|
||||
|
Today my article “The Allure of State Capitalism” appeared on Business Excellence Online. The article deals with the controversy over state capitalism and puts it into perspective. Humble perspective. Please check out the article by clicking here. And please be sure to tour around the rest of the Business Excellence Online site.
President Obama dumped on the free market again last Friday. The free market progressively (pun intended) became a little less so with Friday’s presidential decision. In response to Catholic agencies complaints against the Department of Health & Human Services health care regulations which required that those agencies supply health insurance coverage for birth control products and services for their employees, the Obama administration announced that it was shifting gears and no longer requiring those Catholic agencies to provide, and pay for, this type of coverage in their health insurance programs. The delivery of another government-imposed burden on business. Instead, President Obama announced today that he was requiring health insurance companies to provide the birth control products/services coverage free of charge. In other words, the health insurance companies must pay for birth control related products and services consumed by employees of Catholic agencies. By requiring health insurance companies to provide these products and services free of charge to employees of Catholic hospitals, universities, and other Catholic sponsored organizations, the White House has defused charges that its health care mandate was “prohibiting the free exercise” of religious beliefs by Catholic organizations, an American right granted in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As of the time of this post, the reaction to Mr. Obama’s decision is mixed and undecided. A consensus may form within a few days. However, what is not undecided is the effect on capitalism. The effect is not good. There is a Constitutional amendment protecting the rights of individuals in the practice of their religion. But there is no amendment protecting the right of a business to offer products and services of its own choosing, and at a price that is mediated by market forces. And since there is no such amendment protecting the rights of business in this area, the president found it politically expedient to defuse the freedom of religion issue by shifting the responsibility for the provision of the products and services in question directly into the lap of health insurance companies. Now of course, there are very few persons out there today weeping for this additional burden placed upon health insurance companies. There’s a meme out there that many people absolutely hate insurance companies, although not one health insurance company appeared on a recent list of the ten most hated companies in America. The question of that list’s accuracy not withstanding, the existence of this meme may be because there is a belief that health insurance companies are among the most wealthy companies on the face of the Earth. This belief is false. As I’ve written on this blog previously, health insurance companies are not among the most profitable of companies around. Because of their low profitability, I would not hold stock in one even on a dare. And let’s not forget that many health insurance plans (e.g., some Blue Cross organizations and certain divisions of Kaiser Permanente) are not-for-profit Continue reading Obama Dumps on Free Market . . . Again. According to a Channel 4 (UK) article, “instilling morals in capitalism has become a key theme of all the main political parties” in the United Kingdom. Instilling morals into capitalism is impossible. Why? Because capitalism is a system; it’s a process. It has no conscience. It has no mind through which to absorb a value. So, an attempt to instill a moral value into it will meet only with failure. If capitalism is moral, or amoral, it is because of the morality, or amorality, of the people who participate in the process. Any failure of capitalism due to people’s lack of adherence to moral standards can be placed squarely on the people lacking moral guidance. So, more correctly it should be said that in order to instill “morality” into capitalism, we need to re-awaken morality sensibilities in each of the individuals who participate in the process.
About that title up there, you’re probably thinking “Duuu-uuh, no kidding.” I believe many would share this opinion. But the theme of today’s post is to go beyond belief and to actually provide a rationale for the title statement. As I’ve defined on this Web site, capitalism equals economic freedom, the freedom to profit commercially bounded by the democratic forces of the marketplace. I’ve emphasized democratic forces in that definition because it is a critical factor in understanding the war on capitalism. Capitalism derives its strength, and legitimacy, from democracy. The point of today’s post is to demonstrate that Greenpeace applies a non-democratic effect on business, and by extension the capitalistic system. Groups like Greenpeace claim to act in the public interest, however in reality Greenpeace is run, with decisions made, by fewer than 100 persons. This is not a democratic organization. And if they are controlled by so few persons, making them non-democratic, by definition this means that Greenpeace is not acting in the public interest. To do so, Greenpeace would need to be elected by the public. Greenpeace was not elected by the public. In their battle against capitalism, Greenpeace with a limited and polemic view not franchised by the public, applies pressure on a company to change a specific behavior. This is a prime example of an interest group limiting economic freedom, limiting the capitalistic system. In many cases, the company accedes to the activist demands. It is in this way that Greenpeace, a relatively small group of people, affects the capitalistic system. But it is not Greenpeace alone that is inflicting the damage against the democratic process, the system of capitalism here; the company acquiescing to the activist demands is themselves complicit in the attack on the capitalistic system. Ironic, isn’t it? So, we can see that indeed Greenpeace is no friend to capitalism. It is no longer just a belief. Now you can see that it is fact. But let’s not stop here. Let’s take this idea just a few steps farther. I can guess what you’re thinking. You might be thinking that some might counter my point that Greenpeace is anti-capitalistic. They might counter by saying that Greenpeace in its corporate campaigning is merely trying to protect the environment against harmful manufacturing procedures. If that is their, or even your, assertion, I would respond with these questions and answers. Who says those procedures are “harmful”? Let’s face it. Greenpeace are advocates. And by the nature of advocates, their view is narrow and self-interested. You will not get an objective opinion from Greenpeace. What makes Greenpeace the final arbiter of right and wrong? You are the best arbiter. You and millions of other consumers like you are smart people. Given the level and ease of access to information here in the second decade of the 21st century, you and other consumers are perfectly able to suss out answers in the debate over which companies follow sustainable procedures and which companies do not. Consumers can acquire their Continue reading Greenpeace is No Friend to Capitalism. When billionaires talk about income inequality, it’s time for the people in the middle to hold on to their wallets. Per a Bloomberg article, “Billionaires . . . Bemoan Inequality,” billionaires at the World Economic Forum are putting their heads together about income inequality. Proposed changes to capitalism will be discussed in a panel scheduled for today, “Remodeling Capitalism.” On the subject of changes to the capitalist structure, the conference is highlighted by such quotes, per the Bloomberg article, as, “these growing inequalities are not acceptable,” from Rahul Bajaj, chairman of Bajaj Group, and that business should concentrate on “a more just distribution of wealth,” by Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk. It will be interesting to see if their confabulation has any effect on the capitalist system, and if so from where the “redistribution” originates.
|
 
  |
|||
|
Copyright © 2012 The Kahuna Institute, Inc. - All Rights Reserved |
||||
