Morning Joe 6/20/2012 -- Wow, Obama is winning big!

On Morning Joe today, Sam Stein, Al Hunt, Andrea Mitchell and a few others talked about Bloomberg's latest poll that shows Obama winning by 13 points. It's truly fantastic that Obama has made such progress in a week. I'm impressed to the point of disbelief.

What really impressed me this morning is how much time shows like Morning Joe spend on the ins and outs of politics, and how they talk about very little about fundamental problems. Morning Joe did have Ron Paul on the show, and he discussed fundamental problems and solutions, and I give them kudoes for giving Paul a voice.

Earlier in the show, though, they showed a clip from the Jamie Dimon congressional hearing in which a representative asked Dimon why the government should allow JP Morgan to grow so big. Everyone talked about Dimon's intelligence and skill dealing with political matters, but no one addressed the mindset behind the representative's question, and Dimon's answer fot that matter -- why should government allow a private business to grow that big? Dimon answered that being big helps Morgan do what government wants it to do. This is where we have come -- no one thinks this conversation is at odds with America's past embrace of free market principles.

We now accept without question that government has the right to decide how big a company can grow -- it allows or disallows a company to grow. And the business community accepts that it's okay for a private company to do the bidding of the government. This government/corporate enmeshment is so complete that large corporations have become a part of the State machine. This is a fundamental problem, and it's one big reason why our economy has stalled, why there is high unemployment, and why we're drowning in debt. We desperately need a separation of State and Economy, but government is going full bore to gain more control over the economy and thus expand the power of the State. Central management of the economy through political means is destroying our nation, as it's destroyed much of the EU, and as it will eventually destroy the bubble being created by China.

Later in the show, Mika had her dad back on the show to give his views some exposure and to help him sell his new book. Mika's dad, Zbigniew Brzezinski, is lot like Scarborough -- they sound reasonable until you listen closely. ZB says that America should not enter into a war with Syria or Iran. Yes, good, let's get out the mideast and let them take care of their own problems -- but, wait, that's not what ZB wants to do. ZB is okay with controlling Iran and Syria, as a long as it's done in concert with other nations. As we know from the recent past, starting wars with the support of other countries means that we have a fig leaf covering us, and in the end, it's America's war. No, ZB, you should stop at America has no business intervening in Syria or Iran. Plus, when will we learn that the violent mideast dictator we want to overthrow is most times protecting himself from all the competing violent would-be dictators trying to kill him? And when will we quit pretending that a country like Iran is an actual threat to our country. These big-mouth, blustering, tin-pot dictators have blackmailed us for centuries, and we continue to give them credibility -- if we leave them alone, they will fall apart.

It's just like Scarborough writing why he voted for Ron Paul. That's good -- Scarborough is a libertarian -- no, wait, he's not. Scaroborough doesn't want to end the Fed, and Scarborough is not for separating the State and the Economy by creating a true free market. Scarborough just wants to cover all his bases, so at some point he can say he relates to Tea Party types, Centrist types and libertarian types, but at heart he's just a statist with a pragmatic/political bent, pure and simple.

A free market and a new understanding

Years ago at a healthcare conference, a private healthcare facility I worked for at the time helped sponsor a conference for state healthcare employees. We weren't allowed to give a presentation, but we were allowed to display an advertisement of our facility in the display area of the hotel where the conference took place. It was the first time I experienced firsthand the attitude of state healthcare workers toward private providers. It's not an exaggeration to say we were the evil enemy, although they took our money to pay for the space and meals -- rather than expressing gratitude for our support, the state workers considered our support as a small payment toward redeeming our sin of being for-profit.

This is a small example of the antagonistic relationship,at higher levels a farce, between State and free enterprise that's festered for centuries, and a disdain toward markets which goes, I suppose, back to the beginning of history -- at least it's present in all the history accounts I've read. Today we witness it in our President's numerous speeches denigrating treacherous Fat-Cats.

