Fixing Capitalism

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

"Socialism," is when you have two cows, and you share the milk with everyone else. "Communism," is when you have two cows, the government takes them, and gives you the milk. "Fascism," is where you have two cows, the government takes your cows, and sells you the milk. "Nazism," is when the government takes your cows and shoots you.  "Capitalism," is where you have two cows, sell one, and buy a bull."

Poss, Micael, Ebby Halliday, The First Lady of Real Estate; Dallas: Brown Books (2009)

In a recent discussion with a small group of people about the United States Constitution a self-proclaimed conservative did not seem very confident that this country could be set back on its constitutional track with an education scheme targeting mainstream America in the big cities of this country as I am embarking on through the Congress of Racial Equality.

"Have you not been watching the news?" he asked.  "The Democrats want to take it to the streets, and I see a bloody civil war in our near future.  Besides, if the Constitution wasn't so out of date, we wouldn't be in this situation."

Complaints about the Constitution being a victim of antiquity is not a new argument, but it is usually verbalized to me by liberal left Democrat Party loons, not usually people who believe themselves to be "conservative."  I asked him to name the out of date portions he believes are in the Constitution, and he said, "Birthright citizenship and the 2nd Amendment for starters."

"What about those two clauses makes you think they are out of date?"  I queried.

"Well, birthright citizenship allows anyone born on American soil to be citizens, and the 2nd Amendment is all about militias, and not about the people."

"The Constitution is fine," I said.  "The 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause does not give citizenship to anyone for simply being born on American Soil.  If your read the congressional testimonies of Senators Howard and Trumbull of the time period, you would realize that 'subject to the jurisdiction, thereof' in the clause requires 'full allegiance' to the United States, as well.  The child of parents who consider themselves to be subjects of the country they came from cannot, and should not, be considered a citizen because of the parent's lack of allegiance to the United States.  As for the militia part of the 2nd Amendment, the unorganized militia is comprised of the citizens of this country.  Even the U.S. Code admits as much.  The problem isn't the Constitution.  The problem is that we've accepted a definition of constitutional principles that is not in line with the original intent by the Framers, primarily based on the unconstitutional interpretations by academics, politicians, and judges."

"Framers," he sighed.  "They didn't see what we are experiencing coming.  They didn't know about the internet and the latest technology, or the weaponry of our time."

Actually, yes they did. Maybe not specifically, but the knew there would be challenges to their language in the form of a changing culture and society, coupled with the reality of human nature. As a result, they placed checks and balances (many of them have been ripped away, or "misinterpreted") to protect us from change for the sake of change, and an amendment process to make change when necessary.

The American System was established based on the principles and philosophies of liberty.  Religious Liberty.  Political Liberty.  Economic Liberty.  We have a free and dynamic financial system (or, at least we did) and the refusal to abide by those original principles is what has our system so out of whack.

America began as essentially a third-world economy, but prospered into a great success as a result of her "capitalistic roots".  Persons like Adam Smith were the creators and cheerleaders for our system (the term "capitalism" was actually created later by Karl Marx as a way of trying to attack our free and dynamic economy), and even back during the years of the founding of this country the leaders of that time understood the natural rollercoaster effect of our free and dynamic economic system.  When everyone is making money, everyone is satisfied with the system.  However, in an attempt to protect their power, politicians began to take measures to soften the rises and falls of the American Economy.  Instead of assisting our system, government interference has become a counter-balance that increases the effects of a natural economy, elongating the rises and falls of our system, creating an exaggerated system of boom and bust cycles.  The more government gets involved through currency manipulation, taxation and regulatory controls, the more extreme the rises and falls of our economy.  In a system of extreme governmental interference, in the economy the government intrusion creates unintended consequences such as incredibly profitable bubbles of wealth creation, and devastating economic recessions and depressions.

Socialism lurks as one of the self-appointed successors of American Capitalism, but governmental control over the means of production, because there is no private profit margins to be obtained, or a drive to be more efficient in order to maximize that profit margin, socialism fails every time it is tried.  In truth, socialism cannot exist without capitalism.  Socialism is a parasite that is dependent upon wealth creation so as to consume the capital created in a free market for the purpose of funding its programs and social justice expenses.

The chief arguments of socialists against capitalism, such as universal health care and welfare programs, only function in a manner that seems acceptable when times are good because of growth in the private economy, and government can afford it.  But, government is unable to produce or expand its operations because government policy does not understand the basic elements of the market.  So, as Ebby Halliday pointed out, government programs takes your cows, but in a fumbling attempt to distribute the milk, kills both of them.  Growth through production in a drive for more profit is beyond their comprehension, so they never consider making the programs more efficient or effective (in fact, they are attacking President Trump for attempting to do so) towards expansion by buying a bull.  They were too worried about dropping the handout level by letting go of a cow, so the bean counters of government never consider taking the risk it takes to grow business through an expenditure, or reducing expenses through strategies rooted in efficiency.

As government takes more control, the producers step out of the arena.  Why work so hard if their own profit drops, and they become nothing more than government workers with a limit on their ability to earn?  Workers in their industries with a passion for what they are doing become mindless government employees, and the level of quality reduces.  The great minds no longer enter the field because it is not worth the use of their talents and skills to make government wages and not have the ability to reach for the sky in terms of their potential.

The professionals lose any control and say in their industry because government fills it with their mandates and their demands.  The participants in the industries realize they have no say on what the government will pay for or provide as tools, and they have to wade through thick government red tape just to receive what they already believe is not enough (in terms of support, and wages).  Then, when government finally realizes that getting a bull is necessary, it's too late, they've killed the cows, and all they can do from that point is provide powdered milk to a population headed towards starvation.

To fix American capitalism, the repair is actually very simple.  Reduce governmental involvement, reduce expenses for private industry (lower taxes, remove the federal government from all regulatory interference so that local government forces that are more familiar with the various local industries acquires more responsibility, relax the regulatory and fee structure), and then let the free and dynamic market do its thing.

When it comes to government intrusion, less is better.

Less government involvement leads to prosperity.  The more than two hundred year history of the United States following an economic formula based on liberty, open markets, and free enterprise is evidence to support such an idea.

The problem is, those behind the socialist increase of governmental interference is not interested in economic prosperity.  They are interested in increased government control, increase of governmental power, and holding on to the pipe dream that utopia is just a few socialist steps away (if only those dang conservatives would get out of the way).

Historically, rejecting free market principles always leads to starvation, and death.

Always.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary