Posted on 10/24/2009 4:53:59 AM PDT by Kaslin
Interesting, but heavy, read. (I think the author looses a little grip when he starts discussing “popular” culture). Maybe if he stuck to discussing capitalists on the Right vs. anti-capitalists on the Right.
Where did I say there was a cabal? Certain corrupt companies, such as Goldman Sachs or Archer-Daniels Midland, have deep influence in government and exploit government to either expand their bottom line (exempting new commodities exchanges from regulation, ethanol subsidies) or protect it at taxpayer expense (AIG bailout). The process has evolved over time. It is symbiotic, but has happened throught the industrial revolution - during the Ludlow massacre, the governor of Colorad had been bought off by mining interests, in whose mines workers died at twice the national rate. And that governor turned the National Guard on striking miners. I think unions have largely outlived their usefulness nowadays, but 100 years ago they were vital towards breaking the incestuous grip of corporations and government.
The author just assumes the general moral decay decried by Kristol can continue indefinitely without undermining the bourgeois values necessary for its continuations.
If this is untrue, which I believe, then unrestricted capitalism carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction.
It is really very simple. The free market economy is the economic version of evolution in biology. Survival of the fittest, the best suited to its environment. The scientific method is a way of applying roughly the same principle to the search for knowledge.
Evolution, the free market and science are not and cannot be moral. They are merely the most efficient ways of arriving at results. What those results will be is not inherent in the system. Any moral component must come from outside these systems.
IMO the free market produces, among many wonderful and useful products, much that is objectively harmful to society, degrading its moral capital. We are presently living off accumulated moral capital, but we’re not reinvesting. We may live to find out what happens when that capital is finally gone.
Or at least some kind of basic personal sense of responsibility. IMO that is why the Candadian banking system did not face the potential of system meltdown over bad mortgage securities that our system did. And that responsibility was manifest at all levels. Homeowners can't just walk away from mortgages without facing additional exposure to other assets. Banks held on to their mortgages instead of dumping them on others. Regulators focused on risk management instead of micromanaging the business side. And bankers got rid of exotic investments they could not understand.
Whereas in this country, everyone looks to government as a means to get 'free' money. And that happens whether you are a homeowner who over-extended or a corporate executive who wants all the rewards but wants taxpayers to cover the risk.
But your post is basically spot-on.
The government had full authority to regulate these areas, but failed in its duty.
So when government does not do its job, you blame capitalism.......brilliant.
I guess the failure to regulate subprime mortgages is also the fault of big banks?
The two chief enemies of the free society or free enterprise are intellectuals on the one hand and businessmen on the other, for opposite reasons. Every intellectual believes in freedom for himself, but he’s opposed to freedom for others.…He thinks…there ought to be a central planning board that will establish social priorities.…The businessmen are just the opposite—every businessman is in favor of freedom for everybody else, but when it comes to himself that’s a different question. He’s always the special case. He ought to get special privileges from the government, a tariff, this, that, and the other thing…There's a better one out there about business using the government to keep their competitors out of the way, but I couldn't find it.
--Milton Friedman, quoted in Reason magazine.
Only capitalism recognizes the inherent freedom of the individual. Only capitalism allows an individual to state unequivocally that no one has more standing in the question of how that individual will live than he does.Of course. It almost goes without saying. This article reminds me of my ongoing discomfort with the word "conservative" since it does contain manifestations of nanny-statism, though not nearly as rigid or encompassing as socialism.
I prefer the word "Republican" to "conservative"... or rather, I WOULD prefer that word if the party hadn't been long ago taken over by GHWBush/Rockerfeller socialist elitists.
So for now, despite it's weaknesses, "conservative" is the best word we've got.
No, folks like Phil Gramm got specific exemptions inserted into law for new commodities exchanges and for credit default swaps - at the behest of their contributors. Investment banks pressured the FTC to increase allowed leverage ratios.
You call me an igorant fool as you display your rampant igorance of the details.
I guess the failure to regulate subprime mortgages is also the fault of big banks?
It was a combined failure at all levels - individuals, banks, ratings agencies, and government. But corporate shills like yourself like to just blame one side, just as the Dems try to blame others for their pushing for laxer lending standards.
Try reading up on why the Candadian banking system did not face collapse and get back to me.
A principled free-marketer like Freedman gets it. Enron was in favor of carbon 'markets'. Regulations become a barrier to entry for competitors.
This is an argument between Libertarians and Conservatives. Conservatives pro capitalism have their limits. Once it goes against nationalism e.g protecting national businesses, they turn against capitalism, not realizing being pro-capitalism is pro-societyOn the other hand, Libertarians care nothing about the survival of the Republic in a dangerous world. Though they pay lip service (minimal) to the idea that the government has the duty to protect borders, the reality is Libertarians never saw a military action or defensive strategy that they didn't fundamentally oppose.
To me the important thing is the Republic of the United States of America. Without that Republic, there is no freedom, at home or abroad.
Capitalists, left to their own devices, would be over-run by Chicago-land thugs... hey, like today!
Without a healthy REPUBLICAN party (a party that believes in the principles of the Republic of the United States as much as those of the free market), we end up with socialism and slavery. At home and abroad.
Excellent post. I agree.
Immorality is hardly an exclusive characteristic of capitalism. Other economic systems definitely boost their share of it. In fact, the leftist economic ideologies are a triumph of immorality.
Personally, I prefer “Constitutionalist”, it puts leftists in the position of overtly arguing against the Constitution.
Wow.. You are quite the fool.
Care to elaborate? Or do you just rely on your opinion rather than facts?
I agree. “Constitutionalist” is a good word. The brilliance of the Founders is enshrined in the Constitution and it specifically says that government only has authority over those things that are specifically given to it in the document.
Great, now the party has two members ;-)
There is a constitution party and this is one of its planks:
American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.
That sounds too much like the Libertarians to me. Too much like sticking your head in the sand.
If Reagan had been a member of this party as POTUS I wonder if he would have been able to win the Cold War.
No, give me the Republican Party, but let me work my hardest to make it more conservative and less socialist.
It’s the only vehicle we’ve got.
Dirtboy is right, and you are wrong. A specific example is the use of money power by the Walt Disney company to get legislation passed to extend the copyrights of their cartoon characters. Mickey Mouse should long ago have passed into the public domain.
Large accumulations of power, whether by government OR businesses, are bad.
I have been impressed time and again by the schizophrenic character of many businessmen. They are capable of being extremely farsighted and clearheaded in matters that are internal to their businesses. They are incredibly shortsighted and muddle headed in matters that are outside their businesses but affect the possible survival of business in general. This shortsightedness is strikingly exemplified in the calls from many businessmen for wage and price guidelines or controls or income policies. There is nothing that could do more in a brief period to destroy a market system and replace it by a centrally controlled system than effective governmental control of prices and wages.
--Milton Friedman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.