A Capital Offence
Kip Ward
Posted: 10.21.2009 / 12:27 PM PDT
There’s not a whole lot to do around here at night, the town is asleep by seven, so I was pleased when my friends Dave and Steph invited me to go see the new Michael Moore film regarding Capitalism.
I’ve been a fan of capitalism since I was old enough to be a fan of anything. After all when I was growing up it was black and white. Capitalism represented freedom, prosperity, and democracy while communism meant repression, totalitarianism, central planning, and a threatening military that might soon nuke mankind from the face of the planet. No hard choices there.
But if you were to examine the underlying foundation of each system Communism certainly has the better ring to it. Communism is based upon the better nature of man, a classless society based upon equality and the equal distribution of resources. While capitalism is based upon the premise that man’s wants and needs are insatiable and may the smartest and greediest entrepreneurs win.
It may be counterintuitive but as it turned out capitalism not only won out but also provided a better life for millions of people. So has something gone wrong?
For my life span at least, democracy and capitalism seemed to go together like a hand in glove. But like a magician’s slight, it may have been all an illusion. The people who had the true wealth in the country controlled both parties. The fix was in and come election time it never really mattered who won. At least regarding matters pertaining to big business.
So is Michael Moore right? Maybe, but capitalism isn’t all-bad, it’s more like salt, I think; good in small amounts and evil in large.
The small companies like my own struggle to eek out a profit with the hopes of a moderate definition of prospering at some future date. I provide a few jobs, and pay my taxes. I get no special say or treatment. But it’s freedom and I wouldn’t trade it no matter how you would define Communism.
But the Wall Street elite are a different story. They have gotten to where they are by cheating. They have manipulated their will into our government at our expense and last year their crisis of greed and mismanagement forced them out into the open to feed. Bailout after bailout it was an unbridled grab of taxpayer money. The capitalists weren’t capitalists at all, it turns out they were socialists.
I’m a Capitalist and I’m happy to be so. I take my lumps and my rewards as they are served. And as a nation of Capitalists I think we should demand ownership of what we have bought and paid for. If Wall Street wants to act like socialists maybe we should help them out.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:19 pm
amen. ethics must be part of business and politics, this is,perhaps, a cleansing
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:42 pm
my reading of this countries financial history is that reform is a responce to the excesses of speculative capitalism. unfortunately, some see these periods as a power grab by the state and not a democratic reaction to corporate greed gone amock. it’s time to clean house again with another new deal.let’s put the malafactors of greed where they belong–in the poor house with the rest of us.
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Communism is based upon the better nature of man
capitalism is based upon the premise that man’s wants and needs are insatiable and may the smartest and greediest entrepreneurs win.
Both the above statements twist the true basis of both the systems they supposedly represent.
Communism is based on this principal–”From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” We all need, food, shelter, water, air–minimum for survival.
Capitalism is based on the principal the “Capital”- wealth-has a job to do–pay for the work provided by labor and material. All three have their just rewards, you pay for material, you pay for labor, and you pay for “capital”.
Private, free individuals are better at producing ‘capital” than government.
Free individuals-in a democratic government-have the ability to regulate those three factors.
In Communism you have-in theory- a temporary– government, to decide how to allocate materials, and labor–only two of the three factors needed to provide economic rewards. This government is called the “Dictatorship” of the people-(proletariat)——-After over 70 years in Russia, and in even less time in China–it did not work.
Basing a system on the better instincts of man is doomed to failure!
It will fail because the baser instincts of man will prevail in any system that does not allow the people regulate the rules, and that preserves their right to own what they produce. Of course this reqires the citizens to be vigilant and protective of their own interests–i.e.–greedy.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:01 pm
phiosophical principles about systems economic and political do not capture the complexity of real world coditions. they tend to become the ideologies of true believers. i prefer to view history as a guide to human folly. the folly of our times is to trust that markets are self regulating and that greed is good.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:05 pm
phiosophical principles about systems economic and political do not capture the complexity of real world conditions. they tend to become the ideologies of true believers. i prefer to view history as a guide to human folly. the folly of our times is to trust that markets are self regulating and that greed is good.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Both capitalism and government are great concepts for societal organization. Either one without the other is disastrous for the individual. We are currently in an ascendancy of capitalism in its worst manifestation; it owns the government.
Properly balanced, industry and hard work are rewarding for the individual, but does not result in extreme class division. Sloth and individual misfortune are tolerated and care is provided for all, as well as providing conditions for the exercise of opportunities for the lucky and gifted. This is required of civilized societies.
November 4th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
What I can’t wrap my head around is the switch-flicking.
First, they’re staunch capitalists, regulations and oversight be damned.
Next, they’re cap in hand, Oliver Twist-like in their pathetic pleas that they’re “too big to fail.” So, “Please, sir, can I have more?”
So, we bail them out. HUGE subsidies, huge cash gifts. All we can say, as a people, is “Don’t do it again!”
We can’t demand accountability? We can’t expect a mea culpa, a “this system, it turns out, depends on trust and, it turns out, you can’t trust greedy fat cats.”
It seems we should be able to say, once you accept hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, you are working of, by and for the people. Socialize those firms. Nationalize those banks. We can’t use those terms because they’d give Bill O’Reilly a stroke, but that’s what we should be able to do.
Remember Fulghum (”everything I ever needed to know I learned in kindergarten”)? Imagine a kid had a new bike, and wrecked it. His fellow kindergartners band together in solidarity and buy him a new one, out of pity, or because they can’t afford to have him miss baseball practice every day (too big a hitter to fail).
Any one of those kids could ask to ride that bike any time, and you can be damn sure they’d get to.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
how do we get out of the under employment condition without distroying the dollar? we have taken the easy way out by monetary reflation. more bubbles to fix the past ones? this time around we have a global collapse to contend with. are we on our way to a state dominated economy? hitler’s germany followed the heavy handed approach and got to full employment by the late 30’s. can we really expect the economy to reach a sustainable recovery absent massive state fiscal and monatary intervention?
December 11th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
I’ve joked for months that maybe we just need to *go Chinese* on a few of the most egregious “greed is good-ers”… just take ‘em out and shoot em, eh? Oh, and strip their families of ALL the ill-got wealth derived from the abject failure to truly manage the assets for which they were responsible….
But maybe, just maybe, it’s time to take a seriouser look at what might be *appropriate* treatment for those who’ve grown richest while driving subterranean the business(es) for which they were responsible; responsible to shareholders, yes, but also to employees, and to the society that made their positions, their (oh so questionable) “success” possible.