Why Free-Market Capitalism Will Follow Communism Into the Trash-Heap of History

It should be clear by now that following the precepts of free market capitalism is a recipe for disaster. Free market capitalism rests on three fatal flaws: (1) the premise that greed is good; (2) the legal concept of corporate personhood; and (3) the necessity of infinite growth. All three of these principles are not only breathtakingly silly, they are catastrophically destructive.

This week I'll deal with the first flaw.

A century ago, when apologists for free-market capitalism first began to parrot their mantra "greed is good", it sounded oh-so cute and clever. Daring. Sophisticated. Worldly. Today it just sounds tired and stupid, like Bush telling the nation to go shopping after 9/11.

"But," its apologists will say, "isn't it good for people to try to better themselves"? By 'bettering', of course, they mean acquiring a lot of future landfill. This is certainly 'bettering' the financial status of the junk producers, but it's arguable whether it does much for the rest of us. The more junk people get, the unhappier they seem to be, and the more they want. This is, after all, the stated mission of the advertising industry: to make people feel unhappy, inferior, deprived--to make people want things they don't need and never cared about before. 'Bettering yourself', in other words, means becoming discontented. The entire free-market system depends for its existence on its ability to make people feel unhappy, inferior, and discontented.

Having greed as our prime motivator simply means that the most useless, greed-obsessed members of society get rich, while the most useful, most needed members don't even get paid enough to do their job properly. Today, for example, those same greedy individuals, whose blind avarice and overweening stupidity plunged the world into a global depression, are receiving billions of dollars in bonuses, paid with taxpayers' money. Money that was supposed to be used to 'jump-start' the economy is being used to reward stupidity, incompetence, and greed.

The "greed is good" ideology means that everything anyone undertakes that might be beneficial to humanity is skewed, diverted, distorted, or co-opted to serve the greedy. For example:

What's so 'good' about business students flocking to finance because 'that's where the money is'? What's so good about them putting all their energy and ingenuity into concocting new ways to gamble with other people's money, instead of creating something beneficial to society?

What's so 'good' about law students flocking to corporate law because 'that's where the money is'? What's so good about them putting all their energy and creativity into helping major corporations cheat the government, their workers, their consumers, and the general public out of what is rightfully theirs?

What's so 'good' about biochemical students flocking to food processing corporations because 'that's where the money is'? What's so good about them putting their energy and creativity into addicting Americans to junk food, and afflicting them with obesity and diabetes?

What's so 'good' about medical students flocking to specialties like dermatology because 'that's where the money is'? What's so good about them putting all their energy and creativity into peddling pills to treat tinier and tinier segments of the human organism, while the human being--as little understood as the elephant by the blind men--remains untreated. A patient in our present system is often forced to patronize half a dozen specialists, none of whom know the first thing about him except his ability to pay.

American medicine is an international joke. Those who live in civilized countries, with free health care for everyone, shake their heads in amazement that we live in a nation so backward that millions of people can't afford to get sick for fear of losing their homes. A nation where accident victims will crawl on their hands and knees to the emergency room rather than pay $3000 for an ambulance. Where cancellation of your insurance is virtually guaranteed if you have the slightest chance of using it. Where premiums rise every year, along with the deductible. Where one-size-fits-all prescription drugs--one of the major causes of illness in the U.S.--are tested in large part on the public, and prescribed promiscuously and thoughtlessly by doctors who often don't even bother to read the side effects and contraindications.

A physical exam in the United States has become a sales promotion. A test will come up with a number--indicating some ailment, or 'risk factor' that hasn't in fact bothered you--which invariably requires further, more expensive tests, often using new high-tech machines that doctors are often unable to interpret (requiring still further tests). And after spending twenty or thirty thousand dollars you're given a clean bill of health as long as you take certain high-priced medications with nasty side effects that require further high-priced medications. The doctor makes money, the labs make money, the drug companies make lots of money. A successful sales promotion all around.

What's so 'good' about a system that makes huge profits for drug companies and insurance companies while Americans have the poorest health care in the civilized world? But all you need to do is shout "Socialized Medicine!" and the common American Sap/Sucker (see previous blog) will cringe and say: "Please charge me two arms and two legs, anything but that!"

The greed-worshippers have so distorted American values that selfishness is considered a virtue, while any sort of generosity, altruism, or concern for the welfare of the many is considered 'communism'! Even rich anti-tax 'crusaders' try to drape themselves in heroic garments, as if they were anything but Ebenezer Scrooge unredeemed.

A greed-worshipping system tends to warp every profession, every service, every activity--transforming it from an enterprise that benefits society and its people into one that merely feeds the addictions of the pathologically greedy. No society can long survive under such a system.

Gandhi once pointed out that our planet provides enough to satisfy everyone's need but not enough to satisfy everyone's greed. The United States alone consumes one-fourth of the world's resources. The Land of the Free has turned into the Land of the Greedy.

(In his inauguration speech, Obama talked of a whole new way of doing things. To understand the cultural paradigm shift that engendered this change--the shift that both Bush and the Taliban have resisted so fiercely, see my website for information on THE CHRYSALIS EFFECT: THE METAMORPHOSIS OF GLOBAL CULTURE).

Comments

[doojie]

Slater brings out good points to attack, but I think he wrongly attributes these points to free market capitalism. The three points he lists, 1.Greed is good, 2.corporations as legal persons, and 3.the focus on infinite growth, are goals which developed over the years and are not a part of the original premise of free market capitalism.

