to judge the communist system based on the “pure” version, that never existed in the real world.
Sound familiar?
#32 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2010 - 3:57 pm
Capitalism vs. Christianity (short version)
For most of its 2,000 year history, Christianity not only frowned on capitalism, but banned it outright.
Who said “Greed is good”? ANSWER
Who said “Go, sell what you have and give to the poor”? ANSWER
#33 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2010 - 4:13 pm
Capitalism vs. Democracy (short version)
China has no democratic institutions. It is the most dynamic capitalist nation in the world, according to Robert Reich.
Who said “America is not a mere body of traders; it is a body of free men. Our greatness is built upon our freedom — is moral, not material. We have a great ardor for gain; but we have a deep passion for the rights of man.” ANSWER
Who said “Capitalism is …a better form of organizing human activity than any deliberate design, any attempt to organize it to satisfy particular preferences, to aim at what people regard as beautiful or pleasant order..” ANSWER
#34 by brewski on March 12, 2010 - 4:24 pm
Capitalism depends on property rights, the rule of law, transparent rules regarding trade and intellectual property, freedom of movement, lack of interference by the government in business, etc etc etc.
NONE OF THIS EXISTS IN CHINA.
China is the farthest thing from capitalism you could possibly define. You are so far off and using such twisted definitions of words that we are talking about two different things.
You are not describing capitalism. You are defining cronyism, oligarchic mercantilsm, kleptocracy, etc. Not capitalism.
You might as well come to the conclusion that universal healthcare and democracy are antithetical and as proof point out that Cuba has universal healthcare and is a dictatorship which jails peaceful dissidents.
This is what I am talking about when I laugh at the intellectual weakness of the left.
#35 by cav on March 12, 2010 - 7:17 pm
In much the same way that Richard reflects on the ‘purity’ of the commie system, any reflection of a capitalist system, that strips the cronyism, oligarchic mercantilsm, kleptocracy, etc, given human nature, is no better informed. Capitalism, like communism is certainly of stuck far from some supposed ideal.
………………………………………………………………
So, while it’s true, that right and left brain activities serve different different functions – forgive the metaphoric – such difference have evolved for good reason. I really do not suppose either side of the brain holds those differences against the other. In politics, it’s something else altogether – from either perspective, it’s they’re evil-evil-evil vs we’re blessed-blessed-blessed. Now, we all know how realistic that is. Not very.
Many on the left laugh at the cluelessness of those on the right, siting a presumed limitation of intellect – which naturally keeps them from recognizing anything outside a narrow spectrum.
A sparrow’s perspective can, in only the smallest ways, be compared to that of the eagle’s. (Or the turkey buzzard, for that matter). Not a put-down of the sparrow, mind you.
But they say: Laughter is some good medicine.
#36 by brewski on March 12, 2010 - 11:02 pm
Cronyism, oligarchic mercantilsm, kleptocracy, etc. exist in all forms of economic systems. They are not unique to capitalism. They existed in the old USSR, today in North Korea, etc. But Richard’s comment was not directed at cronyism, oligarchic mercantilsm, kleptocracy, etc. It was only directed at capitalism. That is why he is so blindly intellectually weak.
#37 by cav on March 13, 2010 - 8:52 am
A little reflection on our system from Joe Bageant:
Despite the advice of stock brokers everywhere to think long term, be patient and hold on, the game goes to the swift. Consequently, milliions of American retirees are still playing bluff poker on eTrade long after the big dogs behind the casino mirrors, the people who can really count cards (because they marked and dealt them), have moved their stakes offshore. As far back as 2000, the big bucks were on the move, away from the fray and sucking more money in their backdraft.
Some people understood at the time that it was a banker rigged game from top to bottom, one that included an elite cadre of players ranging from Wall Street to the Fed, the IMF and the World Bank. Most saw only a few aspects of the global financial growth-bot. But they saw them clearly enough to raise holy hell about it. And were clubbed down in places like Seattle and Miami. When it comes to truth vs. the elite’s muscle, there is no contest. In a show of elite muscle, some 3,500 cops were summoned to silence the 2001 Washington D.C. truth tellers. That is one cop for every three protestors at the Anti-capitalist Convergence. Total cost of policing, steel fence and concrete barriers and precautions came to $30 million–or $37,500 per protestor. I had many friends at that protest, and I cannot think of one who would not have stayed home for half that amount.
And,
The petty right and the bumbling left find themselves unexpectedly meeting one another these days, as they navigate the craters of our bombed out economic landscape. Were it not for the ideological war in progress (it’s not a cultural war, no matter what the university pundits say, it’s a capitalist state sponsored ideological war), they would probably form a powerful combined populist movement that would scare Washington right out of its silk shorts. Naturally, political strategists on both sides do everything possible to keep the rank and file from discovering the growing overlap of liberal and conservative thinking (or in some cases, nonthinking).
http://www.counterpunch.org/bageant03122010.html
#38 by Richard Warnick on March 13, 2010 - 9:37 am
brewski–
You’re at least partly right about China. They haven’t got adequate financial regulations, transparency etc. Probably those will be instituted down the road because a capitalist system isn’t sustainable without them.
Bush’s Great Recession came about from… lack of financial regulation, no transparency, etc. I thought this was a lesson Americans learned during the 1930s.
And thanks for standing up in favor of government regulation.
#39 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on March 13, 2010 - 11:40 am
Really, what I think we’ll all agree on is that our system at present is insufficient; and that a blind, total transition to socialism would be undesirable and impractical, if not impossible.
Property rights, transparent trade rules, a lack of loopholes–in short, all of the positive elements of capitalism that you point out, Brewski, are fairly universally desired. I’ve only rarely met people who were so inexperienced or blindly idealistic that they actually believed that a statist model of community ownership would be a positive thing. The idea that the state would magically be more virtuous than corporations is idiotic.
The other things you describe-kleptocracy, cronyism, etc.–are fairly universally undesired. No one but the beneficiaries of those features of government actually want to perpetuate them.
What needs to be done, IMHO, is to step away from this “capitalism vs. communism” nonsense. I’ve heard so many people make the pro-capitalist side of that argument who’ve never really thought about chattel slavery, outsourcing, or what life would be like in the laissez-faire variety of the system they propose. Likewise, I’ve heard the pro-communist side which never takes into account that even if Russian communism wasn’t really communism, it was derived from Marxist ideals. Government can be as corrupt without corporations as with, and, in some circumstances, more.
As Cav points out via Joe Bageant, our system is set up in such a way that the powerful perpetuate their own position. Perhaps this is because capitalism rewards the swift, the crafty, and the devious; and, the larger the population, the greater the buffer zone is between being dishonest and being discovered to the point of financial loss (at least for the large corporations).
I was discussing with a friend last night the way that Utah continuously employs construction workers. Construction work is a huge employer in Utah, and it occurred to me some time ago that the legislature wouldn’t want to just let some thousands of people lose their jobs just because we didn’t need any roads at the time. So my friend and I discussed alternatives to constant construction, wherein those people wouldn’t be working constantly to the taxpayers’ loss, nor would they be forced to find a new job in mass numbers, and then the contracting companies try to find workers when work is needed again (this is an area where a persistently moderate unemployment rate is actually a boon to companies, but a scourge to society).
For all of our solutions, the biggest problem was that the companies wouldn’t go along with it. We talked about deferred payment schedules, alternative business models, multi-profession training, but none of them would work because the best business model is the one that constantly brings in the greatest amount of profit possible, and those companies which are socially responsible end up getting beaten out in the market by those which aren’t.
This is the “capitalism” that I’m talking about–the system that gives so much bartering power to corporations that they can hold a gun to the people’s and the government’s heads, and tell them “For every point we lose, you lose two.” I don’t have a problem with small businesses–I actually love the idea of our system being operated almost exclusively by small businesses, but that isn’t our reality. As surely as a successful, individual practitioner of the capitalist model can choose to consolidate power in themselves, their company, and their family to the point of creating aristocracy, so can a massive corporation become the ruling entity of an economic fiefdom–except our government isn’t brutal enough to keep that fiefdom under control. Rather, the brutality of the fiefdom’s rulers tends to control the government. The duke is threatening to harm his own people if the king doesn’t bow to his commands, but the king doesn’t have the will to simply take on the management of those people, himself. As long as the king has a heart and no balls, the duke will rule.
To use a final metaphor: I see capitalism as a volcano. The land around a volcanic eruption, in time, becomes quite lush. Plants grow extremely well in the clean, high-nutrient environment. Capitalism, likewise, can reset an economic environment and allow all participants to pursue success off their own initiative and talent, and to thrive. But what happens if the volcano keeps erupting, forever and ever? Nothing grows. After that first mechanism by which reset occurs, capitalism changes to another mechanism–that of perpetuation. There’s still variability, sure, but the perpetuation of the already-powerful is a constant.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#40 by brewski on March 13, 2010 - 4:55 pm
Richard,
You have a tough time with the meaning of words in English. Let me explain. Capitalism does not equal greed, fraud and theft. Capitalism also does not equal anarchy. You mix and match terms and meaning mid-sentence and mid-argument without using the correct terms for what you mean and without telling the reader you switched definitions.
I have never heard any capitalist take the position that we don’t need laws, courts and goverment to enforce property rights, contracts, etc. But you take this as some rhetorical victory that therefore more regulations must be good things. Then you equate more regulations with government intervention into markets. Then when government intervention screws up markets you come to the conclusion that we need more regulations and then claim that capitalists claim that we don’t need government at all. None of this is true, none of it makes sense, and none of it uses terms correctly.
#41 by Richard Warnick on March 13, 2010 - 5:15 pm
brewski–
You’re arguing with things I never said. Again.
True capitalists don’t like democracy. However that does not mean they are all in favor of anarchy (except for the anarcho-capitalists, but let’s not go there).
In my “capitalism vs. democracy” comment above, I picked Friedrich Hayek as a spokesman for capitalism. In Law, Legislation and Liberty: The Political Order of a Free People (1979) he wrote:
Hayek hated democracy because he thought the wealthiest had a right to control all the important societal decisions, even though they very seldom find themselves in the majority.
Be grateful I don’t start quoting Ayn Rand!
#42 by brewski on March 13, 2010 - 10:51 pm
You should have quoted Milton Friedman the title of whose book “Capitalism and Freedom” says it all.
In it, Friedman promotes economic freedom as both a necessary freedom in itself and also as a vital means for political freedom. He argues that, with the means for production under the auspices of the government, it is nearly impossible for real dissent and exchange of ideas to exist.
#43 by Richard Warnick on March 14, 2010 - 9:43 am
brewski–
When I was young and impressionable, I was a fan of Milton Friedman. But he did not actually believe in democracy either. Read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. For example, Friedman supported the 1973 Chilean coup d’état that overthrew democratic government in favor of the Pinochet dictatorship.
