why capitalism is good
In capitalism, there is free market and profit depends on the distribution of goods. Although free market can be a disadvantage to the private business, still this can be a motivation for private owners to improve their products and services because of competition.
Capitalism is beneficial to the economic because it can lift and boost the social system of a society. It can also attract more investors to the country because there is freedom to put up a business.
Ten Reasons Why Capitalism Is Morally Superior
As the owner of a contracting business, do you feel you are under attack? You should. You are. Capitalism and the free enterprise system are under the most relentless assault seen in the post war era. As a contractor you operate within the capitalist system, but may not feel comfortable defending it. Here are ten reasons why capitalism is morally superior to socialism, or statism (i.e., power and decisions are vested in the state or government).
Talk about capitalism’s moral superiority the next time you hear someone parroting the politicians, entertainers, academics, clerics, and professional rabble rousers who are all bemoaning the failures of capitalism. Their only answers are to dust off the same old prescriptions that have been tried, tested, and found wanting again and again.
The most basic freedom is the freedom to make choices. Capitalism promotes choice. It promotes the ability of people to decide what they want to buy, how much they want to buy, where they want to live, where they want to work, and so on. With statism, choices are limited. The government decides, for example, what kind of light bulb is available, how much water a toilet can use, the minimum factory efficiency of an air conditioning system, and more.
The removal of simple choices reduces freedom. The removal of all choices is slavery. The direction of statism is towards slavery. The direction of capitalism is towards freedom. Capitalism is morally superior.
If I want a new air conditioning system installed in my home, I call a contractor. We have to agree on a price where I consider it better to own the new comfort system than to keep the money it costs. Likewise, the contractor considers it better to take the money paid than to keep the equipment in inventory (or pick it up from the supply house) and perform the installation. We have to voluntarily cooperate and agree on the price.
Next, the contractor must elicit the labor of his employees to perform the installation, in return for compensation. Then, he must cooperate with the supply house or distributor regarding the purchase of the material and equipment. The distributor must buy it in turn from a manufacturer who builds the equipment as the outcome of thousands of acts of cooperation upstream.
An excellent video describing the cooperation that results from free markets and capitalism is I Pencil: The Movie, based on the essay by Leonard E. Read. Take a few minutes to watch it.
Statism denies cooperation. Central planners make decisions that are forced on people. Statists eschew cooperation because left on their own, people make decisions the statists disagree with. An example is the imposition of any type of wage and price controls like the minimum wage.
If you want to hire a high school student for a few hours after school to clean your shop and help stock your trucks at the end of the day, you and the high school student should be able to agree amongst yourselves on the right compensation. Because the high school student hasn’t learned good work habits, has no experience, and will require close supervision, you may decide that the student is not worth the required minimum. Because the state forces you to pay more than you can justify, you must find another way to get the work done and the student is denied both pocket money and the more valuable work experience that will lead to greater pay in the future.
Cooperation is more moral than force. Capitalism is again, the more moral economic system.
Capitalists live in a world of opportunity. They constantly survey the landscape looking for possibilities to gain, to build, to expand, to create. Statists, on the other hand, focus on scarcity. They see a world of limited resources, which gives them reason to ration and allocate.
What the statists overlook is the unlimited power of human ingenuity. Time and time again, statists have predicted the world would be unable to feed itself. Yet, agricultural innovations result in more food production on the same or less land. Statists scared the public with peak oil and limited fossil fuels, yet thinks to the combination of horizontal drilling and fracking, the U.S. alone sits on a 200 year supply of oil.
There is a moral aspect in play. Focusing on limits and living within them becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. The statist suppresses man’s hopes and prospects. Capitalism again, is more moral.
The capitalist believes that people can make their own best decisions. This is the basis of the free market with millions of people making individual choices. Statists believe the common man is incapable of making good choices, so an elite must intervene and make choices for people.
Integral to capitalism is a belief in the goodness and intelligence of the common man, despite inherent frailties and shortcomings of individuals. Statists look down on and denigrate the public. Again, capitalism is more moral.
Income inequality is the cry of the statist. Equality of opportunity is the anthem of capitalism. People will never be wholly equal. Because of my four inch vertical leap, I will never be able to dunk a basketball. In a basketball game against Michael Jordan, I will lose ten times out of ten. Even if I practice hard and improve my game significantly, I will probably never be able to overcome Jordan’s inherent athletic gifts.
The capitalist would point out that my attempt to compete resulted in improvements in my basketball skills and ability. Jordan may still pound me into dust, but the overall game between us improved. I am better off as a result of my effort.
The statist takes a different view. Jordan’s basketball superiority is unfair. Therefore, he must be handicapped in some way. He must be forced to give me credit for some of the baskets he scores. This does nothing to improve the game or improve my performance. In fact, I have less reason to improve my game. I might have to work for my points instead of taking Jordan’s.
