Posted on 11/09/2009 7:22:26 AM PST by Kaslin
Milton Friedman said with passion: “The record of history is absolutely clear that there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activity that is unleashed by the free enterprise system.” American capitalism, as imperfect a system as it is, has made America the “shining city on the hill” where immigrants still stand in line and cross borders to find opportunity.
Those who worked hard to earn their American Dream used to be respected. They were a source of inspiration and jobs for those who aspired to their own success. Americans took pride in being the land of opportunity where anyone could better their position in life.
How then have those who have worked hard to achieve success now become the subject of envy and derision? When did it become acceptable for Americans to embrace candidates who could openly brag about redistributing the wealth of the top 5% of wage earners to subsidize their supporters?
A recent trip to the UK surfaced some clues. In Europe, many hold wealthy in such contempt that vandalism against the rich is growing.
In hopes of providing rich urban Paris commuters an alternative bicycle-rental system to match this age of global warming hysteria, the French have provided 20,600 sturdy bicycles—a low-cost, low-carbon alternative to using cars. In a blow to Parisian civility, 80% of the bicycles have been stolen, trashed or damaged. The stylish bicycles are seen as symbols of the “bobos,” the “bourgeois-bohemès,” the rich and trendy urban class. A sociologist reported in the International Herald Tribune commented: “They stir resentment and covetousness. They are often vandalized in a socially divided Paris by resentful, angry, or anarchic youth.”
At one of my leadership programs in Edinburgh, an international sales manager pointed to a beautiful, silver Porsche in the parking lot, “You don’t see many here anymore. Not because people can’t afford them, but because if you own one, you are likely to have the hood keyed by vandals. They don’t think the rich deserve what they own; they must have taken it from someone else to get to where they are. It’s tragic. I hope it never becomes that way in America. The American Dream isn’t just important to your country; it’s important to the world. In the past, America has been living proof that anyone can better themselves.”
Certainly media news has played a role, and some dishonest business people have given them all the ammunition they need to paint all “rich” achievers with the same brush. Whether it’s the Enron’s debacle, Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, or the sub-prime derivative abuses, some highly-visible executives failed to live up to the values they had on their walls. Rightfully, many have and continue to pay for their ethical lapses. Unfortunately, the good bosses, the ethical managers, the charitable rich benefactors and the job-creating entrepreneurs don’t make the headlines. Most of the rich earn their wealth from hard work. Many hire workers, support charities and provide dividends to stockholders.
Hollywood adds to the negative image of free enterprise and business executives. Robert Lichter and others have found that the negative portrayal of businesspeople has grown over the years. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, businesspeople were three times more likely to exhibit characteristics of rampant greed than were other characters in identifiable occupations. In the 1980s, business characters where 10 times more likely to exhibit greedy behaviors than were other characters. In the 1990s, Lichter found that 81 percent of the shows that addressed the question of whether business were honest and honorable or unfair and corrupt, portrayed business dealings as dishonest and corrupt.
Rather than a reward for offering valued goods and services, profit was ordinarily portrayed as the result of exploitation and fraud. Hollywood has no interest in showing the power of free enterprise to generate prosperity, to tap the human spirit’s pursuit of excellence and to create innovative products and services that make a difference to us all.
The church also does its part to create envy and chastise the “rich.” Pastors pray for “social justice” which has come to provide justification for redistribution and government services for the poor. Yes, Biblical passages make it clear that being “rich” has its challenges. Faith trumps wealth. How one uses one’s riches is crucial, but Jesus didn’t come to call Rome to institute universal healthcare. He called believers to be good stewards of their gifts and their money. Believers were to give to the poor, not to elect politicians to take from others to do the giving for them. As Margaret Thatcher once said, "No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions; he had money, too."
Then, of course, we have President Obama and his liberal Democrat leaders who have declared “war on wealth.” They’ve promised not to renew the Bush tax cuts on the top 5% of wage earners. The top 5 percent already pay 60.63 percent of all the individual income taxes collected, even though they earned only 37.44 percent of the money. The President wants them to give even more because they are not paying their “fair share.”