#44 by brewski on March 14, 2010 - 9:00 pm
So we should believe Naomi Klein’s assessment of what Milto Friedman believes? What next, believe Karl Rove’s assessment of what Obama believes?
I find it funny that leftists get all hot and bothered by the military coup in Chile which overthrew the Allende government. I have yet to hear any leftist get all hot and bothered by the unconstitutional and illegal acts of Allende. Again, more examples of selective indignation.
By the way, as awful as the Pinochet period was, where is Chile today compared to any other country in Soutn America? Who has a higher standard of living, who has more individual freedom, who has a more stable democracy…Chile or Venzuela?
I think Friedman wins this emperical contest in a landslide.
The point is that for you to declare one Austrian economist to be the spokesperson for democracy is ridiculous on the face of it. His opinions on social theory are just that. They are his opinions on social theory. It is not a description of capitalism.
I suppose under your logic we can declare that opera is definitionally anti-Semetic since you can declare Wagner to the spokesperson for all opera composers and he was anti-Semetic, therefore operas are anti-Semetic.
Your logic.
#45 by Richard Warnick on March 15, 2010 - 6:39 am
brewski–
Chile is just one example. They suffered long-term massive unemployment and poverty brought about by Fredman’s economic prescriptions. What saved the Chilean economy from going under completely was Pinochet’s refusal to privatize the copper mines.
Milton Friedman’s “disaster capitalism” was repeated in many other countries in South America, Europe, Asia, and Africa. The result was always a reverse Robin Hood transfer of wealth from working class people to the wealthy– often wealthy foreigners.
Friedman and his disciples knew this was not possible under normal circumstances in a democracy, so they engineered crises and emergency measures to circumvent the popular will.
It’s true Hayek was an Austrian. Ayn Rand was born and educated in Russia. I don’t doubt their anti-democratic ideas had something to do with their background. Milton Friedman adopted those ideas. When he talked about “freedom” he meant bargain-basement privatization of publicly-owned assets, and fewer restraints on capital.
#46 by cav on March 15, 2010 - 7:02 am
And that’s not even counting the tortured and dead. But that, apparently is a feature, not a bug.
#47 by Richard Warnick on March 15, 2010 - 8:16 am
Friedman and the Chicago School economists took care to distance themselves from human rights violations. And in a lot of cases, it was possible to suspend democracy, privatize and deregulate without resorting to such extreme measures.
#48 by brewski on March 15, 2010 - 8:54 am
According to Freedom House, Chile earns a “1″ for both Political Rights and Civil Liberties.
Venzuela earns a “5″ and “4″ respectively.
http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fiw10/FIW_2010_Tables_and_Graphs.pdf
Chile also has a higher GDP/capita than Venezuela, even though Venezuela sits on vast oil resources.
So to me the data would suggest that the left supports less human rights and lower per capita income.
#49 by Richard Warnick on March 15, 2010 - 9:14 am
Chile has largely recovered from the Pinochet fiasco (just in time for a new disaster). That doesn’t make it right. It’s like saying that if Iraq makes a comeback in the future, it justifies the 2003 invasion.
I never said anything about Venezuela. I never said you can’t have both capitalism and democracy. I said capitalism is antithetical to democracy. That’s so obvious that I don’t know why you bother disputing it.
#50 by cav on March 15, 2010 - 9:16 am
Richard, are you saying the CIA, throughout all their scenario setting and hit-men, kept the Chi scholars completely out of the loop, that the Chi scholars were unaffected by the subsequent dissaffection of the proponents of democracy and military mayhem – and were thus able to exercise a purely idealistic application of their particular dogma?
Unreasonable.
brewski, what’s is there to say?
#51 by Richard Warnick on March 15, 2010 - 10:32 am
cav–
I don’t know everything the CIA did– who does? But Milton Friedman didn’t want to be accused of having blood on his hands, that much is clear from Klein’s book.
#52 by brewski on March 15, 2010 - 11:03 am
What is there to say is that Chile is a thriving democratic market economy based on anyone’s measures.
The nearby quasi-socialist countries, by contrast are not democracies by anyone’s measures.
I know you guys have a problem with evidence, but how much more do you need?
#53 by Richard Warnick on March 21, 2010 - 9:39 am
On his own blog, Richard Okelberry tries and fails to refute the really obvious contention that capitalism is antithetical to both Christianity and democracy.
I mean, really…
That’s an absolute statement not subject to re-interpretation. Jesus didn’t say it was impossible for a rich man to go to heaven, but certainly the odds are against it. True Christianity puts wealth accumulation very low on the list of priorities. In all my years of Catholic religious instruction, I failed to come across any pro-capitalism teachings of Jesus Christ. R.O. can’t find any either.
What about democracy? R.O. starts off on the wrong foot by assuming without evidence that American democracy is based on religion. Not true.
And that’s as far as his discussion of democracy goes. He doesn’t even try to reconcile capitalism and democracy.
Here’s a test anyone can do. If you don’t like your boss at work, try to organize a democratic movement to vote him out of office and see how far you get.
#54 by brewski on March 21, 2010 - 4:14 pm
Richard,
Again you misunderstand and misuse terms. You are equating accumulating wealth and being a rich person with capitalism.
What the “eye of the needle” verse means, is that the responsibility and burden of those who have money is greater to take care of those who are poor. So yes, Christ is saying that if you have a lot of money, in order for you to get into heaven, you must do more to help others. I have no problem agreeing with that.
But that is not saying that capitalism, itself, is antithetical to Christianity. No where does Christ say that a shepherd cannot own his own sheep, that a fisherman does not own the fish that he catches and can sell them to willing buyers, that the weaver cannot own a loom and sell her cloth in the market.
The simple ownership of farms, livestock and the product of one’s own labor is, by definition, capitalism. No where does Christ imply that there is anything wrong or immoral at all about that. All he is saying is that the rich have a duty to help the poor.
#55 by Richard Warnick on March 21, 2010 - 4:55 pm
brewski–
If capital isn’t accumulated wealth, what the hell is it?
I don’t believe anybody ever saw a camel pass through the eye of a needle. Jesus said that would be more probable than a rich man entering the Kingdom of God.
Ever since, people like R.O. have been postulating really small camels and very large needles.
#56 by brewski on March 21, 2010 - 9:20 pm
I missed the verse where Christ said, “lay down your nets and donate them to the people’s collective, then the shop steward will direct you to fish when we tell you to fish, pay you what we think you should be paid, confiscate the product of your labor and not give you a vote on the matter”. Perhaps you can help me find it.
#57 by Richard Warnick on March 21, 2010 - 9:38 pm
brewski–
Have you ever heard of the Trappist monasteries? There’s one in Huntsville, Utah.
#58 by Richard Okelberry on March 21, 2010 - 11:37 pm
Brewski,
What you are experiencing here with Mr. Warnick is a rather typical stance taken by detractors of Christianity. Notice that Mr. Warnick tries to use the very same technique that I spoke about in my Essay. In fact by taking the biblical passage, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” out of context he has revealed his own intellectual dishonesty.
I would invite you to read my entire essay and compare it to his statement above. Here is an excerpt that makes the salient points regarding Capitalism, wealth and Christianity. It should also be noted that the Bible is loaded with very wealth faithful individuals that found favor with God without ever renouncing their wealth. Even the very tomb that Jesus was laid in following his execution was donated by a very wealthy man, Joseph of Arimathaea, who was later venerated (conferred sainthood) by the Lutherans, Catholics and Orthodox Churches.
The most important question here is; why is Mr. Warnick so OBSESSED with trying to deceive the readers here at One Utah regarding the Biblical teachings and Christianity as a whole? What would be his motivation?
For those interested in researching the historical influence of Protestant Churches on modern Democracy here is a good source to begin with.
“Woodberry, Robert Dudley.
Shah, Timothy S.
The Pioneering Protestants
Journal of Democracy – Volume 15, Number 2, April 2004, pp. 47-61
The Johns Hopkins University Press
According to cross-national research, Protestantism has significantly contributed to global democratization. While Protestantism does not inevitably cause democratization, it often generates social dynamics that favor it. Some of the most important of these are: 1) the rise of religious pluralism; 2) the development of democratic theory and practice; 3) the development of civil society; 4) the spread of mass education; 5) printing and the origins of a public sphere; 6) the reduction of corruption; and 7) economic development. The article explores how Protestant groups, including Protestant missionaries, have promoted these dynamics in the past. It also argues that contemporary Protestant movements—particularly Pentecostalism—are continuing to do so in the present, though with less dramatic results.” – Project Muse
Once again Mr. Warnick seems very ignorant of the issues at hand. Perhaps more research and less use of favored “Links” to support what appears to be a dogmatic agenda might result in a more productive conversation.
#59 by Bubba V. on March 22, 2010 - 9:16 am
The problem is the emperor has no clothes, as E.F. Schumacher pointed out about the so-called science of economics. So you have umpteen definitions of “capital” and “capitalism.” I bought a little saw and started pruning trees. So I bought a bigger saw. People called me to see if I would prune their trees. I go and give them a bid. They don’t like it, we do some dealing, i do the job, they pay me. By classical definitions, I invested the wages of my labor in a manufactured good used for production- a saw- which is by classical definition, “capital.” So now my lefty educator neighbor (who is on a respectable public wage) starts calling me a capitalist and laying guilt trips on me (really). I’m not sure what I’m doing is antithetical to Christianity or democracy, or how I’m exploiting the masses, but this is the problem with the whole left-right debate. No consistent definitions, a pretence of real intellectualism, a lot of straight emotionalism. (Incidentally, Adam Smith never called his proposal for a free enterprise economy “capitalism.” He was quite realistic about “capitalists,” felt they served a vital role in the economy, but warned against letting them rule the government- they set up special privileges for themselves.)
#60 by Richard Warnick on March 22, 2010 - 9:33 am
Thanks for a reasonable and rational comment, Bubba.
Of course, the USA is not a capitalist economy any more than the former USSR was communist. We have a mixed economy, trying to get huge government enterprises and socialist programs like Medicare to coexist peacefully with private corporations and Wall Street.
I believe Karl Marx coined the term “capitalism.”
#61 by Bubba V. on March 22, 2010 - 6:42 pm
Right back atcha, Richard. Again, it depends on who’d doing the definitions. Actually the use of the term “capitalism” predates Marx, Bastiat used it, but I don’t think he was the first. These guys weren’t even consistent with themselves all the time. For Marx, capital meant the wealth really belonging to the laborers that was kept from them by the business owner. That’s a whole different definition than Smith’s. By that definition I’m not a capitalist, I would guess, because I don’t employ anyone. (Unless labor I subcontract out occasionally is considered exploitation, which, I think if the subcontractor doesn’t like my offer, he can go out and do his own bidding.) On the other hand, as I’m a small businessman, Marx might call me a “petty capitalist,” and by his predictions, doomed to extinction. His attitude to people of my ilk wavered. The Marxists tried to appeal to us, yet their theory says we’re in the way of true progress towards the ideal communist state.
By Smith’s and other classical economists’ definition of capital, I’d likely fit the definition of a capitalist, because I own products of labor and use them for exchange and production.
What gets ridiculously confusing here is that the naked emperors teaching political economy in our schools don’t see the difference between the definitions. They also confuse the term “capitalist” as owner of capital (or business owner) with the term “capitalist” as one who believes in free enterprise. Actually, many businessmen don’t like true free enterprise, which means no special privileges, protections, subsidies. They only complain about government if it interfering with profits. Sorry, Michael Moore, an economy where corporations are subsidized to the tune of $1-3 trillion is not a free enterprise economy, or free market economy. It is, arguably, an aristocratic capitalist economy. Can you have a democratic capitalism? Well, I believe you can have democratic free enterprise. But you have to put back into the equation the things that Jefferson, Smith, the physiocrats, etc,. included- cheap, democratic distribution of land, and no special privileges for anyone- including corporations. Check out my letter on land at http://www.homegroundusa.net.
#62 by Richard Warnick on March 23, 2010 - 8:41 am
In his film, Moore called attention to the term “plutonomy.” I think that ought to have been the title.
#63 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on March 23, 2010 - 1:31 pm
Bubba–
Well said! I think you described capitalism pretty well. I think that this is an argument you could direct at everyone who supports the “free” market, not just at its detractors like Michael Moore:
The problem of definitions frequently stands in our way, such as the insistence of defining our aristocratic capitalism as “free market,” or the equivalent of natural aristocracy-democratic capitalism. We presently have what I like to call the Three Cs: Christianity, Capitalism, and Conservatism. The three are all definitively the same thing, in many people’s eyes–or at least blend perfectly. Altogether, they make up freedom the chief American ethic. Now, as long as we keep defining freedom as a combination of three enormous philosophical systems which, within themselves, have immense potential for variation, we’re going to run into this problem: no rules can be made that are oppositional to any of those variations without welcoming accusations of dictatorship and slavery.
My favorite definition of capitalism which retains its positive attributes is barter economics. I imagine a system in which everyone has something to sell, even if it’s just their labor, and they may barter on close-to-equal terms with everyone else. Such a system can never be, however, in our modern age of specialization and aristocracy. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that aristocracy won’t arise from such a system. As long as property may be gathered and ownership can be consolidated, aristocracy will be just around the corner.
I think that a capitalistic system, in order to work properly, requires an occasional reset; that is, the government has to step in and equalize the playing field again, by dissolving corporations and removing the old aristocracies, distributing property, and so on. Otherwise, aristocracy emerges and perpetuates itself indefinitely–if not in particular cases, at least systemically.
But a reset would be extremely difficult, considering our degree of specialization and our dependence on massive corporations. Breaking up the large corporations and empowering small businesses through a government networking system would probably help return us to a state of equal opportunity, access to resources and productivity, and equality of government privilege.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#64 by brewski on March 23, 2010 - 6:44 pm
The funniest quote in this whole thread is:
Translated, that means, I can’t support it, I can’t defend it, I can’t explain it, I can’t articulate it. But I FEEL it really strongly.
#65 by Bubba V. on March 24, 2010 - 12:58 am
Thanks for the thoughts, Dwight. As a petty capitalist who believes in free enterprise, I would say that simply setting up the free market or free enterprise system as it was originally envisioned would help. You could actually decrease the bureaucracy.
I don’t have a big problem with incorporation per se, it is the special privileges of corporations that causes most of the problems. This is what concerned Adam Smith, Jefferson, and Lincoln (something forgotten by both capitalists and socialists). Rather than grow bureaucracy and central planning, or leaving things as they are, you change the tax system and end the subsidies. Rather than tax corporations for their positive production (like we do now), we charge them a fee that is the FULL MARKET VALUE of their (socialised) limited liability and whatever other exclusive privileges they receive.
Both rightists and have forgotten the keystone of Adam Smith’s free enterprise system. You’ve got to end business subsidies and other exclusive business privileges, but you’ve also got to have a wide distribution of inexpensive land. Smith saw that in America and said it was the natural order of things. You can call that “democratic capitalism” if you want, it fits the definition in some ways, but it is based on democratic “landism.”
Now the leftists have resorted to forced redistribution, or in our country, just eliminating loan restrictions (which spurred speculation and inflated land prices until “pop”). But Smith proposed a tax on land values (”economic rent”), as did Thomas Paine, and American free enterprise economist Henry George. Tax off all the unearned speculative income from land, and you end the bubbles. Land value is the only thing that if you tax, it drives the price down. As Franklin said, what made America was cheap land.
And as George knew, the real problem (contrary to what the leftists say) wasn’t so much the capitalist as it was the landlord. We might add, not so much the real capitalist as the speculator in currency- which isn’t really capital, only the power to move it- by George’s definition. Thanks, bye.
#66 by Richard Warnick on March 24, 2010 - 8:31 am
brewski–
What it means is, a statement based on the entire history of capitalism and democracy needs no further argument. I also said, try and organize a democratic movement to replace your boss at work, and see how far you get.
#67 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on March 24, 2010 - 1:01 pm
Brewski–
Again, try to see Richard’s argument in terms of results. Capitalism’s results are antithetical to democracy, over the course of many stages of change.
–Dwight
#68 by Bubba V. on March 24, 2010 - 7:40 pm
Again it depends on who’s defining capitalism and what it means. If we can’t agree what capital or capitalism means. If you couple a free market in capital (meaning no special privileges to anyone, as well as no central bureaucratic planning) with a wide distribution of easily accessible, cheap land and information, call it free enterprise or petty, land-based capitalism, it is definitely compatible with democracy. Jefferson proposed this, but Americans chose to give corporations special privilege, and Americans chose not to end land speculation. This is not the inevitable result of private ownership of capital or free markets. It is the results of Americans choosing Hamilton’s system of special privileges for speculators and corporations. Both Madison and Jefferson saw what would come of letting stock jobbers into the halls of congress, but most Americans either wanted that option themselves or were complacent about it. If you are saying that free markets are inevitably antithetical to democracy, I will have to disagree with you, Dwight.
#69 by Bubba V. on March 24, 2010 - 7:58 pm
I can assure you that most of the little mom and pop shops (who would correctly by classical terminology label themselves capitalists) do not consider themselves the inherent enemies to either democracy or Christianity, and I would have to agree with them
#70 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on March 24, 2010 - 8:24 pm
Bubba–
Free markets over the course of many stages of change, result in consolidation of power in a minority, which may then express that power in various ways which are detrimental to the people. It is extremely naive to believe that huge disparities in wealth can exist without having an influence on government.
If, however, you are suggesting that capitalism includes the preservation of basic land rights even when those who have previously seized the land want to deny such land rights to those who haven’t, and legal restriction of corporate involvement in Congress (as well as restriction of funds received by individuals on the part of their corporations), than capitalism sounds like a good idea.
As I see it though, a basic tenet of capitalism is a lack of regulations on how people use the money and power they acquire through free enterprise. In addition, the “easily accessible, cheap land” will eventually run out, unless government gets involved in the business of land redistribution. Bottom line: affluence is a special privilege, and it is naive to perceive that a whole society would deny their opportunity to acquire that special privilege in favor of economic fairness. Even if most have integrity, all it takes is a few evil seeds to get the aristocratic ball rolling.
I have long heard people say that “Socialism can only work if the leaders are virtuous.” This is a fatalistic opposition, as they know that I will concur that the leadership cannot be relied upon to remain virtuous. Instead, I surprise them by saying “The same goes with capitalism.” A system with too much power for government will become corrupt with time. A system with too few rules will also become corrupt in time. Outside of a libertarian fantasy, capitalism does nothing to prevent very real abuses. I’m not saying that free markets are inevitably antithetical to democracy; I’m saying that free markets don’t remain free forever, and they then become antithetical to democracy.
Oh, and I love mom and pop shops. They are the best kinds of capitalists. They’re typically unassuming, quality places filled with employees and owners just trying to get along doing something they value. If every capitalist was like them, we’d have a great economic system. Unfortunately, not every capitalist is like them, and capitalism itself does nothing to prevent a Wal-Mart from driving a corner grocer out of business. So it’s not an intentional debauchery that I fear in capitalism–it’s an unintentional systemic tendency to reward intentional individual abuse.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#71 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on March 24, 2010 - 8:28 pm
Perhaps we should choose a different term to discuss. As I see it, the form of capitalism which you describe can only instantaneously exist–in the instant before human motivations enter the picture. If that’s “capitalism,” regardless of results, then perhaps we should discuss “plantation capitalism,” or “corporate capitalism,” or “democratic capitalism.” As it is, though, I think what I’ve described is a fair analysis of the fate of the primogenitive theoretical concept which most people think of when they say “capitalism.”
–Dwight
#72 by brewski on March 25, 2010 - 8:40 am
Way back in the day when daytime talk shows didn’t have people throwing chairs at each other and taking off their clothes, there was a show called Donahue. Now, I think Phil Donahue himself is an idiot, but that’s besides the point. He had a great show with great topics.
In one famous show he had Milton Friedman on who schooled Donahue on the moral superiority of market economies and democracy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p31-xQ2Rrz4
But one of my favorite Donahue’s was when he had a group of students from USC’s entrepreneurial business program on. The basic topic of that show was pretty tame. It was just highlighting the emergence of entrepreneurial business programs at universities at that time.
But then Phil asks these students out of the blue [I paraphrase from memory] “So what do you think about employee-owned companies? What do you think about that? Or is that too lefty for you?”
None of the students answered the question and it was basically dropped and they moved on.
But it is a great question. Employee-owned companies and or co/ops are the perfect example of capitalism. If a group of people want to voluntarily get together, pool their resources, start a company, risk their own capital, perform all their own labor and make the management decisions which need to be made among themselves, then this is capitalism at its purest. They key here is that it is voluntary and that each employee has his/her capital at risk and that decisions are made by a vote of an elected committee or shareholder/employees.
I agree that in some place we definitely have moved from the cottage industry capitalism, or mom and pop capitalism, to plantation capitalism. Utah is a pretty good example of this.
If you look at most of the ski resorts in Utah over the last 40 years they have changed a lot. The mountain resorts themselves were small businesses and the lodging and restaurants which served them were all also small businesses. They employed a small number of people for wait staff, housekeeping, etc. The pay was not high, but it was much higher in real terms 40 years ago than it is today.
