Topic: Capitalism
Free our "Free Markets" Capitalism has a bad rap, but what are we doing to change that?by R.J. Moeller
(conservative)
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
"Many have argued that capitalism does not offer a satisfactory moral message. But that is like saying that calculus does not contain carbohydrates, amino acids, or other essential nutrients. Everything fails by irrelevant standards." -Thomas Sowell
I hate to be the bearer of reality (formerly known as "bad news") but when the president of the United States proposes a budget so large that $17 billion in cuts would only account for .04% of it, your country is in trouble. This means that the same inept band of former trial lawyers and community organizers in Washington, the ones who couldn't run Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae anywhere but directly in to the ground and oversaw staggering financial losses even in the management of the Congressional dining hall, will now have upwards of $3.4 trillion to "reshape America" with. For one year, $3.4 trillion.
Gentlemen, start your slush funds.
We find ourselves in a tough spot right now, no doubt. The problems didn't start yesterday and they're not going away tomorrow. The situation and its resolution are complex and complicated, but at the very heart of the answer to the question "How did we get here?" is this: a misplaced distrust and disdain for capitalism.
For 60 years the assault on free enterprise and the private sector of our economy has grown exponentially. By and large, the attacks on capitalism, whether through legislation in Congress, lectures in the classroom, or not-so-subtly-embedded messages on your television screen, haven't relented since the end of World War II.
One of the biggest misconceptions being peddled today is that capitalism was the root cause of our recent economic meltdown. This ridiculous premise falsely presumes that genuine capitalism has actually been in place the past half century; let alone previous 8 years during George W. Bush's time in office. Someone who spouts such historically inaccurate gobbledygook assumes that it is "no big deal" that we have a media, academia, and entertainment industry (all fueled and funded by free market capitalism, mind you) that has done everything in its power to undermine and mis-characterize capitalism in the minds of millions of Americans.
Intellectually, free enterprise's public deterioration has unmistakably come from the Left. There's really little point in debating this fact. One can call him or herself a "modern liberal" and still claim some allegiance to free market capitalism, but it's a lonely island they'll have deserted themselves on. Liberalism, embodied by the modern Democrat Party, is fundamentally a statist, collectivist movement. In other words: anti-capitalist.
However, in practice, in the halls of political power, and although Democrats are more inclined to statism and consistent in their bigger-government tendencies, both parties share the blame for abusing capitalism and grabbing powers that, constitutionally speaking, do not belong to them.
Of course this is always done with "good intentions", or in the name of "justice" or "fairness", but the predictable result is always the same: higher taxes, more spending, increased control for the federal government, and less liberty (and income) for private, law-abiding citizens.
Speaking of those John and Jane Q. Taxpayer's out there, they too have a part to play in the death of capitalism. Whether by ignorance or willful, active participation, each voter has contributed in some way to the corrosion of free enterprise, which has led us to the financial crisis we find ourselves in today. Two of the more egregious categories of voters in my mind include the die-in-the-wool anti-capitalist liberal, and the apathetically uninvolved Republican who only shows up, or any interest in the candidates, every 4 years.
Those in the first group who proudly vote for "more-of-everything-but-freedom" politicians on the Left do so in large part because of their own personal perspective on the "social issues" that they often mock conservative Republicans on the Right for being actively involved in. Welfare, on-demand abortion, Sarah Palin's belief that the Creator actually created the earth, and the like get this first group of committed liberals out of bed on election morning with a federally-subsidized spring in their step. They're dead wrong, mind you, but there's little hope of convincing them otherwise.
These Left-of-Left-of-Center people proudly boast a devotion to a worldview and political ideology that is literally unsustainable without the birthrates of the religious conservatives they despise, and fiscally untenable without the productivity of the entrepreneurial capitalists they attempt to inhibit. Nice.
Then there are the millions of Republican voters who cast party-line ballots on the other side of the political aisle come election time and then promptly (and mentally) check out of the process for another 4 years. They sit by and watch as the GOP spends like inebriated liberal sailors, but because they hear terms like "pro-choice" and "family values" they're willing to irresponsibly sell themselves and their children's children down the economic river.
I couldn't be more fed up with this "I'm so passionate about politics that I fail to monitor the primary, Constitutionally-appointed tasks my representatives are supposed to do" type of Republican voter. Placing an "I didn't vote for Chairman MAObama" bumper-sticker on your car isn't enough. We're better than this, and it takes some physical and intellectual elbow-grease to initiate "real change" by staying actively informed and involved.
This includes teaching and instructing future generations the values you deem worthy of your precious vote. If your son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew, niece or grand kid doesn't learn about conservatism and capitalism from you, they won't learn it at all. Teachers and friends at high school and college are indoctrinating the children of wishy-washy traditional Americans with secular-progressive liberalism.
The litmus test for gauging your credibility as a "real" conservative (or libertarian) should no longer simply be if you say you like capitalism at dinner parties and barbeques, but how many young people in your life know for a fact that you like it, and can themselves explain it to others because you've taught them the tenets of free market enterprise.