Lincoln believed in the American Dream for all Americans, but he never condoned any attack on the rich. He said, “I don’t believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good. So while we do not propose any war on capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else.” Lincoln understood what Obama and other class warriors never do. When American freedom and free enterprise is working, there’s no war between capital and labor. Capital and labor are the same people at different stages of their lives. Workers work to save, then to invest and ultimately to become owners of capital and entrepreneurs themselves.
Margaret Thatcher had another warning we should heed, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money." It’s time we start showing a little respect to those that have and are making America work. Instead of trying to take from them and punish achievement, it’s time to learn from what they do and emulate it. President Obama is looking for new strategies that will unleash private economic growth. As Steve Forbes new book, How Capitalism Will Save Us, reminds us—we don’t need a new idea! The President can unleash a tried-and-true strategy—stop throwing money away on losing companies “too big to fail” and start rewarding companies willing to invent the future and hire more Americans to do it. Whether you want to believe it or not, the American Dream can still work if we let it.
Excellent, deadly accurate, and absolutely true.
America's Founders, according to their own writings,
". . . were familiar with the near starvation of the early Jamestown settlers under a communal production and distribution system and Governor Bradford's diary account of how all benefited after agreement that each family could do as it wished with the fruits of its own labors. Later, in 1776, Adam Smith's INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS and Say's POLITICAL ECONOMY had come at just the right time and were perfectly compatible with the Founders' own passion for individual liberty. Jefferson said these were the best books to be had for forming governments based on principles of freedom. They saw a free market economy as the natural result of their ideal of liberty. They feared concentrations of power and the coercion that planners can use in planning other peoples lives; and they valued freedom of choice and acceptance of responsibility of the consequences of such choice as being the very essence of liberty. They envisioned a large and prosperous republic of free people, unhampered by government interference.
"The Founders believed the American people, possessors of deeply rooted character and values, could prosper if left free to:
|
|
"Such a free market economy was, to them, the natural result of liberty, carried out in the economic dimension of life. Their philosophy tended to enlarge individual freedom - not to restrict or diminish the individual's right to make choices and to succeed or fail based on those choices. The economic role of their Constitutional government was simply to secure rights and encourage commerce. Through the Constitution, they granted their government some very limited powers to:
"Adam Smith called it "the system of natural liberty." James Madison referred to it as "the benign influence of a responsible government." Others have called it the free enterprise system. By whatever name it is called, the economic system envisioned by the Founders and encouraged by the Constitution allowed individual enterprise to flourish and triggered the greatest explosion of economic progress in all of history. Americans became the first people truly to realize the economic dimension of liberty."
Footnote: Our Ageless Constitution, W. David Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Editors (Asheboro, NC, W. David Stedman Associates, 1987) Part III: ISBN 0-937047-01-5
See
Well, it can be a two-edged sword. If the rich want more respect from working stiffs, they need to quit running to government for bailouts every time they get in over their heads with risk.
Saving for later reading...good stuff!
It is long past time for GOP leaders to categorically label all regulatory agencies as noxious, authoritarian parasites that eat wealth and destroy jobs.
A 2,000 page health care bill -- this is not rational government -- this is a disease of government. Too bad GOP leaders were too lame to use this worthy pun.
Uh, that's really brilliant, seeing how credit default swaps morphed into a monster largely because of a lack of regulation. Even Greenspan has admitted his views about markets being self-regulated were wrong - but there are still the dogmatically-addled such as yourself who refuse to learn from recent history.
That doesn't mean that regulation can present its own problems - but ending regulation is not the answer, either.
Sent this to my favorite, government-loving Liberal.
Do you disagree with his assertions about class envy and attacks on wealth creation? I see a similar shift especially regarding innovation and business creation. We used to celebrate the outrageous profits made by first movers and keen business strategy. Now there are windfall profit taxes aimed at industries with a 3% profit margin.
Great editorial! Thanks for posting!
