Democracy is Not Capitalism
Capitalism is not Democratic.
Let’s begin with some rudimentary definitions of terms.
Democracy is: A system of government based on social equality and the right of every person to participate. The will of the majority prevails.
A Republic is: A political system or form of government in which people democratically elect representatives to exercise power for them. The will of the majority prevails.
Capitalism is: An economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, characterized by a free competitive market and individual ambition. The will of the individual prevails.
A Democratic Republic only functions properly if the populace is willing to accept the majority’s rules, act in the best interests of the general society and participate in elections.
Capitalism encourages individuals to pursue their own interests, accumulate assets, compete with and gain economic dominance over others in the marketplace and to prioritize individual well-being above the general welfare.
Democracy is a method of political governance, but it is not an economic system.
Capitalism is a form of commerce, but it is not a system of government.
Capitalism is not mentioned in the definition of Democracy.
de•moc•ra•cy (noun)
1. Free and equal representation of people: The free and equal right of every person to participate in a system of government, often practiced by electing representatives of the people by the majority of the people
2. Democratic nation: A country with a government that has been elected freely and equally by all its citizens
3. Democratic system of government: A system of government based on the principle of majority decision-making
4. Control of organization by members: The control of an organization by its members, who have a free and equal right to participate in decision-making processes
Democracy is not found in the definition of Capitalism.
cap-i-tal-ism (noun)
free-market system
“An economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, characterized by a free competitive market and motivation by profit .” [Encarta Dictionary]
Democracy is not a synonym for the word “Capitalism”.
Capitalism and democracy are not inextricably bound together.
Nations can be a Democracy without having a Capitalistic economy. (Norway)
Countries can have a Capitalistic economy without being a Democracy. (Fascist Italy)
Democracy and Capitalism are moral opposites.
Democracy and Capitalism have antithetical goals as their core concepts.
Democracy is a political form of governing, controlled by a majority of free citizens and meant to serve the expressed will of that majority.
Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of property, controlled by individual choices in pursuit of personal profit, without regard to the wishes of others.
In a very practical sense, Democracy and Capitalism are diametrically opposed conceptions. As philosophical precepts, they are logically irreconcilable.
It’s an unspoken premise of a Democracy that the majority will support policies that benefit themselves. The majority in America, as in most societies, are not extravagantly wealthy or the most learned or a completely unselfish people. But the majority is supposed to possess a collective, “common sense” that Thomas Jefferson admired and counted on to defend American’s liberties from tyrants.
“It is an axiom in my mind that our liberty can never be safe but in the hands of the people themselves, and that too of the people with a certain degree of instruction. This it is the business of the state to effect, and on a general plan.” — Thomas Jefferson [To: Geo Washington, January 4, 1786.)]
The American economy has operated under the theory of capitalism since its founding. Beginning in roughly 1980, America has embraced the “Austrian” or “Chicago School’s” neoliberal, economic concepts of “unfettered capitalism”; ideas that have sometimes been called “trickle-down” or “supply-side economics” and George H.W. Bush once characterized as “voodoo economics”. Since these policies have consistently channeled the lion’s share of wealth away from the working class and toward the already wealthy; one might think the majority, in their collective Jeffersonian “wisdom”, would vote to reign in neoliberal economic policies. It hasn’t happened yet, although groups around the fringe have attempted to push back. Those groups regularly become targets for surveillance by our public law enforcement community.
Upon objective reflection, one could argue it is not in the economic interest of the majority to support the economic concepts behind Milton Friedman’s theory of wide-open “free-market” capitalism. Why? Because a major premise in this theory requires the elimination of nearly all government programs, especially those that benefit the middle-class and working poor. AKA: the majority. It calls for dismantling Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Public Education, tax-funded infrastructure, such as bridges, highways, airports, water and sewer systems, etc. Under Friedman’s theory, all government functions should be privatized… except, of course, for the military, law enforcement, judicial system and protection of private property. More on that later.
The majority in a Democratic society may choose to operate under a Capitalistic “market” economy, but it will be doomed to one of two outcomes; eventual failure as a Democracy or a rejection of pure Capitalism. “A house divided can not stand.” As the American experiment has shown, once again, Democracy is no match for unregulated Capitalism. Or, put another way, the underlying necessity in sustaining a democratic system of government in a capitalistic economy is that a majority must always maintain an altruistic motive to protect the “common welfare”. Altruism is not a widespread human trait. Self-fulfillment, ambition and avarice are far more prevalent human characteristics, as capitalist theory predicts.
Left to its own devices, a truly “free-market” will always favor the “haves” over the “have-nots”. Those with the most capital will obtain dominance over those with the least. The few over the many. Without a certain amount of regulation, capitalism’s tendency is to exploit every available resource, even if that exploitation is detrimental to the “general welfare”. The “common good” will be disregarded, when profit from disregarding that “good” becomes compelling enough. It is the logical extension of capitalistic philosophy – which contains no inherent consideration of morality or ethical behavior or concern for others.
The examples of this harmful, capitalistic tendency are too numerous to list in depth, here. A brief random sampling might include: the Exxon Valdez & Deepwater Horizon oil spills, Libby, MT and the continued use of asbestos after it was proven a deadly carcinogen, Thalidomide, DDT, industry’s disposal of PFAS & PFOS into public waterways, Monsanto’s Round-Up herbicide, subsurface, toxic chemical storage at Love Canal, NY, disposal of dioxin on public land at Times Beach, MO, thousands of barrels of hazardous chemicals, dumped in the “Valley of the Drums” in Eastern Kentucky, leaking coal ash containment ponds, and so on.
The strength at the core of capitalism is its principle driving motivation: the ambition of an individual to acquire the most wealth possible for themselves. One might say capitalism driving force is human avarice. The only institution large enough, and powerful enough to restrain capitalism from actions which endanger the whole of society, is the government of that society. In a democracy, that means the majority must agree to impose regulations on the “free-market” and “capitalism” in order to control behaviors that might be detrimental to society’s “general welfare”. Which in the case of a society of capitalists, would mean imposing regulations upon themselves.
To keep capitalism in check in a Democracy, also requires continual vigilance and ethical judgments by voters and elected officials, who, being humans in a capitalist economy, have the same human desires to enhance their own well-being.
