An alternative view of capitalism.

Having grown up and lived all my life within a Democratic, Capitalist System I know no other and am the beneficiary of the System in many respects but this does not mean that I am blind to its faults. Not at all! As my one loyal reader has pointed out there is much in a capitalist system that creates injustice – great disparities in income between the “rich” and “poor”, for instance. And greed. While greed is certainly not confined to the capitalist system it seems to offer greater opportunities – just recall the antics of Wall Street brokers and financiers in 2008. This was just pure greed – and look what happened! Millions of people forced out of work; millions of people forced out of their homes as (greedy) banks and mortgage providers foreclosed loans.

Then there is the globalisation of Capitalism. This is where my one loyal reader is greatly puzzled. Why, he asks, should Australians, as an example, be paying more for their bread just because there have been poor wheat harvests in Russia, Ukraine and the USA forcing world wheat prices to record levels? There is (currently) no shortage of wheat in Australia. There is (currently) no drought in Australia.

I agree. Our Australian (domestic) wheat price should not be set by financiers in Chicago or where-ever.

I know I will be told that the “free market” will set the price and that it will all balance out in the end. But the thing is that the market is not “free” and it never has been. Many American farmers receive subsidies; French farmers are paid not to plant crops; the Chinese Government keeps the value of the Yuan artificially low to encourage exports; God knows what the Russians and Ukrainians do but I am sure it is not strictly legal; dumping products (selling produce at below cost) happens world-wide; subsidies and other currency manipulations are common throughout the world and distort the “free” market. So the “free market” is not free at all.  

The same argument applies to the general price of any food product. It is never that there is an actual world-wide shortage of food. It is just that we waste so much and store so much that food is not available where it is needed most – mainly sub-Saharan Africa.

Food is often stored – removed from sale – by unscrupulous (greedy) “free-marketers” who will keep the food until the price has increased to a level that they feel is appropriate. This is wrong! To withhold food from starving people because the price is not high enough is immoral, appalling and plain wrong! Food is a basic human right and should never be withheld. To withhold food because some poor people cannot pay the price demanded is obscene.

This happens in a “free market”. This is “allowed” by the Capitalist system but still does not make it “right”.

Unintended consequences.

Added Feb23,2018:- I obviously have (partial) ability to foretell. Not boasting, mind!

The effects of the proposal to cut or reduce the printing of newspapers in Australia and the corollary of encouraging the use of electronic formats will have many consequences, mostly unintended.

For instance there will be a reduced requirement for wood pulp (to make newsprint). This will certainly help the conservationists cause. Alternatively it may encourage exports of newsprint, of pulp or woodchips, to make up the shortfall in revenue. But then there may be more employment opportunities for those who work in the electronic media industry! There is a possibility, of course, that the drive to increase readership of electronic media and cut costs will result in more “out sourcing” of jobs to lower cost countries such as India. This, if it occurs, will not help anyone in Australia.

Then what about the countless “news agencies” in Australia? They will either cease to exist or have to change and sell something else. What about the various sawmills and pulping plants in and around the country and the people employed by them? And then what about the vehicles delivering the wood chips to make the pulp from which newsprint is made? What about those who deliver the finished product – newspapers?

This is not just a “game” of hypotheticals, it affect real people. No one can foresee the future or the effects of any changes in plans or policies. This is why it is so important to ALWAYS consider people first (the ethical and moral considerations of the effects of any actions or activities) and not, first, the financial impact on the “bottom line”. To consider the “economy” or money before people puts the “cart before the horse” and will result in unnecessary anguish and hardship.

I know it sounds trite but happiness results – always - from helping people, not from making money. By all means use the money you have made to help people. To do so is good policy.

Remember that money is a useful medium of exchange invented by people. Individuals, people, you and I, normally work to earn it to exchange for goods or services they may need. Money does not create people or work or innovation or any goods. Only people can do this.

People “make” the economy, not the other way round. Without people there would be no commerce and industry and no “economy”. Commerce and industry are for the benefit of people; people are not items on some economic game board to be moved around for the benefit the commerce and industry. The Russian Soviet Republic tried this and failed spectacularly.

I know the old saying is that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” but it is essential to, always, have the welfare of people as pre-eminent - to act, always, with this consideration foremost in one’s mind. This is the ethical and moral way. Acting not for me but for all, will go some way to avoiding unintended, and possibly unpleasant, consequences.

In the case of newspaper publishing organisations, cutting staff to save costs will reduce the quality of the publications and the resulting bad publicity will reach a tipping point beyond which the organisations will spiral down towards total failure.