Now those very same resorts, except Alta, have all gone large scale. The expanded their mountains, they have become part of real estate conglomerates (Powdr Corp, Intra West, Talisker, etc.), their lodging and dining facilities are much larger scale. And, in order to do all this they must have a much larger work force. The number of employees required to make all the beds at The St. Regis at Deer Valley and the Grand Summit at The Canyons and all the other mega condo buildings, is in the tens of thousands. Also, in order for the institutional investors who financed these mega resorts to make their profits, the wages for these same housekeeping jobs much be lower in real terms than they were 40 years ago.
So where do you get a huge number of employees to work for less? Ahhhh. The third world. That’s the answer. So now, all of these jobs are filled virtually entirely by legal (H2B) and illegal workers from all over the third world. And it isn’t just Mexcio. The illegal Filipino population in Park City runs over a thousand. Deer Valley sends its own recruiters to Peru every year to sign up employees. So, there is a giant third world coalition which runs all of these resorts. They are plantations.
The resorts cry “we can’t get Americans to do these jobs” which is a lie. The truth is that they have lowered the wages for these jobs by 40% in real terms, so what the honest answer is that “we can’t get Americans to do these jobs for 40% lower wages than in 1970.
Suppose we didn’t have all of these legal and illegal workers here working in the resorts. What would be different than they are now? Well, the resorts would be smaller, there wouldn’t be as much as the large scale condo developments which need all the housekeeping, and wages would be higher. In other words, it would look a lot like it looked 20 years ago. Small family and mom and pop businesses.
So who thinks it’s a good idea to allow in all of these workers? It is a long list. Democrats love them since they represent future Democratic voters. Big Business Republicans live them since they help build big hotels and condos for cheap. The local cities love them since the new developments pay more property taxes so the city can buy new police cars and put solar panels on the roof of city hall.
But who loses? Well, legal Americans who used to take these jobs for 40% more pay. The environment loses since this development tears apart mountains, causes traffic and pollution in our mountain valleys. Schools lose since these workers tend to have children who show up for kindergarten not speaking a word of English even though they are now US citizens and have lived here for 6 years.
So this plantation capitalism system didn’t exist here before. It was created with the knowing wink of our own government of both parties who decided it was easier for them to please their constituencies in the short run rather than do what was right for legal Americans. Then it should be no surprise that Pelosi and GWB easily agreed on this issue in 2006.
So it wasn’t that our mom and pop capitalism naturally evolved into plantation capitalism. It was that our government through their actions and their inactions, created the conditions for plantation capitalism to take over. These conditions were not here before.
#73 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on March 25, 2010 - 10:04 am
I see. So capitalism depends on closed or highly-restricted borders in order to work. I wasn’t aware of that fact.
Point of fact: regardless of immigrants, there are also a lot of Americans working those jobs, no doubt about it, and a lot of Americans working other jobs (such as burger-flipping) that were far better compensated in 1970. I know. I have before and continue now to work with them.
The availability of cheap labor almost certainly accelerated the process of creating/resuming plantation capitalism, but there’s little doubt in my mind that mom and pop store owners which had the will to be something more would have found ways to drive down employee wages and increase profits. There’s always cheap labor to be had or created, immigrants or no.
I imagine it will always be the lament of ideological capitalists that emergent economic systems aren’t really capitalism, just as Marxists lament that Stalinism wasn’t really communism. This is much like the lament of overly-permissive parents, who insist that they didn’t teach their child to do the horrible thing their child did. They trusted a little too much, when guidance was what was needed. They thought that variability was always on the side of benefit.
So you may say that what emerges from the crucible of capitalism isn’t capitalism–but I may likewise say that what emerges from the crucible of Marxism isn’t Marxism. Bottom line: we have the system we have, it emerged from the primordial soup of laissez-faire, and it is self-evident that having no established economic standard led to a poor, established economic standard rooted in abuse and special privilege. A lack of rules didn’t protect us, because it left out the most crucial rule of all: that rules will exist or else rules will be created. Someone will make them; best to let the well-intentioned make the rules rather than the greedy.
So, Brewski, if what you and other capitalists want is a return to an older, more precious and innocent form of capitalism, then I’m with you. It’s not a bad idea. I just want you to recognize that it can never be what it was without risking becoming what it presently is. Your innocent capitalism will be older and wiser if it ever resumes its place as the preeminent philosophy of American economics, and in so being the system will not need rules to be placed over it–rather, the system will comprise more rules and be composed of systemic self-constraint, via the forced constraint of abusive parties within it.
I.e. your old capitalism can never be unless the government you abhor passes laws to protect its formula. Its formula on its own, with laissez-faire principles, can’t protect itself. That’s precisely my point–because it does nothing systemic to restrain individual abuses, the system lends itself to abusive systemic overhaul. Once the right people, through your system, gain power, they’ll just do what you abhor the government for doing. We need something more than analyses of ideals, as ideals are clearly subject to reality in application but almost never subjected to it in analysis or conceptualization; we need systemic, rigorous, conceptual awareness of consequence and potentiality if we are to avoid the pitfalls of all the many forms of capitalism and Marxism in actual practice.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#74 by Richard Okelberry on March 29, 2010 - 5:57 am
Dwight,
It seems that much of this debate and many of the arguments being made against Capitalism or Free-Market Economies rely on the demonization of large Corporations. While it may be beneficial for the pro-communist argument to adopt the corporation as the new collective bourgeoisie, to see corporations this way we need to set aside the fact that corporations are nothing but a huge collection of people from employees to investors sharing a vested interest in the success of their economic union. I imagine Dwight, that even your parents whose struggles you chronicled here are invested through their retirement accounts in many of these “evil” entities. So by their participation in this system does this somehow make them part of the new bourgeois that needs to be toppled by the proletariat every so often to “reset” the system?
This question about you perspective on social orders and class has to do with your regular use of the term Aristocratic to describe Free-Market Capitalism; or at least those within that system that have gained significant “power” through wealth. Considering that your original essay was about “labeling theory” I must point out that by using the term “Aristocratic” to demonize capitalists, you yourself seem to be using an inaccurate metaphor in an attempt to label your opposition and degrade it. After all, isn’t this the very definition of “Labeling Theory” that was at the center of your original essay?
While I can see how you might loosely apply the term Aristocracy to our current economic system, in reality the term simply does not fit because the term Aristocracy does not just represent individuals who have power. In fact, Free-market Democracy is considered to be the very opposite of Aristocratic rule. Under Aristocratic rule ALL real power is consolidated into a small group of political elite with the people being deprived of having the ability to effect or change their own condition. Under relatively recent Aristocracies, like the ones that Americans broke away from, even the basic right to own your own land was heavily restricted and people were essentially considered chattel or perpetual tenants.
The reality is that the Aristocracies of Europe feared this rising Nouveau Riche Class more than anything. They realized that it was the merchant markets that generated wealth and status for those outside their tightly guarded circle and foresaw that the Merchant Class could (and eventually did) break their hold on power. The irony here is that the very class struggle that you fight today was being waged by “Capitalists” long before anyone had ever even heard of Socialism/Communism. Our nation was based on two great struggles against both the Aristocracy and the Theocracy.
Like you, I have used the term Aristocracy myself to make a political comparison. Of course, instead of comparing Capitalism to an Aristocracy I argued that the modern birth of Socialism/Communism essentially served to rebuild an Aristocratic/Feudal order. I have argued that under both Communism and Aristocracy, power is taken from the hands of the people where it naturally resides under Capitalism with its right of individual/personal ownership and consolidates it through a political system into the hands of the ruling elite. You see, personal ownership of wealth causes a level of individual liberty that cannot exist under either Communism or an Aristocracy.
To a Socialist this may seem counter to the Socialist ideal since the underlying goal is the destruction of social/economic classes. Of course believing that communism will bring about the abolishment of classes and showing it to be true are two different things. The reality is, every Communism state that has ever existed has exercised extreme control over its people and has consolidated that control into the hands of a small, elite ruling political class.
While some may say that those states aren’t examples of “True Communism,” I say that they certainly are more “True” than any imaginary one that Socialists have crafted as a theoretical example simply because we can look at history and see that they existed. No doubt, if Communism was truly as effective as prophesized, it wouldn’t keep failing to deliver the goods. Also, we have to ask ourselves; if Communism is so effective at eliminated social classes, how or why does an authoritarian ruling class always seem to grow rapidly within Communism. The answer lies in the fact that power corrupts and ultimate power corrupts ultimately. While in our system, power is distributed however unevenly through wealth, within communism all wealth is centralized which causes all power to be centralized as well. With such overwhelming power in the hands of so few people, it is easy to see why authoritarianism rules the day in a Communist state.
While I do agree with Karl Marx who said that Socialism is a transitional process to Communism, I disagree with him that Communism can ever be stable.
You see, Socialism/Communism sells the idea to the masses that it is possible to destroy classes through class-warfare. Unfortunately, each and every time it fails to deliver the utopian goods because it fails to take into account human self interest (human nature) the way that Adam Smith did. Of course, I believe that many charismatic leaders from Stalin to Castro to Chavez have learned that by selling the false hope of Socialism through class-warfare to the people that they could easily consolidate power unto themselves, thus reestablishing long dead Aristocracies. The Aristocratic system may have evolved and may go by a new name, but ultimately the end product is the same.
Of course the key comparison between Aristocracy/Feudalism and Socialism/Communism has to do with ownership. You see, you are correct in believing that ownership and wealth are the keys to political power. Under our Democratic Republic, there is a “Right” of ownership guaranteed constitutionally. This right to own property and gain wealth fuels our modern Capitalism because it puts you personally in charge of your stuff. Under Socialism/Communism, there can be no such guarantee. All the “stuff” is owned and managed collectively by the state. Under Communism, because you have no stuff, you have no influence and thus no power. You see, the very stuff that you believe should be divided up every so often among everyone to rest the system, is the same stuff that ultimately gives you the greatest possibility of defeating those that you see as having power over you. This is why, while Capitalism will never solve all your social woes, it certainly gives you the best chance at living a free and privileged life where you can address what you see as social injustice.
While I admire your drive to continually improve our social and economic system, I feel that your efforts would be better focused on re-enforcing individual economic liberty through freer markets while encouraging through social pressures the address of purely social issues.
While, I am certain that you have already read Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiment, I would encourage you to go back and read them again with a specific focus on two ideas proposed by Mr. Adam:
First, consider that when Smith spoke about the “Invisible Hand” he was essentially describing well before the birth of Darwin what we have come to know as Natural Selection. He saw that there is an invisible force governed by a simple set of rules that helps naturally guide even the most complex free-market system to it’s highest level of efficiency. He understood that the larger decision in the direction of an economy came from individual self interest acting on the whole. He also understood that free-markets were simply to complex for an individual or small group of individuals to manage. We simply cannot see far enough ahead to understand the butterfly effects that occure when we begin trying to guide or manage such a complex system.