?The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.” — James Madison, Federalist #10
For several centuries, American democracy has navigated this delicate balance of a regulated “free-market”; protecting the general public while allowing capitalism to thrive. The balance between business and industry’s desire for no market regulations and the public’s need for protection has teetered through the years. Since the beginning of the American experiment, the tug and push between Federalists and Republicans has continued in one form or another.
Capitalism is an economic system | not a system of government.
When the United States was founded, corporate charters where only issued for specific endeavors, such as canal or road building projects, establishing a university, etc. These charters strictly limited what corporations were allowed to do. They usually had a term limit on the corporation’s existence. Restrictions prohibited buying stock or assets of other businesses, owning real estate, limited dividend payments and loan interest, etc. Corporations were considered a creation of the state and therefore, were beholden to regulations imposed by the state’s government in their charter and were overseen by state officials.
In a series of Supreme Court decisions, occurring over the last two centuries, in small but steadily increasing increments, corporations have been granted more and more freedom from legal restraints. But, in recent years, unnoticed by most, the tipping point was reached and the scales have now settled on the side of capitalism’s supremacy over democracy. It may well be, irreversible. It is certainly not amenable to democracy.
The reality of modern capitalism is not the warm & fuzzy, theoretical, “free market” or “free-enterprise system” and definitely not the “laissez-faire capitalism” championed by Adam Smith, other past economists and modern pseudo-libertarians. The romantic ideal of the hard-working, clever entrepreneur who pulls himself up by his own bootstraps, from a humble beginning in poverty, to become a “Captain of Industry”, now happens so rarely as to fall under the category of a myth. Egalitarian capitalism as taught in public schools does not exist. Why? Because there is no truly, “free-market”.
The real world’s economic marketplace is neither “free” nor “open”. Individual nation states impose their own rewards and penalties on imports & exports. They encourage or discourage “free-enterprise” through various forms of taxes, tariffs, subsidies and trade agreements. A recent example is Donald Trump’s attempt to regulate trade with China by arbitrarily imposing tariffs. “Trade wars are easy to win”, he commented. Each country has its own restrictions and benefits for domestically operated businesses; favoring some with grants, subsidies, and contracts, while hindering others with environmental, labor, licensing and other regulations. A form of regulation/incentive can also be found in the treatment of businesses under the tax code.
One key tactic of capitalism is to eliminate the competition. This can be accomplished by undercutting prices and driving the competitor out of business, by acquiring competitors or by joining forces and merging with a competitor. Capitalism strives to achieve a monopoly, since that is the surest way to control prices and guarantee profit. When monopoly can’t be achieved, companies can gain nearly the same advantages by forming cartels among competitors. The OPEC oil cartel being an obvious example. To balance that capitalistic drive against the “general welfare”, nations have instituted “anti-trust” laws and business regulatory agencies, such as America’s SEC, FTC, FCC, FDA & FTA.
Milton Friedman’s “Chicago School” of neoliberal economics, would have us believe a totally unregulated, free-market economy should be America’s and the world’s goal. Reduce the size of government and get it out of the business of regulating business. Oh, except… we should keep our taxpayer financed Armed Forces and related Defense industries to protect American corporation’s foreign assets. And, the neoliberal “free marketeers” want their limited government to include robust law enforcement agencies and courts to protect all that private capital from the lawless public. Oh yeah, that limited government should also retain a strong patent office to grant and enforce rights protecting the private ownership of ideas, inventions, brands, trade names, computer code and other intellectual properties.
So, neoliberal capitalists don’t actually want a “free-market” economy, totally outside of government intervention, where market forces will maintain a natural equilibrium, controlled by Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand”. They would like the stability and protection provided by a national government, but one that lets them pursue private wealth, in a safe environment, and doesn’t require them to contribute too much to the general welfare. Competition, they claim, will achieve an equitable balance through prices consumer’s are willing to pay. The so-called “laws” of supply and demand.
Anyone living in the modern world can easily see that the price they pay for any commodity has little to do with moderating that price. When every gas station charges virtually the same price, a price set by the gasoline suppliers, there is no competition to drive down that price. The only “demand” behavior would be for the consumer to purchase no fuel at all. But, in an economic system that requires individual transportation to earn a living, that is an option in theory, only.
On the other hand, these same “neo-liberals” believe that all citizens should pay to safeguard and defend the immense quantity of assets held by a few. An unacknowledged hypocrisy in the Chicago School’s economic theory is its assumption that the same government they deride for over-regulating, will protect the assets of capitalism through various trade regulations, property and contract laws, patent, copyright and trademark protections and, of course, defense related spending to safeguard foreign assets. And, at no additional cost to the capitalists.
If the “free market” is such a wonderful, self-regulating control on capitalism, why should there be a need for legal protections for investors to avoid liability under the form of a corporation? Shouldn’t “market forces”, the demand side, compel businesses to avoid liability by doing no harm in the first place? And, if the “hidden hand” punishes bad behavior as well as it rewards correct actions, when a company does inflict harm on the public, shouldn’t that business, including the investors, be subject to legal & fiscal responsibility for their actions? If that should result in financial loss, ruin or bankruptcy, even jail time; wouldn’t that, like competition, provide a “free-market” mechanism to restrain others from repeating the same harmful behaviors?
But modern capitalism has invented various “legal” structures; corporations, limited partnerships, trusts, etc., whereby owners, investors and stockholders have limited liability from damages caused by a business they chose to finance. They are free to take whatever profits they can from the company, but should anything go wrong and the public suffers damages, those capitalists are also free to walk away without financial or legal penalty. We are told that without such protections, no investments would be made, no companies would be started, grow and profit, no new jobs would be created, workers would compete for the few jobs available, thus driving down wages and the economy would grind to a halt. Pssshhaah!
Perhaps, investors, like everyone else in society, should be held responsible for their financial decisions. Maybe they would be more careful to invest only in enterprises that act responsibly and keep faith with the general welfare, if they knew they could be personally liable for any damages their wealth helped to create.
Why are patents, copyrights, registered trademarks, etc., issued, regulated and enforced by government, in a totally unfettered, free-market? Why should the vaunted “free enterprise system”, require some government agency to enforce a private company’s claim to exclusive rights on a product they invented? Why is a government needed to protect a product’s label or name? They are just words. Why should governments provide trade protections for certain industries in the global marketplace, but not others? Doesn’t “capitalism” sort out the winners and losers according to the immutable laws of supply and demand?
