Ralph Nader supports true capitalism, not big business/big government capitalism
|
Submitted by: novanity  Subscribe to this Author Paste this code into your site to promote this story! |
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2004/jun/21/00006/
Type of Content: Article They are meant to be separate with government checking the corporations in the name of the people. Q and A part. RN: Well, that is what representative government is for, to counteract the excesses of the monied interests, as Thomas Jefferson said. Because big business realizes that the main countervailing force against their excesses and abuses is government, their goal has been to take over the government, and they do this with money and politics. They do it by putting their top officials at the Pentagon, Treasury, and Federal Reserve, and they do it by providing job opportunities to retiring members of Congress. They have law firms that draft legislation and think-tanks that provide ready-made speeches. They also do it by threatening to leave the country. The quickest way to bring a member of Congress to his or her knees is by shifting industries abroad. Concentrated corporate power violates many principles of capitalism. For example, under capitalism, owners control their property. Under multinational corporations, the shareholders don’t control their corporation. Under capitalism, if you can’t make the market respond, you sink. Under big business, you don’t go bankrupt; you go to Washington for a bailout. Under capitalism, there is supposed to be freedom of contract. When was the last time you negotiated a contract with banks or auto dealers? They are all fine-print contracts. The law of contracts has been wiped out for 99 percent of contracts that ordinary consumers sign on to. Capitalism is supposed to be based on law and order. Corporations get away with corporate crime, fraud, and abuse. And finally, capitalism is premised on a level playing field; the most meritorious is supposed to win. Tell that to a small inventor or a small business up against McDonald’s or a software programmer up against Microsoft. Giant multinational corporations have no allegiance to any country or community other than to control them or abandon them. So what we have now is the merger of big business and big government to further subsidize costs or eliminate risks or guarantee profits by our government." Read »
Created 7 weeks 1 day ago
Made popular 7 weeks 1 day ago |
- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 363 reads
Don't large corporations get tax breaks? If so, I think the smaller businesses should get the tax breaks instead. This would make it easier for the smaller businesses to compete against the larger ones.
Hey give Ralph Nader a break. If Ron Paul were president, it would be useful to have someone like Ralph Nader in his administration just to keep Ron Paul in check so he doesn't go totally Anarchist on us.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.......Thomas Jefferson
"[C]apitalism is premised on a level playing field; the most meritorious is supposed to win. Tell that to a small inventor or a small business up against McDonald’s or a software programmer up against Microsoft."
Nope. Most popular is not necessarily synonymous with most meritorious. This is a similar argument to the one used by community activists to keep Walmart out of their neighborhoods - that it'll ruin small businesses. But it's not Walmart that does this: it's the community itself. If the people who comprise that community choose to shop at Walmart instead of at smaller stores that may charge more, then yes, those other businesses may go under. But it's foolish to blame Walmart for that - nobody forced those people to shop there. If the people of the community cared enough about the smaller businesses to spend some extra money, they could choose to patronize those establishments instead. (And maybe they should, but I'm not arguing that particular point either way.)
Also, capitalism doesn't define "most meritorious," which in my opinion is a positive. (I don't want the government deciding what's best for me, whereas Ralph Nader has always been all about telling people what's best for them, starting way back with the Corvair.) To use Nader's own example, McDonald's may not offer the healthiest food in town, but it's cheap, it's fast, it's convenient, and you always know what you're gonna get when you eat there. So which of those are meritorious? If it were up to Nannyists such as Nader, Michael Bloomberg, et. al., the answer would be obvious, and we would all be forced to go along with their "superior" choice. And there's the problem: it's one thing to go around telling people what you think is best for them - that just makes you a harmless, if annoying, busybody. But it's quite another to want legal enforcement for your views, which is what people such as Nader have always sought. And that is as anti-capitalist as it gets.
Defined word Meritorious
Deserving reward or praise
I agree those community activists are wrong to keep out walmart.
if this definition of meritorious stands, I would think that walmart is meritorious for having decent products at great prices thereby deserving the communities reward or praise which goes back to the historical connection of what the word meritorious is based on
[Middle English, from Latin meritrius, earning money, from meritus, past participle of merre, to earn;
I also agree that McDonald's may not be meritorius on healthfulness but definitely meritorious for convenience and price.
The comments you make at the end assume too much, such as in capitalist society under Nader we would be forced to a superior choice. Would he really decree that you can only go to Mom and Pop stores and not Walmart.?
Tell me more of this legal enforcement you speak of. Are you suggesting that Nader would make it illegal to eat at McDonalds? What legal enforcement would Nader propose that would offend basic capitalism?
I am simple but I want to understand how he is anti-capitalist as opposed to just anti-corporate abuses.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.......Thomas Jefferson
Novanity, I think it comes down to a simple idea of what capitalism is. Capitalism can only exist in one form as it is entirely based on the law of supply and demand--the "invisible hand." The market--consisting of the very "people" that you and Jefferson mention in your quote--decide which businesses should succeed and which should not. If a big corporation exists in a free market, it can not last if it is involved in the corporate abuses you are afraid of. Competitors will pounce and the abusive company will lose customers to them. A company must be efficient, prosperous, and attractive to customers to exist in the long run. It is only in an economy that government protections (i.e. regulations) exist that these abuses can sustain themselves. The regulations prevent new companies from emerging, creating government sponsored monopolies that abuse these regulations to their benefit. These companies have the means to pay lobbyists to actually promote additional regulations that will be a detriment to emerging competitors that do not yet have the means to pay for the bureaucracy that comes with regulation.
I apologize for rambling on.... but the point is this: Capitalism means free markets with no intervention. ANY advocate of intervention (whether well intentioned or not) is, by definition, anti-capitalist. There is no such thing as "basic" capitalism or "advanced" capitalism. No "state backed" capitalism or "Keynesian" capitalism. There is only Capitalism. Anything else is mixed economies, socialism, or fascism.
The mixed economy stands, so the argument is what level of mixed is comfortable to you personally. Minimal intervention by the state or maximum intervention by the state. Couldn't the regulations put in place encourage competition somehow? What is the intent of our Constitution?
It seems like in mixed economies there will always be a certain level of regulations. But I still don't see any regulations in our economy that tells me not to eat at McDonald's or go shopping at Walmart and I don't think any elected official would try to change my mind either. But maybe I just don't see these regulations or are not aware of them. I have never heard Nader propose anything like that.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.......Thomas Jefferson