Second, consider that when discussing what types of “self interest” played a role in an economy, he observed that not only did greed and the desire for economic security and more wealth drive people’s decisions but that empathy played a huge role in the decision process.
Finally, I want to address the idea that Capitalism and Democracy are antithetical to each other. Under a pure Democracy, the people may use their vote to take by force the personal property of another individual against all moral standards. Of course, our founding fathers foresaw that this was essentially the Achilles Heal of Democracy. This is one of the reasons why they added to the Constitution enumerated rights that are to be protected even against the desires of the majority. They did this because they saw the right to personal property as a “Natural” right which was also key to the foundations of being a liberated individual. While it certainly is still possible for even these enumerated rights to be done away with by democratic vote, thankfully the founding fathers also had the foresight to make such a Constitutional Amendment very difficult.
Ultimately economic systems and governments are always joined at the hip. One cannot exist without the other with some unions certainly being more compatible than others. As such, I would like you to consider what type of government would form under your proposed Regular Redistribution system and whether individual liberty and freedom would be increased or decreased under such a system. Also, I want you to seriously consider whether any system would ever be capable of eliminating all social and economic classes. I would argue that class systems are a naturally occurring product of complex human social systems. They will always exist in one form or another as long as humans are social creatures. To deny this is to deny scientific observations concerning socially dependent creatures in the natural world.
#75 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on March 29, 2010 - 10:07 am
I just realized, from analyzing the comments on this page and in other explications of “capitalism” by “capitalists,” that pro-capitalist thought relies on one of two basic attitudes: 1) Brutal cynicism; or 2) Wishy-washy idealism.
You have two kinds of pro-capitalists: the Hobbesians, who say that the world is basically dog-eat-dog, therefore the strongest dogs should eat the most (why feed the poor? There isn’t enough to go around, and they’re just as vicious as everyone else); and the land-of-opportunity purist, who thinks that America has always been rainbows and butterflies up until big bad government got in the way (why work for equality? There’s so much excess that anyone can get it if they try).
There is, of course, a third form, which recognizes the limitations of purist capitalism in a real world, and finds a way to balance between formal social regulation (government) and economic freedom.
We can decontextualize and decontextualize and decontextualize some more, but capitalism, like any concept, can never be free of its real-world results. In the world of forms, capitalism may very well be the most perfect of all of the perfect systems of economy, but out here in the world where we live, it services the most unworthy world of forms rejects.
–Dwight
#76 by brewski on March 29, 2010 - 11:04 am
The thing about markets is that changes in prices tell you something. You may not like what it is telling you, but it is telling you something nonetheless.
If there is a big freeze in Florida, wiping out billions of tons of oranges, then the supply of oranges will be reduced (a shift in the supply curve to the left) and the new price of oranges will be higher. If you are a buyer of oranges, you may not like the fact that the new price of oranges are higher, but the increase in prices are you telling you this nonetheless. If you are a seller of oranges from California, then this is very good news since you can now sell your oranges at a higher price.
Labor markets work the same way. If wages go down, there is a reason. It is not like employers are more greedy today than 30 years ago and just decided to pay less. 30 years ago employers were profit-maximizing enterprises just as much as they are today. So if wages are lower today than they were 30 years ago something must have happened. It seems unlikely that the demand for labor has gone down (a shift in the demand curve to the left). What seems more likely is that there has been an exogenous shift in the labor supply curve to the right. While we may not like what this is telling us, it is the reality that wages have gone down, and they have gone down for a reason, and that the reason is that there is an exogenous new supply of labor in the market.
So when you say “capitalism depends on closed or highly-restricted borders in order to work”. It depends on what you mean by to “work”. The markets are working exactly as they are supposed to work. More supply of labor dumped onto the labor market will make wages go down. We make not like that answer, but that’s how it works just as with wages, apples, oranges, oil, wheat, etc.
So the non-market reply is to say “aha! You say the market is ‘working’ but this is bad for the people to have lower wages so we need to regulate it for the greater good. Let’s raise the minimum wage!”
In fact, we could do that. The minimum wage in 1968 in today’s dollars would be about $11/hour. I am pretty sure we could ask everyone making under $11/hour today and ask them if they would want a raise to the 1968 level and pretty much all of them would say yes. In fact, Santa Fe, New Mexico has a city minimum wage of $9.92.
So, what would be the likely impact of raising the minimum wage to $11/hour? Well, it is pretty reasonable to assume that the demand curve for labor is not perfectly vertical. That is, if the demand for labor curve has any slope to it at all we would expect the number of hours of labor demanded at $11/hour is less than the number of hours demanded at $7.25/hour. Just as the number of gallons of gasoline demanded at $5/gal is less than the number of gallons of gasoline at $3/gal.
So it is pretty difficult to make the argument that “regulating” the labor market, and making the minimum wage $11/hour would not result in fewer hours demanded, fewer workers demanded and higher unemployment. Yes, those people whose hours were still demanded would be pretty happy to get the raise. And if you asked them after the fact they would tell you that the increase was a wild success. But at the same time there would be other people who either couldn’t get a job at the higher wage, or lost their job because of it, who wouldn’t be too happy about it.
A far better way to raise wages rather than by legislative fiat which would result in higher unemployment as described above, would be to change the market dynamics so that it would result in a higher wage without increasing unemployment. The only ways to do that are to shift the demand for labor curve to the right, or shift the supply of labor curve to the left. On the list of ways to do that are: eliminate all payroll taxes, encourage real economic growth, eliminate the various foreign worker visa programs, reduce the supply of illegal aliens. There are probably other ways too, but this is a starter list.
#77 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on March 30, 2010 - 11:14 am
The capitalist analysis of supply-and-demand is always so oversimplified–as if the mechanisms of supply-and-demand were an aspect of nature or deific dicta (depending on your philosophy), immune to the manipulations of man.
This ignores that “markets” are contrivances of man, subject to all that any contrivance is. They may be redefined at any time, coerced into new forms by whatever power dynamic they are most susceptible to.
In the case of the free market, the power dynamics tend to fall into the categories of government intervention, consumer participation, labor and production, and corporate coercion. John Kenneth Galbraith explored the limitations of mathematical modeling in economic studies, finding that those mathematical models which were most accurate were only rarely so. In essence, economics needs to be updated for the age of information, globalism, commercialism, and mass market psychology.
One issue I think you ignore has also to do with demand: wage demand. If the government-mandated minimum wage was $11/hour in the ’60s, wage demand would naturally be higher in skilled professions. Employers had to pay more, because the bottom cap didn’t allow them to pay less. Furthermore, union membership was higher at the time.
For the sake of argument, let’s just assume that corporations at that time were equally profit-sucking as they are today, but that they hadn’t yet discovered the tools that have allowed for lower wages.
Considering immigration, you have to realize that increasing the labor force doesn’t actually decrease labor supply, necessarily, as a greater number of laborers also means a greater amount of demand for products. Immigrants, having lower material expectations, will demand less product, yet yield matching productivity (relatively speaking). The supply of product relative to the productive population should therefore rise, without a concurrent increase in demand. This then lowers the value of the goods produced, which produces lower wages. Right? The lower demand of lower wages requires that product prices go down, which makes the wages of the producers even less tolerable for the majority of the populace, and so on. It’s a big, complex, vicious cycle, and no one can be blamed for it working out the way it does.
But what would happen if the corporations CHOSE (this is a possible thing to do, you know) to pay the immigrants enough to generate demand commensurate with their productivity? What a shocker. Instead, they further deflate labor values by outsourcing to non-consuming overseas labor forces, creating product at the expense of massive trade deficits, which further inflate the value of the dollar over time.
I know what would happen if the corporations CHOSE to compensate according to productivity instead of a highly suspect labor valuation–those companies which do so would be beaten out by those which pay their workers less, because the relatively small labor force of any major company has far less social power than the huge body of consumers they service. A price difference of a couple of dollars can spell doom for a manufacturer of supermarket clothes.
It’s all very sad, the way that social responsibility gives way to competition in our freedom-centric market, especially knowing that competition is oftentimes detrimental to the economic liberty of families and communities for generations at a time. But what can you expect?
One last thing: one of the points I’ve been making is that an oft-ignored element of economic analysis (when it isn’t being used to further a political point) is that demand is made up not only of desirability of a product but access as well. People who have no money can’t generate demand. This is a key element of Keynesian economics, but it is frequently ignored when supply-and-demand is pulled to amorally mask the immoral actions of the socioeconomically irresponsible. If you pay the people more, they will demand more. But that isn’t good enough. Why pay people 20% more when they make up only .5% of aggregate demand for any particular product? It’s not enough that their spending in other areas will increase aggregate demand there, then wages, then aggregate demand here.
I’ve found that, when all of this is analyzed in its complexity, it more often breaks down into arbitrary power dynamics than any mathematical or “natural” series of economic events. I don’t doubt Adam Smith’s observational veracity, but how accurate can anyone’s perceptions be when they “observe” the machanations of a long-standing mechanism? How accurately would a modern Chinaman depict the natural mechanisms of economy?
Economic observations have been turned into a model for human economic behavior, and pushed as the most correct or only way. Of course government intervention is a bad idea–this system is designed in such a way that it will always be an imposition, not just a reorganization or a correction. I don’t have the answer, but to say this: the greatest improvements we can see in wages, productivity, and general economic equality, if they come, will be contingent upon a change in perspective. No longer taking it for granted that some must be rich and some must be poor (and therefore justifying the disparity), and that contrived government is the imposition while the contrived, capitalist economic model is not, we may yet find a way to live that depends solely or primarily upon potential for productivity rather than opportunity for coercion; we may no longer have to depend upon the goodness of the overlord for security as much as the appreciable choices of a society unified in mutual concern for the individuals that make it up.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#78 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on March 30, 2010 - 12:06 pm
Just as a matter of perspective, and building off of Richard Okleberry’s statements, let it be known that communism is not intended to create a new privileged class. (I’m not in favor of communism, for the record) As Marx noted, capitalism was one more step in a long series of positive steps towards freedom. Capitalism has, indeed expanded the power of the many from the hands of the few, just as the Magna Carta expanded power of the few from the hands of the one. Yet few today would wish for a return to those simpler days of the Magna Carta; as much as it was at the time, it isn’t enough for today.