If a totally “free-market” is best for capitalism to thrive, why are taxpayers expected to protect the assets, foreign and domestic, of corporations? Shouldn’t they pay for their own protection if they choose to do business overseas? If capitalists want no regulations on how they make their profits, why should the general population pay to protect those profits? Shouldn’t military spending be only for defense of the country? Shouldn’t local police forces focus on protecting the citizenry and public property? Why are all taxpayers required to pay for law enforcement protections of multi-national corporation’s assets? Corporations taking billions in profits from those same taxpayers?
The point is this: there is no “free market”. There is no open, unrestrained marketplace in the world as we know it. So, there is no way “capitalism” is going to operate in the self-regulating, supply and demand manner, as proposed by the economic theory of capitalism. And, the main reason capitalism doesn’t operate in an economic market without any government regulations is because capitalists have insisted that governments regulate the markets.
Think about it. Who advocates for “Trade Agreements” with foreign nations? Farm workers? Pre-school teachers? Clergy? Or, the Chamber of Commerce and automobile manufacturers? Which groups lobby Congress for more tax write-offs? McDonald’s employees or McDonalds corporate lobbyists? Independent hair stylists or hair care product manufacturers? Concert pianists or hotel chain operators?
Who expects the U.S. Government to litigate against Chinese businesses for infringing Microsoft’s copyrights on their Windows Operating System? A home computer user? Which is more likely to request government subsidies; a local stone mason or Exxon/Mobil? Which is more likely to get a subsidy from our government; Ameren Electric utility or “Jim-Bob’s Law’n Order” lawn mowing service?
Who is more likely to request help from the U.S. embassy in Somalia, to help protect their assets; Ford Motor Company or the Gary Ford family of Neosho, Missouri? And, so on.
Corporate Capitalism: Not Your “Mom & Pop” Business Anymore
Capitalism originally manifested in the form of self-possessed individuals who produced a product or offered a service for sale in the public marketplace. As an example, after apprenticing to learn a trade or craft, an enterprising worker might decide to go into business for themselves; making shoes, blacksmithing, as a cabinet maker or carriage builder. Let’s call that new business, “Henry Hammer Carpentry”. It was common for such master craftsmen to expand by bringing their own children into the businesses, i.e., “Henry Hammer & Sons Builders”. Besides taking on family members and apprentices, especially ambitious tradesmen might increase their income by hiring other masters in the trade to work exclusively for them and pay those others an hourly wage or salary, becoming “Hammer & Associates Construction, Inc.”.
Or, maybe it’s “Larry Laysome Pipes Plumbing Contractor”. Being the natural tendency of capitalism to pursue more & more wealth; the successful, self-employed craft worker who found the cheapest sources of raw material, might decide to resell some of those raw materials to other, similar small businesses. Thus, Mr. Pipes might open a second company, “Laysome Pipes Plumbing Supplies”. And so on; until an industrialist is born, with, “Laysome Pipe’s — Iron Pipe and Tubular Steel Manufacturing, Inc.” Supply and demand performed their traditional functions and suppliers of poor quality or whose prices were too high, would eventually be starved out of operation.
In time though, individuals were able to build or buy the mills and factories and assembly plants that supplied the day-to-day products consumers demanded and create substantial fortunes. Through competition, acquisitions and mergers; through legal means and some not so legal; individual capitalists created sprawling companies and gained control of entire industries. Two early examples of huge monopolies were the Dutch East India and the British East India companies. Later, under American capitalism, the Gilded Age’s “Robber Barons”; Vanderbilt, Astor, Carnegie, Mellon, Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Henry Ford, et al, are born, kicking and screaming.
The financial and industrial leaders of the late 1800’s, organized these giant, market dominant companies using various forms; namely, trusts, limited partnerships and stock corporations. Capitalism has never looked back. The same economic system that empowered individuals to become producers, tradesmen and retailers and compete for a living in the public marketplace; also engendered the wealthier and vastly more ambitious entrepreneurs to consolidate and monopolize whole segments of that marketplace for their own aggrandizement. Small entrepreneurs were unable to compete against such financial power and were eliminated from the game.
A classic example was John D. Rockefeller’s strategy to dominate all facets of the oil business, in modern parlance, he tried to control the oil market both vertically and horizontally. He started by dominating the market “horizontally”, buying individual mineral rights and extracting crude oil from that ground with his own drilling rigs. Rather than sell that crude to others for refining, Rockefeller built and ran a network of oil and gas refineries, where the real profit was produced. When the railroads attempted to raise rates on shipping his petroleum, he constructed private pipelines for transporting crude from the field to his Standard Oil refineries. So, he owned the mineral rights, the drilling rigs, the pumps and the means of transporting that raw material to his refineries, where the retail product was extracted.
Rockefeller then built a “vertical” marketing system that eliminated the need for subcontractors, middle-men and independent distributors. He created a system to deliver his refined gasoline directly to a nationwide chain of neighborhood Standard Oil service stations that filled consumers gas tanks and serviced their new, Model T automobiles. In the end, the giant, Standard Oil monopoly he created became so dominant in the industry it could only be checked by an even more powerful entity. It took the Federal Government to eventually prosecute Standard Oil for violations of anti-trust law and break up Rockefeller’s giant conglomerate. Most of the energy mega-corporations of today, Mobil, Exxon, Phillips, Citgo, Conoco, etc., started as the spin-off pieces from Standard Oil’s breakup. And, conforming to “chaos theory”, those pieces have tended to reform through mergers, buyouts, cartels and industry alliances.
The political power that these “Captains of Industry” obtained with their immense fortunes, allowed them and succeeding generations of corporate executives, to gain greater and greater legal benefits and financial protections from politicians and court rulings. Small private companies and individual businesses are still a major portion of the economy, but their power is dissipated due to the scattered nature of their geographic locations and independent ownerships. But, the huge conglomerates, gigantic multi-national corporations and wealthy individuals who control them, use their vast treasuries to wield tremendous power and influence in America’s political life.
