I’m
not an economist (which likely is obvious to many who read my comments), but my
6 undergraduate hours of economics may put me a bit ahead of some who comment
on social media. I’m reminded of the saying, “Fools rush in…”
I
will begin by setting the record straight: I am not a socialist, nor do I advocate
socialism. I believe, in theory, that free market capitalism offers the
most equitable opportunity for the greatest number of persons and families to
earn a comfortable living, by which I mean secure and comfortable shelter, applicable
seasonal clothing, a healthy diet, safe transportation, exercise and
recreation, education[1],
and health care. The operative words here are “in theory.”
In
the first place there are no free markets except in theory. While I am
not an economist, I am an historian, and throughout history, some human entity always
has controlled, or at least administered (read: manipulated), every market.
In
the second place, every human system is vulnerable to corruption and mismanagement.
Systems fail because people fail and don’t adapt those systems to changing
situations. But, it’s not the system, but people, who adapt or fail to adapt a
given system to its context.
To
my limited knowledge, except in isolated situations, socialism has never manifested
a sustained effectiveness. Its failure is not because it is socialism; rather,
it fails because the wrong people administer it in the wrong way.
This
begs the question of whether socialism would work effectively if administered
with integrity. We may never know, because it may never happen, except perhaps in
isolated situations as referenced above.
The
same can be said of communism. It has failed because it has been administered
the wrong ways by the wrong people.
The
same can be said about free market capitalism. American capitalism has failed
repeatedly because it was administered in the wrong way by the wrong people.
Each time it failed, those who control the market made necessary adaptations
for recovery, and capitalism was re-started. The economy vacillates, depending
on who or what party or consortium controls access to the market.
Paul H. Weaver was deep
into the first generation of the neoconservative movement in the 1960s. He
was a proponent of free market capitalism, and a strong defender of Corporate
America. Then, as an executive for a major corporation, he gradually became
disillusioned by corporate practices that did more harm than good—not only to
the general economy of the nation, but to the corporation, itself!
In his exposé, The
Suicidal Corporation[2], Weaver traces the
historical development of the corporate movement, beginning with its emergence
in the railroad industry during the post-Civil-War years. What he discovered in
his research was that the corporation was developed, not as a way of competing
within a free market, but of controlling the market and eliminating the
competition.[3]
My point is this:
before we can make the American systems of governance and economics work for everyone
in the nation, we need to elect people of political integrity—both in government and in
corporate leadership. Personal morality is good. I highly recommend it. I would
love to see a national leader with both personal morality and effective
leadership; but too often the two qualities seem mutually exclusive.
The political process
becomes a logjam when advocacy for personal morality is subsumed into a
campaign to legislate a specific (usually religious) code of morality,
and when that campaign is more about enforcing that specific moral code than
about governing. History has shown clearly: when religion controls government,
or government controls religion, it’s bad for both. Personal morality is neither
personal nor moral—nor does it fit any description of “religious liberty”—if it’s
legislated.
Which brings me back
to my opening point: I’m neither a socialist nor and advocate of socialism. I affirm
the dictum, “That government is best that governs least.” Our Constitution creates
our government, and in its preamble defines the arena within which that
government fulfills its purpose.
The Constitution was
written by people who had suffered the heavy hand of despotism, and in response
wrote what they hoped would safeguard The United States from similar oppression.
The government they constituted is limited in power, responsive to needs, and
responsible to the populace.
I do not advocate governmental
control of anything. Will Rogers said, “There are people in government who shouldn’t
be allowed to play with matches.” Well, there are people in corporate
leadership who cannot be trusted in a totally free market; in fact, who are the
reason there are no free markets in reality.
The government is
responsible to the whole citizenry, as well as to business; therefore, I
believe the government should set reasonable and equitable boundaries beyond
which no business may venture (else they disturb the delicate balance required
to sustain truly “free” markets), but within which all are free to compete.
That’s how it looks
through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.
Together
in the Walk,
Jim
[1] Education is an issue to itself.
I acknowledge that people need and deserve the kind of guidance that will
maximize their innate abilities, not only for their own benefit, but also for
the benefit of society. A democratic nation or republic profits from an
educated citizenry. America reached its highest levels of productivity and prosperity
when its average educational level was it its highest. So, I am a strong
advocate for public education.
[3] On pages 110-111, et. al.