The fear is that, while capitalism is a system of greater individual freedom than any before it (with notable exceptions, I’m sure), there is yet more individual freedom to discover and protect. Wouldn’t it be a shame to think that capitalism was the end of economic progress on the level of theory and design, and that technological growth was all we had to look forward to from here on out? No; there are more innovations, better ways of thinking and crafting our society, more stable forms of social and economic freedom to discover and implement, and I defy anyone who says that capitalism is the only way, or the best way. I would not have sat down and drank my tea in the face of Britain’s tyranny because I had not the imagination to envision something better, and I urge none of you to, either.
–Dwight
#79 by Bubba V. on April 4, 2010 - 12:21 pm
Dwight, I think your observations on problems in the grocery business deserve attention. However, your generalizations about “capitalists” and “capitalism” are sometimes stereotypical and definitely confusing. They illustrate that leftists have the same “labeling” problems they see in others. Your above statement seems to imply that economic freedom leads inevitably to injustice. I don’t believe it. I think the left wing creates it own straw man definitions. The mainstream of the left seems to conclude that the current inequalities were the inevitable result of some imaginary age of complete business freedom and completely free markets. These never existed. It is just as arguable that the injustices arose not from free markets, but from government intervention in behalf of corporations. For example, the huge grants of land to railroads, the personhood and limited liability granted corporations. What your saying is like saying that the absence of special privilege (the Jeffersonian definition of economic freedom and justice) inevitably leads to special privilege. Jeffersonians never achieved that privilege-free economic order, so it is a leap to say that the current unjust inequalities arose from free markets. Arguably they arose from the very special privileges pure free enterprise advocates decried- land speculation, corporate shields, special protections through tariffs, etc.
Where are these “basic tenets” of capitalism you describe written down? Just another left-wing straw man. The vast accumulations of wealth you describe you say came from free enterprise, but arguably they came not from free enterprise but from government grants of privilege, the Jeffersonian antithesis of free enterprise. The same mistake Moore makes.
#80 by Bubba V. on April 4, 2010 - 12:25 pm
Looks like I got the quote thing mixed up!
#81 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on April 5, 2010 - 11:08 am
No problem, Bubba. I fixed it for you. All you have to do is highlight the text you want to quote, and then click the “b-quote” button. Or click it before you paste the quotation, then again after you paste the quotation.
In response to your statement, let me first post my response to Brewski, so that you can better understand my use of the terms “capitalists” and “capitalism”:
Aside from that, I’m sorry that what I said confused you, and I would be happy if you would provide examples of my stereotyping of capitalists which I had not already myself mitigated. I’ll be happy to mitigate any you can find.
My above statement doesn’t “imply that economic freedom leads inevitably to injustice”; it states it directly! Absolutely, “economic freedom,” by the terms you’ve employed and the terms that most self-described “capitalists” employ, leads to injustice.
I’ve tried to explain how this happens. You say that “It is just as arguable that the injustices arose not from free markets, but from government intervention in behalf of corporations,” but you fail to perceive how free markets can encourage government intervention of that stripe, nor how consolidation of power in economy may occur without government intervention (a stated goal of corporate leaders, with or without attention to government), and then translate into political power.
Somehow I doubt that Washington was the first to solicit lobbyists. It seems far more likely (and I think history will validate this) that merchants and corporations solicited politicians first, or that those politicians which already had fingers in industry solicited themselves (think of the ownership basis of monarchy and aristocracy–political power established largely through economic power). But, to be fair, this issue is complex. Which came first, the lobbyist or the corrupt politician? I submit that the two were one and the same, and that the gradual establishment of democratic, representative government was the first major breaking point between being an “owner” and being a “lord.”
The power dynamic of which government corruption is but a small fraction has existed since long before representative government suffered from lobbyists, or corporations donated millions to political campaigns. The power dynamic is, itself, the essence of “special privilege,” its originator, and birthing point. Special privilege existed as government before government ever granted it to corporations. I believe that government has divided itself between rulers and owners, the latter possessing the old aristocratic power of control-by-ownership. The government kicked out the ruler-owners, but they never took away their economic power. Is ownership of huge amounts of land by free-market acquisition a “special privilege,” even though it grants enormous social power to individuals–power which may stifle, stymie, or out-right destroy the very principles of the free market over time? For example, if I, through the free market, manage to own 90% of a country’s physical property, does government have any business stopping me from using my property to the detriment of competitors by sheer economic force?
You seem to enjoy working in vagueness. If no values can be created, the conversation is meaningless. Do you disagree with the basic tenet I described? If so, why? I don’t perceive it as particularly negative–simply naive, so it’s hardly a horrendous straw-man like claiming that the left-wing actually believes there was a time of no government regulation (we actually believe there was a time of too little, or less regulation). Where are your basic tenets written down? If you have no established or establishable values, your involvement in the discourse is worthless. Must they be written down in order to discuss them? Adam Smith observed that which had not yet been written; I am observing that which has been overlooked. If capitalism is an undefinable wraith, we can simply pass it by and press on to other, better systems for the living. In essence, the man you describe is empty, so you’ll have to excuse us for filling it with straw. Would you have preferred plantation-grown cotton?
It seems what little definition you’ve chosen for “capitalism” portrays it as benign, kindly, and really kinda cute. The great industrialists of the 1800s weren’t capitalists; plantation owners weren’t capitalists; corporations outsourcing hundreds of thousands of jobs aren’t capitalists. Who, pray-tell, are the capitalists? Those precious few who wouldn’t dream of soliciting the government on behalf of their corporation? If capitalism requires a certain behavioral standard in order to function properly, you’re in for a surprise: this isn’t the capitalism of reality, it isn’t the tool we have to work with, we’ve never seen it before and likely never will, and self-defining your own success lacks the dynamicism necessary for this discussion. After all, would you permit me to define Marxism as the fluffy bunny of organized social sharing, or would you insist that I face the reality of what it produces in the real world, regardless of its intended formula?
Let me make this very simple: If you agree that power may be consolidated in a “capitalist” system, whatever you want to define that system as, and you agree that consolidated power may be used to encourage the granting of special privileges by government, then wouldn’t you agree that the “capitalist” system, without appropriate barriers between corporations and government, will eventually, by simple probability, produce special privilege?
Even more simple: special privileges are granted by economy as well as government. It’s only reasonable that the two will begin to cross over from time to time as long as they are permitted to. Jefferson would agree on this point, I think. Furthermore, while special privilege may be enhanced or accelerated by government involvement, it isn’t wholly nullified by government non-involvement.
I’m not arguing against special privilege. I think pretending it doesn’t exist or can be avoided was one fallacy of the “natural aristocracy” argument. I’m arguing for mutual special privilege for all people under the law, and the express restriction of all people from seeking additional privilege. You cite historical examples of special privilege, but what preceded those? Thomas Jefferson died a year before the B&O railroad was established (marking the beginnings of railroad industry in America), limited liability corporations didn’t exist until half-century later, and personhood of corporations until a quarter-century after that, yet you speak as though Jefferson’s ideology was born amidst their dominion. On the contrary, the U.S. started out providing automatic expirations on corporations in order to remove their ability to create power for themselves. Despite corporations’ weaker political power at that time, I still don’t believe a “free market” ever was created. You’re right on that. I think it naive to believe it could be, though, as it would quickly devolve into many little aristocracies, some growing faster than others in as feudal fashion as any count or baron could wish, and government would quickly need to get involved by passing laws protecting workers, consumers, and itself from undue intrusions and covert manipulations.
Regardless of their history (which, I believe, vindicates my position more than yours), a truly “free market” can only persist as long as stringent limitations on its influence over government are created or the most powerful within it restrain themselves. The former seems unlikely to occur, but worth pursuing, and I’ve said that this is a “capitalism” I can live with. The latter is absolutely absurd, as those who live a life of excess aren’t exactly wont to restrain themselves–and that is precisely the problem with capitalism.
One last thought: a fallacy of “free market capitalists” is the inability to perceive massive corporations as governing entities. Even absolutely free of government influence, massive corporations would find ways to develop (see the aggregation of chaotic elements into a cohesive whole over time in Chaos Theory), and then to use their commercial power to sway the populace and the government. Consider Kansas, where Boeing has so much power that it can tell a whole city that they can choose to give it tax breaks or two thirds of the population can become unemployed over night. Tell me that isn’t a “special privilege,” and that it couldn’t exist in a lack of government involvement.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
P.S. I think it’s contingent upon you at this point to describe and defend what you think capitalism is, rather than all of the negative things you believe it is not. If you’re concerned about definitions, then define “capitalism,” and we can talk about that.
#82 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on April 5, 2010 - 12:58 pm
Bubba–
Freedom sounds wonderful when you’re oppressed and when you’re not, but takes different forms in each. When you’re not, it tends to be just “freedom”: the ability to do as you please without express intervention.
When actually oppressed, however, freedom takes on a different form. King George wasn’t just intervening in the lives of the colonists; he was abusing them. He was failing to live up to his monarchical responsibilities. This reveals an entirely different dynamic: that freedom isn’t merely being free from intervention, unless you are already doing well for yourself. Freedom for those who aren’t implies that those forces which have potentially detrimental power over their lives maintain a high degree of social responsibility. For example, that a king never treat you in such a way that you feel the need for representation.
Monarchy has been largely done away with in the Western world for the very reason that monarchy, although it may be benevolent enough that liberty goes unchallenged, frequently isn’t. That much power in one person’s hands, with no checks or balances, leads to corruption and self-interest to the detriment of the people. I reiterate that: monarchy may be benevolent, but frequently is not. Under the negative influences of a monarchy-gone-awry, would you simply tell everyone that this wasn’t actually monarchy, that the king had broken the rules, and that little kings are usually much nicer and less selfish? If so, you’re missing the point:
All of these systems of economy and governance are functions, and what results is based on both the input and the structure of the function. Capitalism, like communism or a monarchy, is not defined by the quality of the input–it’s defined by the nature of the function. King’s may be kind or they may be cruel; businesses may be small or large, selfish or responsible; communist oligarchs may be of the people or over the people. In any case, the potential for abuse and the degree to which the function facilitates, extends, and empowers that abuse is the key to the system as a whole.
Some of us in this country are oppressed by the “free market,” because there are too many who, already happy, believe that freedom means “laissez-faire” when it actually requires so much more. Left in the hands of business, free of intervention or special privilege alike, the free market gives itself up to petty monarchs and little dictators, for it is they who will do the wicked things when push comes to shove, while their competitors will do likewise or perish.
For a market to truly be “free,” it must not only go unstifled by government, but also unstifled by corporations. Getting rid of government special privileges won’t get rid of all special privileges, and wishing that corporations wouldn’t create their own special privileges won’t make it so. So I ask you, aside from wishing that the old Mom ‘n’ Pop stores didn’t turn into multinational giants, what can be done to create real freedom?
