NP Rank:
Government vs. Capitalism
For a generation, now, we have been accommodated with a front row seat to a rigorous and seemingly intractable advance of government into the whole of America’s social fabric, and into the institutions of its capitalist system. Today we are confronted with a wave of negative wind pushing against the capitalism that has brought America its unprecedented success, as it absorbs the blame for the economic meltdown.
I am not equating capitalism with free markets here as is too often done, because that would imply an inclusion of international communities into a common basket, and there has to be balance and common sense in the application of “free trade,” between participants as we have discussed in previous articles.
Recessions inevitably deliver capitalism a bad rap. Making matters worse, there are usually groups or individuals who have taken advantage of power and influence, or who hustle the provenance of panicked confusion into magnified opportunities for fortune creation. All the while, wide swaths of society are struggling to meet basic needs. Visible abuse of the system that leads to wealth concentration provides thresholds over which those so inclined will leap to promote expansion of government and its insinuation into the corporate fiber of the Nation. Such intrusions usually come from those with little grasp of the elements at the heart of economic growth, human nature, creativity and the human spirit. On the other hand, extravagant, unrestrained, and unconscious excess fosters jealousy, and reaction. It can also propel overreaction, which in turn empowers those in government who seek increases in government intervention at all levels of commerce.
Such exercises in reactive belligerence pretending concern for the public “good,” are actually acts of self-interest intoxicated by ideology, or worse, driven by overwhelming ego. The reactive process ignores long term consequences of hysterically applied policies, and absolutely cannot effectively evaluate the secondary or tertiary repercussions.
We lament the often-declared unintended consequences of unctuously presented self-righteous actions such as the promotion of dubiously structured mortgages. It is reasonable to expect a chicken in every pot. It was, however, unreasonable to have politicized the American dream of home ownership into a structural expectation and promoted it as a fundamental right. Somehow, the “home” became the vessel that would bring forth the promise of collective prosperity. Both of the dominant American political assertions, Republican and Democrat, signed onto the program. Both sides of the political isle bent all rules of common sense to exert pressure in effort to curry favor with the electorate, and corporate benefactors, while satisfying expectations of lobbyists.
The department of Housing and Urban Development from the early ‘90s on, pushed minority applicant quotas on mortgage bankers, and set targets for the purchase of less than median mortgages by Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac (FM & FM). With the taxpayer on the hook for trillions in questionable debt, banks and bank executives were dancing in risk-free ballrooms up to the rafter in money. As the trillions accumulated, FM & FM, with the applause of Wall Street financial institutions such as Morgan and Goldman, “creatively-accounted” for the real value of the toxic assets that taxpayers would one day be required to cover. Oversight? Sure there was oversight – oversight that appropriate kickbacks made their way to all of the proper pockets. The Clinton Administration and Congress pushed banks to adhere to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) in order to be allowed to diversify. Again, where was the risk? Thank you FM & FM. No, make that, thank you taxpayers. Then along came George Bush with the American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) signed into law in December 2003 to increase home ownership rates with funds to be provided to first time buyers for down payments and closing costs.
Making matters more fragile, in came galloping the Morgan and Goldman types, smarter and more ruthless than the deplorable dunces at AIG who were easily perverted into insuring Collateralized Debt Obligations, and seducing banks to over-leverage, using complex instruments the bankers didn’t understand. The financial community availed itself self-servingly of the opportunity created by the government’s intervention. Morgan, Goldman and other investment banks made billions selling tainted goods to banks and to foreign governments. Lack of awareness and understanding by the general community encouraged a galvanization of international endorsements for what were worthless toxic assets from the outset. The long-term consequences of this extensive and forceful government intervention will have unintentionally synthesized some extremely substantive burdens on our grandchildren.
What old and repeated lesson has once more been reinforced from this generation-long exercise?