The cry about income inequality is one of the biggest loads of crap being foisted on the public today. The statist sees a static world where a low income earner today is a low income earner tomorrow, when the truth is just the opposite. People can change their income through their own efforts. I may never earn as much as Bill Gates, but I can earn more than I do today. When I strive to earn more, I help expand the economy. Taking money from Gates and giving it to me may benefit me personally, but it will do nothing to help the economy.
Winston Churchill said, “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” By focusing on opportunity and not outcome, capitalism is the more moral economic system.
The income inequality talk stirs up envy. Statists want us to envy and resent the wealthy and high income earners. Capitalists want us to emulate them. Do not resent those more successful than you. Emulate them.
Envy is dangerous. We see it in the HVAC industry every day. The contractors who are the most successful are often slammed and slandered by their less successful peers who envy them without attempting to learn from them. Envy generates excuses. Without envy, we must face the fact that we can change our own reality. If others can do it, so can we.
Emulation is more moral than envy. Capitalism is more moral than statism.
Your income and wealth are a direct reflection of the value you generate for others. Deliver more value under capitalism and you will ultimately receive commensurate rewards. Statists, on the other hand, reward connections and political power. The wealthy in a statist system exploit position and connections to prosper.
In the United States, we have a mixed system where we can see examples of both. We see entrepreneurs who become wealthy by building great companies. We also see crony capitalists who leverage government connections to gain advantage. Finally, we see representatives of the people who are elected to congress with pennies in their pockets and emerge in a few years with millions in their bank accounts.
Wealth from value delivered is morally superior to wealth from connections exploited. Capitalism is morally superior.
The smartest guy in the room is not smarter than the collected intelligence of everyone else in the room. Markets are always smarter than government planners. In the free market, millions of individual decisions are made, which result in a more optimum outcome than the smartest guy in the country planning for everyone. This is why socialist countries tend to be economic basket cases. The more the state controls decisions through top down autocracy, the worse the outcomes.
A better outcome may or may not be considered morally superior, but it is superior. Capitalism is the better system.
Incentives matter. If a full commission salesperson is put on salary, what happens to his performance? It declines, of course. Tell anyone he will make the same amount of money no matter how hard he works and most will not work very hard. This is human nature.
Capitalism is built on the notion of incentives. Everyone has an incentive to build, create, and serve others. Statists suppress incentives. They shill about income inequality and redistribute money earned by the most productive to give to those not producing at all.
It is human nature to strive to improve and achieve. If we were content with the status quo and just acted on urge and instinct, we would be little more than animals. The statist attempts to turn us into cattle or sheep. Capitalism reflects our true nature and the human condition. It is morally superior.
Statists love to moan about the environment. However, environmental conditions are best where wealth is greatest. Wealth correlates closely with capitalism.
Moreover, capitalists believe in private property and property rights, which is better for the environment. The Tragedy of the Commons explains how public ownership is worse than privatization. Individuals have an incentive to look after their property. No one has an incentive to take care of “the commons.” Yet, statists believe the state should own and control as much property as possible.
Combine the reduced wealth of a socialist economy with public ownership and you see the economic devastation that characterized many Soviet bloc countries following the fall of communism. Again, capitalism is morally superior.
Statists talk often of the need to take care of those less fortunate. Not even the most libertarian capitalist will argue with the need to help others. They do object to the government taking an individual’s money by force as certain as any armed robber and redistributing it in ways the individual does not like. This does not mean we abandon the poor. It just means we must recognize that redistribution of income is immoral, not moral.
It is worth noting that before the government created the welfare state, the poor were taken care of through Mutual Aid Societies. These were collections of people who supported each other in times of need. In short, they acted as private welfare organizations. Because they were relatively small, there was less potential to game the system and become permanent welfare recipients. The administrators of the Mutual Aid Societies personally knew who was able to work and who was trying, which is an impossibility with the modern welfare state.
Contractors are Capitalists – Defend It!
As a contractor, you put your capital at tremendous risk and keep it there until you exit with no guarantee of a return. On a daily basis you face increasing regulatory hurdles, intense competition, downward price pressure from Internet based sales and referral systems, and burdensome corporate taxation. Despite all of the risk, pressure, and anxiety, you have chosen to compete in the marketplace and would probably make the same choice again because it gives you the best opportunity to prosper. It is a pity that our capitalist economic system is under assault by so many of late. While it is as imperfect as the people who inhabit it, it remains morally superior to the others.
To paraphrase Churchill, capitalism is the worse economic system ever invented, except all of the others. As a contractor who operates within the capitalist system, you should defend it whenever possible. It beats the alternatives.
