Friday, February 17, 2012

How Capitalism can Save the Free World

I am a Capitalist.  I provide goods that people want and need, and I make it possible for 6 billion people to exist on this planet.

The whole point of capitalism is "Capital", the real durable good that make production possible.  A farmer's tractor, the land he plants, the trees he harvests from, and the animals whose meat he sells.  Capital does not fall from the sky, nor does it grow on trees.  In order to buy the land, the farmer needed to save a down payment.  To buy the tractor, he needed to save more money.  The trees cost money, and take time to grow.  The farmer plants trees with the hope to someday profit from them, in some cases knowing that his children will be the real beneficiaries of that profit.
All of this "Capital" would not exist if the farmer did not save.  He willingly consumes less money now, with the hope that by accumulating these items, he will profit from them more in the future.  It's true that the farmer is thinking of himself, but in doing so, he is benefiting all of mankind.  If the farmer had no land, he could not plant.  If he had land, but no machines, he would have to work with primitive tools, and he could not produce nearly as much food, nor could he transport that food to the people who want to eat it.  Trees produce even more food, and feed the soil through their leaves.  The farmer has to nuture and feed that tree for many years before he can gain the harvest, while there is always a risk of the tree dying before it becomes productive.

Many people believe that capitalism oppresses people.  Walmart underpays it's employees, destroys other business, and is bad for us.  They moan about the loss of "mom and pop" stores, which are more of a fantasy that reality.  Even large stores usually have a single owner, who may be a "mom and pop" team, or a business team of 2 or more unrelated partners.  Smaller stores can, and are very prosperous, judging by the fact that we apparently still have millions of them.  Most of the people who have jobs work for an employer with less than 100 employees, which is the definition of a "small business".  Only about 20% of the workforce are employed by the "big guys".

Many millions of people are like me, the farmer, working for themselves.  Are they contributing less to the world than the Walmarts?  More?  Or, do all of these people benefit the human race through their work?
My contribution may be smaller than Walmart, but it is real, and measurable.  I use the capital that I own to provide something that people want, and they are my bosses.  If no one buys my products, I have failed, and I need to do something differently, or find a different group of bosses.  I don't get to charge whatever I want, and neither does Walmart.  The people who buy the products determine the price, and they also determine what is on the shelf, through their "votes".

If you don't like Walmart, that's a personal choice.  Don't "vote" by shopping there, and your conscience will be clean.  But maybe I like Walmart, and I want to vote for it.  Who will win this battle?  How about both of us?  You win by shopping where you want, and I win by shopping where I want.  We both get what we want, and no one loses.  Too bad politics doesn't work that way!

I hear a lot of noise about "reforming capitalism" or "paying our fair share", and I tune it out.  Just let me concentrate on producing as much of what people want to buy as I can.  Let me keep the profits of my labors, and I will be inspired to produce more.  If I produce enough, I could even start hiring people!  This is how the system works when nobody interferes.

If you care about humanity, stop trying to "help" the poor by taking from the rich.  The rich may have the money, but believe me, they would rather invest it in something useful than shove it in a drawer.  That useful investment could give one of those "poor" people a good job, or provide a better tractor for a farmer, or enable a company to create a better TV, cellphone, gadget, all of which makes the lives of the "non-rich" a little bit better.

No comments: