Sounding My Barbaric Yawps Across the Rooftops

Although it's been a long time coming, this blog entry is a continuation of my series entitled "Why Liberalism?" Feel free to read my earlier entries: Part One, Part Two, Part Three, and Part Four.

The topic I wanted to address today is the need for government oversight in capitalist systems. A large number of my right wing-ish LDS friends prefer to identify themselves more as Libertarians rather than as conservatives. As such, many of them believe in a Reagan-esque philosophy of economics that the market functions most optimally when there is little or no government intervention.

That is a defensible position. There are numerous examples of the ways in which government intervention into economics has bungled the system. The Obama administration's recent trade tariff on tires from China is a good example of how protectionism usually ends up hurting more Americans financially than it helps.

Furthermore, Gordon Gecko is right that greed can be beneficial to society as a whole. When we pursue our own self-interest, we innovate cheaper and better ways of doing things in order to be more competitive in the free market. Our society has certainly benefited from this process.

But capitalism is not without its flaws. And I feel that its overemphasis on the dollar as a measure of progress and success is one of those flaws. To better illustrate this, I'd like to quote an insightful passage from the recently published book Cradle to Cradle, written by William McDonough and Michael Braungart:

An interesting fact: the 1991 Exxon Valdez oil spill actually increased Alaska's gross domestic product. The Prince William Sound area was registered as economically more prosperous because so many people were trying to clean up the spill. Restaurants, hotels, shops, gas stations, and stores all experienced an upward blip in economic exchange.

The GDP takes only one measure of progress into account: activity. Economic activity. But what sensible person would call the effects of an oil spill progress? By some accounts, the Valdez accident led to the death of more wildlife than any other human-engineered environmental disaster in U.S. history. According to a 1999 government report, only two of the twenty-three animal species affected by the spill recovered. Its impact on fish and wildlife continues today with tumors, genetic damage, and other effects. The spill led to losses of cultural wealth, including five state parks, four state critical-habitat areas, and a state game sanctuary. Important habitats for fish spawning and rearing were damaged, which may have led to the 1993 decimation of the Prince William Sound's Pacific herring population (perhaps because of a viral infection due to oil exposure). The spill took a significant toll on fisherman's income, not to mention the less measurable effects on morale and emotional health.

The GDP as a measure of progress emerged during an era when natural resources still seemed unlimited and "quality of life" meant high economic standards of living. But if prosperity is judged only by increased economic activity, then car accidents, hospital visits, illnesses (such as cancer), and toxic spills are all signs of prosperity. Loss of resources, cultural depletion, negative social and environmental effects, reduction of quality of life---these ills can all be taking place, an entire region can be in decline, yet they are negated by a simplistic economic figure that says economic life is good. Countries all over the world are trying to boost their level of economic activity so they, too, can grab a share of the "progress" that measurements like the GDP propound. But in the race for economic progress, social activity, ecological impact, cultural activity, and long-term effects can be overlooked.

For me, the irony that the environmental damage to the Prince William Sound improved Alaska's GDP illustrates an important point: a myopic focus on capital gains certainly cannot account for the full picture. When we concentrate on short term financial gains at the exclusion of other important social, cultural, environmental and spiritual factors, we do so at our peril. "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" (Matt 16:26).

And this brings me to the main point of my essay: While I concur that capitalism---more than any other economic system---has the potential to benefit the greatest number of people, capitalism must be tempered by a deep sense of morality in order to succeed in doing so. Those who are in positions of power must remember that their influence comes with an important social contract, a responsibility to protect the interest of those people whom their actions affect.

Gordon Gecko forgets that "greed" has a negative connotation for good reason. Greed that goes unchecked by a sense of moral accountability has the potential to be quite harmful to our society. If everyone in our capitalist system put the society's interest as a whole before their own profit, our country and our world would be a better place today. Unfortunately for us, "[w]e have learned through sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion" (D&C 121:39). We have numerous examples of executives and other professionals putting their own interests or their company's interest before others. As if you needed any reminding, this country's entire financial system was almost brought to total collapse by men who frankly allowed their greed to blind them from the moral consequences of their actions. I could give dozens of other examples: Enron, Bernie Madoff, the tobacco industry, ADM, big oil, GM, Wal-mart etc. The list goes on and on.

In an ideal world, these big businesses and executives would balance their ambitions with their scruples. But I think we can safely say that we live in a telestial world. Because business has failed to indicate that they are capable of regulating themselves, I believe the responsibility to protect us as citizens and consumers must therefore fall on the government. We need stiff regulations and government oversight into business practices to force companies to have a conscience.

So, I think what I'm getting at is that one of the reasons that I lean to the left is because liberals are traditionally considered the progressive, muck-raking, whistle-blowing members of society, whereas the right has traditionally been seen as the guardian of big business and the status quo. I use the word "traditionally" because I don't feel that the Democratic party has passed any meaningful regulatory reforms recently. And I am rather doubtful that they will. For all their high-minded ideals, most politicians are just as guilty of putting their own interests ahead of the public's interest. At the end of the day, they need to get re-elected in order to remain in power. Unfortunately, that requires a lot of money. And the overwhelming majority of that money comes from everyone's good friend, big business. My friend Brad is fond of saying that we don't really live in a democracy any more; we live in a corpiarchy. (Corporation + monarchy.) I'm afraid that's sadly true. As long as the lobbyists and big money continues to control our government, the window of opportunity for any meaningful change has probably passed.

Bonus: Linky Links!

I thought I would share some good old liberal-minded links that I've enjoyed recently.

Slow Sunday: The Simple Solution to Global Warming: It's rare for my interests in Mormonism and environmentalism to converge in popular media, so I loved this recent article that suggested that keeping the Sabbath Day holy can help the environment.

Public Schools and Bullying: A Report Card from Utah: This blog entry was written by a former BYU professor of mine who also lives here in Springville. In this blog entry, he discusses the Nebo county School District's reversal of their decision not to allow students to watch Obama's speech to the nation's children. The essay is excellent and I also appreciated Bruce Young's comment on the entry.

Five Myths About Health Care in the Rest of the World: The way socialized medicine works in other countries is much more complex and divergent than you may think. In this Washington Post article, T.R. Reid compares and contrast how socialized medicine operates in various industrialized countries such as Japan, Britain, and Germany.

I know I've been reading more great links lately, but these are the ones that come to mind.

Comments

Ammon said on Oct 2nd:

I hope that if I had profited big in some big business on wall street I would still feel the immense disgust at what has happened over the last couple of years. Perhaps it would only be with myself. The recent Ken Burns documentary "National Parks: America's Best Idea" has been a source of inspiration and examples in fighting the massive arm of big business, often with its own weapons.

Liz Legerski said on Mar 14th:

I haven't been keeping up on blogs lately, but had a moment and I'm so glad I checked yours because I love your liberalism series (and your Whipple Awards)!!! And I ditto the comment above - National Parks is a great documentary - it actually helped me to realize that the conflict betweeen "public good" and "private ownership" has existed a long time in our country. Somehow that makes me feel less frustrated with the debate today.

caferock.org