According to William Greider, during the Great Depression 80 years ago
Keynes explained, capitalism would produce such an abundance of capital that
highly developed nations like the United States would be liberated from the
ancient economic struggle for survival and could discard capitalism’s brutish
aspects, including greed and social destruction. “For the first time since his creation man will be faced
with his real, his permanent problem—how to use his freedom from pressing economic
cares, how to occupy the leisure, science and compound interest will have won
for him to live wisely and agreeable and well.” [Keynes essay: Economic
Possibilities for Our Grandchildren.]
I believe in Keynesian
economics, but I also believe he underestimated human greed and just plain
stupidity, and silly ideas such as supply side economics. What is really sad is
that after over thirty years of a proven dumb idea that did not and could not
work we still have people promoting it and people believing in it.
I have hopes for my
grandchildren and great grandchildren and the generations to come, but they are
not based upon economic philosophy or the naïve supposition that human beings
will ever naturally choose the good and the right.
Systems, economic and
other wise promote and aspire to happiness for all humankind, but we generally
look in all the wrong places. But we still need to look and be open to the possibilities
God constantly offers us.
Keynes saw such possibilities. It is too bad others lacked and lack his vision.
Just think of how our country today would look with an equitable distribution of wealth.
Just think of how our country today would look with an equitable distribution of wealth.
One problem with "capitalism would produce such an abundance of capital" is while it does, it
ReplyDeletealso tends to siphon capital in a manner detrimental to the manufacturing system and those that work in it. At this site we learn of a typical example:
"People keep calling Bain a "venture capital" firm. This is false. Venture capitalists find enterpreneurs and finance their compainies, hoping to make money when the enterpreneurs flourish. That's not what Bain did. What Bain did was to buy existing, often quite successful companies, strip them of everything but the wiring in the walls, and leave them to their fate, which was often bankruptcy. The difference between a venture capitalist and Bain is the difference between a partner and a parasite.
So, let's look at three cases of companies that Bain took over while Romney was in charge.
The first is Armco Steel, a 100 year old Kansas City company that, when Romney bought them, was setting production records. Romney paid $8 million for this company, in addition to a borrowed $75 million, which became Armco's debt, not Bain Capital's. He then immediately issued more bonds in the company's name and used the money to pay himself and his investors $36 million- four and a half times what they had just paid for the company. In the process, within one year, he had saddled this formerly successful company with $378 million dollars in debt.
To cut costs, Bain stopped all company expenses, routine maintenance, equipment, safety- everything.
Within a few years, Armco Steel was out of business. 750 people lost their jobs, only to discover that Romney had removed $44 million from their pension fund; money which had to be made up by American taxpayers. Workers lost their severance pay and promised health care benefits, and saw the bankruptcy court slash their pensions by $400 a month. But all of the debt belonged to Armco, and Romney walked away with millions of dollars, having stolen many times his purchase price long before he let this firm collapse."
...there are many such examples of investment
banking.
Excellent. I just wish the media was more open to this type of research and information. Good site.
ReplyDelete