Reeeeealllly? Sounds like you haven't ever been rich (by the way, to you, what IS rich? An individual at pre-tax $75,000 a year? $50,000? $60,000? $40,000?????? GIVE US A NUMBER, please, and be specific), haven't ever been self-made, haven't ever had to deal with onerous regulation, and haven't figured out that credit default in the housing industry was BECAUSE of regulations, not for the lack of them. "Been there, done that" -- yeah, sure. You've been envious of the successful and painted it as self-righeousness all your life -- that's my guess as to where you've been and what you've done. Envy oozes in both posts you made on this thread so far.
And because Greenspan interprets what has happened as a symptom that free markets aren't self regulating, you BUY IT?????? Greenspan is NO Milton Friedman. Remember it.
You apparently don't know smoke from truth.
Uh, no, I haven't. I very much appreciate the entreprenuers who take the risks to build business that create jobs, for example. I've worked for a couple and helped make them a lot of money, and was even in a position where I was in charge of the company when both partners were unavailable.
However, too many of the corporate class nowadays want to reap the rewards of risk but have the taxpayer backstop the downside of such. And because I state what should be obvious - that some base level of regulation is needed - you apparently are too dogmatically-addled to do anything but engage in some lame-assed mind-reading from a simple satrical statement on my profile page.
And because Greenspan interprets what has happened as a symptom that free markets aren't self regulating, you BUY IT??????
Uh, no, one can simply read about the causes of the financial train wreck (you should try doing such). But Greenspan was a leading proponent that business would be self-regulating, and he was in a position of considerable power to where his views carried a lot of weight on policymakers - and directly influenced actual policy. And he admits he was wrong. But go ahead, attack little ol' me, not a guy who was probably the 2nd most powerful man in the world.
That is an exceedingly stupid statement for anyone to make that shows gross ignorance on your part. Then you must disagree with every principle of conservatism that Walter Williams, one of Rush Limbaugh's most popular fill-in hosts, ever articulates. CORRECT???????
You have a template in your mind of what "Libertarian" means, and you are too pig-headed to admit that your template is horse manure. So pig-headed, in fact, that you use it to attack this very solid and right opinion piece by Terry Paulson, who I'd never heard of before now (I am a registered Republican and have been since I began voting back in the Reagan days). Your ridiculous and emotion-based contempt for libertarians is destructive because it is based on flawed whitewashing of what "libertarian" is. OWN UP TO IT, sacrifice a little pride, eat a little crow, and start being part of the solution.
And it sure sounds like you appreciate entreprensurs who've employed you. And it is so clever of you to differentiate them from the "corporate class." Hmmmm ...
Yes, the lack of regulations in the loan industry ... you've read about it? In Mother Jones, or in mortgage professional newsletters? Do you have any close and trusted friends in the mortgage industry? Have you read about how Democrats like Barney Frank essentially forced mortgage companies into making loans where they shouldn't -- and wouldn't -- have if not for ... well, they're not technically regulations, but then again, money-wasting and time-wasting carpool lanes in California that inconvenience millions of drivers daily aren't by regulation, either. They're there by extortion -- California doesn't get Federal highway funding unless it puts in carpool lanes. According to what I've read and heard from respected opinionators, confirmed by my friend in the industry, it was the same kind of thing with the mortgage companies, where heavy-handed Federal programs distort the free-market and mortgage companies who decline are at a severe disadvantage, according to a mortgage professional friend whose company had to go bankrupt because of your so-called "benevolent" regulation, NOT the lack of it. Oh, I forgot -- it wasn't technically regulation.
If you want to see this in ACTION, go to a decent MLS page for real estate and see how properties that qualify for FHA funding have raised their original asking price, while non-qualifying properties either remain the same or drop their prices. I've seen it, and I've seen prices of homes in this market artificially inflated because of ... well, I guess the "non" regulation of government that acts just like regulation distorting free markets to the detriment of real hard-working Americans (corporate class, entrepreneurs, rich, poor, or not!!!), can you imagine such a thing!!!! Apparently, you cannot.