[An aside: at least Rockefeller, Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, Vanderbilt, et al. built their companies with their own initiative, sweat and blood; and, produced a real product or provided a real service that had to have enough quality to satisfy the buying public. Their output was judged by the marketplace and depended on its approval to survive. Conversely, most modern day CEOs and Corporate Officers of the “too-big-to-fail” multinationals, have never actually built a business on their own; from scratch, relying on their own vision, hard work, time, expertise, problem solving skills and most importantly, putting themselves and their family in jeopardy by investing their own finances.
Instead of getting their hands dirty in a railroad yard or steel mill, today’s young, “company-men” attended one of a select group of elite universities, where they joined a nationally recognized Greek-letter fraternity, drank, socialized and made personal connections, before leaving with an MBA degree in an 8”x10” picture frame. They then took employment with a well-established, AAA rated, highly-profitable corporation at an entry level management position. If they had the “right-stuff”, they were groomed by the other corporate officers into the company’s chain-of-command hierarchy.
As part of their training, they may be required to move every so often, to perform management tasks at various locations where the corporation has facilities. If it’s a multi-national company, that may mean living overseas for a number of years. Over time, with luck and perseverance, they might move up the advancement ladder, and end up finally in the CEO’s office. Not creators of a business because they had a new idea or invented a product everyone wanted or saw an underserved niche in the market; these business suits walked into a company that was built by other men and climbed the corporate ladder.]
Electronic Capitalism
Many of today’s billionaire executives are paid millions of dollars annually to manage companies that produce no tangible products, at all; but buy, sell and trade paper assets, through electronic transactions of digits and numbers over networked computers. No material goods change hands. No physical products are manufactured, sold, distributed, improved on, given patents or require workers to assemble. Not even currency passes hands between buyer and seller anymore. Some of Wall Street’s wealthiest corporations, in actuality, only serve as order takers; middle-men who place phoned in buy or sell orders and electronically transfer the assets of others.
There are people who make millions of dollars every year buying stocks and bonds; seconds (sometimes milliseconds) before others buy them at a slightly higher price; at which point the first buyers sell the securities they bought seconds or minutes earlier and take the relatively small profit. The reason this makes them millions is that they are buying and reselling huge quantities of shares, each time. A half cent of profit per share doesn’t sound like much, but when it’s on a million shares it starts to add up. {re: Flash Traders}
There are other businessmen in our world, known as “venture capitalists” and “hedge fund managers”, who make millions of dollars for themselves by buying healthy companies on a margin, leveraging their purchase to borrow money against the equity in that business, then selling off the acquired company’s other assets and laying off employees to reduce overhead. These “job creators” have also been known to stop funding employee pension plans to keep more cash in the company checking account. Due to cutting the workforce, production suffers. Output drops and sales revenue falls off, too. That’s when the “vulture capitalists” often take the final steps, rake in their profits and declare bankruptcy. [see: Bain Capital, Blackstone, Toys ‘r Us, Sears Roebuck, etc. & “Flash Trade”]
Parasitic Capitalism: The Rise of Corporate Capitalism & Socialized Costs
Modern capitalism could be more accurately described as “corporatism”. Modern “capitalized” corporations must operate within a loose framework of societal and legal restrictions, but are granted substantial freedom, powers and financial advantages in the marketplace. Nominal taxes and unwelcome governmental regulations are offset by legal liability protections & other economic benefits that have been solicited from government by business and industry lobbies, over the years. [see: DAPL & corporate use of “eminent domain” to force landowners to sell right of way.]
But there is no law, natural or otherwise, that stipulates a democratic society must operate as America does currently. We do not have to place capitalism/corporatism above democracy. There is no restriction inherent in a democratic/republican form of government that prevents voters from choosing to implement social programs benefitting all citizens. In reality, there are compelling motivations for the majority of voters to support social programs with universal rewards, since they are the beneficiaries of these “socialized” services. It is more remarkable, on reflection, that voters have not demanded more tax-funded services for themselves, through the years.
There is nothing inherent in a democratic government to keep the people from placing restraints on the operation of industrial capitalists, or corporations. As mentioned, the only way to balance capitalism against the “common good”, is for the voters to support governmental regulation of the way corporations are allowed to operate in our democratic society. That includes placing limits on the amount of money and influence corporations are allowed to expend on elections and lobbying government. Or, excluding them altogether from involvement in the election process. Since corporations can’t vote, run for or hold public office, why would that be undemocratic?
Socialized Cost Savings
One aspect of modern corporate capitalism is their use of “social” programs to defer expenses that would otherwise reduce their profits. (is “socialized cost savings” the phrase? check.) An example of this corporate use of general tax dollars to enhance their bottom line is the Medicaid program. Employees of Wal-Mart and McDonalds comprise the two largest groups of Medicaid recipients in Missouri. (check nationally?) These full & part-time workers qualify for this tax-funded, health care because their income is below the poverty level. This expense to the tax payer relieves Wal-Mart and McDonalds of the cost of providing health insurance for their employees, while the wages they pay do not bring their workers income above the poverty level. Last year, MO spent $6,506,254.00 to provide health care to Wal-Mart employees, alone. In 2012 Wal-Mart reported $13,624,000,000 in profits. Their CEO was paid $18.1 million. Over 10 years they returned $40 billion in dividends to shareholders and spent $64 billion buying back their own stock. Forbes estimates the Walton family has $140 billion in net worth.
We do not have to provide services that capitalists take advantage of, at no cost to themselves. In America, for example, the Constitution’s original provisions were for state and local militia’s to be responsible for national protection. This was the basic arrangement for national defense up to WWI. America “socialized” the defense of all 50 states into one “War Department”, paid with general tax revenues. (Most of the Constitutional framers, having lived under King George’s red-coated soldiers, were averse to maintaining a large “standing army”. The 3rd Constitutional Amendment points to this issue. )
Our colossal, modern military bureaucracy was not specified in the Constitution, but developed piecemeal over many years. The founding generation feared a “standing army” would lead to despotism.
