I'm reading a wonderful book right now: Saving Capitalism From The Capitalists. An excerpt:
"Instead of viewing destruction as the inevitable counterpart of creation, it is far easier for the politician to give in to the capitalist, who ostensibly champions the distressed by demanding that competition be shackled and markets suppressed. Under the guise of making improvements to markets so as to prevent future downturns, political intervention at such times is aimed at impeding their working. The capitalist can turn against the most effective organ of capitalism and the public, whose future is directly harmed by these actions, stands on the sidelines, seldom protesting, often uncomprehending, and occasionally applauding.
It gets better:
"The economically powerful are concerned about the institutions underpinning free markets because they treat people equally, making power redundant. The markets themselves add insult to injury. They are a source of competition, forcing the powerful to prove their competence again and again. Since a person may be powerful because of his past accomplishments or inheritance rather than his current abilities, the powerful have a reason to fear markets.
I love this passage because I have dealt with so many second-rate managers who fancy themselves entrepreneurs because they have weaseled up the corporate ladder. They haven't built anything, they have just taken over a business built by people much better than they. Not surprisingly, they are the first to latch on to government subsidies, restraint of trade, and targeted regulatory action. They are terrified of internal and external competition. They squash the former with heavy-handed management and groupthink, and they lash out at the latter by crawling into bed with politicians. They go to country clubs and vote Republican and imagine that they are captains of industry.
I despise them all and wish them death by flaming diarrhea.
This is one of the reasons Rod Dreher's wonderful National Review essay on "Crunchy Conservatives" resonated with me. Dreher focused much more on the alternative lifestyle elements of Crunchy Cons -- homeschooling, organic foods -- but where I come from the conservatives dominate these arenas. What struck me instead was his casual mention of the fact that Crunchy Cons are distrustful of big government and big business. In this they really do diverge from mainstream conservatives and libertarians.
Regarding the latter, I recently heard a libertarian try to convince Dreher that he is in fact simply describing libertarianism. This is a time-honored method of that tribe, a variation of St. James' proclamation that every good gift is from God; to the libertarian every good thing is from the market, as proclaimed by St. Rand. But recall it was Ayn Rand who enjoined us to kiss the brick smokestack for all the good that capitalism has wrought.
Indeed it has wrought good, but when its structures are manned by witless bureaucrats it becomes organized islands of stupidity in a competitive sea. Economic theory predicts that the stupidity will be weeded out over time. I believe this is true, just as I believe that Jesus Christ will return to judge the quick and the dead. In the long run customer service will improve, but in the short run I am still waiting on the fricking phone for Verizon to explain my bill.
Markets work because they provide the space for entrepreneurs to create value, and too often we make the mistake of extolling the former and forgetting the latter. This to me is akin to praising the umpire rather than the players. I know that we should expect good players to emerge so long as the field is open, but tell that to the Chicago Cubs.
Of course both are important, the rules and the players. But we can't assume that a player is good simply because he is in the game. For every Nolan Ryan there are a bunch of players whose names you can't remember right now. Likewise, for every Michael Dell (spare me the spam, you computer geek freaks -- he's an entrepreneur) there are a dozen middle-management weasels with accounting degrees just waiting in the wings to take over. They strangle in the crib any legitimate entrepreneurs in their divisions who might supplant them in the hierarchy.
Death by flaming diarrhea is too good for them. They should have to live in a world of no entrepreneurs, just a bunch of market bureaucrats making corporate rules and having retreats to reinvent and restructure themselves, with nobody producing much of anything except memos. Unfortunately they wouldn't get it; they'd blame the inevitable downturn on "structural conditions" and "soft markets," and clamor for bailouts from the taxpayers.
In short, it would be like living in a world of airline companies. I think that's one of the planes in Dante's Inferno.
Fortunately we Americans have the entrepreneur in abundance despite our public schools, the scrappy, resourceful, innovative entrepreneur who looks at a field of established corporate giants and thinks "I can run circles around these losers," and then does it.
So here's the question: in your line of work, are you going to be a capitalist or an entrepreneur? I wish you blessings if you choose the latter, and flaming diarrhea otherwise.
