CONVENIENT
CAPITALISM
Academic circles and news media are abuzz with the latest
French critique of capitalism by Thomas Picketty. In his historically-informed
tome (685 pages), Picketty illustrates how capitalism over the last three
centuries retains its tendency to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few,
so that overall inequality increases (except for three decades in 20th
century America).
Just like all other major academic accomplishments,
what’s missing is as important as what is emphasized. Though critics and
pundits are fixating on the difference between wealth and income inequality
(especially in light of gigantic Wall Street salaries), there is something important
that is glossed over.
Are we indeed practicing capitalism in America? Are we
true to the principles advocated by Adam Smith and his fellow classical
political-economists? Their principles were modeled on Enlightenment ideals,
such as freedom and equality, moral respect and public education. They also
believed that the capitalist marketplace could cure all the ills of the feudal
and mercantile systems.
Have these ideals been accomplished? Outside of the
complaint about the unintended consequences of capitalism (wealth inequality),
are the actual legal and political guards supportive of these classical ideals?
Instead of surveying the national or international
landscape, let’s focus on our immediate surroundings to see how capitalism is
conveniently (or lazily) applied. What’s at stake is consistency of thought and
practice—practice what you preach!
First and foremost, if the marketplace is supposed to be
in private hands, if the government is supposed to get out of the way and let
private industry determine the direction of our city, why are we so dependent
on the Department of Defense? Why does our Chamber of Commerce look like the
Chamber of Defense? Is it just all too convenient to have the federal
government subsidize our local economy?
Second, if we believe in markets being more efficient
mechanisms to decide how to allocate resources (capital and labor), and if we
believe that the role of government is simply to accommodate the needs of the
private sector, why has our City Council become such an obstacle to anything
that happens locally? Is it simply that nine power players have forgotten how
little we should be hearing from them?
Third, if the Austrian economists and their Chicago-University
descendants got it right about minimal government intervention (except to
enforce voluntary contracts among individuals), why has City Council regulated
away recreational marijuana sales? The paradox must be obvious: the benefits of
sales taxes will stay out of the city but the costs of policing problems will
remain ours. Shouldn’t we let the marketplace decide what should be bought and
sold?
Fourth, classical political economists worried about
monopoly powers—the tendency for companies to buy each other and become
dominant in a market—and oligarchical behavior—the tendency for collusion on
prices and product quality. The marketplace is envisioned as a meeting place
for “little” buyers and sellers none of whom can dictate prices when supplying
or demanding goods and services. How come, then, that we have a utilities
monopoly in our midst? With no competition or oversight, CSU can raise rates at
will any time. Is this the most efficient way to handle a needed
commodity—energy—for our city?
Fifth, from developmental economists to finance gurus
there is a basic agreement on the need for the exchange of information as it is
the most valuable commodity in the marketplace. The free-flow of information
allows for minimal government coordination of long-term plans, such as our very
own City of Champions. This is part of the capitalist framework as long as
government agencies aren’t themselves involved in competing for resources and
customers. Why not let a thousand lights shine on this city plan? Why hinder
the private forces waiting to engage this four-pronged effort to revitalize the
city?
Overall, we should be hearing about what companies and
educational institutions, like UCCS, are doing in town as economic “engines” rather
than what’s the latest scrimmage between the Mayor and City Council or between
CSU and the rest of the politicians it is promoting and electing. Let’s stay
focused on what could be an emerging and successful model that is based on the
beauty of the city and its healthy environment.
Unlike the (federally funded) military bases we are so
fond of, let’s focus on being the headquarters of the Olympic Committee and
some of its affiliates (privately sponsored). If some of our wealthy leaders
are proud to call themselves capitalists, let’s remind them not to be
convenient capitalists but consistent ones! If these exhortations fall on deaf
ears and anyone remains confused, look northward to Denver and see what is
being done right…
Raphael
Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous
articles at sassower.blogspot.com
