Greed is Good by John Stossel

I have read Atlas Shrugged; I don't believe it's as simple as Ayn Rand puts it. Yes, you have every right to pursue your desires--but the key point, as you noted, is the infringement of other people's capabilities and freedoms along the way. Understand that I look at capitalism as a necessary evil in today's society--but we can't live off just that.

Like the oil companies, we as a society have no choice but to buy into oil. It's not a matter of them selling a product we want--there is no other product, and society won't let us choose. You may argue that we have every right to not fill our gas tank, use plastic bags, and use aloe over Vaseline--but when you cannot keep up, you will be in a situation where you are constantly kicked while you are down. Those who want to live simplistically really cannot. It's the illusion of choice; but with the cards stacked so highly against you, you must follow the trenches of society.

The problem between corporations and government is that while government, as slow and perhaps inefficient as it is, is "primarily" looking out for the people. The politician's well being is based on the happiness of the people. They are a sort of corporation in themselves where legislation is passed in exchange for votes (and henceforth their salary). Or so that's how it should work. Unfortunately due to lobbying and gifts--and entire multi-billion dollar corporations being given the same rights as an individual, our system is slanted in favor of the rich. This relates to corporations not necessarily providing a product we need or want, but convincing or persuading us that we need or want it. All business corporations' first concern is profit, THEN the product, not the reverse which is entirely different. The power of persuasion is underestimated by American citizens. I thus don't necessarily have a problem with capitalism in itself, but more so in the way it conflicts with the democratic principles of our society. Your vote doesn't matter--it's swayed by those with millions and more. It's less about government interfering with the market system, and more about government trying to regulate capitalism's uninhibited interaction with democracy.

Sure, you can say corporations provide jobs; but it's an imbalance. Those doing the most work are often at the bottom being paid the lowest (granted, not always the case, and "hard work" is somewhat opinionated). Not to mention, the jobs which take up the majority of a corporation (not IN corporate, per-se), are jobs nobody wants to say are their career paths. In other words, nobody is happy, but forced to work a job they relatively dislike to put food on the table. In a way, it's modern feudalism or serfdom. Additionally, those working at the bottom have not often the liberty to leave. It's something entirely different when you work out of boredom and reputation rather than being stressed to work to sustain one's survival needs.

Is working a job you dislike to put food on the table better than not being able to put food on the table at all? Of course; but corporations can make their money, middle and lower class are capable of working better jobs, and CEO's can still make their billions. The principles of creating loyalty among workers are found only in a few companies, today. Unfortunately in today's society, we measure life by product, not necessarily happiness. They may correlate to some extent, but are not necessarily a matter of cause & effect.

Owners and CEO's of large corporations tout that they kick up the economy. Well, no, you're not providing charity by providing a job. Why not take a certain amount of taxation on that company, provide it to the government, who will more than likely provide for the best interest of the people, not in the best interest of profits or through persuasion (partially done, now I know)? I know, I know--red tape--overpowered self-interested government, etc. My teacher noted China's GDP per capita increase since taking on the market system, yet did not mention Denmark or Norway's happiness in a far more socially leaning society is great compared to ours--and also that the income inequality is not nearly as substantial (yet still enough to provide incentive). Why not?

We are fortunate that "Going Green" and sustainable has become a profitable sector for companies, or we'd be heading down a dangerous path. Capitalism promotes what people want, and not necessarily what they need. I understand economists make no distinction between what people want and need, but most can agree on the essentials. We have a representative democracy because we want to elect individuals who we hopefully believe possess more knowledge than we, the common people, do, and thus can handle decisions we are incapable of making. Corporations do exactly what the people want, but that's not necessarily a good thing.

Now I myself have created my little niche in the business world with a local computer repair small-business, and am also putting together a business plan for a much larger idea; needless to say, I like the idea of being an entrepreneur. I also work for a large retail corporation, and for the money that brings in, I am grateful. However, I also go to a community college largely funded by grants, and through good grades, am able to run full time off of a scholarship. Furthermore, my dad started his business many years ago in industrial pipe-fitting and welding sector; he had a few employees under him. Now he's on disability due to his knees being shot, and we're primarily living check by check to say the least. With that said, he has seen both perspectives. Some will call it irresponsibility; I'll call living without a second chance. As screwed up as the welfare, poverty-level insurance and food stamp system is (bureaucratically speaking), it has sustained us. Yet, I do understand personal responsibility, and to remain in this state forever would be demeaning to say the least.

It boils down to empathy. Unregulated free-market capitalism often promotes a society with no second chances. Those who at first don't succeed get run over by the freight train that is capitalism--you better be on that train and integrated into the system immediately, or you're lying on the tracks awaiting your fate. Many people fall off the train during the natural market storms so termed recessions--and depressions which are just extended recessions, apparently--and only the upper class are able to sustain themselves or even reap the benefits of said recession. A dynamic government must then intervene during these cycles in support of the middle and lower class, then sinusoidally step to the sidelines and let the market for the most part take its course, thereafter.

So for Stossel's sake, no, greed is not necessarily bad. I believe that every single thing we do in life is selfish; whether those selfish acts promote the interest of myself, and in addition to another party--or only myself--is where differentiation lies. Does this also mean that I want my government to think of what's best for me? Do I want to be pampered throughout life? Obviously not; the beauty of a representative democracy, however, is that we can supposedly intervene when government goes over the line. In the society we built, we don't have time to worry about politics, so our interventions are somewhat rare besides the normal swing vote based on the economy and which party was in at the time.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Anti-capitalism_color.jpg

As always, I intend to maintain a dynamic system of ideology; therefore, what I present is to be commented on, and perhaps largely argued and proved wrong. These are just my current thoughts on the matter, and I'm interested to see what people say. They are not concrete.