Even the business community itself has cowed to the anti-capitalist, Marxian influence which in modern times helped write the narrative of benevolent governments beating back the rapacious Captains of Industry in order to protect the powerless from capitalist exploitation. Watch C-Span when congress holds a hearing regarding some  perceived "evil" in industry practice, and you will witness CEOs atoning for the sin of simply being in a profitable business and assuring the righteous representatives sitting above them in judgement that although they, the CEOs, have broken no laws, they will do all that can be done to change perceptions and give back to their communities. This hypocritical show of government protecting the powerless hides the reality of corporatism/cronyism/protectionism, but the game has been played because people have believed it --all that might be changing, though.

Because of the unholy alliance between business and government, capitalism has generated many enemies, most of whom strangely blame Big Business moreso than Big Government, but the two have been joined at the hip, and this is being realized more and more as the Information Age, so far uncontrolled by the State, presents a different picture. The State/corporate enmeshment has been hidden by hyped shows of government public-protection against the evils of Big Business. It's not Big Business that the State fears and opposes, though -- certain connected corporations are vital parts of the State -- interventionist government is used to protect these corporations from competition in the "anarchy" of a free market -- the current bailouts are recent examples which people are beginning to understand as a fundamental problem -- not just the emergency bailout, but the protection that led to the crisis calling for a bailout.

What government truly fights to oppress is a free market -- however, this doesn't help the powerless, it protects the powerful. The association of capitalism with a free market makes sense only if there's a separation of State and economy, only if government is limited. I often say I'm a proponent of limited government and a free market, but all I need to say is I'm a proponent of a free market, because this implies limited government. Plus, capitalism is simply an economic system which is part of a free market. A free market is something much greater. People speak of state-capitalism, but this is a perversion that amounts to a State-managed market. A free market is not managed by the State and works according the the economic principles of capitalism. State-managed markets where people are allowed to own property but the State decides what can be done with the property, has been called fascism. Although fascism is a loaded word due the horrors of Hitler, it's a useful distinction when considering the difference between a free market and a State-managed market.

I believe most of the past anti-capitalism, not the State's hypocritical show of taming capitalism, but sincere anti-capitalism, has been a reaction to corporatism, fascism, cronyism, whatever you want to call the State/corporate enmeshment. Because the State runs education, the State's role in the perversion of capitalism is not properly taught - nor is the distinction of a free market taught. The media is so dependent on the State, they usually portray Big Business as the villain, while the State is the public savior, regulating abuses and bringing the greedy Fat-Cats under control. Religion has had legitimate concerns with materialism, but a proper understanding of a free market reveals that materialism is not a necessary consequence of markets -- there's a place in a free market for art, intellectual enrichment, morals and spirituality as well.

This will be a series -- I will post more later.

Fighting statism with statism?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/when-wall-street-rules-we_b_688866.html

I agree with most of what Dean Baker wrote, but he fails to properly focus the blame where it belongs -- government. He states that government collusion with corporations is the problem, but he doesn't drill down to the real problem. We have a statist government which is playing favorites with businesses. The more government regulates and controls the economy, the more businesses will hire high powered lobbyists to make sure the companies are on the good side of government and get favors. I think it's a shame businesses have come to this, but I suppose corporate wisdom says if they don't get in and play the political game, their competitors will. Baker begins leaning toward blaming the corporations more than our system of government, then he appears to promote government doing something about the problem by restructuring corporate governance.

The main problem is government intervention and the fact that our government attracts and encourages this type of corporate behavior -- the companies don't just waltz in and make the regulations and force politicians to implement certain policies and make certain decisions. If the State and the Economy is separated and government is limited, then there won't be favortism and protection -- the companies which take crazy risks and lose will lose, and their competitors who are running their businesses with better sense will succeed.

Capitalism is capitalism is capitalism

It's frustrating to read over and over intelligent writers continue to insist there are two types of capitalism -- the capitalism which is capitalism, and the capitalism they continue to associate with corporate welfare, cronyism and State/corporate enmeshment, or corporatism.