This is solely the opinion of Matt Michel (and right thinking people everywhere). Matt Michel encourages those who disagree with them to offer their explanations of how he is wrong. Since his children have moved out of the house, he isn’t wrong nearly as often and misses it. Email him at [email protected]
The purpose of this post is to ask you the question is capitalism good or bad? I am curious myself of the answers that are floating around the collective unconsciousness. Does capitalism work is a very relevant question. After studying economics and living in the USA and a post socialist country I have an opinion but I want to look at it from both sides and hear what you think.
Today in the USA and Europe, the economy is doing nothing special and politically we are tending towards a social state. This question is important for the elections in the USA in 2010. However, it is also important for you personally because how you answer this question determines your life and your future. I have a poll set up and invite your comments. Please take the time to vote.
At the end of this post you can read what I think about capitalism, it if is wrong or the best system. I tried to give a balanced argument but it is clear what I think .
The main argument that says capitalism is bad goes like this: people need to be controlled or the greedy and the powerful will use the good hard-working people of the earth and destroy the earth while they are at it. The world is made up of sheep and wolves and the wolves will destroy take what they want from the sheep even if it is unfair and inhuman. An economy regulated by laws will create checks and balances and give a safety net for those who can not manage for one reason or another.
Capitalist lack compassion and understanding about the suffering of people of this world. Socialism believe man is basically selfish, let to their own they would not care about the world and eventually most people will suffer.
To understand why capitalism is good consider the alternative. Socialism capitalism’s main alternative is the road to serfdom. There will be greedy and powerful people always, however, under socialism or mixed capitalism, the power is given to bureaucrats and not to creative people called entrepreneurs. Just like there were powerful in the Soviet Union or any state-run by bureaucrats. I live in a post socialist country and see how it destroyed the lives of everyone but the people in government and special interests friends. The people who suffered the most was the poor and middle class.
Bureaucrats are the new oligarchs under a non capitalist system – These people actualized their greed for power by using the government and law to keep their power and keep up the status quo and not competing freely with the rest of society. The haves keep their power using the law and the have-nots are given less chances. Government becomes the funnel for income redistribution penalizing the hard-working and creative and rewarding special interests.
Capitalism like democracy believes that men are basically good and when they act on their enlighten self-interest society as a whole is lifted to a higher level, just compare North Korea and South Korea. Where would you have rather live West German or East German? People would rather work for their own families and then give to the poor like most of the wealthy from Bill Gates to Warren Buffet than being force by the government to give their productive energy working for another man’s wife via redistribution of taxes.
Do I think capitalism works or does not work?
I am an unrepentant capitalist. I think except for some minimal regulation capitalism allows everyone to be the best that they can be. I live in Eastern Europe in a ex-communist country and for anyone who thinks capitalism is wrong or evil or does not work, should come here and see what the alternatives to capitalism did to the people of many countries.
Capitalism is not in my mind connected to religion. I am a religious man, but I think economics and religion are two different things. However, I do think capitalism is the most compassionate form of economics as it gives everyone a chance. Why? The best form of capital is intellectual capital not financial capital. I believe that we are all equal and given talents unique to ourselves.
If you believe anything else you swindle yourself out of your own life. If you tell other people they need help from the government to change their life, you are telling them a lie that they might live. Adam Smith believed men are equal. I similarly believe we are all given different sets of life circumstances but what you do with it is what is important, your life is your canvas. This is why I believe capitalism is good.
What do you think, is capitalism good or bad? Have I given a fair assessment?
Capitalism has problems like greed
The problem with capitalism is there is an upper limit to the available resources that are distributed among the people. Further, there is a limited money supply creating stratification in a free society. Greed becomes rampet and the common worker then suffers. This go around shows a government running amuck and being corrupted by big business and money interests. Becos of the exstention of credit , and a lack of base salaries increasing, the common people were lulled into a false belief that there standard of living was improving or at least remaining constant. By using credit instead of saving and building on there money, they became a slave to the credit industry, created inflation, and ultimately caused the current depression. This “effect” is similar to the 1930’s crash that was exasperated by buying stock on margin. All product are fluctuating in value according to supply and demand, we just think bread or a house remands somewhat constant. But this go around should have shown the people that this just isn’t true. In the end the system is a barter system with hi-tech thrown in.
However it is not necessarily these special interest groups fault. They are merely ceasing an opportunity.
It is necessary for a governing body to control corporate and power to prevent destruction and slavery. At this point we are on the verge of slavery. You know this because of the sudden reduction of your income.
After the 1930’s crash safety measures were placed to regulate and prevent such greed takers so this sort of thing would not happen agene. In the lat 70’s Reagan removed these safety measures and once agene the marked went out of control. The problem here is that greed is fundamental and destructive instinct of man and therefore has to be controlled or we will spent the rest of this country’s existents cycling over and over.
