Confused About Capitalism

[brandondrury]

I've been pretty vocal here in this Irrelevant section that I'm a big believer in capitalism. I like the idea that the guy who works the hardest and the smartest succeeds. I think supply and demand is a good thing. I think when the government gets it's nasty little paws in anything, they screw it up. I think corruption runs rampant and I think our tax money is wasted on stuff that we simply do not need.

However, I've came across an issue that concerns me significantly.

1)On “The Smartest Guys In The Room” (The Enron Story) you can see that brokers (or whoever they are) calling a power plant in California and asking them to turn off the plant. This caused way too many people to have no electricity, caused a panic, and the price of energy soared. This was profitable to Enron, but caused people to live without electricity. The people who had electricity were forced to pay outlandish amounts of money for it. This isn't capitalism!

2)Now I'm watching Sicko by Michael Moore. While Mr. Moore swings quite a bit further from my capitalist roots that I feel safe going, but he often brings up some interesting points. In Sicko, Michael Moore mentions how health insurance companies go through dirty, deceptive schemes to get out of paying for insurance claims even though they have no problem with taking our money on a monthly basis in the first place. While I feel that insurance companies have the right to turn down initial coverage to anyone they feel like it, I don't feel that insurance companies have a right to refuse to pay when a 22 year old gets cancer. The reason was “you are too young to get cancer”! I'm sure she was thinking the same thing. “Too young” doesn't seem like a good reason to reject paying the bill. (Note: Michael Moore tends to like sensationalism a bit much and may be leaving out parts of these stories or focusing on non-typical situations. You never know.)
This isn't capitalism!

So, in both cases, we have a situation where a company can benefit by manipulating the needs of others. Both examples are clear cut cases of corruption. In my “utopian” view of capitalism, corruption isn't supposed to work like this. I couldn't imagine Dish Network turning off their satellite service to Sacramento, CA for 5 days. They'd loose tons of money. This is how I feel that capitalism is supposed to work. Dish Network would not rest until they had solved the problem so they can make their customers happy.

So, maybe “pure” capitalism is a thing of the past. Maybe government corruption is simply too great.

Maybe capitalism works a lot better for our "wants" and socialism works better for our needs? (I'm asking!). Maybe it's better to have a socialized fire department. I could imagine an Enron Firestation saying "Yes, I'm aware that your house is on fire, but today ends in "day" and therefore we have a $5,000 surcharge.". I think we can all agree that this is not what we want. I'll gladly pitch in my taxes to pay for fire coverage (but I want to vote on every new truck and building they buy!) The dude with an ash house doesn't need to be hit with a huge bill. It appears that crooks have managed to need in under the radar of free enterprise and fuck us real hard!

So in my head I'm debating which is worse: Enron, Health Insurance Companies, or the socialization of our needs. The public school system is socialized. It is shit, driven by political agendas, and costs way more money than better private schools assuming that private schools are subsidized (at least locally). Would health care be the same under a socialized system? Is that worse than a 22 year old being rejected cancer treatment because she is “too young”?

Brandon

[yohami]

Lol dude, dont get me started! I started to reply here but turned to write a full post

Y O H A M I » Blog Archive » Turn your back now, Im gonna do you from behind.

[.tom]

It is capitalism. But it is also other other things at play there. Ethics comes to mind. Smashing bugs with a shovel also comes to mind..

[Whammo]

Gee- shutting down a perfectly good nuke plant in the 80's- Rancho Seco might have had a little to do with it.

That's not capitalism- if one company can shut down the grid that's an effective monopoly. The super regulated power companies can only contract with super regulated power suppliers. A corporation can only become a monopoly by working the system.
Where are those nuclear batteries they promised would be in every back yard in the 50's?
Government regulation is effectively socialism.

The answer is always more freedom.

[CyberCat]

Hey Brandon,

I've got news for you: THAT IS CAPITALISM.

The people with the money control EVERYTHING.

[Whammo]

Indeed it is not Capitalism. If I may use the Wikipedia:

Capitalism is an economic system in which all property is owned by either private individuals or a corporation. Private ownership is sometimes used as a synonym for individual ownership, however the term "private" may also be used to refer to collective ownership of individuals in the form of corporate ownership. Therefore, "privately owned" in the context of this definition means not owned or controlled by the state and operated for profit, and in which investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are determined through the operation of a market economy. It is usually considered to involve the right of individuals and corporations to trade, using money, in goods, services (including finance), labor and land.

Government regulation, like I said- is not the solution, it is the problem.

[yohami]

"which investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are determined through the operation of a market economy."

That means whoever has the money controls it all

"Government regulation, like I said- is not the solution, it is the problem."

Im sure it would be a problem, but it isnt the problem we face here

[Whammo]

You're missing the point- which is that what we have is NOT Capitalism.

What you're saying is what we have is an Oligarchy i.e. a form of government where political power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society (whether distinguished by wealth, family or military powers)

I not disputing that. What I am disputing is that you're calling Oligarchy Capitalism. They are not the same.

[izzme]

you can't just pick a dogma and expect it to be consistant and effectively serve all your needs.there is always a struggle to preserve your freedom. freedom not just to do things but also freedom from having things done to you by thugs,religeous groups,klans members,maybe they're white now but as minorities shift they could be of a different color,government intrusion and on and on. and yes that means limiting power wherever it amasses. power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. we as a country have gotten ourselves in a dogma fight that just distracts us and divides us so they [the power groups;make your own list but its generally he who has the money buys the power] i've said all this shit before and seems like we'll suck shit through a rag till we won't put up whit it anymore and we'll break up the power by taking their money from the one way or another.there are stats out there that show that most of the worlds wealth is owned by an obscenely small percentage of people. i don't give a fuck that they have the money i mainly don't want them to have so much power to be able to fuck with me in so many ways that it limits my liberty!!!!!!

[yohami]

Whammo, you might be right, Im not discussing politics theory, I know too little on the subject.