In any case, my friend quickly rebounded and has opened a new mortgage company, in a small town where he grew up, and people who know him know he's an honest and ethical guy; if he wasn't, he'd have been run out of town on a rail years ago. But YOU and the fodder you push would have most people erroniously assume that he was a dirty, greedy bastard trying to screw anybody who'd take it.
You act as if "corporate class" folks who want to "reap the rewards of risk but have the taxpayers backstop the downside" are the problem. You confuse symptom with cause. If conservate principles of less government were being followed, then that corporate class (I guess what you really mean are executives in a big national company as opposed to a small business ... so much easier to villify that way) would never look for taxpayer-funded bailouts in the first place.
I hope Americans are leery of indulging the the lust to punish "greed." It is at its the core based on the envy of success, and leads to MORE and BIGGER government, and LESS and FEWER freedoms and liberty, every time.
But if you want to be a dogmatic mind-reading jackass, go right ahead, and I'll ignore your sorry ass while you bloviate. Later.
"Dogmatic mind-reading jackass," on the other hand, I believe fits the "ad hominem" definition nicely. But those were dirtboy's words, not mine. Too bad he will be too cowardly to actually read this, though. At this point, I'm only posting for posterity, lurkers, and others who may read this thread. dirtboy has chickened-out of this debate, as you can see. It is instructive of the value of envy-motivated folks like dirtboy, who I figure genuinely thinks himself a "conservative" but is anti-conservative without even knowing it.
His attitude about "the rich" and "the corporate class" is symptomatic of the problem.
Like you and me, they just want to hold on to their property.
The problem is, too many of them want to take some of my earnings through government-funded bailouts. I'm not calling on the rich to get taxed to pay for my health care or anything else. The financial sector needs to stop asking me to help backstop their risktaking.
Crony, thug, ‘rat government is the bogeyman. It runs much of the financials, almost all of the mortgage market, two auto companies, 50% of the retail medical market, and hangs like a dark cloud over any industry that doesn’t pay big $ to their campaign coffers. Industry can select to be at the table or on the menu.
I disagree, I see a lot of corporate entities such as GS and Archer-Daniels Midland leading the charge for increased government. After all, they can earn the profits while we the taxpayers eat the downside.
The rats are driving us into a banana republic economy of strongmen supported by favored and protected companies. Crony capitalism.
No, but a lot of those seeking bailouts are doing so wilfully, not at the point of a gun. Dittoes for subsidy programs such as ethanol and 'green' energy.
Fine. Your are hopeless. Drift around in your dreams.
So GM and Chrsyler did not approach the goverment for bailouts. Neither did AIG. Nor Lehman (who got turned down). Horsefeathers.
The reality is, a lot of corporations LIKE big government - needing a relationship to government is a barrrier to entry for startup competitors. You can deny that all you want, but the truth is quite well-documented that corporations often willfully enter into the big government embrace. It often backfires on them, but most are not forced into the relationship.
You are about as smart as a horse turd, now go molest some kids are something. Last I heard you people were against child protection laws.
Actually it goes much further than that, I would say at least 60% of all legislation is written on K street and bought and paid politicians put in law.
Meanwhile, finance pays the US treasury $400 billion a year that goes to pay for middle class entitlements, while the middle class stiffs financiers with $2 trillion in bad debts. Then it screams if they get a dime of help, even when they pay it back and it costs them nothing.
Here is a clue for the populist right, though. If you think the American people are ever going to vote for the right because they hate the rich, get your head examined. If they want class war and hatred of the rich, they will vote democrat every time. There is no political power for any kind of right that attacks American business all day.
Ever.
Most workings stiffs do pay their mortgages on time. Also, please show where I have ever supported government bailouts for mortage payers. Hint: I haven't.
Meanwhile, finance pays the US treasury $400 billion a year that goes to pay for middle class entitlements, while the middle class stiffs financiers with $2 trillion in bad debts.
Funny, no one in finance complained about all the money they made writing that paper and securitizing the mortgages, even as some folks said it was too risky. Those people issuing the warnings were shouted down and ignored.
