... in which we discover why I yelled at the top of my lungs last night...
I consider myself to be a pretty patient individual. Most things don't get to me, and even more things I usually just laugh at. But last night I'd had enough.
My son and I were having a conversation about various economic models. I really, really try hard to give my son both sides of any particular argument, hoping that he'll make up his own mind. I am very aware of my role as a father to influence his decisions and opinions. But we live in an environment where most of the voices he hears are only on one particular side. It makes it difficult to discuss things because it's just me against every other contrary view out there - some of which are (unfortunately) his teachers. See this previous post... I guess I have become used to it, however, because of my particular interest in and views on politics.
Still, sometimes things just get to me.
Last night it was frustration with capitalism. Look, I'm not naive enough to think I know everything about anything. But I know some things:
1. Capitalism is an economic theory/practice. It is not a system of government. Capitalism would prefer no government - or, at least, the government which least interferes with the market. Pure capitalists would like to see market conditions govern themselves. I'm not going to talk about how inherently dangerous this is. I think it's pretty self-evident. Plus, I think I've ranted on this before also... ;-)
2. Capitalism reduces everything and everyone to a commodity. Even the interactions we have as human beings are assigned a value, and if it is not valuable it is not worth continuing. How does one put a value on a child's laugh? On the wonder of a clear sky full of stars? On the wrinkled face of my sweet grandmother? Yet capitalism would put a price/value on each of these things and then decide if it is worth while to keep them alive...
3. Capitalism ostensibly promotes freedom, liberty, self-reliance, and individual hard work. This is supposedly done through the vehicle of market competition. Those who work hard, who come up with good ideas, and who have great talent, should be and will be rewarded. The reward comes in the form of success and continued relevance in the market. All of which appeals to western thinkers because we prize individualism and self-reliance. There are some of us, however, who prefer cooperation over competition, who view others as friends, brothers, and fellow travelers on this earth, and who think that we are no richer than the poorest among us.
4. Socialism is not the answer either, nor is communism. Marx and Engels, Mao and Stalin, and all the others - they were wrong. Their efforts failed because they removed too much of of personal freedom and identity, they eliminated religion and spirituality, and they denied parents the opportunity to raise their children. Forcing people into a certain lifestyle is terrible, whether it is done directly (in the name of communism/socialism) or indirectly (in the name of capitalism).
5. The thing that really, really frustrates me with all of this is that the uber-rich are sowing the seeds of their own demise. Capitalism (as I've said before) is based on the flow of capital, not the accumulation. Accumulating capital has a stagnating effect on a capitalist economy. In the last post I noted how the closing of the factory in Michigan I worked in had the effect of providing $20 million for the executives, but that those who might otherwise buy their products now cannot. Taking that a bit further, though - let's say that it's car parts. Giving someone $20 million does not make them want to buy more cars - certainly not the same amount of cars as the 10 generations of 30 year workers that might have been funded by that same $20 million. Once you have a car - even if you're Jay Leno - you pretty much just use that car. And the cars Jay Leno has will never wear out because he rarely drives any of them, and when he does it's probably a different one each time. So Leno's not buying new cars.
So in reality, the rich should be supporting the 99% effort...
In the book Les Miserables, Jean Valjean is able, through his philanthropy and industry, to bless an entire region. He earns a lot of money, but he also gives away most (if not all) of what he's earned - hospitals, schools, better working condition, alms... As a result, the entire region's economy is bolstered and strengthened. Workers flock to his high-wage paying factory, their children are educated, their sick are cared for... all in all, a good place to live and work. Conversely, when Valjean is imprisoned again the region falls back into relative obscurity - the factory closed, the hospital and schools unfunded, and unemployment and shoddy workmanship return... All because of the selfless effort of one worthy man; all because of the selfish efforts of petty men....
Just this morning I read about Whirlpool closing its Arkansas plant. 1000+ workers will be laid off. Quoting from the linked article:
In 2006, 4,600 people worked at the plant, which specializes in making side-by-side refrigerators. Whirlpool cited declining demand as it drastically cut its workforce in recent years, with nearly 1,000 working there today.
In a statement, Whirlpool called it a “difficult, but necessary” step because of the struggling economy.
The plant is to close in the middle of next year, with local leaders hoping to find another company that can make use of the facility.
So there you go. Ripped from the headlines...
The thing is - Whirlpool is doing OK. Their stock price is strong, and people still need refrigerators. So why close the plant? Why lay off the thousands of people (affecting many, many more people than these numbers represent - children, schools, tax base, ancillary, support, and auxiliary business which will undoubtedly be affected by this closure)? The article cites "the struggling economy," but does closing the factory make it better? Or does it exacerbate the problem?
I'm no economic genius. There are undoubtedly people who are way smarter than me. So then why am I able to see these things and others not? Are short-term profits really worth it? Rather than lay off workers in the name of continued corporate viability, why not reduce executive salaries? Why not cut out some of the perqs usually reserved for these guys?