Government is using taxpayers’ money to build powerful infrastructures that will in effect work against them, and encroach on their freedoms. Uncontrolled government intervention and cronyism are destructive potencies that destroy the fundamental bulwarks of the capitalist system, and Washington has been practicing the schemes for too long. In so doing it has eroded the openness and efficiency of America‘s economic broad-wealth creating environment. I say broad because any government reinforcement of excessive concentration of wealth and power is not conducive to the long-term health of the broader society.
Entrepreneurial energies bloom most abundantly in small clusters. The more the better, but each succeeds best without encumbrance of committees, or group designed strategies. Government on the other hand is by its nature a giant mushrooming amoeba, incapable of creativity, requiring endless approvals, with all departments and agencies in a continuous phase of expansion, justified by egos requiring satisfaction and aggrandizing the turf. Government bureaucracy instills dependence upon itself whenever and wherever possible. History shouts that dependence on government becomes dangerously habitual, and leads to loss of liberty. That goes for individuals, as well as for businesses.
Stifling true entrepreneurial spirit will destroy that critical energy at the foundation of the American economy. It is this fundamentally critical energy that strives to anticipate needs or wants of the broader society, then creatively delivers solutions, and augments output. It strives to become educated in order to better understand whatever might advance its ascent along the risky path to success, and endeavors to minimize its assumptions. Above all it applies as much common sense as it can muster to minimize the chances of failure, and improve the odds of producing something greater than what began. As this energy succeeds, many prosper and benefit. Entrepreneurial independence operating within the boundaries of the Nation’s laws has for two centuries differentiated America from every other country on Earth.
It is understandable that not everyone can be an entrepreneur in the strictest sense, however, each can be entrepreneurial in personal practice and mindset, and each one of us can be thoughtful. At the very least, we can all void jealousies that might restrain that spirit in others, or attempt to obstruct their right to exercise positive natural tendencies and capacities. So doing might quell the demagoguery that is inflating the ascent against the private sector, productivity, and the creation of wealth.
We should not accept deceitful rationalizations artfully packaged through demagoguery and homiletics, or allow them to deliver prepackaged thinking on our behalf. We are presented with economic realities which demand reason, and summon our uncompromised reasoning. The economic challenges presented should apprehend the participation of the whole of population. Such participation is occasion for self-education at a very singular level to understand, as much as is possible, all of the causes that led to the events now chastising the country. The comprehension will guide the electorate toward a more judicious discernment, as it navigates through the political passage ahead. Assuming that others “on The Hill,” will have the answers, would be a gross abdication of rights and capabilities.
Capitalism provides the platform for the individual to push the boundaries of creativity and productivity in the creation of wealth. Government’s role is to protect the environment, through laws, and judicious oversight, within which capitalism is allowed to strive. Broad participation is required, without ambiguity, if there is to be sensible pushback on the advancing and infringing hoards from “The Hill.”
James Raider writes The Pacific Gate Post
Recommendations (18)
-
merlingraycat
Ventura, California, United States -
sara star
Halifax, NS, Canada -
albertacowpoke
Canada -
tikun
Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel -
Babel-Fish
Negros Oriental, Philippines


Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (8)
at 23:32 on July 25th, 2009
Capitalism can in fact work well with social awareness if the balance is on the right tilt. However the main problem about America type of government was given in a prediction or at least within Plato's philosophy.
My own offer of Philosophy is: All countries are geared by the elite and most of the elite are selfish and are skilled within their own selfishness in using others selfishness to gain more wealth. The present systems in most countries favor the most wealthy and those that have great influence and can pull the strings of political puppets. They fund, bribe and can put favored people into power its not to do with the actual politics but to do with whom could be more attractive to the voters.
The actual politics of all administration can be flawed by elitist control and needs and the many needs of the citizens get thrown out of the window.
Capitalism should not be control-ism to be successful but its been allowed to be and the governing systems in most nations are protected against radical change that would stop corruption and control from outside the government from wealthy elitist.
Today's politics is the same as yesterday the system is not geared for the voters but for the rich and powerful only when overwhelming demands from the voters are the times policies change but not enough to suit the voters if the puppet masters really complain.