Then it screams if they get a dime of help, even when they pay it back and it costs them nothing.
A dime? The feds have guaranteed, what, $23 trillion by some accounting? And you brush that off as a dime?
Here is a clue for the populist right, though. If you think the American people are ever going to vote for the right because they hate the rich, get your head examined.
Ah, so because I think those well-off folks who go begging for bailouts from the feds are leeches, I somehow hate the rich. To the contrary, I admire men and women who can get rich without the help of Uncle Sam and the taxpayers. BTW, please show me where, on this thread or elsewhere, I have called for raising taxes on the rich to pay for health care or entitlements or other such stuff. I haven't. I am simply saying too many in the corporate world made money by the bucketful while ignoring the risks, and then the taxpayers got stuck with way too much of that downside.
If they want class war and hatred of the rich, they will vote democrat every time. There is no political power for any kind of right that attacks American business all day. Ever.
Ah, so by simply stating a simple truth - that a lot of corporations asked for bailouts and like big government, I am engaging in class warfare.
Are all of you bailout apologists such unprincipled weasels that you engage in such blatant ad hominem attacks while calling trillions of dollars in government guarantees a mere dime?
Never mind answering, you showed what you were made of long ago.
But wait, you just said they DID cost a dime, weasel-face. And that's 230 trillion in dimes guaranteed by the goverment. The price for which we will be paying for years, you pom-pom princess you.
Oh, and pom-pom princess, there is a reason why the Canadian system did not face collapse. Namely, personal responsbility across the board, by borrowers and bankers alike, and sound regulation of risk management. But you can only see half the problem. You blame the borrowers while apologizing for the lenders who ramped up the leverage and the risk to maximize their profits - all the while spinning up a toxic financial time bomb. Unlike you, I see the entire problem - lack of personal responsibility across the board, including many borrowers AND many in the financial sector - you are too busy spinning for the financial sector to do such. Which is why if we listen to wankers like you, we will only get a re-run of the meltdown.
Pretty well nails it.
Your post speaks volumes not about me, but about you and your allies. I'm a registered Republican; I've never been a registered Libertarian. Now I KNOW I'm on the right side in this argument -- and you do too, otherwise you wouldn't have had to resort to such juvenile prattle.
Just don’t ask him how he defines “the rich.” He’ll accuse you of making an ad hominem attack. That’s how weak his arsenal is, the poor deluded faux-conservative.
And I would not believe you for one minute about who you support. You are a die in the wool Anarchist libertarian and that is all you are.
A self-made very wealthy businessman entrepreneur has built a relatively small house worth nearly $14 million. Fourteen million dollars. How can a house (not a mansion) possibly be worth that much? I'm here to tell you it's possible and impressive. More than impressive -- it's inspiring, uplifting, a sight of beauty. It represents guts, artistry, risk, imagination, innovation, vision and skill, and it employed loads of people. It didn't cause harm to one single entity -- indeed, it fostered prosperity and that beautiful place will probably bring joy for decades to anyone fortunate enough to live in it.
I have no idea of the politics of the wealthy guy who built this house, nor are they relevant except in an ironic sense, as he may well be a screaming Liberal. I don't care what the guy's politics are -- I find abhorrent what so many would do in my shoes: hate him and want to tear him and his beautiful house down.
There is ONLY DESTRUCTION on that path; it is stupid and wrong. Accusations of things like "obscene profit" and "greedy corporate execs" are nonsense -- immoral nonsense at that. They have no place in a righteously moral free world. A person who thinks he/she is "conservative" or understands it, or who stands to make the Republican party right, who also accuses any private person off the government dole of greed, should step back and think with maturity.
It's a BAD habit. Greed reaps its own reward to the man/woman who indulges that sin. And SO DOES ENVY. They're not called "deadly sins" and aren't in the Ten Commandments for nothing. Red flags flap wildly when I hear from a fellow "conservative" charges of greed or classification of "the rich." They are based in envy. When the government indulges greed, we're forced to accept it and it becomes theft. When a private businessman indulges greed, he writes his own epitaph.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.