I just don't get it.
I consider myself to be a pretty patient individual. Most things don't get to me, and even more things I usually just laugh at. But last night I'd had enough.
My son and I were having a conversation about various economic models. I really, really try hard to give my son both sides of any particular argument, hoping that he'll make up his own mind. I am very aware of my role as a father to influence his decisions and opinions. But we live in an environment where most of the voices he hears are only on one particular side. It makes it difficult to discuss things because it's just me against every other contrary view out there - some of which are (unfortunately) his teachers. See this previous post... I guess I have become used to it, however, because of my particular interest in and views on politics.
Still, sometimes things just get to me.
Last night it was frustration with capitalism. Look, I'm not naive enough to think I know everything about anything. But I know some things:
1. Capitalism is an economic theory/practice. It is not a system of government. Capitalism would prefer no government - or, at least, the government which least interferes with the market. Pure capitalists would like to see market conditions govern themselves. I'm not going to talk about how inherently dangerous this is. I think it's pretty self-evident. Plus, I think I've ranted on this before also... ;-)
2. Capitalism reduces everything and everyone to a commodity. Even the interactions we have as human beings are assigned a value, and if it is not valuable it is not worth continuing. How does one put a value on a child's laugh? On the wonder of a clear sky full of stars? On the wrinkled face of my sweet grandmother? Yet capitalism would put a price/value on each of these things and then decide if it is worth while to keep them alive...
3. Capitalism ostensibly promotes freedom, liberty, self-reliance, and individual hard work. This is supposedly done through the vehicle of market competition. Those who work hard, who come up with good ideas, and who have great talent, should be and will be rewarded. The reward comes in the form of success and continued relevance in the market. All of which appeals to western thinkers because we prize individualism and self-reliance. There are some of us, however, who prefer cooperation over competition, who view others as friends, brothers, and fellow travelers on this earth, and who think that we are no richer than the poorest among us.
4. Socialism is not the answer either, nor is communism. Marx and Engels, Mao and Stalin, and all the others - they were wrong. Their efforts failed because they removed too much of of personal freedom and identity, they eliminated religion and spirituality, and they denied parents the opportunity to raise their children. Forcing people into a certain lifestyle is terrible, whether it is done directly (in the name of communism/socialism) or indirectly (in the name of capitalism).
5. The thing that really, really frustrates me with all of this is that the uber-rich are sowing the seeds of their own demise. Capitalism (as I've said before) is based on the flow of capital, not the accumulation. Accumulating capital has a stagnating effect on a capitalist economy. In the last post I noted how the closing of the factory in Michigan I worked in had the effect of providing $20 million for the executives, but that those who might otherwise buy their products now cannot. Taking that a bit further, though - let's say that it's car parts. Giving someone $20 million does not make them want to buy more cars - certainly not the same amount of cars as the 10 generations of 30 year workers that might have been funded by that same $20 million. Once you have a car - even if you're Jay Leno - you pretty much just use that car. And the cars Jay Leno has will never wear out because he rarely drives any of them, and when he does it's probably a different one each time. So Leno's not buying new cars.
So in reality, the rich should be supporting the 99% effort...
In the book Les Miserables, Jean Valjean is able, through his philanthropy and industry, to bless an entire region. He earns a lot of money, but he also gives away most (if not all) of what he's earned - hospitals, schools, better working condition, alms... As a result, the entire region's economy is bolstered and strengthened. Workers flock to his high-wage paying factory, their children are educated, their sick are cared for... all in all, a good place to live and work. Conversely, when Valjean is imprisoned again the region falls back into relative obscurity - the factory closed, the hospital and schools unfunded, and unemployment and shoddy workmanship return... All because of the selfless effort of one worthy man; all because of the selfish efforts of petty men....
Just this morning I read about Whirlpool closing its Arkansas plant. 1000+ workers will be laid off. Quoting from the linked article:
In 2006, 4,600 people worked at the plant, which specializes in making side-by-side refrigerators. Whirlpool cited declining demand as it drastically cut its workforce in recent years, with nearly 1,000 working there today.
In a statement, Whirlpool called it a “difficult, but necessary” step because of the struggling economy.
The plant is to close in the middle of next year, with local leaders hoping to find another company that can make use of the facility.
So there you go. Ripped from the headlines...
The thing is - Whirlpool is doing OK. Their stock price is strong, and people still need refrigerators. So why close the plant? Why lay off the thousands of people (affecting many, many more people than these numbers represent - children, schools, tax base, ancillary, support, and auxiliary business which will undoubtedly be affected by this closure)? The article cites "the struggling economy," but does closing the factory make it better? Or does it exacerbate the problem?
I'm no economic genius. There are undoubtedly people who are way smarter than me. So then why am I able to see these things and others not? Are short-term profits really worth it? Rather than lay off workers in the name of continued corporate viability, why not reduce executive salaries? Why not cut out some of the perqs usually reserved for these guys?
I just don't get it.
Comments