Its the elite that constantly try to take our freedom away and try to keep the status quo in their favor. No one can be totally free as we all have to obey the laws and the policies that the elite provide to keep us under control.
at 00:56 on July 26th, 2009
Freedom vs Capitalism vs Democracy
I see this error so often.
I'm convinced it is one of the biggest blind spots of humanity in the way of progress.
…That so many people think of 'democracy' as being the ideal, whilst capitalism is seen as exploitation of the weak/poor by people in power with guns, battons and employment opportunities. And where so-called Capitalism is thought to have failed… Whilst the idea of 'freedom' is linked to democracy.
We've seen it recently in the Iranian 'go green' 'where is my vote' trend.
Here's a response I made to someone recently:
Michael, just as politics has many versions, so Capitalism has atleast 2. One is political the other is not. Only the political capitalism has been applied to date. We have not yet experienced non-political capitalism. Dont confused 'letting people live free whilst protecting them from force' with 'using force-backed coercion to control profits'.
Bottom line:
America was not founded as a Democracy. It was founded as a Republic. Not 'rule by the majority', for unlucky those that are in the minority. Democracy is a stupid idea for the great unwashed masses to 'fight for', which only puts governments back in control, whilst the stupid masses lose their freedoms of a true republic and the genuine form of free-market capitalism which has NEVER existed in modern society, whilst the media focuses blame on so called capitalists, who are really political-capitalists that want government backed coercion, fraud and force to protect their monopolies and exploitations.
It's a convoluted mess.
Where will clarity come from?
From my blog Neuroplasticity.
at 03:34 on July 26th, 2009
It is never a good system where a very small percentage of the population hold the majority of the wealth. There can be no democracy in that.
at 03:37 on July 26th, 2009
The middle class has been holding up the economy, but since they are vanishing (ie the rich get richer, the poor poorer), there is no one to drive it anymore. The rich can only feast on themselves now.
Most of us are the "working poor".
at 18:13 on August 8th, 2009
"... there is no one to drive it anymore ... "
So true. The "brain wash" that was applied to the middle class was an attempt to justify the elimination of the "means of production" and the mid-skill jobs that were associated with it, by ethereal manipulations of economic sound-byte linguistics that ultimately have been shown to be nonsensical.
Production is the practical, and in many cases only way that most people can put their hands on money. After the "means of production" has been lost or given over to far shores, there are fewer practical ways for average individuals to earn a living.
There's no ethereal rocket science involved at all. It's as plain as can be, and many of us in (formerly) industrialized nations are realizing this truism in the painful economic price we now pay ...
at 04:06 on July 26th, 2009
At what level does working poor start? Working poor with houses almost twice the size of houses just 20 years ago, double garage, RVs, boats and toys in the driveways. These are people in their early 30s. Is this just an illusion on my part?
Maybe we should all step back and take a look where we were at that age and also take a look where our parents were during that phase of their lives. There are people that are left behind in our system, but they certainly aren't the majority. If the middle class has been eradicated or vanishing and most of us are the working poor, it isn't readily evident, at least not in Alberta, even with a turn down of the economy.
at 04:47 on July 26th, 2009
You have some good points ACP.
The people who are poor are too ashamed to tell you that they are in trouble, including the ones with the "toys", who most of the time don't own them anyway, living on credit. In my parents' time there were no credit cards, and banks rarely gave out loans. My dad always paid in cash even for his cars. That is the difference.
Source: intraspec.ca
at 05:04 on July 26th, 2009
The people who are poor are too ashamed to tell you that they are in trouble,
I agree with your premise as stated above. The fact that they would have those toys and big houses indicates though that they are not living within their means. My parents, as did yours, never bought anything on credit. They worked hard and bought what they needed and didn't go after wants until they had saved enough to buy it.
That attitude and approach to life promoted self-esteem and a sense of accomplishment. I think urbanization, constant bombardment by advertising along with big shopping malls (i.e. West Edmonton Mall) have contributed to this attitude in society today.
Can you imagine a shopping mall being a tourist attraction when the Rockies are only 4 hours drive away?
People are not in touch with their environment and their values are misplaced.