Religion involves social reform and the idea of moral behavior among individuals and groups within a society. Is not a company a group with political influence and interests toward the bottom line. so yes religion is a factor. If you will look at your bible, you will see that there are instructions on how to govern and maintain social order. As I see it, the bibles government is somewhat socialist but at least you wont have some people eating stake and driving porches wall others go homeless and starve. The constitution states (possibly a worming) that “as long as there are honest men”, But I haven’t seen many lately, so maybe its time for the big reset and the end of a great nation.
We are on the verge of revolution, this isn’t a good thing. If this nation were to go to war with itself, no one will win. The new government will be radical and will do according to there radical ideas. The foundation of the united states was tolerance to new peoples and religions. Nowadays no one is tolerant of anyone else. And its nothing to backstab your friend so you can get ahead. We aren’t the first to go down this road and we wont be the last. Already, we are invading other country in some obscure name or ideal, or in the most recent case fear, but underneath its all about the money, oil, or some other rescores’ we need to control to maintain our way of life. Some ware along the way, we ceased to be Americans and are becoming that witch many went to war to stop.
So what you gona do, we go through the cycles of governmental control, the rising of nations and eventually there fall,. In the end the only thing you can do is to make sure that you are forgiving, honest , and fare. in your dealings of life.
I understand what you are saying. In the USA there are such extreme views and people are entrenched in this trench warfare of political battles that really does not change much in Washington.
I think the only think you can do is live a peaceful, loving life like you said. But what is wrong with applying your talents to a free market? I am not greedy, but I like to create and hopefully sell things in the market that will be of value for other people.
What is wrong with making money to provide for your family. This is best done in a capitalist economy where there is the freedom to choose your economic life based on your own desires and given talents.
Well stated. i think capitalism is getting a “bum-rap” these days and i believe it is in part due to the way the message (“bad capitalists”) has been touted by the main stream media. Wealth (I humbly submit) is created by Capitalists. The message that they “steal” wealth is generally accepted. I have a degree in economics from a very liberal NY University. I was not taught about Ayn Rand,Hayek and The Road To Serfdom and was told FDR saved us from depression. Years of my own research has corrected my youthful fancies.
Thank you for a well put-together piece.
Capitalism gives you the freedom and choice to be happy
Capitalism is nothing more than the freedom to be yourself in society. I live in a post communist country and trust me you do not want the alternative.
Objectivity is the essence of intelligence and being able to see in a clear way the world works is a very good start to understanding markets. This is better than what any Ivory tower professor says.
I use to bring goods (amazing halva made of sesame) into Poland made in Ukraine and sell them in an open market. I made money. If the government put its hand in this operation the buyer and the seller would lose.
Even in this simple capitalist model everyone wins. I worked in an honest way and even paid taxes, uhh.
I learned some Polish and Ukrainian (I am American) and got a great experience, and cash so I could spend it in other ways in the local economy. The buyers got non-sweet halva for the holidays not found in Poland.
What is wrong with that?
This is the world when you have freedom. Capitalism is good. Life is an adventure.
Under a government controlled economy, life is gray. Believe me, come to a post communist country and you will see the affects.
Capitialism in ideal is good, but in practice also
I agree with most of what has been said here, I think the best economic system is that of capitalism with very little government interference. What we have these days however is not the ideal capitalist model, in an ideal capitalist model the United States and other Western countries would not have tariffs and other trade barriers attached to foreign goods.also we would not have the government picking winners and losers by bailing certain industries out. I was on a different site earlier and some bone head stated that we needed government regulation of capitalism to avoid recessions like the recent one. Guess he has failed to understand that the true source of the recent recession was due to government interference ( government expenditure keeping the economic bubble going. Sadly these days capitalism does get a bad rap, in reality people have misconceptions about what capitalism truly is, and the mixed socialist capitalist systems are preventing capitalism from working properly.
Serfdom? Get a grip!
If anything leads to serfdom, it is an oppressive system like crapitalism! Socialism is economic democracy in the same way that a republic is political democracy. Crapitalism is a faux democracy of “one dollar, one vote,” and its goal is to overthrow democracy in favor of plutocracy and fascism, as the Obscene Court has demonstrated in their Traitors United decision.
Crapitalism is also totally irrational!
The fact is that economics is in no way a science, especially conartistive economics. What kind of “science” is it that considers cycles of boom and bust to be “normal,” along with a non-zero “optimal” unemployment level. These postulates are merely the self-serving rationalization of those with a vested interest in propagandizing their bias toward a completely irrational, abusive system.
