It seems as if a growing number of youth are outwardly embracing socialism and crediting capitalism as nothing but an evil system that exploits workers and ignores what Progressives like to call "the common good." With the release of Michael Moore's new movie - Capitalism: A Love Story - I believe that anti-capitalist sentiments will increasingly infest our culture. I have yet to watch the film, but I should in order to gain an understanding of where Michael Moore is coming from. It seems to me as if he cites corporate fraud and deceitful bankers as reasons for anti-capitalist sentiments. However, fraud, theft, and corporatism are anything but capitalist. It's mild fascism.
Progressives think of corporate welfare, corporate preference, fraud, theft, bailouts, and other corporatist policies and behaviors as purely capitalist principles. This, however, is a fallacy. In a capitalist system, corporations and banks are left to fail and succeed in a system of natural selection. In a corporatist system, however, financial aid is given to corporations and banks through taxpayer-funded subsidies. Taking money from one group and giving it to another is anything but a capitalist principle. Redistribution of wealth is, more than often, a socialist principle.
In a capitalist economic system, the market primarily regulates itself, giving individuals and businesses private property rights and private ownership over the means of production. When the government intervenes in large ways, however, we start to stray from the principles of laissez-faire economics. When we implement things like the minimum wage, corporate welfare, federal welfare, social programs like Medicare and Social Security, and subsidies, we are no doubt paving the way for what some Progressives call "a little socialism." A little socialism may not seem like a bad thing, but once we realize that we still have problems, some people like to say, "Well a little more socialism wouldn't hurt." We head into a slippery slope of more and more socialism.
Socialism creates a system of dependency that leads to feelings of individual entitlement that are not earned through work or labor. When an individual is free to pursue his or her own self-interest without a governing power providing for his or her every need, he or she has the motivation to work and produce. When a governing power, however, starts to provide for citizens instead of having them earn it through work or labor, it begins to create feelings of entitlement that lead to citizens asking for more and more and more and more. The only way the government can provide for its citizens without setting up a voluntary tax system is by forcing people to give to others. The reason for giving no longer becomes human kindness and generosity, but rather coercion.
The problem with government providing charity is that the method of collection is force. Unfortunately, the money often does not get to the people who need it most. Two thirds of taxes allocated for federal welfare do not get to its appropriate place, but instead the government, who spends it on other things. On top of that, it often goes to people who refuse to work, but could actually do so. Private charity, however, uses two thirds of its collections - on average - for the people who truly need it. In the history of our nation, private charity has proven to be a better means of helping the poor and needy than federal welfare. Unfortunately, our national charitable contributions are only a third of what they used to be. It is because federal welfare stifles the work of private charities by setting up a competitive system that cannot truly be competed against. Federal welfare has a significant competitive advantage in that its money always gets there by force, whether it goes to those who need it or is spent on other things instead. Private charities, however, depend on human kindness and generosity. People are more hostile and less generous than ever before because the government forces households to give anywhere from 40%-70% of their income.
Socialism claims to be a better means of promoting "social justice" and ensuring workers' rights and well-being. For example, socialists often advocate a higher minimum wage in order to pave the way for higher household incomes. However, it is often not taken into consideration that businesses will have to pay more for production and labor, which ultimately results in higher prices. Higher prices mean that people have to pay more for their goods. Businesses suffer lower profits, and they must often raise prices and lay off workers in order to stay stable in the market. The price is passed onto the consumer, and workers are the largest consumers of all. If it hurts consumers, it hurts workers. The more businesses have to pay for production and labor, the less people they can hire. This stifles job growth and opportunities, not only because it provides less jobs, but because it also takes jobs away from the poor, the young, the elderly, and the disabled.
When businesses can hire only so many workers, they must hire the most qualified and the most skilled people in order to be efficient and productive in the market. The poor and the young often do not meet either the educational requirements or the necessary skill requirements to be hired for the job when a minimum wage is implemented. The elderly and the disabled often do not have the physical capabilities for the job, unless, of course, it is a job that relies on other talents that do not require certain physical capabilities of people. If businesses could dole out a wage lower than the current minimum standard, they would be able to provide more jobs to less qualified people. However, the minimum wage stifles their ability to do so.
On top of all that, the minimum wage has lead to increased outsourcing and layoffs. With less money to pay for production, businesses often have to turn to workers in other countries in order to produce cheaper goods and pay less for labor. This needs to be done in order to be efficient and productive in the market. Socialism collapses in on itself.