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#83 by Bubba V. on April 5, 2010 - 8:53 pm
Dwight, thanks for fixing the quote. I reiterate, “capitalism” is a confusing term. You seem to be equating it with free markets and an absence of a government role in the economy. By that definition I am both a capitalist and not a capitalist. I believe in free enterprise and free markets, yet I also believe government should play a role in the economy. I also own manufactured goods (saws, ladders, etc.) and receive pay for working with them- which makes me a “capitalist” by some definitions of the word. By others it does not, because I also do the labor, which means in my business, there is no separate “capital” and “labor” class. So by some leftist definitions I am a “petty capitalist,” by some, not a capitalist at all, and many switch the definitions at their convenience.
By my own definitions, I am a “capitalist” by occupation, as I own some of the means of my production. But by ideology, as both leftists and rightists have confused the meaning of the term “capitalism,” I prefer to describe myself as a “free-enterprise agrarian”. (Until I come up with something more descriptive, political economy being as confused as it is.)
What is the role of government in true free enterprise, as I see it? First, recognizing that land is different from capital, as it is not created by human labor; that therefore private ownership of land is a privilege, and unearned income from land values (speculation, bubbles, etc.) should be tithed or taxed for the benefit of all in the community. This would result in the wealthy and the speculators dumping their excess, non-productive landholding on the market, dropping prices and opening land to the poor and struggling. I believe it would be more effective than direct government redistribution, and is better than the Jeffersonian and Lincolnian homestead method of redistribution and its genocidal injustices to the natives.
This was one role of government in classical free enterprise thinking, expressed by the physiocrats, Tom Paine, and to some degree by Adam Smith, as well as U.S. reformer Henry George (who received accolades from Tolstoy, accusations from Marx).
The physiocrats coined the term “laissez faire” but obviously believed in a government role in collecting land “rent” for the public, as did Smith, Paine, and George. George defended laissez-faire to a greater degree than any of the so-called “capitalist class” or large owners of his time, yet supported legislation promoting health and public safety.
All of these physiocratic, laissez-faire people believed in free enterprise, yet none called their system “capitalism.” Nevertheless, leftists, in tune with Marxist dogma, often consider them the founders and advocates of capitalism. See “The
Forgotten Agrarian: on rereading Adam Smith” at http://www.medaille.com/the%20forgotten%20agrarian.pdf.
As for big business corporations, Smith warned against granting them exclusive privileges, as did Jefferson and Jackson. Big business “capitalists” like Hamilton despised Smith, and Hamiltonians like John Marshall supported corporate “rights.” So you see it is the laissez-faire people in these cases standing up for the little guy, call them capitalists or what you will.
I am not opposed to corporations per se, I work for one part time, haven’t always agreed with management, but try to understand their concerns. You are right in indicating that corporations can and do abuse their power. Henry Bamford Parkes, my mentor, believed labor activism necessary, but disagreed with the sometimes abusive tendencies of American labor unions. He proposed, in the agrarian tradition, labor ownership in both the risks and profits of the corporation- something on the lines of syndicalism. Big subject.
Like Smith, I believe that businessmen play a positive function. Like Smith, I also believe that they should receive no special privileges from the government, nor should they be allowed to run the government on behalf of big business. Jefferson and Madison taught this, but anti-laissez-faire Hamilton wanted special privilege for big business. His disciples convinced Americans that business running government WAS laissez faire, contrary to Smith’s and the physiocrats’ teaching. Marxists seem to miss that point.
Privilege means “private law” in Latin, meaning the government does something for you it doesn’t for me- it’s potentially if not unavoidably undemocratic. In that classical sense I use it. In the sense that corporations become imperium in imperio you could say they have become their own government. The solutions, if they involve general laws and mechanisms, rather than a privileged central planning bureaucracy, mean an enhancement and extension of free enterprise, rather than a compromise of its values. True free enterprise, by classical standards, means a democratization of government, of private landholding, of information, of unearned income from land and currency, of freedom. Of this both left and right seem dangerously ignorant. The educator-emperors of both wings have no clothes. See http://www.progress.org/geonomy/geotalk.html for a possible free enterprise strategy for democratizing the economy. Another strategy for democratizing campaigns would be demanding that media pay for use of the public airwaves by opening up the airwaves free to the candidates. That way you wouldn’t have to have corporate money to appeal to the people. I repeat-regardless of what Marxists and big businessmen say, true free enterprise only exists when certain things are democratized- government, private landholding, unearned income from land and currency, education and information, etc. This is implied in the works of the great classical free enterprise thinkers, call them capitalists, pre-capitalists, anti-capitalists, agrarians, physiocrats, or what you will- they saw a role for government- on democratic principle, not a central planning bureaucracy.
#84 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on April 6, 2010 - 11:18 am
Thank you for your well-thought out and reasoned response. I learned a lot. I agree on most points, but I have a couple of things I’d like to discuss:
First, try to keep in mind that very few people today use the word “capitalism” in the way you do. The word encompasses a huge body of thought and ideas, with many subsets, just as “Marxism” does. In American culture, it tends to describe a lack of government involvement or intervention in the seeking of profit, minimal (or no) government involvement in establishing or maintaining means of productivity, regulation only where safety is concerned, equal taxation regardless of income, and a market economy. While I think your idea is good, I would term it a far extreme of capitalism compared to what is usually meant by pro-capitalists when they use the term. I wouldn’t trust the popular use of “capitalists” by socialists–nor the term “socialists” by capitalists. There’s simply too much baggage in their colloquial usage.
Second, “laissez-faire” may at times take the form of “stand[ing] up for the little guy,” but that is completely circumstantial. As I’ve already pointed out, in the absence of government intervention of any type, corporations would still form. In a basic sense, government itself is a form of incorporation. Without government involvement in economy, even without laws regarding the forming of corporations, etc., corporations would still form, as people would rally around a social body–the economic form of a city-state, as it were. Those areas where a void of leadership occurs, leadership fills the void, and it most often takes the form of individual leaders over a social hegemony, not democracy.
In that circumstance, laissez-faire would service the affluent, not the downtrodden, as they would be free to create by artifice the laws of the economy (thus has been the history of emerging political powers since Sumeria, so I don’t expect it to change now). You may attempt to prevent this by methods you’ve described, such as a tax on lands which discourages large-scale ownership, but how high will that tax be? The wealthy tend to be fairly immune to high regulation situations, as they are some of the few who can afford to thrive, regardless, and their ability to follow the law rather than resort to the black market provides them with unintended (on the part of the government) special status. To mitigate this problem, I would support high taxes on fallow property, but there would again be unintended consequences for those who simply can’t afford to develop their property at present, but need it for future use. At some point, fine-tuning the economy through government would enter the picture, or else stratification will be divided in two: those who can already afford to develop property and those who can’t.
This is all oversimplified, of course, but I think any position that assumes that cheapening land could seriously help out the poor is even more so. Developing land and property to a reasonable standard of living (and by “reasonable,” I mean “to the extent that it isn’t a detriment to one’s opportunities in the marketplace”) has become so very expensive today, and income so very low, and the power of the affluent to pass on their own tax increases to their employees so standardized, that they are, in my opinion, effectively immune to anything but direct intervention. Laissez-faire, although it removes special privileges from corporations, gives them free reign to create their own. It works for the little guy until the corporate leaders get wise and stop relying on government to give them profits. On the other hand, it does encourage responsibility, in a way; in the absence of government intervention, the Wall Street bankers would have failed when no bail-out came. It’s just too bad all of the little guys would have failed, too.
Third, I would call myself a “capitalist” in that I believe that people should be able to own their living property (home, car, etc.), free of government intrusion, but a “socialist” in that I believe that productive property should be operated under a stewardship principle, rather than a private ownership one. And, no, your personal garden doesn’t count as “productive property,” in my opinion–unless it’s twenty acres and you plan to sell most of what you grow.
Being a hybrid of the two, I frequently find myself at odds with both sides of the discussion. I’m not particularly in favor of PC, but I’m also opposed to opportunistic applications of Labeling Theory; I’m not opposed to businesses, just enormous ones; I’m not opposed to big government, as long as it is big in the right areas, and only so much as is necessary; and I recognize that capitalism was a great pit-stop along the way to freedom, but that neither it nor socialism is the end of the line.
Fourth, I am absolutely and equally opposed to abuses by labor unions as I am to abuses by corporations. A labor union has to be conscious of the needs of the corporation–after all, the point of the union, IMO, is to make the corporation conscious of the needs of the workers, so far be it for the union to ignore needs in one place while demanding them in another. I believe that labor unions should serve as the balancing feature of a corporation, somewhere between the owners and the workers–tempering the power of the one and the passions of the other.
Fifth, I’m glad you mentioned syndicalism. You wouldn’t find many capitalists today who would mention it without adding “Stalin,” “Marx,” or “slippery slope to socialism” to their comment. I would reference communitarianism in discussing the social aspects of syndicalism, but that’s another discussion entirely. “Big subject,” indeed. Note: I hadn’t read anything of Henry Bamford Parkes, but I find this review of his book fascinating. Sounds like a smart guy. Thanks for cluing me in.
Sixth, I totally agree with this statement, and cannot overly stress how modern “capitalism” compromises a truly FREE market: “The solutions, if they involve general laws and mechanisms, rather than a privileged central planning bureaucracy, mean an enhancement and extension of free enterprise, rather than a compromise of its values.” I want to point out, as well, that the concept of different laws for different people is not necessarily wrong, although it would qualify as “privilege” under your definition. As was pointed out to me some time ago, “being fair” means providing according to need, not providing equally. Or, as my father would point out, “equality” isn’t the same as “equity.” Law may at times be unequal in its approach to individuals or groups, so long as it is only so because those individuals or groups natural and/or contrived states are, themselves, unequal, and the law seeks to neutralize that inequality where the law has domain to do so.
Seventh, I concur–”regardless of what Marxists and big businessmen say, true free enterprise only exists when certain things are democratized- government, private landholding, unearned income from land and currency, education and information, etc.” I only ask that you understand that Marxism as a primogenitive philosophy is also free of the manipulations of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and others, and that it, too, on the basis of that genesis, has some value. In essence, Marx promoted a system of educated, powerfully-motivated, voluntary resource sharing, with no government but the laborers, themselves. I think that, although its methods and path are somewhat different than that of the original free enterprise thinkers, Marxism’s goals are the same: freedom from hegemonic, aristocratic ownership and freedom from special-privilege government.