There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation, and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors, that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot, but in well-defined cases. Such and instrument is a standing army. || It Is Not Conceived Needful Or Safe That A Standing Army Should Be Kept Up In Time Of Peace For Defense Against Invasion. || Were armies to be raised whenever a speck of war is visible in our horizon, we never should have been without them. Our resources would have been exhausted on dangers which have never happened, instead of being reserved for what is really to take place. — Thomas Jefferson [Jefferson to: David Humphreys. iii, 13. Ford ed., v, 90. (P., 1789.)] [1st Annual Message. viii, 11. Ford ed., 121. (1801)] [6th Annual Message. viii, 69. Ford ed., viii, 495. (Dec. 1806)]
Just prior to the Civil War, the American Army consisted of about 30,000 servicemen. When that war ended in 1865, their were nearly a million enlisted men on the Union payroll. By 1867, General Grant had reduced the Army to nearly its pre-war size, with around 50,000 soldiers on the rolls.
This single gigantic “socialized” burden on the taxpayers, that expends nearly 50% of annual discretionary spending is a relatively recent manifestation. We spend more on national defense than the next 7 nations combined. In 2018, the Defense Department’s budget was a bit over $700 Billion. Our per capita cost on defense spending is the highest in the world and amounts to $2,500 per taxpayer, annually. The majority could, just as easily, chose to take a portion of the money spent on this “socialized defense program” and spend it on other “social” programs directly benefitting low income Americans. The estimated $5.6 Trillion we have spent waging a “War on Terror” might have provided free health care for every American.
Who benefits more from American military and diplomatic protections in foreign nations; a plumber in Indiana or a multi-national corporation with offices in ten foreign countries? Should profitable corporations, which rely on uninterrupted international trade, safe access to foreign ports, protection of their oversees assets and secure transportation for their import/export products be required to pay anything extra for those protections?
We have “socialized” police and law enforcement agencies at virtually every level; community, state and nationally, each supported by tax dollars from our local, state and federal treasuries. Again, this structure of enforcing the laws was not mandated by the Constitution, but has taken its current shape over many decades. Through the years, those who writes our laws, have chosen to “socialize” the costs of what they consider an essential insurance service to provide safety, protect property and punish wrong-doers.
Is it fair for those with little or no personal property to pay equally to protect the property of the wealthiest in society? The taxes are paid by everyone, whether they rent an apartment, own a single-family home or live in the penthouse of their 99-story luxury apartment building. Who has the most to lose if these legal protections were not in place? This is how capitalism uses public tax funds to protect its own interests. Namely, property in one form or another.
At one time, if property owners wanted protection from fire, they had to pay for a monthly subscription to a private fire department. The owner nailed a plaque on the front of the property so the private firemen would know they should extinguish a fire on that property. No plaque, they would let it burn.
Locally, most community governments have chosen to “socialize” fire protection and emergency response services to protect all the citizenry… that are property owners. These services, another type of property insurance really, could be provided by private companies operating in the capitalistic, “free market”, hired by each individual in the community wishing to obtain financial protection. But at some point, a majority was convinced it is more beneficial to require everyone in the general population to purchase that insurance, and pay for it through taxation, whether they own property or not. Again, an undeclared benefit of which, capitalists are happy to take advantage.
As the nation grew, we decided as a society, that certain utilities, like; clean drinking water, sanitary sewers, electricity and natural gas, should be made available to all citizens at fair & reasonable prices. These general “socialized benefits” were achieved through a mixture of public ownership of some utilities, and closely regulating the private companies that provided other utilities. Since these fundamental necessities were too important to be under exclusive control of private interests, voters put a check on unfettered capitalism in the interest of their general welfare. In other words, we democratically chose to “socialize” the supply of those essential utilities.
Roadway design, construction, repair and maintenance. Traffic safety systems engineering and upkeep. Control of public air-space, passenger safety on public transportation and river traffic. All of these tax-funded, public services are utilized by private enterprises to make profits. They lessen these otherwise unavoidable business expenses by spreading the costs to all taxpayers. Our voter controlled democratic/republic form of government has “socialized” many aspects of life, over time. There is nothing “undemocratic” about this. Why not “socialize” healthcare as many other modern nations do?
Long ago we chose, as a society, to “socialize” public education, make it mandatory for all children, and require all citizens to pay a share, whether they have kids or not. Believing an educated electorate was crucial in a democracy; a majority in this country agreed it was best to “socialize” the education system. So, everyone who pays taxes, whether they have children themselves or not, funds the education of other people’s children. Currently, there are powerful forces at work to dismantle public education by taking these universally paid taxes and using them to fund for-profit charter and private schools, managed by for-profit companies. Capitalism rises above the common good.
In recent years, we have witnessed the neoliberal tactic of profiting from “social” programs, with local, state and national governments incrementally privatizing once public services. What were once private, pay-for-use services, such as fire protection, gas & water supplies, waste disposal, etc., have, over the years, been made into publicly administered, tax-funded utilities. Many of these are now being out-sourced by local governments back to for-profit operators. The difference being, those once “break-even” utilities now must make investors a profit, which comes, of course, from increased costs to the taxpayer. Why do taxpayers continue to vote in support of increasing their own utility costs and living expenses? It is hard to understand.
The Social Shortcomings of Capitalism
A further shortcoming of relying on the “free market” exclusively, without government involvement, is that capitalism is incapable of addressing crucial social issues and providing administrative solutions to problems concerning the general welfare. As history has shown, private enterprise will not remedy racial prejudices and disparities or economic inequality. The capital markets have no profit motive to end poverty, feed the poor, educate the masses, etc., and in reality, no mechanism, power or authority to accomplish such goals, even if there was a will to do so.
No matter what economic system is in operation, there are a multitude of social issues that fall outside the realm of the “economic market” and can only be addressed properly by government action. Additionally, there are other crucial areas of concern to the general welfare that may, in one way or another, affect the interests of capital, but which the market alone would be averse to regulate. Protecting essential natural resources, such as rivers, lakes, underground aquifers, oceans & beaches, forests, wetlands, our airways, the atmosphere and the overall environment is of crucial concern to the overall welfare of the people. Yet, these same public resources are treated as raw materials to be exploited for profit by purely capitalistic enterprises. Rather than protect them for the general welfare, capitalism would like to own them, to do with as they please.
Without “social” controls on for-profit, producers and manufacturers, the people’s drinking water, atmosphere and environment would be degraded, possibly destroyed, by indiscriminate disposal of industrial waste and toxic by-products into the environment. This is not mere hyperbole. Modern history abounds with examples of companies spoiling the natural world with industrial-generated pollution. It is counterintuitive to believe private enterprises will consistently behave in manners that protect the common good. History has repeatedly shown that they will not and will, conversely, do all they can to avoid the costs of protecting the public.