Where do you live? The USA? The land of milk and honey and where capitalism has created such wealth and a large free and mobile middle class? Everytime I fly back home to ‘crisis America’ I see people tanking up big cars and even the poor have TV sets.
Boom and bust cycle created by the central bank
What kind of “science” is it that considers cycles of boom and bust to be “normal,” along with a non-zero “optimal” unemployment level.
60srad. With all due respect I think you have it in reverse.
Most big bust and booms are the creation of Central Banks including the great depression as admitted by Bureaucrat in chef Ben Shalom Bernanke. As far as an “optimal a non-zero “optimal” unemployment” its impossible and irrational. Its the classic illusion from socialist and messianic states.
We can be compassionate toward people losing there jobs with safety net but fudging unemployment figures by creating artificial jobs to show nice statistics is not only delusional and irrational it very expensive and destroys real jobs.
The present recession “Bust” is different thanks to ridiculous Government and Central Bank intervention, artificial rates and guaranties but over all in the last 50 years any one could find a job in America. Government jobs have destroy real job taking billions away from the productive sector toward the unaccountable and an unproductive sector.
By the way did you notice that even Fidel Castro is firing one Million State Employees.
Pretending they worked did not work very well did it ?
Perhaps he is starting to realize that Employment come from demand not the other way around.
Why capitalism is still good - my personal views
Business cycles and their causes
Austrian economists, like the now famous Hayek, Mises,Menger, took the interest rate theory of prices by Swedish economist Knut Wickell and turned it into a theory of business cycles.
That is, a disequilibrium in the money markets, between the real rate of interest (marginal productivity of capital) and bank rate causes shocks in the real sector and a boom and bust cycle.
Free markets are a guaranteed way to bring the economy back to equilibrium and real growth. There is nothing better to alleviate economic pain and spread social justice than a free market.This is almost contrary to what people think today but read Adam Smith. It is true.
Even small departures from the idea of free movement of labor and capital, flexible prices, private rather than public market operations will cause non price rationing and disequilibrium. Further this will also end usually but not always in a less just and fair distribution of wealth.
Capitalism and social justice
For example, I want to buy a house. I am a hard working guy. Why should the government be so obsessed with artificially propping up home prices with my tax dollars. I want home prices to fall so my family can have a roof over their heads. But the government is reinforcing the haves at the expense of the have nots when they tinker with market forces. Is this social justice?
Central banks anti social justice role
The central bank plays a big role in this. Men like Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke in my opinion are good men, who are honest and soft-spoken academics with conviction and morals. However, the institution which they serve and served, that is the Federal Reserve is the source of so much economic pain.
I have watch countless interviews with Ben Bernacke and only sense from him a good sincere person who is trying to help but really is nothing more misguided and directed in his ideals.
Where I started to be concerned about social justice and economics
When I studied Economics in the 80s at Wake Forest University I remember this same conversation with my economics professors back then. That is why try to steer monetary policy with a top down approach as it can only exacerbate the business cycle and give capitalism a bad name. My professor back then Tony Elavia warned against economic engineering by the government. His ideas in the early 80s were not in vogue but they made sense to me. I aso considered some ideas of a liberation theologist Father Lou who was a Jesuit at the University. Both fueled my interest in the idea of economic social good.
Only when I studied economics at Trinity at a graduate level under Professor Bill Butos, did my passion for economics really take off. Despite much personal mental resistance initially the idea that capitalism created social justice I began to understand what he was conveying. It was an enlightenment argument that when you maximize individual liberties society as a whole becomes better off and more fair and just. It is true, that is why capitalism is good.
Now I have tempered my argument that capitalism is the highest economics order only a little after rereading one of my personal heroes Hans Kung on social justice and economic justice.
But for me this brings me back full circle to enlighten self-interest and the wonderful world of Adam Smith. A capitalism tempered by enlightenment and an understanding of public goods and in a wealthy society a responsibility of to give people opportunities. But in the end money does not solve life’s fundamental problems.
Hayek and the end of capitalism
You have read Hayek,no doubt. Every generation of people try to implement the planners “idea” and “Ideal” of Utopia. Of course Hayek points out in “Road to Serfdom” why this always and will always fail. Still, every generation gets an Obama figure who clings to the great lie and attacks “Capitalism”.
So every generation must relearn this lesson, sad really. I look at the “Occupy” protesters her in the States and I laugh. They all are crying for an end to Capitalism and more Government. ‘Useful Idiots’ indeed.
Every generation has to learn a new. It is like the history of man. Many times young people like authority and structure, that is why they join the military or need their parents to guide them. Then they are enlightened and explore their liberty in their 20s. In their 30s people puruse a domestic polics of a mix of liberty and rules and regulation as they try to raise a family.
