The attached article points out one of the arguments that I have not heard mentioned regarding the Occupy Wall Street folks which is that without capitalism, none of the benefits and goods we have in this country today would exist. At least they would not exist in the volume, depth of choice and variety that we see them. This is a good point and most of these spoiled children miss it.
The article is well worth reading. What do you think?
"Occupy Wall Street Crowd Blind to Benefits of Capitalism" By Gary Wolfram William Simon Professor of Economics and Public Policy Hillsdale College Whenever I watch media coverage of another Occupy Wall Street event I am reminded of an exchange between Jewish protesters in the 1979 Monte Python movie Life of Brian. One of the protesters asks another what the Romans have brought to the area and the conversation goes like this: Question: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us? Answer: Brought peace? Response: Oh, peace - shut up! The point is that the Roman institutions brought a good deal to the area that was being overlooked by the protesters. The Wall Street protesters, in their hatred of capitalism, overlook things including the fact that over the last 100 years capitalism has reduced poverty more and increased life expectancy more than in the 100,000 years prior. Every semester I ask my students: "What would you rather be? King of England in 1263 or you?" Turns out, students would rather be themselves. They enjoy using their iPhone, indoor plumbing, central heating, refrigerators and electric lighting. All of these things are available to the average person in America today and none of them were available to the aristocracy when the West operated under the feudal system. How is it that for thousands of years mankind made very little progress in increasing the standard of living and yet today half of the goods and services you use in the next week did not exist when I was born? It wasn't that there was some change in the DNA such that we got smarter. The Greeks knew how to make a steam engine 3,000 years ago and never made one. The difference is in how we organize our economic system. The advent of market capitalism in the mid 18th century made all of the difference. We need not just rely on historical data. Look at cross-section evidence. I try another experiment with my students. I tell them they are about to be born and they can choose whatever country in the world they would like to be born in. The only caveat is they will be the poorest person in that country. Every student picks a country that is primarily organized in a market capitalist system. No one picks a centrally planned state. No one says, "I want to be the poorest person in North Korea, Cuba, or Zimbabwe," countries which are at the bottom of the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom. What does it mean to be poor in our capitalist society that the Occupy Wall Street crowd so hates? Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation has several studies of those classified as poor by the U.S. Census Bureau. He found that 80 percent of poor persons in the United States in 2010 had air conditioning, nearly three quarters of them had a car or truck, nearly two-thirds had satellite or cable television, half had a personal computer and more than two-thirds had at least two rooms per person. Contrast this with what it means to be poor in Mumbai, India, a country that is moving rapidly towards market capitalism but was burdened for decades with a socialist system. A recent story in The Economist described Dharavi, a slum inMumbai, where for many families half of the family members must sleep on their sides in order for the entire family to squeeze into its living space. The Occupy Wall Street movement has shown a lack of understanding of how the market capitalist system works. They appear to think that the cell phones they use, food they eat, hotels they stay in, cars they drive, gasoline that powers the cars they drive and all the myriad goods and services they consume every day would be there under a different system, perhaps in more abundance. But there is no evidence this could be or ever has been the case. The reason is that only market capitalism solves the two major problems that face any economy-how to provide an incentive to innovate and how to solve the problem of decentralized information. The reason there is so much innovation in a market system compared to socialism or other forms of central planning is that profit provides the incentive for innovators to take the risk needed to come up with new products. My mother never once complained that we did not have access to the latest Soviet washing machine. We never desired a new Soviet car. The socialist system relies on what Adam Smith referred to as the benevolent butcher and while there will undoubtedly be benevolent butchers out there, clearly a system that provides monetary rewards for innovators is much more dynamic and successful. The profit that the Occupy Wall Street protesters decry is the reason the world has access to clean water and anti-viral drugs. The other major problem that must be solved by any economic system is how to deal with the fact that information is so decentralized. There is no way for a central planner to know how many hot dogs 300 million Americans are going to want at every moment in time. A central planner cannot know the relative value of resources in the production of various goods and services. Market capitalism solves that problem through the price system. If there are too few hot dogs, the price of hot dogs will rise and more hot dogs will be produced. If too many hot dogs are produced, the price of hot dogs will fall and fewer will be produced. Market capitalism is the key to the wealth of the masses. As Ludwig von Mises wrote in his 1920 book, Socialism, only market capitalism can make the poor wealthy. Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek in his famous 1945 paper, The Use of Knowledge in Society, showed that only the price system in capitalism can create the spontaneous order that ensures that goods will be allocated in a way that ensures consumers determine the use of resources. The Occupy Wall Street movement would make best use of its time and energy in protesting the encroachment of the centrally planned state that led to the disaster of the Soviet Union, fascist Germany, and dictatorial North Korea. This article was originally posted at the Media Research Center's Business and Media Institute blog. |
Here is a revealing statistic I discovered today. In the first 25 years after 1979, non-financial CEOs declined from 36% of the top 1% to 31% (a 14% decrease). The Wall Street CEOs and other financial executives increased from 7.7% to 13.9% (an 81% increase). Why? Did they suddenly get 81% better at their jobs and other members of the corporate world got 14% worse? I don't think so. Or did they -- with deregulation and other assistance from the federal government -- devise ingenious ways to enrich themselves while sucking money out of everyone else and wrecked their own banks? The Occupy Wall Street movement has definitely focused on the right target.