Now there are obviously many different groups that make up our electorate, and some people fall in to multiple ones among them. But honestly, if you aren't on the side of freer markets, if you don't crave more economic liberty, if you don't desire "self-reliance and civic duty" ceasing to be deemed as mutually exclusive traits of a good citizen, then you aren't in-line with the purpose and intent of this great nation and its visionary Founders.
It's a tough and bitter pill to swallow to hear this, I know. Especially in these politically correct, "truth is relative", emotions-driven times. But it's no less true that someone opposed to economic liberty (in word or deed) is opposed to America's original meaning just because we happen to live in a day and age where we'd all rather be nice than right.
People incorrectly assume that the right to vote is the most important thing in a free society. It obviously does matter, but what is more important than your ability to earn a living? What speaks more directly to what it means to be truly free than the degree to which you are able to provide for yourself and your family?
Perhaps this familial aspect to the inherent value of economic liberty is why in overwhelming numbers more married people identify themselves as conservative and younger, single adults tend to be more liberal. It is harder, although not impossible, for a young single person to appreciate the paradoxical satisfaction that comes from being burdened with the responsibility of providing for others, and meeting that challenge by the sweat of your own brow (instead of a tax-credit from your neighbor).
Freedom to young people my age typically means the ability to "do whatever I want." Freedom for those with others dependent upon them quickly becomes what G.K. Chesterton described as "the ability to do what I should."
If you have to come to government for what you otherwise could provide and sacrifice for on your own, you aren't really free. You are now dependent on that government, and the only way to get more of what you need is to vote for the politician who promises to give more and more of it away. This is known in some circles as "socialism". (See: Europe)
Political freedom only matters if you don't need politicians to survive.
(Part II coming Friday)
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 8 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of R.J. Moeller only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. R.J. Moeller is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-05-13 12:24:37
The first thing we can do to change the "bad rap" is to acknowledge that our markets are regulated, not free. Regulated markets are the opposite of free markets. You can't slowly lose a free market. Once it ceases to be free in some way, it effectively loses its freedom. From the point of that first intervention, the market is no longer free. So the blame for economic failure belongs to regulated markets, not to free markets.
Well for once we might actually agree and you didn't attack my piece. Christmas come early. You are absolutely right, and my point in this column (and its second half on Friday) is to remind peopel that capitalism isn't the problem...its the solution. It's that we've abandoned free and replaced it with regulated is why we're in the mess we find ourselves. Thanks for the comment.
According to heritage, the US is the 6th most economically free country with 80.7% but Canada is nipping at our heels with 80.5%. Friggin Canukistan is as economically free as us! Once Obama is through, I expect we will be tied with North Korea or Zimbabwe.
From the site: 'Weaknesses remain in fiscal freedom and government size. Total government spending equals more than a third of GDP. Corporate and personal taxes are high and increasingly uncompetitive. In 2008, the sub-prime mortgage crisis had far-reaching effects, and the government's unprecedented interventionist measures could severely undermine economic freedom in the future.'
As someone in his mid twenties and single I always find the Conservative stereotype that us young people are lazy and are dependent on the government greatly amusing. Then conservatives wonder why majority of us typically don't like conservative politicians. People like Jeff Flake, Ron Paul and Utah Governor Jon Huntsmans appeal to me because they actually believe that government should stay out of your life both economically and personally. Also what do certain social issues like "intellegent" design, same-sex marriage and others have to do with economic liberty? I can understand why welfare would since that is funded by the public dime and has overwhelming evidence that it has failed time and time again. Abortion somewhat because it is still federally funded.
I am 26 myself and single. I was speaking of liberals. I included libertarians in my piece as people I agree with and I do so even more in the second half of it coming out tomorrow. I am with you on many of these issues. Sure I happen to care a little more about some of the "social issues", but wasn't it obvious in my piece that I'm sick of the people on the Center-Right (of which you sound like you are a part of) who only latch on to a few social issues and ignore monitoring the people they vote for when it comes to the Constitutional, fiscal ones? I am pro-choice, pro-marriage, believe God created the world (how He did it is up to Him), and go to church every Sunday. Those issues matter to me, but I'm lucid enough to realize that the MOST IMPORTANT things so far as our government goes are things like liberty, freer markets, private property rights, limiting themselves to Constitutionally-appointed powers, etc. Then we can settle the other social issues, but I for one think its time we focus our efforts on winning back (via the election of fiscally conservative/responsible, strict constructionist politicians) our government from the Left.
Thanks for reading. I meant no disrespect and I'm sure you're a hard-working young person, like I would like to think of myself as. Although, the numbers do not lie and young people are much more liberal than those who are married. I then made an observation on those numbers, and on the people I know and interact with who fall in to that category of young, single, and liberal.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-05-14 09:50:24
I'm glad we agree on this, RJ. My question to you is: why do you insist on continuing to call them "free markets," even with the quotation marks? I know the quotation marks are meant to imply sarcasm, but wouldn't we all be better off if we called them what they are: regulated markets? Each time we call them "free markets" we encourage the statists to continue to spin that phrase to describe the markets. Let's change the spin by changing the term!