OK manybe that metaphor does not work perfectly but I do think many young people are swept up with idealism of sharing and social ideas but do not see the full implication of government directed sharing vs private free will sharing. The ideas of socialism are nice but they lead to serfdom.
Capitalism good or bad - mixed economy is best?
Capitalism is good when mixed with some socialism, why? Because not every one is born equal you do not have my parents do not have your parents some one born to middle class parents has an advantage over some one born to poor uneducated parents and may be destructive to there own children’s education therefor we are not created equal that is why we need social safety nets.
A safety net is turning into the foundation which we build the future, which is reliance on the government for our future. Not good. A safety net could ne a negative income tax or something, but I think the best safety net is called ‘the family’. In Eastern Europe, in my wife’s household there are four generations living in the same big old farm-house. What is wrong with that? They had no fancy school and barely had money for anything (they had nothing literally except what they made/grew on the farm), yet my wife has a Master’s degree and went to some medical school. The best socialism is the family unit.
The decline of America as a constitutional republic of America as a constitutional republic and its rebirth as a corporate republic
The U.S. constitution implies that the government was created by the people and for the people to aid them in the conducting of their business and has never implied that the government was created by the corporations in order to aid them in the conducting of their business.
Does congress still believe in a Constitutional Republic form of Government?
Does congress now believe in a Corporate Republic form of government?
The decline of America as a constitutional republic of America as a constitutional republic and its rebirth as a corporate republic.
A Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government’s power over citizens.
The United States Constitution has many protections against the “tyranny of the majority.” Specifically, it protects the Unalienable rights of the People from an over-reaching government.
Corporatocracy or Corpocracy is a form of government where a corporation, a group of corporations, or government entities with private components, control the direction and governance of a country. If this sounds familiar, it should because this is exactly how our current government is being governed. (This form of government is also known as a Corporate Republic form of government)
Independent Agencies and Government Corporations.
“Independent establishments are created by Congress to address concerns that go beyond the scope of ordinary legislation. These agencies are responsible for keeping the government and economy running smoothly.” (USA.gov)
When congress created Independent Agencies and Government Corporations “known as quasi governmental entities” and granted them ‘quasi-legislative’ and/or ‘quasi-judicial’ powers coequal to that of congress in order to allow them to go beyond the scope of ordinary legislation. They, congress, did nothing less than create a harbinger of a new, creative management era where the purported artificial barriers between the government and private sector can be breached as a matter of principle rather than by law.
NOTE: The Attorney General has stated.
Agencies have no inherent lawmaking powers. They are not creatures of the Constitution…..This
means we should abandon the idea that there are such things as ‘quasi-legislative’ or ‘quasi-judicial’
functions that can be properly delegated to independent agencies or bodies…..[F]ederal agencies
performing executive functions are themselves properly agents of the executive. They are not ‘quasi’
this or ‘independent’ that.
Addressed by Attorney General Edward Meese. III, Federal Bar Association, Detroit, Mich. Sept 13, 1985)
The following pertains quasi governmental agencies created by congress.
The scope and consequences of these hybrid organizations have not been extensively studied. Basic definitional issues resist resolution. Even the language to be used in discussing the quasi government is in dispute. Should government management be discussed in the language of law, economic theory, or the business school? The traditional tools for holding executive agencies accountable, such as the budget and general management laws, are inapplicable in most instances, often leaving these hybrids with the freedom to pursue their own institutional interests, which may or may not conform to the public interest as defined by the nation’s elected leadership.
The belief that management flexibility requires entity-specific laws and regulations, even at the cost of less accountability to representative institutions.”“Time will tell whether the emergence of the quasi government is to be viewed as a symptom of decline in our democratic government, or a harbinger of a new, creative management era where the purported artificial barriers between the governmental and private sectors are breached as a matter of principle.”
(CRS report for congress Order Code RL30533 April 26, 2005)
“Quasi governmental entities may be viewed as a form of privatization because they are substitutes for fully governmental agencies…
Behavior of the Entity
The difference between having a governmental entity and a private firm perform an activity is significant. Privatization moves components of the provision of goods and services out of the governmental sector and into the private sector. These two sectors are not identical. As the National Academy of Public Administration noted, In point of fact, there are some fundamental differences between the [governmental and private sectors] …. Most basic, perhaps, is the [government’s] distinctive claim to exercise sovereignty, to enact and enforce binding laws, and to act on behalf of the nation or the community in certain constitutionally prescribed ways….