My path lies somewhere in the middle of the thinkers we’ve discussed and their many ideas. I’m in the process of working it out, and I only yet know that capitalism is insufficient and Marxism is insufficient (with laissez-faire and syndicalism erring on the side of each, respectively), and that something more imaginative than popular politics can offer is needed. I appreciate your contribution. Thanks for the discussion.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#85 by Bubba V. on April 6, 2010 - 1:25 pm
Dwight,
It is the big business capitalists and big government socialists that have given laissez faire the definition you dislike. Parkes is clearly on the side of laissez faire, free markets, and free enterprise. He considers big business capitalism as it has developed as in opposition to all of these, not because of any inevitability, but because its advocates twisted the meaning of laissez faire.
As you will find in “Marxism: an autopsy,” Parkes traces the fundamental flaws of Marxism to contradictions in Marx himself (though he also treats the problems with Lenin and Trotsky).
Parkes would agree with you that both capitalism and Marxism are insufficient, (but unlike you- sometimes) he does not equate capitalism with true laissez-faire and free enterprise. He distinguishes American agrarianism- the ideal of a property owners’ democracy- from the industrial European doctrines of big business capitalism and big government socialism, in his book “The American Experience.”
That people may seize that which is not rightfully theirs without official government aid is indeed possible. That seems to classify as “privilege” or “private law” in some sense of the word. The agrarians believed that government existed to protect natural rights, which they saw as equal (hence the Jeffersonian slogan of “equal rights for all and special privileges to none). One fundamental right was to enjoy the fruits of one’s labor (”natural rights of property”). Parkes delineates the agrarian from the capitalist conceptions of property in “The American Experience.” In classical free enterprise, with its respect for natural law and right, you could not possibly therefore accumulate 90 per cent of the land of a country, because by natural law, land belongs to all equally, and the privilege of owning land should not be special, but provided as an equal opportunity to all.If you own more than the rest, you owe a return to the public as payment for that privilege.
Later, Bubba
#86 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on April 7, 2010 - 9:35 am
So, under the Jeffersonian model of “free enterprise,” the government would by necessity be involved in land retention by private parties and distribution amongst private parties. I like that.
I’ll have to check out Parkes’ work.
–Dwight
#87 by Bubba V. on April 7, 2010 - 11:51 am
I would say so, but on an indirect level under general laws and mechanisms, creating freedom and equality of opportunity. By shifting the property taxes from improvement, creativity, and production to unearned income from raw land values, you take the incentive out of speculation. People invest in productive enterprise rather than nonproductive, bubblicious land-hoarding and real estate schemes. Land prices drop to true market values as the speculators divest themselves of now non-paying absentee ownership, and land becomes cheap and abundant. As urban land becomes affordable, blight is replaced with infill, sprawl loses its economic incentives for builders. So you solve economic injustices and an environmental one at the same time. Parkes saw merit in this, but the biggest promoters today are found at http://www.henrygeorge.org/ and linked sites.
#88 by Bubba V. on April 7, 2010 - 12:07 pm
Also my land letter at http://www.homegroundusa.net
#89 by Anton Dackenberg on April 15, 2010 - 12:02 pm
Dwight,
I too, can see that your position meshes quite ill with the polarized American political landscape. I’m from Sweden and I’ve really enjoyed reading the entirety of your arguments. The way I see it, I think you could fit quite easily into the European social democratic tradition, which combines trade unioninism, extensive social rights and a large public sector with regulated free market enterprise. From my standpoint, which is of course inherently biased, the mixed economies of the Scandinavian social democracies combines stellar economic growth and performance with an equal distribution of income. Not only economically successful, they have also been good at addressing the social problems of modern capitalist society, reducing unemployment, poverty and alcoholism etc.
Although contemporary social democracy in many European countries is oftentimes in practice a form of social liberalism, trying to increase the possibility for individual social mobility within the existing system (leveling the playing field), rather than trying to dismantle the class structure and related inequalities which perpetuates the constant need for social mobility (changing the playing field), it’s historical origins in Marxist thought is of a more transformative kind – asserting that politcal democracy is merely one step on the road towards economic democracy. It’s revolutionary potential may have diminished during the last 30 years, but I still think the core concepts of social democracy has proven immensely successful, in comparison to more unequal societies.
Anton from Sweden
#90 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on April 15, 2010 - 12:26 pm
Thank you, Anton, for your comments. My concern with the United States is much like what you’ve said about the “revolutionary potential” of social democracy—stagnation. I believe that most (all?) systems are transformatively inadequate, in that the adulation of their principles is inherently nontransformative. Capitalism, like any system which persists by cult appeal or as an aspect of national identity, will begin to rot from within.
I’m currently studying some of the intricacies of Washington Irving’s personal and cultural history and how they were injected into the story “Rip Van Winkle.” It can be said (and there’s a host of supporting evidence) that RVP’s primary theme was the proverb that “the more things change the more they stay the same.” Within the context of the American colonies, which were notably economically egalitarian, freeing themselves from the social hegemony of the British Empire, it’s interesting to note that the newly-formed United States of America rapidly transitioned into a stratified society. As an aspect of Britain, hegemony was enforced and therefore not a concern of the colonists. Once running under our own steam, power brokers, as in every civilization in history, became a part of our political make-up. The political laws of economy were now our business, not merely an external force to be tolerated, and we made sure to screw it up.
The point is that any revolution which is not constantly self-aware and self-questioning will ultimately fail—just as any human, especially those of the Marxist persuasion, will betray their own ideals if they don’t constantly remind themselves of them. Marxism depends so heavily upon the ultimate goodness of man—on the level of craft and production, on man’s ability to transform his own will and his own time into a productive, socially and personally beneficial end. But people who go unchallenged by their environment become lazy. They’re so used to being challenged that they cease to challenge themselves and retreat into meaningless, deleterious routines.
I have long favored the social democratic mode of Europe, although I have qualms with particular issues, from country to country. There’s always a better way to do a thing; innovation is not merely technological, social, or artistic—it’s political, too, and societies in general are severely lacking it. I appreciate that, in Europe, so many different ways have been tried, all with a similar goal, while in America, as vast and populous a land as it is, with plenty of spare resources and space with which to experiment, so little has been tried, and the same old hegemonies established in our first half-century prevail today, but with minor alterations.
Perhaps we as a nation are too young to remember our sins; perhaps, if we had not been imposed upon by an external government, but rather had been imposed upon by ourselves, our selfishness, our lazy dependence, and our mistrust of each other and our social imaginations, we wouldn’t be where we are today, in our “polarized American political landscape.” Maybe we would have been better off with a few aristocrats at an earlier stage, so that today we’d have a cultural heritage with which to draw comparisons, to never fall victim to our own mistakes again.
Unfortunately, our condemnation as a social whole is cast strictly at those debauched “others” who we may attempt to avoid becoming: Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia, King George’s Britain. While each serves a worthy purpose as an image of what we don’t want to be, to not become them implies a lack of change, not a noble pursuit. We aren’t racing against ourselves, as we should, but rather against those we can’t help but outrun, and so we’ll never get very far. But that’s what you get when you base cultural mutations off of a fear of becoming, rather than the boldness of progression, with no mind for what may be regressed to if progression isn’t actively sought.
Likewise, I see in your words a symbol of a European hegemonic culture that simply won’t let itself go. It is certainly better to, as you say, “dismantle the class structure and related inequalities,” than to “increase the possibility for individual social mobility within the existing system.” If I understand you correctly, the European model assists people in becoming upwardly mobile in order to staunch the ill effects of upward mobility—in effect, helping people climb over each other on the ladder (and, in turn, helping those who were climbed over to then climb over the previous climb-overer) rather than simply building more ladders or, better yet, helping people to understand that there’s no need for the ladder in the first place. It would be far more ideal to simply make the ladder irrelevant. Contrary to popular American opinion, it is possible to be motivated by productivity, contribution, and mutual benefit, rather than individual accomplishment and the opportunity to become one of the honorable stratified.
Thank you, Anton, for your thoughts. They were provocative and informative.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#91 by cav on April 16, 2010 - 4:11 pm
Life inside Goldman Sacks silk-lined pocket?
All 41 GOP Senators United in Opposition to Financial Reform Bill.
Tribalism? you be the judge.
#92 by brewski on April 20, 2010 - 10:47 am
Bubba,Dwight,
Food for thought today on what failed. Was it capitalism that failed or crony-capitalism?
A good read:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704508904575192430373566758.html
#93 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on April 21, 2010 - 12:31 pm
Brewski–
To answer your question, it was capitalism via the crony-capitalism that sprouted in capitalism’s untended flowerbed. I won’t explain what I mean by that, because I believe we covered this ground already.
We’re both enemies of crony capitalism. We just have different views on its origins. That article was definitely a good read. Thanks.
–Dwight
#94 by brewski on April 21, 2010 - 1:12 pm
Dwight,
The question the article gets at (and probably we could have a good debate over it over a beer at the Pie on Country Hills), is is it capitalism which became crony capitalism which is the problem, or is it government which co-opted business which became crony capitalism which is the problem?
The article makes the case that capitalism works when rules are enforced. He is not making the case at all against the proper role of government to enforce the rules. What he is saying is that when we let government get into bed with corporations (as in the case of Fannie, Freddie, Goldman, Citi, etc.) and government provides corporations with subsidies and implict protection, that is when we get into trouble.
I would make the case that this fiasco was the failure of government of getting into bed with corporations in form of subsidies and implicit protections, and also not enforcing the rules. This is not, per se, a failure of capitalism.
#95 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on April 21, 2010 - 1:26 pm
Brewski–
Simply put, I think the article is insipid, simply because it implies a system of simple honesty and commensurate trust, when the author undoubtedly knows that dealing with corporations is not a simple matter of honesty–and especially not of trust.
I appreciate that the author recognizes that the “allure” occurred before the “succumb[ing].” Like I said: weeds sprouted in the capitalist flowerbed and, untended, grew to dominate.
I believe that the removal of the regulatory system and total overhaul would probably be a good idea. But this system is not the origin of crony capitalism. Crony capitalism thrives first off of no regulation, not an excess of it. While an excess of it may certainly serve crony capitalism’s more clever legislatures and corporations, the cronyism begins with financial favors, not financial restrictions (except in the case of shakedowns).
I don’t see, as you do, that the article makes the case for rules and enforcement. It seems to me that it makes the case that if we just allowed honest corporations to be free of any restrictions, the system would work out great due to their high moral standards and sense of honesty. Now, if we lay out what exactly such standards and honesty entail (as in, describe the behaviors they supposedly produce) and then turn that standard into the rules that you believe should be enforced, I’m with you. I’m all for a simpler, iron-bound regulatory method.
No, the economic meltdown isn’t “per se” a failure of capitalism. Sort of like how a child being beaten isn’t a failure of his grandparents. You can understand how I might draw some bright lines between them, however, if his grandparents happened to beat his parents.
–Dwight