Roderick Long writes:

Rand’s notorious reference to big business as a “persecuted minority” (Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, ch. 3) likewise jars with our real-world experience of “capitalism,” as we see the corporate elite lining up for tax-funded subsidies, protectionist regulations, bailouts, mandates, monopoly contracts, war profits, eminent domain giveaways, and other state-granted privileges

This is not a critique of Long's post, just a response to the continued confusion regarding capitalism. Without a statist form of government which has the expanded power to dole out favors to rent-seeking business owners and corporations, capitalism would exist as the system it is --

 an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market --- from Merriam Webster

 but with the creation of statism, capitalism is effectively limited to businesses with no political clout and is at risk of becoming a footnote in history -- at best we can say we have a mixed economic system, but the mixture is capitalism and statism, not private capitalism and State capitalism. To continue associating capitalism with the powers of the State is misleading and appears to be an attempt to smear and marginalize free market principles, to make it appear that the nature of capitalism is to devolve into cronyism and corporate welfare -- the nature of an unlimited State may be to devolve into Statism and central planning, but it's not the nature of capitalism.

You can make the cynical argument that human beings will never choose to live under a limited government, therefore making capitalism ineffective or impossible, but you can't call State-guided business under a statist government capitalism -- when the State favors some businesses or industries over others and provides advantages through the force of taxation and regulations, you don't have capitalism anymore -- you have a State market system guiding the economy and marginalizing businesses which still attempt to operate by capitalist principles -- you have a form of fascism.

Cronyism is an indictment of statism, and dishonest business-people who seek advantage when the advantage is offered by the State, and it might be an indictment of our lack of will to live with a capitalist economic system.

The statist system forces even honest business people to play the political game in order to be competitive, so when you look closely at what's happened, a minority have created the statist system, while the majority has been apatheic or ignorant of exactly what's happened. When this happens, it happens because of a sysem change implemented by the State and allowed or misunderstood by the public, not because captalism is a system which creates cronyism and requires welfare. Our education system has not taught the proper courses on capitalism, so there is bound to be confusion, especially as the media perpetuates the confusion of terms. All you can argue is that capitalism is impossible when people allow their government to break free of limitations, tax income, regulate unfairly and interfere in the economy and free market.

Capitalism might become a footnote in history, but it's not inevitable. At least have the intellectual honesty to admit that the system of capitalism has nothing to do with corporate welfare and cronyism -- those are features of statism -- to call it "State capitalism" is an Orwellian misuse of language and concepts and is an insult to intelligence, and capitalists. Capitalism is a system with a definition -- individuals  scheming to gain advantage through political power in a statist system of government which offers and promotes the advantage is something else, creeping fascism, but it's not capitalism.

Government corporations

Are corporations controlling government? That's the claim by many, and it might not matter, but it seems to me that government is using business in an effort to move closer to full-bore central planning and control. The anti-business movement has been a powerful force in politics for years, aided by universities and the media. 

Business people are usually put in the worst possible light, so that when most people think of business, they think of big, fat white guys lighting cigars with $100 dollar bills, politicians falling out of their pockets, lording over the impoverished masses.

However, what better way to gain control of business than to partner with the biggest corporations and make them a part of government? Once government can kill competition in business, they can engineer society without having to deal with the dynamic changes wrought by entrepreneurs. Innovation is counter to central planning -- it's too messy, too game-changing, too unpredictable and too independent. If government has a long-term strategy for energy policy, innovation can interrupt their plans and take the country in a direction government can't control. If private innovation creates changes in education, then government can't control the process -- the same goes for healthcare and the rest.

I think it makes a difference how we look at it -- one way blankets business as a dishonest endeavor bent on buying its way to power, disregarding all the honest capitalist endeavors which create so much that is good in the world -- the other way places the blame on a crony system guided by government in order to subjugate business to its central planning and to stifle competition and innovation.

Update on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 at 07:21PM by M. Farmer

I just found this at Cafe Hayek pointing to John Stossel's blog -- it helps make my point.