ReplyDeleteThere are a share of "spoiled children" in our movement, but there are also some of us who have gray hair and understand economics. I resent your sweeping characterization. The article you posted is a strawman argument. It goes something like this: "If you protest the banking system in this county and want regulation of derivative traders on Wall Street, you must be some kind of anti-capitalist."
No, what I don't want is a repeat of 2008. That wasn't caused to too little regulation of Wall Street. It was caused by too little. After the last financial disaster (1929), effective banking regulations were put into effect, and we didn't have another financial markets disaster for the next 50 years until the S&L fiasco in the 1980s as deregulation resumed, culminating in the Commodity and Futures Trading Act that totally deregulated derivatives, paving the way for shadow banking and the 2008 financial collapse.
----------
I can hardly believe how fast Gingrich has gained on Romney and taken many of the Cain supporters now. Are you jumping from Cain to Gingrich? Have you seen that clip where Cain is trying to talk about Libya? It will make you cringe.
--David
David, what am I going to do with you???? I purposely posted those article for your comments!!
ReplyDeleteI have told you on several occasions that I am no fan of the banks but I am a fan of capitalism which the Occupy folks are not. Yes, there are always issues with capitalism but socialism or communism or equalizationism have never worked. Had we not taken out provisions of the laws (Glass-Stegal for instance)during the Clinton Administration, some of the problems would have not occurred. Had we not enforced the Community Reinvestment Act to the detriment of the banks who then had to move that "junk mortgages" they had on their books, we would not have had the mortgage meltdown that occurred in 2008. However, that all is water under the bridge.
David, you might have the purest desires to correct the issues we face in this country, however, the people who are the monied people behind Occupy do not. Just the word "occupy" is not a democratic phrase, it is very negative.
Regarding Cain, yes, that clip was bad. I really do not understand where his handlers were and why they let this go on. If he had not slept, then they should have cancelled the interview. How can he not know where Libya is and how he felt about Obama's handling of it. Hell, you and I know.
I wrote on November 16th posting about the "wack a mole" (Wack A Mole Part 4?)media approach to coverage of the Republican candidates. When one of them pops up, the press goes after them. Gingrich has just started to get the coverage. We will see.
I still like Herman's ideas but, I am keeping my powder dry for the time being.
Wall Street apologists love to blame the CRA for financial crisis. Blaming the government takes Wall Street off the hook. One of my goals on this blog is to inject facts into the discussion in hopes that you will repeat them on RedState.com and elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteTo that end, I submit the following study….
http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf
The overwhelming majority of "toxic" subprime loans were not originated by banks subject to CRA regulation, and those that were had a much lower default rate than those of other lenders.
However, as I keep telling you, the trillions of dollars worth of derivatives were what crashed the global economy. Anything else you can name pales by comparison. Congress, Federal Reserve, rating agencies, SEC, CFTC, etc. were all enablers of their crimes, but the Wall Street banks were the lead actors in the play.
I am still waiting, and hoping, that you will post an article about the banks instead of these propaganda pieces that attempt to portray OWS as a "mob" financed by a secret communist conspiracy (or whatever it is that you believe).
It doesn't take money to stand in the city park or walk down the streets with your homemade sign. As of October 27, OWS had only $500,000 and not a dime from George Soros. Besides, you surely realize that Soros and Buffet are both master capitalists themselves. They sit at the pinnacle of the American financial hierarchy -- not exactly what I'd call radical communists bent on destroying a system that has made them billionaires!
--David
Another viewpoint: http://online.barrons.com/article/SB122246742997580395.html
ReplyDelete>"We on Wall Street feel somewhat compelled to take at least some responsibility."
ReplyDeleteThat is like an apology from the fox for eating the chickens! If a bank robber's defense is that the bank left the vault door open because bankers believed in their own warped ideology that bank robbers are "self-regulating" (read Greenspan: "markets are self-regulating"), is the judge going to give him a lighter sentence because the bank made it easy for him to steal the $16 trillion? Would he have been any less guilty if there were more obstacles for him to overcome? In that case, the bank would be less guilty as accessory to the crime (assuming Greenspan, et. al. KNEW what was going to happen rather than being blinded by neoliberal ideology), but, in either case, that does not diminish the guilt of the robber whatsoever. The judge, therefore, should reject this defense at the sentencing hearing. Agree?
Furthermore, if Wall Street were actually taking any responsibility for it, they would have stopped doing it. They are still doing the same kinds of things with derivatives that created the bubble but just with different targets (oil, European debt, and anything else suitable for derivative bubbles) while at the same time spending millions to lobby Congress and block CFTC implementation of regulations mandated by Dodd-Frank, How about posted an article on what the banks have been doing SINCE 2008?