Free market capitalism is a better means of sparking innovation. When one is free to pursue his or her self-interests, and one is free to compete with others in the market, the result is, more than often, innovation. For example, if a business owner who sells tools notices that a competing tool business is attracting an increasing amount of customers, he will ponder upon why this is happening. This competing business would be taking away potential customers, so he would naturally want to find out how to best his competitor. He would want to create better tools at a higher quality and higher value in relations with costs. This, my friends, is the magic of the free market. What has resulted is innovation, and innovation leads to more consumers, more investment, more profits, new inventions, improvements that result in more efficiency and quality, and an overall boost for the economy.
With socialism, however, working is encouraged as a means of providing primarily for the common good. When one is forced to work beyond self-interest and is forced to share the fruits of his or her labor with those he or she does not choose to share it with, he or she is less motivated to work. Selfishness is human nature. Milton Friedman, the late, great free market economist - whose unfortunate predictions for our generation have been fulfilled - puts it better than I do.
There are so many other aspects of capitalism and socialism that would take much of my time to discuss. In order to leave you with as much information as possible without overdoing myself, I would like to share with you some incredible animated short films that discuss the core principles of laissez-faire economics in a very simple manner. These cartoons touch me on deep emotional levels, combining both of my passions, cartoons and politics, into one amazing package. The best short film is going to be the last one, so stay tuned.
The first short film I would like to share with you is a brief, excellent explanation of competition and innovation in relation to free market economics, primarily focused on profit motive.
If you liked that one, prepare for a more detailed explanation of free market economics that is still extremely comprehensible. This next short film takes my breath away.
Isn't that wonderful? It really made my day to watch these. They make me so cheerful and warm. I love my country so dearly, and the principles of free market economics touch me emotionally. I have always been a conservative at heart, even when I started to think I was a liberal in my early adolescence. Even with all of the complicated arguments I have seen in defense of capitalism, these classic animated short films make the most astounding case for a free market system.
The next short film you are about to see relates to wages and prices in relation with productivity. It pretty much outlines what I discussed here, but in a cute, fun, simple way. I hope you enjoy it.
I know that cartoon was probably a lot more controversial. Most people, even conservatives, advocate some sort of minimum wage in one way or another. The cartoon I just showed, however, made a great case against it. In my opinion, they did it in the best way possible. I love it, love it, love it!
The next cartoon I'm going to share with you attempts to explain the basics of the stock market, something which I've been trying to understand for a very long time. This short film really helped me learn a lot about it, and I hope you do, too.
I know there are some socialists, nationalists, and liberals who read my blog, and they are probably feeling sick to their stomachs, but I can assure you that I do not mean to offend. I simply would like to share my viewpoints with my readers and share something that I enjoy with them. I love it when I am free to choose who I can share with, instead of being forced to share. It feels so much better, and I feel so much warmer inside.
The last cartoon is my absolute favorite out of all the ones I have shown today. It left a lasting impression on me, even sending me to tears with its powerful message of liberty and patriotism. Our Founding Fathers would be proud that there are still values like this in America. I hope it touches at least a few people. I know it made me warm. Without further ado, I present to you the 1948 classic - Make Mine Freedom:
What an incredible masterpiece. It will always be in my heart. A special thanks to Industrial Com for posting these wonderful short films on YouTube.
Viva la revolution!
Have a fabulous day. God bless you, and God bless America.
In the past time I've become increasingly more attracted to solidarianism, which is neither capitalist nor socialist. It attempts to eliminate the excesses of a capitalist economy (such as what you label as 'corporatism', which is in fact a part of capitalism as it is made possible on the principle that money is power). The capitalist demand of privatisation is rejected, for private investors will only care about getting a maximum profit in a short period of time. Unlike your claims, the workers don't benefit from this as companies will always play down financial disappointments to the bottom of the foodchain if the possibility (and not the necessity!) is there. A minimum wage is to ensure that companies can't do this to a certain extent. They will always employ the most fit workers, minimum wage or not. This is why, for a lot of primary services, the government can provide a better service, as making profit is not a goal, and long-term thinking is necessary. This allegation is supported by every example of privatisation in this country, and to a large extent in the rest of Europe. Solidarianism also rejects the marxist doctrine that promotes a struggle of classes, and rather acknowledges that co-operation between workers and patrons is necessary. As such, I'm a bit tired of this whole 'capitalism vs. socialism' debate, as pure socialism these days is rare, as is pure capitalism outside of the Anglosaxon world.
ReplyDelete