I believe the core of all three premises is the concept of legal corporate personhood. This was actually discouraged by Adam Smith in "Wealth of Nations". He condemned "joint stock companies" because there was a tendency toward corruption when the leader(CEO) of such a group used other people's money rather than his own, and when he avoided personal risks in this fashion. Smith pointed out that there woud be a tendency toward individual focus on profit of stockholders rather than the focus on quality that would occur if a person assumed all the risks of business.

In fact, corporations could not exist at all without government. The idea that a corporation somehow posesses rights and not powers granted to it by law is simply absurd. Free market capitalism as originally defined, and the three premises listed by Slater in this article are simply not the same thing.

I agree with his argument based on the premises he selects, but I think he has picked a straw man to attack, rather than actual free market capitalism.

[veracitatus]

Overlooked in too simple a characterization of 'greed is good' is the original role of risk-reward motivation behind innovation. The theory says that to promote innovation and improvements in our material goods/services people (capitalists and entrepreneurs) have to take large risks with their resources and hence deserve higher than usual returns from successes. This is to compensate for the more frequent failures. They 'deserve' bigger profits because their bigger risks have made life better for all.

The problem is that, as Philip points out, life really isn't better for all. Moreover, everyone else is driven by jealousy to want to have bigger profits too.

I teach computer science and see students all the time who are basically pursuing the degree to get a high paying job rather than for the love of knowledge of computing. Understandable in our culture. But pathetic when you think about it.

[ouroborous]

You had me until this: "Where one-size-fits-all prescription drugs--one of the major causes of illness in the U.S.--"

The major causes of illness in the US are all preventable: smoking, obesity, substance abuse. Prescription morbidity and mortality aren't even on the chart. I'm not saying all is well in the land of Big Pharma (it's not; Big Pharma is half or more of the reason that we can't ever seem to get meaningful health care reform), but you have to put things in perspective here.

Other than that, I agree with and support this article 100%. It's taken me, personally, a while to realize a simple truth: in general, beyond the basics, I find that the more "stuff" I have, the unhappier I am. It's just more landfill, as you so succinctly put it.

Fight Club was right: the things you own, end up owning you.

[SeekWisdom]

I think you need to research this a bit further. Slater is right. Modern medicine is the third leading cause of death when you count botched surgeries together with wrong prescriptions. Then add in a study by French physicians that showed only one in 20,000 cases of malpractice ever get reported (malpractice insurance ain't cheap) and Modern medicine leads all other causes by a huge margin

Smoking? 100 years ago 1 in 80 got cancer, now it's about one in two. I guess tobacco got 40 times more lethal in the last 100 years. Or maybe, just maybe, that permanent smog bank over Los Angeles isn't really cigarette smoke ... hmm .. automobiles did appear in the last hundred years ,,, hmm ,,, but no, that would require changing MY habits instead of scapegoating smokers, Forget that.

Obesity? Do I need to elaborate on what chemical goodies the capitalists have added to our food also?

Substance abuse? Medical profession is the biggest drug pusher on the planet, but they have enough lobbying power to ensure that they can do it legally.

Although Slater doesn't detail his statement, he isn't missing on the final score, I don't think.

[MThomasNC]

I remember the movie 'Wall Street' where the main character was hailed for his greedy underhanded tactics to acquire his wealth - young stock market analysts looking at him had stars in their eyes. The character's main words were "Greed is Good". Now that movie was mirroring real life.
A great place to hear the greed and self-fullness of the american people is on the call in shows. C-Span's WashJournal is great for this with 90% of the repubs calling in crying about immigrants taking their jobs, about government money going to poor folks, about health care for poor folks, that their taxes need to be cut so they can have more money is their pockets. It goes on and on and on. They are so afraid that USA is going to be a socialist country, without realizing that a lot of our governing policies have a social underpinning such as local police force, sanitary services, fire department, the public education system, social security, etc.

[DudeRasta]

Thank You, I cannot express the dismay I feel at the lack of compassion expressed by so many americans. I cannot fathom why the thought of helping others is so offensive to so many people who would call themselves "good christians".

I have worked in the construction industry for many years, I did nothing wrong. I didn't take out a sub-prime mortgage, I didn't make foolish investments, but the actions of those same greedy people destroyed my industry, left me out of work, and then would make me out to be a blight on society if I don't work several low-paying jobs so that I can pay my bills.

I have been unable to afford health insurance, or needed prescriptions. I am afraid I have lost much of my faith in the "american dream"

[peterg76]

You know, I don't think anyone ever said greed was good except those who were both rich and greedy .

[ouroborous]

Most people don't put it so boldly. But the underpinnings of Friedman economics -- the primary economic theory we've been operating under since at least the 60's (if not earlier) -- is that of "rational self-interest." It ascribes only positive outcomes to everybody looking out for number one. It not only is skeptical of the ability of people to look after each other in an organized fashion (e.g., government), it is actively skeptical of it. Grover Norquist, the High Priest of the old Friedman style of economics, has said that he wants to shrink government down to where he can "drown it in a bathtub."

And remember, all this is pinned upon a theory of "rational self-interest" as a positive force. In other, simpler words, it's all based on the idea that "greed is good."

[ouroborous]

This sentence: "It not only is skeptical of the ability of people to look after each other in an organized fashion (e.g., government), it is actively skeptical of it." should have read:

"It not only is skeptical of the ability of people to look after each other in an organized fashion (e.g., government), it is actively antagonistic towards it."

Oh HuffPo, when will you implement an "edit" feature?