--David
Tom, here is an example of the kind of article I would like to you post and comment on as your next OWS installment...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.econmatters.com/2011/10/global-financial-crisis-20-by-wall.html
J"PMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., among the world's biggest traders of credit derivatives, have disclosed to shareholders that they have sold protection on more than $5 trillion of debt globally.
ReplyDeleteJust don't ask them how much of that was issued by Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain, sometimes known as the GIIPS, or even PIIGS."
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/134093749.html
--------------
Looks to me like Golman Sachs and JP Morgan have become the AIG for world debt. Join OWS and vote Ron Paul.
--David
If the size of derivatives is half as large as the author says--we will have a worldwide depression of a size that we have never seen before. It will end life as we know it. There will be no trade, therefore no goods or food. This could be dangerous.
ReplyDeleteAm I misreading the information?
I think what will happen next time is that a lot of these big banks will go broke, and all their hundreds of trillions of derivatives will go up in smoke along with them..
ReplyDeleteAs you have said, you believe that is what should have happened in 2008. Back then, I would have disagreed. After 4 more years of the same thing, I have finally seen the light.
--David
Glad to hear that you "have finally seen the light"!
ReplyDeleteNO business should be too big too fail, at that point it endangers the entire economy as pols will feel necessary to use our dollars/euros/juan/pounds to "save' the business.
Bad decision.
We should have the banks GM, Chrysler and AIG go through normal bankruptcy, the temporary pain would have been so much less than what we will face when the whole thing comes down around our heads.
Last night, I was thinking about a couple articles that I had read (one from David) and it occured to me that we will (not might--will) have a major worldwide depression within a couple years if only 10% of the derivatives go bad. Unfortunately, I think there is about a 75% chance of this happening.
And, when that happens, Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate in either party who will stand his ground and veto the next bailout from Congress. All the rest of them are financed by Wall Street. I saw a couple days ago that Gingrich's various companies had received $30 million from Wall Street. Jesse Ventura was interviewed on CNN recently. He agrees that the banks own both parties. He is voting for Ron Paul.
ReplyDelete--David
Jessee Ventura is moving to Mexico!! I doubt that he will vote.
ReplyDeleteNeither Obams, Any Republican or Ron Paul will be able to stop the depression that is coming. No vetoes will work as the entire financial system (if David is right regarding derivatives is correct) will collapse around the world.
If that does occur, money will be worthless and only things will be able to be traded for the stuff that we need. Trade a car for a years food or oil or gas. Trade a diamond for a car. Barter will be the only way of getting things as money (fiat) will be worthless.
The only money that will be worth anything is silver and gold coins which can be traded for their intrinsic value.
Pretty scary stuff but definitely possible if David is correct.
If the European banking system collapses, we will get a global depression. I think it is possible but not yet inevitable. Italy is the tipping point.
ReplyDeleteIf it does happen, macroeconomists do not agree on how it will affect currencies, inflation, gold. In one camp we have the "hyperinflation" view which you describe. The other side says what we get is deflation, and points to Japan as the example. Their banking system collapsed, and they had their 10 years of deflation. They are dreaming of getting their inflation rate up to 1%!
My view of what to do with money is based on one simple idea: I am not going to invest in anything that can be manipulated by Goldman Sachs with their derivatives scams. Gold, oil, housing (or any other commodity) can be turned into a Wall Street manufactured bubble. Stay away for all of them with your money! I have all my saving invested in solid multi-national corporations. Whether we get inflation or deflation, these companies will endure and recover. They came back from 2008, and they will come back from the next one.
As for Ron Paul, if a couple big banks in Europe implode, they will rock Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. If they cry "the sky is falling, we need another bailout", who are you going to trust to stand up to Congress and say "Hell no!"? Will it be Mitt Romney, who has taken more money from Wall Street than Obama in this cycle? No. Will it be Newt Gingrich, who has made millions selling his influence in Congress on behalf of Freddie Mac and the health insurance companies? No. It will be Ron Paul.
When Newt is exposed for what he is (a prostitute to Wall Street), Ron will be the last man standing to stop Romney. He is not an ignorant buffoon, nor is he a fake conservative. That is what separates him from the others on the stage. Okay, so keep your powder dry, but think about this when it is time to pull your trigger.
--David
A couple months ago, I would have disagreed with you when it came to Ron Paul, however, as he continues to stick around and not lose out. He may be the last man standing. Additionally, this year the Republican primary is not a "winner take all", it is a proportional primary. This means that if Ron Paul, for example, gets 20% of the votes, he gets 20% of the delegates. This primary is going to go a long way as this encourages the candidates to remanin in the contest until it is pretty much decided. If that had been the case in 2008, McCain would not have been the candidate.
ReplyDeleteI have always admired Newt for his intelligence and ability to simplify things, however, I always felt that he had way too much baggage and that was before I knew about the Fannie money and the global warming ad. He is toast as far as I am concerned.