So, this struck me as related to the general thrust of my posts, so I decided to discuss it briefly before going about my mid-day errands.
I was reminded again this morning of the problem with free market enterprise. Essentially, proponents of the unfettered market claim that, if capitalism were allowed to run its proper course, things would be much more efficient: companies which provide the best products will prosper, while those that are not as good, not as innovative, will die. Consumers get the best products at the best price, capitalists make profits. Shoddy workmanship gets punished. The reality, however, is that the giants in any particular field rarely turn out to be those making the best product, selling at the lowest price, or innovating intelligently. Case in point, the recent and ongoing problems with the financial system and the American auto makers.
Or, for that matter, the conversation I had with my sister this morning. The three of us--me, her, and her boyfriend--are all on the same cell phone plan. It's been great; my bill generally runs about $25-$30 per month, and pretty much everything goes smoothly. The problem is that we're with Unicel, which is in the process of being bought out by AT&T. By year's end, our phones will cease to work. As such, we're trying to figure out how to switch over to AT&T. Now, following the ideals of capitalism, one would expect that AT&T is therefore a better company to have one's cellphone through--if not, they wouldn't be taking over, right?
Wrong. In actuality, when we switch to AT&T, we're going to be screwed, and thoroughly. The cheapest AT&T plan, which will still be more expensive than our current plan, would have about half the minutes we currently get through Unicel, and will also--get this--not include free incoming calls. I personally was not aware there were still networks that did not routinely give you free incoming calls. So, I'm thinking already that this is crap. Why should we be forced, through a business takeover, to pay higher rates for a lower quality product? Is that what capitalism is supposed to do? It got worse. The package which offers about the same number of minutes we currently have is even more expensive, and still has no free incoming calls. In fact, the lowest costing AT&T plan that will offer us free incoming calls will run $100 per person per month. I have no idea how many minutes this would offer us. All I know is this would give us the same basic coverage we currently have FOR ABOUT THREE TIMES THE PRICE. So, um, how does this in any way reflect the ideals of capitalism and the efficiency of the marketplace? Answer: it doesn't. What it reflects, in fact, is the current incarnation of the reality of capitalism. And that reality is that the big guys on top don't give a shit what their customers want or need. Because it isn't about choice, not really. It's about restricting options until people take the lesser evil available to them. Fuck these overgrown capitalist dinosaurs, and fuck their free market. He concluded maturely.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I don't think there's any way that you can equate the auto industry in America with capitalism.
That sucks about your phone plan -- phone companies aren't much above insurance companies in terms of customer service/efficacy/evilness. :/
I think it depends on how you define capitalism. mean, at its most basic level, capitalism really has more to do with methods of production and stratification of labor/money than it does whether or not government participates through bailouts and special funding projects. It isn't wholly unfettwered, totally-free-market capitalism, but so lnog as you have a small group of folks in office chairs (or on the golf course) making tons of money and a whole mess of other people getting sweaty and tired and injured and worn out by their 40s making pittance in comparison, you have capitalism.
That's like saying that as long as you have people standing in breadlines and an overgrown government, you have socialism.
I disagree. Socialism is by definition the control of the means of production by government. It need not be particularly large and bureaucratic; it needs also not force people into rationed-food programs. Capitalism, on the other hand, refers to a specific economic model, originating in the 19th century industrial factory and further cemented with the early 20th century creation of assembly-line production, especially as practiced by the Ford Motor Company. Capitalism involves the division of those connected with production into capitalists--those who own the means of production, and reap the greatest profits--and labor--those who work in the factories and sell their labor. That is the essence of capitalism. Without it you have pre-capitalistic modes of production (apprenticeships, etc). It's particularly worthwhile to note that Americans didn't see themselves as a capitalist nation until industrialization started sweeping the country in the mid-1800s, for the simple reason that most production was still being done in pre-capitalist fashion, where the business owner was still doing a good share of the actual crafting. The last three-quarters of a century have seen the term lose any real specific definition, but in reality, that's what the termrefers to. It doesn't have much to do with how involved government is or isn't. It's a model of production rather than a form of politics (insofar as anything isn't politics, but I don't have time to talk the definition of THAT today...).
I meant it's just as accurate to say that capitalism necessitates rich, greedy layabouts and good ol' folks like the Joads as it is to say that socialism necessitates corrupt government and breadlines.
I'd be more willing to say that the auto industry in the US was capitalist in the 19th century and very early 20th century than it has been since then. The free market has no part of it anymore, since it's been a looong time since autoworkers have been paid in relation to the market in any sense of the phrase.
Etsy.com is a capitalist model (if not, I don't know what else you'd call it). The only "means of production" owned there is the website; the shopowners there may technically sell their labor (for a 20 cent listing fee), but they own their own means of production since it's all handmade (or vintage finds).
Maybe my definitions are off, but the kind of capitalism I'm thinking of is essentially linked to the free market and laissez-faire.
Post a Comment