Government agencies, unlike private firms, usually operate under complex accountability hierarchies that include multiple and even conflicting goals. Federal agencies, for example, are subject to the corpus of federal management laws. These laws serve as means for keeping executive branch agencies accountable to Congress, the President, and the public…
Finally, the entire question — “What constitutes governmental action and what constitutes private action?” — becomes ambiguous when activities once carried out by officers of the federal government are replaced by private persons. The Constitution requires “all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, [to] be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support [the] Constitution.” (Article IV, Cl. 3) Contractor and sub-contractors, though, need not take such an oath. The legal distinction between officers of the federal government and all other persons is significant as an officer of the federal government has rights, duties, powers, and liabilities different from non-officers…” (CRS report for congress Order Code RL33777 December 28,2006)
I wonder if congress knows the difference between acting under color of law rather than by law
Color of law… is the appearance of an act being performed based upon legal right or enforcement of statute, when in reality no such right exists.
The framers of the Constitution prohibited the federal government from delegating legislative power from the duly elected representatives of Congress to any other entity. They warned that if legislative power were combined with executive power, or if legislative power were combined with judicial power, our republic would become an oligarchy and the rights of the people would be sacrificed to achieve the the selfish ends of those who govern.____Madison wrote, “[t]he accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judicial, in the same hands, whether of one, few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or or elected, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” Typically of the federalists who advocated ratification of the constitution, Alexander Hamilton explained that the separation of powers was “itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS.” It would deny a single department autonomous governance. It would keep abuse of power in check by humbling those in government with the need to to satisfy the dictates of competing power centers.
BEWARE “Science Fiction” sometimes has a tendency to be come “Fact.”
A corporate republic is a theoretical form of government occasionally hypothesized in works of science fiction…. While retaining some semblance of republican government, a corporate republic would be run primarily like a business, involving a board of directors and executives. Utilities, including hospitals, schools, the army, and the police force, would be privatized… Although corporate republics do not exist officially in the modern world, they are often used in works of fiction or political commentary as a warning of the perceived dangers of unbridled capitalism. In such works, they usually arise when a single, vastly powerful corporation deposes a weak government, over time or in a coup d’etat.
It is disingenuous, while not downright immoral, to yell to the government to stay out of one’s business when things are good, only to come begging on one’s knees for government help when things turn sour. Wall Street cannot and should not have it both ways. Unbridled capitalism doesn’t work, and we know it. It’s time to stop paying attention to people who claim otherwise.
It should be noted that crony capitalism (Unbridled capitalism) should not be confused with true capitalism.
Crony capitalists make their living by controlling the free market place for their own benefit.
True capitalists make their living by working with the free market place instead of trying to controlling it.
Personally, I do not have not problem with true capitalists who make a profit from their investments in the free market place.
However, I do have a problem with the greed crony capitalists who profit shamelessly on others’ misfortune by controlling the free market place, which allows them to rob the middle class and/or the poor of this nation who are living in poverty.
Capitalism seems absolutely the best idea in an economic perspective;
It pits one against another in the effort to find the best product at the lowest possible cost so in the end, the user gets a product or service of the highest quality possible, at a price that is theoretically affordable.
Great advancements are made in the quest for improving products and services in the face of making more profit.
This all sounds wonderful, but that is based solely on the economic perspective, and not reality.
Capitalism pits one another in a race to reach a fictitious goal – that of wealth. In order to succeed in a purely capitalist society (Dealing with humans, and not ideal robots), one has to compete against others, and thus a conflict arises between people or groups in the pursuit of money.
Money is the obvious driving force of capitalism, yet it has been shown time and time again that rarely does money actually bring happiness, in fact, it always puts happiness just a few steps ahead of you. Capitalism is basically the dangling of the carrot in front of the donkey.
A survey asked people whether they were content with their income – the overwhelming majority made the claim that they would be happy if they made their boss’ income. Which you would expect, but it doesn’t matter how much money you make – you desire more, and have the illusion that once you hit a certain amount, you will be OK with that amount, but again, we are human, not robots, and we do not work like this.
Capitalism, in a growth-society, demands the majority of one’s waking life to be put to work, but usually not ‘natural’ work in which the body has been evolved to fit into – but rather work done behind a desk, or using odd machinery, or repetitive tasks that burden the mind.
Here is where capitalism stops being an ideal heaven of advancement and growth, but rather destroys that in which it claimed to improve – the life of the worker.
Specifically in our capitalist societies, growth is not optional – it is obligatory – but we all know that infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible. Thus our “Business As Usual” paradigm will, at some point, necessarily slow, or come to screeching halt. For the destruction and use of natural resources is unsustainable, and growth not only of wealth but of population is impossible forever.
Not only does all this raise the eye-glass to the problems of what seems a great economic practice, but it is also a fact that happiness is not dependent on money, wealth, or advancement in technology. In fact, it seems to be the opposite – the more advanced and reliant we become on technology, the more separated we become from each other, and such is the emergence of the big-pharma anti-depressant boom.