Again, capitalism is based on the principles of private ownership of the means of production to facilitate the core purpose of creating profit for those private owners. It is antithetical to those basic concepts to then expect a capitalistic system to regard the general welfare or common good as its penultimate ambition. As a cursory review of modern American politics underscores; those who have benefitted most from our capitalist economy will do everything their wealth and influence allows, to eliminate regulations that safeguard the general public, especially if those controls might reduce profits.
Unsustainable Growth
Another deleterious effect is capitalism’s need for constant growth to create more wealth. Every quarter must show more profit, higher revenue, etc. than the previous quarter. In the longest term, this is an unsustainable process. What happens once we use up all the resources? How many more humans can civilization, and more importantly, the Earth itself tolerate before a point is reached where every resource becomes endangered and must be fought over? There is an incessant babbling coming from the mouths of politicians, think tank “experts”, corporate executives, financial industry gurus, talk radio hosts, rich white men, TV’s on-air “news personalities”, op-ed writers, etc., about the nation’s pressing need to “grow” the economy and “get” it “back on track”. We are told “we” need to increase annual Gross Domestic Product and boost the rate at which that increase occurs. And oh, by the way; a stronger economy will naturally “create new jobs”.
I have never heard anyone ask these pontificators the simple question, why? Why do we need to “grow” the economy? Would capitalism fail to function if we merely maintained the current equilibrium of commerce? Would the world economy collapse if no companies increased quarterly profits over the previous quarter? As we have seen over the past generation; the economy has grown. Exponentially.
The DOW Jones Average is far above any previous historical level, even accounting for inflation. The Industrial Average was 7,920 in February, 2003 and increased steadily until it reached 13,994 in September, 2007 at the beginning of the “Too Big To Fail”, Financial Meltdown. The next low point for the DOW Industrials was 7,955 in January, 2009. From that date, the Dow ticked up continually for 12 years to hit 35,000 on December, 2021.
But, have average households received the benefits of this “grown” economy? Have hourly wages kept pace with that nearly 500% “growth” in the equity markets? Have new jobs “grown”, in the same proportion as the “growth” of the financial benchmarks used to measure economic fortune. Have new jobs been “created” at a rate similar to the “growth” of economic wealth in the last 30-40 years? If the government’s policies are truly guided by the politically expressed goals of “growing the economy”, “creating wealth” and “adding new jobs”, the first two have been achieved, but where are all those jobs? The economy has grown dramatically. Untold wealth has been created for a few. But, additional jobs, particularly decent paying jobs… not so much.
Where has all that wealth, created by “growing the economy” gone? What we have actually witnessed over the last 3 or 4 decades is extraordinary wealth created for a nominally small percentage of our citizens. Corporations have experienced record profits, paid out trillions to stockholders and currently sit on vast sums of cash; while the country’s population has increased to over 330,000,000 people. And yet, America has steadily lost decent paying jobs and the majority of “new” jobs have been low-paying, service related employment. The average working family’s wealth has barely increased since 1982 and in some cases, it has declined. How do policies that result in 10% of the people acquiring 80% of the gains from such huge economic growth benefit average Americans? Tell me again, why do we need to “grow” the economy?
Mixed in with all that, is the dramatic legal gains capitalism has made in the last 30-40 years. Too long of a list to detail, but includes; Citizen’s United, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Kelo v. New London, FCC v Fox, McCutcheon v FEC, Integrity Staffing, Ledbetter v. Goodyear, AT&T v. Hulteen, Hoffman Plastics v. NLRB, Exxon v. Baker, Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Phillip Morris v. Williams, Sorrell v. IMS Healthcare, etc. So, along with all the huge profit taking, wealth hoarding and environmental harm, the big Corps have been getting more rights and privileges, rather than more restraints.
“Well, the strong just seem to get more; while the weak ones fade…” the song goes. (“God Bless The Child” by Holiday & Herzog)
Construction equipment maker Caterpillar has missed sales forecasts, as slowing construction activity in China and a halt in Russia operations weighed on revenues.
Caterpillar, famous for its yellow diggers, has also been hurt by supply-chain problems that dented demand for heavy equipment. Second quarter sales did rise 11% year-on-year, but at $14.25bn were shy of missing analysts’ expectations of $14.35bn. The strong dollar also hurt Caterpillar’s earnings, as it made overseas sales less valuable in dollar terms. Source: The Guardian 8/2/22
The above news snippet concerning Caterpillar’s economic performance, highlights a common issue surrounding the capitalistic fixation on “growth”. The Caterpillar Company has been a steady, profitable performer for decades. The company’s sales revenue rose by 11% over the previous 12 months, to net $14.25 billion. But that figure was $100 million below what analysts predicted, so the Company’s share prices fell. Think on that. Caterpillar improved sales by 11% and brought in $14.25 Billion in revenue, but that was not big enough to suit Wall Street’s stock merchants. These “investment banks”, “stockjobbers” and “money men, who produce no tangible products themselves, sit at their computer screens in an office in New York and decide whether a stock goes up or down in value, based on their expert “analysis”. Many of us would consider an 11% increase in sales to be a very respectable result. But, capitalist’s greed knows no bounds. What would be so bad about a manufacturer “growing” their revenue by 11% every year?
Constant market “growth” in capitalist economies must, at some point, reach a level that cannot be justified in a supply and demand equation, and that system must fail.
World Population in 1954 = 2.5 Billion.
World Population in 2022 = 8.0 Billion.
Predicted World Population by 2050 = 10 Billion.
Limits to Growth
Is there a limit to “capitalistic” growth? Is there a “tipping point” where resources can no longer meet demand? Who decides which group of people are not served? In a capitalist economy it will be the poorest who are excluded first, since they will not be able to pay for the ever increasing cost of limited goods & services.
Beyond all that, the question we are not allowed to consider is: is capitalism really the “best” economic system for the long-term welfare of humankind and the Earth? It appears that capitalism and capitalists can not restrain themselves from extracting and consuming all of the Earth’s natural resources. As the “Club of Rome” predicted back in the 1960’s, and common sense tells us intuitively; there are finite limits to Earth’s resources. There is a limit to the number of people the Earth can feed, due to the available surface area that can produce foodstuffs. A limit to the amount of pollutants Earth’s atmosphere and oceans can absorb and remain a healthful environment for marine life, land animals and food crops. A limit to the fossil fuels that can be economically extracted from Earth’s crust, and put into the environment. A limit to the forest products that can be harvested without equal replenishment.