I hear you, but I guess I'm just of the opinion that we need to re-claim that word and do a better job of explaining to people A)Why we need them and B)Why we don't currently have them. I suppose a change in terms is okay, and I'm not against it per se, but I like the term free markets and want us to better define what it means and how we can go about seeing to it that our markets grow increasingly freer in the years to come. Thanks.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-05-14 15:28:41
I like the term "free market" too, but how are you going to reclaim it by using it to describe the current market? That's what causes the confusion in the first place! The sarcasm backfires.
You might define what is a "free" market. If not, then aren't we similar to everyone else who chants "free market", but really just wants privilege?
For instance, those socalled "free market" advocates on the right always bellowing for capital gains income exclusion? If we support any government[and it is an option one way or the other], how do we pay for it? How is taxing labor at 30% and capital gains at 10% a free market? Or any tax for that matter?
What about incorporation? Or taxing house land but not agricultural?
And what does conservative or liberal have to do with a "free" market? does a free market have a political bias? You can't "conserve" or "liberate" a market, it either exists or doesn't.
While I agree with your sentiment, we don't have to be a real anything to have a free market. The market starts out free and we take it away. It doesn't exist in some political corner.
Thanks as always for engaging me on this issue. I agree that further discussion and definition has to happen, and I plan on doing so in the coming weeks and months with my columns. I write specifically with people under 30 in mind most of the time and there are real-life, yes even political, implications for "Free Markets" today. Center-Right people on the whole are Center-Right because they favor freer markets. Libertarians and conservatives agree on this by and large and that is a good thing that we do. Liberals, as I said in my column, tend not to agree and want to see the government increase its control in the private sector. Some might call themselves liberals but be in favor of freer enterprise, but they are few and far between. So yes, if it helps you to think that in 2009 America there is no political component to who wants freer markets, then by all means continue doing so. The rest of us will clearly recognize that while conservatism doesn't define free enterprise or capitalism or free market economy or whatever you want to call it, liberalism wants little to do with those things. Do with that what you will. Your point is valid, but doesn't really prove anything and gets us nowhere,
It's not a mistake that conservatives tend to want freer markets. If you want my full definition of what all it entails, with its subtle intricacies and details, read Free to Choose or Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman. Road to Serfdom and The Fatal Conceit by FA Hayek are also good reads on the subject of "free markets". We do need to define things more, and like I said I intend to in upcoming columns. I know the government has a role and I value and support that. Its role is defined in the Constitution. Anything above and beyond that is more than I'm ready to accept for now, and if we did need more, we have the ability to ammend. We pay for government by keeping its role defined (and confined to that definition), and then taxing appropriately. You're question above about how do we pay for it implies that we've just got re-arrange chairs on the Titanic and figure out the best solution. I say we scrap the Titanic, and get back on the Mayflower that brought us here in the first place.
I tried to clarify that we HAVE NOT had the free market system we should have.
"One of the biggest misconceptions being peddled today is that capitalism was the root cause of our recent economic meltdown. This ridiculous premise falsely presumes that genuine capitalism has actually been in place the past half century; let alone previous 8 years during George W. Bush's time in office. Someone who spouts such historically inaccurate gobbledygook assumes that it is "no big deal" that we have a media, academia, and entertainment industry (all fueled and funded by free market capitalism, mind you) that has done everything in its power to undermine and mis-characterize capitalism in the minds of millions of Americans."
Read my column tomorrow, because I have more on how far we really are from having "free markets". I also believe that one of the testaments to capitalism is that even with our watered-down version of it here in America, which by and large has been the most pro-free market country in the world for a long time, we've seen wild successes. The fact that it can still produce at all with all the ridiculous restrictions and limitations and ineffective regulation we have is remarkable and should be enough of a wake up call to moderates or clear-headed thinkers on either side of the political aisle that we're headed in the wrong direction with the collectivist, statist path we're on now.
Like one of my favorite conservative voices often says: "Clarity over unity". We do need to be clear on what we're all saying and that by drawing clear distinctions from the fiscal policies of the Center-Left crowd, we conservatives and libertarians could really do some "damage" in upcoming elections as people start to see the myth of Obama unfold in greater detail. I'll try my best to be better at clearly delineating my positions and terms if you libertarians will open your mind to the possibility that someone like me is actually in agreement with you and happy to partner with you on the core values of liberty, freer markets, and limited government. Thanks.
"Center-Right people on the whole are Center-Right because they favor freer markets. Libertarians and conservatives agree on this by and large and that is a good thing that we do. Liberals, as I said in my column, tend not to agree and want to see the government increase its control in the private sector."
Again, the free market does not reside in a political spectrum. It is political interests that control, regulate and direct the market. The nature of politics is the nature of the State, any political action by its nature, restrains the free market.
Conservatives and Liberals are virtually identical in seeking control of the private sector, simply emphasizing different areas.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-05-15 15:43:28
Hi RJ.
Yes, I realize what you did and why you did it. I think Gene's suggestion is a good one: define what the free market is, rather than what it is not. In other words, express it in positive terms, rather than negative terms. Then, contrasting that term "free market" with the term "regulated market" should show better contrast.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