Next time you think something like capitalism is so simple and make a claim ever of “What could be wrong with that”, please – nothing is so simple.
CNN PRODUCER NOTE
CEO | I.B. Capital Management
"Democracy is the road to socialism" - Karl Marx
Capitalism and socialism are somewhat opposing schools of thought in economics. The central arguments in the socialism/capitalism debate are about economic equality and the role of government: socialists believe economic inequality is bad for society and the government is responsible for reducing it via programs that benefit the poor. e.g. free public education, free or subsidized healthcare, social security for the elderly, higher taxes on the rich. On the other hand, capitalists believe that government does not use economic resources as efficiently as private enterprise and therefore society is better off with the free market determining economic winners and losers. When people in the United States and in many other countries worldwide are introduced to the concept of socialism - whether in the popular media or in a high school class - they are presented with a simple equation: socialism = a crippled economy that fails to meet people's basic needs + a totalitarian government. Stalinism, for example, is invoked as a model socialist government, one that brutally murdered anyone who dared oppose it, while the Soviet economy is repeatedly and incessantly visualized in terms of weary consumers standing in endless lines in order to purchase dull, defective products. This is another strongest propaganda too. That's why i think capitalism has it's strong propaganda too and i don't see any different between propaganda's of capitalism and socialism. Today many successful countries in Europe are socialist democracies. If we analyze their situation we see that good socialism is better than bad capitalism while socialism is for people and not for millionaires. It is only when capitalism fails that people and nations resort to alternative forms of political economy. A socialist system that is working well is one that is fully deploying the nationвЂ™s resources through a central plan that has the approval of the people. It would be superior to a capitalist system that is working so poorly that its adherents must find excuses for mass unemployment, widely diverging income classes, and deepening social pathologies. The price paid for any form of socialism is the loss of some degree of individual freedom, but when the only alternative is bad capitalism of the type described, a people willingly pay that price. But also it's better to understand that socialism isn't a communism, while this last is an extreme form of socialism.
For better understanding i want to show you several reasons why socialism is better than capitalism for people and not for some of elite groups who are rich from middle-class population:
1) Socialistic countries are successful (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden.
2) Socialism gives a high standard of living, high education system, free health care, and low crime rates.
3) Capitalism is based only on personal interest, and not the interest of humanity, or any given countries population.
4) Socialism is for people and not for millionaires
5) Capitalism keeps on failing and having to be more and more regulated
6) Socialism is Human society, Capitalism is a pathetic race for profit that leads to self-destruction.
7) Capitalism equals lies
Socialism encourages cooperation.
9) Industrial Liberal Socialism is much better than capitalism
10) Capitalism is not a political system, but an economic one.
11) Socialism is more sensitive to signals of wealth inequality.
12) A Socialism that permits more market signals and personal freedoms can be superior to a Capitalism that permits pursuit of profit by an elite manipulating public policy.
It's important to understand each point of differences between capitalism and socialism to analyze why socialism is better than capitalism:
Socialism: All individuals should have access to basic articles of consumption and public goods to allow for self-actualization. Large-scale industries are collective efforts and thus the returns from these industries must benefit society as a whole.
Capitalism: Laissez-faire means to "let it be"; opposed to government intervention in economics because capitalists believe it introduces inefficiencies. A free market produces the best economic outcome for society. Govt. should not pick winners and losers.
Socialism: Freedom of religion, but usually promotes secularism.
Capialism: Permitted/Freedom of Religion
Socialism: The means of production are owned by public enterprises or cooperatives, and individuals are compensated based on the principle of individual contribution. Production may variously be coordinated through either economic planning or markets.
Capialism: Market-based economy combined with private or corporate ownership of the means of production. Goods and services are produced to make a profit, and this profit is reinvested into the economy to fuel economic growth.
Socialism: Two kinds of property, personal property, such as houses, clothing, etc. owned by the individual. Public property includes factories, and means of production owned by the state but with worker control.
Capitalism: Private property in capital goods is the dominant form of property. Public property and state property play a secondary role, and there might also be a limited number of collective property in the economy.
Socialism: All choices, including education, religion, employment and marriage, are up to the individual. All health care and education is provided through a socialized system funded by taxation. Citizens have free and equal access.
Capitalism: All individuals make decisions for themselves. People will make the best decisions because they must live with the consequences of their actions.
Socialism: The people are considered equal, laws are made when necessary to protect people from discrimination.
Capitalism: Government does not discriminate based on race, color, or other arbitrary classification.
Yes today i think that good socialism is better than bad capitalism, but if someone will ask me which one is better for me, as person who born in post-soviet union country i choose Socialism for my country while capitalism failed in eastern European countries. Socialism is for people and not for millionaires.
And in last Many people talking about the failure of socialism but where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America?