A limit to the fresh water stored in Earth’s underground aquifers, aquifers being depleted of millions of gallons of water annually, to irrigate crops on otherwise arid, unproductive ground. Crops required to feed an ever increasing population. There is a limit to the quantity of safe, available drinking water for municipal water systems and those sources are being polluted at an unsustainable rate by human industry. A high percentage of municipal drinking water supplies, sourced from rivers, lakes, streams, springs and wells now test positive for an assortment of man-made and naturally toxic elements. Lead, arsenic, mercury, etc., from mining operations and power plant waste; as well as, PFAS, PFOS, glyphosate, chlorophyros and other synthetic, cancer-causing chemicals are regularly found in public water system tests across America.
There is a limit to the fish and other marine animals that can be mass harvested to feed mankind. Commercial fishing operations have already decimated once plentiful species, that fed humans. Agricultural runoff, pollution, storms and ocean rise are depleting populations of shrimp, crabs, oysters and other shellfish along our coastlines. And, so on.
In each of these “extractive” areas of human activity, we can already see the strain on our natural resources. In a capitalistic economy, there will be a constant struggle between nature and human nature. Capitalism encourages man’s quest to extract all the wealth he can from existing natural resources. We see an abject example of this devastating extraction paradigm, in the oil & nature gas industries. In the earliest days, men collected crude oil, called naptha, that bubbled up naturally to Earth’s surface. When that oil was found to be profitable, men drilled down to siphon the crude oil from beneath the surface. When the most accessible oil deposits played out, men searched for other sources and began drilling wells offshore, in the ocean’s floor, in uninhabitable swamplands and arctic regions. In recent decades, the price of oil made it profitable to bore holes, deep into deposits of shale, inject them with a high pressure mixture of toxic fluids and fine grain sand, until oil entrained in the shale was squeezed out, pumped to the surface and collected.
Each of those fossil fuel extraction processes has deleterious side effects on the environment. Yet, no oil companies volunteered to use their own funds to repair the environment they had destroyed. Most fought any regulatory agencies that tried to mandate they do so. It’s not in capitalism’s playbook to allocate funds for profitless activities. And, many of these extractors would get caught in the next oil glut, when prices dropped and they had to declare bankruptcy, leaving the mess they made for someone else to clean up. Beyond the obvious damages caused by oil spills, leaking storage tanka and pipeline ruptures; society and the planet must now contend with the long term environmental damage stemming from extracting and burning carbon-based fuels. All those “capitalists” who profited from Earth’s natural resources are no where to be found, now that its time for the “reckoning”.
Even more absurdly, “energy” companies continue to make huge profits from sucking the ancient carbon deposits out of the ground, knowing humans will burn them and slowly choke and cook our planet. The natural resources of planet Earth, created from millions of years of life, that only a very few humans, living currently, are allowed to extract and create “wealth”, just for themselves. None will be left for future generations to create energy with. But then, maybe our present day capitalistic, “take everything, now” activities will make the planet completely uninhabitable for future generations, altogether.
Perhaps it is time to seriously consider whether a more socially conscious economic and political system should be pursued. The present arrangement appears to be headed down a dead-end street at 10 miles above the speed limit. Must we crash and “total” the vehicle before we will entertain the idea that there might just be a “better”, more fair and equitable way to interact with other humans? Revolutions, though portrayed as “noble” and paradigm shifting, generally result in short-lived (in historical terms) solutions.
And, the 8 billion pound elephant in the room is never addressed. How can we expect to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if we keep adding to the planet’s population? A substantial percentage of the 8 billion souls on Earth, are not yet living at the level of comfort as North America, Europe and parts of Asia. So, won’t all of those currently striving to better themselves, one day own an automobile, refrigerator and flat-screen TV, have central air conditioning in their home, commute to work, build a swimming pool in their yard, etc., etc.
Will the growth of population eventually prove to be the single insurmountable problem for planet Earth? If, in the future, everyone on the planet reached a level of consumption at the same rate as individual Americans do today, are there enough raw resources to meet the demand? Can capitalism ever modify its basic insatiable greed and quest for continued growth to moderate it’s unsustainable depletion of Earth’s natural resources? We humans have reached an unavoidable intersection with fate. It is much to ask of a world built on the greed and avarice in man’s nature, to alter that nature, even though that alteration is the only means of continuing humanity’s sojourn on Earth.
Capitalism and Religion
From another angle, “unfettered capitalism” and the “Judeo/Christian” value system are at odds with each other, as well. In the Old Testament, Jehovah admonishes the Jews to be generous to the poor, strangers, orphans and all those who have fallen upon hard times. Isaiah warns the faithful, “Woe To Those Who Enact Evil Statutes… And Rob The Poor Of My People Of Their Rights…” According to the Ten Commandments, sacred to both Jews and Christians, it is a sin to covet the worldly possessions of others.
In the New Testament, Jesus and the gospel writers, preach time and again that man cannot worship God and Mammon (money) simultaneously. Jesus tells a wealthy acolyte he must give away all his assets, if he would follow Jesus. He declares, “It Is Easier For A Camel To Go Through A Needle’s Eye, Than For A Rich Man To Enter Into The Kingdom Of God.” Jesus warns against “covetousness”, “laying up treasures” on Earth, withholding pay owed to laborers, money changers and the “love of money”. And of course, issues a new commandment that we should, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
These biblical teachings, as well as many others, more closely resemble the tenets underlying “socialism” or “communism”, than the principles of “capitalism”. Here are a few:
Deuteronomy 15:7. You shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, & generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.
15:10. You shall give generously to [your poor brother], and your heart shall not be grieved when you give to him,
26:12. When you have finished paying the complete tithe of your increase… then you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the orphan and the widow, that they may eat in your towns, and be satisfied.
Isaiah 10:1-3. “woe to those who enact evil statutes, and to those who continually record unjust decisions, so as to deprive the needy of justice, and rob the poor of my people of their rights…”
Proverbs 14:31. He who oppresses the poor reproaches his maker, but he who is gracious to the needy honors him.
19:17. He who is gracious to a poor man lends to the lord, and he will repay him for his good deed.
29:7. The righteous is concerned for the rights of the poor; the wicked does not understand such concern.
Luke 3:11. “let the man with two tunics share with him who has none, and let him who has food do likewise.”
6:24. “but woe to you who are rich, for you are receiving your comfort in full.”
12:15. “BEWARE! KEEP YOURSELVES FROM COVETOUSNESS, FOR A MAN’S LIFE DOESN’T CONSIST OF THE ABUNDANCE OF THE THINGS WHICH HE POSSESSES.”
12:33. “sell your possessions and give to charity…”
12:44. “sell your possessions & give alms… For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”
14:12-14. “…when you give a reception, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed
Matthew 5:42. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
6:19 “don’t lay up treasures for yourselves on the earth… for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”
6:24. “no one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other,
or he will hold to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”
19:20. go & sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me most certainly I say to you, a rich man will enter into the kingdom of heaven with difficulty. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”
21:12. “and Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, and said unto them, “It is written, my house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.”
John 3:17. But whoever has the world’s goods, and beholds his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?
James 5:1-6. Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you… …behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and which you have withheld, cries out against you… you have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.
Tim. 6:10. For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith…
Hebrews 13:5. Be free from the love of money, content with such things as you have…
“In the Soviet Union, Capitalism triumphed over Communism. In America, Capitalism triumphed over Democracy.” — Fran Lebowitz
“Many people consider the things which government does for them to be social progress but regard the things government does for others as socialism.” – Chief Justice Earl Warren (4/’52)
“We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” – Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family or class of men…” — John Adams (Article VII of Massachusetts Constitution, October 25, 1780)
“The world is agreed that labor is the source from which human wants are mainly supplied. There is no dispute upon this point.… …And, inasmuch [as] most good things are produced by labour, it follows that [all] such things of right belong to those whose labour has produced them. But it has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have laboured, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. this is wrong, and should not continue. To [secure] to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government.”…
“…In my present position, I could scarcely be justified were I to omit raising a warning voice against this approach of returning despotism… …It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above labor, in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connexion with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it, induce him to labor…”
“…these assumptions are false… …Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration… …A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and, with their capital, hire or buy another few to labor for them.”
“A large majority belong to neither class — neither work for others, nor have others working for them… …Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which, if surrendered, will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they, and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them, till all of liberty shall be lost.” — Abraham Lincoln, [In Order: “Address before Wisconsin State Agricultural Society, Milwaukee, Wisconsin” (9/30/1859), | Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln Vol.I, “Fragments of a Tariff Discussion” (12/1/1847), | Lincoln’s First Annual Message to Congress, 12/3/1861].
America is NOT a “Capitalist” Form of Government
America is supposed to have a social contract among the people who live in this country, that everyone should have an equal voice in the policies we pursue, but the voice of the majority shall rule. As a, supposedly, free and democratic people, we are under no obligation to insure that private interests own, control and make profits from every aspect of our lives, society and environment. Or, that every public resource should be auctioned off into the control of private ownership. On the contrary, as a free people our first obligation is to look after our own well-being, prosperity and happiness. If that means instituting “social programs” that serve the overall common good at the expense of private profits, so be it. There is nothing “undemocratic” about that.
We have somehow been cajoled into believing that what is in the best interest of business, corporations and capitalism is always what is best for America. We are led to believe that the rights of businesses are more important than a single individual’s welfare. Convinced that somehow, by regulating businesses in the public interest we are placing an undo burden on the free pursuit of profit, which somehow diminishes ourselves and our nation. We are led to believe, by placing common-sense restraints on a soulless, state-chartered financial entity – an entity whose only goal is to continually make more money for their investors – we are “anti-capitalists” and “job destroyers”, probably some sort of “commie, socialist liberal” and should be ashamed of ourselves.
History has shown that corporations will not regulate themselves in the public interest, in any meaningful way, without being compelled to by law. Is it a bad thing to prohibit corporations from dumping chemical waste products into our rivers, lakes and oceans? Is it too “burdensome” to require companies to take responsibility for products they sell on the open market, when those products cause injury and harm to the general public?
Is it financially prohibitive to mandate that businesses must provide a safe work environment for employees and pay them some minimal, subsistence level wage? If businesses can not be profitable while providing workplace safety, perhaps the general welfare is not positively served by that business and it does not need to exist? Who will pay for workers injured at that business?
If industry can only be successful when it is allowed to dump toxic chemical waste into our rivers or spew deadly gases into the same atmosphere we all must rely on for life; where is the logic in sustaining that industry through legal loopholes? What public interest is served by allowing a small group of investors to continue making profits, while doing damage to the planetary environment and our society at large? Why is it acceptable for corporations to pollute society’s “property”, but an individual is required to provide restitution should they dump their trash in their neighbor’s yard?
Is it a sustainable public policy to allow a relatively small group of industrial corporations to destroy the environment we all must rely on, if we all hope to continue living on this planet? When did the “right” to make a profit supersede the rights of the general public to have clean water to drink and unpolluted air to breath? Perhaps, if a product or service can only make a profit when it’s manufacturer is allowed to pollute or underpay workers, it is not a product or service that should be made, at all.
We in America have been taught to revere a capitalistic economy. Yet, “capitalism” is an economic theory, not a sacred rulebook that can only be interpreted in one way. There are numerous nations with “capitalistic” economies, that do not operate like the United States, and have avoided the massive financial inequality that we see all around us. The Scandinavian countries; Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, etc. have blended the best economic aspects of Capitalism with the universal welfare traits of Socialism under a Democratic form of government. They are consistently ranked as the top countries in which to live, work, raise children and enjoy life. They have much higher voter participation, longer life expectancy, much lower infant mortality, higher percentage of electric vehicles, to name a few common issues. Women have a significantly greater presence in elected office and virtual income equality with males. Union membership in all of these are in the high 60%-70% range. Yet all are free to start their own businesses, if so inclined. Income taxes are higher, but healthcare, education, child care, public transportation and other services are free to all citizens. Their systems may not be perfect, but, can anyone claim the American system is?
[For further discussion on related topics, see: “That Evil Socialism” doc]